[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29442-29447]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2673, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2004

  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for 
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


            Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2673, be instructed to insist on the House 
     position on prescription drug importation in Section 749 of 
     the House-passed bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, to the uninitiated, people might think that this is a 
motion that deals with the agriculture appropriations bill. But, in 
fact, what is happening today is that conferees are being appointed, 
ostensibly, to deal with the agriculture appropriations bill but, in 
fact, the agriculture appropriation will then become the vehicle into 
which all other appropriation bills that have not yet passed the 
Congress will be dumped, producing one of those glorious omnibus 
appropriation bills that the Congress deals with at the end of the 
session when it has not been able to get its work done. So Members can 
expect to see this conference come back containing not only the 
material that is appropriate to the agriculture bill, but if the 
majority has its way, they can expect that the conference report will 
also contain the State, Justice, and Commerce appropriation, the Labor, 
Health, and Human Services appropriation, perhaps the VA-HUD 
appropriation, the D.C. appropriation, and perhaps several others. On 
this side of the aisle, we do not believe that those bills should be 
considered together. We believe that each of them should stand on their 
own merits.
  We have another complicating factor, because this legislation will be 
used by the majority to try and pave the way for passage of its ill-
conceived and misbegotten Medicare, so-called Medicare Reform Act. Now, 
that bill started as an effort to provide a prescription drug benefit 
for our senior citizens under Medicare. Instead, what is being produced 
on that score is a very weak, badly-shredded, partial benefit that does 
not even begin until years down the road, and the enticement of that 
prescription drug bill or that prescription drug coverage, I should 
say, is being used as an effort to blackmail Congress into essentially 
vitiating Medicare as we know it today. There are not many people on 
this side of the aisle who think that that is a good idea either.
  Now, one of the provisions in the Medicare conference report that 
will shortly be before this body is a provision which tries to create 
the impression that senior citizens will be allowed to reimport drugs 
from Canada as part of the passage of that bill. But, in fact, the FDA 
has made quite clear that that provision will not work. So what we are 
going to be faced with is a ``let's pretend'' game. The Congress will 
pretend in the Medicare bill that it is about to pass that there is a 
meaningful ability for seniors to reimport drugs at a lower cost from 
Canada when, in fact, because that provision requires the approval of 
the very agencies that are opposed to it, no such reimportation will 
ever take place.
  So this Congress, in essence, intends on the Medicare reform bill to 
practice consumer fraud on the House Floor. This bill is part of that 
scheme, because this bill presently contains a requirement, in the form 
of the Northup amendment, that drug reimportation, meaningful drug 
reimportation be allowed to take place. But the intention of the 
conferees, at least on the majority side, is to deep-six that provision 
in conference so that the bill will come back stripped of that, and 
they will pretend that they have taken care of the need in the Medicare 
bill but, in fact, the Medicare bill will not have taken care of it at 
all. It sounds complicated; it is meant to be. Because that is the way 
that the public is deceived into thinking that there will be real 
action on reimportation of drugs from Canada when, in fact, the 
majority has no intention whatsoever of allowing that to occur.
  So, therefore, I am offering this motion which says, in effect, that 
on this bill, if we are going to have a drug reimportation proposal, 
and I have some questions about the advisability of some of those 
proposals, but what this motion says is that if we are going to have a 
drug reimportation provision, it at least ought to be a real one, and 
that is what we believe the Northup amendment is, in contrast to the 
phony ``let's pretend'' proposition which will shortly be coming at us 
in the so-called Medicare reform bill.
  So our position is very simple: this language gives people who want 
to have drugs reimported from Canada, lower-cost prescription drugs, 
this gives people who want to see that happen an opportunity to vote to 
require it. This is an effort to keep a real drug

[[Page 29443]]

reimportation provision before the Congress rather than simply allowing 
the institution to engage in this widespread charade that somehow there 
is a meaningful reimportation provision in the Medicare bill which is 
about to come at us.
  A lot of things will happen in this House over the last week, in the 
closing week of the session, or what is expected to be the closing week 
of the session. A lot of things will happen which will not bring credit 
to this House. What I would hope is that we could avoid having a broad-
scale consumer fraud effort take place on this House floor and, in my 
view, without the Northup amendment, any pretense that there is a drug 
reimportation provision that is being made available to seniors will be 
just that, a blatant effort to defraud the public. I would hope that 
the membership of this House would recognize that, and I would hope 
that the members of the general public who have been waiting for years 
for a meaningful provision on drugs would remember it as well.
  So for those of my colleagues who are interested in having 
reimportation actually occur, this motion is in support of the only 
real proposition that will be before the Congress between now and 
adjournment, and we will see whether Members, in fact, put their votes 
where their mouths are. Any Member who votes for the Medicare reform 
bill and claims that they have provided a drug reimportation plan that 
will provide lower-cost drugs from Canada will be committing consumer 
fraud, and I want to say that beforehand so that Members are put on 
notice as to what that provision really is. If my colleagues want to be 
real, vote for this motion. If they do not, do not. It is as simple as 
that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
22 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 30 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. And who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has the right 
to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time, and, more importantly, I thank him for 
offering this motion that will be our only opportunity to provide a 
statement by the Members of Congress as to the real issue of 
importation, since that opportunity will now be denied us in the 
prescription drug bill that we are anticipating coming to this floor.
  As many of our constituents know, millions of Americans have waited 
for the opportunity to be able to take advantage of the lower prices of 
pharmaceuticals that are available in Canada and in other countries, 
but specifically with respect to Canada, as we tried to address in the 
bill. We now see that that door is going to be slammed shut. The 
reimportation is going to be granted on one hand, but the certification 
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services will effectively close, 
as it has in the past, the opportunity for American citizens who are 
ill, who need these drugs, who are financially troubled and financially 
incapable of paying for some of these drugs; as a result of that, they 
take the prescription that their doctor has given them, they reduce the 
amount of pills they take per day, they reduce the dosage that they 
take in trying to get through the month in order to pay for, in many 
instances, lifesaving drugs that they need by order of their physician. 
Many of our constituents, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of 
Americans, have now taken to forming buying clubs, of taking trips by 
bus, riding long hours on buses, to go to Mexico, to go to Canada to 
buy these drugs in Canadian pharmacies where the prices are much, much 
lower than what they are having to pay through their health care plan 
if they have one or, if they do not have one at all, what they would 
pay on the market.

                              {time}  1145

  It has been suggested that this is forced upon Americans because this 
is the only way that they can recapture the research and development 
dollars that continue to flow these pharmaceutical drugs to the 
marketplace. Some of that is true. But the question millions of 
American citizens are asking is why is it that only the American ill, 
the American sick, the American infirm are the ones who have to pay for 
this? They say, well, the other countries have price controls, the 
other countries negotiate. We asked for the authority to have the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate the prices of drugs 
for Medicare recipients as we do in the Veterans Administration, as 
Wal-Mart does, as Costco does, as all big purchasers do with 
pharmaceuticals, and we were denied that opportunity in the House.
  So the only outlet, the only outlet for these citizens where their 
financial situation does not meet their medical situation is to go to 
Canada, and now that opportunity is being slammed in terms of this 
reimportation provision within the Medicare prescription drug benefit 
that will be coming to the floor.
  As a result of that, without the negotiation power of the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services on the cost of drugs, without the 
reimportation provision, America's senior citizens, and I must say all 
American families, are put at the mercy of the pharmaceutical industry 
that will now have no incentive to lower the cost of drugs.
  The prescription drug bill coming to the floor does some wonderful 
things for hospitals, wonderful things for doctors, some wonderful 
things for the pharmaceutical companies, but it does nothing for the 
people who have to consume those pharmaceuticals. It makes no effort at 
trying to control the price of those pharmaceuticals, the cost of those 
to individuals.
  And when we say that, we are saying simply have us negotiate as a 
large purchaser. That is what the business world does. People come to 
us and ask why do we not run the government more like a business. We 
try to run it like a business, and the businesses shut us down.
  So now the question of reimportation will be shifted from a vote in 
this Congress to provide for reimportation, in the new bill it will now 
all go to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And the entire 
political and financial clout of the pharmaceutical industry will be 
focused on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to never certify 
for the reimportation of pharmaceuticals to the United States, thereby 
depriving millions of Americans the opportunity to lower the cost of 
the drugs that are necessary to them on a monthly basis as prescribed 
by their doctors.
  We are going to decide that those senior citizens, those people who 
are desperately in need of these pharmaceuticals are going to be the 
sole individuals that are somehow going to pay for the research and 
development of these drugs if, in fact, that argument is even accurate.
  The fact of the matter is, the reason the prices are really high in 
the United States, as opposed to the other countries, is the power of 
the pharmaceutical industry to do just as they have done in the 
Medicare prescription drug bill and that is to take out all of the 
provisions that would have given a break to the sick and the elderly in 
this country, that would have given them an opportunity to lower the 
cost of the drugs that they have to buy every week and every month. 
That is why the prices are so high in the United States. It is not 
about research and development. It is about lobbying, it is about 
political contributions, it is about the force of this industry on this 
Congress and the House and the Senate and the Republican leadership to 
strip this bill of those provisions that were put in on a bipartisan 
basis, on a bipartisan basis in the House, on a bipartisan basis in the 
Senate, to strip them

[[Page 29444]]

and remove them to the administration which has opposed these 
provisions from the very beginning.
  So the fate of our senior citizens, the fate of the elderly in this 
country, the fate of the ill, the sick in this country, is now placed 
back into hands of the pharmaceutical companies, exactly where it was 
when we began this process. So the pharmaceutical companies, as this 
bill comes to the floor, get a great big victory and the consumers and 
the sick people in this country get nothing. They get a continuation of 
exorbitant costs of pharmaceuticals that are absolutely essential to 
their well-being and sustaining their health, maybe, in fact, in 
sustaining their life.
  So this motion by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is the most 
important vote in terms of our ability to express the desire to have 
reimportation as part of our medical policy in this country and also to 
tell the conferees that they are bringing to us an imperfect product, 
and they should to back to the conference committee and make sure that 
America's elderly and America's sick are protected and have the 
opportunity to take advantage of the reimportation of those 
pharmaceuticals that they need.
  We should recognize that the bill as reported by the conferees is not 
a bill that protects the senior citizens of this country, it is not a 
bill that provides for those who are ill in this country; it protects 
the pharmaceutical companies and they should have to go back to 
conference.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) has 15 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) has 30 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), is it 
his intention not to yield any time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is a question to the gentleman from 
Texas. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his time?
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, is it the intention of the gentleman not to 
yield any time?
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, at this time we reserve the balance of 
our time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, we have the right to close, so I am 
wondering when the gentleman is intending to use his time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I would suggest at this moment to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin if he has additional speakers to go ahead and 
proceed.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman going to be supporting or 
accepting the motion?
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, as I stated earlier, we are in opposition 
to the motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. As high 
health care prices continue to erode the living standards of middle-
class families across this country, the rising price of prescription 
drugs remains front and center in the eyes of seniors. A recent report 
by Families USA concluded that the prices of the 50 most frequently 
used prescription drugs by seniors rose by nearly 3\1/2\ times the rate 
of inflation. That is a problem for them, their children, and their 
children's children. We all have a stake in driving down prescription 
drug prices.
  In July this body abrogated its responsibility to address the problem 
of soaring drug prices. It barred the government from negotiating lower 
prices for seniors. It did worse than nothing.
  Since that time the call for prescription drug importation, giving 
ordinary Americans the choice that they are taking on their own, out of 
desperation, has reached a critical mass. Today the American people 
know that importation would save them billions of dollars, $600 billion 
in the next decade, savings passed directly onto the consumer.
  They know it is a safe option, because they know that the U.S. drug 
companies themselves reimport brand name medications from their 
overseas plants, $14.7 billion worth in 2001. They know that the 
reimportation bill passed this body in late July. It guaranteed safety. 
I would repeat that our bill not only required drugs reimported from 
other countries be FDA approved, but also that the facilities they are 
manufactured in are FDA approved as well. Add to that requirement in 
this bill that all prescription drugs use counterfeit-resistant 
packaging, and there is little doubt that every drug purchased here in 
the United States, reimported or otherwise, would be safer than the 
drugs that are available today.
  The FDA is so concerned about safety then they ought to take a look 
at food safety in the United States. They have jurisdiction over 
imported foods coming into the United States, and only less than 1 
percent, 1 to 2 percent of all imported food is inspected coming into 
this country. And yet the FDA will certify that that food is the safest 
food supply in the world. And yet FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved 
facilities will not be certified as being safe. Tell us, on whose side 
is the FDA? This is not an issue of safety, it is an issue of price.
  This Congress needs to stop acting as the wholly-owned subsidiary of 
the pharmaceutical companies, and step up to its responsibilities to 
help consumers. We need to vote for this motion because it is the only 
opportunity for this body to vote for lower cost prescription drugs. 
The Medicare prescription drug policy that has come out of the 
conference in this body, decimates and destroys Medicare, does nothing 
about the high cost of prescription drugs. And unless we pass this 
motion to instruct, there will be no opportunity to do what is the 
right thing for America's families, for America's seniors, and that is 
to provide them with the opportunity to get their prescription 
medications at a price that they can afford in order to save their 
lives. That is what this issue is about today. It is about providing 
people in this country the wherewithal to afford prescription drugs.
  Madam Speaker, let us vote for this motion to instruct. Let us do the 
right thing for seniors and for the families in this country.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, we are told by my colleague from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla), the Republican who is opposing this motion, that he does 
not have any comments on it, does not have anything to say about it. 
And I think that is kind of funny because we know full well when the 
Medicare bill comes up here, it is going to be Thursday or Friday at 5 
o'clock in the morning when America is sleeping and all the seniors do 
not know what is happening.
  But why is this provision important about the drug importation? 
Because when this bill originally passed the House, it passed by one 
vote. And after the roll call was left open an hour with the Republican 
leadership beating their Members into submission, a deal was struck 
that, okay, we are going to pass this bill, if we get drug importation. 
And that is why the bill passed.
  Then it went to a conference committee, and there was not a Democrat 
from the House sitting in there negotiating. But you know what was in 
there? The drug companies were in there. And now we are going to see 
the final product a few days from now, and lo and behold, drug 
importation is only permitted if the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services says it is okay. But we know that he has already said it is 
not okay. They oppose it.
  The administration is in the pocket of the drug companies. And so 
your mothers and fathers and grandparents are going to be pay more for 
drugs. This bill is a bad bill. Not only does it provide no decent drug 
coverage for America's seniors, but it is an attempt to get them out of 
the Medicare program.
  Madam Speaker, 90 percent of seniors today are in the Medicare fee-
for-service program. This bill rewards or gives gifts to insurance 
companies to get

[[Page 29445]]

them to move out and go into the private insurance companies where they 
are going to get a real bad deal on their health care.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, previous to today's debate the House has 
spoken definitively on what the American people want and today are only 
getting price relief on their prescription drugs by importing from 
Canada. Yet, through stealth maneuvers, the Republican majority, under 
pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and the White House, is going 
to close the border. They are about to say, to quote the FDA 
Commissioner, the FDA cannot guarantee the safety of Canadian drugs. 
Well, guess what? They cannot guarantee the safety of American drugs. 
In fact, it is well documented that the supply chain is more broken in 
the United States of America than it is in Canada where there is more 
government control.
  That was totally a specious argument that they have drug out here to 
try and protect one thing: Not the safety of the American public and 
our seniors, not their health. I will tell you what jeopardizes their 
health: When they cannot afford the drugs they need for a chronic or an 
acute condition.

                              {time}  1200

  There are tens of thousands of seniors and others across America in 
that condition.
  No, there is only one issue here. There is only one thing to protect, 
and it is not the safety of America's seniors; it is not the sanctity 
and the quality of our drug supply, because it is already compromised 
by phony closed-door pharmacies and hundreds of other loopholes that 
are getting counterfeit drugs, as is well documented, into the system 
in our country.
  Not in Canada. Their system works a lot better. They are reimporting 
FDA-approved drugs through Canada, and we know they are probably really 
American drugs. Here there are a lot of counterfeit drugs being made 
available though phony wholesalers.
  No, there is one thing that is being protected. Well, two things. One 
is the obscene prices and profits of the pharmaceutical industry; and 
two is political campaign contributions to the White House and 
Republicans. That is what is being protected.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me time.
  People from around the world come to America for their medical care. 
Yet Americans are forced to go around the world for their medications. 
Why? Because we have the most expensive prices for prescription drugs 
anywhere in the world right here in the United States; and yet all the 
medications are developed with taxpayer-funded research. Now we are 
given the honor and distinction to pay the most expensive prices.
  Now, there are two ways to address the issue of cost and 
affordability of prescription drugs. One was allowing Americans, like 
our European colleagues, to buy prescription drugs at 30, 40, 50 
percent cheaper, same name-brands drugs in both Canada, Europe, France, 
Germany, Italy, and Ireland. Yet, twice the Republican Congress has 
denied the right to Americans to free trade, to competition and choice 
because through competition prices would reduce and come down for 
America. Americans would no longer subsidize the poor starving French 
and Germans. They pay competitive prices. We pay competitive prices. 
Prices will drop here at home.
  Second is give the right to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services what the Secretary of the Veterans Administration has and what 
the private insurers have, which is to negotiate bulk prices, that is, 
a Medicare Sam's Club. And rather than use the power of 41 million 
seniors, we take a powder here, twice denying the right to seniors to 
get cost-effective measures, to get the prescription drugs they need at 
the prices they can afford.
  We deny that right. Why? Because we do not have faith in Tommy 
Thompson to negotiate good prices, but we have faith in him to deny the 
right of prescription drugs that come into this country at affordable 
prices. Our seniors are paying premium prices, and what are we about to 
do?
  We are about to ask the taxpayers to pay $400 billion of their money 
for the most expensive drugs, prescription drugs, anywhere in the 
world. We owe the common decency and courtesy to the taxpayers to get 
the best price and not the most expensive price.
  I support this motion so we would finally break the hammer lock the 
prescription drug companies have on this Congress and the Republican 
Congress and give the American people the type of relief they need so 
they can buy the drugs they need for their health at the prices they 
can afford.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, we have got a strange situation here. When we think 
about this, the most profitable industry in the country, the most 
profitable industry in the country is charging the highest prices in 
the world to America's seniors and others without health insurance. And 
yet the head of the Food and Drug Administration is giving speeches 
saying the problem is not that prices are too high in this country; the 
problem is that they are too low in other countries. The rest of the 
world has it wrong. They should raise their prices.
  This is ludicrous. In fact, the drug companies are happy to sell 
their drugs in Canada and Europe and around the world where on average 
they are selling their drugs for 40 percent less, and there is research 
going on in Canada. Look at this, just one example, there are 79 
research-based drug companies in Canada. And since 1995, they have 
increased their research spending by 50 percent. The pharmaceutical 
industry is not hurting in Canada or around the world. The people who 
are hurting are our seniors trying to buy their medication here at 
home.
  We need to be able to take drugs from other countries to bring them 
into this country. We know one thing, this administration is never 
going to approve the reimportation of low-price drugs from Canada. They 
will not do it. They are trying to stop it now. So any provision which 
depends on the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
and a Republican administration is not going to fly. That is why it is 
so important that this motion pass; it is so important that we have 
legislation that authorizes the reimportation of drugs. We do it for 
other products. We ought to do it for medication.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding me time.
  I rise in support of the motion to instruct, to instruct the 
conferees that we accept in this agriculture appropriations bill the 
same language that has already been passed on the House floor as it 
deals with reimportation, and let me tell you why.
  In June of last year, I did a study where we compared the price paid 
by seniors in Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District with the price 
paid by seniors in six other countries. And we found that the price 
paid by seniors in the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas is 110 
percent more on average than the price paid by seniors in places like 
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K.
  Let me give you a couple of examples. Prevacid, 30 milligrams. In our 
congressional district it costs $128 a month. The average foreign 
price, $55 a month. Celebrex, 200 milligrams. In my congressional 
district, $81 a month.

[[Page 29446]]

The average foreign price, $35 a month. Prilosec, in my district $129 a 
month. The average foreign price, $56 a month; and the list goes on and 
on and on.
  The drug manufacturers wrote this so-called Medicare prescription 
drug bill, which is not for our seniors. It is a windfall for the big 
drug manufacturers, and now we see their fingerprints all over this 
bill today to go to conference on the ag appropriations bill.
  Velma from my district writes and says she takes seven prescriptions 
a month. It costs her $560, and she is trying to get by and live on 
$604 a month.
  Mary from my district says she takes four prescriptions a month that 
cost her $401.88, and she is trying to get by on $586 a month.
  I rise in support of the motion to instruct on behalf of the seniors 
of America so we can take on the big drug manufacturers and the 
Republican leadership and finally bring down the high cost of 
prescription drugs for our seniors. This is America, and we can do 
better than this by our seniors.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this motion is an effort to prevent this Congress from 
giving to the drug companies two early Christmas presents.
  Let me put it this way: this Congress is about to tell the drug 
companies that they will have carte blanche to do whatever they want on 
drug costs. And this Congress will accomplish that in two ways. The 
first step is by obliterating the efforts that we have tried to make to 
allow the Federal Government to negotiate with drug companies for a 
lower price for drugs by providing a drug benefit that goes to everyone 
under Medicare. The Medicare legislation, which this House will be 
asked to vote on this week, that Medicare legislation, at the 
instruction of the Republican leadership, has eliminated all 
possibility for the Federal Government to negotiate lower drug prices. 
That is gift number one to the drug companies.
  That means the only remaining way that seniors can get some help on 
drug prices is by reimporting them from Canada. And the Medicare 
legislation which will shortly be before us will state that or will 
pretend that there is a Canadian drug reimport benefit but, in fact, 
has a benefit which the FDA itself says will not work. That means the 
only way left for Members to try to provide some degree of price 
protection for prescription drugs for seniors is to vote for this 
motion and to insist that this conference committee come back with the 
provision that was adopted in the original House legislation. That is 
why this motion is before us today. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
motion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  This vote will be followed by three 5-minute votes as follows:
  House Resolution 444, by the yeas and nays;
  approval of the Journal, de novo;
  suspension of the rules on H.R. 3300, by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 176, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 624]

                               YEAS--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardin
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Harris
     Hart
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hobson
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Issa
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McIntyre
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 29447]]



                             NOT VOTING--21

     Boyd
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Carson (OK)
     Cole
     Cubin
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Herger
     Jenkins
     Kaptur
     Lantos
     Musgrave
     Ortiz
     Pitts
     Radanovich
     Sanders
     Toomey
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1235

  Ms. DeGETTE and Messrs. ROTHMAN, FEENEY, WELDON of Florida, BACHUS, 
ALEXANDER, THOMPSON of Mississippi, CLYBURN, BOEHLERT, DAVIS of 
Florida, MORAN of Virginia, and SHERMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIs of Virginia, Mrs. BONO, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, 
and Messrs. McINNIS, GOODLATTE, FLAKE and CLAY changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 624 I inadvertently voted 
``aye.'' The vote was closed before I could correct the mistake. Had I 
been able to do so, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________