[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22202-22231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

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

[[Page 22203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.001



[[Page 22204]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.002



[[Page 22205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.003



[[Page 22206]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.004



[[Page 22207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.005



[[Page 22208]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.006



[[Page 22209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.007



[[Page 22210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.008



[[Page 22211]]

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

                              {time}  1530

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

[[Page 22212]]

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

[[Page 22213]]

burdens and whatever standards the state adopted would apply statewide. 
Where a household has more than one vehicle, a state electing the 
option would evaluate each under whichever rules would result in the 
lower attribution of resources, whether the regular food stamp rules or 
the rules borrowed from the other state program. Of course, if the 
state TANF- or MOE-funded program excluded cars completely, or did not 
apply resources rules, those rules would prevail.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh).

                              {time}  1545

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

[[Page 22214]]

  This agreement includes significant funding for the emergency 
disaster relief for farmers, for crop losses, restoration projects. The 
agreement continues funding for agricultural research, education 
extension, service activity.
  I am, however, disappointed that the agreement only includes $3 
million of the $6.8 million approved by the House funding going for 
research to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 
Nonetheless, this agreement does offer some limited hope through this 
limited increase. Hopefully, we would do better the next time.
  The overall agreement is comprehensive and does include important 
national priorities that deserve our support, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
agriculture appropriations bill. I think we all have to be reminded 
constantly that this is a bill that helps agriculture first and 
foremost.
  But before I mention a couple of specifics, Mr. Speaker, I think for 
the record this Member at least has considered it a tremendous honor to 
work under the leadership of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman 
Skeen) in this process. He is a person who sets the highest standard of 
integrity and brings to work every day the highest commitment. The 
character and the determination that he brings every day to work for 
the betterment of agriculture in America is something that I will 
always, always remember.
  He is not going anywhere. But I think I speak for many of us on the 
subcommittee who just cherished the time that we have had working under 
his leadership on this subcommittee.
  I want to specifically mention that this bill, again, does deal with 
a lot of important aspects of agriculture assistance and relief, 
drought, other natural disasters. Commodity prices over the years have 
dealt a bad hand to many of our producers in this country. There is a 
lot of assistance in this bill for that; $3.5 billion in economic 
assistance that does not need to be held up in Washington any longer.
  I know that there are Members who do not like that certain 
commodities have received assistance in this bill as well. We have 
attempted to do the right thing and address all commodities that have 
suffered. We should not sit here and pick and choose who we help and 
who we do not based on whether or not we like what we grow or the farm 
programs that they operate under. They did not set the programs. 
Congress did. Now we must help all areas of rural communities survive 
in this very difficult time.
  The bill also goes the extra mile to support farmers and ranchers. 
Agriculture credit programs are increased by $14 million over fiscal 
year 2000, and agriculture research has increased by $86 million. The 
boll weevil eradication program is funded at $79 million. These are 
just a few examples of how this bill will help our farmers and ranchers 
and all of us who have large rural agriculture communities.
  The word ought to get out that there is a true commitment in a 
bipartisan way to help these folks who were really the salt of the 
Earth, the producers of this country who were trying to compete in 
international markets with other countries sometimes that subsidize 
their producers in unfair ways.
  There is a tremendous commitment by many of us, again, in a 
bipartisan way to do what is right in this Agriculture appropriations 
bill. I stand in strong support and would urge all of my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the incredibly hard working 
ranking member of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her 
kindness, amongst many others, to me.
  Mr. Speaker, an otherwise acceptable bill has been very much hurt in 
the conference report by the drug reimportation provisions. In a word, 
they protect users of reimported pharmaceuticals very poorly if at all. 
They put them at severe risk and hazard.
  So I am going to tell my colleagues some of the things that are going 
to happen as a result of these provisions so poorly studied by the 
Congress and so ill attended to in committee.
  Soon, Americans will be taking substandard, adulterated or 
counterfeited imported drugs because of these provisions. These 
provisions will do nothing to help lower the price of prescription 
medicines and are no substitute for prescription pharmaceuticals to 
senior citizens under Medicare.
  Because FDA is already overwhelmed with inspecting foreign 
manufacturers, it will not be able to handle the vast new 
responsibilities being imposed upon it, and consumers will suffer and 
be at risk.
  In the coming years, FDA is going to be pilloried by politicians for 
failing to protect Americans from bad prescription drugs which are 
reimported under these provisions, when in fact the blame should fall 
squarely upon the politicians in the 106th Congress.
  Make no mistake. This reckless legislation never went through the 
committees with expertise or experience in these matters. It is going 
to lead to needless injuries and deaths.
  The world pharmaceutical market is a dangerous place, far more so 
than my colleagues understand. Congressional investigations showed this 
in the 1980s, and I know because I conducted those investigations. They 
will show it now. My written statement will elaborate on this point.
  My opposition to the drug reimportation provisions requires me to 
vote against an otherwise acceptable bill.
  I would note the American people want a decent prescription, not a 
placebo, and they want one that is safe and one which will help their 
health. This particular proposal will not. It puts Americans at risk. I 
warn my colleagues what they are doing. I hope they will listen.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
do want to associate myself with his remarks. This is far more 
complicated than most people believe, as the gentleman from Michigan 
said. I am very familiar with his historical involvement in this area.
  All of us want to relieve this problem, but I want to underscore the 
comments the gentleman from Michigan made, and I do want to associate 
myself with his remarks.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I 
hope my colleagues will listen to what the gentleman just said because 
we are putting the Nation and the senior citizens and others at risk. 
Reimporting drugs is a dangerous and risky prospect. Doing so without 
adequate protections and controls for the protection of consumers is a 
still greater risk. I ask my colleagues to listen to what I say. There 
is danger here they are not observing.
  Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. Although there are many very 
good provisions addressing major agricultural needs, there is also a 
very dangerous provision that would allow for the reimportation of 
prescription drugs from foreign sources. That is something I cannot 
support.
  During the 1980's, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted 
a lengthy investigation into the foreign drug market that ultimately 
led to enactment of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). That 
investigation discovered a potentially dangerous diversion market that 
prevented effective control over the true sources of drug products in a 
significant number of cases. The distribution system was vulnerable to 
the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, 
or even counterfeit pharmaceuticals. As the resulting Committee report 
stated, ``pharmaceuticals which have been mislabeled, misbranded, 
improperly stored or shipped, have exceeded their expiration dates, or 
are bald counterfeits are injected into the national distribution 
system for ultimate sale to consumers.''
  The PDMA was designed to restore needed integrity and control over 
the pharmaceutical market, eliminating actual and potential health and 
safety problems before injury to the consumer could occur. Again, the 
Committee report was clear on why the PDMA was needed:


[[Page 22215]]

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

  I find nothing today that suggests that the problem with misbranded, 
adulterated, or even counterfeit foreign drugs has been solved, and if 
anything, the problem may be getting worse. I am thus concerned that in 
our haste to find a way to bring cheaper drugs to seniors and other 
needy Americans--a clearly important and laudable goal--we risk making 
changes to key health and safety laws we may later regret.
  On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
held a hearing that underscored that the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) is already overwhelmed and underfunded, and thus unable to 
consistently undertake the many tasks now required to protect the U.S. 
drug supply. At that hearing, FDA Commissioner Jane Henney testified 
that FDA has insufficient post-market surveillance resources to keep 
pace with its current mandate. Consequently, the agency is lagging in 
conducting inspections of firms that ship drug products to the U.S., 
and this burden is only going to worsen in the future.
  The legislation in question today only exacerbates this already-
serious problem. As envisioned by this proposal, FDA will newly be 
responsible for inspecting the entire custody chain between all parties 
and processes involved in the shipment of drugs back to the U.S. 
market. This could include repackaging and relabeling facilities, as 
well as the many storage firms that might be used in this process. This 
proposal would also ultimately require FDA to oversee the formation of 
new testing facilities, and develop regulations to address numerous 
safety concerns ignored by this proposal. In short, the reimport 
legislation will inundate an already overburdened FDA with new 
responsibilities. Worse, it will do so without any assurances that the 
agency will ever see the approximately $92 million it claims it needs 
to fully implement this plan. Instead, the bill only gives $23 million 
for a single year, or one-fourth of what the plan will ultimately 
require. Given the fact that the agency is already significantly 
underfunded, I see almost no chance it will see this money.
  But even if Congress were to provide the additional resources, I 
remain skeptical that FDA could even construct a global regulatory 
framework as safe as what is now in place. FDA was unsuccessful in 
preventing counterfeit and substandard drugs from entering the U.S. 
before the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) went into effect, and 
so I doubt it will be successful once many of its protections are 
undermined by this legislation.
  Moreover, it is particularly troubling that drug prices may not even 
be significantly lowered as a result of this proposal. There is nothing 
that guarantees that in this process of undermining our current 
regulatory system, lower priced drugs will become available to needy 
Americans. Wholesalers may not pass on any accrued savings to the 
public, nor is it clear that they will necessarily be able to access a 
steady supply for resale. In fact, this bill is riddled with numerous 
loopholes that will allow manufacturers to label or produce their 
products in a form that makes them either impossible or cost-
prohibitive to reimport. The notion that this bill will create an 
abundance of cheap, properly labeled, and properly repackaged drugs, 
easily available to reimporters, is simply false.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes long-term changes to the Food, 
Drug and Cosmetic Act, without the benefit of even a single legislative 
hearing. During the 1980's, the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted 
a lengthy multi-year investigation resulting in numerous hearings 
before any related legislation was drafted. There have been no public 
hearings regarding this legislation, as most of this process has 
involved closed-door proceedings. With the many implications this 
legislation will have on public health and safety, this process has 
ill-served the public and is indefensible.
  In conclusion, this provision represents the flawed implementation of 
a risky concept. Many of the Members supporting this legislation 
believe they are doing the right thing by helping Americans get access 
to cheaper medicine, and assume that medicine will, in fact, be safe. I 
agree that medicine needs to be cheaper, but disagree that reimported 
medicine will be as safe. We know too much about the kinds of drug 
manufacturing and distribution shenanigans that take place in other 
parts of the world to allow our system to be jeopardized by the 
legislation contained in this spending bill. It is flawed legislation 
that will, if passed in its present form, result in significant harm to 
the very persons we are trying to help. Thus, I cannot support this 
bill.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to publicly say 
how much I appreciate the great work of our chairman. This will be his 
last bill as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been just an absolute 
pleasure and an honor to work with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen).
  I know the gentleman is staying here next year and everything; but 
because of the rules, he will no longer be chairman of this 
subcommittee; and I just want to tell him on a personal level how much 
I appreciate all his hard work and what a great job he has done for New 
Mexico and for the rest of the country.
  And to the ranking member, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur), it is a real pleasure and it is fun to work with her with 
the interest we all have in agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, this, I think, is an excellent appropriations bill. We 
have been through a very long process throughout the entire year with 
hearings, listening to the concerns of the people and the agencies, 
their proposals, expressing concerns at the way management in some of 
the agencies has taken place and trying to do the best job possible in 
this bill to address those concerns. The one major concern we have, as 
far as delivering services in Iowa, and I think throughout the country, 
is with the FSA offices. This bill increases funding for those people 
who are at the ground level doing the work out there, actually in 
contact with the farmers themselves; and these people are working their 
hearts out in the countryside.
  There is increased funding in the bill to the tune of $34 million in 
addition to the $50 million additional to take care of the emergency 
disaster programs that are also stated in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there 
is an increase as far as our credit programs so that we can continue to 
use that tool for exports and to make sure that we do try and have 
opportunities for our farmers to sell their products overseas.
  Conservation is a huge issue as far as we are concerned in Iowa and 
throughout the country, and those activities are increased by $53 
million in the bill. Food safety is increased by $47.5 million. Funding 
for the Food and Drug Administration is almost $35 million more than 
what it was last year, and $89 million basically, with some savings 
with the President.
  We are continuing our commitment as far as food and nutrition for our 
people here, increasing funding for WIC. A very, very important issue 
for Iowa is the lifting of sanctions in the bill with Cuba, Iran, 
Libya, North Korea, and the Sudan. With the Cuban issue, it is a major 
breakthrough for us to finally have that door at least cracked open so 
that we have an opportunity to sell into that market, and to also look 
to these other new markets that we have and be able to use credit here 
in the U.S. to go into highly populated countries, like North Korea, 
Iran, and these other countries that offer so much potential for us.
  I am not totally comfortable with all the provisions in here. I would 
like to see opening of travel and things like that, but we at least 
have a breakthrough as far as this issue is concerned. I think we can 
advance the idea that through openness, through trade, we can change 
countries and have them come into the democracy, which we all very, 
very much want.
  Again, I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining 
time on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), the very able member of the Committee on 
International Relations.

[[Page 22216]]


  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4461 in its current form, 
but in strong support of ending the embargo on the sale of food and 
medicine to Cuba. Our current policy toward Cuba was created in the 
early 1960s, at the height of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall has now 
crumbled, the Soviet Union has vanished, but this archaic policy is 
still here.
  For 40 years, 40 years, we have maintained a blockade on trade and 
food and medicine with Cuba, and we have put severe restrictions on 
travel by American citizens. We must lift that blockade without 
imposing new barriers. However, this bill codifies current restrictions 
on Americans travel to Cuba. What, I must ask, is our country afraid 
of? How can it be against our interests for our citizens, our most 
effective ambassadors, to travel to Cuba?
  How can we live in the greatest democracy in the world and restrict 
the travel of our own citizens? Americans should have the right to see 
Cuba for themselves. They should have the right to form their own 
judgments about this Afro-Hispanic island 90 miles away from our 
shores.
  I have led and participated in many delegations to Cuba in an effort 
to promote education, understanding and cultural exchange between our 
countries. I have seen a child with kidney disease in grave danger 
because the embargo prevented the importation of a U.S.-made part for a 
dialysis machine at this hospital. And I have seen Cuba's health care 
system, which guarantees its own citizens universal health care, which 
we still cannot figure out how to do.
  We should allow anyone and everyone who wants to travel to Cuba to do 
so without fear of breaking the law and going to jail. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose restrictions on travel to Cuba in this bill and 
vote ``no'' on H.R. 4461.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I rise in 
support of this legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for the tremendous leadership he has given all of us 
over the last several years, fighting hard for our producers, helping 
us deliver emergency and disaster aid. I do not know anyone who has 
worked as forthrightly and on a consensus basis as the gentleman from 
New Mexico has, and I want to thank him. We will miss him tremendously 
as our leader next year, but I do thank him.
  I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the 
excellent work she does and for her dedication to supporting American 
agriculture as well.
  I want to say that this is a great bill. I wish in a couple of 
instances we could have done more, particularly on the issue of 
agriculture embargoes, which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) has championed so well. But even though it does not go 
quite as far with regard to Cuba, let us not forget that we are also 
dealing with four other countries against whom we have had sanctions on 
food and medicine, and this represents a $6 billion market potential 
for our producers.
  We are all so caught up in the emotion of Cuba that we forget, quite 
frankly, that it is the other countries that present the biggest 
opportunity for our producers, and I did not want to let that go 
without mentioning it.
  I also am very pleased that we have included in the emergency 
assistance package a piece that is very similar to the stand-alone 
legislation that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I 
introduced, doubling the loan deficiency payment, particularly when our 
farmers and ranchers are in such dire straits for the third year in a 
row.
  But let me end by addressing the entire issue of reimportation once 
again, and say that all of the loopholes that have been recognized on 
the part of my colleagues on the other side are loopholes that really 
will not exist if in fact we are determined to work closely with the 
Food and Drug Administration to make this legislation work.
  Number one, dealing with the issue of labeling. Let me reiterate 
again that the President said he liked the language in the Jeffords 
bill that passed the Senate. This is the exact language on labeling 
which is in the Jeffords bill. The President urged the Senate to send 
him the legislation so he could sign it, as long as the appropriate 
money was there to implement it. We have, in fact, included $23 million 
that the FDA requested for this year to do just that.
  On the issue of contracts. Let me say once again that while we have 
not included the exact language that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) wanted, we have in fact included language that does prevent a 
manufacturer from limiting or entering into any kind of contractor or 
agreement that prevents the sale or distribution of covered products 
for reimportation purposes.
  So all in all I think this is an excellent bill and I urge a ``yes'' 
vote, and I again thank the chairman for the great job that he has 
done.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in 
order to place in the Record language from the New York Times this 
morning refuting what my very dear colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), has indicated.
  It says Dr. Jane Henney, the Commissioner of Food and Drug, said, 
``Nothing in the bill requires a manufacturer to give the approved 
label to an importer or to allow use of the label by an importer, which 
means that it is not enforceable.''
  And then today we receive from the Office of the President, the 
Office of Management and Budget, the following. And I enter the direct 
language in the Record because in the future we will have to repair the 
damage that is going to be done when this bill is passed today. It 
says, ``The administration is disappointed that the prescription drug 
reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of 
providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The 
majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and, instead, 
produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous 
loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it 
allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to FDA-approved 
labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies 
could, and probably would, block reimportation of their medications. 
Second, a sunset was added that ends the importation system 5 years 
after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector 
interest in investing in this system.''
  And I would just depart from that to say to my colleague that sunset 
was not in the Jeffords bill, as the gentlewoman indicated earlier 
today.
  And, finally, third, this letter says, ``The conference language 
permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide 
financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. 
importers. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the 
world for medications, leaving many with no option than to go abroad to 
obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide 
false hope that this provision will work to address the problem. 
Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare 
prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts 
but will ensure seniors and people with disabilities against the 
catastrophic costs of medications.''
  That is a direct quote from the Executive Office of the President. 
And, Mr. Speaker, the full content of the statement is as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy

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


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

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

       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on the conference version of the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.
       The conference report includes support for a number of 
     important priorities for the Nation. In particular, the bill 
     includes full

[[Page 22217]]

     funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative, 
     significant increases in rural development programs to help 
     rural communities and residents take part in the national 
     economic expansion, provisions that will enable food stamp 
     recipients to own dependable cars and have better shelter 
     without losing their eligibility, and relief to farmers and 
     ranchers who suffered losses from natural disasters. While 
     the Administration continues to support a range of 
     conservation efforts, such as the Farmland Protection 
     Wetlands Reserve, and Environmental Quality Incentives 
     Programs, and is disappointed that this bill did not provide 
     full funding for these efforts, we do appreciate the 
     increases that were provided including funds for conservation 
     technical assistance. However, while the Administration 
     supports this conference report, it has concerns with several 
     provisions in the bill.
       The Administration is disappointed that the prescription 
     drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to 
     achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high 
     costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to 
     end bipartisan negotiations and instead produced a provision 
     in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that 
     will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it 
     allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to the 
     Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling required 
     for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could--
     and probably would--block reimportation of their medications. 
     Second, a ``sunset'' was added that ends the importation 
     system five years after it goes into effect. This will limit 
     private and public sector interest in investing in this 
     system. Third, the conference language permits the drug 
     industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial 
     disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. 
     importers. Finally, despite the Administration's repeated 
     requests, the conference requires FDA to pay for the costs 
     associated with this provision from within resources needed 
     to perform its other important public health activities. It 
     is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the 
     world for medications, leaving many with no other option than 
     to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it 
     is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will 
     work to address this problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far 
     failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug 
     benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will 
     insure seniors and people with disabilities against the 
     catastrophic costs of medications.
       On the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act 
     of 2000,'' which is included in the conference report, there 
     are two major concerns to the Administration. First, the 
     restrictions on the ability of the President to initiate new 
     sanctions and maintain old ones are overly stringent. This 
     effectively disarms the President's ability to conduct 
     foreign policy while providing potential targets of U.S. 
     actions with the time to take countermeasures. Second, the 
     provisions of the bill affecting travel to Cuba would 
     significantly set back our people-to-people exchanges that 
     are in the interest of opening up Cuban society. They also 
     would preclude travel by technicians and others needed to 
     conduct normal business by the U.S. Interests Section in 
     Havana, as well as travel for humanitarian purposes.
       With respect to the provision, ``Continued Dumping and 
     Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' the Administration agrees with 
     the findings that state that unfair trade laws have as their 
     purpose the restoration of conditions of fair trade. However, 
     that is the purpose of the anti-dumping and counter-vailing 
     duties themselves, which accomplish that purpose. By raising 
     the price of imports they shield domestic producers from 
     import competition and allow domestic manufacturers to raise 
     prices, increase production, and improve revenues. 
     Consequently, distribution of the tariffs themselves to 
     producers is not necessary to the restoration of conditions 
     of fair trade. In addition, there are significant concerns 
     regarding administrative feasibility and consistency with our 
     trade policy objectives, including the potential for trading 
     partners to adopt similar mechanisms. Such concerns were 
     raised and examined with regard to a similar proposal 
     considered during passage of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
     Act. That proposal was ultimately rejected.
       In addition, the Administration believes the provision 
     removing the authority of USDA's Undersecretary for Natural 
     Resources and the Environment has no justification, will 
     interfere with the agency's ability to manage itself 
     effectively, and sets a highly undesirable precedent.
       The Administration is also disappointed that the bill 
     prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from designating any 
     part of a USDA research lab in Ft. Reno, Oklahoma, as surplus 
     land, thereby preventing any consideration of returning land 
     to the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe. The Secretary should retain 
     his authority to effectively manage USDA property and 
     consider its alternative uses.

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

                              {time}  1615

  The United States Chamber of Commerce has been to Cuba, the Farm 
Bureau has been to Cuba, and many members of the agriculture caucus of 
this body have been down to Cuba, and they are all desirous of lifting 
this embargo, at least to be able to sell food and medicine.
  However, some Members of this House are captives of those Cubans in 
Florida who have not only tried everything that they can to keep this 
embargo intact but they have also influenced certain Members of this 
body to get involved with placing further travel restrictions in this 
bill.
  We have done very well with travel to Cuba. Many Americans go there. 
We have academic exchange. We have cultural exchange. And it is working 
very well.
  If people are desirous of seeing Cuba, the Cuba that they think it 
should be, it is only because there is people-to-people contact. But 
having codified these travel restrictions, we have now placed this in 
jeopardy.
  Well, this meager, little attempt to sell to Cuba without having any 
financial infrastructure to do so, no credit from the United States 
financial institutions or government, is not going to work. We are 
undermining the very efforts of those who would like to sell 
agricultural products and food and medicine to Cuba.
  I would ask for a no vote. This is a wrong-headed policy.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue that the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) spoke about and say I brought this 
up earlier.
  Yesterday the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to Smith 
Kline Beecham on an appeal because they were concerned that FDA was 
allowing a generic drug company to copy their labels. The Supreme Court 
would not take the issue.
  Basically, I will read the judge's ruling. It says, ``We hold that 
Hatch-Waxman amendments to the existing Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
require generic drug sellers to use labeling that may infringe the 
copyright in the label of the pioneer drug. We further hold that, as a 
result, copyright liability cannot attach to Watson's use of Smith 
Kline's label.''
  Therefore, allowing the copying of the label. And in the language 
that we have in the legislation, there is broad enough language giving 
the Secretary and the FDA the discretion to require this.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some of this debate today about 
importation and reimportation. I would like to talk for a minute about 
how I got involved in this debate. It was because our own Food and Drug 
Administration has been and even to this day is sending out threatening 
letters to senior citizens who try to save a few bucks on prescription 
drugs. That is how I got into this debate.
  Now, some people are saying, well, it does not go far enough; and 
some people are saying it goes too far. I am reminded of what Winston 
Churchill said the day after the invasion at Normandy. He said, ``This 
is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. This is 
simply the end of the beginning.''

[[Page 22218]]

  This debate on opening up the market and creating more competition 
for prescription drugs is not over. This is the beginning.
  But, at least, for the first time in 8 years, the Congress is sending 
a clear message that the threatening letters to seniors for trying to 
save a few bucks on prescription drugs is going to end. And if it does 
not end, by the grace of the voters in my district, I will be back and 
I will be working with people from all sides of the aisle.
  I do not like some of the restrictions that were put on in the 
conference committee. But I know this, we have made more progress in 
the last 3 weeks on this issue than this administration has made in 8 
years. And I think it is good progress, and I think we are going to see 
prescription drug prices coming down.
  Let me just show my colleagues this chart again. Look at what people 
pay in the United States compared to the rest of the world.
  Why are we sending threatening letters to seniors?
  This bill may not be perfect, but it is a giant step in the right 
direction. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Missouri and those of my 
colleagues who had the courage to stand by and fight for this issue 
because I think, in the years to come, we are going to see prescription 
drug prices in the United States come down dramatically.
  I would hope we will do this on a bipartisan basis. I do not think 
saving money for seniors is a partisan issue.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  First of all, let me just say there is a lot of good things in this 
bill for agriculture. I commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman 
Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their hard work 
in the committee.
  Second of all, I would like to say that the reimportation issue that 
we have worked on is not a long-term solution to the problem but it 
certainly moves forward. It is not perfect but it certainly is going to 
enhance the ability of Americans and Maineards to be accessing low-
cost, affordable prescription medicine.
  Now, maybe there is a better way to do it. Maybe there is an easier 
way to do it. And that probably is by being able to amend Medicare to 
be able to have this part of the program universally offered. But that 
is not the issue we have before us. Our seniors need relief.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman for working together on this issue, 
recognizing that there have been differences and it is not a perfect 
piece of legislation. But I do think it is going to go a long way. We 
have 325,000 seniors in Maine that do not have access to low-cost, 
affordable prescription medicine or insurance. This will afford the 
State an opportunity to negotiate to be able to have access to this 
pricing so we can do better for its seniors, and that is something that 
we should be supporting.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds only to say that 
the reason, I say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) that 
we do not have prescription drug legislation is because this Congress 
did not pass it. And this is our only chance, and, unfortunately, a 
flawed bill is being presented as the only option that a few people 
here negotiated on their own, not in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill. But I 
think before we be too self-congratulatory, we should be modest, 
particularly in regards to the provisions on the Cuba agricultural 
trade issue and on the reimportation issue. There are many areas in 
both of those provisions that we should strengthen. And we will be back 
next year I predict and we are going to strengthen those.
  I consider this a small step forward on both of those. And so, I am 
going to vote for the bill. But just one of the provisions on the 
reimportation says that first an importer must get the drug tested and 
then get the manufacturer to supply the paperwork to the pharmacist.
  What will happen then? The manufacturers will know every pharmacist 
that is reimporting drugs. Maybe the next time that pharmacist needs to 
have a drug from that pharmaceutical company they will find that the 
pharmaceutical company does not have enough drugs to provide them.
  These are the types of things that we should have debated more fully 
and had some amendments on. But I do think the bill should move forward 
and I will vote for it, and I encourage a yes vote from all of our 
colleagues.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) a very outspoken Member and a very able Member.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her persistence and consistent 
work dealing with agriculture in the United States. And I thank the 
chairman of the committee.
  I am from Texas. And there is a lot of agricultural business and work 
in Texas. There are also a lot of issues dealing with the needs of 
hungry people in the agriculture bill.
  But it disturbs me greatly and I have expressed my consternation and 
opposition in voting against the previous question how we would ignore 
the thousands of seniors in my congressional district who are already 
aware that they cannot finance food and rent and prescription drugs, 
and then to ignore a bipartisan effort on the question of drug 
reimportation seems to be the height of hypocrisy.
  This bill claims to have a drug reimportation provision, but it 
allows drug companies and their intermediaries to price discriminate 
against U.S. pharmacies and importers. It sunsets the legislation so we 
cannot even put in a reasonable infrastructure to encourage our 
pharmaceuticals and others to engage in this program. It allows drug 
manufacturers to block the importation of drugs through labeling 
because it does not allow the use of FDA-approved labeling. And we have 
gotten our consumers very label conscious.
  And so, this is a death knell for the legislation. And it does not 
guarantee American consumers access to the best world market price 
because it restricts the countries eligible for importation even though 
the FDA agrees that safety standards for imported drugs are high enough 
to allow access to the entire world market.
  Our neighbor in Texas, of which many of my constituents go to, 
Mexico, has been excluded, one of the largest countries in the southern 
hemisphere where thousands of seniors are already busing themselves to 
get cheaper drugs.
  This is a poor statement on a crisis in America. It is a tragedy that 
we be so hypocritical. I am sorry we have used the agricultural vehicle 
for such a legislative initiative. I hope, Mr. Speaker, we can fix this 
problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer mixed sentiments regarding the 
consideration of the conference report for our Nation's Agriculture 
appropriations. First and foremost this legislative effort represents 
our plans for our Nation's food source for the next year, but this bill 
is much more because it touches prescription drug reimportation into 
the United States.
  The measure appropriates $78.5 billion--$3.0 billion (4 percent more 
than the House bill, 4 percent more than the Senate measure and 2 
percent more than requested by the administration. The agreement 
includes $3.6 billion in emergency funding to aid farmers hurt by 
disasters and low commodity prices; the House bill had provided only 
$115 million in emergency aid to apple and potato growers, while the 
Senate measure had $2 billion in disaster relief.
  Over 75 percent ($59.8 billion) of the total budget authority 
provided by the agreement in FY 2001 is mandatory spending for 
entitlement programs, including $20.1 billion for the food stamp 
program. The remainder ($18.7 billion) is for discretionary programs. 
The discretionary spending in the bill is $4.7 billion more than the FY 
2000 appropriation and $3.2 billion more than the administration's 
request.
  As has been the case with the last couple of agriculture 
appropriations bills, this year's

[[Page 22219]]

measure broke with a tradition of easy passage and has been complicated 
by various issues. At the top of the list of things stalling the 
measure has been a proposal to relax trade sanctions against food and 
medicine sales to Cuba and other so-called rogue nations. In addition, 
proposals to ease Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules for 
importing drugs and address rising prescription drug prices slowed the 
measure's progress dramatically. Finally, settling on emergency funding 
levels to aid farmers recovering from disasters and struggling with low 
commodity prices also proved difficult. Negotiators developed 
compromise language on each of these contentious issues during 
conference action.
  This bill also makes an historic step toward removing the last 
vestiges of the cold-war era by instituting conditions for trade with 
Cuba. The agreement lifts current economic sanctions to allow shipments 
of food and medicine to Cuba among other nations. In the case of Cuba, 
the measure bars public and private United States financing of Cuban 
agricultural purchases. It also codifies restrictions (currently 
implemented by executive order) on Americans traveling to Cuba. This is 
an unfortunate result and this Congress should work to change this 
stifling action that will impair efforts to help the Cuban people.
  The agreement purports to allow pharmacies and wholesalers to buy 
American-made prescription drugs abroad and reimport them into the 
United States. Unfortunately there is a loophole in this legislation, 
which may allow drug manufacturers to continue charging higher prices 
for medicine to our Nation's elderly who so desperately need relief. 
Under this legislation the drug companies will be allowed to continue 
to market the same drugs that Americans have to pay higher prices for 
under different names in Mexico and Canada. Further, there is language 
in this bill, which will allow drug companies to restrict the marketing 
of these drugs under their cheaper names back here in the United 
States. Once again the American public is being told that Congress is 
responding to the problem of the high cost of prescription drugs in 
this country, but yet again there is a loophole for the consumer to 
fall through. This Congress should not abdicate its responsibility to 
offer financial relief to the millions of elderly Americans who have to 
choose each month between paying their bills, purchasing food, paying 
rent, or buying vital medicine.
  I would like to acknowledge that this conference does include as much 
as $3.4 million of the $6.8 million I requested be set aside for the 
1890 Land Grant Colleges, which also includes many of our Nation's 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, for research activity. 
Historically these institutions of higher learning received marginal 
increases and have been level funded for the last 5 years. The 
amendment will increase research activities by $4 million and extension 
activities by $2.8 million for the 1890's land grant institutions. This 
$6.8 million increase will be deducted from the Agricultural Research 
Service (ARS) funding included in the bill.
  I had hoped that the conference committee members would have deemed 
it more than reasonable to fund this area to the full $6.8 million that 
was requested. Given the fact that the minority 1890 Land Grant 
Colleges did not receive any land-grant funding from the United States, 
unlike other land grant colleges, prior to 1967 with formulary funding 
not beginning until 1972. Since 1988 Federal funding for agriculture 
programs has declined by 8 percent and the base funding that supports 
agricultural scientists and extension educators has eroded by 16 
percent. This has obviously had a devastating negative impact on the 
1890's. Federal support for basic research in the decades since the 
1950's has decreased from an annual growth rate of 22.9 percent in the 
1950's to 2 percent in the current decade. Flat support for food and 
agricultural sciences compounded by the lack of adequate state matching 
funds have created an alarming erosion in the conduct of 1890 research 
and extension services. Although the Congress encouraged States to 
provide a 30-percent match for 1890 landgrant programs in FY2000, 
several 1890's are facing nearly insurmountable barriers in getting 
states to comply.
  I hope that the actions taken in this bill to provide additional 
dollars to 1890 Land Grant Colleges will mark a new era of Federal 
support to these Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  Within the measure's $34.1 billion for domestic food programs is $4.1 
billion ($37 million less than requested) for the women, infants and 
children (WIC) program. The bill appropriates $873 million ($5 million 
less than requested) for conservation programs; $973 million ($39 
million more than requested) for the Agricultural Research Service; and 
$1.5 billion ($84 million less than requested) for the Rural Housing 
Service. It also provides the administration's request of $973 million 
for the PL-480 Food for Peace Program.
  In addition, the measure modifies the eligibility rules regarding 
automobile ownership and monthly housing costs for food stamp 
recipients. Current law prohibits food stamp recipients from owning a 
car worth more than $4,650 or paying monthly housing costs of more than 
$275. Under the agreement, States could set their own caps for the 
vehicle allowance and gradually raise the housing cap over 5 years to 
$340 per month.
  I would like to thank the conferees that worked on this conference 
report. However, I will vote ``no'' on the rule because of several 
failings in the bill and I will reluctantly vote ``yes'' on the 
legislation.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey) the sponsor of the key amendment that would have 
prevented drug companies from discriminating against U.S. importers and 
would have ensured that U.S. importers could purchase drugs on the same 
terms and conditions as foreign purchasers.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to express my profound 
appreciation to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman 
of the subcommittee, for the work that he has done and the leadership 
that he has provided on this initiative, along with the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member. It has been a 
profound pleasure to serve on the subcommittee with both of these 
Members.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill in many respects. The agriculture 
bill here contains increases in farm conservation and rural development 
programs. It contains important increases in rural housing, business, 
and utilities programs that are critical to small communities across 
the country.
  In addition, it contains important recognition for the Rural Economic 
Area Partnership Zone Program. It also includes funding for important 
agricultural research initiatives.
  In addition, it contains a little more than $3 billion in critical 
emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers who have suffered through 
another year of bad weather and low prices.
  There is also $138 million for apple farmers struggling to overcome 
loss of markets and devastating weather that have occurred over the 
last 3 years.
  I want to make it clear, that particular provision for specialty 
crops was originated in this House in the Subcommittee on Agriculture 
Appropriations and nowhere else. So, for the first time, apple farmers 
and other growers of specialty crops are going to get recognition for 
the difficult circumstances under which they operate.
  This bill is a good bill. It provides assistance for dairy farmers, 
$1.6 billion in crop losses for all farms all across the country. All 
farmers are going to benefit from it.
  So if my colleagues are going to vote for this bill, as I am, vote 
for it for the agriculture and the rural development provisions in the 
bill, all of which are exemplary and good. Do not vote for it for the 
provision on prescription drugs. Because the prescription drug 
provision in this bill is a shell, it is a fake, it is a sham. It will 
not provide prescription drugs at reduced prices for any American 
anywhere. It is designed precisely in that way, to prevent any 
consideration to reduce prices of pharmaceuticals imported from Canada 
or anywhere else because the bill fails to recognize the ability of the 
pharmaceutical companies to insert language that will prevent that from 
happening.

                              {time}  1630

  This is a good bill in many respects. However, it leaves to the next 
Congress the necessity to deal with the issue of the high cost of 
prescription drugs in America.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I just wanted to end by pointing out an important clarification here. 
The gentlewoman from Missouri indicated there was a Supreme Court case 
or an appeals court case and inferred that it supported her point of 
view.
  Let me say that the Supreme Court declined to review the SmithKline 
case

[[Page 22220]]

so the appeals court stands. If the law requires you to use labels, you 
must. And that is exactly what the Democratic amendment required, 
exactly what the Waxman amendment required, exactly what the DeLauro 
amendment required in the subcommittee markup.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the judge said that they hold that the 
Hatch-Waxman amendments that already exist to the Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act require the labeling be used, be given by the drug 
manufacturer to the generic which means then, or to the reimporter in 
our particular case, and that it is not an infringement of copyright 
liability and, therefore, the drug company will have to provide the 
labeling under the discretion of the FDA. The FDA has broad discretion 
in this area and, therefore, all of that is covered in the language 
that exists in the bill that we are about to vote to pass.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal about what the bill does do 
and does not do in terms of two provisions, prescription drug 
reimportation and trade sanctions. I would like to remind my colleagues 
that both of these issues more properly belong in an authorization 
bill, not appropriations. But they are here in our bill and represent 
some progress in helping our senior citizens get affordable medicines 
and helping our farmers and ranchers sell more of their products. That 
is a great marriage.
  If Members want to criticize this bill for what is not there, then I 
would remind them that this bill also does not have campaign finance 
reform, it does not have managed health care reform, and it does not 
guarantee peace in the Middle East. What this bill does, among other 
things, is improve our environmental and water resources, provide food 
and nutrition for the vulnerable in our society, protect our food and 
medical supplies, and keep our system of agriculture the best and the 
strongest in the world.
  Oddly enough, that is what this appropriations bill is supposed to 
do. That is why every Member of this body should recognize the good 
that this bill will do for their constituents and vote ``aye.''
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, while I am troubled by the failure of this 
measure to include funding for the disaster that befell our onion 
farmers in 1999, I will support this measure because it provides 
vitally important assistance to many farmers, growers of speciality 
crops and dairy farmers as well as the agricultural communities in my 
district.
  I would also like to express my concerns over provisions in this bill 
in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Title relating to 
Iran and other nations on the list of terrorist nations. We should, in 
my view, not be modifying our present policies toward Iran and Libya 
where we have in place a de facto prohibition against government credit 
for our exports to those countries.
  The waiver on the prohibition on financing for commercial exports to 
Iran, Libya, North Korea or Sudan for national security purposes is, in 
my view, overly broad. Next year, we need to revisit this issue so we 
can ensure that the U.S. Taxpayer is not supporting commercial exports 
to terrorist countries, unless there are urgent humanitarian reasons to 
do so.
  We also need to clarify that in providing licenses for the export of 
goods or services to countries promoting international terrorism under 
the current guidelines of the Department of the Treasury, we should 
keep the procedures in place for the denial of each and every license 
for any export to a person or group found to be promoting acts of 
international terrorism.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I believe overall that the Agriculture 
Appropriations Conference report is a very good bill. It contains many 
admirable provisions including language that would allow the 
reimportation of prescription drugs. Data shows that a single does of a 
drug that costs a senior citizen $1 in the United States only cost 64 
cents in Canada, while in Italy the same drug costs only 51 cents. I 
support drug reimportation--I am convinced this is one way to reduce 
the cost of prescription drug prices without imposing price controls or 
burdensome regulations on drug manufacturers. Indeed, I voted in favor 
of these provisions when the Agriculture Appropriations bill first 
passed the House and I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1885, the International 
Prescription Drug Parity Act, which contains many similar provisions.
  Also included is funding for a number of initiatives which I strongly 
favor, including $1.5 million for pink bollworm control programs, 
$500,000 for aflatoxin research in Arizona. $5 million for the Water 
conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory move from Phoenix to the 
University of Arizona's Maricopa Agriculture Center (MAC), $495,000 for 
the International Arid Lands Consortium (administered by UA), $369,000 
for the Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources, 
$200,000 for hesperaloe and other natural products from desert plants 
research (conducted by UA), and $4,177,000 for shrimp aquaculture 
research. And I voted for a bill which contains these provisions when 
it passed the House on July 11, 2000.
  However, during conference deliberations on the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill, an amendment was inserted into the bill that was 
not considered by an committee in either the House or Senate. This 
provision has serious repercussions for U.S. industry. Because of my 
strong opposition to this provision, I will reluctantly vote against 
this bill today.
  Under the amendment adopted in the Agriculture Appropriations 
conference report, antidumping and countervailing duties which are 
currently paid by the importing industry would be transferred from the 
U.S. Treasury Department directly in the petitioning company. This is a 
major change in our current antidumping and countervailing duty laws 
with potentially disastrous consequences. Under current law, 
antidumping or countervailing duties are assessed to offset the dumping 
or subsidy and paid to the U.S. Treasury. Payment of the duties 
readjusts the market to replicate conditions as if dumping or 
subsidization had not occurred. The theory behind this law is to level 
the playing field between U.S. producers and foreign importers so that 
each may compete fairly for access to U.S. consumers. The provision 
inserted into the Agriculture Appropriations bill does much more--it 
double compensates the petitioner by no only offsetting the alleged 
injury, but also providing a windfall subsidy to the petitioner.
  This provision will encourage other countries to adopt a similar 
industry subsidy. U.S. exporters facing dumping duties will end up 
directly subsidizing their competitors instead of paying duties to a 
foreign government. Because U.S. companies are the biggest targets of 
AD/CVD actions, this threatens our exports.
  Subsidization of industry by any government which is a member of the 
World Trade Organization violates the WTO Agreement on Subsidies on 
Countervailing Measures. The U.S. Government supported this Agreement 
because we sought to eliminate foreign subsidies which undercut the 
ability of U.S. industry to compete abroad. Payment of AD/CVD duties 
violates the Agreement which could lead to retaliatory tariffs against 
innocent U.S. exporters.
  The lure of a potential monetary windfall could spur additional 
litigation under our AD/CVD laws. In order to be eligible for the 
potential windfall, U.S. industry would be encouraged to join in the 
filing of AD/CVD petitions. Otherwise, they would not be eligible for 
any payments which might be made under this new provision. Furthermore, 
the promise of monetary compensation would take away any incentive to 
enter into ``suspension agreements'' or settlements whereby a foreign 
producer agrees not to sell below an agreed price in an antidumping 
case. More cases means more duties, on the backs of this U.S. 
industries which depend on steady supplies of products which may 
subject to AD/CVD.
  Because of the serious implications of this ill-considered provision, 
I am reluctantly voting against the Agriculture Appropriations 
conference report.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly voted against this bill 
though there is much in it that merits support. However, the benefits 
accorded to farmers in this bill are disproportionately skewed to large 
operations, not to smaller-scale, family farms. If people want to step 
back and provide benefits for small farms, I will be the first to look 
at ways that we can do that in a cooperative fashion. But this bill is 
not targeted. We continue to pour unprecedented sums to agriculture 
without addressing the apparent failure of the so-called ``Freedom to 
Farm'' bill.
  Several provisions illustrate the lost opportunities. We missed an 
opportunity with Cuba in this bill. We successfully trade with China. 
Why can't we pursue a rational trade policy with Cuba? Cuba trade will 
hasten the departure of Fidel Castro, leader of one of the last 
remaining bastions of communism.

[[Page 22221]]

  There is a rider for the sugar industry buried in this conference 
report that subverts the reform the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill was 
supposed to usher in. It will do nothing to change the $352 million in 
loan defaults taxpayers are paying this year, no GAO's estimated $1.9 
billion cost of the sugar program to consumers.
  As pointed out in an October 1 editorial in the Washington Post, the 
drug reimportation language in this bill is unlikely to do much to 
address the problem of affordability of prescription drugs. The five-
year time limit on the bill will significantly minimize the 
effectiveness of this token effort to address the skyrocketing cost of 
pharmaceuticals. These narrow provisions won't have the impact for our 
seniors that real solutions to the prescription drug crisis world have.
  This bill does not do enough to address the serious problem of hunger 
in the United States. Even in this time of unprecedented prosperity, 
many families are hungry. Oregon has one of the highest rates of hunger 
in the nation. Yet, the conference report provides less funding to food 
stamp programs, less funding to school breakfast and lunch programs, 
and less funding to the WIC programs than what was originally allocated 
in the House and Senate versions of this bill.
  We can do better.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to being attention to one of the 
concerns I have with this bill. To be specific, I was very troubled to 
find that the conference report being considered today includes 
language which restricts funding for the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative (AHRI).
  When this bill first came to the floor in June, it included language 
which prohibited funding for the Natural Resources Conservation service 
(NRCS) from being used for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I 
offered an amendment to strike this language out, and it was adopted 
with unanimous support from this body.
  In light of this body's support for my amendment--and the fact that 
no such similar language was in the bill passed by the other body--it 
is difficult to understand why the conferees found it appropriate to 
include the restrictive language in the conference report. As I have 
noted on the floor in the past, I understand that some enmity exists 
for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative by those who feel that the 
initiative represents an intrusion of the federal government into local 
affairs. Though I'm confident that an examination of AHRI's record will 
show that their concerns are entirely unfounded, I will not attempt to 
dissuade my colleagues from their opinion.
  These Members had the opportunity to protect their communities from 
this phantom threat when the initiative was implemented, having been 
given the power to veto the involvement of their districts in AHRI. I 
would like to remind my colleagues that the only communities which 
remain in the initiative are the ones which have actively chosen to 
participate, including communities in my district, and so I resent 
these actions undertaken by Members--behind closed doors--which 
certainly will have a negative effect only on communities other than 
their own.
  I will support this bill only because so many important programs 
stand to benefit from its enactment, but I regret the failure of the 
conferees to abide by the will voted by this body in June. In the 
future, I hope they will be more respectful of the decisions made by 
communities in other Member's districts.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4461, 
to FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. I oppose this 
bill for a few different reasons, but right now I would like to talk 
about just one. Interestingly, this reason has nothing to do with 
farming, but rather the issue of an American citizens ability to travel 
to Cuba.
  Mr. Speaker, I opposed today's bill because of the agreement 
regarding the sales of food and medicine to Cuba, Libya, North Korea, 
Iran, and Sudan. The agreement permits the sale of food and medicine, 
but also codifies the current restrictions regarding the American 
citizens ability to travel to Cuba.
  I oppose this agreement for three reasons. Number one is procedure. 
On July 20th of this year, I offered an amendment that would have 
prohibited funding for the enforcement of travel restrictions. 
Essentially, lifting the travel restrictions. The amendment passed the 
House by a vote of 232 to 186, but unfortunately the amendment was 
stripped out of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. This agreement 
would do just the opposite of what the majority of the House supported. 
By codifying the present travel restrictions, it prohibits this 
President or any future President from making changes to the current 
travel regulations. Therefore making it more difficult for Americans to 
travel to Cuba in the future.
  This point is significant, Mr. Speaker, because it has not 
historically been our nations policy to restrict travel. Actually, our 
policy has been just the opposite. Whether it was South Africa during 
apartheid, the Soviet Union under Communism or the People's Republic of 
China today, our nation has consistently encouraged the notion that 
person to person diplomacy was in our national interest.
  Number two, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects an 
American citizen's right to travel. In 1956, the Supreme Court first 
affirmed this right in Kent v. Dulles. The court stated, ``An American 
who has crossed the ocean is not obliged to form his opinion about our 
foreign policy merely from what he is told by officials of our 
government or by a few correspondents of American newspapers. Moreover, 
his views domestic questions are enriched by seeing how foreigners are 
trying to solve similar problems. In many different ways direct 
contract with other countries contributes to sounder decisions at 
home.''
  In 1965, the Supreme Court heard the case of Zemel v. Rusk. The case 
specifically addressed the question of travel to Cuba. In Zemel v. 
Rusk, the Court again ruled that the right to travel is guaranteed in 
the fifth amendment. But the Court went on to find that the restriction 
on travel to Cuba was constitutional because it was supported by the 
``weightiest consideration of national security.'' However, according 
to a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report issued on May 5, 1998, 
Cuba is no longer a military threat to the United States.''
  Number three, I believe we should look the issues of fairness and 
severity. Let me say that I do support the idea of permitting sales of 
U.S. foods and medicines to these nations. But, if you weight the pros 
and cons of the sales versus travel, I don't think this agreement 
passes the common sense test. Let's look at the four other nations this 
agreement permits sales to, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Libya.
  American citizens are permitted to travel to North Korea and Sudan. 
North Korea is developing missiles believed to be capable of delivering 
nuclear warheads. After North Korea test fired a three stage rocket in 
1998, U.S. intelligence estimates reported that such a missile would 
have the range to reach Alaska and Guam.
  The State Department has reported that Sudan ``continued to serve as 
a refuge, nexus, and training hub for a number of international 
terrorist organizations.'' Additionally, the Sudanese government 
continues to force its own citizens into slavery for opposing the 
government's ``holy war.''
  Presently, State Department regulations prohibit U.S. citizens from 
traveling to Iran and Libya, but these two countries were still given 
perferentional treatment compared to Cuba. Iran and Libya will be given 
access to U.S. credit programs, whereas Cuba will not.
  Even though the Administration proliferation reports released this 
August assert that Iran is ``one of the most active countries seeking 
to acquire weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional 
weapons,'' assisted primarily by Russia, China, and North Korea. And 
Libya was early this year accused by the United Kingdom of smuggling 
Chinese Scud missile parts through Gatwick airport, and who the U.S. 
Department of Defense accused of receiving missile technology training 
from China.
  After reviewing these facts, I have to ask does it make sense for 
this Congress to support doing business with these nations at the cost 
of infringing on the rights of American citizens to travel? I don't 
think it does. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I will be voting against today's 
bill.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4461, 
the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act. I would like to thank 
Chairman Skeen and the members of the Subcommittee for their leadership 
in drafting this legislation and I rise in strong support of its 
passage.
  Included in this bill is significant funding for the boll weevil 
eradication program. Boll weevil eradication has been a federally 
sponsored initiative for the last twenty-five years which has 
successfully eradicated the cotton pest from many states. The remaining 
states with on-going eradication programs include New Mexico, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee. While all these 
states do receive some direct federal grants, it is nowhere near the 
percentage received by those states where the eradication program has 
already been completed. Instead, our states are required to call upon 
cotton growers in the State to self-finance the cost of most of the 
eradication program. The federal government's percentage of support for 
these programs has steadily declined over the last few years and today, 
the federal contribution is only a few percentage points of the cost of 
the overall program. In lieu of direct federal

[[Page 22222]]

grants, the Congress has provided these remaining states with access to 
low interest USDA loans, some grant money, and ``in-kind'' federal 
assistance. In most instances, the state governments have been required 
to ``step up to the plate'' and provide significant financial support 
to replace the lost federal aid.
  In Oklahoma, our state legislature created the Oklahoma Boll Weevil 
Eradication Organization, or OBWEO, as a state agency in 1993 to 
coordinate the state-wide effort. In 1995, the legislature amended the 
powers of the OBWEO to enhance its financial capabilities so that OBWEO 
could apply for and receive USDA low-interest loans, as well as issuing 
state bonds, the interest from which would be exempt from federal 
income tax. Shortly thereafter, OBWEO organized the State's growers and 
began its eradication efforts.
  Unfortunately, neither of the two financial tools with which OBWEO 
was equipped proved to be useful. Due to quirks in USDA loan 
regulations, OBWEO has never been eligible for USDA loans. Moreover, 
OBWEO has not been able to issue federal tax-exempt bonds because of a 
restriction in the Internal Revenue Code regarding ``private activity 
bonds''. The inability of OBWEO to use the tax-exempt feature has 
resulted in additional interest costs as well. All told, OBWEO has seen 
its financing costs increase by almost $2 million, which is a 
tremendous amount in light of a total program cost of just under $17 
million. In other words, OBWEO is experiencing a more than 15% program 
cost over-run because it cannot get access to loan programs available 
to other states.
  This bill takes the necessary steps to get the eradication program in 
Oklahoma back on track with that in other states. Furthermore, it 
provides the necessary resources for the cotton producers nationwide to 
implement aggressive, successful eradication programs to rid their 
crops of these destructive pests. Other benefits for the cotton 
producers across the country include an increase in the limitation on 
Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs) and Market Loan Gains (MLGs) to 
$150,000 for 2000 crops of cotton, grains and oilseeds, $78 million for 
the federal cost share contribution to boll weevil eradication, and 
$100 million in lending authority for the eradication program.
  Also included in this bill is funding for the Retired Educators for 
Agricultural Programs, or REAP. REAP is an organization which was 
established in 1994 to address the diminishing numbers of African 
American agricultural education teachers in Oklahoma and the scarcity 
of African American youth enrolled in vocational agriculture and 
programs such as the Future Farmers of America. Initially, REAP was 
operating in five counties in Oklahoma. It has since begun to operate 
in other areas throughout the State.
  The mission of REAP is to build a foundation that promotes personal 
and economic opportunities in agriculture for African American youth 
through project development and partnerships with educational and other 
community resources. One of the primary goals of REAP is to emphasize 
citizenship, economic development, leadership and scholarship to the 
African American youth involved in the program.
  REAP extends its outreach to the parents and community members by 
means of programs, forums and opportunities to chaperone student 
activities. The program encourages this participation in the hope that 
the adults will become better informed, more involved and more 
supportive of the reasonable and achievable aspirations of their young 
people.
  REAP exemplifies a model that can be easily replicated. It is a 
program of vision, partnerships and commitment that is timeless in 
focus and limited only by the parameters of the imagination. Field 
trips to areas in my district in Southwest Oklahoma have ignited great 
interest in expanding the program into this area of our state. Parents 
and teachers in Lawton, Altus, Frederick and Tipton, assure me that 
there is a great need for REAP in our area of the State where limited 
financial resources have precluded service.
  Mr. Speaker, REAP is an important program which could be used as a 
model for similar programs in other states. This program is vital to 
the further development of rural America. I am honored to have the 
opportunity to play a role in furthering the efforts of this very 
important program.
  The bill also includes $3.5 billion for emergency assistance to 
farmers and ranchers who have suffered economic losses associated with 
weather-related yield and/or quality losses. This alone will not 
address all the disaster assistance needs of our producers. For 
instance, in Oklahoma alone, the damage from the summer drought and 
wildfires is estimated at over $1 billion. However, this is a step in 
the right direction to providing much-needed assistance for our farmers 
and ranchers.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill and ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting our nation's farmers and ranchers 
by casting their vote in favor of H.R. 4461.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that many of 
the agriculture needs of the U.S. are covered in this legislation, yet 
I need to express my concerns with the reimportation provision.
  It is important to remember why the Prescription Drug Marketing Act 
of 1988 (PDMA) was enacted in the first place. At the time, there was 
considerable evidence that counterfeit and otherwise adulterated drugs 
were entering U.S. commerce from abroad. After a lengthy investigation, 
the Commerce Committee concluded that greater restrictions on 
pharmaceutical imports into the U.S. were essential to protect the 
safety of American patients and the integrity of the U.S. drug supply. 
In response, a bipartisan Congress enacted PDMA.
  PDMA was designed to (1) prevent the introduction of prescription 
drugs that may have been improperly stored, handled, and shipped 
overseas, and (2) reduce the opportunities for importation of 
counterfeit and unapproved prescription drugs.
  As Vice Chairman of the Commerce Oversight and Investigations (O&I) 
Subcommittee, I have participated in two hearings on the importation of 
counterfeit bulk drugs. Currently, even with PDMA, the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA), Department of Justice, and U.S. Customs Service 
are having a very difficult time inspecting overseas drug manufacturing 
facilities and confiscating counterfeit bulk drugs that enter the U.S. 
According to a DEA agent, 25% of the drugs coming across the U.S./
Mexico border are counterfeit and a majority of the remaining 75% are 
not from FDA approved sources. If those agencies are having a difficult 
time with PDMA in place, I dread to see what will happen after Congress 
destroys PDMA with this reimportation language.
  The bottom line in this issue is consumer safety. When my 
constituents in the 5th District of North Carolina go to their 
neighborhood pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, they should not 
have to think about the quality of the drugs they are purchasing. I did 
not spend two years modernizing the Food and Drug Administration to sit 
back and allow my constituents to worry about counterfeit drugs 
entering the U.S.
  There is also an issue of cost within this reimportation debate. 
Members of Congress who support reimportation believe that this change 
in law will provide Americans with cheaper pharmaceutical drugs. 
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that reimportation will save 
Americans money.
  First of all, the FDA is asking for at least $23 million to start 
implementing the reimportation provision. Most likely that $23 million 
will grow to $60 or $90 million very quickly. A witness from the U.S. 
Customs Service testified at the most recent Commerce O&I Subcommittee 
hearing that the Customs Service would also need additional money to 
patrol the reimported drug shipments.
  Second, there is no mandate in this legislation that wholesalers and 
pharmacists have to pass the savings from reimported drugs onto U.S. 
consumers. Various middlemen, both in the U.S. and abroad, will take in 
the profits, while consumers will bear the risk. Today, Internet sales 
remove the middlemen, but not the risk.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee lead by Chairman Dingell pointed 
out that reimportation may not always translate into lower priced drugs 
for consumers. On July 10, 1985, Chairman Dingell said, ``To those of 
you who would have us believe that prescription drug diversion is just 
another way to give the consumer a price break, I say, look about you. 
These are not counterfeit tee shirts or counterfeit Gucci handbags. No 
consumer can possibly weigh the risk involved in the purchase of 
medicine which has not been properly stored, or which has been shipped 
outside channels of commerce where it is properly protected with law.''
  Americans' trust of Congress will quickly erode when cost savings are 
not found through reimportation and people become ill and possibly die 
due to imported and reimported drugs that are counterfeit or 
adulterated.
  The reimportation language contained in this legislation not only 
affects the quality of drugs entering the U.S. but it also poses a 
large threat to international commerce. At the last minute, several 
members of Congress pushed for language that interferes with contracts 
between American manufacturers and foreign countries/wholesalers. That 
language is unconstitutional based on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution: ``nor shall private property be taken for public use 
without just

[[Page 22223]]

compensation.'' There have been several court decisions that uphold the 
rights of patent owners and manufacturers to decide to whom they sell 
their products. The contract language contained in this legislation 
clearly contradicts those court decisions.
  On June 28, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4680, legislation that would 
provide Medicare beneficiaries with comprehensive, high quality, and 
affordable drug coverage. I am pleased to be an author of that 
legislation. I agree that American consumers should have access to low 
priced pharmaceuticals, but the best way to that access is through drug 
coverage, not reimportation.
  Dr. Jere Goyan, former FDA Commissioner under Jimmy Carter, 
summarized this issue well: ``I respect the motivation of the members 
of Congress who support this [reimportation] legislation. They are 
reading, as am I, stories about high prescription drug prices and 
people who are unable to pay for the drugs they need. But the solution 
to this problem lies in better insurance coverage for people who need 
prescription drugs, not in threatening the quality of medicines for all 
of us.''
  I am pleased that adherence to the FDA's gold standard, Section 505 
of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, has been placed into the 
reimportation language. Initially, some members of Congress wanted to 
create a second, less-restrictive standard for pharmaceuticals entering 
the U.S. By specifically mandating that all drugs imported and 
reimported into the U.S. must pass Section 505 standards, Congress is 
establishing an important hurdle for wholesalers and pharmacists to 
overcome.
  Unfortunately, I do not think that the FDA and Customs will be able 
to check all of the paperwork to ensure that the drugs have been tested 
and that they passed Section 505 standards. Counterfeit paperwork is 
easier to produce than counterfeit drugs.
  Although I have used the term ``reimportation'' throughout this 
statement, please understand that Congress is not just talking about 
reimporting drugs. We are also talking about importing drugs. 
``Reimported drugs'' are manufactured in U.S. quality controlled 
facilities, shipped for sale overseas, and imported back into the U.S. 
``Imported drugs'' are made overseas in manufacturing plants that may 
never be inspected by the FDA, shipped to a foreign county with pill 
colors, shapes, and labeling for that country, and then imported into 
the U.S. by U.S. wholesalers and pharmacists. This language will allow 
imported drugs into the U.S.
  I hope that both national and internatonal AIDS groups realize that 
this language will stop pharmaceutical companies from selling AIDS 
medications to foreign countries at greatly reduced prices because the 
bill does not prevent those medications from re-entering the stream of 
commerce with great financial gian to foreign countries and huge 
financial losses to pharmaceutical companies.
  The last section of the reimportation language is a bill by 
Representative Gutknecht. The FDA reviewed this legislation and, in a 
letter to Representative Dingell, expressed opposition to the vagueness 
of the bill's language. Because the term ``warning notice'' is so 
poorly defined, the bill will cripple the FDA's ability to contact any 
importer that has suspicious drugs at a U.S. port of entry. In the 
letter, the FDA reassures Congress that they could internally address 
the issu eof personal use letters to seniors. There is no good reason 
why Representative Gutknecht's bill is attached to this legislation.
  In conclusion, I am deeply concerned about the safety and efficacy of 
the drugs that will fill Americans' medicine cabinets if this 
legislation passes. For decades, the U.S. has set the highest standard 
in the world for quality prescription drugs. Becasue of this high 
standard, the U.S. is home to the discovery and manufacturing of the 
most innovative new therapies in this world. If Congress passes this 
legislation, we will be destroying the safety and efficacy of drugs 
consumed by our constituents. We will also be giving pharmaceutical 
companies every reason to pull their headquarters and manufacturing 
plants out of the U.S. and into countries with lower labor and 
manufacturing costs. Why some members of Congress want to both expose 
Americans to counterfeit and adulterated drugs and drive industry out 
of the U.S. is truly beyond me. It is for these reasons that I would 
vote against the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report.
  I submit the following items to be entered into the Record.
  1. Letters opposing reimportation from the Chamber of Commerce, 
National Association of Manufacturers, National Mental Health 
Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, ALS Association, 
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Kidney Cancer Association, Log Cabin AIDS 
Policy Institute, National Prostrate Cancer Coalition, Pancreatic 
Cancer Action Network, Pulmonary Hypertension Association, Society for 
Women's Health Research, Allergy and Asthma Network Mothers of 
Asthmatics, and
  2. A Sept. 20, 2000 letter from Representative Burr, Representative 
Tauzin, Representative Greenwood, Representative Oxley, Representative 
Pickering, and Representative Ehrlich to Members of the House and 
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees.

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

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

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

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

                                            National Mental Health


                                                  Association,

                                  Alexandria, VA, August 31, 2000.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related 
         Agencies Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cochran: As head of the nation's largest and 
     oldest advocacy organization representing millions of 
     individuals with mental illness across the country, I am 
     writing to you regarding the need to maintain meaningful 
     safety standards for pharmaceutical products. This past 
     session of Congress has witnessed unprecedented interest in 
     prescription medicines. I wish to express my concern 
     regarding a couple of the measures that have been advanced in 
     the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Bills.
       In the House, the Crowley and the Coburn amendments, 
     restricting funds for use in enforcement of the importation 
     and re-importation provisions of the Prescription Drug

[[Page 22224]]

     Marketing Act (PDMA), section 801(d)(1), could substantially 
     increase risks to Americans who rely on prescription 
     medicines. Similarly, the Jeffords amendment, permanently 
     restricting the Food and Drug Administration's ability to 
     regulate pharmaceutical importation, could also place 
     American consumers at risk. While our organization is 
     supportive of affordable pharmaceuticals for all Americans, 
     we are troubled by the potential risks that come with the 
     assumed savings, especially since there are no guarantees 
     provided in these amendments that the savings would even be 
     passed on to the consumers.
       In its statement regarding the impact of these amendments 
     on prescription drug safety, the Food and Drug Administration 
     issued this caution:
       ``These amendments will likely encourage the very sources 
     of adulterated, misbranded and unapproved drugs that were cut 
     off by section 801(d)(1), to begin shipping again. FDA, with 
     its limited resources, would be extremely hard-pressed to do 
     the investigative work necessary to discover and stop these 
     new sources of potential harmful products.''
       As the Conference Committee proceeds with its final 
     deliberations on the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, I ask 
     that you carefully weigh these risks that the American public 
     might be incurring compared to the real dollar savings that 
     might be realized. On behalf of our 340 affiliates 
     nationwide, I want to thank you for addressing the delicate 
     issues of prescription drug pricing and safety regulation. I 
     look forward to working with you in the future as Congress 
     continues this debate.
           Sincerely,
                                      Michael M. Faenza, M.S.S.W.,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                 National Multiple


                                            Sclerosis Society,

                                 New York, NY, September 27, 2000.
     Hon. Joe Skeen,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Skeen: I am writing to express the National 
     Multiple Sclerosis Society's concern about legislation that 
     could lead to the importation of unsafe drugs into our 
     country. Earlier this year the House and Senate approved 
     provisions that would weaken the Food and Drug 
     Administration's (FDA) ability to ensure the safety and 
     reliability of drugs entering the United States from foreign 
     countries. For instance, the FY2001 Agriculture 
     Appropriations bill included the Crowley and Coburn 
     amendments that would prohibit the FDA from spending money on 
     any enforcement actions, including testing for safety, that 
     restrict the importation of drugs approved for sale in the 
     United States. We believe the authors of these amendments are 
     genuinely committed to helping reduce the high cost of 
     prescription drugs. However, their approach could jeopardize 
     the health of countless Americans by making them rely upon 
     potentially mislabeled, adulterated, counterfeit, expired or 
     improperly stored medication to treat their conditions. 
     Please ensure that the final Agriculture Appropriations bill 
     does not include any provisions that would hamper the FDA in 
     its commitments to consumer safety.
       Eleven former FDA commissioners have said that allowing the 
     importation of drugs would weaken the Prescription Drug 
     Marketing Act (PDMA), which for the past 12 years has helped 
     the FDA protect American consumers from unsafe drugs. The 
     Clinton Administration has called these amendments 
     ``unacceptably flawed'' and said they would ``severely 
     restrict the (FDA's) authority to enforce the law that allows 
     only manufacturers to re-import drugs.'' When asked to 
     comment on the effect of these amendments, the FDA replied:
       ``These amendments will likely encourage the very sources 
     of adulterated, misbranded and unapproved drugs that were cut 
     off by section 801(d)(1) (of PDMA), to begin shipping again. 
     FDA, with its limited resources, would be extremely hard-
     pressed to do the investigative work necessary to discover 
     and stop these new sources of potentially harmful products.''
       People with multiple sclerosis, as well as people with 
     other chronic diseases, rely heavily upon pharmaceutical 
     products, including highly complex biological medications, to 
     fight their diseases and continue to lead active lives. These 
     products must be carefully monitored for safety and 
     consistency throughout their production, storage and delivery 
     to the patient to ensure safety and full efficacy.
       The National Multiple Sclerosis Society, established in 
     1946, is dedicated to ending the devastating effects of 
     multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is an often 
     progressive, degenerative disease of the central nervous 
     system that affects one-third of a million Americans. 
     Multiple sclerosis is unpredictable in its course, and can 
     have a devastating medical, personal and financial impact on 
     the people it affects. With over 600,000 members, National 
     Multiple Sclerosis Society is the world's largest voluntary 
     health agency devoted tot he concerns of those affected by 
     multiple sclerosis.
       If you have any questions regarding this matter, please 
     contact our Public Policy Office at (202) 408-1500.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mike Dugan,
     General, USAF, Ret., President and CEO.
                                  ____

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

                                       Allergy and Asthma Network,


                                   Mothers of Asthmatics Inc.,

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



                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2000.
       Dear Members of the House and Senate Agriculture 
     Appropriations Subcommittees: As Members of the House 
     Commerce Committee, we are writing to express our concern 
     over the amendments relating to pharmaceutical imports that 
     were attached to the Agriculture Appropriations legislation 
     on the House floor. While we share Congress' deep desire to 
     increase patients' access to reasonably priced 
     pharmaceuticals, we believe such a fundamental change in 
     current U.S. law should not be enacted without more thorough 
     consideration of its full potential impact on public health 
     and safety.
       In floor debate, the Crowley and Coburn amendments were 
     characterized as simply providing for the personal 
     importation of pharmaceuticals for personal use, primarily 
     from Canada and Mexico. Many thought that the amendments were 
     identical in concept to Representative Gutknecht's 
     legislation that passed the House on June 29, 2000. In 
     reality, the statutory language of the amendments will result 
     in a complete reversal of current U.S. law and policy, as set 
     forth, in part, by the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) 
     of 1987, a statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the 
     Commerce Committee.
       It is important to remember why PDMA was enacted in the 
     first place. At the time, there was considerable evidence 
     that counterfeit and otherwise adulterated drugs were 
     entering U.S. commerce from abroad. After a lengthy 
     investigation, the Commerce Committee concluded that greater 
     restrictions

[[Page 22225]]

     on pharmaceutical imports into the U.S. were essential to 
     protect the safety of American patients and the integrity of 
     the U.S. drug supply. In response, a bipartisan Congress 
     enacted PDMA.
       PDMA and related restrictions in the Food Drug & Cosmetic 
     Act have served their purpose well. While estimates of 
     counterfeit or substandard drugs approach 10 or even 20 
     percent abroad, the incidence in the U.S. is negligible. Any 
     change in current U.S. law that goes beyond a very narrowly 
     drawn personal use exemption will likely expose Americans to 
     the rates of pharmaceutical counterfeiting found abroad.
       The drug importation amendments raise far more complex 
     issues than were properly discussed when the Crowley and 
     Coburn amendments were adopted on the House floor. After 
     closer examination of the amendments and despite our strong 
     desire to address the pharmaceutical access and coverage 
     issue, we do not believe such changes to PDMA represent sound 
     policy or process. Instead of taking such ill-advised 
     legislative action, it is our hope that we can work together 
     on real and workable solutions to the problem at hand without 
     exposing Americans to unnecessary risk.
       To strengthen our argument, we have enclosed (1) a booklet 
     that contains letters from 11 FDA commissioners who agree 
     that reimportation is dangerous for U.S. patients and, (2) a 
     list of counterfeit pharmaceuticals recently confiscated in 
     the U.S. Please read these items for a better understanding 
     of the danger U.S. patients will face if the amendments are 
     included in the conference report as passed by the House.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Burr.
     W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin.
     James Greenwood.
     Michael Oxley.
     Charles Pickering.
     Robert Ehrlich.

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report for H.R. 4461, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal 
Year 2001. This bill provides $78.5 billion for agriculture programs, 
including $3.6 billion for emergency spending to help farmers hurt by 
disasters and low commodity prices. In the state of Texas, farmers have 
been enduring drought conditions which make farming more difficult. 
This legislation will provide the assistance that these farmers need to 
continue to produce our nation's food supply.
  I am also pleased that this legislation includes vital funding for 
nutritional health research through the human nutrition research 
service program which is part of the Agriculture Research Service at 
the United States Department of Agriculture. This bill provides an 
additional $750,000 to provide a total of $12.9 million for the 
Children's Nutrition Research Center (CNRC) at Baylor College of 
Medicine in cooperation with Texas Children's Hospital, located in 
Houston, Texas. The CNRC is dedicated to defining the nutrient needs of 
mothers and their children in a controlled environment.
  Since its inception in November 1978, the CNRC has focused on 
critical questions relating to pregnant women and their infants. More 
than 8,500 volunteers have participated in studies to determine optimal 
prenatal development, including which nutrients positively impact 
infant health and human development. These studies have also helped to 
identify the regulatory controls of body weight and body composition 
during infancy and childhood. Studies have also shown how dietary 
habits can contribute to long-term health and the diet-related chronic 
diseases such as osteoporosis, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, 
cardiovascular disease, and cancer.
  I would like to highlight two recent discoveries made at the CNRC 
that will help children live healthier, longer lives. A recent study by 
Dr. Theresa Nicklas at the CNRC demonstrates that few teens have eating 
habits that mirror the U.S. dietary recommendations for fat and fiber. 
This study found that only one-third of the 319 teens whose diets were 
analyzed had a low-fat-high fiber diet. Clearly, parents need to know 
more about this study so they can provide healthier food for their 
children. Another CNRC study found how much calcium is needed to help 
children to grow. This calcium reference data is used by many health 
care professionals to make recommendations to parents about the 
appropriate calcium intake for their children. With more information, 
parents will have the knowledge they need to provide a healthy diet for 
their children.
  With this additional funding, the CRNC can continue its vital work to 
improve our children's health. I am committed to providing maximum 
funding for agriculture research programs and am pleased that the 
Appropriations Committee has increased funding for the human nutrition 
research. Under the guidance of Baylor College of Medicine, I am 
certain CNRC will continue to lead the way in the field on nutritional 
research.
  I also want to highlight that I am concerned about one provision in 
this bill related to reimportation of Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) approved prescription drugs for America's consumers. This 
conference report allows pharmacies and wholesalers to buy American-
made prescription drugs abroad and reimport them into the United 
States. Since many American-made drugs are sold at lower prices abroad, 
I strongly support this effort to reduce prescription drug costs for 
all Americans. However, I am disappointed to learn this bill also 
includes a provision that allows drug manufacturers to restrict access 
to their American-made products for those wholesalers and pharmacies 
which import their drugs. As a result, I am concerned that there will 
be no reimportation of prescription drugs and consumers will continue 
to pay high prices for the prescription drugs that they need.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that provides 
funding for important agriculture programs.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member support's the conference 
report for H.R. 4461, the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill. In 
particular, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee and the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for their hard work on this 
critically important bill.
  This conference report contains $3.5 billion in critical emergency 
disaster relief for agriculture producers. This, of course, is in 
addition to the $7.1 billion in economic assistance for agriculture 
producers including $5.5 billion in higher Agricultural Market 
Transition Act (AMTA) payments as part of the crop insurance reform 
legislation signed into law earlier this year on June 22, 2000.
  The emergency funds in the conference report we are considering today 
are particularly important to Nebraska farmers, because drought 
conditions in the Great Plains have substantially lowered production at 
a time when we have low commodity prices. Included in the $3.5 billion 
funding amount is $1.6 billion for crop loss disaster assistance, $490 
million for livestock assistance, $473 million for dairy assistance and 
$80 million for the Emergency Conservation Program. Also, the crop loss 
disaster assistance includes the following three areas: general crop 
assistance, quality loss assistance, and a category for severe economic 
disaster assistance. These funds should provide much needed additional 
help for Nebraska producers.
  This Member is pleased that the conference report for H.R. 4461 
provides $462,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance 
(MAFMA). The Alliance is an association of twelve leading research 
universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to develop and 
facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and processing 
technologies.
  The MAFMA awards grants for research projects on a peer review basis. 
These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to 
provide matching funds. In the first six years of funding, MAFMA has 
directed $2,142,317 toward a research competition at the 12 
universities. Projects must receive matching funds. Over the first six 
years, matching funds of $2,666,129 plus in-kind contributions of 
$625,407 were received for MAFMA funded projects from 105 companies or 
organizations. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful 
the Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing 
and processing industries.
  Mr. Speaker, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. 
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to link between 
universities and industries for the development of competitive food 
manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure 
that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive in a 
increasingly competitive global economy.
  This Member is also pleased that the conference report includes 
$200,000 to fund the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This project is in its fourth year and 
has assisted numerous states and cities in developing drought plans and 
developing drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented 
levels of drought in several parts of our country, this effort is 
obviously important.
  As the drought continues, the NDMC will play an increasingly 
important role in helping people and institutions develop and implement 
measures to reduce societal vulnerability to this danger. Most of the 
NDMC's services are increasing world-wide demands for U.S. exports of 
intermediate and consumer good exports. In order to meet these changing 
world-wide demands, agricultural research must also adapt to provide 
more emphasis on adding value to our basic farm commodities before 
marketing. The Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance can provide 
the necessary

[[Page 22226]]

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

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

  Also, this Member is pleased that the conference report for H.R. 4461 
includes $100 million to cover any defaults for the Section 538, a 
rural rental multi-family housing loan guarantee program initiated by 
legislation written by this Member. The program provides a Federal 
guarantee on loans made to eligible persons by private lenders. 
Developers will bring ten percent of the cost of the project to the 
table, and private lenders will make loans for the balance. The lenders 
will be given a 100 percent Federal guarantee on the loans they make. 
Unlike the current Section 515 Direct Loan Program, where the full 
costs are borne by the Federal Government, the only costs to the 
Federal Government under the Section 538 Guarantee Program will be for 
administrative costs and potential defaults.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member especially appreciates the Conference 
Committee's support for the Department of Agriculture's 502 very 
successful and rapidly expanding Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program 
with a $3.7 billion loan authorization support. The program, also 
initiated by legislation authored by this Member, has been very 
effective in rural communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved 
lenders to eligible income households in small communities of up to 
20,000 residents in non-metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The 
program provides guarantees for 30 year fixed-rate mortgages for the 
purchase of an existing home or the construction of a new home.
  Additionally, this Member supports the provision allowing for the 
reimportation of prescription drugs. I have long been a supporter of 
legislation that would inject competition into the prescription drug 
market and believe that this language is an important first step in 
providing my constituents with the relief they seek in their 
prescription drug prices. There has been massive international cost-
shifting by pharmaceutical companies onto the backs of the American 
consumer. It is not reasonable that the same Federal Drug 
Administration (FDA)-approved drug, produced by the same drug company, 
should cost 30 percent, 40 percent, 60 percent or even 80 percent less 
in foreign countries than it costs American consumers. This legislative 
initiative, with consumer safety an important consideration, 
undoubtedly will need refinement before the lengthy FDA regulatory 
process is completed to implement these provisions, but this is an 
important and necessary change.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
the Agriculture appropriations conference report.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the progress we have made 
this year in our effort to lift unilateral food and medicine sanctions. 
Title IX of the Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Conference 
Report, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, will 
open up significant new export markets for American farmers. This 
provision is the result of hard work by many Members and the unfailing 
support of a broad coalition that refused to let this issue fade into 
obscurity in the waning days of this session.
  The overall purpose of this title is unmistakable--unilateral food 
and medicine sanctions are eliminated and new procedures are 
established for the future consideration of such sanctions. As the 
author of this provision, I would like to briefly outline Congressional 
intent, to ensure that agencies charged with implementing this 
legislation fully appreciate the expectations of the Agriculture 
Appropriations conferees.
  In drafting this provision, it was not our intention to derogate from 
current law or the flexibility provided for in present regulations 
which do permit limited exports to some unilaterally sanctioned states. 
Similarly, the intent of conferees is to expand export opportunities 
for food and medicine beyond that currently provided for in law or 
regulations. We expect that regulations implementing this provision 
will liberalize the current administrative procedures for the export of 
food and medicine.
  A section by section explanation follows:
     Section 901--Title
       This section contains the title of the Act.
     Section 902--Definitions
       Definitions in the section are broadly drawn to allow 
     maximum benefit to exporters of agricultural commodities and 
     medicine and medical products. Non-food commodities are 
     included in the definition of ``agricultural commodities'' 
     and as Section 775 further clarifies, for purposes of 
     administering Title IX of this Act, the term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' shall also include fertilizer and organic 
     fertilizer. ``Medical device'' and ``medicine'' should be 
     interpreted reasonably to mean all products commonly 
     understood to be within these categories, as explicitly 
     recognized by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and 
     including products such as crutches, bandages and other 
     medical supplies.
     Section 903--Restriction
       This section prohibits the President from imposing 
     unilateral agricultural or medical sanctions without the 
     concurrence of Congress in the form of a joint resolution. 
     The President shall terminate any unilateral agricultural and 
     medical sanction that is in effect as of the date of 
     enactment, though Section 911 provides a 120 day waiting 
     period to allow the implementation of appropriate 
     regulations.
     Section 904--Exceptions
       This section provides a number of exceptions to Section 903 
     to ensure that the Administration has sufficient flexibility 
     to impose or continue to impose sanctions in unusual 
     instances. While seven particular exceptions are provided, 
     they are narrowly drawn, in recognition of the conferees' 
     expectation that food and medicine sanctions should only be 
     used in extraordinary circumstances. Further, these 
     exceptions should not be used to impose sanctions 
     permanently, consistent with Section 905. Conferees expect 
     that the President will abide by the spirit of the language 
     and submit for Congressional review all sanctions to be 
     imposed under this section, unless extraordinary 
     circumstances require extremely timely action.
     Section 905--Termination of Sanctions
       This section provides for a sunset of any food or medicine 
     sanctions imposed under Section 903, not later than 2 years 
     after the date the sanction become effective. Sanctions may 
     be maintained only if the President recommends to Congress a 
     continuation of not more than 2 years, and a joint resolution 
     is enacted in support of this recommendation.
     Section 906--State Sponsors of International Terrorism
       This section requires licenses for the export of 
     agricultural commodities, medicine or medical devices to Cuba 
     or to the government of a country that has been determined to 
     be a state sponsor of international terrorism, or any other 
     entity in such country. These licenses shall be provided for 
     a period of not less than 12 months and shall be no more 
     restrictive than license exceptions administered by the 
     Department of Commerce or general licenses administered by 
     the Department of Treasury. While this section provides the 
     Administration with flexibility to determine licensing 
     requirements, it is the expectation of conferees that 
     presumption in favor of sales will fall on the side of 
     exporters, consistent with the title of the act, to support 
     enhanced exports. Consistent with this expectation, it is the 
     understanding of the author that the Department of Commerce 
     would be the lead agency for all exports and related 
     transactions under this title, all of which would be subject 
     to a general licensing arrangement. In the case of exports to 
     Cuba, it is the understanding of author that current 
     restrictions on shipping to Cuba will continue to be waived 
     for licensed exports. Exports to the Government of Syria and 
     the Government of North Korea are expected from the licensing 
     requirements of this section, and to the extent a private 
     sector emerges in either country, these entities should 
     receive the same treatment.
       The section also requires that procedures be in place to 
     deny exports to any entity within such country promoting 
     international terrorism. This language is only intended to 
     give the Administration narrow discretion in the granting of 
     licenses for exports to specific sub-entities that are 
     directly involved in the promotion of terrorism.
       Finally, the section requires quarterly and biennial 
     reports on licensing activities to determine the 
     effectiveness of licensing arrangements.

[[Page 22227]]


     Section 907--Congressional Procedures
       This section requires that a report submitted by the 
     President under Section 903 or 905 shall be submitted to the 
     appropriate committee or committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate. A joint resolution in support 
     of this report may not be reported before the eighth session 
     day of Congress after the introduction of the joint 
     resolution.
     Section 908--Prohibition on United States Assistance and 
         Financing
       Section 908(a)(1) prohibits the use of United States 
     government assistance and financing for exports to Cuba. 
     However, consistent with the overall intent of the measure, 
     this prohibition is not intended to modify any provision of 
     law relating to assistance to Cuba. The provision also 
     restricts the use of government assistance for commercial 
     exports to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan, unless the 
     President waives the restrictions for national security or 
     humanitarian reasons. In recent months, the Administration 
     has taken several steps to liberalize these and other 
     restrictions on agricultural trade with Iran, Libya, North 
     Korea, and Sudan. As such, it will be in the best interest of 
     U.S. agricultural producers and our balance of trade if the 
     President uses the waiver authority in subsection (a)(3) to 
     promptly waive these restrictions before the current 
     sanctions are lifted 120 days after enactment of this bill. 
     If the President's waiver authority is not so promptly 
     exercised, the restrictions in subsection (a)(1) could act to 
     restrict exports of agricultural commodities, medicines, and 
     medical devices to these countries more than under current 
     law. This is certainly not the intent of this legislation.
       Specifically with regard to Cuba, subsection (b) of section 
     908 prohibits the financing of U.S. agricultural exports to 
     Cuba by any United States person. However, in order to 
     accommodate sales of agricultural commodities to Cuba, 
     subsection (b) specifically authorizes Cuban buyers to pay 
     U.S. sellers by cash in advance, or by utilizing financing 
     through third country financial institutions.
       While they cannot extend financing to Cuban buyers, U.S. 
     financial institutions are specifically authorized to confirm 
     or advise letters of credit related to the sale that are 
     issued by third country financial institutions. Under this 
     procedure, third country financial institutions can assume 
     the Cuban risk associated with these transactions and issue 
     letters of credit free of Cuban risk to be confirmed by U.S. 
     banks. The provision of such a ``firewall'' against 
     sanctioned country risk is consistent with the role played by 
     third country banks in transactions with other countries 
     subject to U.S. sanctions.
       U.S. financial institutions may act as exporters' 
     collection and payment agents, confirm the third country 
     letters of credit, and guarantee payment to the U.S. 
     exporter. The provision of such export-related financial 
     services by U.S. financial institutions (commercial banks, 
     cooperatives, and others) will allow U.S. farmers, their 
     cooperatives, and exporters to be assured that they will be 
     paid for exported commodities.
       Subsection (b)(3) of section 908 requires the President to 
     issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this 
     section. In addition to waiving the restrictions on 
     assistance as appropriate under subsection (a)(3), these 
     regulations need to facilitate the export of agricultural 
     commodities, medicine, and medical devices. In particular, 
     the regulations need to accommodate these specifically 
     authorized exports by waiving the restrictions with respect 
     to vessels engaged in trade with Cuba found at 31 C.F.R. 
     515.207.
     Section 909--Prohibition on Additional Imports from Cuba
       Section 909 reiterates 31 C.F.R. 515.204 prohibiting from 
     entry into the United States any merchandise that is of Cuban 
     origin, has been transported through Cuba, or is derived from 
     any article produced in Cuba.
     Section 910--Requirements Relating to Certain Travel-Related 
         Transactions With Cuba
       This section requires the Secretary of Treasury to 
     promulgate regulations to authorize travel to, from, or 
     within Cuba for the commercial export sale of agricultural 
     commodities. Aside from this expansion in permissible travel 
     transactions, tourist activities in Cuba are not authorized.
     Section 911--Effective Date
       This title shall take effect on the date of enactment and 
     apply thereafter in any fiscal year. Unilateral agricultural 
     or medical sanctions in effect as of the date of enactment 
     shall be lifted 120 days after enactment.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the FY 01 Department 
of Defense bill. Passage of this legislation is vital to our military 
readiness and security. I want to extend my utmost appreciation to our 
Chairman for his work on this legislation and to the staff that 
contributed countless hours to ensure its completion. In addition to 
the crucial ongoing military operations included in this bill, there is 
a provision that will significantly aid the Moab, Utah community in my 
district of southeastern Utah.
  We have our colleagues speak on this provision and I just want to add 
my support to its inclusion. For years, the Grand County Council and 
the people of Moab, Utah have been working to get the federal 
government to clean up the ten and a half million ton pile of uranium 
mill tailings that was the byproduct of our extensive military buildup 
during the Cold War.
  With the help of many of our colleagues from downstream states, 
including members of this Committee such as Jim Hansen, Duncan Hunter, 
and Bob Stump, we were able to include language to ensure that clean up 
and removal of this pile will begin and be completed in a timely, safe 
and scientific manner. This committee has done an excellent job in 
addressing concerns of the many stakeholders and I know that my 
constituents are anxious to see the long awaited clean up begin.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Spence for his work and I wish I had the 
opportunity to personally thank Mr. Bateman. Utah shall forever be 
indebted to the gentleman from Virginia for his commitment to help 
preserve, protect and clean up one of our most beautiful areas of the 
country.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss for a moment the 
provisions in the Conference Report on the Agriculture Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 that deal with ``drug reimportation.''
  First and foremost, I want the record to reflect that I, like my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support a comprehensive plan to 
provide prescription medicines at more affordable prices to our senior 
citizens under Medicare. When Medicare was first created in 1965, 
prescription medicines were not a major part of our health care 
delivery system. Thanks to all the incredible medical breakthroughs 
over the past decades since the inception of the Medicare program, we 
now have medicines that can successfully treat thousands of the most 
serious illnesses and provide relief to millions of citizens suffering 
from illness. It is time to modernize Medicare to reflect the fact that 
prescription medicines are a major part of health care for all of our 
citizens, especially older men and women.
  This hastily written legislation that will open our borders to 
imported drugs, however well intentioned, cannot be considered an 
adequate substitute for a comprehensive prescription drug coverage for 
our seniors under Medicare. These reimportation provisions are bad 
public policy: potentially endangering U.S. citizens by exposing them 
to ``reimported'' medicines that may be bogus or fake, outdated and 
untested. Secondly, it should be clear that nothing in these provisions 
change existing patent laws. In fact, the United States led the 
negotiations of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual 
Property Rights (TRIPs), which gives a patent owner of a product 
exclusive rights to make, use or import a patented product. No one else 
can do so without permission for the term of the patent and nothing in 
this bill should be construed otherwise.
  Most important, I remain particularly concerned that this legislation 
might very well undermine our nation's Food and Drug Administration 
``gold standard'' for ensuring the quality and safety of all medicines 
used by U.S. citizens and other consumers around the world.
  In that respect, I am pleased by the fact that the FDA must overcome 
necessary safety hurdles before this legislation is implemented. For 
instance, the drug reimportation provisions of this conference report, 
specifically section 745, will not go into effect until two important 
actions are taken. First, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
must demonstrate to the Congress that loosening current regulation of 
reimportation of prescription drugs will not place American consumers 
at risk. I want to emphasize that the demonstration of safety by the 
Secretary should be no ``pro forma'' paper exercise, but a real 
showing, with facts and figures, in the form of a report to Congress, 
that the kind of importation envisioned by these provisions is safe for 
consumers. If the Secretary cannot make this demonstration, these 
provisions cannot be implemented. Second, the Secretary must also 
demonstrate that individual consumers will realize a significant cost 
reduction from this legislation, making their drug purchases 
significantly more affordable for them, before it can be implemented.
  Now that Congress has acted, it is up to the FDA and the next 
Administration to ensure this policy can save consumers money, without 
threatening the world's highest standard of safety of America's 
medicines for our consumers.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those who 
will be speaking about this rule and the Agriculture Appropriations 
bill. But unfortunately there will be many voices that are not heard 
today--the voices of the 31 million Americans who are threatened by 
hunger even in the midst of our unprecedented prosperity.
  I wish I did not have to bother my colleagues by talking about hunger 
again. I wish that I could be here announcing that we had

[[Page 22228]]

mustered the political and spiritual will and finally eradicated 
hunger. I wish that we could turn our collective attention to other 
pressing problems. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to stand on this 
floor yet again to urge this body to do better on issues of hunger.
  That said, I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Young, 
Skeen, Obey, Walsh, DeLauro and Hinchey for their work in the 
conference committee to make sure that the hungry were not forgotten. 
Specifically, they worked to include provisions of the Hunger Relief 
Act in this bill. I especially want to thank Ranking Member Kaptur and 
Representative Emerson for their efforts on behalf of the hungry.
  It is a triumph that food stamp recipients will now be able to own a 
reliable car and pay high shelter costs. I want to particularly commend 
the coalition of anti-hunger groups that came together in gathering 
support for this bill--Bread For the World, RESULTS, FRAC, America's 
Second Harvest, the Food Policy Working Group, the National Immigration 
Law Center and the other 1,400 groups that endorsed the Hunger Relief 
Act. I especially want to thank Lynette Engelhardt Stott and Barbara 
Howell of Bread For the World, Ellen Teller and Ellen Vollinger of FRAC 
and Derek Miller of RESULTS for their tireless efforts in bringing us 
to this point.
  While I am happy that these provisions are included, I am 
disappointed that we did not include the other titles of the bill that 
would have restored food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants and 
provided additional resources for our country's food banks through the 
TEFAP program. TEFAP provides the network of feeding programs around 
the nation with a reliable supply of nutritious commodities. It also 
directly benefits our farmers and food processors by providing them 
with an additional market for their products. I am still hopeful that 
those items will be included in our final omnibus bill.
  This bill also provides $34.1 billion for domestic nutrition programs 
including food stamps, the school lunch and breakfast programs, WIC, 
Meals on Wheels and other commodity assistance programs. This is $2 
billion less than the president requested and almost $1 billion less 
than what we provided last year. While most of that savings is due to a 
drop in food stamp participation, that does not mean that there has 
been a corresponding drop in hunger and food insecurity.
  Additionally, the underlying bill provides almost $1 billion in 
humanitarian food aid for those in need overseas. While this equals the 
request and exceeds last year's total, it is still woefully inadequate 
in meeting the needs of the hungry around the world. I am proud that 
the United States, through the Food for Peace Program, was able to help 
avert famine in Ethiopia. I just visited the Horn of Africa last month 
and was glad I did not see as many children starving as would have 
without our timely assistance. I am also pleased to report that our 
food aid has prevented more people from dying of famine in North Korea 
and that Japan and South Korea are finally acting to assist their 
neighbor in need.
  As we all know, this measure also provides for the sale of food and 
medicine to Cuba and other rogue nations. I am thrilled that Congress 
is reaffirming the belief that food should never be used as a weapon. 
President Reagan said it best, ``a hungry child knows no politics.'' We 
should continue to uphold that principle and this provision moves us 
closer to that goal.
  The other controversial measure in this bill involves the 
reimportation of prescription drugs. Many of my colleagues will address 
our sides' specific concerns with this provision. But allow me to 
conclude with a couple of stories that I have shared before but that 
illustrate the importance of this issue and all that I have said today.
  A few months ago, I met Darryl and Martha Wagner in Appalachian Ohio. 
They depend on Social Security and retirement for their meager $1,000 
per month. She has cancer and her treatment and medication consume much 
of their income. Her doctor was concerned about whether she was getting 
enough to eat. By the time a food pantry outreach worker reached them, 
neither had eaten anything for three days. They had tried to do 
everything by the book and they were still hungry.
  Another woman from southeastern Ohio, Priscilla Stevens, has lupus 
and MS and is required to take 26 medications every day. She receives 
only $258 each month and relies on Medicaid for her very life. I never 
got a chance to meet Tom Nelson in West Virginia. He died from a heart 
attack last year. You see, he had high blood pressure and needed 
medication to keep it under control. He had to choose between filling 
his refrigerator and filling his prescription. Sadly, he made the wrong 
choice when he decided to skip his drugs and eat instead.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have to keep talking about issues of 
hunger. This bill makes some strides toward fighting hunger. But we 
could do so much more, especially now. I look forward to the day when 
Congress makes ending hunger a top priority.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the reimportation 
provisions of the FY 2001 agriculture appropriations legislation that 
is before the House today. In recent weeks, these provisions have been 
the subject of considerable controversy: Some Members have asserted 
that allowing wholesalers to reimport FDA-approved pharmaceuticals will 
essentially solve the problem of overpricing, while others say the 
practice will expose U.S. consumers to unsafe products. Some argue that 
the legislation is so riddled with loopholes as to be useless, while 
others believe the final compromise is workable.
  The bill is an attempt to address obscenely high drug prices. But it 
is far too limited in its approach, because it assumes that wholesalers 
reimporting prescription drugs will do so at prices that are affordable 
for the 15 million seniors and disabled Americans who do not have any 
form of insurance to cover the cost of their medications.
  This is a flawed assumption. There is no guarantee that the 
``middlemen'' in this bill will actually pass along substantial drug 
discounts to consumers who need them. And the bill's loopholes will 
allow pharmaceutical companies to keep drug prices inflated through 
restrictive contracts and control of FDA-required labels.
  What seniors clearly need above all else is a Medicare drug benefit. 
Democrats support legislation, H.R. 4770, to guarantee comprehensive 
drug coverage to any senior who wants to sign up. It guarantees that 
all prescriptions written by any qualified physician can be filled at 
any pharmacy of the beneficiary's choice at a price that is affordable. 
We can pass such a bill this year. It is a travesty that the Republican 
leadership refuses to do so.
  In fact, Republicans have gone to enormous lengths to block efforts 
to enact a Medicare drug benefit. Instead, they push a temporary state 
program that would help only the poorest, and private ``drug-only'' 
plans that insurers say they will never sell to seniors.
  Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry and its phony front groups are 
spending millions to try to ensure that no legislation providing 
affordable prescription drugs to seniors is seriously considered. 
Regrettably, these efforts have served to seriously weaken the 
reimportation provisions in H.R. 4461 that we are voting on today.
  If all we're going to accomplish is a relaxation of reimportation 
restrictions, there is still a better solution than the one before us 
today. I introduced last month, the Medicare Prescription Drug Internet 
Access Act of 2000 (H.R. 5142). It would allow beneficiaries to 
purchase safe, FDA-approved medications from U.S. and international 
suppliers at the lowest possible prices through an Internet site 
administered by Medicare. This means that Medicare beneficiaries would 
have guaranteed access to lower drug prices from a safe, certified-
reliable source.
  Here's how it works: All a beneficiary, doctor, or a pharmacy serving 
a beneficiary would need to do is click on Medicare's home page and 
type in a prescription. The result would be a display of the five 
lowest prices for the medicine in question and its availability from 
domestic and international suppliers. Beneficiaries would choose one 
and submit their prescription to the Internet pharmacy, receiving their 
medicine at the price selected through the mail, by express delivery, 
or at their local retail pharmacy.
  The only medicine that Internet pharmacies contracting with Medicare 
would be able to sell is FDA-approved medicine manufactured in FDA-
approved facilities. Internet pharmacies, under this bill, would only 
be able to import prescription medicine from approved companies that 
have been inspected by the FDA.
  As an added precaution, Internet pharmacies would be required to 
display a Medicare Seal of Approval, which serves to authenticate the 
website. The seal would directly link to a secure webpage operated by 
the Medicare contractor to verify the Internet pharmacy's legitimacy.
  These precautions would address problems that exist today with phony 
websites pawning counterfeit medicine to unsuspecting people. This bill 
addresses the issue of so-called ``rogue'' websites. It establishes a 
uniform set of criteria to which contracting Internet pharmacies must 
adhere or face criminal and financial consequences. Among other 
criteria, Internet pharmacies would have to be licensed in all 50 
states as a pharmacy, fully comply with State and Federal laws, and 
only dispense medicine with a valid prescription through a licensed 
practitioner.

[[Page 22229]]

  The bill I have just described will not be enacted this year. Nor is 
it a full-blown solution for the problems created by eroding insurance 
coverage for prescription drugs and accelerating drug price increases. 
Again, revising reimportation rules is one way to make prescription 
drugs more widely available at affordable prices. But today's bill 
falls far short of what is necessary to attain that goal. And, it 
ignores the real need of America's seniors--a Medicare drug benefit 
that is available and affordable for all.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill, but want to specifically address the 
provisions regarding reimportation of prescription drugs, section 745 
and 746. As a Member of the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction 
over this issue, I am glad two provisions were included to ensure the 
safety of consumers, and that savings are passed along to customers.
  First, we must be sure that nothing in these provisions compromises 
the health or safety or the American public in any way. Section 745 
requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to demonstrate in a 
written report to Congress that implementation of the amendment will 
pose no risk to the public, before the legislation can become 
effective. This demonstration requirement is no paper tiger. We expect 
the Secretary to make detailed factual findings and to submit a report 
supporting the demonstration, if indeed the Secretary can make it at 
all. The demonstration must be based on a detailed explanation that the 
Food and Drug Administration has the resources to enforce all of the 
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act against each 
and every one of these drug products as they arrive at our borders. If 
FDA cannot do this, the demonstration cannot be made, and these 
provisions cannot be implemented.
  Through the hard work of the House Commerce Committee in previous 
Congresses, we have established a precedent for ensuring that Americans 
have access to safe and effective prescription drugs. Any attempt to 
under-mine this system by lowering these standards is not acceptable.
  Second, this legislation sets a condition that before it is 
implemented, the Secretary must demonstrate that it will result in a 
cost reduction to American consumers. If the result of reimportation 
profits only middlemen, and not individual consumers, we will have done 
little to extend affordable prescriptions to our constituents.
  In my view, these two determinations are bare minimum essentials that 
must be in place before this legislation is implemented. We must be 
vigilant in ensuring that American consumers are not threatened or put 
at risk in any way by the prescription drugs that come into this 
country under these provisions.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report 
on the Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001. I would 
like to commend the conferees and all the appropriators for their hard 
work on this bill, and to thank them for funding several important 
projects in my district.
  This legislation recognizes the threat bovine tuberculosis poses to 
Michigan and provides funds to begin eradicating the disease in 
Michigan and throughout the country. Bovine tuberculosis is wreaking 
havoc on dairy and beef cattle in my state. Already, 10 Michigan herds 
have tested positive for the disease as have several deer and other 
animals. To complicate matters, USDA responded by downgrading 
Michigan's bovine TB status. Because of this downgrade, Michigan's 
economy is expected to lose $156 million during the next ten years.
  While much work remains to be done, I am encouraged by the funding 
provided in this legislation to combat bovine TB in Michigan. It is my 
hope that this effort will begin the process of restoring Michigan to 
bovine TB-free status. I am committed to helping the farmers of my 
district and I hope that this research and reimbursement funding will 
bring them much-needed relief.
  Secondly, I support this legislation because it provides funding for 
the Forestry Incentives Program. While this earmark is small, equaling 
the spending for Fiscal Year 2000, the Administration had not requested 
funds in its Fiscal Year 2001 budget nor had the House appropriated 
funds in its Agriculture spending bill. The Forestry Incentives Program 
provides cost-share funds to private landowners for tree planting and 
timber stand improvement. Through these efforts, we are able to keep 
our forests healthy and sustainable.
  Finally, I am pleased that the conferees retained a portion of the 
important increase in funding to the USDA senior meal reimbursements 
that had been added by the Stupak-Boehlert amendment to the House 
Agriculture appropriations bill. Our amendment provided $160 million 
for USDA's Nutrition Program for the Elderly, a $20 million increase 
over the amount provided in the bill. Senior meal providers and the 
countless seniors that depend on senior meals will be greatly 
benefitted by the $10 million increase that the conferees retained. 
This increase will halt the steady decline of the USDA meal 
reimbursements that have gone down to their current rate of $.54 per 
meal for fiscal year 2000, a drop of eight cents since 1993.
  The increase in USDA reimbursements is essential, and will benefit 
every senior meal provider in every town, city and state in the form of 
more money for each meal provided. I urge the House to continue in the 
future the effort to increase this crucial aid to senior meal 
providers. I am also submitting for the record letters in support of 
the increase in funding from the National Association of Nutrition and 
Aging Services Programs, the Meals on Wheels Association of America, 
and the Senior Citizens League. These organizations were invaluable in 
moving this issue forward. I would also like to thank National Council 
of Senior Citizens and the National Association of State Units on Aging 
for their work on promoting our amendment.
  I submit the following letters into the Record.

                                                   Meals On Wheels


                                       Association of America,

                                 Alexandria, VA, October 11, 2000.
     Hon. Bart Stupak,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Stupak: On behalf of the Meals On 
     Wheels Association of America's (MOWAA) nearly 900 member 
     programs nationwide and the hundreds of thousands of older 
     Americans whom they serve, I want to thank and commend you 
     and Representative Sherwood Boehlert for sponsoring an 
     amendment to H.R. 4461, the Department of Agriculture 
     Appropriations bill, to provide an additional $20 million in 
     funding for the Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE). We 
     were delighted when the House passed your amendment, and we 
     are pleased that the Conferees agreed to include $10 million 
     of that increase in the final Conference bill.
       As you are aware, Congress appropriated $150 million for 
     the program in fiscal year 1996, but the appropriation was 
     reduced by $10 million to $140 million in FY 1997, and it has 
     remained at that level for several fiscal years. The 
     Conferees' actions, when approved by both chambers, will 
     bring funding for the program back to the FY 1996 level.
       Few programs can boast the importance to the elderly, as 
     well as the overwhelming success, that the Elderly Nutrition 
     Program can. Senior nutrition programs have become the 
     lifeline for millions of older Americans. There are few 
     communities within the country where a senior nutrition 
     program does not exist. These meal programs are as diverse as 
     the communities in which they are located and the individuals 
     they serve. At the same time, they share a common commitment 
     to serving the nutritional needs of a growing number of older 
     Americans. They also share a common problem--extremely 
     limited resources. The funds and commodities furnished 
     through the Department of Agriculture's NPE are vital to 
     these programs. The $10 million increase over current levels 
     is critically important in enabling these programs to 
     continue serving the needs of our frailest and neediest 
     citizens.
       As you are aware, USDA Nutrition Program for the Elderly 
     funds are provided to meal programs according to a per meal 
     reimbursement rate. The rate has dropped over the past years 
     from $.6206 in FY 1993 to $.5404 in the current fiscal year. 
     Without a substantial increase in the appropriation level, 
     the rate can be expected to continue to drop.
       To put the issue in perspective, let me furnish an example 
     from one rural meal program. A rural program that served 
     225,000 meals annually, and which received 20 percent of its 
     budget from USDA funds, lost funding for 2,000 meals as a 
     result of the per meal reimbursement reduction of a mere 
     $.0007 in one fiscal year (from $.5864 in FY 1996 to $.5857 
     in FY 1997). Those 2,000 meals, of course, represent critical 
     and life-sustaining nutrition for at-risk seniors. And the 
     experience of that one meal program was multiplied thousands 
     of times over across the nation. You can imagine the impact 
     that the $.0802 reduction from FY 1993 to FY 2000 has had on 
     meal programs--and needy, hungry seniors--throughout the 
     country.
       Because America's elderly population continues to be 
     fastest growing segment of the population, demands on 
     nutrition programs for the elderly are increasing. The most 
     comprehensive national study to be conducted in recent years 
     found that 41 percent of home-delivered meal programs had 
     waiting lists. The relatively small investment of an 
     additional $10 million that your amendment made possible will 
     pay substantial dividends in helping target malnutrition and 
     isolation in the elderly, improving their nutritional and 
     health status and enabling many seniors to stay in their 
     homes.
       The Meals On Wheels Association of America urges the full 
     House to approve conference bill, which will increase funding 
     for the USDA Nutrition Program for the Elderly

[[Page 22230]]

     by $10 million over the FY 2000 level. We thank you again on 
     behalf of all our member programs and the many needy seniors 
     for whom this increase will mean a hot, nutritious meal, 
     perhaps the only food of the day.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Margot L. Clark,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       Senior Citizens League,

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

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

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

                             [Roll No. 525]

                               YEAS--340

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--75

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeMint

[[Page 22231]]


     Dingell
     Doggett
     Filner
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Goss
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Markey
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Stark
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Upton
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

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

                              {time}  1652

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

                          ____________________

                              {time}  1700