John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the motion is quite simple, and I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it. It simply states that the conferees should be instructed to resolve their difference on the electric reliability provisions of the legislation in the next week. This is not a difficult task. In fact, it is very simple. The language in both the Senate and the House bills are very similar, and we have reached tentative agreement on the outlines of the provision in the last Congress. If we can reach agreement quickly on this matter at this time as I expect, we can bring a bill to the floor in a matter of days that contains these provisions and have those provisions on the desk of the President for signature immediately. Then the conferees can turn to the more contentious matters in the legislation. The people of my district, as well as 50 million other Americans, were affected by the August blackout, and they are looking to us for action to see that this does not occur again. They do not want common sense answers to be delayed or held hostage as we debate unrelated controversial provisions that have had the practical effect of killing this legislation for the last 8 or 9 years. As I have said on other occasions, what we need to do today, and in this conference, is to kill the snake closest to us, and that is the question of the failure of our electric reliability system. I do not contend that the reliability provision alone would have prevented the August blackout. We are still looking into the cause of the blackout, and just as it would be wrong to suggest that the more controversial provisions in this bill would have prevented the blackout, I can make no such claims about these provisions. But the reliability provisions of this bill will certainly do much good. And in the hearings of the last two days before the conference committee, they have proven to be the kind of provisions that would do much to prevent the kind of situation we saw last August 14. They are not in contention, nor are they contentious. Both President Clinton and President Bush have endorsed the proposals. And Democrats like my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and Republicans have introduced these proposals. Unfortunately, each year they have been caught up in larger electricity matters such as deregulation and the repeal of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act, matters of intense controversy. We can get to these more controversial provisions later. But they are the same provisions as I have noted that prevented us from passing a comprehensive energy bill for 8 long years. Let me explain briefly why these reliability provisions are important. Following the blackouts of 1965, the electric industry established the North American Electric Reliability Council, NERC, to establish reliability standards for the operation of the electricity grid. These are voluntary standards and, unfortunately, they are not always followed as we have found out in the hearings yesterday and today. According to NERC, last year there were over 500 violations of the rules that could have been subject to some $9 million in fines had they been authorized. The practical effect of the reliability provisions would be to codify the NERC as the electric reliability organization charged with setting reliability standards and enforcing them through appropriate penalties and other actions. Since we are all in basic agreement over the reliability provisions, all we need to do is to finalize the agreement and to bring them to the floor under suspension and then continue the conference on more controversial matters. As a conferee, I am prepared to do my part to work on all of these matters. I note that our chairman of last year did an excellent job in developing the conference agreements in many areas, and I expect similar progress this year. There is no need to take the reliability of our electric grid hostage to other controversial provisions. Many of the controversies are not of a partisan nature. For example, recently Republican Senators and the administration announced an agreement on language to stall regulations establishing standard market design for utilities. While many of our colleagues in the House disagree, we will find that some of the provisions could make problems worse. Last year, when we failed to reach agreement on the entire bill, we decided to pass the pipeline safety provisions separately from the rest of the legislation, a good and a sensible approach to a difficult problem. That bipartisan, bicameral agreement was supported by both the industry and public interest groups. The reliability provisions also have broad appeal amongst the utility industry regulators and consumer advocates. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion, and let the American people know that we will, we have, and we do take important steps to prevent blackouts while debating other issues. I urge my colleagues to support the motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I love my colleagues on the other side. I know they are sincere and I understand and I sympathize with them because they have difficulty in understanding the parliamentary situation. We have been grappling around with the business of passing a comprehensive energy bill now for about 8 years. I have listened to my colleagues on the other side promise us that we would have a bill on the floor in 2 weeks, or we would have a bill passed by the end of the session. None of those promises have been good. We are still grappling around with a piece of legislation. The Senate, it could not pass a bill, so they took the bill that they had passed last year and they passed it and they went to conference. The Member of the Senate who says he will be the senior Member of the Senate body considering this legislation says they are going to write the bill in conference. What bill are they going to write? I do not know. But I have written several large energy bills, and I would note to my colleagues that the time of the writing of these, including the time in conference, was somewhere between 18 months and 2 years, the full period of a session in the Congress and the second session besides. I would remind my colleagues that what happened in this country on August 14 was we had the biggest blackout that we have had, one of three which have affected major areas of the country, but a number of others which have affected smaller regions such as parts of the Midwest and the Far West and the Northwest, areas which supposedly were rich in electric power. We are not trying to foreclose the consideration of all of the items in this overall comprehensive energy bill that my Republican colleagues want, but we want to pass a bill which will address the most immediate and serious energy problem which this country confronts and that is the problem of blackouts and shutdowns of electrical utility service to the consumers of this country. Such an event occurred on August 14. Elevators stopped between floors; subway cars stopped in subways; factories shut down; explosions occurred in refineries; steel mills shut down; huge losses occurred to business; huge losses occurred to manufacturing; thousands of businesses shut down; millions of Americans were without electric service. Fortunately, the one good thing that can be said is no one died. But everybody was put at risk in the Northeast. One of the problems about the situation is that we do not exactly know what all caused this, but we know that one of the major problems was the fact that there are no enforceable standards to enforce reliability upon the system. This is something upon which there is broad agreement in this body and in the Senate. It goes across the lines of partisanship. It is something on which everybody agrees, and it is something which can be quickly and easily done. What I say is not to kill the whole bill, but to pass expeditiously those portions which will address the immediate and serious problem which this country confronts. Let us move towards breaking those portions out, putting them speedily on the floor, putting them speedily on the floor in the Senate, and sending them to the President so that he may sign them and Americans may understand that we will have a decent program for the protection of the American consuming public and American industry with regard to reliability of electrical service. There is no difference in view between me and my good friend, the chairman of the committee, about whether or not we ought to go forward with a comprehensive energy bill. This can be done at the same time. But we can speedily move forward the question of reliability and afford Americans the comfort, the safety and the security of that step by providing assured safety for them in their electric utility service. What all is involved in this comprehensive energy bill? Clean air and clear skies are now going to be put in in the conference, we hear, a matter which is neither germane nor is it within the new matter rule. They are going to talk about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, a matter which has triggered filibusters in the Senate; tax credits for oil and gas and matters of that kind; repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act; renewable fuels; royalty relief for people in the energy production business; funding for ethanol; MTBE liability relief, an extremely controversial question; global warming on which the Senate voted 95 to nothing against, fuel efficiency in automobiles; and scores of other questions. Those are matters which will take much time in conference. These are not matters which can be addressed easily and which can be on the floor in 2 weeks as my good friend the chairman of the committee tells us. Much though he might want that and much though I might want it, it is not something which is easily done. We agree that the country needs an electric reliability bill. This motion to instruct the conferees makes that possible. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee and I both agree the country needs a comprehensive energy bill to diversify our supplies, to create energy independence as much as we can, and to increase the energy security of this country. All that this motion advocates is that we do promptly what we can do to prevent another blackout. It avoids long, tedious discussions which will delay the probability of legislation being enacted quickly and before we might confront this same problem which could occur again even as we speak. I would point out to my Republican colleagues that I do not seek the perfect solution to energy problems. We have been working on energy problems since I came to this place many years ago. We have consumed enormous amounts of time of the Congress in working on energy supply, energy sufficiency, and other questions of that sort. We can roll up our sleeves and work on those matters while we are moving this other legislation forward quickly and put reliability legislation on the floors of the Congress and on the desk of the President to assure safety and security for the American people. I would remind my Republican colleagues of the old legislative axiom that the perfect good is the enemy of the good. It may be a perfect good to wrestle around and wrangle around about a piece of legislation which will deal with every imaginable energy problem, which will evoke the support and the enthusiasm of every special interest in this town and in this country, but it is not the way to assure that we do the things which we can do quickly and well while we work upon the other more difficult and controversial questions. I would point out we have not yet appointed conferees. The Senate does not yet have even the vaguest idea of what it is upon which they may agree. They had to send to conference a curious concoction of last year's energy bill with the simple statement that the chairman of the Senate conferees is going to write the bill as the matter is considered in conference, hardly an open and transparent and intelligent way in which we might legislate. I would urge my colleagues, let us do that which we can do quickly and let us do that which will take us longer with more deliberate and careful and thoughtful effort which will lead us to a quicker and better solution to the problems we confront. I urge the adoption of the motion to instruct conferees. It is consistent with our responsibilities. It is consistent with the public interest. It gives protection to the American people in a fashion on matters that greatly concern them about their safety, about the well- being of themselves and their families and about the well-being and the efficiency and the capability of the American economy to provide the things that are necessary for us all. Let us deal with those things which can quickly be addressed, and let us then work more slowly in the conference on other matters. And if they can be moved as fast as my good friend, the chairman of the committee, says, then we will have something on the floor in the next couple of weeks. If not, then there is nothing lost because we will be able to wrangle around interminably on these matters as we have for so long.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues from Michigan, especially my three good friends and colleagues Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Rogers, all of whom are interested very much in this matter. We in Michigan are awash in Canadian waste, 180 truckloads a day. EPA can help Michigan citizens control the flow of municipal solid waste from Canada. We have an agreement with the Canadians signed in 1992 that requires the EPA to implement a notice and consent procedure on the flow of trash. The EPA has spent 11 years shirking its duty. They have determined that they will not implement this safe, simple and internationally recognized agreement. The amendment is simple. It proposes to take $1 million out of EPA's Office of Media Relations and put the money into the Office of Enforcement, specifically for the enforcement of this bilateral agreement. I know of no controversy with regard to this amendment. I note that it is a message to EPA bureaucrats to stop stalling and start protecting our citizens in Michigan. I would note that I would, out of gratitude to my dear friends on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and also the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), I now terminate my remarks at this time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask all my colleagues to support an amendment I have offered with my good friends and colleagues from Michigan, Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Rogers. We in Michigan have a bit of a problem, Mr. Speaker. You see, we are awash in Canadian trash. Every single day, 180 truckloads of the stuff cross over the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron and the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit. Luckily, in 1986 the United States and Canada signed the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was amended in 1992 to also govern the transport of municipal waste. While we are fortunate to have that agreement, the EPA unfortunately had declined to enforce it. They have had 11 years to implement the notice and consent procedure required by the agreement. Eleven years, Mr. Speaker, and incredibly EPA has taken no action! Meanwhile, Customs officials have told us in no uncertain terms that they consider these trucks ``high risk'' and nearly impossible to inspect. A recent shipment included 50 pounds of marijuana. During the SARS outbreak in Toronto, where much of the garbage comes from, a Michigan State Trooper found a trash can dripping blood. These truckloads of trash are a nuisance and a danger to Michiganders. In fact, on two separate occasions, innocent citizens were hit by these semi-trucks. Citizens who once lived on quiet country roads now must contend with nearly 200 truckloads of garbage that begin rolling in at six in the morning. Nice summer breezes are a thing of the past for these folks, now houses must be shut up year round in an effort to avoid the stench. Our amendment, Mr. Speaker, is simple. We take $1 million from EPA's Office of Media Relations, and put that money into the Office of Enforcement, specifically the enforcement of this Bilateral Agreement. On Wednesday, July 23, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee heard testimony from EPA. They were able to give us a timeline for when Canada might be done with their regulatory process. Unfortunately, they were unable to give Members of the Subcommittee any idea when EPA might be through their regulatory process. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this bears repeating: U.S. EPA testified as to when Canada might be through their regulatory process, but they were not able to give us any indication of when they might be through their own. I would note that Article 5.3 of the Bilateral Agreement expressly provides that ``to the extent any implementing regulations are necessary to comply with this Agreement, the Parties will act expeditiously to issue such regulations consistent with domesic law.'' Article 5.3 further and expressly provides that ``pending such issuance, the Parties will make best efforts to provide notification in accordance with this Agreement where current regulatory authority is insufficient.'' Well, by EPA's own admission, this is not being done. They have not used their best efforts and they have not even begun the regulatory process. How long does it take, Mr. Speaker? How long do the citizens of Michigan have to wait? My fellow colleagues from Michigan, and indeed, all Michiganders, find it outrageous that EPA has shirked its duty and determined that our health and well-being is not worth their time and effort. This amendment tells them to do their job: issue regulations and enforce them. As they move forward with these regulations, we would request that before EPA consents to a shipment, they consider the views of the state and local governments, as well as the impact of the importation of continued public support and adherence to recycling programs, landfill capacity, air emissions from increased vehicular traffic, road deterioration from increased vehicular traffic, and public health and the environment. I would ask my colleagues to support this common sense amendment to help protect the citizens of Michigan and to force the EPA to do its job. Again, I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues from Michigan, Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Rogers for their cosponsorship of this important amendment and their leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commemorate the courageous men and women who served our country in the Korean War. On this 50th Anniversary of the end of the Korean War, it is my pleasure to honor and bear witness to those who fearlessly fought for our nation. On July 27, 2003 the nation will solemnly reflect upon the dedicated, selfless, patriotic service of those great Americans who, at times of great peril, risked their lives, so that this great nation shall not perish from the earth. Through their service, they kept America strong and protected our way of life. Today, it is with great pride and patriotism that we remember these American heroes for their gallantry and bravery, for their roles in our community and their service to an eternally grateful nation. Abraham Lincoln stated it plainly when he notably remarked that soldiers purchase liberty with ``the price of their blood.'' We, the American people, are all the heirs of freedom paid for with the blood of patriots. This great nation will not forget the service of our soldiers, of our disabled veterans, of our POWs, and, most certainly, we do not forget our MIAs and families they represent. The men and women of our Armed Forces answered the call to service with courage, conviction and bravery. We should never forget our obligation to these heroic men and women who courageously served the freedom loving people of the United States and throughout the world. Sometimes forgotten and often ignored, these patriots have been unable to get much needed care from the government that they inexhaustibly served. While it is imperative that we remember the service of our nation's veterans, it is equally incumbent upon decision-makers to ensure that our government meets its commitment to all of our veterans. I pledge today that I will continue to fight, as I have during my entire career, to ensure that these veterans get the care they were promised and to which they are entitled. We will make certain that the flame of memory never dies. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise to join me in extending the appreciation of the U.S. House of Representatives to the remarkable men and women who valiantly served in the Korean War for their brave and outstanding service to the United States of America. There is no more noble a cause for an American than to actively participate in the defense of our nation and its values. May God bless the defenders of our freedom both living and fallen.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Chairmen Tauzin and Bilirakis for working in the true spirit of bipartisan cooperation on this issue. We have developed a compromise to protect health care coverage for hundreds of thousands of children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The SCHIP program was enacted in 1997 and currently provides health care coverage to approximately 4.3 million children. But there have been some growing pains: the state funding allotment mechanism has not worked perfectly and as a result, some states have been left with excess funding and others with too little. Nearly $1.2 billion of funding intended for children's health insurance coverage was returned to the Treasury over the past few years--not for lack of need, but as a result of these problems with the funding allocation. Our bill will first preserve the $1.2 billion in funds for states to use through fiscal year 2004. In addition, the bill extends for one additional year the availability of $1.5 billion in SCHIP funds from fiscal years 2000 and 2001 allotments, thereby allowing 50 percent of each year's unspent money to be retained by states that have not used their entire allotment. The remaining 50 percent of unspent money would be distributed to states that have spent all of their respective year's allotment. Finally, the bill will allow certain states to use a portion of their unspent funds for children covered through Medicaid. I again thank the Chairman for his efforts to move this legislation forward and protect health care for children under SCHIP. I hope that the Senate will act quickly so that we can get this bill to the President's desk and expedite the flow of needed funding for children's health care.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) be permitted to control 15 minutes of the time allocated to me.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. On its face it would appear to be a good bill. It is not. It will allow this country to be flooded with unsafe, counterfeit drugs; drugs that will not do what they should; drugs that are unsafe; drugs that will kill the American people. I tell Members, it is a bad bill, and I ask them to remember the experiences that were reported by my colleague from Louisiana. This bill would reduce the capacity of the Food and Drug Administration to protect our people from unsafe prescription pharmaceuticals, which will begin to flood the country if and when it is passed. H.R. 2427 is a prescription for trouble. They open our borders. They provide millions of Americans with access to perhaps drugs which are cheaper, but drugs which are unsafe and which evade the responsibility and the ability of Food and Drug to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, do not take my word for that. Listen to what the health care professionals and regulators say. The American Medical Association says, ``We believe H.R. 2427 would be so dangerous to patient safety that we must oppose it. This legislation would eliminate most of the important restrictions on reimportation of pharmaceuticals in current law and replace them with a system of unverifiable and unsafe provisions.'' The National Medical Association has said, ``This legislation would result in counterfeit, adulterated, and dangerous drugs entering the United States. We do not believe that H.R. 2427 should be enacted at the risk of jeopardizing patient safety.'' The American Osteopathic Association says, ``H.R. 2427, while increasing the possible number of drugs reimported into the United States, does nothing to ensure the safety and efficacy of these drugs. There is no bargain to be found for our patients who purchase drugs that are ineffective or contaminated.'' The Food and Drug Administration says, ``H.R. 2427 would authorize the importation of prescription drugs from foreign sources without adequate assurances that such products are safe and effective. H.R. 2427 creates a wide channel for large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to enter the United States that are potentially injurious to public health and pose a threat to the security of our Nation's drug supply. The bill would do so by taking unprecedented steps that limit FDA's authority to assure the safety of prescription drug products to be used by American consumers.'' Mr. Speaker, this will enable foreign manufacturers to import into Canada for reimportation into the United States tons of counterfeit foreign drugs, drugs which are ineffective, over-age, unsafe, unregulated and improperly manufactured in ways which will offer threats to the United States, to our citizens and to the people who are looking to you to see to it that their food, drugs and cosmetics are safe. Mr. Speaker, let us look at it. Foreigners are going to use this device to enter Canada to sell unsafe drugs to the American people. Do not deceive yourself to think that any one of those importers will be bound by any requirements of American law or that they will, in fact, sell those drugs at less price. They will simply sell them at U.S. market prices, and you are going to have on your hands the possibility that you have voted to injure, sicken, hurt or kill the American people by allowing the importation of unsafe drugs. Recent Counterfeits Counterfeit Lipitor Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering medicine, is used by 11 million Americans each year to help prevent serious heart disease. Last month, according to FDA, a large quantity of fake Lipitor entered the U.S. market. The product was imported to the U.S. and repackaged here, for sale to distributors and pharmacies. To date, FDA and Lipitor manufacturer Pfizer have recalled 200,000 bottles of this dangerous phony product. Fake and Mislabeled Zerit Counterfeit Zerit, a medication to treat HIV infection, was first discovered in 1997. According to the real manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, this not only was not its authentic product, but the labels incorrectly told consumers they were taking 30 mg, when in fact the capsules inside the bottles allegedly contained 40 mg of the active ingredient. Patients were exposed both to a product of unknown origin and the dangerous possibility of an overdose. Phony Clarithromycin This antibiotic, called Biaxin, is used to treat infections such as pneumonia, bronchitis, and ear infections--including infections in children. Recently, according to the drug's manufacturer, Abbott, counterfeit Biaxin, containing absolutely no active ingredient, has been found in Russia (where counterfeits make up 15 percent of the prescription drug market). Because the legal system in Russia makes pursuit and punishment of these counterfeiters difficult, these dangerous products remain available in Russia as well as for export to other lucrative markets like the U.S. Counterfeit Neurontin, Accupril, and Celebrex Counterfeits of these Pfizer products--Neurontin, for seizures in children 3 and older and adults and for treating shingles pain in adults; Accurpril, for high blood pressure; and Celebrex, for treating debilitating arthritis pain--have recently been found in California, at a company called NuCare Pharmaceuticals. Laboratory analysis confirmed no active ingredient in any of the tablets, which actually were vitamins. Neither the origin of the bottles nor the disposition of the original medications is known. Fake Allegra Fexofenadine, an important active ingredient in products to treat allergies, is sold under the name Allegra in the U.S. Recently, security personnel of the product manufacturer, Aventis, ordered Allegra from an internet site purported to be based in the UK. The product shipped was one called Telfast, a fexofenadine product sold in other countries, but not approved by the U.S. FDA. Furthermore, a stick-on label indicated an expiration date of 1/03; the product actually had expired in 1/02. Finally, although the web site appeared to be promising products from a ``safe'' country in the UK, this product came not from the UK but from Vanuatu, an island off the coast of New Zealand well known for businesses trafficking in illegitimate prescription drugs destined for the U.S. Fake Losec Losec (omeprazole), a treatment for ulcers and other gastric conditions, is sold in the U.S. as Prilosec. A generic version of Prilosec is also on the market in the U.S. Counterfeit Prilosec, according to its manufacturer AstraZeneca, was manufactured in an underground facility and distributed through an affiliated wholesaler. The counterfeiter boasted that the copies were sufficiently clever to avoid detection by the government and, in fact, only AstraZeneca had the technical information necessary to determine this product was a fake. Counterfeit Monopril Fakes of this high-blood-pressure medication were discovered earlier this year by the LA County Sheriff's Office. The counterfeit operation was uncovered after a local printing company contacted the sheriff to report a suspicious order for thousands of drug product labels. The product, vitamins substituted for the real pills, bottle caps, and seals were all counterfeit. Arrested individuals were owners of prescription drug diversion businesses in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Many other drugs found in the LA raid were expired or fake, then repackaged, relabeled, and sold to American doctors and pharmacies. Counterfeits from India According to FDA, an American patient ordered product from an internet site promising ``Canadian drugs manufactured in the U.S.'' The drug he appears to have needed was a seizure medication called gabapentin. What he received was a knock- off from India, labeled ``Gabantin.'' What IS ``gabantin?'' Only the counterfeiter in India, and the so-called ``Canadian'' on-line pharmacy knows. The patient was the unwitting dupe. Counterfeit Procrit Epoetin alpha, marketed as Procrit, treats anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease, HIV, and cancer. The first discovery of counterfeit Procrit was made in 2002; subsequent discoveries followed. The counterfeit, of unknown origin, has been found at two large wholesalers and a number of retail outlets. The counterfeit, some with 20 times less active ingredient than the real drug and some with no active ingredient but bacteria-contaminated water, appeared identical with the authentic product. Sophisticated anti- counterfeiting technology used on this product failed to challenge the ingenuity of the counterfeiters, who quickly learned to mimic it. Fake Crixivan, Pepcidine, Zoroxin, and Zocor According to Merck, the manufacturer of these products, substantial quantities of counterfeits were found in a police raid on a home in Bogota, Columbia. In addition to these products, the home possessed many other counterfeits. English language labeling suggested the final destination for many; unwary U.S. patients.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington, the most significant civil rights demonstration in United States history. The march was a watershed event that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On August 28, 1963, more than 250,000 people of all ages, races and religions traveled from every corner of America to Washington on ``freedom'' buses and trains. Some participants walked as far as 230 miles to reach our nation's capital. The march was by far the largest and most peaceful of its time and its volume greatly exceeded the expected 100,000 participants. The purpose of the March for Jobs and Freedom was to encourage passage of the Civil Rights Act presented to Congress by President John F. Kennedy. The United Auto Workers union, one of the march's biggest sponsors, printed hundreds of signs with slogans such as ``UAW Says Jobs and Freedom for Every American.'' My dear friend, colleague and genuine American hero John Lewis, had the honor of speaking alongside Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who concluded the event with his renowned ``I Have A Dream'' speech. Dr. King's eloquent words should be remembered today: ``When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: ``Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'' Reverend King's powerful words did not fall on deaf ears. After President Kennedy's tragic death, his successor President Lyndon Johnson, in his first address to Congress and the nation, called for the passage of the Civil Rights Act. ``Let us continue,'' he declared, promising that ``the ideas and the ideals which [Kennedy] so nobly represented must and will be translated into effective action.'' Finally, on July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the most important piece of civil rights legislation in United States history. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that I voted for that historic civil rights bill. I am proud of the work Congress and the Administration has done in the past 40 years to guarantee equal rights to all Americans. I ask that you and all of my colleagues rise to join me in commemorating the anniversary of this remarkable event.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bad rule on a bad bill. This is a bill which is going to come up simply because somebody wanted a vote, and it is also a bill which is going to put our senior citizens and everybody else at risk. Some of my colleagues think that prices are going to be lower. They are not. What in fact is going to happen is that the country is going to be flooded with unsafe pharmaceuticals, counterfeits, over-aged pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals that do not preserve and protect the safety of our senior citizens. That is what the House is doing. There were no hearings, there was no opportunity for the committee to consider this legislation; and as a result, we are at risk of passing legislation that is liable to hurt our senior citizens and other Americans. Let me tell my colleagues what the AMA says. These are doctors: ``We believe that H.R. 2427 would be so dangerous to patients' safety that we must oppose it. This legislation would eliminate most of the important safety restrictions on reimportation to pharmaceuticals in current law and replace them with a system of unverifiable and unsafe provisions.'' The American Osteopathic Association says, ``H.R. 2427, while increasing the possible number of drugs reimported into the United States, does nothing to ensure the safety and efficiency of these drugs. There is no bargain to be found for our patients who purchase drugs that are ineffective or contaminated.'' The Food and Drug Administration says this: ``H.R. 2427 would authorize the importation of prescription drugs from foreign sources without adequate assurance that such products are safe and effective. H.R. 2427 creates a wide channel of large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to enter the United States that are potentially injurious to the public health and pose a threat to the security of our Nation's drug supply.'' That is what my colleagues are doing here today. They are not making cheaper drugs available; they are putting our citizens at risk.