Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) allowing me to stand in opposition to the Van Hollen amendment. Today what we are talking about really is the opportunity for the taxpayer to be the winner in the work that is performed by and for the government. This amendment obviously would require that all public- private competitions be conducted under the old and wisely distrusted A-76 circular. We, in Congress, had a hand in forming not only this Commercial Activities Panel, but I think that Congress needs to listen to the changes that took place back in May from this body. Essentially, what they did is they went and looked at other areas of government that had been doing outsourcing in a positive way; what I might call best practices, a way to look at the way things should be done that would be better for not only government employees and also good for those who might be bidding, but, more importantly, to really get them up to date with the leading edge practices. Essentially what happened was there were a lot of transparencies, a lot of things that were recognized that needed to be changed. Some of them had a time frame so that these competitions did not stretch on forever. But perhaps the most important part of applying this, and these changes, is that it is going to really offer a level playing field. That is entirely different than the old A-76 process. Mr. Chairman, the old A-76 was essentially a competition where everyone bid and then the government was a part of that. These changes will create a level playing field that I think is better for government employees. Because what will happen is the competition will now be under the Federal acquisition regulations, which means that government will be able to respond to the best offer from the private sector. So the government will be able to now respond. Those employees will now be given an opportunity to see that bid and to compete against that, which gives government employees a chance, not in the whole mix, but rather specifically against the best offer to where it is a real competition. These are things that have been done in the Department of Defense for a number of years. So instead of allowing the mix where government employees would be participating against eight or ten different proposals, they now have an opportunity, under the revision that came from this Commercial Activities Panel, to update the process and make it better. Government employees now have an opportunity to compete against what is seen as the best offer. I disagree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think really what is trying to happen here is they are just trying to kill the whole process, cause a smoke screen when, in fact, we, as Members of Congress, should recognize that through a series of acts, that we have talked about and debated on the floor of the House of Representatives that we determine that the taxpayer needs the best that can come from these competitions. If it is government employees, so let it be. If it is not government employees, in a part of the business that is not inherently governmental, then it should go to whoever can do that best, who can do it at the best cost, who can provide it day in and day out to the best effort of what the taxpayer is. I will tell my colleagues that I oppose the Van Hollen amendment because I believe that the commercial activities panel who offered many unanimous recommendations, unanimous recommendations from people all over, not only unions, but also other commercial bodies, people who know the business, people who know the marketplace, people who know what is fair so that the taxpayer can get the best dollar for what they paid for, they are the people who studied this, they are the people who made the recommendations, and they said they want to be fair, fairer, best practices, not only to government employees, but also those employees who might be in another company who are competing for something that is part of the business of the United States government that is not inherently governmental. So the gentleman from Oklahoma, who is standing up today to oppose this unwise amendment, I stand with him, also. I stand with the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform who understands that we must defeat the Van Hollen amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a modest attempt to inject an objective standard into the Federal Government's Amtrak route funding decisions. Under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Federal financial assistance to cover operating losses incurred by Amtrak were to be eliminated by the year 2002. Sadly, Amtrak is nowhere near eliminating its need for Federal financial assistance to cover its operating losses. I cannot say we are any closer to achieving that goal now than we were in 1997. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 established and provided for an independent commission known as the Amtrak Reform Council, which was statutorily charged with evaluating Amtrak's performance and making recommendations for achieving further cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. Its work has not gone completely unnoticed by this Member. At least I believe one amendment and change should be made as a result of its report that was made in February 2002 to Members of Congress. Appendix V of that report, which I have blown up for Members' consideration and will include for the Record, calculates in its last column what is known as the operating ratio for each of its 2001 routes. My amendment simply states that based on each route's operation ratio, Amtrak either gets fiscal year 2004 Federal funding to operate the route or it does not. The routes highlighted in green on this chart will make the cut and receive Federal 2004 funding. Those are routes that recoup 50 cents in revenue which include State subsidies for each dollar in operating costs. The routes highlighted in red on this chart will not make the cut and will receive no fiscal year 2004 funding. I believe these routes unfairly stretch the pocketbooks of the American taxpayer and put the Amtrak system at risk. This amendment is an honest and modest attempt to inject some objectivity into the Amtrak funding process. As Members can see, the lion's share of the corridor trains will stay in business in fiscal year 2004 under my amendment. That is because they show the greatest potential for ridership and for achieving the goal of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 of eliminating Federal assistance to cover Amtrak's operating losses. Six of the 19 long-distance trains will receive 2004 Federal funding under my amendment. Those that cannot show at least $1 for every $2 in cost will not. This amendment is more than reasonable. With it, Congress simply says any passenger route that fails to generate just $1 in revenue for $2 in cost is a route not worth keeping in the upcoming financial year. This amendment also involves more than just a concentration of funds on the most visible lines of Amtrak. It also involves America's trust. The public must trust in what Congress is doing with their money. Amtrak is not a public welfare project. It provides a real service, it buys capital equipment, it owns a significant amount of real estate, and it holds substantial quantities of hard assets, all of which were once in the hands of the private sector. My amendment is also about running a railroad. If we lay any claim to being a competent governing body capable of spending taxpayer money wisely, then we have to take the responsibility for the money and we have to make sure that the way it is spent is put to good use. Putting a cap on poor performance and the routes that do not make this revenue cut simply is something that Congress must step up to the plate and address. Allowing Amtrak to operate any and all unprofitable lines without any limitation forfeits far too much of our credibility with this body that we can run a railroad or be worthy stewards of the taxpayer money.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Girardeau, Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 335 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a well-reasoned rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003. This rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides 1 hour of debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees. The rule also provides that during consideration of the bill, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003. The fact that this legislation is on the floor today demonstrates the willingness of the House Republican leadership to deal with contentious issues publicly on this House floor and to allow democracy to work by giving every Member an opportunity to cast their vote on an important issue and issues that are important to them and the American public. But, while I believe that the underlying legislation that we will bring to the floor later is well-intentioned, it is also deeply flawed and puts the health and well-being of the American public at great risk. Congress needs to find a way to provide affordable prescription drugs to all Americans. This, however, is not the way to do it. Mr. Speaker, the problems with this legislation can be divided into three main categories. First, safety; second, fairness; and, lastly, legal liability. On the topic of safety, H.R. 2427 is certain to harm Americans in a number of ways. First is the issue of verifiability. Today, on nearly every single East Asian street corner, an American traveler can pick up for only a few dollars what looks like at first inspection to be a Polo shirt that would retail in American stores for around $50. However, as anyone who has ever bought one of these shirts has learned, perhaps the hard way, after a few washings, these shirts fade, rip and generally fall apart. But I believe the consumer knew what the consumer was buying at the time that they bought it. H.R. 2427 would open American consumers of prescription medicine up to this same kind of potential scam by allowing them to be ripped off by offering an inferior product that looks like the genuine article, but with life or death consequences not associated with purchasing illegal leisure wear. The difference here is that the consumer does not know what they are purchasing. The other can be verified and they know for sure. I believe that the health and well-being of American drug consumers is all too important to allow them to be taken advantage of in this fashion by passing a law that would allow clever black market manufacturers with the capability to make superficially similar reproductions of prescription drugs and to pass them off as the real thing to unsuspecting American consumers. Of course, the difference here is that when you buy that shirt on the street corner, you know that what you are buying is probably a fake and it will fall apart after a few washings, whereas our Nation's seniors and other prescription drug buyers will think that they are getting the real thing, a mistake that could have dangerous or even fatal consequences. Another safety issue raised by this legislation is that it leaves us utterly defenseless if a health safety crisis caused by substandard or fake imported medicine is discovered. The bill would remove 16 important provisions in the U.S. law which currently protect American consumers from unsafe, counterfeit and substandard imported medicines. For example, importation would be required under H.R. 2427 even if the Secretary of Health and Human Services believes it would pose ``an additional risk to the public health and safety.'' To demonstrate the full nature of this threat, an analogy can be drawn with yet another health crisis that happened recently. Earlier this year, when there were concerns about Mad Cow Disease in cattle from Canada that might make it its way into the United States, the Food and Drug Administration took immediate action to close the border to Canadian beef. Likewise, we need the same kind of protection for counterfeit prescription drugs that may be making their way across the border. Unfortunately, this legislation provides no protection. The removal of these important safety provisions will lead to an influx of counterfeit and dangerous medicines into the United States. I believe that our public health and safety officials should have the right to close our borders to counterfeits and to importers who counterfeit prescription drugs. However, once again, H.R. 2427 would strip the ability of the Department of Health and Human Services to suspend reimportation of specific products or from specific importers, even if the agency discovers a pattern of counterfeits. Existing law already allows for reimportation of prescription drugs when the health and safety of Americans can be ensured. This bill would change that and allow importation even when health and safety could not be assured. This legislation says that safety, in essence, does not matter. But I do say that safety matters, and it should matter whether we are talking about the beef we eat or the prescription drugs that we take. Finally, this legislation poses a safety risk to consumers because it prevents consumers from being able to guarantee the source or effectiveness of their prescription drugs. In fact, in a letter to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Commissioner of the Drug Administration, Dr. Mark McClellan stated that this legislation would ``create a wide channel for large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to enter the United States that are potentially injurious to the public health and that pose a threat to the security of our Nation's drug supply.'' A real live example of this case is of an Internet-based counterfeit drug provider, TrustedCanadianPharmacy.com, that claims to be the most trusted pharmacy in Canada. The site is actually registered in Barbados which, I believe, is an island off Venezuela, not a Canadian province. The products from this site could be imported into America fraudulently, with consumers believing that they were getting reimported drugs through Canada. That is why the Canadian Government has ``never stated that it would be responsible for the safety and quality of prescription drugs exported into the United States, or any country, for that matter.'' The second set of problems created by this legislation relates to fairness, both to American consumers and to the developers of the new and innovative drugs of tomorrow. If Congress were to pass this legislation, America would be justified in importing the practices of those countries that coerce drug innovators into providing their lifesaving products at below market rates. These other countries get these anticompetitive prices for medicine by blackmailing drug innovators with the threat of breaking their patent rights and illegally transferring their intellectual property to a domestic manufacturer if they refuse to concede in providing their drugs at an artificial, nonmarket rate. As it currently stands, American prescription drug consumers already subsidize the anticompetitive practices of countries with socialized medical schemes, and I believe that is unfair. However, the answer to this problem is not to import the price controls and strong-armed tactics of the European Community. It is to address the issues through trade negotiations and the enforcement of legal mechanisms to protect American manufacturers' intellectual property. By being unfair to the producers of these innovative medicines, H.R. 2427 also has shortcomings that consumers need from these medicines to live healthy, productive, and pain-free lives. Importing the socialist price controls of other nations will create a disincentive for drug companies to reinvest in new drug research and development, and could set back the search for cures for breast cancer, AIDS, and a number of other deadly diseases for decades by starving the private sector of these funds and the incentives that it needs to conduct this ongoing, time-consuming, and often unprofitable research. In fact, in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project noted that ``It is foolhardy for Congress to double NIH research and then launch hasty reimportation schemes that will undermine the entire drug development process by opening the floodgates to counterfeits which will destroy the value of intellectual property.'' Finally, this legislation raises a number of complicated and troubling legal issues. For example, if a consumer who purchases a tampered or counterfeit medicine gets sick or simply does not get better because they are taking a counterfeit placebo, where do they turn for legal relief? Will they sue the drug manufacturer of the real drug who had nothing to do with the counterfeit product consumed? Will they sue the doctor who prescribed the medicine, thinking that their patient will be using the real or true product? Will they sue the pharmacy that reimported it? How about the hospital or medical complex where the doctor has that practice? There is no telling how great the overall drain on these productive and helpful industries could be as a result of being in court with these tort claims arising from this faulty reimportation scheme, nor is there any indication of how much this inefficiency will increase the health care and insurance costs of every American. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would create a congressionally mandated litigation disaster that has the potential to destroy the viability of health care and insurance in America. I would like to close by listing just a few of the organizations who oppose this bill: the American Medical Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Society for Women's Health Research, the Seniors Coalition, 50 Plus, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and the National Prostate Center Coalition. These are simply a few of the 200 organizations that have looked at this underlying legislation and wish to make their words known that they do not support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Surf Side, Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), one of the brightest young Members of Congress that we have.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who is the author of this legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the minority know that I have two additional speakers, but I would like for them to feel free to run down their time and then just before the gentlewoman from New York closes, we will have one speaker for 1 minute and then we will close; and if we could proceed under that agreement.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire and confirm that I have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker for about 4 minutes, and then I will consume the last 30 seconds. So I will let the gentlewoman decide if she would like to finish and then we will close.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, to answer the gentlewoman, I have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. I will use 4 minutes for a speaker to close, and then I will end the debate.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. These proposed changes will prevent the greatest scientific research and development organization in the world from continuing to solve the medical problems of tomorrow. We need to pass a prescription drug plan that reduces the cost of drugs, not one that ruins those that make drugs that solves problems, that takes care of the real-life problems that we face, moms, dads, brothers, and sisters. We need to make sure that we vote ``yes'' on the rule and that we vote ``no'' on Gutknecht to make sure that the prescription drug people who do the hard work are alive and well and provide those things that are necessary and pass a prescription drug plan that takes care of the problems with the cost of high prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this time. Tonight is a very important debate for this country. It is important for us to understand that the drugs that get reimported in this country may not be known and understood exactly for what they are by the consumers of this country. As a person who travels overseas, when I want to buy a shirt that might be on the street in Bangkok or in Shanghai, I know that that is probably a counterfeit. I buy that and purchase that shirt knowing that. But as a consumer in this country, going on the Internet, thinking I am buying something from Canada, it can be from somewhere else. It happens every day. Let us not let this happen to consumers. Let us let them know what they are buying, where they are getting it from; and let us make sure we reduce the cost of prescription drugs in this country. We have a plan to do that. That plan is called a prescription drug plan that the Republican Party has had on this floor. Let us reduce the cost of prescription drugs but let us keep our seniors safe.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. Also, he and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) are heading up this great effort from the Republican side to make sure that we work with the administration on this important effort for free trade agreements. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Singapore effort because I believe it is in the best interest of America. It is in the best interest of Singapore. These are two great nations who not only work with each other but have so much in common. This free trade agreement is going to do things which will help both countries, most specifically as it deals with intellectual property and the way we deal with each other to resolve disputes. Singapore is going to adopt as a result of this free trade agreement laws which are the same or similar to the United States so that our companies, people who do business back and forth, have an opportunity to look at the same type of legal system in the resolution of disputes. As was noted on June 10, Tom Lipscomb wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ``Entertainment content is now [America's] largest export, and information is the basis of more than half of gross domestic product'' of America. We need to make sure intellectual property, we need to make sure that the content that is a valuable asset of United States of America has an opportunity to have a free and open day in court wherever we sell these intellectual property possessions that the United States has. Singapore is a good friend of America. We are going to find that as we work through free trade agreements that this will become the gold standard as we deal with other places all around the globe. I support the free trade agreement with Singapore. I thank the gentleman from California for his expert leadership and his vision in making sure that with our President that we have friends all around the globe that enjoy the same opportunities that we do in America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Singapore free trade agreement with the United States. This week we will be debating and voting on the free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. I stand in support of these because I believe that these agreements will not only nurture our friendship and relationship with these great nations, but also will be in the best interests of the United States. In terms of direct economic benefits, there are three broad areas that I believe in particular the United States will gain benefit from with this free trade agreement with Singapore: goods, services, and intellectual property. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is friends with Singapore, and we value the relationship we have. The relationship with Singapore's ambassador to the United States and also our relationship with Singapore is one that needs to be strengthened and nurtured. By signing this free trade agreement, we are going to bring into play the opportunity for America and Singapore, who we already share so many good things in context with from business relationships, but we are going to codify this free trade agreement around the ability we have in our legal systems to not only work together and agree with the differences that we may have, but to be able to do business in an ever- increasing small world, a world where the things that we do here in the United States are the things that are done in Singapore, and to make sure these difference are resolved properly. Intellectual property is one of the key components of the intelligence and strength of this country, and I believe that this free trade agreement will allow the free flow of not only intellectual property but the things that come as a result of that. This agreement updates also Singapore's intellectual property laws, and as was noted by Thomas Lipscomb on June 10 in the Wall Street Journal, ``Entertainment content is now America's largest export, and information is the basis of more than half of our gross domestic product.'' Mr. Speaker, I will tell Members that this free trade agreement with Singapore is going to be one that will benefit Singapore and the great people of this Nation. I stand in support of this free trade agreement. It is about jobs, about intellectual property, it is about goods and services. It is about a relationship with one of America's greatest trading partners and allies, Singapore.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.