Summary:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - October 11, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H9681-H9709] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 617, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 617, the conference report is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of Friday, October 6, 2000 at page H9461.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring before the House the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. Mr. Speaker, this bill has two main parts. The first titles, Title I through VII, comprises the regular fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, which has a total budget authority of slightly less than $15.3 billion. The second part, which is Title VIII, is the emergency title, and that totals just over $3.6 billion. The administration advised us that it would not submit a formal request for disaster assistance, so as we have done in the past, we worked informally with program managers at USDA and with House and Senate colleagues to address as many concerns as possible. I believe that we have a good conference report that deserves the support of this body. We were able to make significant increases over the fiscal year 2000 level in research, food safety, domestic feeding, and conservation programs. This bill also contains compromise language in two critical issues: prescription drug importation, and sanctions of agricultural exports. I believe the language that we are offering will make it easier for our senior citizens to have access to safer, less costly drugs, and make it easier for our farmers and ranchers to export their products to certain countries. I would like to point out a few highlights of the conference report which I think are important to us all. In the two main research accounts, we have about $120 million over the current fiscal year level, in direct response to Members' concerns for critical research priorities. APHIS regular programs have been increased by $38 million over fiscal year 2000, in response to many Members' concerns about invasive plants, pests, and diseases. There is additional money in the APHIS account to assist in the boll weevil program. The Agricultural Marketing Service has increased by $15 million, and GIPSA by $4.5 million. Meat and poultry inspection has been increased by $47.5 million, which is actually higher than the official budget request. This represents our efforts to respond to problems that occurred after both bodies had passed their respective bills. Our FSA loan programs are increased slightly over the current year, and we have met the administration's requests for salaries and expenses. Conservation programs on the discretionary side are increased by about $70 million, which is just under the administration's request. On the mandatory side, there is an additional $35 million for technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve and the Conservation Reserve programs. There is also $117 million to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, since so many Members have requested us to lift the authorized enrollment cap. In rural development, we have met the administration's request for the Rural Community Advancement Program, and in spite of sharply higher subsidy rates, we have increased housing and rural utility loan levels by half a billion dollars each. In domestic food programs, WIC has been increased by $20 million, commodity assistance by $7 million, and elderly feeding by $10 million over fiscal year 2000. In P.L. 480, I know there was a lot of concern about the low House number. I am happy to report that Title II is now $837 million, so all of the food aid programs are at the administration's request. The Food and Drug Administration's salaries and expenses are increased by almost $31 million, and we will be able to go ahead with the badly needed new building in Los Angeles. Finally, I think all of us hear on a near weekly basis from the land grant schools about the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. In past years, we have had to put a limitation on this program to pay for other important accounts, but this conference report allows the Initiative as well as the Fund for Rural America to go forward in fiscal year 2001, using money saved from the 2000 budget. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will generate benefits in every congressional district in the country. We are providing strong protection for the health and safety of our citizens, nutrition and feeding programs for the most vulnerable, and agricultural research which makes us the greatest producer of food and fiber the world has ever known, and funding for a strong and productive rural America. Mr. Speaker, we have tried our best to put together a good, solid bipartisan bill which works for all America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe it is good compromise and good policy. In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the subcommittee for their help and hard work since we began this process earlier this year. In particular, I would like to thank the staff for all their hard work: Hank Moore, the subcommittee clerk; Martin Delgado; Joanne Orndorff; John Z.; Ann Dubey; Maureen Holohan; David Reich, of the staff of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and Jim Richards, from my personal office. Without them, we would not have a bill here today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material related to H.R. 4461: [[Page H9682]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.001 [[Page H9683]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.002 [[Page H9684]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.003 [[Page H9685]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.004 [[Page H9686]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.005 [[Page H9687]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.006 [[Page H9688]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.007 [[Page H9689]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.008 [[Page H9690]] Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1530 Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report as a significant improvement over the measure that originally moved through this body. Before I get into the details, let me just say that I particularly this afternoon rise with great respect and true admiration for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), our chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, who under current Republican caucus rules is serving his last year as a fair, caring and truly outstanding chairman. I will say that I know that as a regular committee member, the gentleman will continue to be exemplary in his service, but I will miss him in his current position. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express genuine support and thanks to our subcommittee staff, Hank Moore, Martin Delgado, John Ziolkowski, Joanne Orndorff and our detailees Anne DuBey and Maureen Holohan, and also our minority staff, David Reich, and on my own staff, Roger Szemraj for doing such a tremendous job in sheperding this major legislation through the Congress. I also want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he kept his word on both sides of the aisle, so that our conferees could meet and fully engage in debate as we did in every single line item of this bill. I say thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is our ranking member on the full committee who participated in every single meeting. I actually do not know how he does it, so tirelessly, and I want to thank the people of Wisconsin for sending him here for service to the Nation. I want to thank the Members on our side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). We thank them for yeoman's service in the construction of this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, overall the conference report spends over $78.5 billion. A little over three-quarters of that is in what we call mandatory spending for programs, especially our food programs, breakfast programs, lunch programs, elderly feeding programs, surplus commodity programs, that are used from coast to coast. $28 billion dollars, nearly half of that, goes to the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses as we move product around the world and here at home. Mr. Speaker, another $1.7 billion goes for crop insurance. The base bill in addition to this has $15 billion in discretionary spending in important areas, such as new research for fuels of the future, the extension service to bring the latest in research right down to the farm and the ranch, conservation programs--so much a part of America's rich natural heritage and essential to sustainability of the future, food safety programs, rural housing and development, all of our feeding programs, international assistance and certainly the Food and Drug Administration. In this bill, also, and this is of critical interest to those who tie their livelihoods to the rural countryside, we have more than $3.6 billion for disaster, farm assistance, and rural development programs. I will say more about that in a moment, but we were also able to incorporate into this measure portions of the Hunger Relief Act. We know as welfare reform really kicks in in every State across this country, thousands of people go to work for minimum wage without health benefits. In this bill, we have provided housing and vehicle allowances and the right to food for those workers and their children to help them transition to the marketplace off of welfare. We are very, very pleased to be able to do that on this particular committee. Mr. Speaker, I also have to say, of course, we were not able to defeat the rule and bring a real prescription drug reimportation provision before the Congress. That is truly sad, and every one of us will have to account for that before the voters this fall. In addition to that, the sanctions language in this bill is absolutely unworkable; even the Cuban Government has said that the provisions may be worse than the status quo, and we really will not be able to sell product in Cuba because of the restrictions in this measure. However, the needs of the country outweigh any one of those provisions, and we have to vote on the overall bill based on its merits. I will quickly tick off key provisions of the bill: we do provide additional funds for market concentration investigation in our Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration; food safety, full funding in that program; additional funds for our Farm Service Agency operations, including extra funds to administer the disaster program so essential across this country this year; for our conservation programs, a decent level of support; research, which is key to the future; in APHIS, while the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service, it has been funded in a manner that dedicates an inordinate amount of funds to the boll weevil program. We have so many other invasive species such as Asian longhorn beetle and others where we do not have equal levels of support. That is unfortunate. We were not able to work out fair apportionment of these funds completely. In rural development, we do provide an increase over last year; in food donations, in the PL480 provisions and in title 2, an increase there to help move surplus product into the international market so as to help farm prices here at home; and then in the Food and Drug Administration, some additional assistance there, but certainly not what the agency was looking for. I wanted to spend my final few minutes here talking about the emergency funding provisions in more detail, because this is so important across the country. For crop losses due to disasters, during the 2000 crop year, including those losses due to quality losses, we have funded what is necessary. We estimate across America that will require over $1.6 billion in funding. There is funding in this bill for dairy producers to compensate for their low prices. There is livestock assistance. We had many questions on that from people representing ranching communities. Also there is targeted assistance for our apple and potato producers, cranberry producers, honey producers as well as wool and mohair. There is no reason just because you are not a row crop producer that you should not have some type of assistance if you are going to lose your operations. There is authority in this bill to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, and $35 million for the Natural Resource and Conservation Service for technical assistance in relation to that program, as well as the Conservation Reserve Program. There is an additional $20 million in this program for cooperative development, for new co-ops to help farmers and ranchers reposition to meet the market in this very difficult period for them. Also there are additional funds for water and sewer across our country. We just cannot meet the entire need; the line of applicants is much longer than we are able to accommodate. We have done the very best we could in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Members, in spite of the loopholes--and they are significant in the prescription drug provision and the sanctions portions of the bill--to vote for this bill. Overall the other provisions require our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, and join with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) in her praise for the chairman's activity on this subcommittee. He has been a great chairman and a great friend and has really worked hard to balance the interests and needs of all the Members. I rise in support of [[Page H9691]] this conference report, because it may be that this subcommittee has produced maybe one of the most valuable appropriations bills that would come before the House of Representatives, because it meets the needs of human beings, their hunger needs, their food needs, and their medicine needs. It all comes under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I especially appreciate that this is a further implementation of the Freedom to Farm Act that we passed back in 1996, which the President signed, and all of the Members of the House and Senate who cared deeply about agriculture have needed to have this next step taken in the area of lifting sanctions on food and medicine. In that respect, I have been proud to work with the chairman and some of my colleagues on the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, most importantly, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), certainly the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Obey), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). We have all worked hard. We do not have a product that satisfies each of us and all of us, but it is a great step forward as we lift sanctions on food and medicine and establish a new policy for our country as it relates to the imposition of sanctions unilaterally. The President in the future, assuming he signs this bill, and I hope that he will, will have the Congress as a partner in decisions that are made about whether or not to impose sanctions on food and medicine unilaterally by our country. Helping in this effort have been other Members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has been a great supporter; the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has been a leader in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I just want my colleagues to know that this is a new day for trade sanctions. It is a new day for agriculture and trade policy that says food and medicine should not be used as weapons of foreign policy. This is workable, notwithstanding the people who might say nay about it. This is going to work to benefit American agriculture. It is going to work for Iran, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. I certainly respect my friends on the other side of this issue relating to Cuba, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). They are very patriotic, good Americans who care deeply about the current sanctions policy in our country. I happen to disagree with their policy position; but they fervently believe in it, and I respect that. We have tried to craft a measure that would work for their needs and their particular positions and policy decisions and those of us who care about the free trade side of American agriculture. Mostly, I would say to my colleagues that I have had a great staff that has helped get through this process, Rob Neal and Jack Silzel, and as imperfect as the legislative process might be, this is a good package. I hope it passes this House. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to begin by complimenting the work of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member, as well as the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. They have done a tremendous job. In addition to facing the obstacle of unrealistic budget restraints, they have once again had to struggle against a leadership that is bent on subverting the expressed will of this House. It is my fond hope that some day soon we will have an honest conference on an agricultural bill with input from the administration and from this side of the aisle in a true bipartisan result, but not today. As a direct result of the leadership's involvement, we have lost key opportunities to move our country forward in both its trade relations and with regard to the availability of affordable prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, the agriculture embargo on U.S. sales to Cuba has done little to change the behavior of this island nation. In fact, U.S. sanctions have given Cuba an excuse for the failed policies of a communist regime. With complete normalization of trade relations, Cuba could become a $1 billion market for U.S. agriculture producers within 5 years, making it our second largest market in Latin America after Mexico. On July 20 of this year, the House by a vote of 301-116 overwhelmingly expressed its will to end our unilateral trade embargo, and yet the provision inserted by the House leadership includes a travel ban and restrictions on finance that will continue to undercut the ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to take full advantage of Cuba's market potential. The compromise in this bill gets us 5 percent of where we need to be. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the implications of the provision included in the conference report regarding trade sanctions. While I am sympathetic to the goal of this provision, it should have been withheld until we had a thorough analysis of all of its trade effects and, particularly, its effect on agriculture. Mr. Speaker, despite these inadequacies, this conference report includes many good and important provisions, including funding, conservation, research, rural development. It provides much-needed assistance to agriculture producers affected by natural disasters. It addresses the drinking water emergencies in rural areas brought about by drought, and it will enact portions of the Hunger Relief Act that will be crucial to ensuring that our neediest citizens are adequately nourished. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report; and I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report includes two important provisions from the bipartisan Hunger Relief Act, of which I am a proud co-sponsor. One of these would increase and then index the cap on the excess shelter deduction. This arbitrary cap can result in families with children having money they spend on their rent, mortgage, and utilities being counted as if it was available to buy food. I hope that in reauthorization, we can eliminate this cap altogether so that families with children are treated in the same manner as elderly and disabled households are now. The other provision would give states broad flexibility to increase or eliminate limits on the value of vehicles they may own and still receive food stamps. For many low-income families, having a dependable car is essential to their ability to find and keep employment. Denying food assistance to a household based on the value of a vehicle makes no sense: if the household sold the vehicle, it would become eligible for food stamps but then would have a much harder time becoming more self- sufficient. This provision allows states to adopt rules from any program that receives TANF or TANF maintenance of effort funds as long as that program provides benefits that could meet the definition of ``assistance'' in the TANF rules. This could include, for example, any child care program since child care can count as assistance under certain circumstances. States would not be required to determine whether any particular individual received assistance from the TANF- or MOE-funded program since that would impose administrative burdens and whatever standards the state adopted would apply statewide. Where a household has more than one vehicle, a state electing the option would evaluate each under whichever rules would result in the lower attribution of resources, whether the regular food stamp rules or the rules borrowed from the other state program. Of course, if the state TANF- or MOE-funded program excluded cars completely, or did not apply resources rules, those rules would prevail. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). [[Page H9692]] {time} 1545 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent work that he did in working through these very difficult issues. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. What we accomplished on this bill, especially as it relates to our trade policies, is exactly what is possible, no more, no less. But what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we made a historic change in our foreign policy. Hopefully never again will the United States use food and drug as a weapon. Our farmers need all the markets that they can get. We should never be putting ourselves in a position where we are cutting off markets, because American farmers are the best in the world, the most productive in the world, and we need to help them to get to the markets. The issue of reimportation of drugs, there has been an awful lot of demagoguery about this on the other side. The fact of the matter is we address it. For the first time, it is being addressed. I suppose if we had not addressed it, we would have heard about that, too. We have improved on the food stamps regulations for poor Americans. Welfare reform did more for this country and its people than maybe any other reform that has been passed in the last 25 years. More Americans are productive. Fewer kids are in poverty. More Americans are healthy because of that reform. But we had some minor changes to make in the Hunger Relief Act, that will help States to address the issues of moving people from welfare to work. Disaster relief, disaster assistance for farmers, apple farmers, dairy farmers, crop farmers, I think the Congress did a good job in a bipartisan way of addressing disaster relief issues. We have made major strides in improving the environment through the Agriculture bill, primarily in the CRP program and also in agriculture research. This is a broad bill, it is an expansive bill, it is an important bill, and we need not focus on the warts and the scabs within the overall legislation. We need to focus on what is good about this bill and the commitment that we have made to the American farmer. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to rise in opposition to the conference report, with great respect to the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the subcommittee, who I know have done their best to put together an attractive proposal. But I believe we pay too high a price in this legislation. Several months ago, the House passed the Sanford amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill by a vote of 232 to 186, prohibiting the use of any funds to enforce the travel restrictions on Cuba, now we see, as the price paid to allow our farmers to export the codification of restrictions which work against the very goals that the proponents of those restrictions constantly proclaim they want. The whole history of the downfall of tyranny comes from contact with people from democracies, with human rights crusaders, with people who want to establish people-to-people programs. Instead of allowing the flexibility to move ahead and advance these kinds of programs and other kinds of useful contacts, we codify a policy that, for 40 years, has failed to achieve its primary goal. That is a terrible mistake. It is a violation of the civil liberties of the Americans and Americans right to travel. It undermines the very goal we seek in our Cuba policy. For the life of me, I would love to hear the explanation which prohibits export financing to Cuba but gives waiver authority and discretion to the executive branch when we talk about export financing of our exports to both Libya and to Iran. Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear the gentleman from Washington or someone else defend that distinction. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey). Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favor of this bill from several different standpoints: the standpoint of what the Nation is benefiting and how my State of Arkansas is benefiting. First of all, we have the importation of drugs that is going to be a significant event in our Nation's battle against high drug prices. We have got in this bill a $3 million appropriation that will help in the construction for the National Center of Toxilogical Research in my district that will handle the imports and examinations. The FDA will be in charge of this, and they will handle the inspections on the drugs as well as inspections on all other imports. It is a very significant thing, and that bill is coming along and is going to be in place soon. There is some education initiatives concerning timber. In our Forest Service areas, we have a serious problem of how to manage that. We will have a study of that in our University of Arkansas at Monticello. We also have a seven-State program called Delta Teachers Academy that will have a learning center in the UAPB campus in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that will teach teachers how to teach. It will help them in doing that in the Delta. We have net catfish initiatives. The National Aquaculture Research Center in Stuttgart, which is not in my district, but serves the Nation in studying catfish yields, improving yields, food quality, disease control and stress tolerance. We also have a specific appropriation for an Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at UAPB, again, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that concerns itself with the control of the commorants as they are attacking the fish industry. We have several different provisions also that will help catfish farmers in that the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited from denying loans for catfish farmers in Arkansas for being in the floodplain. All of these things plus others are the reasons why I am for this bill. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), a member of the Agriculture authorizing committee. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, like many conference agreements, this one has a provision that I am pleased with, and it has provisions that are not in it that I am not pleased with. Nonetheless, I intend to vote for the conference report because it has many national priorities and local priorities that are important to the Nation's constituents and my constituents. Among the provisions that are in this agreement is funding for modular housing for elderly North Carolinans who are flood victims, funding for a critically needed drainage project in flood-ravaged Princeville, North Carolina, and funding for the innovative agrimedicine project designed to combat farm injuries and illness in East Carolina University. I am pleased to say that this agreement also includes very important language to combat hunger. Important food stamp modifications are made on the shelter cap and to the automobile cap. While the WIC program did not receive all the funding it should have or that was requested, nevertheless, $4.1 billion is vitally needed and certainly will be used in this highly successful program. This agreement includes significant funding for the emergency disaster relief for farmers, for crop losses, restoration projects. The agreement continues funding for agricultural research, education extension, service activity. I am, however, disappointed that the agreement only includes $3 million of the $6.8 million approved by the House funding going for research to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Nonetheless, this agreement does offer some limited hope through this limited increase. Hopefully, we would do better the next time. The overall agreement is comprehensive and does include important national priorities that deserve our support, and I urge its passage. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). [[Page H9693]] Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this agriculture appropriations bill. I think we all have to be reminded constantly that this is a bill that helps agriculture first and foremost. But before I mention a couple of specifics, Mr. Speaker, I think for the record this Member at least has considered it a tremendous honor to work under the leadership of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) in this process. He is a person who sets the highest standard of integrity and brings to work every day the highest commitment. The character and the determination that he brings every day to work for the betterment of agriculture in America is something that I will always, always remember. He is not going anywhere. But I think I speak for many of us on the subcommittee who just cherished the time that we have had working under his leadership on this subcommittee. I want to specifically mention that this bill, again, does deal with a lot of important aspects of agriculture assistance and relief, drought, other natural disasters. Commodity prices over the years have dealt a bad hand to many of our producers in this country. There is a lot of assistance in this bill for that; $3.5 billion in economic assistance that does not need to be held up in Washington any longer. I know that there are Members who do not like that certain commodities have received assistance in this bill as well. We have attempted to do the right thing and address all commodities that have suffered. We should not sit here and pick and choose who we help and who we do not based on whether or not we like what we grow or the farm programs that they operate under. They did not set the programs. Congress did. Now we must help all areas of rural communities survive in this very difficult time. The bill also goes the extra mile to support farmers and ranchers. Agriculture credit programs are increased by $14 million over fiscal year 2000, and agriculture research has increased by $86 million. The boll weevil eradication program is funded at $79 million. These are just a few examples of how this bill will help our farmers and ranchers and all of us who have large rural agriculture communities. The word ought to get out that there is a true commitment in a bipartisan way to help these folks who were really the salt of the Earth, the producers of this country who were trying to compete in international markets with other countries sometimes that subsidize their producers in unfair ways. There is a tremendous commitment by many of us, again, in a bipartisan way to do what is right in this Agriculture appropriations bill. I stand in strong support and would urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the incredibly hard working ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her kindness, amongst many others, to me. Mr. Speaker, an otherwise acceptable bill has been very much hurt in the conference report by the drug reimportation provisions. In a word, they protect users of reimported pharmaceuticals very poorly if at all. They put them at severe risk and hazard. So I am going to tell my colleagues some of the things that are going to happen as a result of these provisions so poorly studied by the Congress and so ill attended to in committee. Soon, Americans will be taking substandard, adulterated or counterfeited imported drugs because of these provisions. These provisions will do nothing to help lower the price of prescription medicines and are no substitute for prescription pharmaceuticals to senior citizens under Medicare. Because FDA is already overwhelmed with inspecting foreign manufacturers, it will not be able to handle the vast new responsibilities being imposed upon it, and consumers will suffer and be at risk. In the coming years, FDA is going to be pilloried by politicians for failing to protect Americans from bad prescription drugs which are reimported under these provisions, when in fact the blame should fall squarely upon the politicians in the 106th Congress. Make no mistake. This reckless legislation never went through the committees with expertise or experience in these matters. It is going to lead to needless injuries and deaths. The world pharmaceutical market is a dangerous place, far more so than my colleagues understand. Congressional investigations showed this in the 1980s, and I know because I conducted those investigations. They will show it now. My written statement will elaborate on this point. My opposition to the drug reimportation provisions requires me to vote against an otherwise acceptable bill. I would note the American people want a decent prescription, not a placebo, and they want one that is safe and one which will help their health. This particular proposal will not. It puts Americans at risk. I warn my colleagues what they are doing. I hope they will listen. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DINGELL. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do want to associate myself with his remarks. This is far more complicated than most people believe, as the gentleman from Michigan said. I am very familiar with his historical involvement in this area. All of us want to relieve this problem, but I want to underscore the comments the gentleman from Michigan made, and I do want to associate myself with his remarks. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I hope my colleagues will listen to what the gentleman just said because we are putting the Nation and the senior citizens and others at risk. Reimporting drugs is a dangerous and risky prospect. Doing so without adequate protections and controls for the protection of consumers is a still greater risk. I ask my colleagues to listen to what I say. There is danger here they are not observing. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. Although there are many very good provisions addressing major agricultural needs, there is also a very dangerous provision that would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs from foreign sources. That is something I cannot support. During the 1980's, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy investigation into the foreign drug market that ultimately led to enactment of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). That investigation discovered a potentially dangerous diversion market that prevented effective control over the true sources of drug products in a significant number of cases. The distribution system was vulnerable to the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or even counterfeit pharmaceuticals. As the resulting Committee report stated, ``pharmaceuticals which have been mislabeled, misbranded, improperly stored or shipped, have exceeded their expiration dates, or are bald counterfeits are injected into the national distribution system for ultimate sale to consumers.'' The PDMA was designed to restore needed integrity and control over the pharmaceutical market, eliminating actual and potential health and safety problems before injury to the consumer could occur. Again, the Committee report was clear on why the PDMA was needed: [R]eimported pharmaceuticals threaten the public health in two ways. First, foreign counterfeits, falsely described as reimported U.S. produced drugs, have entered the distribution system. Second, proper storage and handling of legitimate pharmaceuticals cannot be guaranteed by U.S. law once the drugs have left the boundaries of the United States. I find nothing today that suggests that the problem with misbranded, adulterated, or even counterfeit foreign drugs has been solved, and if anything, the problem may be getting worse. I am thus concerned that in our haste to find a way to bring cheaper drugs to seniors and other needy Americans--a clearly important and laudable goal--we risk making changes to key health and safety laws we may later regret. On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that underscored that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is already overwhelmed and underfunded, and thus unable to consistently undertake the many tasks now required to protect the U.S. drug supply. At that hearing, FDA Commissioner Jane Henney testified that FDA has insufficient post-market surveillance resources to keep pace with its current [[Page H9694]] mandate. Consequently, the agency is lagging in conducting inspections of firms that ship drug products to the U.S., and this burden is only going to worsen in the future. The legislation in question today only exacerbates this already- serious problem. As envisioned by this proposal, FDA will newly be responsible for inspecting the entire custody chain between all parties and processes involved in the shipment of drugs back to the U.S. market. This could include repackaging and relabeling facilities, as well as the many storage firms that might be used in this process. This proposal would also ultimately require FDA to oversee the formation of new testing facilities, and develop regulations to address numerous safety concerns ignored by this proposal. In short, the reimport legislation will inundate an already overburdened FDA with new responsibilities. Worse, it will do so without any assurances that the agency will ever see the approximately $92 million it claims it needs to fully implement this plan. Instead, the bill only gives $23 million for a single year, or one-fourth of what the plan will ultimately require. Given the fact that the agency is already significantly underfunded, I see almost no chance it will see this money. But even if Congress were to provide the additional resources, I remain skeptical that FDA could even construct a global regulatory framework as safe as what is now in place. FDA was unsuccessful in preventing counterfeit and substandard drugs from entering the U.S. before the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) went into effect, and so I doubt it will be successful once many of its protections are undermined by this legislation. Moreover, it is particularly troubling that drug prices may not even be significantly lowered as a result of this proposal. There is nothing that guarantees that in this process of undermining our current regulatory system, lower priced drugs will become available to needy Americans. Wholesalers may not pass on any accrued savings to the public, nor is it clear that they will necessarily be able to access a steady supply for resale. In fact, this bill is riddled with numerous loopholes that will allow manufacturers to label or produce their products in a form that makes them either impossible or cost- prohibitive to reimport. The notion that this bill will create an abundance of cheap, properly labeled, and properly repackaged drugs, easily available to reimporters, is simply false. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes long-term changes to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, without the benefit of even a single legislative hearing. During the 1980's, the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy multi-year investigation resulting in numerous hearings before any related legislation was drafted. There have been no public hearings regarding this legislation, as most of this process has involved closed-door proceedings. With the many implications this legislation will have on public health and safety, this process has ill-served the public and is indefensible. In conclusion, this provision represents the flawed implementation of a risky concept. Many of the Members supporting this legislation believe they are doing the right thing by helping Americans get access to cheaper medicine, and assume that medicine will, in fact, be safe. I agree that medicine needs to be cheaper, but disagree that reimported medicine will be as safe. We know too much about the kinds of drug manufacturing and distribution shenanigans that take place in other parts of the world to allow our system to be jeopardized by the legislation contained in this spending bill. It is flawed legislation that will, if passed in its present form, result in significant harm to the very persons we are trying to help. Thus, I cannot support this bill. {time} 1600 Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Mr. LATHAM. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to publicly say how much I appreciate the great work of our chairman. This will be his last bill as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been just an absolute pleasure and an honor to work with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). I know the gentleman is staying here next year and everything; but because of the rules, he will no longer be chairman of this subcommittee; and I just want to tell him on a personal level how much I appreciate all his hard work and what a great job he has done for New Mexico and for the rest of the country. And to the ranking member, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), it is a real pleasure and it is fun to work with her with the interest we all have in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, this, I think, is an excellent appropriations bill. We have been through a very long process throughout the entire year with hearings, listening to the concerns of the people and the agencies, their proposals, expressing concerns at the way management in some of the agencies has taken place and trying to do the best job possible in this bill to address those concerns. The one major concern we have, as far as delivering services in Iowa, and I think throughout the country, is with the FSA offices. This bill increases funding for those people who are at the ground level doing the work out there, actually in contact with the farmers themselves; and these people are working their hearts out in the countryside. There is increased funding in the bill to the tune of $34 million in addition to the $50 million additional to take care of the emergency disaster programs that are also stated in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is an increase as far as our credit programs so that we can continue to use that tool for exports and to make sure that we do try and have opportunities for our farmers to sell their products overseas. Conservation is a huge issue as far as we are concerned in Iowa and throughout the country, and those activities are increased by $53 million in the bill. Food safety is increased by $47.5 million. Funding for the Food and Drug Administration is almost $35 million more than what it was last year, and $89 million basically, with some savings with the President. We are continuing our commitment as far as food and nutrition for our people here, increasing funding for WIC. A very, very important issue for Iowa is the lifting of sanctions in the bill with Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and the Sudan. With the Cuban issue, it is a major breakthrough for us to finally have that door at least cracked open so that we have an opportunity to sell into that market, and to also look to these other new markets that we have and be able to use credit here in the U.S. to go into highly populated countries, like North Korea, Iran, and these other countries that offer so much potential for us. I am not totally comfortable with all the provisions in here. I would like to see opening of travel and things like that, but we at least have a breakthrough as far as this issue is concerned. I think we can advance the idea that through openness, through trade, we can change countries and have them come into the democracy, which we all very, very much want. Again, I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time on both sides. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 10 minutes remaining. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the very able member of the Committee on International Relations. Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4461 in its current form, but in strong support of ending the embargo on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. Our current policy toward Cuba was created in the early 1960s, at the height of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall has now crumbled, the Soviet Union has vanished, but this archaic policy is still here. For 40 years, 40 years, we have maintained a blockade on trade and food and medicine with Cuba, and we have put severe restrictions on travel by American citizens. We must lift that blockade without imposing new barriers. However, this bill codifies current restrictions on Americans travel to Cuba. What, I must ask, is our country afraid of? How can it be against our interests for our citizens, our most effective ambassadors, to travel to Cuba? How can we live in the greatest democracy in the world and restrict the travel of our own citizens? Americans should have the right to see Cuba for themselves. They should have the right to form their own judgments about this Afro-Hispanic island 90 miles away from our shores. I have led and participated in many delegations to Cuba in an effort to promote education, understanding and cultural exchange between our countries. I have seen a child with kidney [[Page H9695]] disease in grave danger because the embargo prevented the importation of a U.S.-made part for a dialysis machine at this hospital. And I have seen Cuba's health care system, which guarantees its own citizens universal health care, which we still cannot figure out how to do. We should allow anyone and everyone who wants to travel to Cuba to do so without fear of breaking the law and going to jail. I urge my colleagues to oppose restrictions on travel to Cuba in this bill and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4461. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for the tremendous leadership he has given all of us over the last several years, fighting hard for our producers, helping us deliver emergency and disaster aid. I do not know anyone who has worked as forthrightly and on a consensus basis as the gentleman from New Mexico has, and I want to thank him. We will miss him tremendously as our leader next year, but I do thank him. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the excellent work she does and for her dedication to supporting American agriculture as well. I want to say that this is a great bill. I wish in a couple of instances we could have done more, particularly on the issue of agriculture embargoes, which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has championed so well. But even though it does not go quite as far with regard to Cuba, let us not forget that we are also dealing with four other countries against whom we have had sanctions on food and medicine, and this represents a $6 billion market potential for our producers. We are all so caught up in the emotion of Cuba that we forget, quite frankly, that it is the other countries that present the biggest opportunity for our producers, and I did not want to let that go without mentioning it. I also am very pleased that we have included in the emergency assistance package a piece that is very similar to the stand-alone legislation that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I introduced, doubling the loan deficiency payment, particularly when our farmers and ranchers are in such dire straits for the third year in a row. But let me end by addressing the entire issue of reimportation once again, and say that all of the loopholes that have been recognized on the part of my colleagues on the other side are loopholes that really will not exist if in fact we are determined to work closely with the Food and Drug Administration to make this legislation work. Number one, dealing with the issue of labeling. Let me reiterate again that the President said he liked the language in the Jeffords bill that passed the Senate. This is the exact language on labeling which is in the Jeffords bill. The President urged the Senate to send him the legislation so he could sign it, as long as the appropriate money was there to implement it. We have, in fact, included $23 million that the FDA requested for this year to do just that. On the issue of contracts. Let me say once again that while we have not included the exact language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) wanted, we have in fact included language that does prevent a manufacturer from limiting or entering into any kind of contractor or agreement that prevents the sale or distribution of covered products for reimportation purposes. So all in all I think this is an excellent bill and I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I again thank the chairman for the great job that he has done. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to place in the Record language from the New York Times this morning refuting what my very dear colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), has indicated. It says Dr. Jane Henney, the Commissioner of Food and Drug, said, ``Nothing in the bill requires a manufacturer to give the approved label to an importer or to allow use of the label by an importer, which means that it is not enforceable.'' And then today we receive from the Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget, the following. And I enter the direct language in the Record because in the future we will have to repair the damage that is going to be done when this bill is passed today. It says, ``The administration is disappointed that the prescription drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and, instead, produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to FDA-approved labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could, and probably would, block reimportation of their medications. Second, a sunset was added that ends the importation system 5 years after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector interest in investing in this system.'' And I would just depart from that to say to my colleague that sunset was not in the Jeffords bill, as the gentlewoman indicated earlier today. And, finally, third, this letter says, ``The conference language permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. importers. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many with no option than to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will work to address the problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will ensure seniors and people with disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications.'' That is a direct quote from the Executive Office of the President. And, Mr. Speaker, the full content of the statement is as follows: Statement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies.) h.r. 4461--agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies appropriations bill fy 2001 (Sponsors: Skeen (R), New Mexico; Cochran (R) Mississippi) This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on the conference version of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001. The conference report includes support for a number of important priorities for the Nation. In particular, the bill includes full funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative, significant increases in rural development programs to help rural communities and residents take part in the national economic expansion, provisions that will enable food stamp recipients to own dependable cars and have better shelter without losing their eligibility, and relief to farmers and ranchers who suffered losses from natural disasters. While the Administration continues to support a range of conservation efforts, such as the Farmland Protection Wetlands Reserve, and Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, and is disappointed that this bill did not provide full funding for these efforts, we do appreciate the increases that were provided including funds for conservation technical assistance. However, while the Administration supports this conference report, it has concerns with several provisions in the bill. The Administration is disappointed that the prescription drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and instead produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could-- and probably would--block reimportation of their medications. Second, a ``sunset'' was added that ends the importation system five years after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector interest in investing in this system. Third, the conference language permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. importers. Finally, despite the Administration's repeated requests, the conference requires FDA to pay for the costs associated with this provision from within resources needed to perform its other important public [[Page H9696]] health activities. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many with no other option than to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will work to address this problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will insure seniors and people with disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications. On the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000,'' which is included in the conference report, there are two major concerns to the Administration. First, the restrictions on the ability of the President to initiate new sanctions and maintain old ones are overly stringent. This effectively disarms the President's ability to conduct foreign policy while providing potential targets of U.S. actions with the time to take countermeasures. Second, the provisions of the bill affecting travel to Cuba would significantly set back our people-to-people exchanges that are in the interest of opening up Cuban society. They also would preclude travel by technicians and others needed to conduct normal business by the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, as well as travel for humanitarian purposes. With respect to the provision, ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' the Administration agrees with the findings that state that unfair trade laws have as their purpose the restoration of conditions of fair trade. However, that is the purpose of the anti-dumping and counter-vailing duties themselves, which accomplish that purpose. By raising the price of imports they shield domestic producers from import competition and allow domestic manufacturers to raise prices, increase production, and improve revenues. Consequently, distribution of the tariffs themselves to producers is not necessary to the restoration of conditions of fair trade. In addition, there are significant concerns regarding administrative feasibility and consistency with our trade policy objectives, including the potential for trading partners to adopt similar mechanisms. Such concerns were raised and examined with regar

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - October 11, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H9681-H9709] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 617, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 617, the conference report is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of Friday, October 6, 2000 at page H9461.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring before the House the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. Mr. Speaker, this bill has two main parts. The first titles, Title I through VII, comprises the regular fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, which has a total budget authority of slightly less than $15.3 billion. The second part, which is Title VIII, is the emergency title, and that totals just over $3.6 billion. The administration advised us that it would not submit a formal request for disaster assistance, so as we have done in the past, we worked informally with program managers at USDA and with House and Senate colleagues to address as many concerns as possible. I believe that we have a good conference report that deserves the support of this body. We were able to make significant increases over the fiscal year 2000 level in research, food safety, domestic feeding, and conservation programs. This bill also contains compromise language in two critical issues: prescription drug importation, and sanctions of agricultural exports. I believe the language that we are offering will make it easier for our senior citizens to have access to safer, less costly drugs, and make it easier for our farmers and ranchers to export their products to certain countries. I would like to point out a few highlights of the conference report which I think are important to us all. In the two main research accounts, we have about $120 million over the current fiscal year level, in direct response to Members' concerns for critical research priorities. APHIS regular programs have been increased by $38 million over fiscal year 2000, in response to many Members' concerns about invasive plants, pests, and diseases. There is additional money in the APHIS account to assist in the boll weevil program. The Agricultural Marketing Service has increased by $15 million, and GIPSA by $4.5 million. Meat and poultry inspection has been increased by $47.5 million, which is actually higher than the official budget request. This represents our efforts to respond to problems that occurred after both bodies had passed their respective bills. Our FSA loan programs are increased slightly over the current year, and we have met the administration's requests for salaries and expenses. Conservation programs on the discretionary side are increased by about $70 million, which is just under the administration's request. On the mandatory side, there is an additional $35 million for technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve and the Conservation Reserve programs. There is also $117 million to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, since so many Members have requested us to lift the authorized enrollment cap. In rural development, we have met the administration's request for the Rural Community Advancement Program, and in spite of sharply higher subsidy rates, we have increased housing and rural utility loan levels by half a billion dollars each. In domestic food programs, WIC has been increased by $20 million, commodity assistance by $7 million, and elderly feeding by $10 million over fiscal year 2000. In P.L. 480, I know there was a lot of concern about the low House number. I am happy to report that Title II is now $837 million, so all of the food aid programs are at the administration's request. The Food and Drug Administration's salaries and expenses are increased by almost $31 million, and we will be able to go ahead with the badly needed new building in Los Angeles. Finally, I think all of us hear on a near weekly basis from the land grant schools about the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. In past years, we have had to put a limitation on this program to pay for other important accounts, but this conference report allows the Initiative as well as the Fund for Rural America to go forward in fiscal year 2001, using money saved from the 2000 budget. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will generate benefits in every congressional district in the country. We are providing strong protection for the health and safety of our citizens, nutrition and feeding programs for the most vulnerable, and agricultural research which makes us the greatest producer of food and fiber the world has ever known, and funding for a strong and productive rural America. Mr. Speaker, we have tried our best to put together a good, solid bipartisan bill which works for all America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe it is good compromise and good policy. In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the subcommittee for their help and hard work since we began this process earlier this year. In particular, I would like to thank the staff for all their hard work: Hank Moore, the subcommittee clerk; Martin Delgado; Joanne Orndorff; John Z.; Ann Dubey; Maureen Holohan; David Reich, of the staff of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and Jim Richards, from my personal office. Without them, we would not have a bill here today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material related to H.R. 4461: [[Page H9682]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.001 [[Page H9683]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.002 [[Page H9684]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.003 [[Page H9685]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.004 [[Page H9686]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.005 [[Page H9687]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.006 [[Page H9688]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.007 [[Page H9689]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.008 [[Page H9690]] Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1530 Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report as a significant improvement over the measure that originally moved through this body. Before I get into the details, let me just say that I particularly this afternoon rise with great respect and true admiration for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), our chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, who under current Republican caucus rules is serving his last year as a fair, caring and truly outstanding chairman. I will say that I know that as a regular committee member, the gentleman will continue to be exemplary in his service, but I will miss him in his current position. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express genuine support and thanks to our subcommittee staff, Hank Moore, Martin Delgado, John Ziolkowski, Joanne Orndorff and our detailees Anne DuBey and Maureen Holohan, and also our minority staff, David Reich, and on my own staff, Roger Szemraj for doing such a tremendous job in sheperding this major legislation through the Congress. I also want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he kept his word on both sides of the aisle, so that our conferees could meet and fully engage in debate as we did in every single line item of this bill. I say thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is our ranking member on the full committee who participated in every single meeting. I actually do not know how he does it, so tirelessly, and I want to thank the people of Wisconsin for sending him here for service to the Nation. I want to thank the Members on our side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). We thank them for yeoman's service in the construction of this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, overall the conference report spends over $78.5 billion. A little over three-quarters of that is in what we call mandatory spending for programs, especially our food programs, breakfast programs, lunch programs, elderly feeding programs, surplus commodity programs, that are used from coast to coast. $28 billion dollars, nearly half of that, goes to the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses as we move product around the world and here at home. Mr. Speaker, another $1.7 billion goes for crop insurance. The base bill in addition to this has $15 billion in discretionary spending in important areas, such as new research for fuels of the future, the extension service to bring the latest in research right down to the farm and the ranch, conservation programs--so much a part of America's rich natural heritage and essential to sustainability of the future, food safety programs, rural housing and development, all of our feeding programs, international assistance and certainly the Food and Drug Administration. In this bill, also, and this is of critical interest to those who tie their livelihoods to the rural countryside, we have more than $3.6 billion for disaster, farm assistance, and rural development programs. I will say more about that in a moment, but we were also able to incorporate into this measure portions of the Hunger Relief Act. We know as welfare reform really kicks in in every State across this country, thousands of people go to work for minimum wage without health benefits. In this bill, we have provided housing and vehicle allowances and the right to food for those workers and their children to help them transition to the marketplace off of welfare. We are very, very pleased to be able to do that on this particular committee. Mr. Speaker, I also have to say, of course, we were not able to defeat the rule and bring a real prescription drug reimportation provision before the Congress. That is truly sad, and every one of us will have to account for that before the voters this fall. In addition to that, the sanctions language in this bill is absolutely unworkable; even the Cuban Government has said that the provisions may be worse than the status quo, and we really will not be able to sell product in Cuba because of the restrictions in this measure. However, the needs of the country outweigh any one of those provisions, and we have to vote on the overall bill based on its merits. I will quickly tick off key provisions of the bill: we do provide additional funds for market concentration investigation in our Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration; food safety, full funding in that program; additional funds for our Farm Service Agency operations, including extra funds to administer the disaster program so essential across this country this year; for our conservation programs, a decent level of support; research, which is key to the future; in APHIS, while the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service, it has been funded in a manner that dedicates an inordinate amount of funds to the boll weevil program. We have so many other invasive species such as Asian longhorn beetle and others where we do not have equal levels of support. That is unfortunate. We were not able to work out fair apportionment of these funds completely. In rural development, we do provide an increase over last year; in food donations, in the PL480 provisions and in title 2, an increase there to help move surplus product into the international market so as to help farm prices here at home; and then in the Food and Drug Administration, some additional assistance there, but certainly not what the agency was looking for. I wanted to spend my final few minutes here talking about the emergency funding provisions in more detail, because this is so important across the country. For crop losses due to disasters, during the 2000 crop year, including those losses due to quality losses, we have funded what is necessary. We estimate across America that will require over $1.6 billion in funding. There is funding in this bill for dairy producers to compensate for their low prices. There is livestock assistance. We had many questions on that from people representing ranching communities. Also there is targeted assistance for our apple and potato producers, cranberry producers, honey producers as well as wool and mohair. There is no reason just because you are not a row crop producer that you should not have some type of assistance if you are going to lose your operations. There is authority in this bill to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, and $35 million for the Natural Resource and Conservation Service for technical assistance in relation to that program, as well as the Conservation Reserve Program. There is an additional $20 million in this program for cooperative development, for new co-ops to help farmers and ranchers reposition to meet the market in this very difficult period for them. Also there are additional funds for water and sewer across our country. We just cannot meet the entire need; the line of applicants is much longer than we are able to accommodate. We have done the very best we could in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Members, in spite of the loopholes--and they are significant in the prescription drug provision and the sanctions portions of the bill--to vote for this bill. Overall the other provisions require our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, and join with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) in her praise for the chairman's activity on this subcommittee. He has been a great chairman and a great friend and has really worked hard to balance the interests and needs of all the Members. I rise in support of [[Page H9691]] this conference report, because it may be that this subcommittee has produced maybe one of the most valuable appropriations bills that would come before the House of Representatives, because it meets the needs of human beings, their hunger needs, their food needs, and their medicine needs. It all comes under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I especially appreciate that this is a further implementation of the Freedom to Farm Act that we passed back in 1996, which the President signed, and all of the Members of the House and Senate who cared deeply about agriculture have needed to have this next step taken in the area of lifting sanctions on food and medicine. In that respect, I have been proud to work with the chairman and some of my colleagues on the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, most importantly, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), certainly the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Obey), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). We have all worked hard. We do not have a product that satisfies each of us and all of us, but it is a great step forward as we lift sanctions on food and medicine and establish a new policy for our country as it relates to the imposition of sanctions unilaterally. The President in the future, assuming he signs this bill, and I hope that he will, will have the Congress as a partner in decisions that are made about whether or not to impose sanctions on food and medicine unilaterally by our country. Helping in this effort have been other Members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has been a great supporter; the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has been a leader in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I just want my colleagues to know that this is a new day for trade sanctions. It is a new day for agriculture and trade policy that says food and medicine should not be used as weapons of foreign policy. This is workable, notwithstanding the people who might say nay about it. This is going to work to benefit American agriculture. It is going to work for Iran, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. I certainly respect my friends on the other side of this issue relating to Cuba, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). They are very patriotic, good Americans who care deeply about the current sanctions policy in our country. I happen to disagree with their policy position; but they fervently believe in it, and I respect that. We have tried to craft a measure that would work for their needs and their particular positions and policy decisions and those of us who care about the free trade side of American agriculture. Mostly, I would say to my colleagues that I have had a great staff that has helped get through this process, Rob Neal and Jack Silzel, and as imperfect as the legislative process might be, this is a good package. I hope it passes this House. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to begin by complimenting the work of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member, as well as the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. They have done a tremendous job. In addition to facing the obstacle of unrealistic budget restraints, they have once again had to struggle against a leadership that is bent on subverting the expressed will of this House. It is my fond hope that some day soon we will have an honest conference on an agricultural bill with input from the administration and from this side of the aisle in a true bipartisan result, but not today. As a direct result of the leadership's involvement, we have lost key opportunities to move our country forward in both its trade relations and with regard to the availability of affordable prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, the agriculture embargo on U.S. sales to Cuba has done little to change the behavior of this island nation. In fact, U.S. sanctions have given Cuba an excuse for the failed policies of a communist regime. With complete normalization of trade relations, Cuba could become a $1 billion market for U.S. agriculture producers within 5 years, making it our second largest market in Latin America after Mexico. On July 20 of this year, the House by a vote of 301-116 overwhelmingly expressed its will to end our unilateral trade embargo, and yet the provision inserted by the House leadership includes a travel ban and restrictions on finance that will continue to undercut the ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to take full advantage of Cuba's market potential. The compromise in this bill gets us 5 percent of where we need to be. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the implications of the provision included in the conference report regarding trade sanctions. While I am sympathetic to the goal of this provision, it should have been withheld until we had a thorough analysis of all of its trade effects and, particularly, its effect on agriculture. Mr. Speaker, despite these inadequacies, this conference report includes many good and important provisions, including funding, conservation, research, rural development. It provides much-needed assistance to agriculture producers affected by natural disasters. It addresses the drinking water emergencies in rural areas brought about by drought, and it will enact portions of the Hunger Relief Act that will be crucial to ensuring that our neediest citizens are adequately nourished. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report; and I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report includes two important provisions from the bipartisan Hunger Relief Act, of which I am a proud co-sponsor. One of these would increase and then index the cap on the excess shelter deduction. This arbitrary cap can result in families with children having money they spend on their rent, mortgage, and utilities being counted as if it was available to buy food. I hope that in reauthorization, we can eliminate this cap altogether so that families with children are treated in the same manner as elderly and disabled households are now. The other provision would give states broad flexibility to increase or eliminate limits on the value of vehicles they may own and still receive food stamps. For many low-income families, having a dependable car is essential to their ability to find and keep employment. Denying food assistance to a household based on the value of a vehicle makes no sense: if the household sold the vehicle, it would become eligible for food stamps but then would have a much harder time becoming more self- sufficient. This provision allows states to adopt rules from any program that receives TANF or TANF maintenance of effort funds as long as that program provides benefits that could meet the definition of ``assistance'' in the TANF rules. This could include, for example, any child care program since child care can count as assistance under certain circumstances. States would not be required to determine whether any particular individual received assistance from the TANF- or MOE-funded program since that would impose administrative burdens and whatever standards the state adopted would apply statewide. Where a household has more than one vehicle, a state electing the option would evaluate each under whichever rules would result in the lower attribution of resources, whether the regular food stamp rules or the rules borrowed from the other state program. Of course, if the state TANF- or MOE-funded program excluded cars completely, or did not apply resources rules, those rules would prevail. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). [[Page H9692]] {time} 1545 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent work that he did in working through these very difficult issues. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. What we accomplished on this bill, especially as it relates to our trade policies, is exactly what is possible, no more, no less. But what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we made a historic change in our foreign policy. Hopefully never again will the United States use food and drug as a weapon. Our farmers need all the markets that they can get. We should never be putting ourselves in a position where we are cutting off markets, because American farmers are the best in the world, the most productive in the world, and we need to help them to get to the markets. The issue of reimportation of drugs, there has been an awful lot of demagoguery about this on the other side. The fact of the matter is we address it. For the first time, it is being addressed. I suppose if we had not addressed it, we would have heard about that, too. We have improved on the food stamps regulations for poor Americans. Welfare reform did more for this country and its people than maybe any other reform that has been passed in the last 25 years. More Americans are productive. Fewer kids are in poverty. More Americans are healthy because of that reform. But we had some minor changes to make in the Hunger Relief Act, that will help States to address the issues of moving people from welfare to work. Disaster relief, disaster assistance for farmers, apple farmers, dairy farmers, crop farmers, I think the Congress did a good job in a bipartisan way of addressing disaster relief issues. We have made major strides in improving the environment through the Agriculture bill, primarily in the CRP program and also in agriculture research. This is a broad bill, it is an expansive bill, it is an important bill, and we need not focus on the warts and the scabs within the overall legislation. We need to focus on what is good about this bill and the commitment that we have made to the American farmer. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to rise in opposition to the conference report, with great respect to the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the subcommittee, who I know have done their best to put together an attractive proposal. But I believe we pay too high a price in this legislation. Several months ago, the House passed the Sanford amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill by a vote of 232 to 186, prohibiting the use of any funds to enforce the travel restrictions on Cuba, now we see, as the price paid to allow our farmers to export the codification of restrictions which work against the very goals that the proponents of those restrictions constantly proclaim they want. The whole history of the downfall of tyranny comes from contact with people from democracies, with human rights crusaders, with people who want to establish people-to-people programs. Instead of allowing the flexibility to move ahead and advance these kinds of programs and other kinds of useful contacts, we codify a policy that, for 40 years, has failed to achieve its primary goal. That is a terrible mistake. It is a violation of the civil liberties of the Americans and Americans right to travel. It undermines the very goal we seek in our Cuba policy. For the life of me, I would love to hear the explanation which prohibits export financing to Cuba but gives waiver authority and discretion to the executive branch when we talk about export financing of our exports to both Libya and to Iran. Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear the gentleman from Washington or someone else defend that distinction. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey). Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favor of this bill from several different standpoints: the standpoint of what the Nation is benefiting and how my State of Arkansas is benefiting. First of all, we have the importation of drugs that is going to be a significant event in our Nation's battle against high drug prices. We have got in this bill a $3 million appropriation that will help in the construction for the National Center of Toxilogical Research in my district that will handle the imports and examinations. The FDA will be in charge of this, and they will handle the inspections on the drugs as well as inspections on all other imports. It is a very significant thing, and that bill is coming along and is going to be in place soon. There is some education initiatives concerning timber. In our Forest Service areas, we have a serious problem of how to manage that. We will have a study of that in our University of Arkansas at Monticello. We also have a seven-State program called Delta Teachers Academy that will have a learning center in the UAPB campus in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that will teach teachers how to teach. It will help them in doing that in the Delta. We have net catfish initiatives. The National Aquaculture Research Center in Stuttgart, which is not in my district, but serves the Nation in studying catfish yields, improving yields, food quality, disease control and stress tolerance. We also have a specific appropriation for an Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at UAPB, again, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that concerns itself with the control of the commorants as they are attacking the fish industry. We have several different provisions also that will help catfish farmers in that the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited from denying loans for catfish farmers in Arkansas for being in the floodplain. All of these things plus others are the reasons why I am for this bill. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), a member of the Agriculture authorizing committee. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, like many conference agreements, this one has a provision that I am pleased with, and it has provisions that are not in it that I am not pleased with. Nonetheless, I intend to vote for the conference report because it has many national priorities and local priorities that are important to the Nation's constituents and my constituents. Among the provisions that are in this agreement is funding for modular housing for elderly North Carolinans who are flood victims, funding for a critically needed drainage project in flood-ravaged Princeville, North Carolina, and funding for the innovative agrimedicine project designed to combat farm injuries and illness in East Carolina University. I am pleased to say that this agreement also includes very important language to combat hunger. Important food stamp modifications are made on the shelter cap and to the automobile cap. While the WIC program did not receive all the funding it should have or that was requested, nevertheless, $4.1 billion is vitally needed and certainly will be used in this highly successful program. This agreement includes significant funding for the emergency disaster relief for farmers, for crop losses, restoration projects. The agreement continues funding for agricultural research, education extension, service activity. I am, however, disappointed that the agreement only includes $3 million of the $6.8 million approved by the House funding going for research to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Nonetheless, this agreement does offer some limited hope through this limited increase. Hopefully, we would do better the next time. The overall agreement is comprehensive and does include important national priorities that deserve our support, and I urge its passage. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). [[Page H9693]] Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this agriculture appropriations bill. I think we all have to be reminded constantly that this is a bill that helps agriculture first and foremost. But before I mention a couple of specifics, Mr. Speaker, I think for the record this Member at least has considered it a tremendous honor to work under the leadership of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) in this process. He is a person who sets the highest standard of integrity and brings to work every day the highest commitment. The character and the determination that he brings every day to work for the betterment of agriculture in America is something that I will always, always remember. He is not going anywhere. But I think I speak for many of us on the subcommittee who just cherished the time that we have had working under his leadership on this subcommittee. I want to specifically mention that this bill, again, does deal with a lot of important aspects of agriculture assistance and relief, drought, other natural disasters. Commodity prices over the years have dealt a bad hand to many of our producers in this country. There is a lot of assistance in this bill for that; $3.5 billion in economic assistance that does not need to be held up in Washington any longer. I know that there are Members who do not like that certain commodities have received assistance in this bill as well. We have attempted to do the right thing and address all commodities that have suffered. We should not sit here and pick and choose who we help and who we do not based on whether or not we like what we grow or the farm programs that they operate under. They did not set the programs. Congress did. Now we must help all areas of rural communities survive in this very difficult time. The bill also goes the extra mile to support farmers and ranchers. Agriculture credit programs are increased by $14 million over fiscal year 2000, and agriculture research has increased by $86 million. The boll weevil eradication program is funded at $79 million. These are just a few examples of how this bill will help our farmers and ranchers and all of us who have large rural agriculture communities. The word ought to get out that there is a true commitment in a bipartisan way to help these folks who were really the salt of the Earth, the producers of this country who were trying to compete in international markets with other countries sometimes that subsidize their producers in unfair ways. There is a tremendous commitment by many of us, again, in a bipartisan way to do what is right in this Agriculture appropriations bill. I stand in strong support and would urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the incredibly hard working ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her kindness, amongst many others, to me. Mr. Speaker, an otherwise acceptable bill has been very much hurt in the conference report by the drug reimportation provisions. In a word, they protect users of reimported pharmaceuticals very poorly if at all. They put them at severe risk and hazard. So I am going to tell my colleagues some of the things that are going to happen as a result of these provisions so poorly studied by the Congress and so ill attended to in committee. Soon, Americans will be taking substandard, adulterated or counterfeited imported drugs because of these provisions. These provisions will do nothing to help lower the price of prescription medicines and are no substitute for prescription pharmaceuticals to senior citizens under Medicare. Because FDA is already overwhelmed with inspecting foreign manufacturers, it will not be able to handle the vast new responsibilities being imposed upon it, and consumers will suffer and be at risk. In the coming years, FDA is going to be pilloried by politicians for failing to protect Americans from bad prescription drugs which are reimported under these provisions, when in fact the blame should fall squarely upon the politicians in the 106th Congress. Make no mistake. This reckless legislation never went through the committees with expertise or experience in these matters. It is going to lead to needless injuries and deaths. The world pharmaceutical market is a dangerous place, far more so than my colleagues understand. Congressional investigations showed this in the 1980s, and I know because I conducted those investigations. They will show it now. My written statement will elaborate on this point. My opposition to the drug reimportation provisions requires me to vote against an otherwise acceptable bill. I would note the American people want a decent prescription, not a placebo, and they want one that is safe and one which will help their health. This particular proposal will not. It puts Americans at risk. I warn my colleagues what they are doing. I hope they will listen. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DINGELL. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do want to associate myself with his remarks. This is far more complicated than most people believe, as the gentleman from Michigan said. I am very familiar with his historical involvement in this area. All of us want to relieve this problem, but I want to underscore the comments the gentleman from Michigan made, and I do want to associate myself with his remarks. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I hope my colleagues will listen to what the gentleman just said because we are putting the Nation and the senior citizens and others at risk. Reimporting drugs is a dangerous and risky prospect. Doing so without adequate protections and controls for the protection of consumers is a still greater risk. I ask my colleagues to listen to what I say. There is danger here they are not observing. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. Although there are many very good provisions addressing major agricultural needs, there is also a very dangerous provision that would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs from foreign sources. That is something I cannot support. During the 1980's, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy investigation into the foreign drug market that ultimately led to enactment of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). That investigation discovered a potentially dangerous diversion market that prevented effective control over the true sources of drug products in a significant number of cases. The distribution system was vulnerable to the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or even counterfeit pharmaceuticals. As the resulting Committee report stated, ``pharmaceuticals which have been mislabeled, misbranded, improperly stored or shipped, have exceeded their expiration dates, or are bald counterfeits are injected into the national distribution system for ultimate sale to consumers.'' The PDMA was designed to restore needed integrity and control over the pharmaceutical market, eliminating actual and potential health and safety problems before injury to the consumer could occur. Again, the Committee report was clear on why the PDMA was needed: [R]eimported pharmaceuticals threaten the public health in two ways. First, foreign counterfeits, falsely described as reimported U.S. produced drugs, have entered the distribution system. Second, proper storage and handling of legitimate pharmaceuticals cannot be guaranteed by U.S. law once the drugs have left the boundaries of the United States. I find nothing today that suggests that the problem with misbranded, adulterated, or even counterfeit foreign drugs has been solved, and if anything, the problem may be getting worse. I am thus concerned that in our haste to find a way to bring cheaper drugs to seniors and other needy Americans--a clearly important and laudable goal--we risk making changes to key health and safety laws we may later regret. On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that underscored that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is already overwhelmed and underfunded, and thus unable to consistently undertake the many tasks now required to protect the U.S. drug supply. At that hearing, FDA Commissioner Jane Henney testified that FDA has insufficient post-market surveillance resources to keep pace with its current [[Page H9694]] mandate. Consequently, the agency is lagging in conducting inspections of firms that ship drug products to the U.S., and this burden is only going to worsen in the future. The legislation in question today only exacerbates this already- serious problem. As envisioned by this proposal, FDA will newly be responsible for inspecting the entire custody chain between all parties and processes involved in the shipment of drugs back to the U.S. market. This could include repackaging and relabeling facilities, as well as the many storage firms that might be used in this process. This proposal would also ultimately require FDA to oversee the formation of new testing facilities, and develop regulations to address numerous safety concerns ignored by this proposal. In short, the reimport legislation will inundate an already overburdened FDA with new responsibilities. Worse, it will do so without any assurances that the agency will ever see the approximately $92 million it claims it needs to fully implement this plan. Instead, the bill only gives $23 million for a single year, or one-fourth of what the plan will ultimately require. Given the fact that the agency is already significantly underfunded, I see almost no chance it will see this money. But even if Congress were to provide the additional resources, I remain skeptical that FDA could even construct a global regulatory framework as safe as what is now in place. FDA was unsuccessful in preventing counterfeit and substandard drugs from entering the U.S. before the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) went into effect, and so I doubt it will be successful once many of its protections are undermined by this legislation. Moreover, it is particularly troubling that drug prices may not even be significantly lowered as a result of this proposal. There is nothing that guarantees that in this process of undermining our current regulatory system, lower priced drugs will become available to needy Americans. Wholesalers may not pass on any accrued savings to the public, nor is it clear that they will necessarily be able to access a steady supply for resale. In fact, this bill is riddled with numerous loopholes that will allow manufacturers to label or produce their products in a form that makes them either impossible or cost- prohibitive to reimport. The notion that this bill will create an abundance of cheap, properly labeled, and properly repackaged drugs, easily available to reimporters, is simply false. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes long-term changes to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, without the benefit of even a single legislative hearing. During the 1980's, the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy multi-year investigation resulting in numerous hearings before any related legislation was drafted. There have been no public hearings regarding this legislation, as most of this process has involved closed-door proceedings. With the many implications this legislation will have on public health and safety, this process has ill-served the public and is indefensible. In conclusion, this provision represents the flawed implementation of a risky concept. Many of the Members supporting this legislation believe they are doing the right thing by helping Americans get access to cheaper medicine, and assume that medicine will, in fact, be safe. I agree that medicine needs to be cheaper, but disagree that reimported medicine will be as safe. We know too much about the kinds of drug manufacturing and distribution shenanigans that take place in other parts of the world to allow our system to be jeopardized by the legislation contained in this spending bill. It is flawed legislation that will, if passed in its present form, result in significant harm to the very persons we are trying to help. Thus, I cannot support this bill. {time} 1600 Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Mr. LATHAM. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to publicly say how much I appreciate the great work of our chairman. This will be his last bill as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been just an absolute pleasure and an honor to work with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). I know the gentleman is staying here next year and everything; but because of the rules, he will no longer be chairman of this subcommittee; and I just want to tell him on a personal level how much I appreciate all his hard work and what a great job he has done for New Mexico and for the rest of the country. And to the ranking member, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), it is a real pleasure and it is fun to work with her with the interest we all have in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, this, I think, is an excellent appropriations bill. We have been through a very long process throughout the entire year with hearings, listening to the concerns of the people and the agencies, their proposals, expressing concerns at the way management in some of the agencies has taken place and trying to do the best job possible in this bill to address those concerns. The one major concern we have, as far as delivering services in Iowa, and I think throughout the country, is with the FSA offices. This bill increases funding for those people who are at the ground level doing the work out there, actually in contact with the farmers themselves; and these people are working their hearts out in the countryside. There is increased funding in the bill to the tune of $34 million in addition to the $50 million additional to take care of the emergency disaster programs that are also stated in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is an increase as far as our credit programs so that we can continue to use that tool for exports and to make sure that we do try and have opportunities for our farmers to sell their products overseas. Conservation is a huge issue as far as we are concerned in Iowa and throughout the country, and those activities are increased by $53 million in the bill. Food safety is increased by $47.5 million. Funding for the Food and Drug Administration is almost $35 million more than what it was last year, and $89 million basically, with some savings with the President. We are continuing our commitment as far as food and nutrition for our people here, increasing funding for WIC. A very, very important issue for Iowa is the lifting of sanctions in the bill with Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and the Sudan. With the Cuban issue, it is a major breakthrough for us to finally have that door at least cracked open so that we have an opportunity to sell into that market, and to also look to these other new markets that we have and be able to use credit here in the U.S. to go into highly populated countries, like North Korea, Iran, and these other countries that offer so much potential for us. I am not totally comfortable with all the provisions in here. I would like to see opening of travel and things like that, but we at least have a breakthrough as far as this issue is concerned. I think we can advance the idea that through openness, through trade, we can change countries and have them come into the democracy, which we all very, very much want. Again, I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time on both sides. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 10 minutes remaining. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the very able member of the Committee on International Relations. Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4461 in its current form, but in strong support of ending the embargo on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. Our current policy toward Cuba was created in the early 1960s, at the height of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall has now crumbled, the Soviet Union has vanished, but this archaic policy is still here. For 40 years, 40 years, we have maintained a blockade on trade and food and medicine with Cuba, and we have put severe restrictions on travel by American citizens. We must lift that blockade without imposing new barriers. However, this bill codifies current restrictions on Americans travel to Cuba. What, I must ask, is our country afraid of? How can it be against our interests for our citizens, our most effective ambassadors, to travel to Cuba? How can we live in the greatest democracy in the world and restrict the travel of our own citizens? Americans should have the right to see Cuba for themselves. They should have the right to form their own judgments about this Afro-Hispanic island 90 miles away from our shores. I have led and participated in many delegations to Cuba in an effort to promote education, understanding and cultural exchange between our countries. I have seen a child with kidney [[Page H9695]] disease in grave danger because the embargo prevented the importation of a U.S.-made part for a dialysis machine at this hospital. And I have seen Cuba's health care system, which guarantees its own citizens universal health care, which we still cannot figure out how to do. We should allow anyone and everyone who wants to travel to Cuba to do so without fear of breaking the law and going to jail. I urge my colleagues to oppose restrictions on travel to Cuba in this bill and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4461. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for the tremendous leadership he has given all of us over the last several years, fighting hard for our producers, helping us deliver emergency and disaster aid. I do not know anyone who has worked as forthrightly and on a consensus basis as the gentleman from New Mexico has, and I want to thank him. We will miss him tremendously as our leader next year, but I do thank him. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the excellent work she does and for her dedication to supporting American agriculture as well. I want to say that this is a great bill. I wish in a couple of instances we could have done more, particularly on the issue of agriculture embargoes, which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has championed so well. But even though it does not go quite as far with regard to Cuba, let us not forget that we are also dealing with four other countries against whom we have had sanctions on food and medicine, and this represents a $6 billion market potential for our producers. We are all so caught up in the emotion of Cuba that we forget, quite frankly, that it is the other countries that present the biggest opportunity for our producers, and I did not want to let that go without mentioning it. I also am very pleased that we have included in the emergency assistance package a piece that is very similar to the stand-alone legislation that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I introduced, doubling the loan deficiency payment, particularly when our farmers and ranchers are in such dire straits for the third year in a row. But let me end by addressing the entire issue of reimportation once again, and say that all of the loopholes that have been recognized on the part of my colleagues on the other side are loopholes that really will not exist if in fact we are determined to work closely with the Food and Drug Administration to make this legislation work. Number one, dealing with the issue of labeling. Let me reiterate again that the President said he liked the language in the Jeffords bill that passed the Senate. This is the exact language on labeling which is in the Jeffords bill. The President urged the Senate to send him the legislation so he could sign it, as long as the appropriate money was there to implement it. We have, in fact, included $23 million that the FDA requested for this year to do just that. On the issue of contracts. Let me say once again that while we have not included the exact language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) wanted, we have in fact included language that does prevent a manufacturer from limiting or entering into any kind of contractor or agreement that prevents the sale or distribution of covered products for reimportation purposes. So all in all I think this is an excellent bill and I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I again thank the chairman for the great job that he has done. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to place in the Record language from the New York Times this morning refuting what my very dear colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), has indicated. It says Dr. Jane Henney, the Commissioner of Food and Drug, said, ``Nothing in the bill requires a manufacturer to give the approved label to an importer or to allow use of the label by an importer, which means that it is not enforceable.'' And then today we receive from the Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget, the following. And I enter the direct language in the Record because in the future we will have to repair the damage that is going to be done when this bill is passed today. It says, ``The administration is disappointed that the prescription drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and, instead, produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to FDA-approved labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could, and probably would, block reimportation of their medications. Second, a sunset was added that ends the importation system 5 years after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector interest in investing in this system.'' And I would just depart from that to say to my colleague that sunset was not in the Jeffords bill, as the gentlewoman indicated earlier today. And, finally, third, this letter says, ``The conference language permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. importers. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many with no option than to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will work to address the problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will ensure seniors and people with disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications.'' That is a direct quote from the Executive Office of the President. And, Mr. Speaker, the full content of the statement is as follows: Statement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies.) h.r. 4461--agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies appropriations bill fy 2001 (Sponsors: Skeen (R), New Mexico; Cochran (R) Mississippi) This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on the conference version of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001. The conference report includes support for a number of important priorities for the Nation. In particular, the bill includes full funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative, significant increases in rural development programs to help rural communities and residents take part in the national economic expansion, provisions that will enable food stamp recipients to own dependable cars and have better shelter without losing their eligibility, and relief to farmers and ranchers who suffered losses from natural disasters. While the Administration continues to support a range of conservation efforts, such as the Farmland Protection Wetlands Reserve, and Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, and is disappointed that this bill did not provide full funding for these efforts, we do appreciate the increases that were provided including funds for conservation technical assistance. However, while the Administration supports this conference report, it has concerns with several provisions in the bill. The Administration is disappointed that the prescription drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and instead produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could-- and probably would--block reimportation of their medications. Second, a ``sunset'' was added that ends the importation system five years after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector interest in investing in this system. Third, the conference language permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. importers. Finally, despite the Administration's repeated requests, the conference requires FDA to pay for the costs associated with this provision from within resources needed to perform its other important public [[Page H9696]] health activities. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many with no other option than to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will work to address this problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will insure seniors and people with disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications. On the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000,'' which is included in the conference report, there are two major concerns to the Administration. First, the restrictions on the ability of the President to initiate new sanctions and maintain old ones are overly stringent. This effectively disarms the President's ability to conduct foreign policy while providing potential targets of U.S. actions with the time to take countermeasures. Second, the provisions of the bill affecting travel to Cuba would significantly set back our people-to-people exchanges that are in the interest of opening up Cuban society. They also would preclude travel by technicians and others needed to conduct normal business by the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, as well as travel for humanitarian purposes. With respect to the provision, ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' the Administration agrees with the findings that state that unfair trade laws have as their purpose the restoration of conditions of fair trade. However, that is the purpose of the anti-dumping and counter-vailing duties themselves, which accomplish that purpose. By raising the price of imports they shield domestic producers from import competition and allow domestic manufacturers to raise prices, increase production, and improve revenues. Consequently, distribution of the tariffs themselves to producers is not necessary to the restoration of conditions of fair trade. In addition, there are significant concerns regarding administrative feasibility and consistency with our trade policy objectives, including the potential for trading partners to adopt similar mechanisms. Such concerns were raised and examined with regard to a similar proposal co

Summary:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - October 11, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H9681-H9709] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 617, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 617, the conference report is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of Friday, October 6, 2000 at page H9461.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring before the House the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. Mr. Speaker, this bill has two main parts. The first titles, Title I through VII, comprises the regular fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, which has a total budget authority of slightly less than $15.3 billion. The second part, which is Title VIII, is the emergency title, and that totals just over $3.6 billion. The administration advised us that it would not submit a formal request for disaster assistance, so as we have done in the past, we worked informally with program managers at USDA and with House and Senate colleagues to address as many concerns as possible. I believe that we have a good conference report that deserves the support of this body. We were able to make significant increases over the fiscal year 2000 level in research, food safety, domestic feeding, and conservation programs. This bill also contains compromise language in two critical issues: prescription drug importation, and sanctions of agricultural exports. I believe the language that we are offering will make it easier for our senior citizens to have access to safer, less costly drugs, and make it easier for our farmers and ranchers to export their products to certain countries. I would like to point out a few highlights of the conference report which I think are important to us all. In the two main research accounts, we have about $120 million over the current fiscal year level, in direct response to Members' concerns for critical research priorities. APHIS regular programs have been increased by $38 million over fiscal year 2000, in response to many Members' concerns about invasive plants, pests, and diseases. There is additional money in the APHIS account to assist in the boll weevil program. The Agricultural Marketing Service has increased by $15 million, and GIPSA by $4.5 million. Meat and poultry inspection has been increased by $47.5 million, which is actually higher than the official budget request. This represents our efforts to respond to problems that occurred after both bodies had passed their respective bills. Our FSA loan programs are increased slightly over the current year, and we have met the administration's requests for salaries and expenses. Conservation programs on the discretionary side are increased by about $70 million, which is just under the administration's request. On the mandatory side, there is an additional $35 million for technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve and the Conservation Reserve programs. There is also $117 million to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, since so many Members have requested us to lift the authorized enrollment cap. In rural development, we have met the administration's request for the Rural Community Advancement Program, and in spite of sharply higher subsidy rates, we have increased housing and rural utility loan levels by half a billion dollars each. In domestic food programs, WIC has been increased by $20 million, commodity assistance by $7 million, and elderly feeding by $10 million over fiscal year 2000. In P.L. 480, I know there was a lot of concern about the low House number. I am happy to report that Title II is now $837 million, so all of the food aid programs are at the administration's request. The Food and Drug Administration's salaries and expenses are increased by almost $31 million, and we will be able to go ahead with the badly needed new building in Los Angeles. Finally, I think all of us hear on a near weekly basis from the land grant schools about the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. In past years, we have had to put a limitation on this program to pay for other important accounts, but this conference report allows the Initiative as well as the Fund for Rural America to go forward in fiscal year 2001, using money saved from the 2000 budget. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will generate benefits in every congressional district in the country. We are providing strong protection for the health and safety of our citizens, nutrition and feeding programs for the most vulnerable, and agricultural research which makes us the greatest producer of food and fiber the world has ever known, and funding for a strong and productive rural America. Mr. Speaker, we have tried our best to put together a good, solid bipartisan bill which works for all America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe it is good compromise and good policy. In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the subcommittee for their help and hard work since we began this process earlier this year. In particular, I would like to thank the staff for all their hard work: Hank Moore, the subcommittee clerk; Martin Delgado; Joanne Orndorff; John Z.; Ann Dubey; Maureen Holohan; David Reich, of the staff of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and Jim Richards, from my personal office. Without them, we would not have a bill here today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material related to H.R. 4461: [[Page H9682]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.001 [[Page H9683]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.002 [[Page H9684]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.003 [[Page H9685]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.004 [[Page H9686]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.005 [[Page H9687]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.006 [[Page H9688]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.007 [[Page H9689]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.008 [[Page H9690]] Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1530 Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report as a significant improvement over the measure that originally moved through this body. Before I get into the details, let me just say that I particularly this afternoon rise with great respect and true admiration for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), our chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, who under current Republican caucus rules is serving his last year as a fair, caring and truly outstanding chairman. I will say that I know that as a regular committee member, the gentleman will continue to be exemplary in his service, but I will miss him in his current position. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express genuine support and thanks to our subcommittee staff, Hank Moore, Martin Delgado, John Ziolkowski, Joanne Orndorff and our detailees Anne DuBey and Maureen Holohan, and also our minority staff, David Reich, and on my own staff, Roger Szemraj for doing such a tremendous job in sheperding this major legislation through the Congress. I also want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he kept his word on both sides of the aisle, so that our conferees could meet and fully engage in debate as we did in every single line item of this bill. I say thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is our ranking member on the full committee who participated in every single meeting. I actually do not know how he does it, so tirelessly, and I want to thank the people of Wisconsin for sending him here for service to the Nation. I want to thank the Members on our side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). We thank them for yeoman's service in the construction of this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, overall the conference report spends over $78.5 billion. A little over three-quarters of that is in what we call mandatory spending for programs, especially our food programs, breakfast programs, lunch programs, elderly feeding programs, surplus commodity programs, that are used from coast to coast. $28 billion dollars, nearly half of that, goes to the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses as we move product around the world and here at home. Mr. Speaker, another $1.7 billion goes for crop insurance. The base bill in addition to this has $15 billion in discretionary spending in important areas, such as new research for fuels of the future, the extension service to bring the latest in research right down to the farm and the ranch, conservation programs--so much a part of America's rich natural heritage and essential to sustainability of the future, food safety programs, rural housing and development, all of our feeding programs, international assistance and certainly the Food and Drug Administration. In this bill, also, and this is of critical interest to those who tie their livelihoods to the rural countryside, we have more than $3.6 billion for disaster, farm assistance, and rural development programs. I will say more about that in a moment, but we were also able to incorporate into this measure portions of the Hunger Relief Act. We know as welfare reform really kicks in in every State across this country, thousands of people go to work for minimum wage without health benefits. In this bill, we have provided housing and vehicle allowances and the right to food for those workers and their children to help them transition to the marketplace off of welfare. We are very, very pleased to be able to do that on this particular committee. Mr. Speaker, I also have to say, of course, we were not able to defeat the rule and bring a real prescription drug reimportation provision before the Congress. That is truly sad, and every one of us will have to account for that before the voters this fall. In addition to that, the sanctions language in this bill is absolutely unworkable; even the Cuban Government has said that the provisions may be worse than the status quo, and we really will not be able to sell product in Cuba because of the restrictions in this measure. However, the needs of the country outweigh any one of those provisions, and we have to vote on the overall bill based on its merits. I will quickly tick off key provisions of the bill: we do provide additional funds for market concentration investigation in our Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration; food safety, full funding in that program; additional funds for our Farm Service Agency operations, including extra funds to administer the disaster program so essential across this country this year; for our conservation programs, a decent level of support; research, which is key to the future; in APHIS, while the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service, it has been funded in a manner that dedicates an inordinate amount of funds to the boll weevil program. We have so many other invasive species such as Asian longhorn beetle and others where we do not have equal levels of support. That is unfortunate. We were not able to work out fair apportionment of these funds completely. In rural development, we do provide an increase over last year; in food donations, in the PL480 provisions and in title 2, an increase there to help move surplus product into the international market so as to help farm prices here at home; and then in the Food and Drug Administration, some additional assistance there, but certainly not what the agency was looking for. I wanted to spend my final few minutes here talking about the emergency funding provisions in more detail, because this is so important across the country. For crop losses due to disasters, during the 2000 crop year, including those losses due to quality losses, we have funded what is necessary. We estimate across America that will require over $1.6 billion in funding. There is funding in this bill for dairy producers to compensate for their low prices. There is livestock assistance. We had many questions on that from people representing ranching communities. Also there is targeted assistance for our apple and potato producers, cranberry producers, honey producers as well as wool and mohair. There is no reason just because you are not a row crop producer that you should not have some type of assistance if you are going to lose your operations. There is authority in this bill to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, and $35 million for the Natural Resource and Conservation Service for technical assistance in relation to that program, as well as the Conservation Reserve Program. There is an additional $20 million in this program for cooperative development, for new co-ops to help farmers and ranchers reposition to meet the market in this very difficult period for them. Also there are additional funds for water and sewer across our country. We just cannot meet the entire need; the line of applicants is much longer than we are able to accommodate. We have done the very best we could in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Members, in spite of the loopholes--and they are significant in the prescription drug provision and the sanctions portions of the bill--to vote for this bill. Overall the other provisions require our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, and join with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) in her praise for the chairman's activity on this subcommittee. He has been a great chairman and a great friend and has really worked hard to balance the interests and needs of all the Members. I rise in support of [[Page H9691]] this conference report, because it may be that this subcommittee has produced maybe one of the most valuable appropriations bills that would come before the House of Representatives, because it meets the needs of human beings, their hunger needs, their food needs, and their medicine needs. It all comes under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I especially appreciate that this is a further implementation of the Freedom to Farm Act that we passed back in 1996, which the President signed, and all of the Members of the House and Senate who cared deeply about agriculture have needed to have this next step taken in the area of lifting sanctions on food and medicine. In that respect, I have been proud to work with the chairman and some of my colleagues on the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, most importantly, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), certainly the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Obey), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). We have all worked hard. We do not have a product that satisfies each of us and all of us, but it is a great step forward as we lift sanctions on food and medicine and establish a new policy for our country as it relates to the imposition of sanctions unilaterally. The President in the future, assuming he signs this bill, and I hope that he will, will have the Congress as a partner in decisions that are made about whether or not to impose sanctions on food and medicine unilaterally by our country. Helping in this effort have been other Members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has been a great supporter; the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has been a leader in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I just want my colleagues to know that this is a new day for trade sanctions. It is a new day for agriculture and trade policy that says food and medicine should not be used as weapons of foreign policy. This is workable, notwithstanding the people who might say nay about it. This is going to work to benefit American agriculture. It is going to work for Iran, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. I certainly respect my friends on the other side of this issue relating to Cuba, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). They are very patriotic, good Americans who care deeply about the current sanctions policy in our country. I happen to disagree with their policy position; but they fervently believe in it, and I respect that. We have tried to craft a measure that would work for their needs and their particular positions and policy decisions and those of us who care about the free trade side of American agriculture. Mostly, I would say to my colleagues that I have had a great staff that has helped get through this process, Rob Neal and Jack Silzel, and as imperfect as the legislative process might be, this is a good package. I hope it passes this House. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to begin by complimenting the work of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member, as well as the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. They have done a tremendous job. In addition to facing the obstacle of unrealistic budget restraints, they have once again had to struggle against a leadership that is bent on subverting the expressed will of this House. It is my fond hope that some day soon we will have an honest conference on an agricultural bill with input from the administration and from this side of the aisle in a true bipartisan result, but not today. As a direct result of the leadership's involvement, we have lost key opportunities to move our country forward in both its trade relations and with regard to the availability of affordable prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, the agriculture embargo on U.S. sales to Cuba has done little to change the behavior of this island nation. In fact, U.S. sanctions have given Cuba an excuse for the failed policies of a communist regime. With complete normalization of trade relations, Cuba could become a $1 billion market for U.S. agriculture producers within 5 years, making it our second largest market in Latin America after Mexico. On July 20 of this year, the House by a vote of 301-116 overwhelmingly expressed its will to end our unilateral trade embargo, and yet the provision inserted by the House leadership includes a travel ban and restrictions on finance that will continue to undercut the ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to take full advantage of Cuba's market potential. The compromise in this bill gets us 5 percent of where we need to be. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the implications of the provision included in the conference report regarding trade sanctions. While I am sympathetic to the goal of this provision, it should have been withheld until we had a thorough analysis of all of its trade effects and, particularly, its effect on agriculture. Mr. Speaker, despite these inadequacies, this conference report includes many good and important provisions, including funding, conservation, research, rural development. It provides much-needed assistance to agriculture producers affected by natural disasters. It addresses the drinking water emergencies in rural areas brought about by drought, and it will enact portions of the Hunger Relief Act that will be crucial to ensuring that our neediest citizens are adequately nourished. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report; and I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report includes two important provisions from the bipartisan Hunger Relief Act, of which I am a proud co-sponsor. One of these would increase and then index the cap on the excess shelter deduction. This arbitrary cap can result in families with children having money they spend on their rent, mortgage, and utilities being counted as if it was available to buy food. I hope that in reauthorization, we can eliminate this cap altogether so that families with children are treated in the same manner as elderly and disabled households are now. The other provision would give states broad flexibility to increase or eliminate limits on the value of vehicles they may own and still receive food stamps. For many low-income families, having a dependable car is essential to their ability to find and keep employment. Denying food assistance to a household based on the value of a vehicle makes no sense: if the household sold the vehicle, it would become eligible for food stamps but then would have a much harder time becoming more self- sufficient. This provision allows states to adopt rules from any program that receives TANF or TANF maintenance of effort funds as long as that program provides benefits that could meet the definition of ``assistance'' in the TANF rules. This could include, for example, any child care program since child care can count as assistance under certain circumstances. States would not be required to determine whether any particular individual received assistance from the TANF- or MOE-funded program since that would impose administrative burdens and whatever standards the state adopted would apply statewide. Where a household has more than one vehicle, a state electing the option would evaluate each under whichever rules would result in the lower attribution of resources, whether the regular food stamp rules or the rules borrowed from the other state program. Of course, if the state TANF- or MOE-funded program excluded cars completely, or did not apply resources rules, those rules would prevail. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). [[Page H9692]] {time} 1545 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent work that he did in working through these very difficult issues. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. What we accomplished on this bill, especially as it relates to our trade policies, is exactly what is possible, no more, no less. But what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we made a historic change in our foreign policy. Hopefully never again will the United States use food and drug as a weapon. Our farmers need all the markets that they can get. We should never be putting ourselves in a position where we are cutting off markets, because American farmers are the best in the world, the most productive in the world, and we need to help them to get to the markets. The issue of reimportation of drugs, there has been an awful lot of demagoguery about this on the other side. The fact of the matter is we address it. For the first time, it is being addressed. I suppose if we had not addressed it, we would have heard about that, too. We have improved on the food stamps regulations for poor Americans. Welfare reform did more for this country and its people than maybe any other reform that has been passed in the last 25 years. More Americans are productive. Fewer kids are in poverty. More Americans are healthy because of that reform. But we had some minor changes to make in the Hunger Relief Act, that will help States to address the issues of moving people from welfare to work. Disaster relief, disaster assistance for farmers, apple farmers, dairy farmers, crop farmers, I think the Congress did a good job in a bipartisan way of addressing disaster relief issues. We have made major strides in improving the environment through the Agriculture bill, primarily in the CRP program and also in agriculture research. This is a broad bill, it is an expansive bill, it is an important bill, and we need not focus on the warts and the scabs within the overall legislation. We need to focus on what is good about this bill and the commitment that we have made to the American farmer. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to rise in opposition to the conference report, with great respect to the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the subcommittee, who I know have done their best to put together an attractive proposal. But I believe we pay too high a price in this legislation. Several months ago, the House passed the Sanford amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill by a vote of 232 to 186, prohibiting the use of any funds to enforce the travel restrictions on Cuba, now we see, as the price paid to allow our farmers to export the codification of restrictions which work against the very goals that the proponents of those restrictions constantly proclaim they want. The whole history of the downfall of tyranny comes from contact with people from democracies, with human rights crusaders, with people who want to establish people-to-people programs. Instead of allowing the flexibility to move ahead and advance these kinds of programs and other kinds of useful contacts, we codify a policy that, for 40 years, has failed to achieve its primary goal. That is a terrible mistake. It is a violation of the civil liberties of the Americans and Americans right to travel. It undermines the very goal we seek in our Cuba policy. For the life of me, I would love to hear the explanation which prohibits export financing to Cuba but gives waiver authority and discretion to the executive branch when we talk about export financing of our exports to both Libya and to Iran. Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear the gentleman from Washington or someone else defend that distinction. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey). Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favor of this bill from several different standpoints: the standpoint of what the Nation is benefiting and how my State of Arkansas is benefiting. First of all, we have the importation of drugs that is going to be a significant event in our Nation's battle against high drug prices. We have got in this bill a $3 million appropriation that will help in the construction for the National Center of Toxilogical Research in my district that will handle the imports and examinations. The FDA will be in charge of this, and they will handle the inspections on the drugs as well as inspections on all other imports. It is a very significant thing, and that bill is coming along and is going to be in place soon. There is some education initiatives concerning timber. In our Forest Service areas, we have a serious problem of how to manage that. We will have a study of that in our University of Arkansas at Monticello. We also have a seven-State program called Delta Teachers Academy that will have a learning center in the UAPB campus in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that will teach teachers how to teach. It will help them in doing that in the Delta. We have net catfish initiatives. The National Aquaculture Research Center in Stuttgart, which is not in my district, but serves the Nation in studying catfish yields, improving yields, food quality, disease control and stress tolerance. We also have a specific appropriation for an Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at UAPB, again, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that concerns itself with the control of the commorants as they are attacking the fish industry. We have several different provisions also that will help catfish farmers in that the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited from denying loans for catfish farmers in Arkansas for being in the floodplain. All of these things plus others are the reasons why I am for this bill. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), a member of the Agriculture authorizing committee. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, like many conference agreements, this one has a provision that I am pleased with, and it has provisions that are not in it that I am not pleased with. Nonetheless, I intend to vote for the conference report because it has many national priorities and local priorities that are important to the Nation's constituents and my constituents. Among the provisions that are in this agreement is funding for modular housing for elderly North Carolinans who are flood victims, funding for a critically needed drainage project in flood-ravaged Princeville, North Carolina, and funding for the innovative agrimedicine project designed to combat farm injuries and illness in East Carolina University. I am pleased to say that this agreement also includes very important language to combat hunger. Important food stamp modifications are made on the shelter cap and to the automobile cap. While the WIC program did not receive all the funding it should have or that was requested, nevertheless, $4.1 billion is vitally needed and certainly will be used in this highly successful program. This agreement includes significant funding for the emergency disaster relief for farmers, for crop losses, restoration projects. The agreement continues funding for agricultural research, education extension, service activity. I am, however, disappointed that the agreement only includes $3 million of the $6.8 million approved by the House funding going for research to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Nonetheless, this agreement does offer some limited hope through this limited increase. Hopefully, we would do better the next time. The overall agreement is comprehensive and does include important national priorities that deserve our support, and I urge its passage. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). [[Page H9693]] Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this agriculture appropriations bill. I think we all have to be reminded constantly that this is a bill that helps agriculture first and foremost. But before I mention a couple of specifics, Mr. Speaker, I think for the record this Member at least has considered it a tremendous honor to work under the leadership of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) in this process. He is a person who sets the highest standard of integrity and brings to work every day the highest commitment. The character and the determination that he brings every day to work for the betterment of agriculture in America is something that I will always, always remember. He is not going anywhere. But I think I speak for many of us on the subcommittee who just cherished the time that we have had working under his leadership on this subcommittee. I want to specifically mention that this bill, again, does deal with a lot of important aspects of agriculture assistance and relief, drought, other natural disasters. Commodity prices over the years have dealt a bad hand to many of our producers in this country. There is a lot of assistance in this bill for that; $3.5 billion in economic assistance that does not need to be held up in Washington any longer. I know that there are Members who do not like that certain commodities have received assistance in this bill as well. We have attempted to do the right thing and address all commodities that have suffered. We should not sit here and pick and choose who we help and who we do not based on whether or not we like what we grow or the farm programs that they operate under. They did not set the programs. Congress did. Now we must help all areas of rural communities survive in this very difficult time. The bill also goes the extra mile to support farmers and ranchers. Agriculture credit programs are increased by $14 million over fiscal year 2000, and agriculture research has increased by $86 million. The boll weevil eradication program is funded at $79 million. These are just a few examples of how this bill will help our farmers and ranchers and all of us who have large rural agriculture communities. The word ought to get out that there is a true commitment in a bipartisan way to help these folks who were really the salt of the Earth, the producers of this country who were trying to compete in international markets with other countries sometimes that subsidize their producers in unfair ways. There is a tremendous commitment by many of us, again, in a bipartisan way to do what is right in this Agriculture appropriations bill. I stand in strong support and would urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the incredibly hard working ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her kindness, amongst many others, to me. Mr. Speaker, an otherwise acceptable bill has been very much hurt in the conference report by the drug reimportation provisions. In a word, they protect users of reimported pharmaceuticals very poorly if at all. They put them at severe risk and hazard. So I am going to tell my colleagues some of the things that are going to happen as a result of these provisions so poorly studied by the Congress and so ill attended to in committee. Soon, Americans will be taking substandard, adulterated or counterfeited imported drugs because of these provisions. These provisions will do nothing to help lower the price of prescription medicines and are no substitute for prescription pharmaceuticals to senior citizens under Medicare. Because FDA is already overwhelmed with inspecting foreign manufacturers, it will not be able to handle the vast new responsibilities being imposed upon it, and consumers will suffer and be at risk. In the coming years, FDA is going to be pilloried by politicians for failing to protect Americans from bad prescription drugs which are reimported under these provisions, when in fact the blame should fall squarely upon the politicians in the 106th Congress. Make no mistake. This reckless legislation never went through the committees with expertise or experience in these matters. It is going to lead to needless injuries and deaths. The world pharmaceutical market is a dangerous place, far more so than my colleagues understand. Congressional investigations showed this in the 1980s, and I know because I conducted those investigations. They will show it now. My written statement will elaborate on this point. My opposition to the drug reimportation provisions requires me to vote against an otherwise acceptable bill. I would note the American people want a decent prescription, not a placebo, and they want one that is safe and one which will help their health. This particular proposal will not. It puts Americans at risk. I warn my colleagues what they are doing. I hope they will listen. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DINGELL. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do want to associate myself with his remarks. This is far more complicated than most people believe, as the gentleman from Michigan said. I am very familiar with his historical involvement in this area. All of us want to relieve this problem, but I want to underscore the comments the gentleman from Michigan made, and I do want to associate myself with his remarks. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I hope my colleagues will listen to what the gentleman just said because we are putting the Nation and the senior citizens and others at risk. Reimporting drugs is a dangerous and risky prospect. Doing so without adequate protections and controls for the protection of consumers is a still greater risk. I ask my colleagues to listen to what I say. There is danger here they are not observing. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. Although there are many very good provisions addressing major agricultural needs, there is also a very dangerous provision that would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs from foreign sources. That is something I cannot support. During the 1980's, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy investigation into the foreign drug market that ultimately led to enactment of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). That investigation discovered a potentially dangerous diversion market that prevented effective control over the true sources of drug products in a significant number of cases. The distribution system was vulnerable to the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or even counterfeit pharmaceuticals. As the resulting Committee report stated, ``pharmaceuticals which have been mislabeled, misbranded, improperly stored or shipped, have exceeded their expiration dates, or are bald counterfeits are injected into the national distribution system for ultimate sale to consumers.'' The PDMA was designed to restore needed integrity and control over the pharmaceutical market, eliminating actual and potential health and safety problems before injury to the consumer could occur. Again, the Committee report was clear on why the PDMA was needed: [R]eimported pharmaceuticals threaten the public health in two ways. First, foreign counterfeits, falsely described as reimported U.S. produced drugs, have entered the distribution system. Second, proper storage and handling of legitimate pharmaceuticals cannot be guaranteed by U.S. law once the drugs have left the boundaries of the United States. I find nothing today that suggests that the problem with misbranded, adulterated, or even counterfeit foreign drugs has been solved, and if anything, the problem may be getting worse. I am thus concerned that in our haste to find a way to bring cheaper drugs to seniors and other needy Americans--a clearly important and laudable goal--we risk making changes to key health and safety laws we may later regret. On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that underscored that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is already overwhelmed and underfunded, and thus unable to consistently undertake the many tasks now required to protect the U.S. drug supply. At that hearing, FDA Commissioner Jane Henney testified that FDA has insufficient post-market surveillance resources to keep pace with its current [[Page H9694]] mandate. Consequently, the agency is lagging in conducting inspections of firms that ship drug products to the U.S., and this burden is only going to worsen in the future. The legislation in question today only exacerbates this already- serious problem. As envisioned by this proposal, FDA will newly be responsible for inspecting the entire custody chain between all parties and processes involved in the shipment of drugs back to the U.S. market. This could include repackaging and relabeling facilities, as well as the many storage firms that might be used in this process. This proposal would also ultimately require FDA to oversee the formation of new testing facilities, and develop regulations to address numerous safety concerns ignored by this proposal. In short, the reimport legislation will inundate an already overburdened FDA with new responsibilities. Worse, it will do so without any assurances that the agency will ever see the approximately $92 million it claims it needs to fully implement this plan. Instead, the bill only gives $23 million for a single year, or one-fourth of what the plan will ultimately require. Given the fact that the agency is already significantly underfunded, I see almost no chance it will see this money. But even if Congress were to provide the additional resources, I remain skeptical that FDA could even construct a global regulatory framework as safe as what is now in place. FDA was unsuccessful in preventing counterfeit and substandard drugs from entering the U.S. before the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) went into effect, and so I doubt it will be successful once many of its protections are undermined by this legislation. Moreover, it is particularly troubling that drug prices may not even be significantly lowered as a result of this proposal. There is nothing that guarantees that in this process of undermining our current regulatory system, lower priced drugs will become available to needy Americans. Wholesalers may not pass on any accrued savings to the public, nor is it clear that they will necessarily be able to access a steady supply for resale. In fact, this bill is riddled with numerous loopholes that will allow manufacturers to label or produce their products in a form that makes them either impossible or cost- prohibitive to reimport. The notion that this bill will create an abundance of cheap, properly labeled, and properly repackaged drugs, easily available to reimporters, is simply false. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes long-term changes to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, without the benefit of even a single legislative hearing. During the 1980's, the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy multi-year investigation resulting in numerous hearings before any related legislation was drafted. There have been no public hearings regarding this legislation, as most of this process has involved closed-door proceedings. With the many implications this legislation will have on public health and safety, this process has ill-served the public and is indefensible. In conclusion, this provision represents the flawed implementation of a risky concept. Many of the Members supporting this legislation believe they are doing the right thing by helping Americans get access to cheaper medicine, and assume that medicine will, in fact, be safe. I agree that medicine needs to be cheaper, but disagree that reimported medicine will be as safe. We know too much about the kinds of drug manufacturing and distribution shenanigans that take place in other parts of the world to allow our system to be jeopardized by the legislation contained in this spending bill. It is flawed legislation that will, if passed in its present form, result in significant harm to the very persons we are trying to help. Thus, I cannot support this bill. {time} 1600 Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Mr. LATHAM. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to publicly say how much I appreciate the great work of our chairman. This will be his last bill as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been just an absolute pleasure and an honor to work with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). I know the gentleman is staying here next year and everything; but because of the rules, he will no longer be chairman of this subcommittee; and I just want to tell him on a personal level how much I appreciate all his hard work and what a great job he has done for New Mexico and for the rest of the country. And to the ranking member, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), it is a real pleasure and it is fun to work with her with the interest we all have in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, this, I think, is an excellent appropriations bill. We have been through a very long process throughout the entire year with hearings, listening to the concerns of the people and the agencies, their proposals, expressing concerns at the way management in some of the agencies has taken place and trying to do the best job possible in this bill to address those concerns. The one major concern we have, as far as delivering services in Iowa, and I think throughout the country, is with the FSA offices. This bill increases funding for those people who are at the ground level doing the work out there, actually in contact with the farmers themselves; and these people are working their hearts out in the countryside. There is increased funding in the bill to the tune of $34 million in addition to the $50 million additional to take care of the emergency disaster programs that are also stated in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is an increase as far as our credit programs so that we can continue to use that tool for exports and to make sure that we do try and have opportunities for our farmers to sell their products overseas. Conservation is a huge issue as far as we are concerned in Iowa and throughout the country, and those activities are increased by $53 million in the bill. Food safety is increased by $47.5 million. Funding for the Food and Drug Administration is almost $35 million more than what it was last year, and $89 million basically, with some savings with the President. We are continuing our commitment as far as food and nutrition for our people here, increasing funding for WIC. A very, very important issue for Iowa is the lifting of sanctions in the bill with Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and the Sudan. With the Cuban issue, it is a major breakthrough for us to finally have that door at least cracked open so that we have an opportunity to sell into that market, and to also look to these other new markets that we have and be able to use credit here in the U.S. to go into highly populated countries, like North Korea, Iran, and these other countries that offer so much potential for us. I am not totally comfortable with all the provisions in here. I would like to see opening of travel and things like that, but we at least have a breakthrough as far as this issue is concerned. I think we can advance the idea that through openness, through trade, we can change countries and have them come into the democracy, which we all very, very much want. Again, I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time on both sides. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 10 minutes remaining. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the very able member of the Committee on International Relations. Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4461 in its current form, but in strong support of ending the embargo on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. Our current policy toward Cuba was created in the early 1960s, at the height of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall has now crumbled, the Soviet Union has vanished, but this archaic policy is still here. For 40 years, 40 years, we have maintained a blockade on trade and food and medicine with Cuba, and we have put severe restrictions on travel by American citizens. We must lift that blockade without imposing new barriers. However, this bill codifies current restrictions on Americans travel to Cuba. What, I must ask, is our country afraid of? How can it be against our interests for our citizens, our most effective ambassadors, to travel to Cuba? How can we live in the greatest democracy in the world and restrict the travel of our own citizens? Americans should have the right to see Cuba for themselves. They should have the right to form their own judgments about this Afro-Hispanic island 90 miles away from our shores. I have led and participated in many delegations to Cuba in an effort to promote education, understanding and cultural exchange between our countries. I have seen a child with kidney [[Page H9695]] disease in grave danger because the embargo prevented the importation of a U.S.-made part for a dialysis machine at this hospital. And I have seen Cuba's health care system, which guarantees its own citizens universal health care, which we still cannot figure out how to do. We should allow anyone and everyone who wants to travel to Cuba to do so without fear of breaking the law and going to jail. I urge my colleagues to oppose restrictions on travel to Cuba in this bill and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4461. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for the tremendous leadership he has given all of us over the last several years, fighting hard for our producers, helping us deliver emergency and disaster aid. I do not know anyone who has worked as forthrightly and on a consensus basis as the gentleman from New Mexico has, and I want to thank him. We will miss him tremendously as our leader next year, but I do thank him. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the excellent work she does and for her dedication to supporting American agriculture as well. I want to say that this is a great bill. I wish in a couple of instances we could have done more, particularly on the issue of agriculture embargoes, which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has championed so well. But even though it does not go quite as far with regard to Cuba, let us not forget that we are also dealing with four other countries against whom we have had sanctions on food and medicine, and this represents a $6 billion market potential for our producers. We are all so caught up in the emotion of Cuba that we forget, quite frankly, that it is the other countries that present the biggest opportunity for our producers, and I did not want to let that go without mentioning it. I also am very pleased that we have included in the emergency assistance package a piece that is very similar to the stand-alone legislation that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I introduced, doubling the loan deficiency payment, particularly when our farmers and ranchers are in such dire straits for the third year in a row. But let me end by addressing the entire issue of reimportation once again, and say that all of the loopholes that have been recognized on the part of my colleagues on the other side are loopholes that really will not exist if in fact we are determined to work closely with the Food and Drug Administration to make this legislation work. Number one, dealing with the issue of labeling. Let me reiterate again that the President said he liked the language in the Jeffords bill that passed the Senate. This is the exact language on labeling which is in the Jeffords bill. The President urged the Senate to send him the legislation so he could sign it, as long as the appropriate money was there to implement it. We have, in fact, included $23 million that the FDA requested for this year to do just that. On the issue of contracts. Let me say once again that while we have not included the exact language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) wanted, we have in fact included language that does prevent a manufacturer from limiting or entering into any kind of contractor or agreement that prevents the sale or distribution of covered products for reimportation purposes. So all in all I think this is an excellent bill and I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I again thank the chairman for the great job that he has done. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to place in the Record language from the New York Times this morning refuting what my very dear colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), has indicated. It says Dr. Jane Henney, the Commissioner of Food and Drug, said, ``Nothing in the bill requires a manufacturer to give the approved label to an importer or to allow use of the label by an importer, which means that it is not enforceable.'' And then today we receive from the Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget, the following. And I enter the direct language in the Record because in the future we will have to repair the damage that is going to be done when this bill is passed today. It says, ``The administration is disappointed that the prescription drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and, instead, produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to FDA-approved labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could, and probably would, block reimportation of their medications. Second, a sunset was added that ends the importation system 5 years after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector interest in investing in this system.'' And I would just depart from that to say to my colleague that sunset was not in the Jeffords bill, as the gentlewoman indicated earlier today. And, finally, third, this letter says, ``The conference language permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. importers. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many with no option than to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will work to address the problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will ensure seniors and people with disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications.'' That is a direct quote from the Executive Office of the President. And, Mr. Speaker, the full content of the statement is as follows: Statement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies.) h.r. 4461--agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies appropriations bill fy 2001 (Sponsors: Skeen (R), New Mexico; Cochran (R) Mississippi) This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on the conference version of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001. The conference report includes support for a number of important priorities for the Nation. In particular, the bill includes full funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative, significant increases in rural development programs to help rural communities and residents take part in the national economic expansion, provisions that will enable food stamp recipients to own dependable cars and have better shelter without losing their eligibility, and relief to farmers and ranchers who suffered losses from natural disasters. While the Administration continues to support a range of conservation efforts, such as the Farmland Protection Wetlands Reserve, and Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, and is disappointed that this bill did not provide full funding for these efforts, we do appreciate the increases that were provided including funds for conservation technical assistance. However, while the Administration supports this conference report, it has concerns with several provisions in the bill. The Administration is disappointed that the prescription drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and instead produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could-- and probably would--block reimportation of their medications. Second, a ``sunset'' was added that ends the importation system five years after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector interest in investing in this system. Third, the conference language permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. importers. Finally, despite the Administration's repeated requests, the conference requires FDA to pay for the costs associated with this provision from within resources needed to perform its other important public [[Page H9696]] health activities. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many with no other option than to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will work to address this problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will insure seniors and people with disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications. On the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000,'' which is included in the conference report, there are two major concerns to the Administration. First, the restrictions on the ability of the President to initiate new sanctions and maintain old ones are overly stringent. This effectively disarms the President's ability to conduct foreign policy while providing potential targets of U.S. actions with the time to take countermeasures. Second, the provisions of the bill affecting travel to Cuba would significantly set back our people-to-people exchanges that are in the interest of opening up Cuban society. They also would preclude travel by technicians and others needed to conduct normal business by the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, as well as travel for humanitarian purposes. With respect to the provision, ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' the Administration agrees with the findings that state that unfair trade laws have as their purpose the restoration of conditions of fair trade. However, that is the purpose of the anti-dumping and counter-vailing duties themselves, which accomplish that purpose. By raising the price of imports they shield domestic producers from import competition and allow domestic manufacturers to raise prices, increase production, and improve revenues. Consequently, distribution of the tariffs themselves to producers is not necessary to the restoration of conditions of fair trade. In addition, there are significant concerns regarding administrative feasibility and consistency with our trade policy objectives, including the potential for trading partners to adopt similar mechanisms. Such concerns were raised and examined with regar

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - October 11, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H9681-H9709] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 617, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 617, the conference report is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of Friday, October 6, 2000 at page H9461.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring before the House the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. Mr. Speaker, this bill has two main parts. The first titles, Title I through VII, comprises the regular fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, which has a total budget authority of slightly less than $15.3 billion. The second part, which is Title VIII, is the emergency title, and that totals just over $3.6 billion. The administration advised us that it would not submit a formal request for disaster assistance, so as we have done in the past, we worked informally with program managers at USDA and with House and Senate colleagues to address as many concerns as possible. I believe that we have a good conference report that deserves the support of this body. We were able to make significant increases over the fiscal year 2000 level in research, food safety, domestic feeding, and conservation programs. This bill also contains compromise language in two critical issues: prescription drug importation, and sanctions of agricultural exports. I believe the language that we are offering will make it easier for our senior citizens to have access to safer, less costly drugs, and make it easier for our farmers and ranchers to export their products to certain countries. I would like to point out a few highlights of the conference report which I think are important to us all. In the two main research accounts, we have about $120 million over the current fiscal year level, in direct response to Members' concerns for critical research priorities. APHIS regular programs have been increased by $38 million over fiscal year 2000, in response to many Members' concerns about invasive plants, pests, and diseases. There is additional money in the APHIS account to assist in the boll weevil program. The Agricultural Marketing Service has increased by $15 million, and GIPSA by $4.5 million. Meat and poultry inspection has been increased by $47.5 million, which is actually higher than the official budget request. This represents our efforts to respond to problems that occurred after both bodies had passed their respective bills. Our FSA loan programs are increased slightly over the current year, and we have met the administration's requests for salaries and expenses. Conservation programs on the discretionary side are increased by about $70 million, which is just under the administration's request. On the mandatory side, there is an additional $35 million for technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve and the Conservation Reserve programs. There is also $117 million to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, since so many Members have requested us to lift the authorized enrollment cap. In rural development, we have met the administration's request for the Rural Community Advancement Program, and in spite of sharply higher subsidy rates, we have increased housing and rural utility loan levels by half a billion dollars each. In domestic food programs, WIC has been increased by $20 million, commodity assistance by $7 million, and elderly feeding by $10 million over fiscal year 2000. In P.L. 480, I know there was a lot of concern about the low House number. I am happy to report that Title II is now $837 million, so all of the food aid programs are at the administration's request. The Food and Drug Administration's salaries and expenses are increased by almost $31 million, and we will be able to go ahead with the badly needed new building in Los Angeles. Finally, I think all of us hear on a near weekly basis from the land grant schools about the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. In past years, we have had to put a limitation on this program to pay for other important accounts, but this conference report allows the Initiative as well as the Fund for Rural America to go forward in fiscal year 2001, using money saved from the 2000 budget. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will generate benefits in every congressional district in the country. We are providing strong protection for the health and safety of our citizens, nutrition and feeding programs for the most vulnerable, and agricultural research which makes us the greatest producer of food and fiber the world has ever known, and funding for a strong and productive rural America. Mr. Speaker, we have tried our best to put together a good, solid bipartisan bill which works for all America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe it is good compromise and good policy. In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the subcommittee for their help and hard work since we began this process earlier this year. In particular, I would like to thank the staff for all their hard work: Hank Moore, the subcommittee clerk; Martin Delgado; Joanne Orndorff; John Z.; Ann Dubey; Maureen Holohan; David Reich, of the staff of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and Jim Richards, from my personal office. Without them, we would not have a bill here today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material related to H.R. 4461: [[Page H9682]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.001 [[Page H9683]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.002 [[Page H9684]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.003 [[Page H9685]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.004 [[Page H9686]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.005 [[Page H9687]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.006 [[Page H9688]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.007 [[Page H9689]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.008 [[Page H9690]] Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1530 Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report as a significant improvement over the measure that originally moved through this body. Before I get into the details, let me just say that I particularly this afternoon rise with great respect and true admiration for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), our chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, who under current Republican caucus rules is serving his last year as a fair, caring and truly outstanding chairman. I will say that I know that as a regular committee member, the gentleman will continue to be exemplary in his service, but I will miss him in his current position. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express genuine support and thanks to our subcommittee staff, Hank Moore, Martin Delgado, John Ziolkowski, Joanne Orndorff and our detailees Anne DuBey and Maureen Holohan, and also our minority staff, David Reich, and on my own staff, Roger Szemraj for doing such a tremendous job in sheperding this major legislation through the Congress. I also want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he kept his word on both sides of the aisle, so that our conferees could meet and fully engage in debate as we did in every single line item of this bill. I say thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is our ranking member on the full committee who participated in every single meeting. I actually do not know how he does it, so tirelessly, and I want to thank the people of Wisconsin for sending him here for service to the Nation. I want to thank the Members on our side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). We thank them for yeoman's service in the construction of this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, overall the conference report spends over $78.5 billion. A little over three-quarters of that is in what we call mandatory spending for programs, especially our food programs, breakfast programs, lunch programs, elderly feeding programs, surplus commodity programs, that are used from coast to coast. $28 billion dollars, nearly half of that, goes to the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses as we move product around the world and here at home. Mr. Speaker, another $1.7 billion goes for crop insurance. The base bill in addition to this has $15 billion in discretionary spending in important areas, such as new research for fuels of the future, the extension service to bring the latest in research right down to the farm and the ranch, conservation programs--so much a part of America's rich natural heritage and essential to sustainability of the future, food safety programs, rural housing and development, all of our feeding programs, international assistance and certainly the Food and Drug Administration. In this bill, also, and this is of critical interest to those who tie their livelihoods to the rural countryside, we have more than $3.6 billion for disaster, farm assistance, and rural development programs. I will say more about that in a moment, but we were also able to incorporate into this measure portions of the Hunger Relief Act. We know as welfare reform really kicks in in every State across this country, thousands of people go to work for minimum wage without health benefits. In this bill, we have provided housing and vehicle allowances and the right to food for those workers and their children to help them transition to the marketplace off of welfare. We are very, very pleased to be able to do that on this particular committee. Mr. Speaker, I also have to say, of course, we were not able to defeat the rule and bring a real prescription drug reimportation provision before the Congress. That is truly sad, and every one of us will have to account for that before the voters this fall. In addition to that, the sanctions language in this bill is absolutely unworkable; even the Cuban Government has said that the provisions may be worse than the status quo, and we really will not be able to sell product in Cuba because of the restrictions in this measure. However, the needs of the country outweigh any one of those provisions, and we have to vote on the overall bill based on its merits. I will quickly tick off key provisions of the bill: we do provide additional funds for market concentration investigation in our Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration; food safety, full funding in that program; additional funds for our Farm Service Agency operations, including extra funds to administer the disaster program so essential across this country this year; for our conservation programs, a decent level of support; research, which is key to the future; in APHIS, while the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service, it has been funded in a manner that dedicates an inordinate amount of funds to the boll weevil program. We have so many other invasive species such as Asian longhorn beetle and others where we do not have equal levels of support. That is unfortunate. We were not able to work out fair apportionment of these funds completely. In rural development, we do provide an increase over last year; in food donations, in the PL480 provisions and in title 2, an increase there to help move surplus product into the international market so as to help farm prices here at home; and then in the Food and Drug Administration, some additional assistance there, but certainly not what the agency was looking for. I wanted to spend my final few minutes here talking about the emergency funding provisions in more detail, because this is so important across the country. For crop losses due to disasters, during the 2000 crop year, including those losses due to quality losses, we have funded what is necessary. We estimate across America that will require over $1.6 billion in funding. There is funding in this bill for dairy producers to compensate for their low prices. There is livestock assistance. We had many questions on that from people representing ranching communities. Also there is targeted assistance for our apple and potato producers, cranberry producers, honey producers as well as wool and mohair. There is no reason just because you are not a row crop producer that you should not have some type of assistance if you are going to lose your operations. There is authority in this bill to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, and $35 million for the Natural Resource and Conservation Service for technical assistance in relation to that program, as well as the Conservation Reserve Program. There is an additional $20 million in this program for cooperative development, for new co-ops to help farmers and ranchers reposition to meet the market in this very difficult period for them. Also there are additional funds for water and sewer across our country. We just cannot meet the entire need; the line of applicants is much longer than we are able to accommodate. We have done the very best we could in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Members, in spite of the loopholes--and they are significant in the prescription drug provision and the sanctions portions of the bill--to vote for this bill. Overall the other provisions require our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, and join with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) in her praise for the chairman's activity on this subcommittee. He has been a great chairman and a great friend and has really worked hard to balance the interests and needs of all the Members. I rise in support of [[Page H9691]] this conference report, because it may be that this subcommittee has produced maybe one of the most valuable appropriations bills that would come before the House of Representatives, because it meets the needs of human beings, their hunger needs, their food needs, and their medicine needs. It all comes under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I especially appreciate that this is a further implementation of the Freedom to Farm Act that we passed back in 1996, which the President signed, and all of the Members of the House and Senate who cared deeply about agriculture have needed to have this next step taken in the area of lifting sanctions on food and medicine. In that respect, I have been proud to work with the chairman and some of my colleagues on the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, most importantly, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), certainly the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Obey), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). We have all worked hard. We do not have a product that satisfies each of us and all of us, but it is a great step forward as we lift sanctions on food and medicine and establish a new policy for our country as it relates to the imposition of sanctions unilaterally. The President in the future, assuming he signs this bill, and I hope that he will, will have the Congress as a partner in decisions that are made about whether or not to impose sanctions on food and medicine unilaterally by our country. Helping in this effort have been other Members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has been a great supporter; the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has been a leader in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I just want my colleagues to know that this is a new day for trade sanctions. It is a new day for agriculture and trade policy that says food and medicine should not be used as weapons of foreign policy. This is workable, notwithstanding the people who might say nay about it. This is going to work to benefit American agriculture. It is going to work for Iran, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. I certainly respect my friends on the other side of this issue relating to Cuba, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). They are very patriotic, good Americans who care deeply about the current sanctions policy in our country. I happen to disagree with their policy position; but they fervently believe in it, and I respect that. We have tried to craft a measure that would work for their needs and their particular positions and policy decisions and those of us who care about the free trade side of American agriculture. Mostly, I would say to my colleagues that I have had a great staff that has helped get through this process, Rob Neal and Jack Silzel, and as imperfect as the legislative process might be, this is a good package. I hope it passes this House. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to begin by complimenting the work of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member, as well as the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. They have done a tremendous job. In addition to facing the obstacle of unrealistic budget restraints, they have once again had to struggle against a leadership that is bent on subverting the expressed will of this House. It is my fond hope that some day soon we will have an honest conference on an agricultural bill with input from the administration and from this side of the aisle in a true bipartisan result, but not today. As a direct result of the leadership's involvement, we have lost key opportunities to move our country forward in both its trade relations and with regard to the availability of affordable prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, the agriculture embargo on U.S. sales to Cuba has done little to change the behavior of this island nation. In fact, U.S. sanctions have given Cuba an excuse for the failed policies of a communist regime. With complete normalization of trade relations, Cuba could become a $1 billion market for U.S. agriculture producers within 5 years, making it our second largest market in Latin America after Mexico. On July 20 of this year, the House by a vote of 301-116 overwhelmingly expressed its will to end our unilateral trade embargo, and yet the provision inserted by the House leadership includes a travel ban and restrictions on finance that will continue to undercut the ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to take full advantage of Cuba's market potential. The compromise in this bill gets us 5 percent of where we need to be. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the implications of the provision included in the conference report regarding trade sanctions. While I am sympathetic to the goal of this provision, it should have been withheld until we had a thorough analysis of all of its trade effects and, particularly, its effect on agriculture. Mr. Speaker, despite these inadequacies, this conference report includes many good and important provisions, including funding, conservation, research, rural development. It provides much-needed assistance to agriculture producers affected by natural disasters. It addresses the drinking water emergencies in rural areas brought about by drought, and it will enact portions of the Hunger Relief Act that will be crucial to ensuring that our neediest citizens are adequately nourished. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report; and I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report includes two important provisions from the bipartisan Hunger Relief Act, of which I am a proud co-sponsor. One of these would increase and then index the cap on the excess shelter deduction. This arbitrary cap can result in families with children having money they spend on their rent, mortgage, and utilities being counted as if it was available to buy food. I hope that in reauthorization, we can eliminate this cap altogether so that families with children are treated in the same manner as elderly and disabled households are now. The other provision would give states broad flexibility to increase or eliminate limits on the value of vehicles they may own and still receive food stamps. For many low-income families, having a dependable car is essential to their ability to find and keep employment. Denying food assistance to a household based on the value of a vehicle makes no sense: if the household sold the vehicle, it would become eligible for food stamps but then would have a much harder time becoming more self- sufficient. This provision allows states to adopt rules from any program that receives TANF or TANF maintenance of effort funds as long as that program provides benefits that could meet the definition of ``assistance'' in the TANF rules. This could include, for example, any child care program since child care can count as assistance under certain circumstances. States would not be required to determine whether any particular individual received assistance from the TANF- or MOE-funded program since that would impose administrative burdens and whatever standards the state adopted would apply statewide. Where a household has more than one vehicle, a state electing the option would evaluate each under whichever rules would result in the lower attribution of resources, whether the regular food stamp rules or the rules borrowed from the other state program. Of course, if the state TANF- or MOE-funded program excluded cars completely, or did not apply resources rules, those rules would prevail. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). [[Page H9692]] {time} 1545 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent work that he did in working through these very difficult issues. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. What we accomplished on this bill, especially as it relates to our trade policies, is exactly what is possible, no more, no less. But what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we made a historic change in our foreign policy. Hopefully never again will the United States use food and drug as a weapon. Our farmers need all the markets that they can get. We should never be putting ourselves in a position where we are cutting off markets, because American farmers are the best in the world, the most productive in the world, and we need to help them to get to the markets. The issue of reimportation of drugs, there has been an awful lot of demagoguery about this on the other side. The fact of the matter is we address it. For the first time, it is being addressed. I suppose if we had not addressed it, we would have heard about that, too. We have improved on the food stamps regulations for poor Americans. Welfare reform did more for this country and its people than maybe any other reform that has been passed in the last 25 years. More Americans are productive. Fewer kids are in poverty. More Americans are healthy because of that reform. But we had some minor changes to make in the Hunger Relief Act, that will help States to address the issues of moving people from welfare to work. Disaster relief, disaster assistance for farmers, apple farmers, dairy farmers, crop farmers, I think the Congress did a good job in a bipartisan way of addressing disaster relief issues. We have made major strides in improving the environment through the Agriculture bill, primarily in the CRP program and also in agriculture research. This is a broad bill, it is an expansive bill, it is an important bill, and we need not focus on the warts and the scabs within the overall legislation. We need to focus on what is good about this bill and the commitment that we have made to the American farmer. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to rise in opposition to the conference report, with great respect to the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the subcommittee, who I know have done their best to put together an attractive proposal. But I believe we pay too high a price in this legislation. Several months ago, the House passed the Sanford amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill by a vote of 232 to 186, prohibiting the use of any funds to enforce the travel restrictions on Cuba, now we see, as the price paid to allow our farmers to export the codification of restrictions which work against the very goals that the proponents of those restrictions constantly proclaim they want. The whole history of the downfall of tyranny comes from contact with people from democracies, with human rights crusaders, with people who want to establish people-to-people programs. Instead of allowing the flexibility to move ahead and advance these kinds of programs and other kinds of useful contacts, we codify a policy that, for 40 years, has failed to achieve its primary goal. That is a terrible mistake. It is a violation of the civil liberties of the Americans and Americans right to travel. It undermines the very goal we seek in our Cuba policy. For the life of me, I would love to hear the explanation which prohibits export financing to Cuba but gives waiver authority and discretion to the executive branch when we talk about export financing of our exports to both Libya and to Iran. Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear the gentleman from Washington or someone else defend that distinction. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey). Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favor of this bill from several different standpoints: the standpoint of what the Nation is benefiting and how my State of Arkansas is benefiting. First of all, we have the importation of drugs that is going to be a significant event in our Nation's battle against high drug prices. We have got in this bill a $3 million appropriation that will help in the construction for the National Center of Toxilogical Research in my district that will handle the imports and examinations. The FDA will be in charge of this, and they will handle the inspections on the drugs as well as inspections on all other imports. It is a very significant thing, and that bill is coming along and is going to be in place soon. There is some education initiatives concerning timber. In our Forest Service areas, we have a serious problem of how to manage that. We will have a study of that in our University of Arkansas at Monticello. We also have a seven-State program called Delta Teachers Academy that will have a learning center in the UAPB campus in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that will teach teachers how to teach. It will help them in doing that in the Delta. We have net catfish initiatives. The National Aquaculture Research Center in Stuttgart, which is not in my district, but serves the Nation in studying catfish yields, improving yields, food quality, disease control and stress tolerance. We also have a specific appropriation for an Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at UAPB, again, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that concerns itself with the control of the commorants as they are attacking the fish industry. We have several different provisions also that will help catfish farmers in that the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited from denying loans for catfish farmers in Arkansas for being in the floodplain. All of these things plus others are the reasons why I am for this bill. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), a member of the Agriculture authorizing committee. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, like many conference agreements, this one has a provision that I am pleased with, and it has provisions that are not in it that I am not pleased with. Nonetheless, I intend to vote for the conference report because it has many national priorities and local priorities that are important to the Nation's constituents and my constituents. Among the provisions that are in this agreement is funding for modular housing for elderly North Carolinans who are flood victims, funding for a critically needed drainage project in flood-ravaged Princeville, North Carolina, and funding for the innovative agrimedicine project designed to combat farm injuries and illness in East Carolina University. I am pleased to say that this agreement also includes very important language to combat hunger. Important food stamp modifications are made on the shelter cap and to the automobile cap. While the WIC program did not receive all the funding it should have or that was requested, nevertheless, $4.1 billion is vitally needed and certainly will be used in this highly successful program. This agreement includes significant funding for the emergency disaster relief for farmers, for crop losses, restoration projects. The agreement continues funding for agricultural research, education extension, service activity. I am, however, disappointed that the agreement only includes $3 million of the $6.8 million approved by the House funding going for research to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Nonetheless, this agreement does offer some limited hope through this limited increase. Hopefully, we would do better the next time. The overall agreement is comprehensive and does include important national priorities that deserve our support, and I urge its passage. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). [[Page H9693]] Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this agriculture appropriations bill. I think we all have to be reminded constantly that this is a bill that helps agriculture first and foremost. But before I mention a couple of specifics, Mr. Speaker, I think for the record this Member at least has considered it a tremendous honor to work under the leadership of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) in this process. He is a person who sets the highest standard of integrity and brings to work every day the highest commitment. The character and the determination that he brings every day to work for the betterment of agriculture in America is something that I will always, always remember. He is not going anywhere. But I think I speak for many of us on the subcommittee who just cherished the time that we have had working under his leadership on this subcommittee. I want to specifically mention that this bill, again, does deal with a lot of important aspects of agriculture assistance and relief, drought, other natural disasters. Commodity prices over the years have dealt a bad hand to many of our producers in this country. There is a lot of assistance in this bill for that; $3.5 billion in economic assistance that does not need to be held up in Washington any longer. I know that there are Members who do not like that certain commodities have received assistance in this bill as well. We have attempted to do the right thing and address all commodities that have suffered. We should not sit here and pick and choose who we help and who we do not based on whether or not we like what we grow or the farm programs that they operate under. They did not set the programs. Congress did. Now we must help all areas of rural communities survive in this very difficult time. The bill also goes the extra mile to support farmers and ranchers. Agriculture credit programs are increased by $14 million over fiscal year 2000, and agriculture research has increased by $86 million. The boll weevil eradication program is funded at $79 million. These are just a few examples of how this bill will help our farmers and ranchers and all of us who have large rural agriculture communities. The word ought to get out that there is a true commitment in a bipartisan way to help these folks who were really the salt of the Earth, the producers of this country who were trying to compete in international markets with other countries sometimes that subsidize their producers in unfair ways. There is a tremendous commitment by many of us, again, in a bipartisan way to do what is right in this Agriculture appropriations bill. I stand in strong support and would urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the incredibly hard working ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her kindness, amongst many others, to me. Mr. Speaker, an otherwise acceptable bill has been very much hurt in the conference report by the drug reimportation provisions. In a word, they protect users of reimported pharmaceuticals very poorly if at all. They put them at severe risk and hazard. So I am going to tell my colleagues some of the things that are going to happen as a result of these provisions so poorly studied by the Congress and so ill attended to in committee. Soon, Americans will be taking substandard, adulterated or counterfeited imported drugs because of these provisions. These provisions will do nothing to help lower the price of prescription medicines and are no substitute for prescription pharmaceuticals to senior citizens under Medicare. Because FDA is already overwhelmed with inspecting foreign manufacturers, it will not be able to handle the vast new responsibilities being imposed upon it, and consumers will suffer and be at risk. In the coming years, FDA is going to be pilloried by politicians for failing to protect Americans from bad prescription drugs which are reimported under these provisions, when in fact the blame should fall squarely upon the politicians in the 106th Congress. Make no mistake. This reckless legislation never went through the committees with expertise or experience in these matters. It is going to lead to needless injuries and deaths. The world pharmaceutical market is a dangerous place, far more so than my colleagues understand. Congressional investigations showed this in the 1980s, and I know because I conducted those investigations. They will show it now. My written statement will elaborate on this point. My opposition to the drug reimportation provisions requires me to vote against an otherwise acceptable bill. I would note the American people want a decent prescription, not a placebo, and they want one that is safe and one which will help their health. This particular proposal will not. It puts Americans at risk. I warn my colleagues what they are doing. I hope they will listen. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DINGELL. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do want to associate myself with his remarks. This is far more complicated than most people believe, as the gentleman from Michigan said. I am very familiar with his historical involvement in this area. All of us want to relieve this problem, but I want to underscore the comments the gentleman from Michigan made, and I do want to associate myself with his remarks. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I hope my colleagues will listen to what the gentleman just said because we are putting the Nation and the senior citizens and others at risk. Reimporting drugs is a dangerous and risky prospect. Doing so without adequate protections and controls for the protection of consumers is a still greater risk. I ask my colleagues to listen to what I say. There is danger here they are not observing. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. Although there are many very good provisions addressing major agricultural needs, there is also a very dangerous provision that would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs from foreign sources. That is something I cannot support. During the 1980's, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy investigation into the foreign drug market that ultimately led to enactment of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). That investigation discovered a potentially dangerous diversion market that prevented effective control over the true sources of drug products in a significant number of cases. The distribution system was vulnerable to the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or even counterfeit pharmaceuticals. As the resulting Committee report stated, ``pharmaceuticals which have been mislabeled, misbranded, improperly stored or shipped, have exceeded their expiration dates, or are bald counterfeits are injected into the national distribution system for ultimate sale to consumers.'' The PDMA was designed to restore needed integrity and control over the pharmaceutical market, eliminating actual and potential health and safety problems before injury to the consumer could occur. Again, the Committee report was clear on why the PDMA was needed: [R]eimported pharmaceuticals threaten the public health in two ways. First, foreign counterfeits, falsely described as reimported U.S. produced drugs, have entered the distribution system. Second, proper storage and handling of legitimate pharmaceuticals cannot be guaranteed by U.S. law once the drugs have left the boundaries of the United States. I find nothing today that suggests that the problem with misbranded, adulterated, or even counterfeit foreign drugs has been solved, and if anything, the problem may be getting worse. I am thus concerned that in our haste to find a way to bring cheaper drugs to seniors and other needy Americans--a clearly important and laudable goal--we risk making changes to key health and safety laws we may later regret. On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that underscored that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is already overwhelmed and underfunded, and thus unable to consistently undertake the many tasks now required to protect the U.S. drug supply. At that hearing, FDA Commissioner Jane Henney testified that FDA has insufficient post-market surveillance resources to keep pace with its current [[Page H9694]] mandate. Consequently, the agency is lagging in conducting inspections of firms that ship drug products to the U.S., and this burden is only going to worsen in the future. The legislation in question today only exacerbates this already- serious problem. As envisioned by this proposal, FDA will newly be responsible for inspecting the entire custody chain between all parties and processes involved in the shipment of drugs back to the U.S. market. This could include repackaging and relabeling facilities, as well as the many storage firms that might be used in this process. This proposal would also ultimately require FDA to oversee the formation of new testing facilities, and develop regulations to address numerous safety concerns ignored by this proposal. In short, the reimport legislation will inundate an already overburdened FDA with new responsibilities. Worse, it will do so without any assurances that the agency will ever see the approximately $92 million it claims it needs to fully implement this plan. Instead, the bill only gives $23 million for a single year, or one-fourth of what the plan will ultimately require. Given the fact that the agency is already significantly underfunded, I see almost no chance it will see this money. But even if Congress were to provide the additional resources, I remain skeptical that FDA could even construct a global regulatory framework as safe as what is now in place. FDA was unsuccessful in preventing counterfeit and substandard drugs from entering the U.S. before the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) went into effect, and so I doubt it will be successful once many of its protections are undermined by this legislation. Moreover, it is particularly troubling that drug prices may not even be significantly lowered as a result of this proposal. There is nothing that guarantees that in this process of undermining our current regulatory system, lower priced drugs will become available to needy Americans. Wholesalers may not pass on any accrued savings to the public, nor is it clear that they will necessarily be able to access a steady supply for resale. In fact, this bill is riddled with numerous loopholes that will allow manufacturers to label or produce their products in a form that makes them either impossible or cost- prohibitive to reimport. The notion that this bill will create an abundance of cheap, properly labeled, and properly repackaged drugs, easily available to reimporters, is simply false. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes long-term changes to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, without the benefit of even a single legislative hearing. During the 1980's, the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a lengthy multi-year investigation resulting in numerous hearings before any related legislation was drafted. There have been no public hearings regarding this legislation, as most of this process has involved closed-door proceedings. With the many implications this legislation will have on public health and safety, this process has ill-served the public and is indefensible. In conclusion, this provision represents the flawed implementation of a risky concept. Many of the Members supporting this legislation believe they are doing the right thing by helping Americans get access to cheaper medicine, and assume that medicine will, in fact, be safe. I agree that medicine needs to be cheaper, but disagree that reimported medicine will be as safe. We know too much about the kinds of drug manufacturing and distribution shenanigans that take place in other parts of the world to allow our system to be jeopardized by the legislation contained in this spending bill. It is flawed legislation that will, if passed in its present form, result in significant harm to the very persons we are trying to help. Thus, I cannot support this bill. {time} 1600 Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Mr. LATHAM. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to publicly say how much I appreciate the great work of our chairman. This will be his last bill as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been just an absolute pleasure and an honor to work with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). I know the gentleman is staying here next year and everything; but because of the rules, he will no longer be chairman of this subcommittee; and I just want to tell him on a personal level how much I appreciate all his hard work and what a great job he has done for New Mexico and for the rest of the country. And to the ranking member, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), it is a real pleasure and it is fun to work with her with the interest we all have in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, this, I think, is an excellent appropriations bill. We have been through a very long process throughout the entire year with hearings, listening to the concerns of the people and the agencies, their proposals, expressing concerns at the way management in some of the agencies has taken place and trying to do the best job possible in this bill to address those concerns. The one major concern we have, as far as delivering services in Iowa, and I think throughout the country, is with the FSA offices. This bill increases funding for those people who are at the ground level doing the work out there, actually in contact with the farmers themselves; and these people are working their hearts out in the countryside. There is increased funding in the bill to the tune of $34 million in addition to the $50 million additional to take care of the emergency disaster programs that are also stated in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is an increase as far as our credit programs so that we can continue to use that tool for exports and to make sure that we do try and have opportunities for our farmers to sell their products overseas. Conservation is a huge issue as far as we are concerned in Iowa and throughout the country, and those activities are increased by $53 million in the bill. Food safety is increased by $47.5 million. Funding for the Food and Drug Administration is almost $35 million more than what it was last year, and $89 million basically, with some savings with the President. We are continuing our commitment as far as food and nutrition for our people here, increasing funding for WIC. A very, very important issue for Iowa is the lifting of sanctions in the bill with Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and the Sudan. With the Cuban issue, it is a major breakthrough for us to finally have that door at least cracked open so that we have an opportunity to sell into that market, and to also look to these other new markets that we have and be able to use credit here in the U.S. to go into highly populated countries, like North Korea, Iran, and these other countries that offer so much potential for us. I am not totally comfortable with all the provisions in here. I would like to see opening of travel and things like that, but we at least have a breakthrough as far as this issue is concerned. I think we can advance the idea that through openness, through trade, we can change countries and have them come into the democracy, which we all very, very much want. Again, I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time on both sides. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 10 minutes remaining. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the very able member of the Committee on International Relations. Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4461 in its current form, but in strong support of ending the embargo on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. Our current policy toward Cuba was created in the early 1960s, at the height of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall has now crumbled, the Soviet Union has vanished, but this archaic policy is still here. For 40 years, 40 years, we have maintained a blockade on trade and food and medicine with Cuba, and we have put severe restrictions on travel by American citizens. We must lift that blockade without imposing new barriers. However, this bill codifies current restrictions on Americans travel to Cuba. What, I must ask, is our country afraid of? How can it be against our interests for our citizens, our most effective ambassadors, to travel to Cuba? How can we live in the greatest democracy in the world and restrict the travel of our own citizens? Americans should have the right to see Cuba for themselves. They should have the right to form their own judgments about this Afro-Hispanic island 90 miles away from our shores. I have led and participated in many delegations to Cuba in an effort to promote education, understanding and cultural exchange between our countries. I have seen a child with kidney [[Page H9695]] disease in grave danger because the embargo prevented the importation of a U.S.-made part for a dialysis machine at this hospital. And I have seen Cuba's health care system, which guarantees its own citizens universal health care, which we still cannot figure out how to do. We should allow anyone and everyone who wants to travel to Cuba to do so without fear of breaking the law and going to jail. I urge my colleagues to oppose restrictions on travel to Cuba in this bill and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4461. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for the tremendous leadership he has given all of us over the last several years, fighting hard for our producers, helping us deliver emergency and disaster aid. I do not know anyone who has worked as forthrightly and on a consensus basis as the gentleman from New Mexico has, and I want to thank him. We will miss him tremendously as our leader next year, but I do thank him. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the excellent work she does and for her dedication to supporting American agriculture as well. I want to say that this is a great bill. I wish in a couple of instances we could have done more, particularly on the issue of agriculture embargoes, which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has championed so well. But even though it does not go quite as far with regard to Cuba, let us not forget that we are also dealing with four other countries against whom we have had sanctions on food and medicine, and this represents a $6 billion market potential for our producers. We are all so caught up in the emotion of Cuba that we forget, quite frankly, that it is the other countries that present the biggest opportunity for our producers, and I did not want to let that go without mentioning it. I also am very pleased that we have included in the emergency assistance package a piece that is very similar to the stand-alone legislation that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I introduced, doubling the loan deficiency payment, particularly when our farmers and ranchers are in such dire straits for the third year in a row. But let me end by addressing the entire issue of reimportation once again, and say that all of the loopholes that have been recognized on the part of my colleagues on the other side are loopholes that really will not exist if in fact we are determined to work closely with the Food and Drug Administration to make this legislation work. Number one, dealing with the issue of labeling. Let me reiterate again that the President said he liked the language in the Jeffords bill that passed the Senate. This is the exact language on labeling which is in the Jeffords bill. The President urged the Senate to send him the legislation so he could sign it, as long as the appropriate money was there to implement it. We have, in fact, included $23 million that the FDA requested for this year to do just that. On the issue of contracts. Let me say once again that while we have not included the exact language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) wanted, we have in fact included language that does prevent a manufacturer from limiting or entering into any kind of contractor or agreement that prevents the sale or distribution of covered products for reimportation purposes. So all in all I think this is an excellent bill and I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I again thank the chairman for the great job that he has done. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to place in the Record language from the New York Times this morning refuting what my very dear colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), has indicated. It says Dr. Jane Henney, the Commissioner of Food and Drug, said, ``Nothing in the bill requires a manufacturer to give the approved label to an importer or to allow use of the label by an importer, which means that it is not enforceable.'' And then today we receive from the Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget, the following. And I enter the direct language in the Record because in the future we will have to repair the damage that is going to be done when this bill is passed today. It says, ``The administration is disappointed that the prescription drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and, instead, produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to FDA-approved labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could, and probably would, block reimportation of their medications. Second, a sunset was added that ends the importation system 5 years after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector interest in investing in this system.'' And I would just depart from that to say to my colleague that sunset was not in the Jeffords bill, as the gentlewoman indicated earlier today. And, finally, third, this letter says, ``The conference language permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. importers. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many with no option than to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will work to address the problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will ensure seniors and people with disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications.'' That is a direct quote from the Executive Office of the President. And, Mr. Speaker, the full content of the statement is as follows: Statement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies.) h.r. 4461--agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies appropriations bill fy 2001 (Sponsors: Skeen (R), New Mexico; Cochran (R) Mississippi) This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on the conference version of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001. The conference report includes support for a number of important priorities for the Nation. In particular, the bill includes full funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative, significant increases in rural development programs to help rural communities and residents take part in the national economic expansion, provisions that will enable food stamp recipients to own dependable cars and have better shelter without losing their eligibility, and relief to farmers and ranchers who suffered losses from natural disasters. While the Administration continues to support a range of conservation efforts, such as the Farmland Protection Wetlands Reserve, and Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, and is disappointed that this bill did not provide full funding for these efforts, we do appreciate the increases that were provided including funds for conservation technical assistance. However, while the Administration supports this conference report, it has concerns with several provisions in the bill. The Administration is disappointed that the prescription drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and instead produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could-- and probably would--block reimportation of their medications. Second, a ``sunset'' was added that ends the importation system five years after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector interest in investing in this system. Third, the conference language permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S. importers. Finally, despite the Administration's repeated requests, the conference requires FDA to pay for the costs associated with this provision from within resources needed to perform its other important public [[Page H9696]] health activities. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many with no other option than to go abroad to obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false hope that this provision will work to address this problem. Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts but will insure seniors and people with disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications. On the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000,'' which is included in the conference report, there are two major concerns to the Administration. First, the restrictions on the ability of the President to initiate new sanctions and maintain old ones are overly stringent. This effectively disarms the President's ability to conduct foreign policy while providing potential targets of U.S. actions with the time to take countermeasures. Second, the provisions of the bill affecting travel to Cuba would significantly set back our people-to-people exchanges that are in the interest of opening up Cuban society. They also would preclude travel by technicians and others needed to conduct normal business by the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, as well as travel for humanitarian purposes. With respect to the provision, ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' the Administration agrees with the findings that state that unfair trade laws have as their purpose the restoration of conditions of fair trade. However, that is the purpose of the anti-dumping and counter-vailing duties themselves, which accomplish that purpose. By raising the price of imports they shield domestic producers from import competition and allow domestic manufacturers to raise prices, increase production, and improve revenues. Consequently, distribution of the tariffs themselves to producers is not necessary to the restoration of conditions of fair trade. In addition, there are significant concerns regarding administrative feasibility and consistency with our trade policy objectives, including the potential for trading partners to adopt similar mechanisms. Such concerns were raised and examined with regard to a similar proposal co