[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12967-13021]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 12967]]

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

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

                              {time}  1135


                     In the Committee of the Whole

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

[[Page 12968]]




                        buildings and facilities

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

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

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

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 limitation of administrative expenses

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

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

[[Page 12969]]

       Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to 
     transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of 
     Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that 
     are a result of information requested for the appropriations 
     hearing process.
       Sec. 720. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire 
     new information technology systems or significant upgrades, 
     as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, 
     without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the 
     concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
     Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to 
     the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress.
       Sec. 721. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or 
     provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2002, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2) 
     eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases 
     funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates 
     an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or 
     activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions 
     or activities presently performed by Federal employees; 
     unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by 
     previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this 
     Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in 
     fiscal year 2002, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a 
     change in existing programs, activities, or projects as 
     approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations 
     of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of 
     such reprogramming of funds.
       (c) The Secretary of Agriculture shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 
     before implementing a program or activity not carried out 
     during the previous fiscal year unless the program or 
     activity is funded by this Act or specifically funded by any 
     other Act.
       Sec. 722. With the exception of funds needed to administer 
     and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations 
     incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other 
     Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel 
     to carry out section 793 of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for 
     Rural America (7 U.S.C. 2204f).
       Sec. 723. With the exception of funds needed to administer 
     and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations 
     incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other 
     Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel 
     to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105-
     185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems 
     (7 U.S.C. 7621).
       Sec. 724. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option 
     program, as authorized by section 1240M of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb).
       Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any 
     other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as 
     part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of 
     the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the 
     Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from 
     the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not 
     been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget 
     unless such Budget submission identifies which additional 
     spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees 
     proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening 
     of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2003 
     appropriations Act.
       Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or 
     orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation 
     for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted 
     on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan.
       Sec. 727. None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to close or relocate a state Rural 
     Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and 
     enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
       Sec. 728. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or 
     made available by this Act, $4,000,000 is appropriated for 
     the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland 
     Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center.
       Sec. 729. Hereafter, refunds or rebates received on an on-
     going basis from a credit card services provider under the 
     Department of Agriculture's charge card programs may be 
     deposited to and retained without fiscal year limitation in 
     the Departmental Working Capital Fund established under 7 
     U.S.C. 2235 and used to fund management initiatives of 
     general benefit to the Department of Agriculture bureaus and 
     offices as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture or the 
     Secretary's designee.
       Sec. 730. Notwithstanding section 412 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736f) 
     any balances available to carry out title III of such Act as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act, and any recoveries and 
     reimbursements that become available to carry out title III 
     of such Act, may be used to carry out title II of such Act.
       Sec. 731. Section 375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j(e)(6)(B)) is amended by 
     striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$26,000,000''.
       Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to issue a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking, to promulgate a proposed rule, or to 
     otherwise change or modify the definition of ``animal'' in 
     existing regulations pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act.
       Sec. 733. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     City of Cabot, Arkansas, and the City of Coachella, 
     California, shall be eligible for loans and grants provided 
     through the Rural Community Advancement Program.
       Sec. 734. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall consider the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, as 
     meeting the requirements of a rural area in section 520 of 
     the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490).
       Sec. 735. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     City of Saint Joseph, Missouri, shall be eligible for grants 
     and loans administered by the rural development mission areas 
     of the Department of Agriculture.
       Sec. 736. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall consider the City of 
     Hollister, California, as meeting the requirements of a rural 
     area for the purposes of housing programs in the rural 
     development mission areas of the Department of Agriculture.
       Sec. 737. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to maintain, modify, or 
     implement any assessment against agricultural producers as 
     part of a commodity promotion, research, and consumer 
     information order, known as a check-off program, that has not 
     been approved by the affected producers in accordance with 
     the statutory requirements applicable to the order.
       Sec. 738. None of the funds made available to the Food and 
     Drug Administration by this Act shall be used to close or 
     relocate, or to plan to close or relocate, the Food and Drug 
     Administration Division of Drug Analysis (recently renamed 
     the Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis) in St. Louis, 
     Missouri, except that funds could be used to plan a possible 
     relocation of this Division within the city limits of St. 
     Louis, Missouri.
       Sec. 739. None of the funds made available to the Food and 
     Drug Administration by this Act shall be used to reduce the 
     Detroit, Michigan, Food and Drug Administration District 
     Office below the operating and full-time equivalent staffing 
     level of July 31, 2000; or to change the Detroit District 
     Office to a station, residence post or similarly modified 
     office; or to reassign residence posts assigned to the 
     Detroit Office: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to Food and Drug Administration field laboratory facilities 
     or operations currently located in Detroit, Michigan, except 
     that field laboratory personnel shall be assigned to 
     locations in the general vicinity of Detroit, Michigan, 
     pursuant to cooperative agreements between the Food and Drug 
     Administration and other laboratory facilities associated 
     with the State of Michigan.


               market loss assistance for apple producers

       Sec. 740. (a) Assistance Available.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall use $150,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to make payments as soon as possible after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act to apple producers to 
     provide relief for the loss of markets for their 2000 crop.
       (b) Payment Basis.--The amount of the payment to a producer 
     under subsection (a) shall be made on a per pound basis equal 
     to each qualifying producer's 2000 production of apples, 
     except that the Secretary shall not

[[Page 12970]]

     make payments for that amount of a particular farm's apple 
     production that is in excess of 20,000,000 pounds.
       (c) Duplicative Payments.--A producer shall be ineligible 
     for payments under this section with respect to a market loss 
     for apples to the extent of that amount that the producer 
     received as compensation or assistance for the same loss 
     under any other Federal program, other than under the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (d) Other Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall not 
     establish any terms or conditions for producer eligibility, 
     such as limits based upon gross income, other than those 
     specified in this section.
       (e) Applicability.--This section applies only with respect 
     to the 2000 crop of apples and producers of that crop.

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


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw the amendment after a brief 
discussion due to an understanding with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) to look for funds for the celebration of the centennial 
anniversary of National 4-H as we move toward conference.
  Also, I do this out of respect for the National 4-H leadership that 
has committed not to have those funds come at the expense of existing 
extension programs which are already stretched.

                              {time}  1145

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


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I am 
pleased to rise and join the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton), a member of the authorizing committee, the Committee on 
Agriculture, in offering this amendment to ensure continued funding to 
reduce the burden of hunger for HIV-AIDS patients and children orphaned 
by AIDS in the developing world.
  I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for her 
leadership on this issue. She worked with us on this issue in the 
Committee on Agriculture as well as a member of the Congressional HIV 
Task Force. She developed this proposal, and her leadership has been 
very important, because this amendment affects so many millions of 
families worldwide.

[[Page 12971]]

  I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and 
the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for their 
leadership on the subcommittee and their support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement for the record, but I just 
want to make two quick points. Poor nutrition accelerates the 
progression of HIV to AIDS, and an adequate food supply is critical to 
any prevention and care strategy. When a family member becomes infected 
with HIV, household food production is undermined, limited financial 
resources are used for medical costs rather than crop production, and 
family members are forced to care for the sick, rather than work in the 
fields.
  Starting last year, $25 million was provided through the Food for 
Peace program to reduce the burden of hunger for families impacted by 
AIDS through agricultural improvement, maternal and child health 
programs and direct distribution of food commodities. Today's amendment 
will continue this vital funding. I wish that we could have the number 
be higher in the future, but the $25 million called for here is a very, 
very important addition.
  I thank my colleagues for their support of this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the real author of this amendment, and 
commend her for her tremendous leadership.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California for her leadership on this and also her continuous and long-
standing leadership in fighting AIDS.
  This is a unique opportunity to do good while doing well. The Food 
for Peace program allows us to make contributions all across world 
where there is suffering. What better effort than to direct $25 million 
of the Food for Peace program to intervene and make the quality of life 
of families who are suffering from AIDS, of children who are orphaned 
from AIDS, to make this as an opportunity.
  As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said already, this 
program is available to be a prevention-intervention program. We are 
increasingly aware that the medication alone does not improve health by 
itself. Not only that, but because of the health condition of the 
individual, their productivity and ability to afford food has been 
decreased drastically.
  I am very happy that the Republicans, as well as the Democrats, all 
support this, and I want to commend the chairman for his support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply state that I am not 
opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment. A similar provision was 
included in the conference agreement last year as section 743 of our 
bill, without any objection of which I am aware. I would hope that we 
can quickly move to a vote on this issue, and commend the gentlewoman's 
work on this very important issue.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for 
his words of cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the very distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the wonderful, 
wonderful gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). Would I not know that the two of 
them would do something this significant? What they are proposing is 
only to continue what the House had agreed to do in conference last 
year, and that is to use the food power of this country to help 
alleviate suffering around the world, and certainly the plague of HIV/
AIDS.
  Their effort uses the power of food in the most creative way 
possible. Yet the sponsors of the amendment and all who support it 
should keep in mind that the President's budget proposes a review of 
the 416 programs with an eye toward reducing their availability. So, 
those who utilize and understand these programs need to be prepared to 
speak out before these programs are eliminated or reduced.
  I want to thank the gentlewomen for bringing this up before the full 
House to make sure that we effectively use the dollars that are there, 
and not permit the food surplus of this country to be subscribed in a 
way that would not be made available to those who truly need it 
globally. I support them in their efforts.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Representative Clayton in 
offering this amendment to ensure continued funding to reduce the 
burden of hunger for HIV/AIDS patients and children orphaned by AIDS in 
the developing world. I commend Representative Clayton for her 
leadership on this issue, which affects so many millions of families 
worldwide. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Kaptur and 
Chairman Bonilla for their leadership on the Subcommittee and their 
support for this amendment.
  We have all heard the staggering statistics--36 million people 
infected with HIV, 22 million deaths from AIDS, and nearly 14 million 
children orphaned. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said, ``AIDS in Africa 
is a plague of biblical proportions. It is a holy war that we must 
win.'' It is indeed, and the battles in this war occur on many fronts.
  Poor nutrition accelerates the progression from HIV to AIDS. In 
addition to the prevention, treatment, and infrastructure needs that 
must be addressed to stem the tide of the pandemic, we must also 
recognize that good nutrition is critical to any prevention and care 
strategy.
  The impact of HIV/AIDS on poor families goes beyond the pain that 
accompanies the loss of a loved one. AIDS strikes people during their 
most productive years, and family income is cut by more than half when 
a parent is sick.
  Household food production is undermined as limited financial 
resources are used for medical costs rather than crop production, and 
family members are forced to care for the sick rather than work in the 
fields. Many families must mortgage their land and sell productive 
assets, including livestock, to pay for food and medicine.
  The U.S. has sought to reduce the burden of hunger that results from 
families' diminished ability to produce food. Starting last year, $25 
million was provided through the Food for Peace program to improve food 
security through agricultural improvement, maternal and child health 
programs, and direct distribution of food commodities.
  Today's amendment continues this vital funding. I thank my colleagues 
for their support of this important amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that ensures that two Federal 
positions designated as river navigator positions, including the 
contract positions for the Hudson River and the Susquehanna River, will 
continue to function, and that they will be funded in this 
appropriations bill.
  I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the

[[Page 12972]]

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for working with us on this very 
important subject. I also want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), who has also been very 
deeply concerned about the continuation of these positions, 
particularly in his case the position of river navigator for the 
Susquehanna River, which is a river that flows through Pennsylvania as 
well as New York.
  I believe that the language that we have arrived at here is language 
which is acceptable to the chairman of the subcommittee, and that the 
amendment will be accepted by him.
  Before I ask him that, I just want to make the point that these two 
positions are very, very important. What they do is they coordinate all 
Federal programs on these two rivers. These two rivers are two very 
important rivers, the Susquehanna, of course, feeding into the 
Chesapeake Bay, and there are a great many Federal programs, including 
programs consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and others, that 
are very important to these rivers and the people who live along them. 
Therefore, Federal coordination of all programs associated with these 
rivers is very important.
  I thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, 
for recognizing that importance, and I want to express to the gentleman 
my appreciation for the ability to work with him and express my 
pleasure in having had the opportunity to work with him on this 
important issue.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the good amendment 
that the gentleman from New York is offering, and tell him that we are 
delighted to accept the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman for his 
support of our very able colleague from New York who has such a 
persevering record on attempting to get the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative fully operational for the city of New York and for rivers 
immediately adjacent to and in his district, so that these local river 
conservation plans become more than plans, but, in fact, help us to 
preserve the precious fresh water resource that is ours alone in this 
quadrant of the United States.
  I would have to just say as the ranking member on the subcommittee, 
no Member has fought harder for this program than the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey), and the people of New York have sent the right 
man here to represent them.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee 
on Appropriations, for those very kind words, and for her diligent and 
very effective work on the committee. Once again, I want to extend my 
appreciation to the chairman of our subcommittee and also to the staff 
that works under his direction for their assistance in putting this 
amendment together and for its successful acceptance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

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

                              {time}  1200

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  It is about lowering the cost of prescription drugs so that the 
American people do not have to pay by far the highest prices in the 
world for prescription drugs. It is about ending the national disgrace 
of tens of thousands of American citizens in New England, the Midwest, 
the Northwest, from having to go across the Canadian border in order to 
purchase the same exact prescription drugs that they buy at home for 50 
percent of the cost or 60 percent of the cost or 20 percent of the 
cost.
  It is about ending the absurdity of American citizens in California, 
Texas, Arizona, and the southern parts of our country of having to go 
to Mexico for the same exact reason.
  It is about allowing women in the United States who are fighting for 
their lives against breast cancer so they do not have to pay 10 times 
more than the women in Canada for Tamoxifen, a widely prescribed breast 
cancer drug.
  It is about telling the drug companies that they can no longer charge 
the American people $1 for drugs when those same exact products are 
sold in Germany for 60 cents, France for 51 cents, and Italy for 49 
cents, the same exact products made by the same exact companies.
  Mr. Chairman, for decades now, good people, Democrats, Republicans, 
in the House and in the Senate, have attempted to do something about 
lowering the cost of prescription drugs in this country so that the 
American people do not have to pay outrageously high prices for their 
medicine, so that doctors do not have to write out prescriptions 
knowing that their patients cannot afford to fill them. But year after 
year with lies, with scare tactics, with well-paid lobbyists and 
massive amounts of campaign contributions the pharmaceutical industry 
always wins. They never lose.
  In the last three years alone the drug companies have spent $200 
million in campaign contributions, lobbying and political advertising. 
In the last election cycle they doubled the amount of campaign 
contributions from 9 million to $18 million, and I have no doubt that 
they are prepared to double it again.
  The issue today is not only the high cost of prescription drugs. The 
issue today is whether the Congress has the guts to stand up for their 
constituents, people who are being ripped off, people who are dying and 
suffering because they cannot afford sky-high prescription drug prices; 
or do we cave in again to the pharmaceutical industry that is spending 
so much money trying to buy our votes.
  The pharmaceutical industry has endless amounts of money. Year after 
year the industry sits at the top of the charts in profits. The top 10 
companies last year made $27 billion in profits. They have a lot of 
money to spend on Congress. Their top executives, well, they have a lot 
of money to spend too.
  A report came out yesterday from Families U.S.A., which talked about 
the compensation of executives in the pharmaceutical industry.
  At a time when Americans die and suffer because they cannot afford 
prescription drugs, you might be interested to know that the CEO of 
Bristol-Myers Squibb has unexercised stock options of over $227 
million. Elderly people cannot afford prescription drugs, and this CEO 
has unexercised stock options of over $227 million. Pfizer has $130 
million in unexercised stock options. Merck has $180 million, and on 
and on it goes.
  Mr. Chairman, today in a tripartisan amendment, the gentlewoman from

[[Page 12973]]

Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul), and I are offering an amendment that is exactly the 
same as the Crowley amendment that won overwhelmingly in the House last 
year by a vote of 363 to 12.
  As was the case last year, this amendment will serve as a place-
holder that will allow the Senate and conference committees to address 
the pricing loopholes contained in last year's bill.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of people here talk about free trade. In a 
globalized economy where we import millions of tons of beef, pork, 
vegetables, and all kinds of food products from virtually every country 
on earth, it is high time that we end the monopoly that the drug 
companies have on the importation and reimportation of prescription 
drugs in this country.
  Prescription drug distributors and pharmacists should be able to 
purchase and sell FDA safety-approved medicines at the same prices as 
they are bought and sold in Canada, England, and every other major 
country. The passage of reimportation could lower the cost of medicine 
in this country by 30 to 50 percent and enable Americans to pay the 
same prices as other people throughout the world. In a Nation which 
spends $150 billion a year on prescription drugs, lowering the cost by 
a conservative 30 percent could result in a $45 billion-a-year savings.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman seeks to solve one problem by creating another, and I 
am going to cite some very, very serious testimony here from the Food 
and Drug Administration that was presented in front of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and his Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations just last month.
  At the hearing, the FDA stated, and I quote: ``From a public health 
standpoint, importing prescription drugs for personal use is a 
potentially dangerous practice. FDA and the public do not have any 
assurance that unapproved products are effective or safe or have been 
produced under U.S. good manufacturing practices. U.S.-made drugs that 
are reimported may not have been stored under proper conditions or may 
not be the real product, because the U.S. does not regulate foreign 
distributors or pharmacies. Therefore, unapproved drugs and reimported 
approved medications may be contaminated, subpotent, superpotent, or 
even counterfeit.''
  The FDA also said, and I quote: ``Under FDA's personal importation 
policy, FDA inspectors may permit the importation of certain unapproved 
prescription medications for personal use. The current policy permits 
the exercise of enforcement discretion to allow entry of an unapproved 
prescription drug if: the product is for personal use, (a 90-day supply 
or less, and not for resale); the intended use is for a serious 
condition for which effective treatment may not be available 
domestically (and, therefore, the policy does not permit inspectors to 
allow foreign versions of U.S.-approved drugs into the U.S.); or there 
is no known commercialization or promotion to U.S. residents by those 
involved in the distribution of the product.''
  There are several other points here, but the bottom line is, this 
could be a dangerous threat to consumers in this country. This is 
ironclad testimony from the FDA on indicating that this could be 
potentially dangerous.
  The FDA has not officially permitted the importation of foreign 
versions of U.S.-approved medications, even if sold under the same 
name, because these products are unapproved, and the agency has no 
assurances that these products are safe or effective. I would like to 
inform my colleagues that both the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
which is the authorizing committee for the FDA, and the administration 
strongly oppose this language and any other language allowing for 
importation of drugs.
  So I rise in strong opposition. We will be hearing from other good 
Members from the Committee on Commerce as well in just a few minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the cosponsor of this legislation and a 
real fighter in terms of lowering the price of prescription drugs.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-
Crowley-Rohrabacher-DeLauro-Paul amendment to help American families 
and seniors get the necessary prescription drugs at affordable prices. 
With spending on prescription drugs by seniors and others up by 18 
percent last year to nearly $21 billion, we need to do everything that 
we can to make them safe, effective, and affordable, make these drugs 
accessible to those who need them.
  One would think that this is a goal that we could rally around. But 
no, once again, we are being fought by the pharmaceutical industry. 
They oppose reimportation. That poses the question: What exactly are 
they for?
  They are against the Medicare prescription drug benefit for all 
seniors. They are opposed to the Allen bill that would allow for 
pharmacists to be able to purchase at a discounted rate, the 
pharmaceuticals that Germany, France, Britain, and others can purchase. 
They are against across-the-board price reductions. They never tell us 
what they are for.
  In fact, the only thing they seem to be for is extending their 
patents and seeing their profits increase.
  Last year, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies earned $26 billion in 
profits. They oppose this amendment because the bill might cut into its 
considerable profit margin. They are waging a massive million dollar 
campaign to protect their agenda across the board. Over the past five 
election cycles, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers 
Association, the trade group for brand-name drug companies, gave nearly 
$360 million in political contributions, lobbying and advertising 
campaigns, to protect its legislative agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, there are opponents of this amendment who raise the 
safety issue. The fact is that reimportation is safe. It has worked for 
years in Europe. Twenty-five percent of drugs consumed in European 
countries are reimported. This legislation requires all imported drugs 
to be the exact same FDA-approved medications that are sold in the 
United States. Pharmaceutical labels must comply with FDA regulations.
  Last year, Dr. David Kessler, the former FDA Commissioner under 
Presidents Bush and Clinton, stated that U.S.-licensed pharmacists and 
wholesalers would be able to safely import quality prescription drugs. 
He believes the importation of prescription drugs can be done without 
causing a greater health risk to American consumers.
  Let me just say that GlaxoWellcome is a British company. They send 
drugs to the United States, and they are perfectly well approved.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely believe that we need to control 
the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, but this is a terribly 
misguided way to do it. I understand that the people who speak for this 
amendment are very well motivated, but the fact is that they run the 
risk because they are tackling this issue indirectly rather than 
directly, they run the risk of allowing large numbers of adulterated 
drugs into this country.
  It is one thing to fight for access to affordable drugs for seniors; 
it is another thing in the process to open our seniors up to the 
dangers of adulterated or expired drugs, and that is exactly what this 
amendment does.
  If we take a look at what happened last year when we ran into a 
similar approach, try though the Congress did, we wound up producing an 
importation process which the Secretary of Health and Social Services 
said she could not certify as to efficacy or safety, and so that 
proposal could not go forward.
  I would point out that every Member of the House has a letter from 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin),

[[Page 12974]]

the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, and various other 
members of the committee, which says the following: ``Despite anybody's 
best intention, if the Sanders amendment becomes law, our citizens will 
have no idea whether the source of their pills is an FDA-approved 
facility or an unregulated warehouse rented for the weekend by big 
business counterfeiters and larcenists seeking to penetrate the U.S. 
market. Drug counterfeiters present a severe and growing threat to the 
health and safety of the United States consumers.''
  If we want to deal with this problem, in my view, the correct way is 
to support the Allen legislation, because that attacks this issue 
directly. It directly lowers the price that is charged to seniors; it 
does not force seniors to have to rely on questionable products 
introduced into this country by larcenist sellers and winds up 
threatening the health of senior citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, just as a point of fact, Donna Shalala did 
not implement last year because of safety. It had nothing to do with 
safety; it had to do with pricing loopholes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht), who has done an excellent job on this issue.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for 
yielding time to me. I want to show a couple of charts, because we are 
going to have several debates. This amendment is somewhat broader than 
the one that I have drafted, but it really revolves around a couple of 
important points.
  One is the issue of price. I do not think anybody here today is going 
to dispute this chart. I did not make this chart. This was done by the 
Life Extension Foundation. The information is about 2 weeks old.
  If we compare what Americans pay to what Europeans pay, and we are 
talking about Europe here, not Mexico, not Third World countries, but 
we are talking about Switzerland and Germany, where they do not have 
price controls, at some point we are going to have to explain to our 
constituents why we stand idly by and allow this chart to exist.
  The issue they are going to raise, and it is going to be a red 
herring, is safety. Safety. Understand this, Mr. Chairman, every day 
millions of pounds of raw meat and vegetables come into this country, 
and we have checked with the FDA, it is the Food and Drug 
Administration, their own study in 1999 said that 4.4 percent of the 
produce coming into the United States has dangerous pathogens, 
including 3.3 percent have salmonella.
  Do Members know what can happen if we get salmonella? We can get real 
sick. In fact, we can die. That is every day that is coming into the 
United States. Yet, there is no known scientific study where consumers 
in the United States have been injured importing legal drugs from G-8 
countries, not one. As a matter of fact, if we had heard that, it would 
be all over. I suspect the pharmaceutical industry would have that over 
every newspaper and on television.
  The truth of the matter is that there is almost no risk to consumers 
to bringing legal drugs back into the United States.
  They are going to talk about illegal drugs. Nothing in the Sanders 
amendment, nothing in my amendment, nothing that is going to be 
discussed today is about legalizing illegal drugs. We are not talking 
about the Medellin drug cartel, which incidentally does ship billions 
of dollars worth of illegal drugs into the United States, and the FDA 
is unable to do almost anything about it. What we are talking about 
today is law-abiding citizens that have legal prescriptions that are 
buying FDA-approved drugs from other countries.
  If Members cannot explain that earlier chart, they should vote for 
this amendment and they should vote for my amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I applaud the motives of the makers of the amendment. I voted 
for the measure of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) last 
year. I have looked into the issue a lot further since then and now 
oppose it.
  The previous speaker talked about the ability to assure that these 
drugs are safe. Our seniors need safe and cost-effective drugs, 
affordable drugs.
  Here is what we found out. Institutions like this, counterfeiters, 
are able to produce drugs in vermin-filled, filthy, and unhygienic 
conditions. This is what they produce. They produce drugs, counterfeit 
drugs, that look exactly like the real thing. There is another example 
of that that we will put up of a drug that looks exactly like ours.
  The point of the matter is, if we want seniors to have affordable 
drugs and safe drugs, help is on the way. This morning's Washington 
Post says, ``Bush Has Pharmacy Discount Card Plan.'' We are on the 
verge of providing senior citizens affordable drugs. We can assure that 
they are safe, and they are not dangerous drugs that are imported from 
rat-infested, filthy laboratories like this one.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), our cosponsor.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Sanders amendment. We have to take a look at the substance here, 
instead of trying to be diverted away from the central point of what is 
going on by scare tactics.
  I do not know if any Members have had calls come to their office last 
night, but I had calls. My office was flooded with calls from people 
who had been told that the Sanders amendment meant that marijuana and 
heroin and all sorts of drugs would be permitted to flow across the 
border. That type of scare tactics is unseemly in a debate as important 
to the health of the American people as the issue that we are 
discussing today.
  It appears that the people on the other side of this issue are so 
afraid of the actual facts that they have succumbed to this type of 
scare tactic and dishonesty. That should play no part of this debate.
  Let me note that we are being told that there will be a few Americans 
who will be hurt if we pass the Sanders amendment because some people 
will get hold of counterfeit drugs, some people will get hold of drugs 
that are not exactly regulated correctly and produced correctly.
  Yes, a few Americans might be hurt, and let us admit that. But what 
we are talking about is the vast number of Americans who will be hurt 
if they cannot afford to buy drugs. Certainly the number of people who 
will be hurt by this is far less than the number of people who are 
deterred from taking drugs that are important to their health because 
they just cannot afford them.
  This bill permits people, American citizens, and especially those who 
live near the borders of another country, to go across those borders 
and buy drugs that are being sold at a cheaper rate. Sometimes we have 
seen it to be half as much, a third as much, sometimes one-quarter or 
20 percent the price across that border than what they would have to 
pay in the United States.
  It makes no sense for us to talk about globalizing the economy and 
globalizing the world economy without letting our people benefit from 
the competitive advantages, the consumers' competitive advantages in 
dealing on an international market.
  We believe, okay, in free trade. We believe in a competitive market 
and a global market. Let us let the American consumer benefit from 
that. What will happen if we pass this amendment is that there will be 
pressures, competitive and market pressures, on our own

[[Page 12975]]

drug producers here in the United States to lower the price of their 
product in the United States as well. By defeating the Sanders 
amendment, we are not protecting anybody. What we are doing is keeping 
the prices high and protecting the pharmaceutical companies from 
competition.
  I like the pharmaceutical companies, and I appreciate the good job 
that they have done for the American people and for the people of the 
world in developing new drugs. But that does not mean that they should 
be free of competition. That does not mean that they should be able to 
have differential pricing in one country versus another.
  Let us stand up for the American people and also stand up for 
competition at the same time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it was pointed out by the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) a moment ago that in this letter that comes 
from the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and other subcommittee chairs, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Deutsch), it points out clearly, the ALS Association, the National 
Prostate Cancer Coalition, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the 
Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, the National Kidney Cancer 
Association, the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project, all of these 
groups are adamantly opposed to the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about bringing illegal drugs in. This is 
about whether we are going to withhold the gold standard of the Food 
and Drug Administration in the United States of America.
  In 1997, this House in a bipartisan way, and as a matter of fact, 
under suspended rules in a unanimous vote, voted to modernize the Food 
and Drug Administration. The one vigilant thing that every Member did 
was to assure that the gold standard, that stamp of approval that we 
say to the American people passes on from the FDA on manufactured 
pharmaceuticals, was maintained.
  As a matter of fact, when my good friend, the gentleman from 
California, talked about global trade, one of our objectives with 
global trade was to harmonize the standards of approval so that we 
could reach the efficiencies of a global manufacturing base. We have 
yet today to reach harmonization standards with the EU because we 
cannot accept the Italian standard for drug approval.
  But what this amendment does, it says we are going to defund any, any 
and all reviews at our borders of reimported or imported drugs. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) just showed the awful 
conditions where drugs are manufactured, where they look identical, 
where they are packaged identically. Today the DEA, the FDA, the 
Customs Department, they are all against this amendment. They are all 
against reducing the gold standard that we currently find at the FDA.
  As a matter of fact, the executive director of the trade program at 
U.S. Customs had this quote: ``Counterfeit pharmaceuticals enter in 
both wholesale and retail quantities. Additional problems include 
expired material, products that have not been approved by the FDA, 
products made in facilities under no proper regulation, and products 
not having the proper instructions for consumers to use.''
  Mr. Chairman, we should not do this to the American people. We should 
maintain the gold standard.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley), a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-
Crowley-DeLauro-Paul-Rohrabacher amendment. This language offered today 
is the same language I offered last year in the agriculture 
appropriations bill. We again offer this amendment as a first start to 
provoke a discussion and get real reimportation language enacted into 
law.
  This is the only way Democrats and Independents can get heard on this 
issue. The GOP-controlled House authorizing committees are not doing 
their jobs. All we have seen to date was a hearing held earlier this 
month in the Committee on Commerce on the horrors of reimportation, and 
the arguments of that hearing have hardened my resolve in supporting 
reimportation legislation.
  Why? In part because of the comments from that hearing, such as the 
opening statement of the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), where he remarked on June 7 of 2001, ``The problem of 
counterfeit drugs is not just a phenomenon of the developing world. Our 
lucrative market and ineffective import controls are increasingly 
making the United States an attractive target for drug counterfeiters 
and diverters.
  ``Last month three counterfeit prescription drugs were found in the 
shelves of pharmacies of several States. It is not known whether these 
fake drugs were made in the United States or overseas, but such a 
cluster of counterfeits has not been seen for years in this country.''
  The hearing proved that the FDA is unable to assure the U.S. public 
that it can prevent unsafe imports from entering this country at this 
point in time.
  Yes, in fact counterfeit drugs are making their way onto the shores 
and onto the shelves of pharmacies around this country. The legislation 
that was enacted to stop it, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act 
enacted in 1987, which included Section 801(d)1 that we are striking 
funding for today, has not been successful in protecting consumers. It 
has been tremendously successful in protecting, though, the interests 
of the drug companies.
  We as Democrats have been trying to pass legislation to find a 
remedy, a legislative remedy to address the spiralling cost of 
medications. Each time the leaders of the Congress have rebuffed us.
  The GOP passed a fake prescription drug bill benefit last year so 
weak that 178 of their Members later backed my amendment to the 
agriculture appropriations bill last year making the reimportation a 
better alternative to lowering the price of prescription drugs than 
their party's plan.
  This year, Congress expressed a collective round of laughter at the 
drug proposal advanced by the White House, representing one of the 
greatest feats of bipartisanship in recent memory.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we have so many speakers who feel strongly 
about it that I ask unanimous consent that each side have an additional 
7\1/2\ minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANDERS. Does the gentleman not have people who want to debate 
the issue?
  Mr. BONILLA. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to no Member of this House 
in terms of my efforts to lower prescription drug costs for seniors in 
America. I support the efforts of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) to allow importation of drugs from outside the United States.
  However, this amendment is not the way to do it. If we look 
specifically at what this amendment does, it stops all funding for FDA 
in terms of importation. That is what the amendment actually does. That 
is a scary thing if we start to think about it.
  What our subcommittee has done is actually we went essentially to the 
borders, which is to the airport location where drugs come in. We have 
also had hearings about drug labs that are taking place right now 
producing some of these importations.
  This is not Novartis in Switzerland, this could be in some back alley 
somewhere in Mexico where it is not the

[[Page 12976]]

drug, it is paint that is coming in. This amendment cuts out all FDA 
funding in terms of literally looking at the substance that would come 
into the United States of America, and zip, nothing. We could not 
review that if this amendment actually became law.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows this is not what we 
are doing. This is a place holder for the Senate and the conference 
committee to do what we did last year in developing a comprehensive 
bill and doing away with the pricing loopholes.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I support the gentleman's efforts, but again, as a place 
holder, we do not do place holders, we do real amendments. We do real 
law.

                              {time}  1230

  And, unfortunately, I understand the limitations that the gentleman 
had in the appropriations process, and that this was a way to raise the 
issue. It is an important issue, and I am glad it is being raised. But 
when we vote, we actually vote on real things. Members that support 
this legislation, in fact, are supporting no funding for the FDA to 
regulate drugs that come into the United States of America. If any of 
my colleagues had joined me in looking at the drugs that come in, I am 
sure they would vote against this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise to strongly oppose this amendment. However, I agree 
with the makers of the amendment and what they are trying to do. We all 
do, indeed, want to see the price of medications come down, especially 
for our senior citizens. But this is simply the wrong way to do it.
  I am very fond of, for example, the President's initiative on a 
senior citizen's discount card. We should turn over every leaf to try 
to lower it. But the most expensive drugs there are are drugs that do 
not work.
  Let us be very clear what this amendment would do to drug safety in 
America. This amendment would allow anyone, individuals and import 
companies, to import any drug with no FDA inspection for alteration, 
misbranding, or strength. Any company in the country, in the world, 
could ship any product in a bottle, label it any way they wanted, be 
totally fraudulent in their claim, while we sit here and ban the FDA 
from doing anything about it. If my colleagues liked the Mexican 
strawberries that poisoned our schoolchildren, then they are going to 
love the Red Chinese sugar pills labeled amoxicillin that allows the 
child's strep throat to become heart disease.
  When a drug is prescribed, a doctor or dentist has to know with 
absolute certainty that the drug is precisely what he ordered. This 
bill will destroy that certainty and undermine the safety of American 
patients.
  Vote ``no,'' then let us work together on a real effort to try to 
reduce the cost of prescription drugs for our senior citizens.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I was just rising to either ask unanimous 
consent to strike the last word to get some of my own time on this or 
to plead with the chairman to see if we could not even get a few more 
minutes on each side. We have more speakers than we had anticipated, 
and it is an important issue and lives actually hang in the balance on 
it. I wondered if we might take a few additional minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman making a unanimous consent request?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I am.
  The CHAIRMAN. What is that request?
  Ms. KAPTUR. My request is to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  Mr. BUYER. I object.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, can I have a point of personal something 
or other?
  On this issue of enormous consequence our friends do not want to add 
a few more minutes to debate? I think that is really unfortunate.
  I want to ask the chairman again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla), who I know is a decent man and I respect his opinion, but we 
have many people here, so what is wrong with 5 more minutes on either 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman making a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. SANDERS. I am.
  The CHAIRMAN. What is that request?
  Mr. SANDERS. That the chairman grant us 5 minutes more so people on 
both sides can have the opportunity to debate this issue. Five minutes 
on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont?
  Mr. BUYER. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, may I know what the time frame is?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr.  Sanders) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. I would urge the other side to go ahead.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, why have all of us from the Committee on 
Commerce come up here to debate this issue and are opposed to it? 
Because this is exactly what happened. For 2 years we have been working 
on this project: reimportation. When it leaves this country and comes 
back into this country, we do not know what it is.
  This is one post office, where 721 parcels came back in. We cannot 
tell what it is, how it got here, how it was made, what it even is made 
of. This is the yellow powder we speak of. This is boric acid and 
yellow highway paint. They do it to put on these pills which they put 
in this blister pack for Poncet. Nothing we can use medically in this 
country.
  This is about drug safety. It is not priced for senior citizens. All 
of us Democrats, most of us Republicans, would like to see lower drug 
prices. This is drug safety. For 2 years we have been working on this 
issue. Do not limit the FDA's ability to do enforcement when these 
drugs like this highway paint are coming in and being put on pills and 
we are supposed to take it as a safe drug.
  Reject this amendment. If you want to pass meaningful legislation, 
pass the Allen bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I do agree on one thing with the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). This amendment is important. It is 
important because if it passes, people will die, and that is no 
exaggeration.
  Why would we ever want to permit a system that is one of the best in 
the world, like the FDA, which ensures that we have drug safety in our 
Nation, why do we want to open it up so we are not able to have that 
gold standard that a former colleague talked about? When people see an 
FDA-approved drug, they know about the efficacy and safety of that 
particular drug.
  The Food and Drug Administration and the Customs Service have 
testified as recently as June 7th that ``Drugs being imported from 
outside the United States pose considerable risk to consumers because 
they may be counterfeit, expired, superpotent, subpotent, simply 
tainted, or mislabeled.''
  American consumers should not have to worry that the drugs they take 
may be adulterated, just as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) 
said, with yellow highway paint, which the FDA has found with imported 
drugs. Defeat the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask a lot of other 
questions, however, some of them have been covered here on the floor 
already.
  So, I wish to ask the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), we have 
been hearing about who is against this

[[Page 12977]]

amendment, but could the gentleman give me an indication of who is for 
this? And, also, for the record, this was 363 to 12 the last time we 
took a vote on this.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct. Some groups 
supporting it are Public Citizens Network, the National Catholic Social 
Justice Lobby, the National Educational Association, Communication 
Workers of America, the Children's Foundation, the Alliance for Retired 
Americans, the Gray Panthers, and a number of other organizations. And 
I thank the gentlewoman for asking that question.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, all of us, all of us want to see lower 
drug prices, and all of us are frustrated by the high price of drugs. 
It does no good, though, to import these drugs if we cannot be 
guaranteed of their efficacy.
  In my hand I have three packages of Viagra, all of them imported. Two 
of these packages are counterfeit. All the packages look the same. The 
holograms on the back are the same and the blister packs holding the 
pills are exactly the same in all three boxes. I am sure that two of 
these boxes are cheaper than the third, but I would ask my gentlemen 
colleagues if they would rather have lower prices, or which two of 
these boxes would they take?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, not because it is 
the perfect amendment but because I believe it is a step in the right 
direction.
  During all this debate, few people, no one really, has asked why are 
drugs so much less expensive in other countries. The reason is because 
other countries do not allow the pharmaceutical companies to gouge 
their citizens, senior citizens or others.
  In Canada, in all the rest of the G-7, there are caps on what the 
pharmaceutical industry can charge. In those countries the 
pharmaceutical industry sells lots of drugs, they make profits, and 
they do just fine. Only in America, only in America do we basically 
allow them to charge the highest prices in the world to seniors, who 
can least afford it.
  That is why this is a step in the right direction. I do believe we 
need a prescription drug cap here in the United States so that our 
seniors are not discriminated against and our seniors no longer pay the 
highest prices in the world.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Congress does have an obligation to help Americans who cannot 
afford the prescription drugs that they need, and seniors deserve a 
voluntary universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We can 
all agree on that. But making it easier to bring counterfeit 
substandard medicines into the United States is not the way to help 
seniors get these medications, not the way to help families.
  The Sanders amendment is a step backward. The FDA and the Customs 
Service have a huge challenge keeping counterfeit drugs out of this 
country. Consumers in New Jersey and California and Kansas can take 
prescription medicines today with the certain knowledge that they are 
putting safe, tested, clean medicines into their bodies.
  It is not just agencies like the Customs Service that oppose this, it 
is also patients' groups, like the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, 
the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the ALS Foundation. They all 
strongly oppose it. It is simply not the way to provide seniors with 
affordable prescription drugs. It would undermine confidence that 
doctors and patients have in their ability to make informed decisions 
about patient care.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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

                              {time}  1245

  The vote last year was 363 to 12 in favor of the Crowley-Sanders 
amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair repeat the unanimous 
consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is that each side would 
have 2 additional minutes for speakers controlled by the gentleman from

[[Page 12978]]

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The jurisdiction of the Committee of the Whole to 
enlarge the time prescribed by the Order of the House depends on 
congruent division of the time. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), 
therefore, has 2 additional minutes as a consequence of the 2 
additional minutes granted to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not object; but my understanding of 
the unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) gave 
was to give Ms. Kaptur 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes for 
both sides.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, this is really an unfortunate 
circumstance that we are being forced as citizens of our country to 
have to reimport drugs that are manufactured in our country under our 
country's supervision in FDA-approved laboratories, but in order to be 
able to get affordable prescription medicines to our citizens.
  Our citizens are paying 33 to 50 percent higher for the same drugs. 
This is no different from some of our agriculture farmers who recognize 
the importation of products that are manufactured here but sold 
overseas cheaper. It is cheaper to bring it in than it is to pay for it 
at the same level in our own country, and we are being put through this 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow us to get those safe, FDA-
approved, reviewed and supervised prescription drugs to our seniors 
that need them. Our State needs this relief now.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the honest opponents 
of this bill are focusing on the trees and, therefore, cannot see the 
forest. The forest is that Americans pay exorbitantly high prices for 
pharmaceuticals. We subsidize the price of pharmaceuticals everywhere 
else in the world.
  If we were running this place properly, we would have an honest 
debate on a pharmaceutical drug program under Medicare. We are not 
going to have that. We would have an honest debate about health 
insurance for all Americans. We are not going to have that.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the only vehicle that we are permitted. If 
Members want to move us closer to honest prices for pharmaceuticals for 
senior citizens and everyone else in America, vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 30 seconds 
remaining; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, is the procedure that the gentleman from 
Texas has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), as the chairman 
of the subcommittee, has the right to close.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it is a shame we have not had more time 
for this debate because our constituents do not have time to survive 
when they

[[Page 12979]]

cannot afford prescription drugs because the drug companies are gouging 
consumers. Everyone in America knows this. It is time that this House 
takes a stand, as it did a year ago, to make sure that prescription 
drug prices are kept low. We have the ability to do that with the 
Sanders amendment, and we ought to vote to make sure that we hold the 
pharmaceutical companies accountable.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that we did that instead of the 
pharmaceutical companies reaching in and trying to control votes in 
this Congress. It is time we took a stand on behalf of senior citizens 
who are suffering because of the high cost of prescription drugs.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield all remaining time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the former speakers complained about 
the scare tactics that have been used in discussions and debates on 
this bill. Let me assure Members, they need to be afraid of this 
amendment.
  My mother, my 82-year-old mother, is a three-time cancer survivor and 
needs to be afraid of this amendment. This amendment effectively 
repeals an important consumer protection law designed to protect my 
mother and other consumers from bad drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created not to protect pharmaceutical 
companies, whether they are here in the United States or foreign 
countries. The FDA was created to protect consumers like myself, my 
mother and everybody's mother from bad, illegal, counterfeit, dangerous 
drugs.
  If Members do not believe there are people preparing those kinds of 
drugs and trying to send them to Members' mothers today, be afraid.
  Let me read from testimony before the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing. This is 
about a U.S. Customs effort in Thailand called Operation Chokepoint. 
What they discovered in this kitchen cooking up drugs for America was 
18.5 kilograms of powder steroids and Viagra. The processing took place 
on the counter of a filthy, vermin-infested kitchen and on the floor of 
a spare bedroom of the house. The tools and scales were never cleaned, 
and used for both steroids and Viagra. The British national who was 
running this operation had just been released from the hospital for 
hepatitis treatment, was still under medication, was processing and 
packaging these drugs with the assistance of a Thai female prostitute.
  Mr. Chairman, the picture complained about is from Colombia. This is 
one of the kitchens in Colombia that is cooking up drugs for Members' 
mothers and mine, and importing them into the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created and this important consumer 
protection law was created to protect our seniors and loved ones from 
this stuff. This amendment removes that protection.
  I want to ask Members, in the interest of cheaper tires, are Members 
willing to repeal NHTSA, our Highway Safety Commission? Are Members 
willing to take away the consumer protections we have built around the 
law that says people cannot sell us tires that will blow up and flip 
our trucks over? In the interest of cheaper energy, are Members ready 
to repeal the EPA so anyone can do anything they want in this country 
to the environment?
  Mr. Chairman, in the interest of cheaper toys and sleepwear, are 
Members ready to repeal the Consumer Products Safety Commission so our 
kids can have cheaper toys and sleepwear, but they might burn to death 
at night because sleepwear is flammable and nobody is looking after 
them?
  Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created to protect us, not the companies; 
to protect my mom and other moms. When we passed this ban on 
reimportation, we did something very important. We said to our 
Secretary, unless we can satisfy that the drugs coming into this 
country are going to be safe, they are not going to kill my mother, 
they are not coming from these drug kitchens in Colombia and Thailand, 
unless the Secretary can satisfy us, keep the ban.
  Do Members know what the Secretary said in the last administration? 
``I cannot tell you that we can satisfy you that without FDA approval 
these drugs are safe.''
  Yes, we all want cheaper drugs for our mothers and fathers; and yes, 
we are working on bills to do that. The administration is working on a 
project to provide discount cards to all seniors. Yes, we ought to be 
concerned about the high cost of those drugs, but are we going to trade 
drug safety for drug prices? Are we going to put everybody at risk for 
the sake of a cheaper drug?
  I suggest to Members this is the wrong remedy for the problem. We can 
all agree that is a problem. We can all agree that there is something 
wrong about the way that drugs are priced in America, and we are 
working on something in the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations. We can all agree that the Medicare system ought to make 
drugs more affordable; and the copayment is too high when seniors need 
treatment for cancer therapy.

                              {time}  1300

  But this is a wrong remedy. This lets these operations become legal. 
It takes away the enforcement arm of the Government designed to protect 
our seniors from this kind of an operation and says from now on, This 
is legal, this is okay. You can cook it up in a kitchen in Colombia, 
and you can cook it up in a kitchen in Thailand, using whatever systems 
you want, whatever unsanitary conditions you want; and you can ship it 
into America because we think cheaper drugs are so important, we do not 
care how unsafe they are.
  Mr. Chairman, this Sanders amendment is dangerous. It needs to be 
defeated.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak 
in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Vermont, 
Mr. Sanders.
  In 1988, Congress passed legislation that banned the reimportation of 
prescription drugs because it recognized that there was a significant 
risk to the American people associated with counterfeit, adulterated or 
sub-potent medication.
  In fact, recognizing the importance of quality prescription drugs, 
Congress required not only that all domestic distribution centers be 
licensed, but also that the FDA develop a stringent set of guidelines 
to regulate domestic prescription drugs.
  These guidelines called for detailed record-keeping, including 
guidelines which outlined very specific temperature and humidity 
control parameters.
  The Sanders Amendment clearly contradicts the reasoning behind these 
efforts and would instead allow unrestricted reimportation of 
prescription drugs.
  Moreover, the Sanders Amendment would delete the provision which 
Congress passed last year directing the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to demonstrate that any cost-savings derived from reimported 
drugs be passed to the American consumer.
  Last December, then-HHS Secretary Donna Shalala found she could not 
demonstrate that the reimportation law would not jeopardize patient 
safety, nor could she demonstrate that savings would be passed on to 
consumers.
  Moreover, Mr. Sanders' amendment would likely lead to an increase in 
the flow of counterfeit drugs into the U.S., which is already a growing 
problem the Government cannot control.
  At a June 7, 2001 hearing, Ms. Elizabeth Durant, Executive Director 
of Trade Programs at the U.S. Customs Service, testified that ``perhaps 
as much as 90 percent of the pharmaceuticals that enter the U.S. via 
the mail do so in a manner that violates FDA and/or DEA requirements. . 
. . To offer an example, one seizure included a 3,000-tab shipment of a 
counterfeit drug with an expiration date of 1980. . . . We have 
counterfeit drugs. We have gray-market drugs. We have prohibited drugs 
and we have unapproved drugs. The whole gamut of illegal substances 
pass through our mail facility at Dulles. And this is a situation that 
is pretty much replicated around the country.''
  While I am concerned about the rising cost of pharmaceuticals in the 
U.S., I am more concerned that Mr. Sanders' amendment would compromise 
the health and safety of millions of Americans who count on the quality 
and purity of pharmaceuticals approved by the FDA to treat their 
illnesses. What we cannot afford to do is knowingly expose American 
consumers to drugs and pharmaceuticals that

[[Page 12980]]

may jeopardize their health, and yet that is precisely what the Sanders 
amendment would do.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to put the welfare of Americans first and 
vote against the Sanders amendment.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro prescription drug reimportation amendment to 
the Agriculture Appropriations bill. This amendment will lay the 
groundwork for lowering the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. by 
30 to 50 percent.
  This amendment will allow prescription drug distributors and 
pharmacists to purchase FDA-approved prescription drugs from anywhere 
in the world at competitive and reasonable prices.
  It is a shame that millions of Americans are not able to afford the 
outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country. Their 
quality of life continues to deteriorate while we continue to limit 
their access to basic health necessities.
  Citizens of the United States pay the highest prices in the world for 
prescription drugs. Many of our constituents will travel to Mexico or 
Canada to buy the same drugs for a lesser value. In my district in 
California, the average prices that senior citizens must pay are 97% 
higher than the prices that Canadian consumers pay and 96 percent 
higher than the prices that Mexican consumers pay.
  For every $1 spent in the United States for prescription drugs, those 
same drugs are purchased in Switzerland for .65, the United Kingdom for 
.64, France for .51, and Italy for .49.
  Why should patients have to continually compromise their health while 
being forced to decide which prescription drugs to buy and which drugs 
not to take because they cannot afford to pay for all of them. These 
patients cannot afford to pay such burdensome costs.
  These patients are forced to gamble with their health when they 
cannot afford to pay for the drugs needed to treat their conditions. 
Every day, these patients have to live with the fear of having to 
encounter major medial problems because they were denied access to 
prescription drugs they could not afford to pay out of their pocket. 
Often times, these individuals must choose between buying food or 
medicine. With outrageously high energy costs in California right now, 
some seniors and other Californians have to choose between paying their 
electric bill or their drug bills. This is wrong!
  All Americans should be entitled to medical treatment at affordable 
prices. The Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro amendment will allow these patients 
to buy the prescription drugs needed to lead a healthy and productive 
life.
  This amendment will break the monopoly the pharmaceutical industry 
now has over reimportation.
  Let's stop gambling with the lives of our patients and support this 
reimportation amendment in order to cut these outrageous prescription 
drug prices. Americans deserve the right to lead healthy lives by 
purchasing prescription drugs at reasonable and competitive prices.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Vermont. As I am sure I need not remind my 
colleagues, many Americans are concerned about the high prices of 
prescription drugs. The high prices of prescription drugs particularly 
effect low-income senior citizens since many seniors have a greater 
than-average need for prescription drugs. One of the reasons 
prescription drug prices are high is because of government policies 
which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the 
prescription drug market. One of the most egregious of those policies 
are those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. If 
members of Congress are serious about lowering prescription drug prices 
they should support this amendment.
  As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often 
hear from constituents angry that they cannot purchase inexpensive 
quality pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Many of these 
constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own in order to 
purchase pharmaceuticals. Mr. Chairman, where does the federal 
government get the Constitutional or moral right to tell my 
constituents they cannot have access to the pharmaceuticals of their 
choice?
  Opponents of this amendment have been waging a hysterical campaign to 
convince members that this amendment will result in consumers 
purchasing unsafe products. I dispute this claim for several reasons. 
Unlike the opponents of this amendment I do not believe that consumers 
will purchase an inferior pharmaceutical simply to save money. Instead, 
consumers will carefully shop to make sure they are receiving the 
highest possible quality at the lowest possible price. In fact, the 
experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to Mexico to 
purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of 
ensuring they only purchase safe products without interference from Big 
Brother.
  Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned 
about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of 
powerful companies, they would consider how our current policies 
endanger safety by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. 
Oftentimes lower income Americans will take less than the proper amount 
of a prescription medicine in order to save money or forgo other 
necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to show they are serious about 
lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the 
people to know what is in their best interest by voting for the Sanders 
amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in strong support of the Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro/Paul/
Rohrabacher amendment.
  This language offered today is the same as language I offered last 
year.
  We again offer this amendment as a first start to provoke a 
discussion and get real reimportation legislation enacted into law.
  This is the only way Democrats and Independents can get heard on this 
issue--the GOP controlled House authorizing committees are not doing 
their jobs.
  All we have seen to date was a Commerce Committee hearing held 
earlier this month on the horrors of reimportation--and the arguments 
from that hearing have hardened my resolve in supporting reimportation.
  Why?
  In part because of the comments from that hearing, such as Chairman 
Tauzin's opening statement where he remarked on June 7, 2001:

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

  Yes, in fact, counterfeit drugs are making it onto our shores and the 
legislation that was enacted to stop it--the Prescription Drug 
Marketing Act (PDMA) enacted in 1987, which includes section 801(d)(1) 
that we are striking funding for today, has not been successful in 
protecting consumers.
  It has been tremendously successful in protecting drug company 
profits though.
  We, as Democrats, have been trying legislative remedy after 
legislative remedy to address the spiraling costs of medications--and 
each time the leaders of this Congress have rebuffed us.
  The GOP passed a fake prescription drug benefit last Congress--so 
weak that 178 of their members later backed my amendment to 
Agricultural Appropriations last year making reimportation a better 
alternative to lowering drug prices then their Party Plan.
  This year, Congress expressed a collective round of laughter at the 
Drug proposal advanced by this White House--representing one of the 
greatest feats of bi-partisanship in recent memory.
  I recognize the safety concerns advanced by Commerce Chairman Tauzin 
and Ranking Member Dingell are legitimate and I greatly respect their 
diligence on this issue and their hard working in protecting American 
consumers--their motives cannot be questioned here.
  But the current laws are not working, as we all readily admit.
  Something new must be done.
  We cannot protect people from medications by not allowing them to 
have any access to affordable drugs at all--and unfortunately that is 
more and more the case throughout the U.S.A.
  I remember the thoughts of a local pharmacists who told me that 
American seniors pay the highest drug prices on Earth.
  Some Members will oppose this amendment on fair grounds and for valid 
reasons--but we offer it as a starting point for discussion to get 
Congress to act and act this year to lower drug prices for Americans--
especially our seniors.
  Let me put this in perspective, I have a constituent in Long Island 
City, NY who must purchase 100 capsules of Prilosec every three months 
for his wife. He pays almost $400 for these drugs.
  I have this letter from a gentleman who writes ``Isn't that an 
outrageous price for a medication my wife will have to take on a 
regular basis''.

[[Page 12981]]

  Yes it is, sir.
  Especially, in light of the fact that this same drug that costs $400 
in Queens New York, would have cost him $107 in Mexico and $184 in 
Canada.
  Price gouging is wrong and needs to be stopped.
  Price gouging medications is illegal in Canada and Mexico, and--
surprise--their drug prices are half the cost of what they are in the 
U.S.--even for the same drugs, with the same FDA-approved label.
  This amendment this year will allow for reimportation of FDA-approved 
drugs and will serve as an important place marker for more 
comprehensive reimportation language to be included by the 
Democratically-controlled Senate.
  Americans are turning more and more to giant super stores for their 
consumer needs--because they can get great bargains at places like 
WalMart--but they have no such large wholesaler to purchase their 
medications.
  Something that is not a luxury but a necessity.
  What upsets me most is that the drug companies get away with it--they 
give super discounts to seniors in every other country in the world, 
because they know those governments would never allow for price gouging 
of their elderly.
  But knowing full well they can commit gouging in the U.S.--they mark 
up their products well beyond what any reasonable senior can afford.
  This price gouging must stop.
  We can no longer, in good conscience, as a nation allow our seniors 
to ration their medications, or have to choose between paying their 
rent and purchasing their drugs.
  Representative Sanders and I are offering this reimportation 
amendment as the first of a three pronged approach to helping America's 
seniors afford their medications.
  Besides reimportation, we argue for the passage of the Prescription 
Drug Fairness for Seniors Act by Congressman Tom Allen of Maine.
  And I hope that all of the sponsors of this amendment will join me in 
this fight--the goals are the same here--lowering drug prices and 
protecting American seniors.
  This legislation would automatically lower the drug prices paid by 
American seniors by an average of 40 percent overnight at negligible 
cost to the Government by mandating that the drug manufacturers sell 
drugs to seniors at the same price they sell them for in the other six 
major industrialized nations.
  These two approaches lead us to our final and long term goal--that of 
a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.
  We cannot have millions of Americans go without their medications.
  We need to pass real reimportation language this year--and begin to 
lower the skyrocketing costs of drugs for Americans.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, once again I find it necessary to oppose 
amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill designed to gut the 
protection the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) affords all 
Americans. Once again we find ourselves debating ill-conceived efforts 
to convince our people, particularly the elderly, that a panacea for 
high drug prices can be found in re-imports of American manufactured 
prescription drugs.
  Make no mistake--despite the good intentions of their proponents, 
nothing in these amendments will lower drug prices one dime for 
consumers. Nothing in these amendments will benefit any consumer, 
directly or indirectly. Instead, consumers will be put at risk, because 
drug re-importation would be a welcome mat for crooks and frauds.
  Foreign wholesalers were cut out of the drug distribution system in 
1987 because of the flood of contaminated, counterfeit, and mislabeled 
products. These shady characters have taken advantage of the 
appropriate public outrage over drug prices to encourage America to 
once again open its borders to these dangerous drugs.
  Proponents of the amendments argue that if the drugs are made in 
America they must be safe. They are wrong. Our Committee's 
investigation in the middle 1980's showed that American packaging and 
labeling was duplicated perfectly by counterfeiters entering their 
product as re-imports. Unfortunately, they had not duplicated the FDA 
vigilance that Americans believe is attached to such packaging. 
Counterfeit after counterfeit was imported into the U.S. as ``American 
Goods Returned'' before the PDMA put an end to it. Ask the women who 
took the two million counterfeit birth control pills--in packaging that 
duplicated Searle's--just how good the crooks are at graphic design. 
The cycles, the boxes they came in, and the instructions that 
accompanied the pills were knocked off perfectly in Spain and in 
Guatemala. The Spanish product had so much excess hormone that it 
caused excessive bleeding. The Guatemalan product contained no active 
ingredient so it went undetected, except, of course, for the unwanted 
pregnancies that resulted.
  I could go on with many more examples such as the perfectly packaged 
Naprosyn from Mexico that contained aspirin as the only active 
ingredient. That must have come as a shock (or worse) to those 
hypersensitive to aspirin. Even the non-counterfeit products were often 
so poorly stored that safety was frequently compromised.
  Did these counterfeiters and diverters produce any savings to the 
American consumer? We looked in depth at this $500 million a year 
market and found no evidence that consumers saved so much as a penny. 
No compensation was provided to unsuspecting consumers for all the 
risks they unknowingly assumed.
  We should be able to find a way to address effectively the problem of 
high priced drugs and to protect consumers from risky products. The 
amendments offered today do neither, and should be rejected.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today in 
support of the Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro amendment.
  Prescription drug costs are a life and death issue for thousands of 
Americans. Making these life saving and health sustaining drugs 
affordable for our citizens, and especially our seniors, is simply the 
right thing to do.
  Just look at the cost of prescription drugs in my district. Last 
year, I conducted three different studies in New York City that showed 
rampant price discrimination against uninsured seniors by 
pharmaceutical companies. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, New Yorkers are 
being skewered by inflated drug prices.
  For instance, Tamoxifen--which is sold under the brand name 
Nolvadex--is the most frequently prescribed breast cancer drug in this 
nation. It is used by thousands of women across this state and across 
the country to treat early and advanced breast cancer. In fact, in 
1998, total sales of Tamoxifen were over $520 million.
  Women in my district who need Tamoxifen must pay ten times what 
seniors in other countries pay. According to the study I conducted, a 
one month supply of Tamoxifen costs only nine dollars in Canada--yet it 
costs over one-hundred dollars in my district. That means that, over 
the course of a year, a woman in my district will pay roughly twelve-
hundred dollars more than women in Canada.
  That's a price differential of over one-thousand percent. This is a 
life-saving drug that thousands of women need to survive. Many women in 
New York are forced to dilute prescriptions they need to fight breast 
cancer--forced to cut their pills in half or in thirds--in order to get 
by financially. No doctor recommends this. No person deserves this.
  All eight of the drugs I studied cost at least forty percent more in 
my district than they do abroad. The average price differential with 
Canada was 112 percent, and with Mexico it was 108 percent.
  Prilosec, an ulcer medication and the U.S.'s top prescription drug in 
dollar sales in 1998, cost $49.80 for a one month supply in Canada, but 
cost $121.83 for a one month supply in my Congressional District, 
that's a 145 percent price differential.
  Prescription drugs costs are too high for America's families and are 
now the largest out-of-pocket health care expense for America's 
seniors.
  Congress recognized this crisis last year when both the House and 
Senate passed a drug reimportation bill by wide margins.
  Once passed, however, significant flaws were detected in the details 
of the bill that jeopardized our ability to ensure lower prices and 
safe products for U.S. consumers through the new policy.
  The bill before us today tries to get us back on track by more 
explicitly preserving the Food and Drug Administration's authority to 
ensure the safety and efficacy of a system to reimport prescription 
drugs.
  I urge passage of this reimportation amendment which would allow U.S. 
pharmacists and prescription drug distributors to purchase and sell 
locally FDA-approved medicines purchased from abroad. This measure 
should lower the price of prescription drugs, perhaps as much as 50 
percent.
  I strongly support adoption of the Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives is 
faced with an amendment, offered by Representative Sanders of Vermont, 
which attempts to address the problem of high drug prices in the United 
States. Seniors in the United States pay the highest prices in the 
industrialized world for prescription medicines and are often the 
victims of discriminatory pricing. This amendment, however, seriously 
undermines the current system that protects U.S. consumers from

[[Page 12982]]

reimporting potentially tainted drugs from abroad and this is why I 
play to vote against this measure. We will likely consider additional 
amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill today that attempt to 
accomplish similar goals, but unless they address the need for strong 
consumer protections, I also plan to vote against these amendments.
  Prescription drugs are an increasingly vital part of health care and 
are the fastest growing component of health care expenditures. Spending 
on prescription drugs is expected to continue to rise. Seniors, who 
comprise only 13% of the total population, account for more than a 
third of the annual expenditure on prescription drugs. The average 
senior uses 18 prescriptions a year and these vital prescriptions are 
absolutely essential to their quality of life. The rising costs of 
pharmaceuticals, combined with the increasing reliance on drugs for 
medical treatments, have created a serious threat to the financial 
security of a particularly vulnerable population, seniors who are on 
fixed incomes.
  We must provide relief to seniors in the United States. My concern 
though is that this amendment would eliminate our ability to ensure the 
integrity of drug products and could put American consumers, especially 
our seniors, in serious jeopardy. Counterfeit medicines have already 
infiltrated the U.S. market and we must make sure that any 
reimportation proposal addresses consumer safety and the need for 
thorough drug inspections. It does seniors no good to allow the 
importation of less costly prescription drugs if we cannot also ensure 
their safety and efficacy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The amendment that I am offering today will provide $3 million to be 
used for the rehabilitation of aging watershed dams. Public Law 106-472 
authorizes USDA to assist local communities with rehabilitation of 
their aging flood-control dams constructed with USDA assistance. The 
authorizing legislation, which I authored, received widespread 
bipartisan support in both the Committee on Agriculture and on the 
House floor.
  Since the authorizing legislation was signed into law, NRCS has been 
flooded with requests from communities for assistance on rehabilitation 
for their aging dams. As of March of this year, 434 communities have 
requested rehabilitation assistance on more than 1,400 dams in 35 
States. The cost to rehabilitate these dams is estimated to be in 
excess of $500 million.
  In fact, nearly 10,500 small watershed dams have been built in the 
United States since 1944. Many of these dams, which were built and 
designed with a 50-year life span, will reach their life expectancy 
over the next few years.
  These watershed projects are extremely important to our communities. 
They provide flood control, municipal water supply, recreation, soil 
erosion control, water quality improvement, wetland development, and 
wildlife habitat enhancement on more than 130 million acres in this 
Nation. These dams benefit thousands of people's lives every day.
  In fact, the small watershed program has proven to be one of our 
Nation's most successful public-private partnerships. The program 
represents an $8.5 billion Federal investment and an estimated $6 
billion local investment in the infrastructure of this Nation. These 
completed small watershed projects have provided $2.20 in benefits for 
every $1 of cost. Very few Government projects can make that claim.
  We must continue to build on this program that our predecessors 
started 50 years ago. I hope that my colleagues will support this very 
important amendment to begin the process of rehabilitating these dams 
before we have a tragic dam failure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition notwithstanding my support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
friend the gentleman from Oklahoma. I want to commend him for the work 
that he and his staff have put into the amendment. This amendment makes 
additional funds available to the Watershed and Flood Prevention 
Operations account specifically for the small watershed rehabilitation 
program that passed this House last year. This is a good amendment, and 
I urge all Members to support the amendment.
  In fact, I think the amendment is so good that I have not heard one 
word of opposition from anyone on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  The amendment was agreed to.


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

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

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

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentlewoman from Hawaii

[[Page 12983]]

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is going to be very similar to the debate 
we had just a few minutes ago concerning the price of prescription 
drugs. I supported the Sanders amendment even though it was a bit 
broader than the amendment that I offer. I hope Members will take a few 
minutes to at least read the amendment that I am offering. Essentially 
what I am saying is, let us not stop law-abiding citizens from 
importing drugs from G-8 countries for personal use. The issue again is 
price. If Members do nothing else, please pay attention to this chart. 
Because at the end of the day, sooner or later we are all going to have 
to try at least to explain this, and there is no explanation.
  Americans, it is a fact, it is a dirty little secret in three 
different ways, we are paying all the research cost for all the other 
countries in the world, and we are doing it in three ways: first of all 
in the prices that we pay for prescription drugs, as Members can see, 
anywhere from 30 to 70 to 80 percent more than other countries in 
Europe; secondly, we are paying for the research in the money that we 
put into the NIH and some of the other science programs here in the 
United States. It amounts to almost $14 billion a year that the 
taxpayers are subsidizing research; and, finally, we subsidize the 
research through the Tax Code. When the pharmaceutical industry says, 
well, we are spending billions of dollars on research, that is true. 
The last year that we have numbers for, they spent about $12 billion on 
research. But do understand they pay hefty taxes, and as a result they 
can write off all of that research and in some cases they even qualify 
for research and development tax credits. So the real net cost to the 
pharmaceutical industry is far lower than most people say.
  What we are saying in this amendment is the game has to stop. We have 
been subsidizing Europe for a long time. It is time for us to stop 
subsidizing the starving Swiss.
  My amendment is very simple. It simply says that an individual who is 
not in the business of reimporting drugs shall have the right to bring 
those drugs in either on their person or by mail from any of the G-8 
countries. This does not even include Mexico.
  We heard this big safety issue. We are going to talk a little bit 
about that. The truth of the matter is most of the safety issues that 
were talked about in the previous amendment exist today. We are not 
changing anything. We are not going to legalize illegal drugs. We are 
not going to tell people that they can bring in adulterated drugs. We 
are talking about law-abiding citizens that have a legal prescription 
that are bringing in FDA-approved drugs made in FDA-approved 
facilities.
  We have a problem right now, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of 
contamination on all of the food and produce we bring in. Yet we do not 
hear this ballyhoo because there is not a company out there, there is 
not an industry out there like the pharmaceutical industry that stands 
to make billions of dollars.
  Make no mistake, at the end of this debate, this is about money. I 
believe my simple little amendment that simply opens the door for 
personal importation could at the end of the day save American 
consumers upwards of $30 billion. Now, if Members wonder why 
individuals and groups have been spending millions of dollars over the 
last couple of weeks, it is about money.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 12984]]

  Mr. Chairman, once again we have an effort here to solve one problem 
by creating another, and in fact it could create a series of additional 
problems. Let me just mention once again a few of the facts that have 
been stated clearly by the Food and Drug Administration. This presents 
a clear danger, a potential danger, a serious threat to consumers who 
could use drugs that are dangerous, that have not been stored under 
proper conditions, have not been manufactured properly, do not conform 
to the standards of drug manufacturing in our country. This is simply 
something that, as we have just heard in the debate in the last half-
hour or so, would not be in the best interest of consumers.
  We are all in agreement here on both sides of the political aisle 
that we want to do something about the high cost of drugs in this 
country, but we want to do it the right way and not add language on an 
appropriations bill that is not supported by anyone who has been 
working on this issue in a very serious and sincere way on the 
authorizing committee for many months now.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and would urge its 
defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just bring to the attention of the body that 
last year a much broader amendment than the one that I am offering, 
that would have had blanket reimportation, passed this House by a vote 
of 363-to-12. So we are talking about a very targeted amendment to 
essentially reinforce what the Congress said last year on a bill that 
passed the House overwhelmingly, passed the Senate overwhelmingly, and 
was signed by the President. So we are not opening new ground.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for once again bringing up a good, 
commonsense amendment to help seniors throughout this country, seniors 
in my district. My district in Florida, the median age is 47. My 
district has more Medicare recipients than any other district in the 
Nation, save one.
  The seniors in my district worked hard their entire life and do not 
expect a free lunch from government. However, what I do hear from my 
seniors is the frustration about the disparity of prices here in the 
United States and overseas. I have hardworking and informed seniors who 
recognize that their heart medicine is 60 percent cheaper in Canada 
than in Florida. They do not know, and I cannot explain, why United 
States seniors, in the age of free trade and NAFTA, cannot take 
advantage of lower prices for products in another country.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a free trader. I believe bringing the elements of 
free trade will solve many issues in America, whether it is the 
outrageous costs to consumers of the anti-free trade sugar program or 
whether it is a difference for seniors in drug prices across our 
border. Americans are free to buy pork chops, fruit, and other food 
from across the border. Why can we not do the same with FDA-approved 
drugs?
  The amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is 
carefully drafted to concentrate on personal use of FDA-approved 
products made in FDA-approved facilities. It allows Americans to have 
greater access to cheaper drugs. It is a commonsense measure that 
deserves everyone's support.
  I fully recognize that this amendment alone will not solve the 
problem of high drug prices, and I oppose price controls on 
prescription drugs or other products. I have no interest in bashing the 
pharmaceutical industry because I recognize how important they are, 
especially for the future production of new drugs. However, I believe 
that this bill will introduce an additional source of needed supply to 
help lower prices. It is something that should be a starting point to 
allow the free market to work to the benefit of all seniors, and I urge 
a yes vote.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, it is with great respect that I rise in 
opposition to the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). I did support this last year. But since that 
time, as a Member of the Committee on Commerce, we have held numerous 
hearings on the safety of drugs and the possibility of reimporting 
these drugs; and I have seen very direct evidence that has caused my 
concern to change enough to oppose that amendment this year.
  We have seen films of laboratories overseas that produce counterfeit 
drugs. We know that drugs are tampered with overseas. The effectiveness 
of it is sometimes wasted because of age. The FDA has no way to protect 
our American citizens from this type of action; and my concern is when 
it is all said and done, when somebody is actually hurt because of this 
or someone actually dies because the medicine is paint and not really 
medicine, what are we going to do about it? What is that consumer going 
to do? Who is that consumer going to seek redress from?
  Surely they cannot expect the real drug company to stand up and stand 
behind their product. How are they going to get to Europe and who are 
they going to sue there? How are they going to find these people to be 
adequately and fairly compensated for these injuries and deaths that 
are surely going to come into this?
  Because of this, I do have concern, even though as I said before I 
voted for this last year, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment this year.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gutknecht 
amendment. Let me say as one of the Members of the subcommittee who 
tried to shepherd through last year's reimportation bill, I find it 
incredulous that every single person who has spoken today against the 
Sanders amendment or the Gutknecht amendment voted for both of them 
last time.
  Now, of course, there was not a recorded vote on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) but there was the amendment of 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), or rather the amendment of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) which was identical to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and every person 
who was in favor of it is opposed at this time and that is interesting, 
because I understand PHRMA, the trade association for the 
pharmaceutical companies, has spent millions of dollars this week 
advertising against this.
  Needless to say, this is a very critical issue. I have constituents 
who have to go to Canada to get drugs for their children, one of whom 
has a very severe form of epilepsy. This woman is a single mom and not 
able to afford to buy this drug in the United States because in Canada, 
of course, it is only a third of what it costs here in the United 
States.
  The Gutknecht amendment simply allows the reimportation of American-
manufactured drugs, in approved, safe FDA facilities, to be brought 
back here without punishment. I think that it is very important in a 
nonelection year to be in favor of lower prescription drug costs.
  I might also add that safety really is not an issue with regard to 
the Gutknecht amendment. And it preserves all of the FDA's legal duty 
to approve all imports. And under the current law, FDA's mandate is to 
stop drugs that appear to be unapproved; and nothing in the Gutknecht 
amendment changes that. So I would certainly urge all of those people 
who supported this and other bills last year to vote for it again this 
year.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the author of the Hatch-Waxman 
Act.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gutknecht 
amendment. I am opposed to it because the

[[Page 12985]]

amendment is so vaguely drafted it can be interpreted as either 
ineffective or dangerous, but under no reading is it worth doing. I 
strongly agree with all of those who have argued that pharmaceutical 
prices are too high, and that drug companies discriminate against U.S. 
citizens in their pricing policies. I would urge the Committee on 
Commerce to take up legislation to right this wrong, but the Gutknecht 
amendment does not fix the problem.
  My reading of the amendment is that a drug must be FDA approved to be 
allowed to be imported under this amendment. Since under the law a drug 
cannot be FDA approved unless it is accompanied by appropriate labeling 
and since virtually no foreign drug will have this labeling, I believe 
that few, if any, drugs will be allowed to be imported under this 
amendment.
  There is a different reading of the amendment that it would allow 
importation if the basic chemical substance has been approved by the 
FDA. If this is the case, the amendment is dangerous because it would 
allow drugs to be brought in without allowing FDA to ensure that they 
are not adulterated not misbranded and are indeed the right dosages and 
strengths. Moreover, all the consumer labeling that we have worked so 
hard to assure will be missing.
  Under this reading, once FDA approves a drug in theory it may not 
ensure that it is safe and effective in practice. So that is the 
choice. Is the amendment ineffective or bad? Either way, I oppose it 
and urge all of my colleagues to join me in asking that the House 
investigate the high cost of prescription drugs and the price 
discrimination that is practiced against Americans.
  This amendment, while many see good in it, I see no redeeming value 
in it because it will either be ineffective or dangerous, and I urge 
opposition to it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, on this amendment, with all due respect to the author 
of the amendment, it is a poorly drafted amendment. What it says is the 
FDA has to approve drugs if they appear to be FDA-approved drugs and do 
not appear to be a controlled substance and appears to be manufactured 
or processed in an establishment registered pursuant to section 501.
  Well, look at these drugs we found in our investigation. Again, 
energy and commerce has done this investigation. This is Hong Kong, 
1999, here is the counterfeit. Here is the genuine. It appears to be 
the same, even though they are not. Here is one from 1986, Great 
Britain. This is Zantac. Again, there is a counterfeit; and there is a 
genuine. Everything appears to be the same all the way down to the 
blister pack, all the writing, everything on here.
  The Gutknecht amendment says this ``all appears.'' I do not think we 
want ``to appear'' with the health and safety of our people. Where is 
the safety net for our senior citizens underneath this amendment? We 
cannot allow reimportation if it ``appears'' okay.
  The FDA, the Customs do not have the resources to open up every one 
of these and make sure it is the real thing. We have had example after 
example given here under the Sanders amendment and now the Gutknecht 
amendment. Do not allow this amendment to go through because it appears 
that the senior citizen is going to be helped out, or the single 
mother, or whoever it may be. They cannot be distinguished.
  To run the tests are $6,000 to $8,000 per test to determine if it is 
the genuine thing. There are letters in the offices of my colleagues 
from the U.S. Department of Justice. There are letters in the offices 
of my colleagues from the FDA asking us not to approve the Gutknecht 
amendment, not to approve the Sanders amendment; and I would submit 
both of these letters for the Record as they are both the FDA and the 
Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration opposition to 
these amendments.

                                            Department of Justice,


                              Drug Enforcement Administration,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2001.
     Hon. W.J. Tauzin, Chairman,
     Hon. John D. Dingell, Ranking Member,
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Dingell: Thank you for 
     asking the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to comment 
     on two certain proposed amendments to H.R. 2330. In 
     furtherance of the efforts of the Energy and Commerce 
     Committee, the DEA is pleased to address the importation of 
     drugs in the United States and submits the following comments 
     on the proposed amendments. These proposed amendments would 
     prohibit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from using 
     any of its funds received under the Agriculture 
     Appropriations Act to enforce certain provisions of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) that pertain to 
     the importation of prescription drugs. We oppose both of 
     these proposed amendments because they would hinder the 
     ability of federal law enforcement officials to ensure that 
     drugs are imported into the United States in compliance with 
     long-standing federal laws designed to protect the public 
     health and safety.
       One of the proposed amendments would prohibit the FDA from 
     using any of its appropriated funds to prevent a person ``who 
     is not in the business of importing prescription drugs'' from 
     importing from certain specified countries ``FDA-approved'' 
     prescription drugs that are not controlled substances. This 
     proposal would be in conflict with the Controlled Substances 
     Act (CSA), which is DEA's governing statute. The basic 
     foundation of the CSA is the ``closed'' system of 
     distribution of controlled substances, under which all 
     persons in the legitimate distribution chain (manufacturers, 
     wholesalers, and retailers) must be registered with DEA and 
     maintain strict accounting for all transactions. This 
     regulatory scheme, administered by DEA, is designed to 
     prevent diversion of controlled substances into illicit 
     channels. However, DEA can maintain no control over the 
     distribution chain and prevent diversion where American 
     consumers purchase their drugs abroad. Somewhat similarly, 
     the law that the FDA administers (the FDCA), cannot be 
     effectuated where American consumers purchase their drugs 
     abroad. Among the ways that the FDCA protects the American 
     public is by requiring good manufacturing practices, proper 
     labeling, and safe handling to prevent adulteration. There is 
     no way to ensure such protections to American consumers if 
     they are allowed to purchase drugs from foreign sellers 
     without FDA oversight.
       We recognize that the proposed amendment states that it 
     does not apply to controlled substances. However, despite 
     this wording, the proposed amendment would provide a 
     potential loophole that could be exploited by traffickers in 
     controlled substances. Every day, prescription drugs, 
     including controlled substances, are illegally shipped into 
     the United States by mail or private carrier. Those who ship 
     controlled substances in this fashion do not label their 
     packages as containing controlled substances. Under the 
     proposed amendment, drug traffickers could send shipments of 
     controlled substances into the United States marked ``FDA-
     approved noncontrolled substance'' and the FDA would be 
     powerless to take any investigative steps or to assist the 
     United States Customs Service (USCS) or DEA in intercepting 
     these illegal shipments.
       An additional concern with the proposal is the use of the 
     phrase ``an individual who is not in the business of 
     importing prescription drugs.'' This terminology is vague, 
     impractical, and inconsistent with that use historically in 
     American drug laws. The FDCA and the CSA have always used the 
     concept of ``registration.'' Under the FDCA, only those 
     manufacturers registered with the FDA may import prescription 
     drugs. Under the CSA, persons must be registered with DEA to 
     import controlled substances.\1\ Moreover, it would be an 
     undue burden on law enforcement (and a benefit to 
     traffickers) to require the government to prove that someone 
     is ``in the business of importing prescription drugs'' before 
     even commencing an investigation. Many unscrupulous persons 
     would simply claim they are ``not in the business of 
     importing prescription drugs'' in order to stifle 
     investigation of potential criminal activity.

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

       As with the proposed amendment described above, another 
     proposal would likely be exploited by drug traffickers. This 
     proposal would prevent the FDA from enforcing section 
     801(d)(1) of the FDCA (21 USC 381(d)(1)), which prohibits the 
     reimportation into the United States of prescription drugs, 
     except by the manufacturer of the drug. Under this proposal, 
     a drug trafficker could stymie legitimate efforts by the FDA 
     to assist in preventing illegal drug shipments into the 
     United States simply by attaching a deceptive label to the 
     shipment (e.g., by labeling a shipment of controlled 
     substances as containing ``FDA-approved, reimported 
     prescription drugs'').

[[Page 12986]]

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

         Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 
           Service, Food and Drug Administration,
                                     Rockville, MD, July 10, 2001.
     Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Dingell,
     Ranking Minority Member, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Mr. Dingell: Thank you for your 
     continued interest in the safety of medicines available in 
     the United States. This is in response to your letter of July 
     5, 2001, regarding Representative Gil Gutknecht's proposed 
     amendment to the FY 2002 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriation 
     bill, and in follow-up to questions raised by Committee 
     staff.
       As you know, the amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht would 
     prohibit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) 
     from using appropriated funds to enforce section 801 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, Cosmetic (FD&C) Act to prevent an 
     individual from importing for personal use a non-controlled 
     substance, prescription drug that is approved by FDA and 
     offered for import from a country referred to in section 
     804(f) of the FD&C Act.
       Your questions are restated, followed by the Agency's 
     response.
       1. Section 801 of the FFDCA requires the FDA to take 
     certain actions when the drug presented for import ``appears 
     from the examination of such samples'' to be manufactured in 
     insanitary conditions or adulterated or misbranded, among 
     other things. The Gutknecht Amendment, however, requires the 
     FDA to make a determination about whether ``a prescription 
     drug [has been] approved by such Administration'' when 
     presented for import. Isn't it true under present law FDA is 
     not required to determine whether or not a drug is approved 
     prior to import, and that the Gutknecht Amendment imposes a 
     higher standard on the Agency? If so, what mechanisms would 
     FDA have to implement to determine whether a drug is FDA-
     approved when presented for importation?
       Yes, the Gutknecht Amendment does create new substantial 
     duties for the Agency:
       1. It requires FDA to first determine whether or not an 
     imported drug is approved before the Agency can take action 
     against the drug; and,
       2. It dramatically increases the burden of proof the Agency 
     must meet in deciding whether to refuse the importation for 
     personal use.
       Prescription drugs imported for personal use are rarely, if 
     ever, accompanied by data from the manufacturer that is 
     sufficient to establish--with certainty--whether the drug was 
     in fact produced at a facility holding a valid FDA approval 
     under the conditions and labeling requirements specified in 
     that approval. An Agency official may be able to visually 
     identify the drug and determine whether the drug ``appears'' 
     to be approved under current law. However, meeting the 
     standard of certainty required by the amendment--that is, 
     determining whether the drug is, or is not, approved--would 
     require the Agency to compile evidence and make judgments and 
     determinations far beyond that required under current law.



       To compile such evidence, FDA could perform laboratory 
     analyses on random samples from each shipment, a process that 
     is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and expensive. 
     Depending on the nature of the drug and the dosage form, we 
     estimate a single test can cost between $6,000 and $15,000. 
     This would, at best, serve to determine whether the drug is 
     the drug identified in its labeling and is composed of the 
     FDA-approved formulation. However, first, FDA would have to 
     develop such testing methodologies, and substantially 
     increase Agency laboratory capability to handle the 
     anticipated influx of products needing to be validated. FDA 
     would also have to determine if that drug is made in a 
     facility registered with FDA.
       Another potential method to determine identity is to try to 
     trace the product back to the manufacturer. However, FDA 
     lacks oversight of foreign wholesalers and pharmacists. A 
     trace back may be feasible if the imported product is labeled 
     with a lot number, which can be traced back to the 
     manufacturer, although, without laboratory testing, it is 
     possible that the drug and its labeling are counterfeits. 
     However, small shipments of medications for personal use 
     usually do not provide the lot number and may be composed of 
     medications from multiple lots.
       If enacted, the Gutknecht amendment would, in many 
     instances, make it virtually impossible for FDA to stop the 
     personal importation of adulterated or misbranded drugs from 
     the identified countries that pose public health risks 
     because of the insurmountable burden on the Agency to first 
     demonstrate that these drugs are not approved products.
       2. The Gutknecht Amendment would also require the FDA to 
     determine from what country a prescription drug is being 
     imported. Does the FDA presently have the duty to make such a 
     determination?
       No, currently FDA does not have the responsibility to 
     determine the country from which a product is being imported. 
     This would be a new duty for FDA. In addition, the amendment 
     could be construed to allow the importation of approved drugs 
     stored or handled in countries not listed in section 804(f) 
     of the FD&C Act as long as the final country from which the 
     drugs are shipped is listed in 804(f). For example, FDA and 
     the U.S. Customs Service conducted a pilot study earlier this 
     year at the Carson international mail facility in California. 
     FDA identified a large volume of imported drugs originating 
     in Vanuatu, a country not listed in 804(f), but transshipped 
     through New Zealand, a country that is listed in 804(f). Many 
     countries, even some of those listed in 804(f), lack adequate 
     controls on transshipment. This amendment would seriously 
     impair FDA's ability to ensure that such drugs are not 
     subpotent, counterfeit, contaminated, or otherwise a threat 
     to public health and safety.
       3. Section 801(g)(1)(A)(i) prohibits the FDA from sending 
     ``warning letters'' to individuals who are not in the 
     business of importing prescription drugs, unless the 
     Secretary makes a determination that ``importation is in 
     violation of section 801(a) because the drug is or appears to 
     be adulterated, misbranded, or in violation of section 
     595[.]'' The Gutknecht Amendment would allow individuals not 
     in the business of importing prescription drugs to import 
     prescription drugs if the drugs are FDA-approved. If the 
     Gutknecht provision were to pass, the FDA's inquiry would be 
     whether the drug is approved, not whether it is misbranded or 
     adulterated. Could the FDA still send warning letters to 
     individuals not in the business of importing prescription 
     drugs if the prescription drugs appeared to be adulterated 
     and/or misbranded?
       If the drug is FDA-approved and imported from a country 
     referred to in 804(f) of the FD&C Act, under this amendment, 
     FDA could not issue such a notice as the first step in 
     preventing the importation even if the product is adulterated 
     or misbranded. Only if FDA first determines that the drug is 
     either not approved or is approved but not imported from a 
     country referred to in section 804(f) and, is adulterated or 
     misbranded, may FDA send such a notice to the importing 
     individual if he or she is not in the business of importing 
     prescription drugs.
       As you know, under current law, FDA can send a warning 
     notice if it first makes a determination that the imported 
     drug appears to be adulterated, misbranded, or it is not 
     approved by FDA, or is in violation of other provisions of 
     section 801. Under the amendment, FDA must determine if the 
     drug is or is not FDA-approved and from what country the drug 
     is imported, even if, it also determines that the product is 
     adulterated or misbranded.
       Thank you again for your interest in this issue. Please let 
     us know if you have further questions.
           Sincerely,

                                           William K. Hubbard,

                                 Senior Associate Commissioner for
                                Policy, Planning, and Legislation.

  Let us not be fooled by the real thing. Let us make sure it is the 
real thing and not a counterfeit. Reject this amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 12987]]

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

                              {time}  1330

  Defunding, or doing anything to undermine this section, will 
obviously lead to serious problems.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, this will 
not do anything to help legitimate cheaper drugs coming into this 
country, and instead what we should probably do is hammer signs into 
the ground at the borders announcing, welcome to the U.S., drug 
counterfeiters and criminals. You are welcome here in the land of 
opportunity.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Gutknecht 
amendment, and I think there are two reasons we should focus on this. 
Number one is cost, and number two is safety.
  I have to ask Members, 435 Members, how many have heard the story 
from a senior citizen about someone in El Paso, Texas, or Detroit, 
Michigan, or some other border city, who has to take Lipitor or some 
other prescription drug on a regular basis, and they go to the 
neighborhood pharmacy and it is $60; but they can go over the border 
and get the exact same drug made by the exact same American 
pharmaceutical company, exact same dosage, same box, for $20?
  Now, we all, if we have been doing our homework on prescription 
drugs, have heard that story. And that is what we are talking about. We 
are talking about letting our constituents, not just seniors, but young 
mothers and families, save lots of money.
  Just listen again to the differences in these prices. Allegra, in 
U.S. dollars, $69; in Europe, $20. Lipitor, in America, $52; in Europe, 
$41. Premarin, $17 in America; $9.90 in Europe. Prozac, $71 in America; 
$44 in Europe.
  These are real dollars. This is not just like the difference in 
gasoline, as you drive from town to town and State to State.
  But we have to ask ourselves, if we allow more competition, will it 
not bring down the prices? Certainly it will. Do our constituents 
deserve this? Absolutely they do.
  I want to also talk about safety, because is it safe not to take your 
Lipitor, is it safe not to take your Prozac, is it safe to not take 
your Zyrtec? This is the issue that seniors and everyday Americans are 
faced with, not taking their drugs because it is too expensive to.
  We appropriated $23 million to the FDA. We are not bypassing them. We 
are saying control this, but let us give American consumers the 
savings.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would confess that the Gutknecht amendment 
sounds good on the surface, but when you begin to scratch that surface, 
it is not so good. In fact, as some have suggested this afternoon, it 
is outright dangerous. Americans want a standard of excellence, and 
this amendment, at least the way it is worded, simply does not work.
  Under present law, the FDA can stop drugs at the border if they 
appear to not be approved. That is sensible. If something looks bad, it 
certainly should not be allowed into this country. But under this 
amendment, it says that the FDA cannot stop a drug if it appears to be 
in compliance, even if it is not approved.
  The FDA simply does not have the resources or the manpower to enforce 
an amendment of this magnitude, and as my colleague from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) suggested a little bit earlier, this amendment could actually 
legitimize counterfeiting of drugs.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Gutknecht amendment. I practiced medicine for 15 years, internal 
medicine. I treated diabetes, heart disease. I wrote a lot of 
prescriptions, 100 to 200 prescriptions a day.
  Most of the criticisms that have been raised by this amendment I 
think can be worked through and solved. What this really boils down to 
is there are millions of senior citizens in the United States who 
cannot afford their prescription drugs, and, for many of them, going to 
Canada or doing a mail order arrangement is a very nice solution to the 
cost problems.
  To say that this is so dangerous, to me, I think, is a little bit of 
a red herring. In terms of the appearance language, as I understand it, 
that is the standard in the law as it currently exists. The gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) was just following the current standard 
in the law.
  This amendment will help a lot of people. The majority of seniors 
have a prescription plan that is paid for by their previous employer, 
so this is not

[[Page 12988]]

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

                                            Department of Justice,


                              Drug Enforcement Administration,

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

[[Page 12989]]

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

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

                              {time}  1345

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

[[Page 12990]]

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

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

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

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

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

[[Page 12991]]

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

                              {time}  1400

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

[[Page 12992]]

revolution'', which was supposed to conquer hunger and in their view 
did not, ``the green revolution, which involved improving seeds and 
fertilizers and pesticides, actually more than doubled cereal 
production in South Asia between 1970 and 1995. Despite enormous 
population growth during that period, it reduced the malnutrition rate 
in the world from 40 percent to 23 percent.''
  So what the green revolution began, the gene revolution can continue. 
Today's amendment would stop the approval process or the approval. I 
think that is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard several times on the floor that this does 
not stop funding for research, all it does is stop funding for final 
approval by the FDA of that research. We might as well stop funding for 
research, because who is going to put money into the research if there 
is no provision for final approval for use of that research once it is 
done?
  The FDA has the legal authority to regulate products derived from 
transgenic animals. Although significant public and private research to 
develop commercially useful transgenic fish is ongoing, none have 
completed the FDA process at this time. Products regulated as new 
animal drugs in the United States are subject to rigorous premarket 
requirements to determine effectiveness, to ensure food, animal, and 
environmental safety. This process includes targeting animal safety, 
safety to the environment, and safety for consumers who eat foods 
derived from genetically-engineered animals.
  The Center for Veterinary Medicine intends to use various approaches, 
including a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, to identify 
further environmental safety issues associated with the investigation 
and commercial use of transgenic animals.
  To do this, the agency will cooperate closely with other Federal and 
State agencies that have related authorities, such as the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, in the case 
of transgenic Atlantic salmon. Last year, the U.S. National Academy of 
Sciences concluded that the regulatory system for biotech foods is 
appropriate and effective.
  These are some of the reasons why this amendment is strongly opposed 
by a coalition of agricultural interests, including the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the Grocery 
Manufacturers of America, the National Corngrowers Association, the 
National Cotton Council, the National Fruit Processors Association, and 
many, many more.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this step back into the 
dark ages.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of 
the subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I want to compliment my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for 
bringing this extremely important issue before the full House as we 
debate this 2002 agriculture appropriations bill.
  Let me say to the gentleman that I think what is so important about 
what he has done is he has drawn a line in the sand. He is saying to us 
that before we cross the line between the green revolution and the 
genetic revolution, somebody here in Congress had better pay attention 
that our government is not even properly structured to deal with this 
significant scientific leap.
  We are not talking about the marriage of genes between necessarily 
like species that have mated in nature, or pollinated in nature. But 
rather, we are addressing the injection of growth hormones into fish 
that have never mated, producing species that we have never seen the 
likes of, and nature has never seen the likes of since the dawn of 
time.
  From an administrative standpoint, we could ask ourselves, who is in 
charge of fish, anyway? We cannot even get the government of the United 
States to inspect fish that is coming over our borders and causing 
people to get sick across this country.
  So who is in charge of fish? We have the Commerce Department, with 
NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We have the 
Interior Department with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We have the 
USDA, with the Food Safety Inspection Service. We have the EPA, which 
issues these advisories such as ``Do not eat fish from Lake Erie but 
one per week because of mercury levels being too high.''
  I can tell the Members this, that we know today that we have half as 
many fish in our oceans as we did 25 years ago. This diminishment of 
the natural system of oceanic fish production is a serious 
international problem. If we think about the dawn of genetic 
engineering, this is but another transgenic product that we should be 
concerned about when it is released from containment into the natural 
environment. We do not know its consequences on the ecosystem, in the 
same way as we do not know the consequences of transgenically-altered 
plants in the natural environment. We are ill-equipped as a country to 
deal with these issues in any intelligent way, so we sort of get into 
using current unprepared bureaucracies, like FDA, which this amendment 
addresses.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing in the gentleman's amendment stops research. 
But what it does is it says let us take a pause for thought here with 
the FDA. Let us take a look as a Congress to investigate and authorize 
the appropriate agency with environmental expertise and clear authority 
to regulate the impacts of these genetically-engineered fish, wherever 
that might be.
  I fully support the amendment and urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason America has the 
highest standards and the safest foods in the world, safer than Europe, 
more nutrition than Asia, using less pesticides and preserving more of 
the environment than any other Nation in the world. The reason is that 
time and time again America has refused to inject politics into our 
food safety process.
  However, that is what this amendment does. It contaminates our 
scientifically sound food safety process with politics. There is no 
scientific reason for the moratorium. The FDA already requires all food 
applicants, whether they are scientifically improved or not, to meet 
their highest safety standards, not just for human food consumption but 
for animal welfare and environmental safety.
  This amendment not only does not contribute to food safety, it 
actually harms it, because it says no matter how beneficial, no matter 
how strong and valuable this research is, we cannot even consider it. 
This does discourage research into aquaculture breakthroughs which help 
us develop fish stocks that are healthier, more abundant, and more 
immune to disease.
  That is important not just to farm catfish, not because we have 
decimated the world's fishing, but it helps to save the 30 percent of 
fish killed needlessly each year because of illness. If fish are 
healthy, the food is going to be healthy.
  Finally, this amendment feeds the European hysteria, and feeds upon 
normal people who have not thought about the progress and benefits of 
biotechnology, too. The fact of the matter is that we produce more food 
on less land, more environmentally safe food with less pesticides in 
America and around the world because of biotechnology.
  At Texas A&M, which I represent, we work with the Medical Center in 
Houston to develop plants and vegetables that have cancer-fighting 
oxidants. As we said here today, scientists have rice that will address 
the vitamin A deficiency which could help prevent 500,000

[[Page 12993]]

children each year from going blind in this world.
  This is a risky amendment. This is a scientifically unsound 
amendment. Most importantly, it injects politics into food. Let us keep 
the politics out of food safety and in Washington where it belongs.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, there seems to be some 
misunderstanding about the purpose of this amendment. It is not a ban, 
it is a 1-year moratorium to begin to study the effects on the 
environment, on consumers.
  I also want to point out that something the Washington Post cited on 
May 19, 2001, basically supporting the approach of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. Chairman, the Post points out that the FDA has classified what 
they call genetic enhancement, these bigger fish, as a drug for 
animals. Now, follow this. The FDA says it is a drug for animals. That 
technically means, according to the Post, the main task of its review 
will not be to look at the effects of the fish on the environment or 
fish on the consumer, but to study the effect of the growth hormone on 
the fish. That is all the FDA does.
  So here we have people advocating the right of fish to have growth 
hormones, and saying that that is more important than the right of 
people to be defended against possible adverse human health 
consequences, or the right that we have and the responsibility we have 
to protect our environment.
  Protecting the right of fish to have growth hormones, indeed. 
Something smells fishy about the opposition, which would want to 
protect the right of fish to have growth hormones. That is all the FDA 
does here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise, very respectful of the gentleman offering the 
amendment, to oppose the amendment offered today.
  While I, too, have concerns for the safety of our food that has been 
genetically engineered, we need to continue the FDA's oversight and 
expertise in this area. Handcuffing the FDA by prohibiting their review 
process has very broad policy implications.
  The risks associated with transgenic fish, and specifically salmon, 
are overstated. Claims that transgenic salmon will create genetic 
pollution are unfounded because only sterile all-female stock would be 
commercialized, virtually eliminating any risk of cross-breeding with 
wild salmon.
  Legislating the approval process of FDA has far-reaching implications 
which could negatively impact future innovations to improve our food 
supply and our health.

                              {time}  1415

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

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

  So I think we have to look at the scientific issues here. And does 
this sound like the FDA is adequately addressing the environmental 
concerns that are raised? It does not. But a 1-year delay would give 
Congress the opportunity to make sure that the National Marine 
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are included in the 
process. I want to make sure that Congress will include the appropriate 
scientists in the approval process.
  This amendment is about a 1-year moratorium to give us the chance to 
make sure that the right decisions are being made, or else, my 
colleagues, we may soon see a version of Frankenfish which will 
exterminate whole species of fish. We have an obligation to consumers 
to look at this and not to jump to a hasty decision which would involve 
the FDA giving approval for fish when in fact the FDA is not involved 
with health issues and environmental issues relating to consumers.
  This amendment is strongly supported by commercial fishermen, 
including the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, the 
Alaska Trawlers Association, and the Washington Trawlers Association 
because their struggling industry, industries important to this 
country, cannot afford a negative ecological impact on the wild fish 
species that they depend on for their livelihood.
  Vote for this amendment. It is to protect our people's health, our 
environmental health, and it is only for a 1-year moratorium.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment; 
and I want to approach this from really just a broad and general 
perspective.
  If we look over the next 25 years, the world's population is going to 
increase by 2.5 billion. This 2.5 billion increase in population is 
going to be occurring primarily in the developing countries of the 
world. When we look at the tremendous demand for food, and in 
particular for protein, in order to ensure that these people are going 
to have adequate nutrition, we have to be ensuring that we are 
investing in new science and research that is going to ensure that we 
have the capacity to produce these food products.

[[Page 12994]]

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


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Clayton

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

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

       Sec. 738. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS--Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 
     and Rental Payments'',

[[Page 12995]]

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and a 
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have agreed to present my amendment with the 
understanding that the chairman is going to work with us during 
conference, and then I will withdraw it. But he has graciously allowed 
us to get the argument into the Record.
  This amendment is an en bloc amendment and has three phases to it. 
The first part is to indeed allow for justification for the outreach to 
small and disadvantaged farmers. The reason why we need these extra 
resources for small and disadvantaged farmers is because small farmers, 
all farmers are having difficulty, but small farmers and disadvantaged 
farmers and minority farmers are especially having difficulty.
  We are all aware of the issue around farmers not being able to get 
credit, farmers not being able to get the technical assistance, farmers 
not being able to keep up with the new technology. Well, providing 
monies to what we call the 2501 program allows them to do that. So we 
are asking for an increase to indeed have those resources.
  The second part of this amendment would include the research. Now, I 
understand that many people have problems where we are suggesting the 
money should be coming from. But the issue we want for our colleagues 
to understand on this, is that the research and extension for the 1890 
institutions has been woefully underfunded. I brought this chart so it 
could be put in as part of the Record. Indeed, this is the national 
research initiative, the competitive grant in the 1999 fiscal year, 
where we could find the records. All of the seventeen 1890 colleges got 
5/10 of 1 percent of the money.
  Now, why is this an inequity we want to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues? Well, most of the small farmers and disadvantaged farmers 
are more concentrated where the 1890 institutions are. And to the 
extent that they are not allowed to provide the research to add to the 
understanding of the research in those areas it would be indeed an 
error.
  The third part of this amendment was the whole issue of capacity 
building. The capacity building of the grant would allow the 
opportunity to provide monies for graduate students, for professors, 
and those who would have the opportunity to build up the capacity of 
these universities. Now, I understand that this is perceived as 
impossible, as being too expensive. Is it too expensive to make these 
1890 universities, some 17 of them, as capable as any other university? 
It adds to the capacity of the American rural structure. It adds to the 
capacity and the research that we are providing new people about the 
understanding of our food and our fiber.
  So I would ask my colleagues as we move forward to support this.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be joined by one of the cosponsors of this 
amendment. Her particular interest was the research, but she is 
interested in all parts of the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina for allowing me the opportunity to work with her. I also 
thank the chairman of this committee and the ranking member for their 
leadership and their concern.
  This is not a new attempt. This is an initiative that we worked on 
with the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies and the authorization committee 
last year dealing with the 1890 land grant colleges. I am on the 
Committee on Science, and I know the value of R&D. I also know the 
value of the history of farmers as well as those farmers in the African 
community.
  But generally speaking, the history of the land grant colleges were 
around the rural communities in particular. They came out of the soil, 
if you will. In fact, many of the colleges still have very large 
agricultural programs now and teach agricultural science, such as 
Prairie View A & M.

                              {time}  1430

  It is interesting we are not in this amendment asking, if you will, 
to take over the percentages and the dollars given to other colleges, 
in particular the 1862 land grant. But what we are highlighting is that 
the research dollars to the 1890 land grant is less than 1 percent. It 
is .5. So the opportunity for innovative research that can help in 
nutrition, that can help in agricultural science as it relates to the 
research done with farm animals, if you will, if an urbanite can 
suggest that particular type of research, soil research, environmental 
research, coming from these kinds of campuses, dealing with small 
farmers is an enormous asset to what is a very important part of our 
economy, and that is farming and food and agriculture.
  So I would simply ask and join the gentlewoman from North Carolina in 
asking for our amendment to be supported along the lines of research in 
enhancing the opportunity for these colleges. In my State it is Prairie 
View A & M, but there are many, many colleges that can benefit by this 
research. It is, again, not to take away, it is to enhance.
  I would hope that we would want to enhance the opportunities for 
research among these particular colleges. I ask for support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand clearly that we are to work on this in the 
weeks ahead and the months ahead to try to address the concerns of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina and would like to inquire if the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina is still intending to withdraw her 
amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I do have another speaker, if 
the gentleman will allow me to do that.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Clayton) for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to publicly acknowledge the incredible work 
that the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) has done in 
proposing this amendment along with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee). Were it not for their vision and leadership last year, we 
would not have had any increase to these accounts.

[[Page 12996]]

  Without question these colleges and institutes have such an enormous 
impact in our country, but also can be pivotal institutions for 
advancement in other countries. I envision the day when these 
additional dollars will be able to link these institutions to even some 
of the most underdeveloped areas of Africa. There, I think, cooperative 
research projects could benefit both nations, the farmers of both 
nations, the people of both nations.
  I also want to thank both the gentlewomen from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for taking a 
hard look at the full potential of these historically black colleges 
and universities and the Tuskegee Institute and the needs of our 
smaller African American farmers.
  In supporting this amendment, I am reminded of my travels to one 
State where there were significant civil rights suits against the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. It was unbelievable to me that loans were 
not being made to very worthy endeavors by minority farmers for food 
processing. We run into this age-old problem of discrimination even by 
some of the local loan committees that still exist across this country.
  I think that these universities and the Tuskegee Institute and these 
colleges can help lead America forward in a very important way. They 
can be of special assistance because of the trust with which they and 
their researchers are held by the very communities that we want to 
assist.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have to say to these two gentlewomen--who 
really cannot be viewed as only gentle for some of what they have to 
address in serving at the national level and dealing with some of the 
issues that we contend with--that they are leading America forward in 
this new millennium in a way that is so vitally necessary. They 
certainly have my support in their intentions to increase funding in 
these categories.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentlewoman wishes to withdraw the amendment 
at some point, but hopefully as we move toward the Senate, we will be 
able to take my colleague's excellent recommendations and enact them 
into law through conference.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking 
member for the sensitivity and enormity of her leadership in feeding 
the world.
  I wanted to restate something that is crucial: The kind of 
partnerships that can be established between the historically black 
colleges and developing nations in terms of nutrition and agriculture 
science and opportunities to enhance their ability to provide food for 
themselves, which is a great problem in developing nations.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership. I 
thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, certainly we know in most of those places 
it is women who are raising most of the food and feeding their 
villages. We know that the historically black colleges and Tuskegee 
Institute will be especially sensitive to that. Without a doubt their 
reach can be worldwide.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of those who are sensitive to this 
issue; but I want to raise the issue of the contribution that small 
family farmers and minority farmers are making to the vitality of the 
agricultural community. And to the extent we help them, and 2501 is 
that outreach program, it is administered by nonprofit groups and 1890 
colleges, and that is why it is essential to get sufficient funds for 
it.
  The research that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
emphasized so strongly, already there is a connection between the 
developing countries. Tuskegee is doing biotechnology in Nigeria. There 
is a program, Farmers to Africa, Farmers to Caribbean. 1890 is taking 
sustainable agricultural know-how to these small, struggling countries 
to transfer the knowledge we have. So Americans are doing good and well 
at the same time.
  Finally, the capacity-building of the 1890 colleges is sustained to 
add to the credibility and the strength of our higher education system. 
Research is an important part of agriculture, and to that extent we 
want to strengthen all of the land grant colleges, and this allows us 
to strengthen the 1890 land grant colleges.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his willingness to work with 
us as we go forward in the conference committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baca

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

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

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

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

[[Page 12997]]

 
    Total...................................................   2,728,764
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the work of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) on this very important issue on 
Hispanic-serving institutions, and I want to also express my gratitude 
for his acknowledging what this subcommittee has done; and also what 
has been done historically on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services and Education over the last few years in a bipartisan 
way to take care of many of the problems that exist at many 
institutions in terms of funding.
  Mr. Chairman, as I discussed with the gentleman before, we are 
willing to work to see if there is a possibility at all to try to 
increase this number down the road. We do not know if that is going to 
be possible, but we certainly will make every effort. We have given 
increases in this bill over the last 2 years as well, and we are doing 
all we can; and we certainly will continue to do that.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca) for his leadership in bringing this issue to the attention of our 
subcommittee. The gentleman from California is particularly well suited 
to sensitizing the Congress for the extra attention that needs to be 
put to identify those institutions serving higher numbers of Hispanic 
populations, and to help to place those in a more competitive position 
with larger and more established institutions that tend to have first 
call at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, even in their research 
protocols.
  Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that he will have my full 
support in identifying ways to move funding to those institutions to 
reach a broader array of the American public, and, as with some of the 
other institutions we were talking about a little bit earlier, 
particularly those serving African American populations, to look also 
toward a global role for those institutions because of their inherent 
bilingual capabilities and the historic ties that exist, certainly with 
Latin America and other places.
  So we do not have a narrow view of only one State or even our own 
country, but we have this tremendous resource in our own country if we 
but see it and enhance it.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for coming to us and for being 
the leader in this Congress and for bringing this issue to our 
attention. California could not have sent a more capable representative 
here, and the gentleman certainly has my pledge to work with him as we 
move toward conference to see if we cannot do it better in this new 
millennium than perhaps some of those who served here in the past.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. We all 
realize that it is important to support institutions such as the HSIs, 
and I appreciate the lead that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) 
has taken in the past years ensuring funding, and I look forward to 
working with him in the future in conference committee to increase 
funding for this wonderful grant program.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that my amendment is subject to a point of 
order. I concede to that point of order, and I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

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


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 216]

                               AYES--159

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

                               NOES--267

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee

[[Page 12998]]


     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Capuano
     Coyne
     Dingell
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     Paul
     Riley

                              {time}  1508

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 217]

                               AYES--324

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

                               NOES--101

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Capuano
     Coyne
     Dingell
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     McKinney
     Paul
     Riley

                              {time}  1522

  Ms. LOFGREN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. JoANN DAVIS of Virginia, Ms. 
MILLENDER-McDONALD and Messrs. SANDLIN, GRAHAM, ROGERS of Michigan, 
BECERRA, ROEMER, WHITFIELD and PICKERING changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 12999]]

  Stated against:
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 217, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 279, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 218]

                               AYES--145

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

                               NOES--279

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

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

                              {time}  1532

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


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

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

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise to offer an amendment that would direct the Department of 
Agriculture to submit a report to Congress that details the full amount 
of Federal funds being used to provide price support and describe the 
full effects of quotas and tariffs imposed on our Government protecting 
commodities.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a strange patchwork of policies that date back 
two-thirds of a century to the Depression Era, back to a time when 
there were 6 million family farmers, when 25 percent of our population 
lived on the farms. Today, we have a crazy patchwork of programs that 
have serious environmental impacts, which is why this amendment has 
been endorsed by Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Working 
Group, but it also has distorting impacts as far as the economy is 
concerned. It is estimated that worldwide, there are over $150 billion 
in extra costs that are added; and for the United States consumer, it 
is the equivalent of a 3 percent food sales tax, and the most 
regressive because of the impacts this has on the poor who spend more, 
$18 billion a year.
  We deserve, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to see the big picture 
before we move forward with other elements that deal with agriculture, 
that deal with international trade.

[[Page 13000]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller) to speak to a specific example of the impacts that we are 
concerned about.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman for introducing it.
  All we are asking for is transparency, and let me use the 
illustration of the sugar program that was passed in 1996, when we were 
told, no cost to the American taxpayer. Well, let us look at the facts. 
Let us look at the facts.
  First of all, GAO says it cost $1.9 billion for the American 
consumer. The American consumer is the American taxpayer, so it cost 
$1.9 billion. Last year, the Federal Government had to buy $430 million 
worth of sugar, and it does not have any use for it. It is having to 
store it. We are spending $20 million a year to store all of this sugar 
that we have no use for, and yet we were told that it had no cost. The 
price of sugar in the United States is more than double what it is 
elsewhere around the world, as if the Federal Government were a major 
purchaser of sugar, whether it is in VA hospitals or schools and such.
  In addition, under the environmental issue, sugar is a major 
contributor to the pollution of the Everglades. We are going to spend 
$8 billion to clean up the Everglades, and we are going to pay a lot of 
that cost because the sugar program is causing the problem.
  So these agriculture programs that say, oh, it does not cost the 
Government anything, we do not know what it costs us. It has direct 
costs and it has indirect costs, and all this amendment says is let us 
have transparency, and let us figure out what it really costs.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon 
bringing this important amendment to the floor.
  It is also important to remember that in 1996, this Congress brought 
the Freedom to Farm Act to this floor. The professed plan was to phase 
out farm subsidies in 7 years by spending $36 billion on additional 
subsidies.
  Well, 7 years later we have spent over $80 billion instead of $44 
billion, and that has not even been enough for subsidy supporters. In 
emergency funding for agriculture alone, Congress has spent an 
additional $38 billion. That means we either made a very bad guess back 
in 1996, or we are dealing with very bad public policy.
  Today we find that the Freedom to Farm Act that was supposed to free 
America from farm subsidies while freeing American taxpayers from price 
supports, has actually backfired; and now. Congress once again is 
paying two, three, even four times the amount of subsidies that we 
pledged to the American people in 1996.
  Congress passed welfare reforms for struggling, single parents; and 
now Congress needs to pass similar reforms for the American farmer. 
Americans should not continue paying people for not planting their 
crops.
  The Freedom to Farm Act failed because Congressional courage failed 
all American taxpayers. We need to look at these misguided policies 
again, and stop subsidy payments that continue to cost American 
taxpayers billions of dollars.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would hope that we on this floor of both parties, people of 
disparate philosophical orientations, could agree on one thing: the 
American public deserves to know the big picture, how much it costs, 
who is paying, and the impacts of these programs so that we can make 
the appropriate decisions for agriculture, for the environment, and 
sound economic policy.
  I understand there may be some question as to the acceptability of 
this amendment, that it may be subject to a point of order and I 
respect that, and I will be willing to withdraw my amendment. But I 
hope that we can work with the members of this subcommittee to be able 
to work to make sure that we have the information available to protect 
the environment, to provide sound agricultural policy, and be able to 
deal with our trade responsibilities in the international arena.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

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

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

[[Page 13001]]

American law does not deal with service contracts, and we are going to 
address ourselves to that through the authorizing process. So the 
gentlewoman is exactly correct.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

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

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

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

                              {time}  1545

  We have a price support program that provides that if market prices 
fall below a certain level for these programs' crops, someone is 
eligible for an LDP, a loan deficiency payment, or a commodity 
nonrecourse loan.
  Under the provisions of the law, though, technically, only those 
individuals that were enrolled in farm programs and designated their 
program crop acreage back in the late 1980s are eligible for this kind 
of support.
  So what we did last year is allow every American farmer, those cattle 
and livestock farmers, those dairy farmers that did not have program 
crops and report them back in the 1980s, to be eligible for that same 
kind of federal price support as those individual crop farmers that had 
program crops.
  We are basing our farm programs on antiquated crop history that was 
established from 1986 to 1991. This amendment provides that those other 
farmers that today are growing that corn, that rice, that cotton, the 
soybeans, that corn, will still be eligible for the Federal Government 
price support program.
  It is a matter of fairness, and I say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham), the deputy chairman, that the Senate has indicated they are 
interested in putting this in the Senate version of their agricultural 
appropriation bill. It is important that we, as quickly as possible, 
tell the American farmers, that otherwise might not be eligible for 
this kind of support help, that we intend to pass this amendment.
  We had it in the chairman's mark of the appropriation bill 
supplemental. That bill was changed with the Stenholm substitute. This 
amendment needs to be accomplished. I would ask the leadership in their 
efforts, when we go to conference, if this is in the Senate bill, can 
we move ahead on this amendment?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman from 
Michigan's interest in this matter.
  I understand there is strong bipartisan support to remedy this 
inequity in our farm program laws. I support the gentleman's efforts to 
accomplish this.
  I am sorry that, because of the legislative nature of this amendment, 
the bill before us today is not the appropriate vehicle for this 
provision. However, I look forward to working with the gentleman in the 
future on this problem, and if the provision is in the Senate bill, we 
will consider this correction in our conference committee. I thank the 
gentleman for his efforts.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the body's attention an amendment I 
have prepared that concerns a matter of fairness and equity to American 
farm policy. Very simply, my amendment would maintain the number of 
farmers eligible for Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs) under language 
included in last year's Agricultural Risk Protection Act (Crop 
Insurance Reforms).
  The explanation for this need is as follows: for farmers to be 
eligible for LDP payments under the current farm bill, they must have 
had their land enrolled in farm program acreage back in 1986-91 crop 
years. This means that farmers that have decided to go into farming in 
the past ten years have not been eligible to receive loans or LDP's 
unless they have purchased farmland that was enrolled in the 1986-91 
acreage. This would also include those farmers that did have acreage 
enrolled at the inception of the base acreage allotments, but later 
shifted acreage from another use into program crop production. For 
instance, if a corn/soybean farmer that also grazes some land enrolled 
in program acreage decides to shift that grazed acreage into corn/
soybean production, his new cropping acreage would not be eligible for 
the Loan Deficiency Payment.
  This problem was recognized last year and LDP eligibility was 
expanded to include farmers not enrolled in program acreage--language 
included in Crop Insurance legislation. However, this provision was 
only for crop year 2000, and another legislative remedy is needed for 
crop year 2001.
  My amendment, which I have also introduced as a stand-alone bill, 
H.R. 2089, would do just that. The idea of LDP eligibility equity has 
garnered strong bipartisan support within the Ag Committee, and was 
included in Chairman Combest's original mark for the 2001 Crop Year 
Economic Assistance Act that was voted on earlier this week (H.R. 
2213), but was narrowly eliminated along with all other fiscal year 
2002 spending that was included in the mark.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that approximately 98.6 
percent of program crop production is eligible for LDP payments. While 
that number is significantly high and captures most commodity 
producers, it is still unfair for the other 1.4 percent to be 
ineligible simply because those farmers are not enrolled in farm 
program base acreage. It is important that we enact this provision and 
eliminate this loophole that places some farmers at a competitive 
disadvantage. I urge members to vote for passage of this amendment so 
that we may correct this problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. LATHAM. I reserve a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith) is withdrawn.


           Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

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

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

       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel of the Department of Agriculture who permit the 
     payment limitation specified in section 1001(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)) to be exceeded in 
     any manner (whether through payments in excess of such 
     limitation, permitting repayment of

[[Page 13002]]

     marketing loans at a lower rate, the issuance of certificates 
     redeemable for commodities, or forfeiture of a loan commodity 
     when the payment limitation level is reached), except, in the 
     case of a husband and wife, the total amount of the payments 
     specified in section 1001(3) of that Act that they may 
     receive during the 2001 crop year may not exceed $150,000.

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 28, 2001, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in this amendment because earlier I 
had an indication from the Parliamentarian that this would be in order. 
We added some language that apparently is now going over the line in 
terms of legislating in an appropriation bill.
  But let me just emphasize the importance of policy as we consider 
this amendment. The question befor this body is should the huge, large 
agricultural farm corporations get the most benefit from Federal 
agricultural programs? This amendment reinstates the $75,000 limit for 
payments.
  Our agriculture programs, ever since we started these programs in the 
1930s, have tended to benefit the large, and very large farmers, so in 
part the large farmers have bought out the small farmers because they 
have had the advantage in farm program payments.
  My amendment, reinstates the $75,000 payment limitation on loan 
deficiency payments and it makes it a real $75,000 limitation on these 
producers. At the same time, and I would call this to the attention of 
the ranking member and chairman, at the same time, this amendment 
allows spouses of these farmers to be considered an equal partner in 
the farm operation, in other words, be eligible for the $75,000 payment 
limitation.
  What we do now is make those spouses jump through, if you will, 
bureaucratic hoops to become qualified. We require such action as 
requiring the spouse to borrow money in their own name, put it into the 
farm operation, and then they can be eligible as a separate partner.
  This amendment says that married couples would have the $150,000 
payment limitation.
  Let me go little further on what this amendment really does. 
Historically, net benefits from loan deficiency payments have been 
capped at $75,000 per producer, but this limit was doubled in the bill 
that went through on special orders a couple of weeks ago.
  The increased payments to producers over the current $75,000 limit 
are estimated to be over $350 million. The huge, giant farmers are 
taking $350 million over and above the $75,000 limitation. This 
benefits only the very largest farmers.
  The average farm size in the U.S. is about 420 acres, but one would 
have to raise 4,000 acres of corn at current prices to exceed or to go 
over the $75,000 limitation. There are many large farm operations that 
exceed 20,000 acres, so they are taking all of this extra money in and, 
in effect, taking it away from the family farmer.
  Amazingly, this flawed system has allowed payments over $1 million to 
go to some of these farmers. Farmers that receive these large 
subsidies, and the grain traders that profit from expanded production, 
oppose this amendment. I think it is so important that we consider this 
kind of policy in terms of focusing the benefits on the small- and 
moderate-sized family farm operations.
  This amendment accomplishes several things. It gives the spouse of a 
farmer the same kind of considerations as a partner. It provides that 
we hold to the $75,000 payment limitation, at a time when we are 
considering being frugal in our spending so that we do not start 
reaching into the Medicare and Social Security trust fund. It says, let 
us save that $350 million that is spent on those huge farmers by 
locking in the limit that would also apply to the nonrecourse loan and 
the forfeiture provisions or the commodity certificates that are 
offered to that farmer if they exceed the limitation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge this body to consider the kind of 
agricultural farm policy that we want for the future of American 
agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment concerning payment limitations for 
marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments (LDPs) to farmers, as 
well as limits on benefits received through the USDA commodity 
certificate program and nonrecourse loan forfeitures. This amendment 
would cap payments to individual farmers from these programs at 
$75,000.
  Mr. Chairman, few people are aware that many of our farm commodity 
programs, for all of their good intentions, are set up to disburse 
payments with little regard to farm size. Often in our rush to provide 
support for struggling farmers we overlook just where that support is 
going.
  The limit on price support payments to farmers was increased when we 
passed H.R. 2213, the 2001 Crop Year Economic Assistance Act on June 
26th. Historically, net benefits from loan deficiency payments and 
marketing loan gains has been capped at $75,000 per farmer. However, 
H.R. 2213, which passed under the suspension calendar and was not 
subject to amendment, doubled the benefit cap to $150,000. Even this 
limitation is exceeded when USDA authorizes a commodity certificate 
program to pay farmers that reach the payment limit.
  The increased costs to government by doubling the benefit cap from 
the current $75,000 limit is estimated at over $50 million. 
Furthermore, additional payments to large producers received through 
the commodity certificate program are staggering--over $320 million in 
crop year 2000 alone.
  A Congressional Research Service report on commodity certificates 
stated that, ``while purported to discourage commodity forfeitures, 
certificates effectively serve to circumvent the payment limitation.'' 
Amazingly, this flawed system allowed a single farmer to receive 
$1,201,677 in commodity support payments in 1999.
  My amendment would simply restore a $75,000 limit on price support 
payments to individual farmers--including benefits via commodity 
certificates and loan forfeitures, but increase the limit to $150,000 
for husband and wife farming operations. Currently spouses have to jump 
through several bureaucratic hoops to qualify.
  With increased spending a concern, along with the fact that the 
additional benefits from the ``certificate'' program go to huge farm 
operations, I urge your consideration of my amendment. Boosting farm 
program payment limitations disproportionately skews federal 
agriculture support to the largest of producers, while doing nothing to 
alleviate the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized farmers. 
Let's do more to focus benefits on small and moderate size family farm 
operations.


                            usda statistics

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment imposes additional duties, and I ask for a ruling from 
the Chair.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized.

[[Page 13003]]


  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, hoping the Chair is open to 
discussion and debate on this issue, I would call to the Chairman's 
attention to the fact that we simply say in this amendment, ``None of 
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be 
used to pay the salaries of personnel of the Department of 
Agriculture'' to accomplish these certain purposes.
  This type of amendment has been put in former appropriation bills, so 
I would like a more detailed explanation from the Chair if he rules 
this amendment out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment in the last phrase includes 
language imposing a new duty. The amendment therefore constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased for the second year in a row to offer this 
important bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert). Unfortunately, the gentleman from New York cannot be here as 
he is on his way down to the White House, but we have his full support 
for this amendment.
  Our amendment adds $10 million to USDA's nutrition program for 
elderly meal programs, known as senior citizen meals and Meals on 
Wheels. This amendment offsets this additional spending by reducing by 
$10 million from the agriculture building and facilities and rental 
payments.
  Our amendment has the support of the Meals on Wheels Association of 
Michigan, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services 
Program, the TREA Senior Citizens League, the National Council on the 
Aging, and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
  I am sure all of us have met and spoken with seniors in our 
districts. I am sure they have told us how much they have come to 
depend upon the senior meals they receive, be it Meals on Wheels or 
meals at their senior centers.
  Senior meal providers receive funding for the meals they distribute 
to seniors under the Older Americans Act through several avenues: 
first, through private donations; second, through the Department of 
Health and Human Services; and third, through the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture meal reimbursements.
  Let me explain why a funding increase for USDA's nutrition program 
for the elderly program is so important. Unlike funding from the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, which is distributed to 
the States based on population, the USDA reimbursement to States is 
according to the amount of meals served at each senior center. The 
money they receive is actually based on meals served at the senior 
center.
  Our amendment is the best way to ensure that proper distribution of 
these funds are going to the centers where they prepare the meals.
  Why do we need more money? Why are we back for a second year in a 
row? Why does this amendment go above the President's request? As our 
chart indicates here, if we take a look at this chart, according to the 
Administration on Aging, 253 million meals were served in 2000, but the 
agency admits that this year the estimates will be 291 million. That is 
a 15 percent increase over last year.
  Even though we increased the funding last year for the meals, it is 
not going to be able to cover the dramatic rise in demand we see for 
senior meals. So the President's budget request, and the good work by 
the committee, it was good work, would be short of what we need just to 
cover our basic costs.
  What our amendment does, the Stupak-Boehlert amendment will allow 
this important funding to reflect the inflation and the increase in 
demand for these meals. We can help senior meal providers that so 
desperately need assistance in these times of high gas prices, high 
cost of meals, and the increasing number of seniors who have come to 
depend on these meals, even in these good economic times.
  I offer this amendment because of conversations I had last year with 
one such meal provider and about the plight of his agency. Bill Dubord 
and Sally Kidd of the Community Action Agency in Escanaba, Michigan, in 
my northern Michigan District, told me that their agency every year is 
having a tougher and tougher time keeping its head above water to 
provide senior meals.
  I am sure all of us have heard similar stories as we travel about 
senior centers. According to a recent study, there are now an average 
of 85 people on waiting lists for home-delivered meal services, and are 
on the waiting list for an average of 2.6 months.
  The bottom line is, our senior meal providers need more money to 
provide the meals. Increased funding will give them more money to 
provide more meals. More meals means more senior health. It is health. 
It is really that simple.
  To pay for the amendment, as I have stated earlier, we have taken $10 
million of a $187 million budget from the Department of Agriculture's 
building and facilities and rental payments. I fully recognize the 
importance of maintaining the Department's facilities. However, it is 
simply a necessity. We need to provide for our seniors.

                              {time}  1600

  When my colleagues are casting their votes, I hope they will think of 
the seniors they have met back home and the senior providers they have 
spoken with. Cast a vote for them and support this Stupak-Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just congratulate the gentleman on the 
amendment. I rise to simply state that I am not opposed to his 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to seek the 
time in opposition even though the gentleman is not in opposition?
  Mr. LATHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to just simply once again state I am not opposed to the gentleman's 
amendment, in fact support it, and I would hope we could quickly move 
to a vote on the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized 
for 6 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time on this important amendment to increase funding for the elderly 
food program and to take funds that may be available from rental 
payments that USDA does not have to make because it no longer is 
occupying certain facilities.
  Without question, across our country the costs of even paying utility 
bills are rising significantly for seniors. Electric bills, gas bills 
in the Midwest, for example, have just risen at astronomical rates. And 
any way we can find to help seniors make it through this year and next 
I think are worthy of consideration. This is certainly one

[[Page 13004]]

of those at the very basic level of decent nutrition.
  We know that in many of our senior feeding programs, in fact, the 
programs are oversubscribed. I have been surprised in my own district 
on related programs, such as the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition 
Program, where seniors are allowed to use food coupons to purchase 
fruits, vegetables, herbs and so forth, the enrollment in the program 
is just growing exponentially because people are pinching every penny 
because of other expenditures that they have had.
  So I think we really have to look carefully at any ways we can move 
food to the seniors' tables, and these particular meals programs 
operated through our area offices on aging are eminently successful 
across the country. I know in many cases I have sat in my own district 
and I have watched seniors being asked to contribute money in little 
envelopes to help pay for these meals at these senior centers to offset 
rising costs when they have very little to give anyway.
  So I would say to the gentleman that I think he has a very worthy 
amendment this year. He was successful in leading our country last year 
with a similar amendment to increase funding for the program, and the 
number of meals, according to the charts that he has provided, have 
gone up. So it has been successful.
  Certainly no person in America, no senior in this country should go 
without decent nutrition. We know that the poorest people in our 
country are women over the age of 85, and many of them are too weak 
sometimes to even get to the senior centers, so we have home-delivered 
meals being taken across our country in various neighborhoods. 
Sometimes the only contact that that senior has are with the person who 
delivers the noon meal.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), whose 
district actually spans the entire northern region of Michigan, who 
understands the problems of rural isolation of people in poverty and 
thank him for leading us all. And I am sure that the USDA, within its 
various accounts, can find the funds to cover the gentleman's proposed 
expansion, and I just want to compliment the gentleman for doing what 
is right, what is moral, and what we have the eminent capability to do 
in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask our colleagues to support the Stupak amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, in 
closing, to thank the committee and the subcommittee and the ranking 
member for their support of this amendment. I would like to once again 
point out that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wanted to be 
here but he was called away to the White House. He has been of great 
assistance to us, not only in drafting and working this amendment, but 
in addressing the concerns of seniors throughout this country.
  We thought the debate on this bill would go a little longer and we 
could do our amendment later when he got back from the White House. 
Unfortunately, he could not be here, but I wanted to recognize his 
efforts as well as that of the committee in helping us bring forth this 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Stupak-
Boehlert amendment to increase funding for the USDA's Nutrition Program 
for the Elderly by $10 million. This vital program helps provide over 3 
million senior citizens with nutritionally sound meals in their homes 
through the meal-on-wheels programs, or in senior centers, churches, 
and in my district a few fire halls through the congregate meals 
program.
  I would venture a guess that almost every single Member of this House 
has visited a congregate meal site or volunteered to ride along with a 
meal-on-wheels program. I want to remind everyone that these programs 
are important to our communities and that the need is quite real. 
Participants in this program are disproportionately poor. 33% of 
congregate meal participants and 50% of home delivered meal 
participants have incomes below the poverty level. A majority of meal-
on-wheels participants live alone and have twice as many physical 
impairments as the average elderly person. The Nutrition Program not 
only feeds seniors in need but also allows those seniors to remain 
connected to their communities. Congregate meal sites give 
participating seniors the opportunity to socialize with members of the 
community. And Meals-on-Wheels volunteers deliver meals to frail, sick, 
home bound seniors most whom do not leave their homes even once a week.
  Let me take just a moment to share with you the comments of some of 
the congregate meal program participants from the Town of New Harford 
Senior Center located in my home town.
  Juanita, age 76, says: ``Meals are important. I come every day.''
  Margaret, age 78, says: ``The meals are very nutritional. I like 
food! It helps me feel good and want to be active.''
  Helen, age 91, says: ``I enjoy coming here for the meals and the 
company. There is always something new that I hear and learn. The food, 
I enjoy immensely.''
  Carlton, age 88, says: ``It is a chance to get out and enjoy the 
company of seniors that makes my day!''
  In order to fund this needed increase for senior meals, the Stupak-
Boehlert amendment offsets $10 million for the Agriculture Building and 
Facilities account. I do not doubt the need for these funds. But the 
number of seniors needing nutrition services continues to grow and we 
must make a larger commitment to ensure that Nutrition Program for the 
Elderly is properly funded.
  The Stupak-Boehlert amendment is endorsed by the Meals on Wheels 
Association of America, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging 
Services Programs, the TREA Senior Citizen League, the National Council 
on the Aging, and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging. 
This amendment represents a small investment in a program that helps to 
fight the malnutrition and isolation far too many needy senior citizens 
face.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Stupak-Boehlert amendment. Vote 
to support our nation's seniors.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by offering my sincere thanks to 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla), and his staff for all the assistance they provided, as well 
as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and her staff. I would also 
like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who are also joining me in 
offering this amendment.
  I stand as an urban member, someone who represents Brooklyn and 
Queens, the garden spot of the five boroughs perhaps, but not exactly a 
bastion of agriculture. But I am someone who strongly supports farm 
bills when they are offered. I have never voted against one and plan to 
vote for this one with enthusiasm. But just as during the 1980s and a 
period thereafter, as we have sought to make government programs more 
efficient and many social and urban programs were made more efficient 
by the actions of this body, we have an opportunity today to end what 
is quite literally a fleecing of America.
  The wool and mohair program, which will cost in the area of some $20 
million to the United States taxpayer next year, is a program that has 
been ended

[[Page 13005]]

by this body and now revived by the President with the assistance of 
this bill. My amendment seeks to eliminate the subsidy.
  First of all, let me explain that this is a program that has, I 
guess, the agriculture version of mission creep. It was started out in 
the 1930s and 1940s as an effort to protect the strategically needed 
resource, that is wool; to make sure that wool was available to be used 
in our military uniforms. Well, those of my colleagues who serve on the 
Committee on Armed Services recognize that since the 1950s or so it has 
been removed as a strategically necessary resource because we do not 
make uniforms out of wool any more. In fact, I have a uniform here that 
is made out of 100 percent cotton. And all of the uniforms are made out 
of either cotton or nylon.
  So once that rationale was removed, then it became an emergency 
subsidy intended to get the industry over a hump that it faced in the 
early 1990s. When it was clear that the program was not as effective 
and perhaps a little more wasteful than some would want, this body 
ended the program in 1993. Now there is an effort to revive it again 
under the rubric that we need to be able to deal with foreign 
competition and the only way to do it is with this subsidy.
  The second thing about this subsidy is that it is not cheap. We have 
throughout the 1990s provided more than a billion dollars to this 
industry. Just last year it was in the neighborhood of $10 million. It 
is not really clear where next year's number will end up, but it is 
somewhere in the range of $10 million, $15 million, or $20 million.
  It is also very clear from our history with this program that it is 
not helping the family farmer. According to a study done in 1993, the 
average payment is some $44, though there are many who get much more 
than that. The top 1 percent who benefit from this program, including 
Mr. Sam Donaldson, gets in the neighborhood of $100,000 or more. So the 
idea this is something that is helping to augment the family farm is 
simply not borne out by the facts.
  Fourth, as a matter of pure economics, this program is a failure. 
Wool has seen a price drop since the reinstitution of this programming 
from some 63 percent. Why are we seeing that? It is because most 
likely, in combining with the subsidy, we are doing nothing to control 
supply. So we are continuing to sheer more and more animals, more and 
more stockpiles are building up, the supply keeps on growing and 
growing and growing, and the price remains depressed. There is nothing 
in this program that does anything to change that behavior.
  But perhaps the most damning economic line in this whole issue is 
that the price of mohair, which is about 20 percent of this program, 
has increased about 88 percent since 1995. If there was any better 
evidence that it is market forces and not this subsidy that is having 
an impact on the price and, therefore, the success of the farmers, it 
is that fact; that wool and mohair are bunched together in this 
program. And one is seeing a dramatic drop in price and one is seeing a 
dramatic increase in price. The program simply does not make sense from 
that perspective. If anything, if we are trying to drive up the price 
on some level, then at least mohair should be dropped from the program. 
The final irony is that there is a greater subsidy for mohair in this 
bill than there is for wool.
  I would make one final point. There was a period of time between the 
time this program died and then like Frankenstein that it resurrected 
itself, and that was the year 1997 and 1998. And if we look at the 
statistics as to how the industry did in the last year we had the 
subsidy and the first year that it returned, the industry got worse, 
not better. There was a reduction in wool, in wool production, of about 
11 percent. There was an 11 percent reduction in the profits to wool 
farmers in 1996. And when the subsidy ended, they actually had smaller 
losses of only about 3 percent. The same is true in the mohair 
industry. Mohair prices and mohair jobs actually reduced when we had 
the subsidy and then came back slightly when we got rid of the subsidy.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider very frankly why it is that we 
have these programs in general. All of us want to be able to support 
farm programs. I believe the farm bill, as I said from the outset, is a 
worthy document we should support. Very often I am calling upon my 
colleagues to support purely urban things. But if someone comes to me 
and says, you know, this program that operates in the urban centers, 
like many of the housing programs of the 1980s, it simply is not 
working, I believe it is incumbent on Members that have those interests 
at heart to try to weed out the waste. This is, the wool and mohair 
subsidy program, is simply a waste of taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would first like to ask my colleague from New York if he would 
answer a question.
  Has the gentleman ever visited a wool house or visited any of the 
areas where the sheep and goat raisers exist?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I would have to answer no, but that is true of most of 
the food products I eat every day. I have not visited where they were 
farmed either.
  Mr. BONILLA. Reclaiming my time for another question, does the 
gentleman also oppose the apple program to deal with the hardships that 
apple producers are currently facing in the State of New York? Does the 
gentleman also oppose that?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would be happy to answer that question.
  When we offer in this body emergency programs to deal with exigent 
circumstances, we expect that that is not going to be in perpetuity. 
That is why if I were in this body, I would not have opposed the first 
time this emerged as an emergency subsidy.
  So I would say I support the judgment of the chairman. If there is an 
emergency situation existing in the apple industry, I would clearly 
support it. If the gentleman came to me for 10 years in a row and said 
it is an emergency because now we are getting competition from 
applesauce manufacturers, that is why we need to keep it going, I would 
probably have reservations regardless of the State.
  Mr. BONILLA. So the short answer would be no, the gentleman does not 
oppose the apple money in the bill, and it is not a designation of an 
emergency line item.
  Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if the apple 
program is, in the judgment of the chairman, a worthy program to help, 
I would imagine it is a program that is designed, and it is one that I 
am not nearly as expert on as the gentleman is, but I imagine it is 
designed to deal with this temporary circumstance and not to exist into 
perpetuity; is that correct?
  Mr. BONILLA. Well, the program was proposed by one of the gentleman's 
colleagues from New York, and that is why I am asking a question. It is 
a hardship that exists on apple growers in New York and in other parts 
of the country that is in this bill. It is not an emergency line item 
either.
  I am just trying to draw the comparison that hardships exist in 
different parts of the country and it is interesting that the gentleman 
does not oppose the $150 million apple line item in here, and there was 
money for apple producers last year as well. So there are continuing 
programs on occasion that do help producers that are doing all they can 
to pay their bills back home that are not part of permanent law.
  The Wool Act, as the gentleman knows, was eliminated several years 
ago, I believe it was 6 years ago, and is not in permanent law. The 
program that the gentleman is trying to remove

[[Page 13006]]

from the bill today is one that is not permanent law either. We are 
just trying to assist producers out there now that have gone through 
some very difficult times.
  Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I guess the 
concern that some of us have that are concerned about this program, and 
to use the apple example, if we were to stand here in 1950 or 1945 and 
say, you know what, we need to defend the apple producers because the 
apple seeds are a vital resource, and then it turned out apple seeds 
were not that important; and then we come back and said it is the apple 
core that is very important; and then a few years later we killed the 
program because it is no longer worthy, I think the point I am trying 
to make is this is a program that has been tried, it has been offered 
several different justifications, it has failed by most economic 
sources I can look to, it has not been successful, and Congress did the 
right thing in pulling the plug on it.
  I guess I would agree with the gentleman that the same standard 
should be used for the apple program or any other program, sir.
  Mr. BONILLA. Well, let me again summarize it, and I do not want to 
put words in the gentleman's mouth, but clearly the gentleman does not 
oppose a program for example in his State that is a big line item in 
this bill, but is yet trying to remove this program from this bill.
  Let me point out some statistics, and perhaps the gentleman can 
identify with some hardships that exist currently for wool and mohair 
producers. Since 1993, 16,000 family farms and ranches have left the 
sheep industry. The U.S. breeding herd has dropped by over 20 percent. 
Lamb imports have increased over 50 percent, and it is currently 20 
percent of the domestic market. U.S. wool production has dropped to 
record lows, and imports have increased by 11 percent.

                              {time}  1615

  The Nation's largest wool textile company filed for bankruptcy. Wool 
prices in 2000 were the lowest in 30 years.
  We in Congress do the best we possibly can for whatever part of the 
agriculture industry that exists around the country that is suffering 
hardship. There is nothing more American and traditional in this 
country than to try to preserve family farms and ranches; and there are 
many, many programs in this bill that do just that, including the one I 
pointed out that was in the gentleman's home State as well, which he 
supports.
  All we are saying is whether we are talking about apples, corn, 
cotton, tobacco, wheat, soybeans or whatever, all of these are part of 
the American fabric. Wool and mohair producers are part of the American 
fabric that we do not want to see become extinct. So for that reason I 
stand in strong opposition to this amendment today.
  As a nation, we can no longer afford to arbitrarily attack 
agriculture because it has the fewest voices representing it. Less than 
2% of the American population is involved with agriculture, yet we feed 
and clothe all of America and most of the world!
  What I find even more strange is that the amendment singles out a 
total of less than $40 million in much needed assistance to wool and 
mohair producers. Yet the sponsors have no problem with the rest of the 
$5.5 billion dollars that Congress just approved for corn, cotton, 
tobacco, wheat and soy bean producers. If they did, I assume they would 
try to kill that relief as well.
  Yet, those commodities have a much larger voice and support base in 
Congress so I guess we'll just go after the little guys. And they are 
small producers. . . .
  Twenty-one percent of the 12,825 payments went to sheep ranchers in 
the Navajo Nation. I'm sure that the gentleman would not even begin to 
insinuate that the Navajo people are wealthy corporate ranchers.
  This amendment would hit them harder than any other group of 
individuals.
  Mr. Chairman . . ., many of the statistics the gentleman is using do 
not even relate to the emergency payments they are trying to stop. They 
refer to the old wool program which ended in 1995.
  Mr. Chairman . . ., I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment, it's the wrong amendment, the wrong time and the wrong 
place. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I think the Congress has been a little 
sheepish when it comes to reducing wasteful programs, especially during 
times when we have had a Federal surplus.
  I would just make the point that Congress did end the wool and mohair 
subsidy. It was phased out in 1994. I think that was a good thing. 
Subsequent to that taxpayers did save about $200 million a year. That 
was good.
  However, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, this subsidy came back in 
the fiscal 1999 omnibus appropriations bill and again in the fiscal 
2000 agriculture appropriations bill. Now wool and mohair producers 
have become eligible to receive these payments again.
  I do oppose the subsidy for apple producers. I think that is another 
rotten apple in this agriculture measure that is before us. But let me 
make the observation that while in the old program farmers were paid a 
subsidy for the wool and mohair they sold, in this new program, if I 
understand it right, the way it works now is the farmers do not need to 
attempt to sell their goods necessarily. The Agricultural Department 
will pay farmers by the pound just to produce mohair. Under the new 
program not only can farmers make money without selling their crop, 
they can make money without trying to market it, if I read it 
correctly.
  In 1999, taxpayers provided wool and mohair farmers, I believe, 10.3 
million in subsidy. As explained, the original concept of this had to 
do with our national security. It had to do with the fact that military 
uniforms were wool. But the reality is that in 1959 they changed to 
synthetic fabrics and cotton. That is the situation today.
  I just think it is time to end this waste of taxpayers' dollars. I 
think it is time to shear the wool and mohair subsidy and stop the 
fleecing of tax dollars.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The prior speaker said we are a little sheepish. I do not want him to 
pull the wool over the eyes of the American public in this Congress. 
You have to be in the business to receive the help in opposition to 
what he stated in his testimony.
  The farmers and ranchers of the United States that produce wool and 
mohair are suffering the same crisis in agriculture as producers of 
other crops. Sheep producers pay the same increased cost of fuel as the 
grain farmer and are suffering undue hardships because of the value of 
foreign currency to the U.S. dollar in unfair trade practices. 
Loopholes remain open that allow foreign products access to U.S. 
markets through Mexico and Canada.
  Producers in the United States continue to produce some of the 
world's finest wool and mohair, and yet for many producers wool prices 
do not even cover the cost of shearing the sheep. As a result, short-
term financial relief through a market loss assistance program is vital 
to U.S. producers. Market loss assistance has had a positive impact for 
producers in all 50 States.
  I am in the cashmere goat production business, which is not under 
this particular amendment. I receive no financial assistance. But I can 
state that we are trying to help people within agriculture to diversify 
the income on their farms or ranches so they do not have to be 
dependent upon Federal help.
  This amendment goes against every principle of trying to help people 
in agriculture help themselves. We do not want to be dependent on the 
Federal Government; but until this government gets a handle on energy 
costs, on import problems, and understands that, unless this government 
steps forward and solves many of the problems that are creating the 
crisis in the Federal

[[Page 13007]]

farm communities of this Nation, we will continue to have to come in 
and look to the Federal Government for relief.
  We cannot let the people that want to destroy agriculture get our 
goat. I urge the Members to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, let me address some of the points that have come up by 
the very distinguished chairman about the inconsistency in his mind of 
my supporting a program that is in New York. Well, I also support 
programs that are in Mississippi, Montana and North Carolina and all 
across this country because I support the bill. I think it is a good 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask both the chairman and members of the 
committee and all of my colleagues, if we had a program that was in 
place under various guises since 1938, and still we were seeing that 
the marketplace was not responding to the subsidy, that we were still 
hemorrhaging market share, and still losing the jobs and had fewer and 
fewer heads of sheep that were being lost, why would you deem it to be 
a successful program?
  Can anyone argue by any measure that it is a successful program? Is 
it successful for the average farmer that will get $44? The gentleman 
from Montana said we need to keep it in place because of the strength 
of the dollar or because of trade disputes. We will add those to the 
list of justifications and reasons that have been growing since 1938.
  Let me reiterate the statistics of this. 1993 we had a subsidy. There 
was a 5.2 percent reduction in wool production. 1994 we had a subsidy, 
11 percent loss. 1995 we had a subsidy, 8 percent loss. 1996 we had a 
subsidy, 11 percent loss. 1997 we did not have a subsidy, we only had a 
3 percent loss.
  Perhaps there was something about the marketplace in 1997, perhaps it 
was the Democratic Presidency, but the fact of the matter is there 
seems to be no correlation between the subsidy and the success of the 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is reasonable for Members of Congress who 
support ag programs to say this one is a bust. It is not working. I 
think we have to make those distinctions both in agriculture programs, 
and I would say this to my most fervent colleague in the urban areas, 
we have to make those determinations with urban areas as well. If a 
colleague from an urban area said we need to continue the subsidy for 
mass transit for all of those coal-powered subways, I would say there 
are no coal-powered subways.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas as the chairman of the 
subcommittee has the right to close.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we only have one additional speaker, so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have a great deal to add on the importance of 
preserving what I believe will turn out to be on the final vote on this 
bill a continuation of the very strong urban-rural coalition that 
exists in this House. I and many of my colleagues are going to be 
supporting the agriculture bill with enthusiasm. We recognize the 
matrix that exists between farm programs that are miles away from our 
communities and the importance that they play to our economies and our 
communities.
  All of that being said, it should never be a substitute for us making 
wise decisions about what programs work and what programs do not work. 
In 1993, this body took several steps to reduce the size of government 
to make thing more efficient.
  In 1993, after years of being hammered on television shows which were 
frequently unfair about a fleecing of America, we finally decided to 
see what we could do about ending this program. The program ended; and, 
unfortunately, there continued to be a decline in the production of 
wool and mohair in this country. That decline slowed, and since then we 
have had an increase in mohair prices.
  There has been an 88 percent increase since 1995, yet we continue the 
subsidy. The subsidy for mohair is 40 cents, as opposed to a 20-cent 
subsidy for wool, despite the fact that we say we are trying to help 
the family farmer. Many more people are producing wool. They are in a 
much more dire situation, yet they get half the subsidy of those who 
produce mohair.
  We still have the terrible imbalance that exists in this program 
between the average farmer who gets $44 and the top 1 percent that get 
over $100,000 each.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand shoulder to shoulder with the chairman, who has 
done a terrific job on this bill, in saying that there are many areas 
that we have to step in and provide assistance to. But if we are 
standing here in 38 years, God willing, or 50 years, God willing, and 
we are debating the apple program, the tobacco program or the corn 
program, or any of the programs that may or may not be in this bill, 
and if we are still having the same problems as we had from 50 years 
ago, believe me, I would be the first to say we should eliminate that 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to eliminate the wool and mohair 
subsidy, save our constituents 10 to 15 to $20 million; and even more 
important, end a program that has long since proven itself to be 
ineffective. More importantly than that, show that we understand and 
have the ability to separate a program that truly does work from those 
that do not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we work in a funny place. It helps if one 
knows the facts; it really helps if one understands the facts. But if 
one neither knows nor understands the facts, it causes a great deal of 
confusion.
  Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the ``Dear Colleague'' letter that 
went out. It says this subsidy began during World War II and the Korean 
War, and obviously it is no longer necessary because the military does 
not need this wool anymore. This is not the original program for the 
military in World War II. This is an economic disaster, market loss 
assistance program, which was put into place.
  Our agricultural producers that raise sheep and mohair are suffering 
the same economic consequences as everybody else is in the agricultural 
industry; and to pick them out and say we are not going to help them, 
we are not going to have an assistance program for them and we are 
going to for everybody else is wrong. This is not the old program put 
into place during the war.
  Mr. Chairman, the other part of the ``Dear Colleague'' says, ``The 
average farmer received $44 for this subsidy. The largest factory 
farms, representing 1 percent of all growers, received 25 percent of 
the subsidy.'' That is blatantly not true. There are no facts which 
support that. To support this, the largest producer would have to raise 
62,000 sheep. There are no producers that large.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  If I can just address the remarks of the previous speaker who was not 
here earlier, that is exactly my point, that the program that we had 
since 1938 has evolved so many times; yet we continue to find another 
justification for it. We say, well, it was because we needed the 
uniforms; well, now we need an emergency in the 1990s; well, now it is 
to compete with foreign competitors; well, now it is to make up for the 
loss in the strength of the dollar.
  The fact remains that that is the definition of a program that ain't 
working. If you have a program since 1938, if you keep changing the 
name and changing the justification and still the facts remain the 
same, that the decline in the industry domestically has been unfettered 
by these programs. In fact, I earlier read a statistic that I will 
repeat for the gentleman, that the year

[[Page 13008]]

that the program went out of effect for 2 years, the industry did 
better. It did better. The losses were smaller in 1997 than they were 
in 1996 in both wool and mohair.
  If you want to find a program that works, you say, here is what the 
subsidy did. I defy anyone in this Chamber to point to me a success 
story from this program. Tell me one year that this program has been in 
effect that there is a single farmer that got $44 on the average, a 
single farmer that said, oh, I got my 44 bucks.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know where he got the 
average of $44 per farmer, because we cannot find anywhere where that 
information comes from. In fact, it comes to about $800 per farmer from 
our information. And the information that he suggests that 1 percent of 
those sheep producers got 25 percent of the payments is just blatantly 
false.
  Mr. WEINER. I will be glad, reclaiming my time, to give the gentleman 
the source for that. That was the 1993 National Performance Review 
performed by the office of Vice President Gore, which was the rationale 
for a bill that came to this floor providing for greater efficiency in 
government that ended this program.
  Mr. SIMPSON. So these are decade-old figures that he is quoting to 
us, 8 years, from 1993?
  Mr. WEINER. I have been quoting numbers out the yingyang today, but 
which one is the gentleman referring to?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Any ones that he understands.
  Mr. WEINER. That should narrow it down.
  No, anything after 1993 obviously did not come from that study. 
Anything after 1993 came from the Agricultural Statistical Service, 
sir.
  Mr. SIMPSON. That is interesting because they did not have any 
information for us.
  Mr. WEINER. I will be glad to provide it for the gentleman. But one 
thing, and I would yield to anyone, since I have a couple of moments 
left, anyone that can point to a year the subsidy was in place that it 
did anything to reverse the trend. The trend has been consistent right 
along. The only time there has been a blip in the trend was 1997 and 
1998 when the program was phased out momentarily. Then the losses were 
reduced. They did not gain, but the losses were reduced.
  So the argument for a program is not simply that I came up with a new 
rationale for it. I could do that for any program. The argument has to 
be, here is how it worked. And we have not seen any demonstration that 
it has worked.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Agriculture, a hero to agriculture, and someone who is 
going to tie all this up in a little package for us at the conclusion 
of this debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 12 minutes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  In light of the last exchange, I am often reminded but never more so 
than this afternoon on this amendment of the late Will Rogers' quote 
when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, 
it's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.''
  That is the problem with this amendment. The gentleman from New York 
and the gentleman from California are still attacking a program that 
was eliminated in 1994. They keep referring and all of these letters 
that we get from various groups keep talking about the wool and mohair 
program like it is still here. It was eliminated in 1994. Even the 
money the gentleman is talking about for striking is not even in the 
bill we are discussing today. It is in the emergency bill that passed 
the House Committee on Agriculture and this body to provide assistance 
to wool and mohair producers.
  Now, this gentleman stood on this floor in 1994 and opposed the 
elimination of the wool and mohair program because we believed it would 
do damage to an industry that we did not believe was ready to be 
eliminated because of unfair foreign competition. We lost. I lost. The 
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California won that 
amendment. We predicted the demise of the wool and mohair industry. 
And, guess what? Here in 2001, we have 25,000 less wool producers in 
the United States. They are gone. The gentleman from New York said 
there is no supply reduction. I would guarantee you there has been a 
supply reduction. Production has gone down in the United States; 25,000 
producers are gone. We have eliminated 70 percent of the mohair 
producers. They are gone, thanks to the philosophy of the gentleman 
from New York.
  Now, we might say, Well, that is the way it should be. Well, in April 
of 1999, the United States International Trade Commission determined 
that the domestic lamb industry suffered from extremely low prices and 
a flood of imports which constitutes a substantial cause of threat of 
serious injury to the domestic lamb industry.
  In July of 1999 because of the commission's finding, President 
Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation 7208 establishing a tariff 
rate quota on lamb meat for a 3-year adjustment period. The 3-year 
adjustment period was established so the domestic sheep industry could 
recover from unfair trade. Unfair trade.
  Now, we have accomplished what this body wanted to accomplish with 
the elimination of the wool and mohair program. It is gone. Now what 
some of us are interested in doing is trying to assist those wool and 
mohair producers that believe that they can compete in the 
international marketplace if their government would stand shoulder to 
shoulder with them as just this year the European Union will spend $2 
billion, that is with a B, subsidizing their wool industry.
  Now, I would ask anyone in this body that represents any interest, 
whether it be agricultural, airplanes, anything that you are 
manufacturing in this country, if your competitor is spending $2 
billion and we are spending $16.9 million, why is that excessive? What 
is it that we are doing that has brought this amendment to the floor 
today to suggest that by trying to stand with an industry that is 
trying to survive in the marketplace, in the marketplace now, not with 
subsidies. The old program cost $200 million a year. We are providing 
$16.9 million, exactly like we are doing for apples, for cotton, for 
wheat. That is all that is being done. Not in this bill, but in some 
other bill. Since 1999, depressed wool prices. In 1995 wool was selling 
for $1 a pound. Today it is 33 cents a pound. That is in constant 
dollars. Real dollars. Yet you stand on the floor today and say there 
has been no market reaction, that somehow we are doing something that 
is unfairly subsidizing the wool producers? Come on.
  We have a letter from the American Textile Manufacturers Institute 
saying, ``Please do not be misled into thinking that the money for wool 
and mohair producers is actually a continuation or revival of funding 
provided by the Wool Act which Congress eliminated in the 1990s.''
  That is the truth. The gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
California have taken some other individuals who have no knowledge 
whatsoever of the industry and have suggested that somehow we are 
putting the wool and mohair back into place. All we are trying to do, 
in another bill, at another time, in another place, is saying to those 
wool and mohair producers who have survived the elimination of the Wool 
and Mohair Act that we want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and 
we want to give you a little assistance, and it is a very little 
assistance, and we are struggling now in the Committee on Agriculture 
to come up with a program that will hopefully give them the opportunity 
to compete in the marketplace, as the gentleman from New York's 
rhetoric has suggested; but his facts are so far off base that I know 
the gentleman did not mean to misstate to this House

[[Page 13009]]

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


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Royce

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

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Royce:
       Insert before the short title the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to award any new 
     allocations under the market access program or to pay the 
     salaries of personnel to award such allocations.

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

                              {time}  1645

  This is a philosophical point but it goes to the question of this 
Market Access Program. Let me make the point that the Market Access 
Program is a leftover product of two previously failed USDA programs. 
One was the market promotion program and then the targeted export 
assistance program, both of which we debated on this floor, both of 
which we tried to reform.
  Basically, the Market Access Program funnels tax dollars to corporate 
trade associations and to cooperatives to advertise private products 
overseas. While proponents of the program claim that the Market Access 
Program boost its exports and creates jobs, there is no evidence to 
support that. As a matter of fact, the General Accounting Office 
studies indicate that this program has no discernible effect on U.S. 
agricultural exports.
  I believe the private sector knows how to advertise. It does not need 
government interference. I think that taxpayer dollars merely replace 
money that would be spent by private companies on their own 
advertising, and provisions in the 1996 farm bill have attempted to 
reform MAP but thus far have failed. Although the percentage of large 
companies that get this MAP money has decreased, a number of large 
corporations still receive millions indirectly through trade 
associations.

[[Page 13010]]

  In the last 10 years, America's taxpayers basically paid out $1.5 
billion for this particular subsidy. I think the American people would 
agree that their money would be better spent if this was relegated back 
to the private sector.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, yes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Royce amendment. I think 
that the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is in the trade 
accounts of the United States, which show that in spite of an 
unbelievably large trade deficit in almost every other sector, in the 
agricultural arena we have been able to keep our nose above water 
barely, because we have exported more than we have imported. With 
dropping prices for product and so forth, we have managed to double 
some exports. In specialty areas, whether we are talking about fish or 
packaged juices, we have been able to keep moving product outside this 
country. That takes effort. The Market Access Program helps.
  With changes made in prior farm bills, we have limited those who can 
apply for assistance in order to move product into the international 
market; but my goodness I would not want to stand on this floor and 
oppose a program that has helped America maintain positive trade 
accounts in agriculture internationally when every other single account 
in petroleum and imported oil products, in manufactured goods, in 
electrical equipment, no matter where one goes in the trade accounts, 
the United States has historic trade deficits but for agriculture. 
Though the going is getting rougher in international waters in terms of 
trade, my goodness, this would be the last program one would want to 
eliminate in terms of helping both farmers in this country move product 
and in maintaining and turning around that yawning trade deficit which 
is a very serious underbelly inside this economy. So I rise in 
opposition to the Royce amendment.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Royce amendment, and I 
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his hard work on 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most egregious examples of taxpayer 
subsidized corporate welfare, the MAP program. Hardworking taxpayers 
should not have to subsidize the advertising costs of America's private 
corporations. Yet that is exactly what the MAP program does.
  Since 1986, the Federal Government has extracted nearly $2 billion 
from the pockets of American taxpayers and handed it over to 
multimillion dollar corporations and cooperatives to subsidize their 
marketing programs in foreign countries.
  When Congress, back in 1996, in the farm bill required MAP funds to 
be limited to farmer cooperatives and trade associations, proponents 
argued that the MAP funds would only be used to help small businesses 
and farmers. In fact, much of the funding went to large trade 
associations made up of some of the largest and most profitable 
corporations.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress should end the practice of wasting tax dollars 
on special-interest spending programs and unfairly take money from hard 
working families to help profitable private companies pad their bottom 
line. MAP is a massive corporate welfare program that we should 
eliminate today.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, 
wake up, wake up and smell the coffee. How do we know the coffee is 
brewing? How do we know that there are French and Italian wines at the 
market? The answer is because these countries that grow these products 
also advertise these products in our country.
  They want us to buy agriculture in other countries. That is why we 
see oranges from South America being advertised in the United States, 
coffee from Colombia, wine from France and Italy and so on; and yet 
when it comes to our own agriculture, the most abundant agriculture in 
the world, where we grow more than we can consume and where we actually 
grow products for other countries, we should not be allowed to be on a 
competitive field where everybody has a fair chance by small matching 
money that the private sector has to put up and match by the Federal 
Government?
  The Federal Government spends $3.187 billion on advertising and 
recruiting for the military. Our States advertise for tourism. Let us 
also advertise for agriculture.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak once 
again on the MAP program. One of the arguments that was made by my 
colleague from California is that, well, other countries are in a 
position that they can do this advertising and it has been advantageous 
to them. The fact of the matter is that our consumer marketplace 
encourages that type of advertisement to go on of our products that are 
here made domestically in the United States, irrespective of what is 
going on in Chile or what is going on in France. I do not believe that 
the United States taxpayer should be subsidizing these advertising 
programs because, in fact, what winds up happening is that much of this 
advertising, I would argue all of it that is subsidized by the MAP 
program, would go on anyway because of the decisions made by the 
industry; that it is in their interest to encourage this type of 
development.
  The MAP program is another example of a program where I do not see it 
is very easy for us to point to demonstrated areas where the 
advertising has led to any more farmers, any more ranchers, any more 
production or sales. I am firmly of the belief, and perhaps I am wrong 
on an economic level, that if the U.S. Government leaves this field it 
would quickly be occupied.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I would 
just like to make a couple of points. Number one, these funds are not 
available to large international corporations. These funds are matched 
by people like the corn growers, the beef producers, the pork 
producers, people who care about their product and want to promote 
their products overseas so that we can expand our exports for the 
American farmers.
  There is a prohibition from these corporations who are making 
corporate welfare out of this. These programs are absolutely essential 
for the future in agriculture so that we can add value to American 
agriculture, so that we can go out into the world marketplace and talk 
about the quality and the supply of good American food products.
  If anything, Mr. Chairman, we should be increasing these funds. We 
should be proud of what we stand for in agriculture. We should stand up 
and say to our American farmers that they do have the best products in 
the world and we want to go tell the world about it. That is what we 
need to do is to protect this program. It is not large enough as it is.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that, according to the General 
Accounting Office studies, there is no evidence that MAP increases 
exports or increases jobs. Any increase cited and

[[Page 13011]]

attributed to the Market Access Program would have occurred whether MAP 
existed or not.
  The private sector, I would also point out, knows better to whom to 
advertise and how to advertise and can do it more efficiently. I think 
that government hand-outs merely replace money that would be spent by 
private companies on their own advertising.
  The last point I would like to make is MAP, in some cases, uses tax 
money derived from the competitors of these MAP recipients. So I would 
urge adoption.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce). Mr. Chairman, as we continue to open our 
borders and expand trade, we continue to put our own small producers at 
a disadvantage because of the increased pressure from other countries 
that are heavily subsidizing.
  This is one program, one program, that is really working well to 
enable some of our smaller producers and processors to gain access in 
the foreign markets.
  Now, the gentleman from California talked about the GAO study but I 
want to say, Mr. Chairman, the GAO study did not go to Florida where we 
have used the program very successfully in the citrus and grapefruit 
industry. We do a 100 percent match of the Federal funds and since the 
inception of this program we have increased the grapefruit exports from 
$40 million to $190 million.
  I strongly suggest that we vote down this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there seems to be an annual debate on this amendment so 
I will make my remarks brief. We are going to rehash what the benefits 
of this are very quickly.
  I want to point out the positive aspects of the Market Access 
Program. Each year $90 million is spent out of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation on MAP to help initiate and expand sales of U.S. 
agricultural, fish, and forest products overseas. Rural American 
farmers and ranchers, as the primary suppliers of commodities, benefit 
from MAP. All regions of the country benefit from the program's 
employment and economic effects from expanded agricultural exports 
markets.
  In 2000, agricultural exports totalled nearly $51 billion and that 
generated almost three-quarters of a million jobs. About half a million 
jobs out of that total were also related to other areas like 
processing, packaging, storing and financing of exports.
  Mr. Chairman, agricultural exports are expected to increase by 
another $2 billion this year to $53 billion. More than 1 million 
Americans now have jobs that depend on U.S. agricultural exports. This 
program goes a long way toward making sure that we have these export 
markets. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

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

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

                              {time}  1700

  If you look at America's trade accounts, our chief strategic 
vulnerability relates to imported fuels. We are willing to go to war, 
to send our young men and women to war, for oil, but we are not willing 
to invest the dollars here at home to propel ourselves into a more 
energy self-sufficient future.
  When the President of the United States and new Vice President 
produced a national energy report with solutions for the future, there 
was one gaping hole: Not a single recommendation relates to renewables 
and the use of biofuels, what we can take off our fields and forests, 
in order to have ethanol, biodiesel, and other such fuels made a part 
of America's energy future.
  We declare an emergency, we set aside $500 million, and we say that 
biofuels are as important as natural gas, they are as important as 
petroleum, they are as important as any other fuel, whether it is 
windmills or turbines or whatever, in order to put America on a sound 
energy footing. We want to make sure that our message is heard loudly 
and clearly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), who has experience in this area, and again I express 
gratitude for his coming to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, 
and I thank her for her comments and her hard work on this committee 
and on so many other areas. She has touched on a critically important 
issue to our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment to 
provide half a billion dollars in emergency spending on biodiesel, 
ethanol and biomass research and development.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1999, the Beltsville Agricultural Research 
Center, which is located in my district, has been conducting a pilot 
project using biodiesel. At BARC they use 80 percent diesel and 20 
percent soybean oil mix. Their test results found that using biodiesel 
reduces carbon dioxide emissions 16 percent; particulate matter, which 
is a major component of smog, 22 percent; and sulfur emissions, 20 
percent.
  Equally important to the environmental benefits of these fuels is the 
fact that their use, as has been so well articulated by the gentlewoman 
from

[[Page 13012]]

Ohio, lessens our dependence on foreign oil and opens up new markets 
for our farmers. So, from every perspective, this is a very positive 
direction for our country to move, and I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has waited all afternoon in order to 
make these comments. I thank the gentleman sincerely.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Kaptur amendment.
  To say that we have an energy crisis is an understatement, but the 
State of Illinois stands ready to help find a solution. The State of 
Illinois is a major producer of corn, which, when used in the 
development of ethanol, makes good sense. This amendment makes good 
economic sense, environmental sense and common sense.
  Ethanol is an additive which, when used in gasoline, produces cleaner 
and more efficient energy. To help this country to become more energy-
efficient, we can and should employ greater use of ethanol. Ethanol 
makes us more energy-efficient, more self-reliant and environmentally 
protected. It is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for introducing this 
amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing this afternoon, let me say that oil 
ministers of the Middle East should not be put in charge of setting 
energy prices in the United States of America. We should have that 
control inside of our border.
  This amendment would merely replace one one-hundredth of the nearly 
$70 billion that we send to the Middle East oil ministers every year 
for petroleum imported here, and replace it with investments we make in 
ourselves for the future. It gives the Secretary of Agriculture very 
flexible authority in order to spend these dollars in order to make 
agriculture an equal pillar along with other old fossil fuels.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. BONILLA. I continue to reserve the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire if the gentlewoman is going to 
withdraw her amendment?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to 
the chairman of our subcommittee, very reluctantly, very, very, very 
reluctantly, very, very, very, very reluctantly, I am going to be 
forced, because of the rules, to withdraw my amendment to put America 
on a more renewable energy future. But I would hope that our words 
today have been heard at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I 
appreciate the chairman for his indulgence, and I would hope that 
wisdom will prevail in the days and months ahead.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

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

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


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of title VII, insert after the last section 
     (preceding any short title) the following section:
       Sec. 7__. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act for 
     carrying out the responsibilities of the Food and Drug 
     Administration with respect to abbreviated applications for 
     the approval of new drugs under section 505(j) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, $1,000,000 is available for the 
     purpose of carrying out section 314.53(b) of title 21, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, in addition to any other allocation 
     for carrying out such section 314.53(b) made from amounts 
     appropriated in this Act for the Food and Drug 
     Administration.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
28, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to start with what the Brown-Emerson 
amendment does not do: It does not legislate on an appropriations bill; 
it does not spend extra dollars; it does not reduce legitimate patent 
protection for brand-name drugs; and, most importantly, it does not 
permit FDA to continue to squander billions in consumer savings, making 
excuses instead of making the brand-name drug industry abide by Federal 
law.
  Under FDA laws and regulations, a generic must certify it is not 
infringing

[[Page 13013]]

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

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who has been a real leader in the fight 
to keep prescription drug prices down.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown-
Emerson amendment, which will help FDA exercise its existing authority 
to prevent blatant patent-listing abuses under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
  As many people may know, since the passage of Hatch-Waxman, brand-
name pharmaceutical companies have really become quite proficient in 
manipulating the law to keep generic alternatives from reaching the 
market. I do not think that the authors of this law would want that to 
be happening today.
  Just, for example, one of the brand industry's favorite and most 
frequently used methods to delay generic competition is to make 
insignificant changes to their products and secure new patents just as 
the patent on the original product is set to expire. Under current law, 
once such new patents are granted by the Patent Office, no matter how 
frivolous or invalid they may be, the generic drug is prohibited from 
going to market for 30 months.
  In one instance a brand-name company triggered the 30-month 
prohibition and delayed generic competition by patenting the color of 
the bottle, the color of the bottle in which the pharmaceuticals are 
typically dispensed. In another example, a brand company was able to 
delay generic competition by claiming the generic version infringed on 
the brand patent because, like the brand, the generic pill had two 
grooves in it.
  These types of delay tactics cost our constituents billions of 
dollars every year. For example, Bristol-Myers Squibb listed a 
frivolous patent with the FDA on the eve of its patent expiration for 
the drug BuSpar. After months of delay, a Federal court ruled that the 
patent was improperly listed and ordered Bristol to delist its patent 
with the FDA. So the cost to consumers for this 5-month delay was $57 
million.
  The situation is getting so out of hand that on May 16 of this year, 
the Federal Trade Commission had to send a citizens' petition to the 
FDA questioning the possible improper or untimely listing of patents by 
brand-name drug companies.

[[Page 13014]]

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

[[Page 13015]]

would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Brown amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Allen

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

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

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

                              {time}  1730

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


                             Point of Order

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

[[Page 13016]]

existing law. Therefore, the amendment constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

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

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

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

[[Page 13017]]

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

                              {time}  1745

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

[[Page 13018]]

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

[[Page 13019]]


  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner); the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 219]

                               AYES--155

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

                               NOES--272

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

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

                              {time}  1819

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

[[Page 13020]]

on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Royce

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85, 
noes 341, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 220]

                                AYES--85

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

                               NOES--341

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

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

                              {time}  1828

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

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

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

                             [Roll No. 221]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn

[[Page 13021]]


     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--16

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Capuano
     Lewis (CA)
     Paul

                              {time}  1848

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

                          ____________________