[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 8, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H3780-H3823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 185 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1906.
{time} 1215
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1906) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Pease in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May
26, 1999, the amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) had
been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 13, line
1, to page 14, line 19.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee of the Whole has had this bill under
consideration for 2 days. We have consumed about 11 hours of floor time
so far. We have disposed of 10 amendments by recorded votes and we have
reached page 14 of a 70-page appropriations bill. I believe that this
is a record for this bill. I rise to make the point that the membership
has been very strong in its support of the Committee on Appropriations
and of the votes cast on the 10 amendments; over 70 percent have
supported the committee's recommendations and less than 30 percent have
opposed them. I want to take this opportunity to thank the membership
for supporting our work and to ask for its continued support.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inform the House that we are going
to proceed forward on this bill today. It is our hope, in view of the
crisis in rural America, we can move through it expeditiously. We look
forward to working with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and
to try to move through the amendments that remain. I think further
delay is not in the interest of the Nation. We would like to move this
bill to conference as quickly as possible. We look forward to
proceeding with the amendments in order. I look forward to the first
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be
available to carry out research related to the production,
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
native american institutions endowment fund
For establishment of a Native American institutions
endowment fund, as authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C.
301 note), $4,600,000.
extension activities
Payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and
American Samoa: for payments for cooperative extension work
under the Smith-Lever Act, to be distributed under sections
3(b) and 3(c) of said Act, and under section 208(c) of Public
Law 93-471, for retirement and employees' compensation costs
for extension agents and for costs of penalty mail for
cooperative extension agents and State extension directors,
$276,548,000; payments for extension work at the 1994
Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)),
$2,060,000; payments for the nutrition and family education
program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act,
$58,695,000; payments for the pest management program under
section 3(d) of the Act, $10,783,000; payments for the farm
safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $3,000,000;
payments for the pesticide impact assessment program under
section 3(d) of the Act, $3,214,000; payments to upgrade
research, extension, and teaching facilities at the 1890
land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University, as
authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 95-113 (7 U.S.C.
3222b), $8,426,000, to remain available until expended;
payments for the rural development centers under section 3(d)
of the Act, $908,000; payments for a groundwater quality
program under section 3(d) of the Act, $9,561,000; payments
for youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the Act,
$9,000,000; payments for a food safety program under section
3(d) of the Act, $7,365,000; payments for carrying out the
provisions of the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978,
$3,192,000; payments for Indian reservation agents under
section 3(d) of the Act, $1,714,000; payments for sustainable
agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the Act,
$3,309,000; payments for rural health and safety education as
authorized by section 2390 of Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C.
2661 note, 2662), $2,628,000; payments for cooperative
extension work by the colleges receiving the benefits of the
second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) and Tuskegee
University, $25,843,000; and for Federal administration and
coordination including administration of the Smith-Lever Act,
and the Act of September 29, 1977 (7 U.S.C. 341-349), and
section 1361(c) of the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 301
note), and to coordinate and provide program leadership for
the extension work of the Department and the several States
and insular possessions, $12,741,000; in all, $438,987,000:
Provided, That funds hereby appropriated pursuant to section
3(c) of the Act of June 26, 1953, and section 506 of the Act
of June 23, 1972, shall not be paid to any State, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin
Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa
prior to availability of an equal sum from non-Federal
sources for expenditure during the current fiscal year.
integrated activities
For the integrated research, education, and extension
competitive grants programs, including necessary
administrative expenses, $10,000,000.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to
administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress
for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the
Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration, $618,000.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those
pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947 (21 U.S.C. 114b-c),
necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant
and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and
regulatory activities; to discharge the authorities of the
Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of March 2, 1931 (46
Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b); and to protect the
environment, as authorized by law, $444,000,000, of which
$4,105,000 shall be available for the control of outbreaks of
insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and for control of
pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to meet
emergency conditions: Provided, That no funds shall be used
to formulate or administer a brucellosis eradication program
for the current fiscal year that does not require minimum
matching by the States of at least 40 percent: Provided
further, That this appropriation shall be available for field
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and
the purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for
replacement only: Provided further, That, in addition, in
emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural
production industry of this country, the Secretary may
transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the
agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as may
be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies
for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious
disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for
expenses in accordance with the Act of February 28, 1947, and
section 102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, and any
unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency
purposes in the next preceding fiscal year shall be merged
with such transferred amounts: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law
(7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased
[[Page H3781]]
buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the
cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year
shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value
of the building.
In fiscal year 2000, the agency is authorized to collect
fees to cover the total costs of providing technical
assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other
political subdivisions, domestic and international
organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided
that such fees are structured such that any entity's
liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical
assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the
agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to
remain available until expended, without further
appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or
services.
Of the total amount available under this heading in fiscal
year 2000, $87,000,000 shall be derived from user fees
deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee
Account.
buildings and facilities
For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance,
environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 428a, $7,200,000, to remain available until expended.
Agricultural Marketing Service
marketing services
For necessary expenses to carry on services related to
consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution,
transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by
law, and for administration and coordination of payments to
States, including field employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225) and not to exceed $90,000 for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109, $49,152,000, including funds for the wholesale
market development program for the design and development of
wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major
metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C.
2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization
activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31
U.S.C. 9701).
limitation on administrative level
Not to exceed $60,730,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative
expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this
limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the
Appropriations Committees.
funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)
(including transfers of funds)
Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24,
1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program
expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating
expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of
Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August
8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and
(3) not more than $12,443,000 for formulation and
administration of marketing agreements and orders pursuant to
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and the
Agricultural Act of 1961.
payments to states and possessions
For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and
departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing
activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,200,000.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of
the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures
used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the
standardization activities related to grain under the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including field
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $26,448,000:
Provided, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant
to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of
buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one
building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent
of the current replacement value of the building.
limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses
Not to exceed $42,557,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and
weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities
require additional supervision and oversight, or other
uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded
by up to 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations
Committees.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws
enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, $446,000.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act,
$652,955,000, and in addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to
this account from fees collected for the cost of laboratory
accreditation as authorized by section 1017 of Public Law
102-237: Provided, That this appropriation shall not be
available for shell egg surveillance under section 5(d) of
the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(d)): Provided
further, That this appropriation shall be available for field
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$75,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration
and repair of buildings and improvements, but the cost of
altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not
exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value of the
building.
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to
administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service
Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management
Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $572,000.
Farm Service Agency
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs administered by the Farm
Service Agency, $794,839,000: Provided, That the Secretary is
authorized to use the services, facilities, and authorities
(but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make program payments for all programs administered by the
Agency: Provided further, That other funds made available to
the Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and
merged with this account: Provided further, That these funds
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
state mediation grants
For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), $4,000,000.
dairy indemnity program
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity
payments to dairy farmers for milk or cows producing such
milk and manufacturers of dairy products who have been
directed to remove their milk or dairy products from
commercial markets because it contained residues of chemicals
registered and approved for use by the Federal Government,
and in making indemnity payments for milk, or cows producing
such milk, at a fair market value to any dairy farmer who is
directed to remove his milk from commercial markets because
of: (1) the presence of products of nuclear radiation or
fallout if such contamination is not due to the fault of the
farmer; or (2) residues of chemicals or toxic substances not
included under the first sentence of the Act of August 13,
1968 (7 U.S.C. 450j), if such chemicals or toxic substances
were not used in a manner contrary to applicable regulations
or labeling instructions provided at the time of use and the
contamination is not due to the fault of the farmer,
$450,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C.
2209b): Provided, That none of the funds contained in this
Act shall be used to make indemnity payments to any farmer
whose milk was removed from commercial markets as a result of
the farmer's willful failure to follow procedures prescribed
by the Federal Government: Provided further, That this amount
shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit Corporation:
Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to utilize
the services, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity
Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity
disbursements.
agricultural credit insurance fund program account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to
be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance
Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $559,422,000, of
which $431,373,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating
loans, $2,295,284,000, of which $1,697,842,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $97,442,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition
loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $1,028,000; for
emergency insured loans, $53,000,000 to meet the needs
resulting from natural disasters; and for boll weevil
eradication program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989,
$100,000,000.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership
loans, $7,243,000, of which $2,416,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans; operating loans,
[[Page H3782]]
$61,825,000, of which $23,940,000 shall be for unsubsidized
guaranteed loans and $8,585,000 shall be for subsidized
guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as
authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $21,000; and for emergency
insured loans, $8,231,000 to meet the needs resulting from
natural disasters.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $214,161,000, of
which $209,861,000 shall be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Risk Management Agency
For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 6933), $70,716,000: Provided, That not to exceed $700
shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).
CORPORATIONS
The following corporations and agencies are hereby
authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds
and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set
forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such
corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act, such sums as may be necessary, to remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
reimbursement for net realized losses
For fiscal year 2000, such sums as may be necessary to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized
losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to
be $14,368,000,000 in the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget
Request (H. Doc. 106-3)), but not to exceed $14,368,000,000,
pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15
U.S.C. 713a-11).
operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management
For fiscal year 2000, the Commodity Credit Corporation
shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for expenses to comply
with the requirement of section 107(g) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42
U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6961: Provided, That expenses
shall be for operations and maintenance costs only and that
other hazardous waste management costs shall be paid for by
the USDA Hazardous Waste Management appropriation in this
Act.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
$693,000.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
conservation operations
For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of
the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including
preparation of conservation plans and establishment of
measures to conserve soil and water (including farm
irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for
soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent
floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control
agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation
plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil;
dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water,
and interests therein for use in the plant materials program
by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to
exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C.
428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of
permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and
maintenance of aircraft, $654,243,000, to remain available
until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than
$6,124,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting and not
less than $9,238,000 is for operation and establishment of
the plant materials centers: Provided, That appropriations
hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for
construction and improvement of buildings and public
improvements at plant materials centers, except that the cost
of alterations and improvements to other buildings and other
public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: Provided
further, That when buildings or other structures are erected
on non-Federal land, that the right to use such land is
obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further,
That this appropriation shall be available for technical
assistance and related expenses to carry out programs
authorized by section 202(c) of title II of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)):
Provided further, That no part of this appropriation may be
expended for soil and water conservation operations under the
Act of April 27, 1935 in demonstration projects: Provided
further, That this appropriation shall be available for
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$25,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109: Provided further, That qualified local engineers may be
temporarily employed at per diem rates to perform the
technical planning work of the Service (16 U.S.C. 590e-2).
watershed surveys and planning
For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation,
and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and
for small watershed investigations and planning, in
accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009),
$10,368,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of
section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225),
and not to exceed $110,000 shall be available for employment
under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
watershed and flood prevention operations
For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures,
including but not limited to research, engineering
operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in
use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-
1005 and 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of April 27,
1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the
provisions of laws relating to the activities of the
Department, $99,443,000, to remain available until expended
(7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which up to $15,000,000 may be available
for the watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act
approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a)):
Provided, That not to exceed $47,000,000 of this
appropriation shall be available for technical assistance:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available
for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section
706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to
exceed $200,000 shall be available for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000
of this appropriation is available to carry out the purposes
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205),
including cooperative efforts as contemplated by that Act to
relocate endangered or threatened species to other suitable
habitats as may be necessary to expedite project
construction.
resource conservation and development
For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out
projects for resource conservation and development and for
sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of
title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C.
1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), the Act of April 27, 1935 (16
U.S.C. 590a-f), and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16
U.S.C. 3451-3461), $35,265,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs
under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing
Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the
Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture,
$588,000.
Rural Community Advancement Program
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, 1926d, and
1932, except for sections 381E, 381G, 381H, 381N, and 381O of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
2009f), $666,103,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $34,387,000 shall be for rural community programs
described in section 381E(d)(1) of such Act; of which
$579,216,000 shall be for the rural utilities programs
described in sections 381E(d)(2), 306C(a)(2), and 306D of
such Act; and of which $52,500,000 shall be for the rural
business and cooperative development programs described in
sections 381E(d)(3) and 310B(f) of such Act: Provided, That
of the amount appropriated for rural community programs,
$5,000,000 shall be made available for hazardous weather
early warning systems; and $6,000,000 shall be available for
a Rural Community Development Initiative: Provided further,
That of the amount appropriated for the rural business and
cooperative development programs, not to exceed $500,000
shall be made available for a grant to a qualified national
organization to provide technical assistance for rural
transportation in order to promote economic development; and
$5,000,000 shall be made available for partnership technical
assistance grants to rural communities: Provided further,
That of the amount appropriated for rural utilities programs,
not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for water and waste
disposal systems to benefit the Colonias along the United
States/Mexico border, including grants pursuant to section
306C of such Act; not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for
water and waste disposal systems for rural and native
villages in Alaska pursuant to section 306D of such Act; not
to exceed $16,215,000 shall be for technical assistance
grants for rural waste systems pursuant to section 306(a)(14)
of such
[[Page H3783]]
Act; and not to exceed $5,300,000 shall be for contracting
with qualified national organizations for a circuit rider
program to provide technical assistance for rural water
systems: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, not to exceed $45,245,000 shall be available
through June 30, 2000, for empowerment zones and enterprise
communities, as authorized by Public Law 103-66, of which
$2,106,000 shall be for rural community programs described in
section 381E(d)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act; of which $34,704,000 shall be for the rural
utilities programs described in section 381E(d)(2) of such
Act; of which $8,435,000 shall be for the rural business and
cooperative development programs described in section
381E(d)(3) of such Act: Provided further, That any obligated
and unobligated balances available from prior years for the
``Rural Utilities Assistance Program'' account shall be
transferred to and merged with this account.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 35, line 7 (relating to the rural community
advancement program), insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 53, line 7 (relating to ocean freight differential
grants), insert after the dollar amount the following:
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering would provide
$1 million in the rural community advancement program in order to fund
a national pilot program to promote agritourism. The purpose of this
program is to provide another means of income for America's struggling
family farmers. I think the plight of the family farmer in America is
well documented and I do not need to get into it at this time. But I
believe that the body here knows that many, many thousands of
hardworking family farmers are struggling to keep their farms afloat
and to keep their heads above water. I am impressed with the work done
in the chairman's home State of New Mexico with agritourism, and I know
the gentleman from New Mexico has been very active in this program. I
think it would be very useful to farmers in the State of Vermont and
farmers throughout this country to expand this general concept into a
national program. The concept here is that in States throughout this
country, tourism brings in substantial sums of money. One of the
reasons people come to the State of Vermont or come to many of the
other beautiful States in this country is because of the work done by
family farmers in keeping the land open and keeping our landscape
beautiful.
Unfortunately, in many areas throughout the State, the farmers
themselves do not substantially benefit from the tourism that comes
into rural areas. So it seems to me that if we could get a pilot
program developed at the Federal level by which States can develop
their own innovative programs, this would be a means by which tourism
dollars can come into the hands of farmers and I think would well serve
rural America.
My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the chairman of the committee
has agreed to accept this amendment. I am very grateful to him for
that.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, this amendment
has a lot of value for the rural parts of the United States. We have a
program in New Mexico that was patterned after the same one that the
gentleman is headed for. We accept the amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to rise
in support of this important amendment and to say that we would
certainly want to encourage the Department of Agriculture to do as good
a job as possible on linking many of the rural events around the
country, many of our special fairs, rural shows, whether it is
equipment, whether it is planting or whatever it might be. This is an
incredible display of American innovation and creativity. I just really
want to compliment the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for seeing
this opportunity which can benefit Vermont, an incredible State. I am
so happy to have traveled there myself, just the sheer beauty of it
would be of interest to our own people and people from abroad, but all
of the counties and townships and communities across the country that
are bringing forth their wares and their culture and to make this more
open and available to people who are touring. I just think the
gentleman has an excellent idea and support this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member very
much for their support. The bottom line is that we are all fighting
very hard to see that our family farmers survive. Agritourism is one
way we can get some cash into the pockets of our family farmers. I
thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their support.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Rural Housing Service
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing
insurance fund, as follows: $4,537,632,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of
which $3,200,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed
loans; $32,400,000 for section 504 housing repair loans;
$100,000,000 for section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing
loans; $25,000,000 for section 514 farm labor housing;
$120,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; $5,152,000 for
section 524 site loans; $7,503,000 for credit sales of
acquired property, of which up to $1,250,000 may be for
multi-family credit sales; and $5,000,000 for section 523
self-help housing land development loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502
loans, $133,620,000, of which $19,520,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair
loans, $9,900,000; section 538 multi-family housing
guaranteed loans, $480,000; section 514 farm labor housing,
$11,308,000; section 515 rental housing, $47,616,000; section
524 site loans, $4,000; credit sales of acquired property,
$874,000, of which up to $494,250 may be for multi-family
credit sales; and section 523 self-help housing land
development loans, $281,000: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated in this paragraph, $9,829,000 shall be
for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as
authorized by Public Law 103-66, empowerment zones as
authorized by Section 951 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-34), enterprise communities as authorized by
Division A, Title VII, Section 766 of the Fiscal Year 1999
Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-277), and
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones: Provided further, That
if such funds are not obligated for empowerment zones and
enterprise communities by June 30, 2000, they shall remain
available for other authorized purposes under this head.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $377,879,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Housing Service, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 18 offered by Ms. Kaptur:
In the third paragraph under the headings ``Rural Housing
Service'' and ``rural housing insurance fund program account
(including transfers of funds)'', strike the period at the
end of the paragraph and insert the following: ``: Provided,
That of this amount the Secretary of Agriculture may transfer
up to $7,000,000 to the appropriation for `Outreach for
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers'.''.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment relates to a special effort
for outreach for our socially disadvantaged farmers. Members might
recall, last year we made an effort to try to help the Department of
Agriculture to resolve former civil rights problems that existed with
loan programs and programs that were there to reach many of the small-
scale farmers and ranchers, those grants that go through our 1890 and
1862 land grant institutions, American Indian community colleges,
Hispanic- and Latino-serving institutions, as well as all minorities
involved in agriculture. I think we did a good job of it. We took the
unusual step of waiving statutes of limitation to allow complaints
involving racial discrimination to move forward. This
[[Page H3784]]
amendment this year would not increase the budget but would merely
allow the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer up to $7 million from
the rural housing salaries and expenses account to this program. If the
Secretary uses the full authority to do that, that would mean that this
outreach program for socially disadvantaged farmers would be brought up
to the $10 million request level by the administration for fiscal year
2000. This program is important, because it provides technical and
managerial assistance to small-scale farmers and ranchers. There is a
particular emphasis in the program on farmers from minority groups, but
the program is not just limited to racial or ethnic minorities. It is
carried out through grants to colleges and universities, including the
1890 and 1862 land grant institutions, American Indian community
colleges and Hispanic- and Latino-serving institutions as well as
through grants to community-based organizations throughout our country.
These institutions and organizations in turn provide intensive training
and management assistance to small farmers and ranchers. This
assistance includes, for example, preparing individualized farm plans,
helping in upgrading accounting systems, and applying for credit, aid
and better understanding and taking advantage of USDA programs and
services.
This outreach is especially crucial now because of the crisis
afflicting rural America. And it is vital to helping small and minority
farmers and ranchers weather these hard times and stay on the land. I
think it also adds to an important civil rights sensitivity that we
need to continue pressing at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I want to compliment Secretary Glickman and his staff for being open
to the efforts of this Congress to serve all of America. For these
reasons, I am pleased to offer this amendment. I greatly appreciate the
support of the gentleman from New Mexico for this initiative, and I
urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I support the adoption of the gentlewoman's
amendment. I thank her for her concern. The committee has increased
funding for civil rights programs at USDA in the past several years but
progress has fallen far short of their expectation.
{time} 1230
The 2501 program has been moved within the bureaucracy several times,
and it has never been audited. I believe the committee should look
carefully at this program again next year to make sure that eligible
farmers and ranchers get the full benefit of this particular amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Rental Assistance Program
For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed
pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or
agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or
payments for eligible households as authorized by section
502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended,
$583,400,000; and, in addition, such sums as may be
necessary, as authorized by section 521(c) of the Act, to
liquidate debt incurred prior to fiscal year 1992 to carry
out the rental assistance program under section 521(a)(2) of
the Act: Provided, That of this amount, not more than
$5,900,000 shall be available for debt forgiveness or
payments for eligible households as authorized by section
502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to exceed $10,000 per
project for advances to nonprofit organizations or public
agencies to cover direct costs (other than purchase price)
incurred in purchasing projects pursuant to section
502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That agreements
entered into or renewed during fiscal year 2000 shall be
funded for a five-year period, although the life of any such
agreement may be extended to fully utilize amounts obligated.
Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants
For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A)
of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $28,000,000, to
remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided,
That of the total amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be
for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as
authorized by Public Law 103-66, empowerment zones as
authorized by Section 951 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-34), enterprise communities as authorized by
Division A, Title VII, Section 766 of the Fiscal Year 1999
Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-277), and
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones: Provided further, That
if such funds are not obligated for empowerment zones and
enterprise communities by June 30, 2000, they shall remain
available for other authorized purposes under this head.
Rural Housing Assistance Grants
For grants and contracts for housing for domestic farm
labor, very low-income housing repair, supervisory and
technical assistance, compensation for construction defects,
and rural housing preservation made by the Rural Housing
Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1474, 1479(c), 1486,
1490e, and 1490m, $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated,
$3,250,000 shall be for empowerment zones and enterprise
communities, as authorized by Public Law 103-66, empowerment
zones as authorized by Section 951 of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 (Public Law 105-34), enterprise communities as
authorized by Division A, Title VII, Section 766 of the
Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-
277), and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones:
Provided further, That if such funds are not obligated for
empowerment zones and enterprise communities by June 30,
2000, they shall remain available for other authorized
purposes under this head.
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Rural Housing Service,
including administering the programs authorized by the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, title V of the
Housing Act of 1949, and cooperative agreements, $61,979,000:
Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$520,000 may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109:
Provided further, That the Administrator may expend not more
than $10,000 to provide modest nonmonetary awards to non-USDA
employees.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $22,799,000, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)):
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans of $52,495,000: Provided
further, That of the total amount appropriated, $4,343,000
shall be available for the cost of direct loans for
empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized
by Public Law 103-66, empowerment zones as authorized by
Section 951 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law
105-34), enterprise communities as authorized by Division A,
Title VII, Section 766 of the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus
Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-277), and communities
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic
Area Partnership Zones, to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans, $10,000,000: Provided
further, That if such funds are not obligated for empowerment
zones and enterprise communities by June 30, 2000, they shall
remain available for other authorized purposes under this
head.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan programs, $3,337,000 shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Business-
Cooperative Service, Salaries and Expenses''.
rural economic development loans program account
(including transfers of funds)
For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized
under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, $15,000,000.
For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of
modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,453,000.
Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit
payments in fiscal year 2000, as authorized by section 313 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $3,453,000 shall not
be obligated and $3,453,000 are rescinded.
rural cooperative development grants
For rural cooperative development grants authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $6,000,000, of which
$1,500,000 shall be available for cooperative agreements for
the appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program
and $1,500,000 for cooperative research agreements.
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative
Service, including administering the programs authorized by
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act; section 1323
of the Food Security Act of 1985; the Cooperative Marketing
Act of 1926; for activities relating to the marketing aspects
of cooperatives, including economic research findings, as
authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; for
activities with institutions concerning the development and
operation of agricultural cooperatives; and for cooperative
agreements; $24,612,000: Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
[[Page H3785]]
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $260,000 may be used for
employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Rural Utilities Service
rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account
(including transfers of funds)
Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be
made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans,
$121,500,000; 5 percent rural telecommunications loans,
$75,000,000; cost of money rural telecommunications loans,
$300,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans,
$295,000,000; and loans made pursuant to section 306 of that
Act, rural electric, $1,500,000,000 and rural
telecommunications, $120,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936),
as follows: cost of rural electric loans, $11,922,000, and
the cost of telecommunications loans, $3,210,000: Provided,
That notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may
exceed 7 percent per year.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $31,046,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Utilities Service, Salaries and
Expenses''.
rural telephone bank program account
(including transfers of funds)
The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such
expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such
corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts
and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as may be necessary in carrying out its authorized
programs. During fiscal year 2000 and within the resources
and authority available, gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans shall be $175,000,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935), $3,290,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the loan programs, $3,000,000, which shall be transferred
to and merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Utilities
Service, Salaries and Expenses''.
distance learning and telemedicine program
For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., $16,700,000, to remain available until
expended, to be available for loans and grants for
telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas:
Provided, That the costs of direct loans shall be as defined
in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Rural Utilities Service,
including administering the programs authorized by the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, and the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act, and for cooperative agreements,
$34,107,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of
section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225),
and not to exceed $105,000 may be used for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and
Nutrition Service, $554,000.
Food and Nutrition Service
child nutrition programs
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.),
except sections 17 and 21; $9,547,028,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2001, of which $4,611,829,000
is hereby appropriated and $4,935,199,000 shall be derived by
transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That none of the
funds made available under this heading shall be used for
studies and evaluations: Provided further, That up to
$4,363,000 shall be available for independent verification of
school food service claims: Provided further, That none of
the funds under this heading shall be available unless the
value of bonus commodities provided under section 32 of the
Act of August 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 774, chapter 641; 7 U.S.C.
612c), and section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7
U.S.C. 1431) is included in meeting the minimum commodity
assistance requirement of section 6(g) of the National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(g)).
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(wic)
For necessary expenses to carry out the special
supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
$4,005,000,000, to remain available through September 30,
2001: Provided, That none of the funds made available under
this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations:
Provided further, That of the total amount available, the
Secretary shall obligate $10,000,000 for the farmers' market
nutrition program within 45 days of the enactment of this
Act, and an additional $5,000,000 for the farmers' market
nutrition program from any funds not needed to maintain
current caseload levels: Provided further, That none of the
funds in this Act shall be available to pay administrative
expenses of WIC clinics except those that have an announced
policy of prohibiting smoking within the space used to carry
out the program: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this account shall be available for the purchase
of infant formula except in accordance with the cost
containment and competitive bidding requirements specified in
section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
food stamp program
For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $21,577,444,000, of which $100,000,000
shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and
at such times as may become necessary to carry out program
operations: Provided, That none of the funds made available
under this head shall be used for studies and evaluations:
Provided further, That funds provided herein shall be
expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food Stamp Act:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be subject to
any work registration or workfare requirements as may be
required by law: Provided further, That funds made available
for Employment and Training under this head shall remain
available until expended, as authorized by section 16(h)(1)
of the Food Stamp Act.
Commodity assistance program
For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity
supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C.
612c note) and the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983,
$141,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2001:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities
donated to the program.
food donations programs
For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C.
612c note); special assistance for the nuclear affected
islands as authorized by section 103(h)(2) of the Compacts of
Free Association Act of 1985, as amended; and section 311 of
the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3030a),
$141,081,000, to remain available through September 30, 2001.
food program administration
For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food
programs funded under this Act, $108,561,000, of which
$5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying
procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations,
improving food stamp coupon handling, and assistance in the
prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and
other violations of law: Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service,
including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities
abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and
integrate activities of the Department in connection with
foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $128,000
for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to
section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766),
$137,768,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances
of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures
made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private
organizations and institutions under agreements executed
pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance
programs (7 U.S.C. 1736) and the foreign assistance programs
of the United States Agency for International Development.
None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products.
Public Law 480 Program Account
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of Public Law 83-480 title
I credit agreements, including the cost of modifying credit
arrangements under said Act, $165,400,000, to remain
available until expended.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out such
title I credit program, and the Food for Progress Act of
1985, as amended, to the extent funds appropriated for Public
Law 83-480 are utilized, $1,938,000, of which not to exceed
$1,093,000 may be transferred to and merged with ``Salaries
and Expenses'', Foreign Agricultural Service, and of
[[Page H3786]]
which not to exceed $845,000 may be transferred to and merged
with ``Salaries and Expenses'', Farm Service Agency (7 U.S.C.
1691, 1701-04, 1731-36g-3, 2209b).
Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants
For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon under the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, $14,000,000, to remain
available until expended for ocean freight differential costs
for the shipment of agricultural commodities pursuant to
title I of said Act, including Food for Progress programs as
authorized by the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided, That funds made available for the cost of title I
agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be
used interchangeably between the two accounts (7 U.S.C.
1701b, 2209b).
Public Law 480 Grants--Titles II and III
(including transfers of funds)
For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, $837,000,000 for
commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
pursuant to title II of said Act: Provided, That sums made
available to carry out title II or title III of said Act
shall remain available until September 30, 2003 (7 U.S.C.
1691, 1721-26a, 1727-27e, 1731-36g-3, 1737, 2209b).
Of the funds made available by this Act to carry out the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954,
not to exceed 15 percent of the funds made available to carry
out any title of said Act may be used to carry out any other
title of said Act.
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity
Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and
GSM 103, $4,085,000; to cover common overhead expenses as
permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, of which $3,413,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural
Service and General Sales Manager'' and $672,000 may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for ``Farm
Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.
TITLE VI
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration,
including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for
payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public
Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of
special purpose space in the District of Columbia or
elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of
enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the
Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's
certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $1,218,384,000, of which
not to exceed $145,434,000 in prescription drug user fees
authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379(h) may be credited to this
appropriation and remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $100,180,000 shall be for payments to the
General Services Administration for rent and related costs.
In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C.
263(b) may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended.
In addition, export certification user fees authorized by
21 U.S.C. 381 may be credited to this account, to remain
available until expended.
Buildings and Facilities
For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $31,750,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; the rental of
space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for
employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $65,000,000, including not to
exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to
charge reasonable fees to attendees of Commission sponsored
educational events and symposia to cover the Commission's
costs of providing those events and symposia, and
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall be credited
to this account, to be available without further
appropriation.
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Not to exceed $35,800,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for the fiscal year 2000 under this Act shall be
available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically
provided for, of not to exceed 365 passenger motor vehicles,
of which 361 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire
of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of
Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is not to offer an amendment. I just want to assure
the chairman and ranking member there was a statement I wanted to make
very briefly concerning the Food and Drug Administration Modernization
Act which was a significant reform allowing for the expedited approval
of food contract substances principally used in plastic, paper and
aluminum food packaging, and under this innovative program approvals
which currently take unto 6 years can be accomplished in as little as
120 days while still assuring the safety of these materials. Employers
in my district would benefit from this program which would speed the
introduction of new packaging materials and new uses for existing ones.
I appreciate the committee's statement recognizing the value of this
regulatory reform, but I am concerned that the necessary funds have yet
to be appropriated since both the committee and the administration are
counting on the authorization of user fees. Although the industries
benefiting from this program are willing to support reasonable use of
fees, an authorization by Congress this year is not guaranteed. In
fact, as of today no fee authorization bill has been introduced much
less discussed in any detail.
I just wanted to point this out and I say it would be a shame if this
innovative new program were to fall between the cracks, and as this
bill moves along, in the process I would hope that the chairman and
ranking member would work to assure that at least the authorized levels
of funding could be made available in the event that a fee system
cannot be enacted in time for Fiscal Year 2000.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of
the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and
service work authorized by the Acts of August 14, 1946, and
July 28, 1954 (7 U.S.C. 427 and 1621-1629), and by chapter 63
of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for
contracting in accordance with said Acts and chapter.
Sec. 704. The cumulative total of transfers to the Working
Capital Fund for the purpose of accumulating growth capital
for data services and National Finance Center operations
shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided, That no funds in this
Act appropriated to an agency of the Department shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval
of the agency administrator.
Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet
emergency conditions, fruit fly program, integrated systems
acquisition project, boll weevil program, up to 10 percent of
the screwworm program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs
associated with collocating regional offices; Farm Service
Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county
committees; and Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income
country training program.
New obligational authority for the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, field automation and information
management project; funds appropriated for rental payments;
funds for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund in
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service; and funds for the competitive research grants (7
U.S.C. 450i(b)), shall remain available until expended.
Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations
available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall
be available to provide appropriate orientation and language
training pursuant to Public Law 94-449.
Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar
[[Page H3787]]
arrangements between the United States Department of
Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
commodities acquired by the Department in connection with
Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support
operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c
and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in
cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of
other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such
space will be jointly occupied.
Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to pay indirect costs charged against agricultural research,
education, or extension grant awards issued by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
that exceed 19 percent of total Federal funds provided under
each award: Provided, That notwithstanding section 1462 of
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this
Act for grants awarded competitively by the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service shall be available
to pay full allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded
under the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982,
Public Law 97-219 (15 U.S.C. 638).
Sec. 712. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered
estimates, not limitations.
Sec. 713. Appropriations for the Rural Housing Insurance
Fund Program Account for the cost of direct and guaranteed
loans made available in fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999 shall remain available until expended to cover
obligations made in each of those fiscal years respectively
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1557.
Sec. 714. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
fiscal year 2000 shall remain available until expended to
cover obligations made in fiscal year 2000 for the following
accounts: the rural development loan fund program account;
the Rural Telephone Bank program account; the rural
electrification and telecommunications loans program account;
the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account; and the
rural economic development loans program account.
Sec. 715. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2000 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act.
Sec. 716. Notwithstanding the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act, marketing services of the Agricultural
Marketing Service; Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements to
reflect a relationship between the Agricultural Marketing
Service, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, or the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a
State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing
programs, to carry out programs to protect the Nation's
animal and plant resources, or to carry out educational
programs or special studies to improve the safety of the
Nation's food supply.
Sec. 717. Notwithstanding the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act, the Natural Resources Conservation Service may
enter into contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with
a State agency or subdivision, or a public or private
organization, for the acquisition of goods or services,
including personal services, to carry out natural resources
conservation activities: Provided, That Commodity Credit
Corporation funds obligated for such purposes shall not
exceed the level obligated by the Commodity Credit
Corporation for such purposes in fiscal year 1998.
Sec. 718. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural
Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount
within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the
creation of which has not specifically been authorized by
statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury
or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of
the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which
is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall
receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in
section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Sec. 719. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of
Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated
rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively
awarded grants: Provided, That interagency funding is
authorized to carry out the purposes of the National Drought
Policy Commission.
Sec. 720. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to carry out the provisions of section 918 of Public Law
104-127, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act.
Sec. 721. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may
be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by
this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for
more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Sec. 722. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to
transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of
Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that
are a result of information requested for the appropriations
hearing process.
Sec. 723. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire
new information technology systems or significant upgrades,
as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior
approval of the Committee on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress.
Sec. 724. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or
provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2000, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Committee on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress are notified fifteen days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by
previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this
Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in
fiscal year 2000, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Committee on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress are notified fifteen days in
advance of such reprogramming of funds.
Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act or any other Act may be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the Fund for
Rural America Program, authorized by section 793 of Public
Law 104-127, with the exception of funds made available under
that section on January 1, 1997.
Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality
incentives program authorized by sections 334-341 of Public
Law 104-127 in excess of $174,000,000.
Sec. 727. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
available to the Department of Agriculture may be used to
administer the provision of contract payments to a producer
under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201
et seq.) for contract acreage on which wild rice is planted
unless the contract payment is reduced by an acre for each
contract acre planted to wild rice.
Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to enroll in excess of 120,000 acres in
the fiscal year 2000 wetlands reserve program as authorized
by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the
provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105-185, the
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.
Sec. 730. Notwithstanding section 381A of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009), the
definitions of rural areas for certain business programs
administered by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service and
the community facilities
[[Page H3788]]
programs administered by the Rural Housing Service shall be
those provided for in statute and regulations prior to the
enactment of Public Law 104-127.
Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to carry out any
commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or
participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option
program, as authorized by section 335 of Public Law 104-127.
Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or
reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees
proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the
submission of the Budget unless such Budget submission
identifies which additional spending reductions should occur
in the event the user fees proposals are not enacted prior to
the date of the convening of a committee of conference for
the fiscal year 2001 appropriations Act.
Sec. 734. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to establish an Office of
Community Food Security or any similar office within the
United States Department of Agriculture without the prior
approval of the Committee on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress.
Sec. 735. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act may be used to carry out
the provisions of section 612 of Public Law 105-185, the
National Swine Research Center.
Sec. 736. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries
and expenses of personnel to carry out the emergency food
assistance program authorized by section 27(a) of the Food
Stamp Act (7 U.S.C. 2036(a)) if such program exceeds
$99,000,000.
(b) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made
available by this Act, $1,000,000 is appropriated for the
purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger
Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center, which is
an organization described in subsection (c)(3) of section 501
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from
taxation under subsection (a) of such section.
Sec. 737. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on
December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to inform the membership this bill has
been moving at record speeds today, and I want to express my personal
appreciation to the majority for avoiding the kind of difficulty we
faced on the floor the week before last on this bill. We have several
Members that had wanted to offer amendments to the bill, and I think
some of them did not anticipate it would have moved as swiftly as it
has this afternoon, and I just wanted to make sure and put on the
record that there may be some remaining amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I see the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is
rising to her feet here, and there may be some other Members who were
not aware until just a few moments ago that this bill would be on the
floor and moving as expeditiously as it has today.
{time} 1245
So I just wanted to reemphasize that point and give our Members an
opportunity to come to the floor. We have attempted to call their
offices and so forth.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida:
Add before the short title the following new section:
Sec. ____. After March 1, 2000, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise available by this Act may be used
by the Secretary of Agriculture--
(1) to permit the importation of meat or meat food products
under subsections (a) and (f) of section 20 of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 620) from any foreign country
in violation of subsection (f) of such section; and
(2) to permit the importation of poultry or poultry
products under subsection (a) of section 17 of the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 466) from any foreign
country in violation of subsection (d) of such section.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment helps to protect
United States consumers from unsafe foreign meat and poultry. What it
does, it ensures fairness to protect our meat and our poultry products
from unfair competition and it directs the United States Department of
Agriculture to influence our current food safety laws.
What this amendment does is necessarily ensures that USDA will follow
and enforce its laws. What it does is it will cut off funds for them
for permitting the import of meat and poultry from any foreign country
unless USDA determines that the inspection system of that foreign
country is equivalent and actually provides a level of safety
equivalent to what we require of the meat and poultry people in this
country.
We want to be sure that that equivalency is established. If it is
not, this amendment would certainly cut off funds to that foreign
country.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's
amendment and her efforts to protect our consumers. Without question,
food safety has to be a number one priority and responsibility of this
committee. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has been promoting
this for a number of years. Why should not foreign meat imported into
this country adhere to the same rigorous standards that our livestock
producers here at home must meet?
Last year we know the Department, I think the gentlewoman referenced,
allowed $3 billion, with a B, pounds of meat and poultry to be imported
from 32 foreign countries on to our shores. This amendment simply
requires USDA to enforce our food safety laws and protect our
consumers.
I just want to make sure that the letter from the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association is entered into the Record as part of this
amendment, and I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment.
National Cattlemen's
Beef Association,
Washington, DC, May 24, 1999.
Hon. Carrie P. Meek,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Meek: On behalf of the members of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), I wanted to inform you
that NCBA supports the language on inspection equivalency you
plan to offer to the FY 2000 House Agriculture Appropriations
measure. We appreciate your staff reviewing the proposed
amendment with us.
NCBA strongly supports measures that work, through sound
science, to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of the U.S.
food supply. In addition, we are constantly engaged in trade
discussions and disputes with other countries who use the
``equivalency'' issue as a barrier to U.S. beef and other
livestock products. Your proposed amendment certainly would
reiterate the Secretary of Agriculture's important role in
making sure that any beef, other meat, or poultry products
imported into the United States adhere to the same rigorous
standards that America's cattlemen and women, and other
livestock producers meet.
Thank you for your leadership on this matter. We look
forward to its successful inclusion in the Agriculture
Appropriations package. Please let us know if we can be of
assistance in this effort.
Sincerely,
Dale W. Moore,
Executive Director,
Legislative Affairs.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have sent this amendment in its earlier version to
the USDA but received no formal comment. We have been told that the
administrator of the Food Safety Inspection Service has concerns about
the amendment, but we do not know what those concerns are at this time.
I think we can all agree with the heart of the amendment, that imported
food ought to meet the same standard as the domestic products. There
are important trade and food safety considerations here, and I would
have liked some time to hear from the administration.
Nevertheless, I am prepared to support the gentlewoman's amendment,
with the understanding that we will need to work together before the
conference to give the administration an opportunity to be involved.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page H3789]]
Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record as supporting this amendment. As
a physician and as a Member of Congress from a cattle and farm State,
to me it is unconscionable that we can produce cattle and butcher it in
the State of Oklahoma and ship it to Kansas under great quality
standards, but, at the same time, meat produced outside of this country
can come anywhere in this country and not meet those same standards.
I would like to say, as a Member of Congress from a cattle producing
State, that this not only makes sense from a standpoint of food safety,
but also is eminently fair to our cattle producers and our consumers.
This will not raise the cost. What it will do is assure that the
American consumer is getting what they paid for. The imported goods
coming into this country ought to have to meet the same standard as the
provider of goods in this country domestically produced. So I support
the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to echo those comments and I want to support
very strongly the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida.
Her efforts in this regard will not only help with the safety
standards, but, keep in mind, in the last several years, where we used
to inspect trucks coming across Mexico and Canada, now you have trucks
coming from Canada with Australian ground beef that is not even being
inspected on some occasions.
Now, yes, this may pose some hardship on our regulatory system, but
it is very much overdue and there is a tremendous economic factor
involved here as well.
Our farmers have sold hogs at 7 cents a pound live weight. My God,
the one thing we can do is ensure that the same hoops and hurdles our
farmers have to overcome shall be the world's hurdles and hoops as well
to ensure safety and quality and standardization of product.
So I want to compliment the distinguished gentlewoman. It is a great
amendment and I support the amendment.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike
the requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say if anyone
has ever suffered from salmonella from eating unsafe meat and poultry,
they would understand the significance of this amendment. Why should
our consumers be subjected to this very illness-causing disease and
have these foreign countries being able to bring in meats and poultry
without an equivalent kind of thing?
In speaking to the USDA, the USDA cannot clearly speak to this
amendment because they do not have any facts, any substantive facts,
that will prove that what they are accepting is equivalent, because
last year, the last time, it looks as if USDA is not really enforcing
the congressional directive, and we need this tough new inspection
system, and it is a key part of it, to take these samples of meet.
In closing, I want to thank the Congress, because this is a very,
very essential matter to the health and welfare of our Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be expended by an entity unless the
entity agrees that in expending the assistance the entity
will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 8,
1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the ``Buy
American Act'').
Sec. ____. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--In the case of any equipment or products that may
be purchased using financial assistance provided using funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act, it is
the sense of the Congress that entities receiving such
assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only
American-made equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act, the Federal agency providing the
assistance shall provide to each recipient of the assistance
a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by
the Congress.
Sec. ____. If it has been finally determined by a court or
Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label
bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription
with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to
the United States that is not made in the United States, such
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and inelibility procedures described in section 9.400 through
9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this deals with the ``Buy American''
provision that says in the case of any equipment or products that may
be purchased using any financial assistance under this bill, it is the
sense of our Congress that those receiving such assistance should
purchase American-made goods. It gives a notice to that effect. Most
importantly, this provision also states in its final section that if it
is determined by a court or Federal agency that any person has
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription connoting the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is actually not
made in the United States, those people shall be ineligible to receive
any contract, award or subcontract that is made available by this act.
The bottom line, if you are saying it is made in America, it better be.
Finally, when we are going to spend hard-earned tax dollars of
farmers that are getting hit from all ends, we should try and buy
American-made goods. That just makes good sense.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we thought so much of the gentleman's amendment that we
made it permanent law 2 years ago. I am happy to accommodate the
gentleman and put this item in the fiscal year 2000 bill as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Insert before the short title the following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated
or otherwise made available by this Act for Wildlife Services
Program operations to carry out the first section of the Act
of March 2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426), may be used to conduct
campaigns for the destruction of wild animals for the purpose
of protecting livestock.
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for salaries and expenses under the
heading ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' is
hereby reduced by $7,000,000.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue which the House is
revisiting for the second year in a row. Last year there was a lot of
confusion around this vote. I tried to make it much more explicit and
simple this year.
This amendment cuts funds only for lethal predator control to protect
private livestock on private or leased land in the western United
States. That is what this does.
Now, we are going to hear that actually this amendment will cause
brown tree snakes to invade Hawaii, it will cause tuberculosis to
spread in the northern Midwest, it will cause plague in the Southwest,
it will cause planes at National Airport to crash.
No. In fact, all of those other activities would be enhanced, more
money would be spent on those activities, if animal damage control,
wildlife services, dropped their obsession with this failing
environmentally and biologically unsound wasteful subsidy of spending
$10 million, and this does not even cut every penny they are spending
on lethal predator control in the western United States, if they just
dropped their obsession and the subsidy.
I also offer that the ranchers would come out ahead. Nothing in this
[[Page H3790]]
amendment would prohibit a rancher from controlling predators that are
problems on their own property, owned or leased. They could go out and
do it themselves. They could hire someone to do it. In some cases
States would still unwisely provide subsidies to these private
ranchers. But the question is, should Federal taxpayers pay for
predator control services on private ranches for profit in the western
United States?
If you have, as my mother did, a raccoon down the chimney, you cannot
call a Federal Wildlife Services employee and ask them to remove the
raccoon. If you have termites in your house, no one from the Federal
Government is going to show up. They will laugh at you and tell you to
call a pest control company.
So why, why is it that ranchers, private ranchers in the West, can
call up a Federal agency and get a Federal employee out there pronto,
who will not only kill problem predators, which the ranchers could do
on their own or hire someone on their own to do, but will
indiscriminately kill other wildlife, and in some cases, as happened on
the northern edge of my districts, kill domestic pets and poison humans
with these indiscriminate M-44 devices which cause a horrible lingering
death?
{time} 1300
Now, why is the Federal government paying to subsidize this activity?
That is the question before us. It is very simple. In fact, if Wildlife
Services stops its obsession and all the amount of energy they put into
this program, they will do a better control, a better job in other
States protecting against bird strikes, protecting human health and
safety.
So this is a fiscally responsible amendment, an amendment that goes
to cutting out an obsolete subsidy that goes to private ranchers in the
West, and will also benefit environmentally in the western United
States, will stop the indiscriminate destruction of nontarget wildlife.
There are more coyotes now than when they started this program 68 years
ago, and they are more dispersed across the country, because they are
not even looking at the biology, they are ignoring previous orders of
Congress to look at more effective and nonlethal predator control
methods. They are not targeting the problem, they are just breaking up
and dispersing the packs. Now you have coyotes in places where they
have not seen them in 100 years, like Manhattan, elevators in Seattle.
It actually happened. This has not been seen for a long time in this
country.
It is time for this archaic and barbaric program and this subsidy to
end. We have a very definitive opportunity to vote on it today. This is
a very targeted amendment. Do not believe any of this other hooey about
all the other problems that will be caused.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the House will vote down this amendment. It is
true, there are funds in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
for predator control in western States. There are also funds for
predator control in northern, southern, and eastern States.
There is money for research on Lyme disease and diseases spread by
rats. There is money to control the spread of rabies in wild animals in
the Midwest and eastern States. There is money to protect the bird
population in Hawaii from devastation by the brown tree snake. There is
money to protect airline passengers by controlling flocks of birds at
airports. There is money to control damage to grain crops by blackbirds
and to control migratory birds that feed on domestically produced fish,
so those farmers can make a decent living. There is money to promote
nonlethal methods of animal control. There is money for animal welfare.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if we are going to go after
farmers and ranchers in one area of the country and deny them help,
maybe we should look at all of the programs in this country and
subsidies, to shift the entire burden to the States and the private
sector.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This is the same
amendment that we passed on a Friday and then defeated on a Monday with
a few phone calls having been made over the weekend. I hope Congress
would have the opportunity to vote again and be on record and pass this
amendment this time.
It has been said that this is a very important program. From my
perspective, I think it is a waste of money. The program does not work.
It essentially is money from the taxpayers' pockets to private
landholders to control predators on their own property. But what is sad
about it is that the program seeks to spend $20 million to solve a
problem that only costs private landholders $7.2 million per year.
Nothing in this amendment, nothing in this amendment will affect in
any way the programs for technical assistance or for bird control at
airports. I serve on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and on the Subcommittee on Aviation. I am an instrument-rated pilot. I
have flown all over the country. I can assure the Members I would do
nothing that would affect the safety of our Nation's airport.
This would carve out cleanly a subsidy to private individuals to
control predators in a situation whose effectiveness is clearly under
considerable question.
It is true that some of the resources for this program do go to other
parts of the country, but 95 percent of the funds for this program go
to these western States and to these large ranchers to use for predator
control.
I would suggest that we can save money by passage of this amendment.
We can eliminate a practice that by even the best of interpretations is
neither effective nor seemly, and I think it is an entirely
inappropriate use of Federal funds.
Although I have enormous respect for all of the Members of the
Committee on Appropriations who have supported this amendment, I think
it is time that we eliminated this unnecessary funding from the Federal
government.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to talk
about how my district is affected by what is going on out there. I want
to share with the body some letters that I have received from people
not only in the district but from the State of Oregon with regard to
this.
The head of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the director, James
Greer, has written saying, ``We rely heavily on Wildlife Services as a
partner in addressing the effects of wildlife and predatory animals on
livestock and crops. Specifically, they provide animal damage control
assistance to help resolve depredations caused by black bear, cougars,
and other predatory animals. In addition, they deal with human safety
threats from an increasing cougar and bear population.''
These threats are from a cougar population that is very real.
``According to a recent survey conducted by the Oregon Agricultural
Statistics Service, more than $158 million of annual damage to Oregon
agriculture products occurs from wildlife,'' this from Phil Ward, the
director of the Department of Agriculture in Oregon.
Mr. Chairman, my district is one of the most rural districts in
America. We have lots of family farms, and 55.5 percent of it is under
Federal control. The refuges and all out there, we have enormous
populations growing of predators. The Wallowa County School District
tells me they have such a problem with cougars that they will not let
the young kids off the bus until their parents are there to meet them.
These are issues.
Is this amendment going to deal with all of that? Probably not. I am
not up here to make extraordinary claims. But the point is in these
small rural counties, in these small counties that have 1,000, 2,000,
7,000 people, this program is an integral piece in an overall package
to deal with predators.
I want to show the Members a picture that does not look too damaging
here, but this is a coyote and this is a lamb. The next picture in this
series is probably too graphic for C-Span to show. So when Members hear
about control, predator control, and that somehow that is an awful
thing, the flip side of that is awful, as well. The
[[Page H3791]]
flip side is the maiming that is done of sheep and cattle and all;
animals raised for production, admittedly, but for problems that are
caused by these predators.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment goes too far. I think it hurts a
program that is very important to the rural parts of America and that
helps not just a handful of wealthy ranchers, as some might say, but
probably close to 10,000 livestock producers each year are helped by
this program.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just
on the photo, that was provided by the Federal government. It was
actually taken at a test facility where the coyotes were starved and
then put into an enclosure with sheep. It is a graphic photo, but it is
not exactly representative.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if I might,
the point is illustrative, here. The gentleman knows as well as I do,
and as well as anybody out in agriculture knows, the next in a series
of photos like this out in the real world, not in some pen but in the
real world, is the devastation that we see.
Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman would further yield, and I appreciate
the gentleman yielding, although we are on opposite sides of this
issue, also on the total wildlife damage in agriculture in Oregon, it
was $158 million. The gentleman is exactly correct. However, the damage
to livestock from predators was about $1 million, and more was spent by
the State and the Feds to control that than if we had actually
reimbursed people. The major damage was damage to crops, $148.6
million.
That damage, interestingly enough, took place from things on which
coyotes predate, such as field mice, ground squirrels, prairie dogs, et
cetera, et cetera. All of their prey is causing a big problem. Now we
have to start another new program to go out and control the things that
the predators used to prey on because they are eating the grain and
other crops.
We need to get a better vision. I think the gentleman and I could
construct something that would work better. I thank the gentleman for
his time.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. However,
I would say that indeed, I thought I heard earlier a comment about how
the coyote population was growing rapidly around. So it is hard to
argue both cases at the same time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Not at all. If the gentleman will further yield, we will
talk about coyote biology.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point
here is that we have many problems in my district in terms of predators
devouring livestock. This program is helpful to that as part of the
bigger package that combines State and local funds to deal with it.
Sometimes it is one game person that is out there dealing with this,
one predator control officer. But because they are from such small
entities, the funding is all combined.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment,
which basically guts the core funding for USDA's Wildlife Services
program. This is an important program that serves the public good in a
number of ways, and it should be funded at the level approved by the
House Appropriations Committee.
Reducing funds for USDA's Wildlife Services will not just affect
lethal predator control in the West, it will also cripple other needed
activities throughout the Nation. Often the same USDA staff who help
ranchers manage problems of predators may also help local airports
protect human life by removing flocks of birds near runways.
I emphasize that one of the reasons why the DeFazio amendment does
not work as he had intended is that we use the same people, and when we
eliminate a person, that person who might be not only helping ranchers
with their predator problems might also be the same person that is
dealing with flocks of birds around airports. That gets overlooked in
some of the concern which has been expressed here on the floor.
Make no mistake about it, this reduction in funds is not a targeted
cut. Let me also add that Wildlife Services is not a Federal giveaway
program. The majority of funding for the work of USDA's Wildlife
Services comes from sources outside the Federal government, like State,
local, and private organizations. Federal funds help to secure the
basic program staff, who then are able to draw in significant funding
directly from those who benefit from their work. However, without these
USDA staff, it is unclear whether these outside funds will continue to
be made available.
Finally, I am amazed by the argument that this program is not needed
because wildlife-generated losses to property and human life are
considered low by some folks. That is like arguing that childhood
immunization programs are a waste of money since so few children now
die from these diseases.
That is the whole point. We spend public money on preventative
programs so we will not have to face the alternative. We spend money on
Wildlife Services in order to avoid rabies epidemics, downed aircraft,
and dead or maimed livestock. I simply do not agree that just because
the program seems to be working efficiently, it should now be
eliminated.
Please support the responsible and necessary management of wildlife
by opposing the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a compromise here.
The gentleman raised a number of issues in which I am vitally
concerned: Airports, bird strikes, those things on which a pitiful
amount of money was spent last year, inadequate.
So if the gentleman would accept the first part of the amendment,
which is a limitation only for lethal predator control for livestock,
and not delete the amount of money and then support that, I would be
happy to actually leave the funds in if we direct the service to not
waste the money on the lethal predator control.
Would the gentleman accept that?
Mr. STENHOLM. I most certainly would not, because I absolutely
disagree with the intent of gentleman's amendment. Even though that
sounds very reasonable, it completely overlooks one of the fundamental
areas I disagree with, that we do not need to be assisting our ranchers
with predator control.
The gentleman ought to come to the Seventeenth District of Texas and
see what happens to livestock and what would happen under gentleman's
proposal.
I just respectfully differ with the gentleman regarding what the
gentleman intends and would like to do.
Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman would further yield, Mr. Chairman, I
was the county commissioner. We had tough times. We had to cut our
match, which lost our Federal predator control agents.
All of my sheep ranchers were in and said, my God, you will not
believe what is going to happen, Commissioner, if we do that. Do
Members know what happened? Nothing. In fact, the predation went down
over a 5-year period.
That is really interesting, that when we stop spending the money, and
we heard that they did kill some predators still, but they did it in a
very discriminate form on their farms without a subsidy. I have a real
life example in my district, which gets these funds, where we do better
without them. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. STENHOLM. That is where we have reasonable differences. I have
real life experience on the other side.
But also I would point out one other major, important aspect of it.
It is rabies control. This is something that is extremely important to
the general population in large segments of Texas. Perhaps in this one
district in Oregon it is different.
I would assure the Members, in most places of the country, the
argument on the side of the Committee on Appropriations and what the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) are
[[Page H3792]]
suggesting is what the full House ought to do today. We ought to defeat
this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. This is a classic case of the proponents of an amendment
using misinformation and emotional rhetoric to try to push their cause.
I think I heard the word earlier in one of the arguments in favor of
the amendment, the word ``barbaric'' used to describe the animal damage
control program that currently exists, also called Wildlife Services,
now. I stand corrected.
But I ask my friends who suggest that this program might be barbaric
for them to think for a second about children who might be afflicted by
wildlife who are bitten by an animal afflicted by rabies.
{time} 1315
When you think of the possibility of the eradication that we try to
do in Texas, in Texas, for example, children playing in their yards and
in States all across the country and throughout the Southwest, playing
in their yards, who might be afflicted by rabies because of some coyote
or some other animal that might be crossing through a playground that
might be afflicted, I would suggest that that is barbaric for anyone to
think that a program that exists to protect the safety of children in
playgrounds, that is pretty barbaric to suggest that that program is
ineffective.
Also think about we just had a plane crash last week; and although
the cause was not a form of wildlife, a flock of geese or birds flying
into a plane engine, it is possible that that could occur. This
wildlife services program tries to address that problem and keep those
passengers safe in areas, many of which are located in the Northeast
and in the New England area, tries to keep those passengers safe from
any kind of accident like this by providing funds to control those
flocks of birds near runways and airports.
Now, I would suggest that it is barbaric for anyone to think that a
program like this is not a good program that would protect the safety
of families and children flying on airlines. So I would suggest that
those who are proposing this kind of amendment, using misinformation
and emotional rhetoric, should step back for a second and think about
the safety of women and children, families of all ages from all parts
of the country who might be harmed if this money is not in the budget,
think about that and ask themselves if they could live with an accident
occurring at an airport or live with a child dying who was afflicted
with rabies because there was not enough money in the budget to support
this program.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on taking all of the 5 minutes, but I
rise in strong opposition. I do not have a dog in this hunt. I do not
represent farmers; I do not represent ranchers. I have got mostly a
city area in my district.
But I want to tell my colleagues that San Diego is a series of
canyons and areas where a lot of people hike, and up in the hills also.
This last year we had two women joggers who were killed by mountain
lions. We had requested that the Federal Government come in and help
manage. Because they have not been able to hunt lions in a long time,
these lions are coming into the parks, into where people picnic in
private and public areas. A little child was mauled by a mountain lion,
nearly died, lost an arm. Another woman was hiking, and the lion not
only killed her, it ate most of her before they found her.
California also has this little rodent called, a prairie-dog-type
critter, a ground squirrel. We have heard about rabies, but in
California this little rodent and the fleas they carry have bubonic
plague. Now think of the terror that that word brings in our past
history. We need those kinds of eradications, not only on public lands,
but on private as well. We cannot just take care of the public lands
and then go over and let that menace ride.
So I rise in strong opposition to this. I have flown a jet out at
Miramar. To tell my colleagues what an animal, a bird, will do to an
airplane, this hawk went clear through my wing and broke the main spar
of an F-4 Phantom that I was flying. The airplane was hard down.
Luckily, I was able to land the airplane, but it totally destroyed the
airplane, one hawk in the thing.
When we talk about public health, we talk about rabies, we talk about
plague, we talk about lethal predators; and for this reason, I rise in
strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
I want to talk about just a couple different areas. I represent the
entire State of Wyoming. Here is a little history lesson that I would
like to give.
A lot of people think that the public lands in the West are all
national parks and national forests. Well, they are not. BLM land, or
Bureau of Land Management land, makes up about half of the State of
Wyoming, and it is owned by the Federal Government. The reason that is
public land is because it is land that no one claimed when the
Homestead Act expired.
Now, why did not anybody claim that land? They did not claim it
because, for the most part, it does not have water on it. It is not
very productive. There is alkali on it and sagebrush. It is not
productive land, so it was not claimed. No one wanted it. So it was put
in trust for the Bureau of Land Management. That is now what is called
the public lands in the West.
Now if my colleagues stop and think about this for a minute, if my
colleagues think about the ranchers and the public land that they have
or the private land that they have, the private land is private because
they homesteaded it because it has water on it. Then because there is
water on it, there is grass, and there is feed for the cattle.
But do my colleagues know what else? There is grass and feed and
water for the wildlife as well. I am talking about deer and antelope,
elk, moose, bear, and all of those kinds of species that we regard very
highly that we want to take care of.
Well, the USDA predator control, or Wildlife Services Program is
there to protect that wildlife as well. So I think that the gentleman
from Oregon's opposition to this comes from the fact that private
landowners are helped by this service on their private land. But when
my colleagues consider that 80 percent of the wildlife out there, the
deer, antelope, elk, and so on is on private land.
And yet the public is the owner of that wildlife. I think it is our
responsibility, since we are the owners of that wildlife, to help take
responsibility in caring for them.
Another point I want to make, in Gillette, Wyoming, and Campbell
County, we have a serious problem with rabies. Rabid skunks have gone
into the City of Gillette, Wyoming, and this program is helping us with
that problem.
A cougar in Casper, Wyoming, was spotted just last week very near a
playground. People in a city like Casper do not necessarily have the
expertise to be able to deal with this without the help of this
program. So it is very shortsighted to cut this program. It is a matter
of public health, and it should also be a matter of public conscience.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to also rise in opposition to this amendment
that would severely undermine the USDA's Wildlife Services Program.
While I do not have a district out in the West but rather in the
Midwest, it is very rural, and it is very big, and the fact of the
matter is this program is a critical resource for the farmers and
ranchers in my district who face the threat of crop and livestock
damage.
As a matter of fact, wildlife causes as much as $1.6 billion in
damage to agriculture each year. Given the fact that our farmers, right
now their entire
[[Page H3793]]
livelihoods are threatened with uncertain markets, unpredictable
weather, some of the lowest prices we have ever seen in decades, this
additional threat of losses due to wildlife is really above and beyond
all the other factors. It is something that we have to be very mindful
of.
I also want to make another point which is often overlooked. Our
farmers and ranchers are among the best stewards of the land anywhere.
They are our best conservationists. Their land provides wildlife
habitat. Their production methods promote wide stewardship of that
land. So let us not point the finger at the family farmer and rancher
when, in fact, they are doing good things for the environment and
things that are good for the American consumer.
I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bass-
DeFazio amendment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife
Services program spends millions of dollars annually to kill more than
100,000 coyotes, foxes, bears, mountain lions, and other predators in
the Western United States. Although there are non-lethal alternatives.
Wildlife Services chooses to shoot, poision, trap, and even club to
death both target and non-target animals. This taxpayer subsidy gives
ranchers a disincentive to seek alternative methods of livestock
protection that might be more effective.
The USDA predator control methods are non-selective, inefficient, and
inhumane. Aerial gunning, sodium cyanide poisoning, steel-jawed leghold
traps, and neck snares are Wildlife Services' killing methods. These
techniques have been known to kill pets and endangered and threatened
species. Much of the killing is conducted before livestock is released
into an area, with the expectation that predators will become a
problem. However, killing wildlife to protect livestock is effective
only if the individual animals who attack livestock are removed.
Targeting the entire population is needlessly cruel, wastes taxpayer
dollars and can be counter-productive. Studies have shown that predator
populations reduced through indiscriminate killing produce larger
litters to compensate and quickly rebuild to equal or greater than pre-
controlled levels.
With this amendment, the Wildlife Services' program would be funded
to assist with non-lethal predator protection services and in cases to
protect human and endangered species lives. I urge my colleagues to
support the Bass-DeFazio amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment, which curtails the funding for what was formerly known as
the Animal Damage Control program.
This amendment cuts $7 million in funding for the Department of
Agriculture's inappropriately named ``Wildlife Services'' program. I
say that it is inappropriately named, because the program does nothing
to serve in the best interests of wildlife. It is, instead, a program
whose purpose is to help farmers cope with natural predators who may
prey on their livestock. While I believe that helping farmers is a
laudable goal, the problem is that the way this program is
administered, little help is provided and much damage caused.
Each year, this program indiscriminately kills 90,000 coyotes, foxes,
bears and mountain lions. It is indiscriminate because there are few
controls to ensure that the animals being slaughtered are tied to
attacks on livestock. Oftentimes, young cubs are caught and killed, and
on occasion, even a domesticated dog or cat will be mistakenly felled.
This is simply not appropriate--and it should be stopped.
Wildlife Services is cruel because Wildlife Services still insists on
using barbaric methods to handle these animals--including poisons,
snares, and leg-hold traps. Sometimes, these animals are simply clubbed
to death. Harp Seals are not the only animals that need protection from
this brutal practice. We can do better than this--humane animal control
techniques exist in our modern world. We can relocate animals that have
caused problems.
How is it that we can build an internationally-sponsored space
station yet we cannot find a way to treat our animals humanely? Do we
need to spray poison in the face of animals that can contaminate other
animals, or even humans, it comes in contact with afterwards? Must we
kill not only the offending animal, but also every innocent scavenger
that happens upon its corpse?
This program has been ineffective, and roundly criticized for
decades. It was fully reviewed by advisory committees under the
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Carter Administrations--each of which
suggested numerous reforms, but none have been adopted. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) similarly released a report in 1995 that found
the program to be largely ineffective.
Studies have shown the coyotes have adapted to our killing techniques
much better than we have adapted towards more humane methods of
predator control. Despite a 71% increase in funding for these programs
between 1983 and 1993, coyotes have compensated for the culling of
their species by simply having more pups. Surely, we have been out-
foxed here--and it is time to stop the United States government from
behaving like Elmer Fudd flailing blindly at nature to no avail.
We are smarter than this. This House is smarter than this. Therefore,
I urge my colleagues to support this sensible and humane amendment
being offered by Congressmen DeFazio and Bass.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I do not intend at
least at this time to present. But the tenor of the amendment, Mr.
Chairman, would have prevented Agriculture Secretary Glickman from
instituting a new Federal milk marketing order system that would put
thousands of dairy farmers out of business by lowering the price paid
to farmers for their milk by hundreds of millions of dollars.
On March 31, 1999, Secretary Glickman announced his final decision on
the Federal milk marketing order reform process that was required under
1996 Freedom to Farm Act. Unfortunately, his decision to adopt what is
referred to as a modified Option 1-B has the effect of lowering Class I
differentials for milk to virtually all regions of the country with the
exception of the upper Midwest.
Can my colleagues imagine passing a policy, an agricultural policy
that would harm the entire country except for perhaps two or three
States. It defies logic.
The Secretary of Agriculture's decision flies in the face of broad
bipartisan congressional multiregional support for Option 1-A.
Congressional intent behind milk marketing order reform in no way
anticipated this action by the Secretary.
My amendment also would have continued existing law, meaning that it
would allow the continuation of the Northeast Dairy Compact. There has
been increasing support for similar such compacts around the country as
a way to protect against and otherwise prevent the harm that would be
done by the Secretary's proposal and the havoc that it would cause in
dairyland all across the Nation.
So, Mr. Chairman, rather than offer the amendment at this time, I
would like to enter into a colloquy with several of my colleagues. I
see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), chairman of the authorizing
committee, the Committee on Agriculture, here; and I appreciate the
gentleman coming down to participate in this discussion today.
Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) agree that the
Department of Agriculture's recommendation of a modified version,
Option 1-B, is unacceptable to the majority Members of Congress and
more importantly the majority of American dairy farmers and would
therefore have to be modified through the regular legislative process?
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be able to say yes just
indicative of the fact that there is a bill to implement a different
policy that I think has almost half of the Members of the House that
are cosponsors of the bill. Certainly with the interest and concerns
among the dairy industry, the Committee on Agriculture is certainly
going to be looking into this in very short order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's statement and clarification of
[[Page H3794]]
the Committee on Agriculture's position. My concern is that we need to
ensure that the legislation is enacted into law before the Secretary's
modified Option 1-B pricing reform is imposed on dairy farmers in my
district.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would
indicate to the gentleman, who has been a strong advocate of a dairy
policy in this country and with a great deal of interest in this, there
is a bill which has been introduced that will be the vehicle on the
24th of June for a hearing in the Subcommittee on Livestock and
Horticulture that is chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Pombo). Very shortly after that, there will be markup on that bill, and
that bill will then move to full consideration.
Given the fact that there is a recognition of some timely concern
here without the Chair's being, I believe, able to give individuals
total assurances about exactly what that final product would be, the
vehicle that will be used for hearing purposes and for markup I think
will be very much in line with the interest of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh) in the dairy program.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) for explaining the position of the committee clearly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo),
chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture for his
comments.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the statement of the full
committee chairman. I know of the intense interest of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) on this issue as well as a number of other
Members of the House. As we have been negotiating and working through
this issue, I will assure the gentleman that this is a very important
issue, not only to his dairy farmers, but to mine back home, and that
we will move through the hearing, the markup process, and move
legislation on an expedited manner through the House and try to solve
this problem as quickly as we possibly can.
{time} 1330
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman. With the assurances received from
the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee
I will at this time not offer my amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to comment on the colloquy that we
just heard with respect to regional differences in the fluid milk dairy
prices, and I would like to recite for this House what the history of
this matter is.
Since 1937, we have been operating under an outmoded system of milk
marketing orders which mandates, by law, that certain farmers in
certain regions of the country be paid more for their milk than are
farmers from other sections of the country. That is a Federal law,
believe it or not, and it has long since served its usefulness.
When the farm bill was up on the floor 4 years ago, then-Congressman
Gunderson, the chairman of the Dairy Subcommittee, tried to get a
legislative remedy to that long outmoded policy, and when he did that
he was blocked, cut off at the pass by the House leadership, the
Republican leadership in the form of the Speaker and Mr. Solomon, who
chaired the Committee on Rules. In essence, what they told Steve at the
time was, ``Sorry, we are not going to give you a chance to vote on a
legislative remedy; the best you are going to get is that we will give
the Secretary of Agriculture an opportunity to look at these milk
marketing orders and decide through administrative action what kind of
changes are needed.''
Acting under that limited authority, Secretary Glickman proposed what
was known as Option 1-B, which provided very minimal changes in the
milk marketing order system across the country. That was found to be
objectionable by many Members of this House, certainly not me but by
many other Members, and so this House last year passed legislation
which blocked the Secretary from moving ahead with those changes, those
reforms in the milk marketing order system.
So, then, Mr. Glickman went back to the drawing board and he produced
a second modified version of his proposal, which would have provided
some change, some modernization in that system, and it would have
resulted in farmers in 15 of the 33 regions actually getting better
prices for their milk than they do right now, and it would have had a
downward pressure on some other regions.
It just seems to me that it is amazing that the folks who won by
preventing us from getting a legislative decision on this issue, and
who insisted that this ought to be handled through the administrative
route, are now saying that they are unhappy with even the tiny changes
that were made administratively by the Secretary and are now suggesting
that yet another legislative action is required to selectively amend
the farm bill.
I do not believe that is the right way to go. It seems to me strange
indeed that in a Congress which so often talks about the need to move
closer to market arrangements, that we are having people who are
insisting on sticking to the status quo which blocks moving agriculture
in the dairy area closer to market arrangements.
I also find it interesting that some of the same folks who say that
we should have free trade internationally are some of the same folks
who, when it comes to internal trade within our own country, want to
put up all kinds of trade barriers, informal trade barriers, in the
form of these regional compacts.
So I would simply say I cannot do anything about the colloquy that
just took place between the Members of the majority party. All I can
say, as one Member from the upper Midwest, is that I do not think it is
fair for people to try to have this issue both ways. We were told that
we should take our shot at the administrative route rather than the
legislative route. That is what happened. And now the Members, at least
some of the Members who just spoke, are now trying to suggest that we
ought not to have let that happen either.
We cannot move agriculture into the 20th century by sticking with
this outmoded, old-fashioned milk marketing order system. And I would
suggest if we are going to open this issue up, then we ought to open up
the whole farm bill; that we ought to open up the question of whether
we ought to have any milk marketing orders at all. We ought to be
allowed to vote on the question of whether there ought to be one
national milk marketing order rather than a whole series of them.
So I would urge Members to think carefully before they try to
selectively reopen that farm bill.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
If the chairman will engage me in a colloquy on the funding for the
USDA facilities loan program, I would like to solicit his support for
the administration's funding request for programs like the community
facilities loan and grant program, which finances multipurpose
community centers through which local governments are able to provide
services for children and the elderly, school facilities, and fire and
rescue equipment.
Mr. Chairman, over 50 percent of the community facilities funds are
used for a variety of health services, including rural hospitals,
mental health facilities, nursing homes, child care facilities which
are desperately needed to assist in welfare reform.
There is a great need for these facilities in rural America and
especially in my First Congressional District of North Carolina where
local governments do not have sufficient tax resources or the
sufficient tax base to provide for these essential services.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her support for
this program and for rural America. I share her concern and promise to
work in the conference to strengthen the community facilities loan and
grant program for rural America and appreciate the gentlewoman's
efforts.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. De Fazio
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page H3795]]
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 230, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 172]
AYES--193
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Coburn
Collins
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hoeffel
Holt
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Largent
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Strickland
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--230
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Schaffer
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
Gutknecht
Jenkins
Lantos
McCollum
Pickett
Reynolds
Waters
{time} 1358
Ms. DANNER, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs.
HILL of Montana, HILLIARD, LARGENT, SMITH of Texas, ENGEL and MICA
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BOEHLERT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained earlier today
and was not present for rollcall vote No. 172. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no''.
{time} 1400
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
In the general provisions title, insert the following new
section:
Sec. ____. (a) Prohibition on Unilateral Economic
Sanctions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
President shall not restrict or otherwise prohibit any
exports of food, other agricultural products (including
fertilizer), medicines, or medical supplies or equipment as
part of any policy of existing or future unilateral economic
sanctions imposed against a foreign government.
(b) National Security Waiver.--The President may waiver,
for periods of not more than 1 year each, the applicability
of subsection (a) with respect to a foreign country or entity
if the President, with respect to each such waiver--
(1) determines that the national security so requires; and
(2) transmits to the Congress that determination, together
with a detailed description of the reasons therfor, including
an explanation of how the sanctions will further the national
security.
(c) Unilateral Economic Sanction Defined.--In this section,
the term ``unilateral economic sanction'' means any
restriction or condition on economic activity with respect to
a foreign country or foreign entity that is imposed by the
United States for reasons of foreign policy or national
security, except in a case in which the United States imposes
the measure pursuant to a multilateral regime and the other
members of that regime have agreed to impose substantially
equivalent measures.
(d) Applicability.--This section shall apply only to
private commercial exports that are not subject to any
Federal guarantee or direct credit.
Mr. NETHERCUTT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, the policy of the United States of
America for years has been to impose unilateral sanctions against trade
between our Nation and other nations with which we might disagree on
policy matters. The policy of sanctions imposed on other nations with
which we might disagree on policy matters is outdated. In 1980, we saw
the agriculture markets that were prominent for the United States with
the Soviet Union, we saw them disappear with the imposition of
unilateral sanctions against the Soviet Union. Representing agriculture
as I do, we in the agriculture communities of this country have still
not gotten back the markets that we lost in 1980 by virtue of the
unilateral imposition of sanctions against the Soviet Union. There are
today nations around this country upon which the United States has
imposed unilateral sanctions that we are not doing business with, but
other countries of the world are doing business with these countries
and selling
[[Page H3796]]
agriculture products and medicines to these countries. We cannot
because of our outdated sanctions policy.
What my amendment does is, it lifts those sanctions on all countries
on which we currently have sanctions for food and medicine only. There
is no way in today's world that food should be used as a weapon in
international relations with other countries. It is inhumane, it is
improper, and what it eventually does is damage the American
agriculture community. My State of Washington exports roughly 90
percent of all the wheat that it grows in our State. We are an export
State, and we feed the world. But yet our farmers, in a time of great
challenge for American agriculture, are at a distinct disadvantage
because we cannot sell to some of these sanctioned countries.
What my amendment does is lift sanctions on all countries on which
there are currently sanctions around the world as those sanctions
relate to agriculture and medicine. They involve no direct Federal
subsidies, these lifting of the sanctions, but it would allow our
farmers to sell directly to sanctioned nations and sell our product. We
are at a distinct disadvantage because other countries, our competitors
for our farmers, are able to sell to those countries and provide food
and medicine to those countries. Because of our outdated sanctions
policy, American farmers cannot.
This is wrong, it is something that should be changed. The market
alone, the dollar market alone for our country and our American
agriculture community is $6 billion that we would be able to bring into
this country by virtue of sales to those sanctioned nations. Now, I
understand the politics of dealing with a terrorist like Saddam
Hussein, or the North Koreans or other countries on which we have
sanctions and no trade relations. But yet as to agriculture and
medicine, it seems to me this is bad policy, because it hurts our
farmers. This amendment allows the President to reimpose those
sanctions if for national security reasons he feels it is in the
national security interests of our country to reimpose those sanctions.
So there is a waiver provision in this amendment.
This amendment received consideration in the full Committee on
Appropriations, of which I am a member, and I am happy to be a member
of the Subcommittee on Agriculture. It was a wonderful debate.
Democrats and Republicans alike debated this issue back and forth. The
amendment unfortunately lost by a 28-24 vote. But it was a great debate
and it is something we ought to have in this country as we decide how
to help agriculture in the free market system as we are moving to under
the farm bill and from a humanitarian standpoint how we ought to be
dealing with people in these other nations who have corrupt governments
but not corrupt people.
This is a humanitarian amendment. I fully appreciate the point of
order that is being raised against it, I understand that completely,
and my friend from Florida and I have discussed this issue at length. I
respect him greatly. I respect his views on this whole issue. I
understand the likely success of this amendment. But I want to make the
very serious point, that we in this country have to make a decision
about whether we are going to continue to use food as a weapon and
medicine as a weapon. We will be faced in this Congress with the
likelihood that the agriculture interests of our country, because of
depressed prices, because of depressed markets, will come to this body
and say, ``We need more Federal assistance.'' If that is the case, then
the logical free market way to get through this is to lift sanctions to
allow sales to be made abroad from a free market standpoint.
I want my colleagues to know how seriously I view this issue. I hope
that the House will take this matter up at the appropriate time.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida insist on his point of
order?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, if I may at this point speak to the
point of order.
I have the highest respect for the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt). He speaks from conviction on this issue. As he mentioned,
we have had and will continue to have very intense and serious
discussions on this point. I also believe that markets that should be
open to the United States at this time are not fully open, the first
one being the European Union. The European Union, in violation even of
accords entered into with us, continues to put up barriers on essential
products of American producers. And so this is a key issue. If there
has ever been a matter where the wisdom of the rule, in this case
clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting legislation on an appropriations bill,
it is on an issue such as this.
This is a very serious matter that we are discussing today. On the
one hand, we all agree that all that can be done to open markets to
U.S. producers, including and very especially our farmers, must be
done. At the same time, we must recognize that the issue of trading
with, opening an entire sector, a very important sector of the economy,
of the U.S. production to sponsors of State terrorism is a very
delicate matter and a very serious matter which requires great
deliberation and study. That is why the rule is wise and it is the
committee process and the deliberative process that must bring to the
floor legislation dealing with critical matters such as this.
When we talk about states such as North Korea, state sponsor of
terrorism, or the Sudan where the President recently ordered an air
strike against a medicine manufacturer, is that the only option that
should be available to the United States? Military action? Or should
sanctions be available to the United States in lieu of and instead of
military action? This is a very serious question. Should we tie our
hands so that the only action available in American diplomacy is
military action? It is a very serious question. When we deal with the
issue of the dictatorship in Cuba, 90 miles away, a state sponsor of
terrorism, a safe haven for international terrorists with over 100
fugitives from U.S. justice responsible, the state itself with its air
force in addition to that for the murder of U.S. citizens, unarmed U.S.
citizens over international waters, when we discuss opening of U.S.
market, the U.S. market to that state, that regime, that is a very
serious matter. And so in essence what I am saying, with all respect to
my colleague, and we will continue discussing this issue, yes, we must
find ways to help America's farmers, but without helping America's
enemies. And we will continue our discussions. They are intense, they
are sincere, they will get to the heart of this matter, at the same
time protecting the U.S. national security, in essence the national
interests of the United States. And so at this time, unless my dear
colleague has an announcement to make, I would have an announcement to
make myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of
order so that the Chair might recognize the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano)?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
gentleman from Washington has an announcement to make. Or I would
insist on my point of order.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment in light of the gentleman's insistence on a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, if I insist on the point of order,
what would be the difference between the gentleman withdrawing and my
insistence on the point of order with regard to how it would affect
debate?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would then have to rule on the gentleman's
point of order.
Is there objection to the gentleman's unanimous-consent request to
withdraw the amendment?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me just first say that I have the highest respect
for the gentleman from Florida. He knows that. I also have quite a bit
of respect for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and a lot
of respect
[[Page H3797]]
for his amendment and even more growing every day for both the
gentleman and all of his other policies. I think the gentleman from
Florida makes an interesting point, that we should not at times do
anything to help enemies we have in foreign governments.
But on the other hand, I do not think we should hurt people that live
in the countries where we may have enemies in the government. And so I
think that this issue, as the gentleman from Washington has said, is
one that we have to deal with. That is why I really think he has been
so courageous on this issue. We may run away from this issue but we
cannot hide from it. Eventually we are going to be called to answer
questions as the greatest Nation on earth, as the Nation that produces
the most food in the world: Why during the period of great prosperity
for us we use food and medicine as a weapon to bring people around to
our political will?
This issue is not about whether we agree with a government or not.
The issue is simply and it has to be repeated over and over again,
whether we should deprive people in those countries whose government we
disagree with the ability to have food and medicine, something that is
so available to us in this country. And yes, at the same time we cannot
deny that the way the gentleman from Washington and I and other people
have presented this issue, it is also a good investment for this
country, not only because we come off as being what we truly are, a
good country that does not do this to other people but also because
American farmers can sell food and medicine.
{time} 1415
I will give my colleagues an example.
The gentleman from Florida did bring up the issue of Cuba. I have a
bill to do just that, to sell food and medicine to Cuba.
In the area of food alone, if my colleagues can get past, for a
second, the issue of whether we should even give this food away or not
and the issue of food alone, the Cuban Government has made it clear
that they would purchase up to $850 million in rice from this country,
that they would purchase $700 million in corn, that they would purchase
over $500 million in chicken.
Now, every time I mention one of these products, I know that a
certain State delegation or a different State delegation gets excited.
What a wonderful opportunity to do that which is humanely right and
that which is good for our farmers.
I must tell my colleagues when I first got elected 9 years ago,
coming from a district in the Bronx, I never thought that I would have
American farmers supporting a piece of legislation I presented, and
they do, and they do because they support the fact that it is a good
thing to do and a good thing to establish, Mr. Chairman.
Now, the President, as we know, very recently said that we should do
this with all other countries, but he could not do it for Cuba because
of the fact that this is handled by legislation, that we cannot sell
food and medicine to Cuba, and so I think that while this issue
obviously will not be dealt with today, while this issue obviously will
not become law anytime soon, while this issue obviously is still at the
center of a political debate in this House which is not one that seems
for our side to be winning, our side being those of us who agree that
we should do this, the fact is that the time is coming for this.
We cannot continue to have food and medicine business, if my
colleagues will, with China, with Iraq, were Iran, with Sudan and other
countries in the world and continue to argue that one place 90 miles
from Miami should not be allowed the same sale.
So I would hope that we do pay attention to this issue, and I would
hope that in the near future the sponsorship of our bill will continue
to grow. As it is, it is over 150 sponsors at the moment, and the
minute we get to 218, we will talk to our colleagues about bringing it
to the House.
So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect that all Members
would see this for what it is. It is something that is right, it is
something that is fair, and it is something that is long overdue.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that he came up
with incredible numbers that I had not heard before about what Castro
says he would buy from the United States. I think the gentleman said
$800 million in rice and $500 million in chicken. Where does he buy
that from now? Does the gentleman from New York know?
Mr. SERRANO. Yes, those purchases made everywhere but from American
farmers.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Everywhere.
Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman give me where that everywhere is?
Mr. SERRANO. Well, rice comes from Asia.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I know that that is a confidence, but knowing, as I
do, that Castro does not make those purchases now, I was curious to
find out where the gentleman says that they are made now by Castro
based on the fact that he has promised to make them in theory from us.
Mr. SERRANO. Those purchases are made now, and they will be made here
later.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one final point
relative to this debate. It is a good debate, it is a debate that we
all ought to be having. It is a debate that we all ought to be having
in this country because it affects foreign policy issues, it affects
economic issues for our country.
Look what we do in North Korea. We are providing hundreds of millions
of dollars of agriculture aid, food aid, at the expense of the taxpayer
to a regime that I think by all accounts is a corrupt regime in North
Korea. Now I would rather have our country purchase, I should say our
farmers sell commodities to North Korea and other such regimes like
Iran and Iraq and others with whom we disagree violently on policy
issues, but who will purchase our grain and will purchase our apples
and purchase our other products, peas and lentils and other foodstuffs
that will help from a humanitarian standpoint feed the people of those
countries and also feed our farmers in our rural agriculture economy.
So on the one hand our country is giving food to North Korea.
What I want to do as we debate this in the days ahead, and I am not
as pessimistic as perhaps my friend from New York. I think this has a
great chance to be enacted this year if enough people will show their
concern and compassion for the issue, and debate it and pursue it very
forcefully. I think this is the best policy for our country to deal
with these regimes diplomatically very forcefully, but not punish them
and us by not providing them food and medicine.
I just will put a plug in here, Mr. Chairman, for H.R. 212. It is the
sanctions relief bill that has been introduced, that I introduced, that
has lots of cosponsors, and we can have the debate about which
sanctions we ought to impose or not impose on which countries. But from
a conceptual standpoint, from a policy standpoint, lifting sanctions is
the best policy for American agriculture, and I hope this House will
adopt this, and the other body as well, along with the President. This
is good policy for our country.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). This is an issue that needs debate. Every
single country in the world is not only geographically, but
historically and sociologically and politically in a different
situation and in a different moment with regard to the certainty that
it will have a democratic transition the moment of that democratic
transition, and to broad-brush this issue, certainly again I would
reiterate the wisdom of not doing so on an appropriations bill at the
same time that I reiterate my willingness to continue discussions with
those people like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) who
feel so strongly out of good-faith in this issue, not out of support
for dictatorships, but out of good faith, and I
[[Page H3798]]
will continue our discussions because it is dangerous to broad-brush,
it is indispensable that we not and that we recognize that sending
signals to countries; for example, some terrorist states that have
absolutely no way that they can pay, sending signals to them that they
will no longer be sanctioned, that they will be in a situation where
the American market will be open to them before liberation of political
prisoners or free elections are held can be very destructive at this
particular time.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I look forward to further
discussions on this issue which must not be broad-brushed and which
must remain leaving to the United States the option in particular
instances of not having to have recourse to military action as the only
way in which the United States can act.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point.
I do not think this would be as much of an issue if we did not use
embargoes like we have in this recent administration, and talk about
sanctions, they are embargoes. No one likes to use that term because in
agriculture that has real connotations, has real effects.
We remember the Nixon embargo, the Carter embargo, how that
devastated the agriculture. This, in fact, is what we are talking
about, our embargoes, and in the last 80 years there have been 120
embargoes put forth by this country and other countries, and in fact
over half of them have been put in place in the last 6\1/2\ years.
So my colleagues can see the dramatic impact this has had on
agriculture in recent years, a major reason for the decline in prices
today, the fact that 40 percent of the world's population today is
under some type of embargo from the United States, and it is
extraordinarily destructive to agriculture, to free trade and our
position in the world market.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
Insert before the short title the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used by the Food and Drug
Administration for the testing, development, or approval
(Including approval of production, manufacturing, or
distribution) of any drug for the chemical inducement of
abortion.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 2 hours and that the
time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to designate with whom the time
will be divided?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, no, we do not.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control one-half
of the time, 1 hour, and allow the opposition to control one-half.
The CHAIRMAN. Any Member seeking to control 1 hour in opposition?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, yes, we will on this side control the 1
hour in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) will control the
1 hour in opposition. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will
control the 1 hour in favor.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a lot of debate this afternoon and
statements about the intended purpose of this amendment. I want to say
from the outset that this amendment is not intended to have an effect
on any drug used for any purpose other than that which is specifically
spelled out in this amendment.
The taxpayers of the United States spend a great deal of money each
year in funding the Food and Drug Administration. There is something
terribly wrong when we ask the taxpayers of this country to spend money
in a way which is designed to give the Food and Drug Administration the
ability to research and approve drugs that are designed to kill unborn
children.
Now let me say that again. The purpose of this amendment is to limit
the FDA's ability to approve any drug which has its sole purpose to
eliminate and terminate an unborn child.
This should not be in a debate about abortion, and I do not intend it
to be. It is about how we use taxpayers' money and for what purpose
should that money be used.
Abortion is legal in this country. I recognize that. But allowing a
Federal agency to spend taxpayers' dollars to perfect and approve a
method under which we take life to me seems totally irreconcilable with
the fact that our whole country is supposed to be about the pursuit of
happiness, the pursuit of freedom and the pursuit of life.
So this amendment will not block Cytotech from being used in other
medicines and in other ways, it will not block RU-486 if it has an
intended purpose for giving life, saving life, prolonging life. It will
not stop any utilization of FDA funds in terms of that effort. Its sole
purpose is to say to the FDA none of their money should be used in a
manner which will enhance the taking of unborn life.
It is a very simple proposition. Whether one believes in abortion or
do not, both sides of this issue believe that we have way too many
abortions. None of us think that abortion is a great thing. There are
not many people who have been through an abortion who think an abortion
is a great thing.
So I want to move our debate not to the issue of abortion, but
whether or not we can in good conscience utilize taxpayer dollars to
perfect drugs to kill unborn children. That is what the debate is
about. It is not about whether or not somebody can have an abortion; we
all know that that is possible.
{time} 1430
Regrettably so, from my viewpoint. But, rather, the debate is about
protecting unborn life from unwise use of Federal taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, on many votes we share similar
values, a similar point of view, and this Member certainly does not
have a voting record of supporting Federal funding for abortion. I have
read carefully the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a bit different
from the one the gentleman offered 1 or 2 years ago, if I recall.
I think that the wording of the gentleman's amendment has a worthy
purpose. The problem is, I oppose the gentleman's amendment
respectfully for three reasons. First of all, on the basis of science.
I do not think that we can really say with certainty and the kind of
broad language that the gentleman has included in his amendment that
you know for certain what every drug will be used for. I do not have a
Ph.D. in science myself, but certainly in the area of medical science,
if I think about the decade of the brain that we are now working our
way through and all of the discoveries that have been made, for
example, in the area of mental illness, most of them by accident; in
places like France, for example, where patients were on operating
tables, and in order to alleviate pain they were using certain types of
pain medications, and, all of a sudden, they discovered, my gosh, why
did that work to help to diminish hallucinations and other conditions
relating to mental illness?
We certainly are in a period of time now where many of these
medications that were by accident discovered to have application for
the remediation of the symptoms of mental illness are being worked on,
and medical science is at a new horizon in terms of hopefully finding
answers for the millions and millions of people that suffer from those
illnesses.
I think similarly to some of the lab experiments that have been done,
even the discovery of the X-ray itself was an accident. They did not go
in there, I think it was Mr. Roentgen, was that not the name, to
actually discover x-rays, but it happened. All of a sudden we have a
major technology like that that has been used around the world now
because of the ability of science to probe into the unknown, but then
to figure out practical applications.
I think the gentleman's desire to limit abortion is a very worthy
objective, and I do not think anybody on
[[Page H3799]]
this side of the aisle would disagree with the objective. The problem
is that you cannot really say to medical science that you are going to
know for every drug or every chemical that FDA reviews, you are going
to know that it would have an end result that you are talking about.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the gentlewoman did not hear my
first statement. There is nothing in this amendment that will limit the
research of any drug in any way, in any concept, whose purpose is
something other than that. So if you were to take Cytotech or RU-486
and say you want to try to use it in a different way, this does not
limit that at all. When you file an application with the FDA, you give
what your intended purpose is.
What this amendment says is if you bring to the FDA a drug whose only
intended purpose is to induce the separation of a blastocyst from the
uterine wall, that is the technical term for what it does, that they
should not spend money approving that.
If you bring the same drug to the FDA and say this is something that
solves a problem with the liver, or this decreases portal hypertension,
even though it might have that effect of causing an inducement of
abortion, it is still approved.
Let me give you some examples. There is a new hair treatment to grow
hair back on the head of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman),
yet it cannot be used around anyone wanting to get pregnant. Why?
Because it causes severe birth defects and can in fact induce
abortions. That was approved. This would not eliminate that drug from
ever coming to market or the FDA spending money on it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess my point is to
the gentleman that scientific inquiry and the work of the FDA by its
very nature probes into the unknown, and even though the gentleman says
that a given drug has to state a purpose, I am saying that we do not
always know, once science begins to move, all of the various
applications that science might ultimately have for that substance.
So I think that one of the reasons for my opposition to the amendment
is I do not think we ought to prejudge science. We ought to let the
Food and Drug Administration move forward, the scientists ought to move
forward. Let them do what they do best.
I would guess that most drugs have more than one application, and the
chemicals that go into them. Even today, many drugs are given,
prescription drugs in fact, that may have side effects or other results
that even the FDA scientists have not anticipated as they begin.
The second reason I oppose the gentleman's amendment is because I
really do believe that this should be within the Food and Drug
Administration. I do not think that we should be making this decision
on the floor. We should leave it up to the people over at FDA to decide
the procedures for drug approval and so forth, and Federal law
currently provides that no Federal money can be spent for abortion.
That has been on the books for many, many, many years. So I think that
we should let the FDA do its job.
Finally, I would say to the gentleman, with all due respect, this
subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture had absolutely no
testimony on this issue. The gentleman is bringing a very important
issue to the floor. I personally, as just one member of that
subcommittee, would have appreciated to have the FDA testify before us,
many scientists, to talk about the chemistry of what the gentleman is
concerned about, to try to perfect the language of what the gentleman
is trying to offer here.
We really have heard from no one in the public on this particular
subcommittee. So I find it somewhat uncomfortable to try to accept the
gentleman's amendment, when our subcommittee really had absolutely
nothing, we did not spend one minute on this within the committee
itself.
So for those three reasons, and I want to yield time to other Members
to comment, on the basis of science, on the basis of the safety by
having the FDA involved, and also committee procedure, I would
respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond.
Mr. Chairman, again, what the gentlewoman just said is it is against
the Federal law to use Federal dollars for abortion, but in fact when
the FDA approves a drug whose sole purpose is to kill unborn children,
that is spending Federal dollars to perform abortion. So I would
counter that.
Number two, there was no intention to come before your committee on
this issue. This is a well-known issue, this is well documented. There
is lots written on RU-486 and Cytotech, and through this discussion I
will be happy to give you all of the references in the literature on
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Coburn
amendment's efforts to protect the lives and health of our Nation's
women and unborn children.
This amendment would bar FDA's approval and development of new drugs
whose primary purpose is to induce abortion. Those are called
abortifacients.
Some people believe it is in the best interests of women to make all
forms of abortion available to women. However, even for those who
support abortion on demand, approving RU-486 is shortsighted and it is
a risky approach. Scientific studies have shown a link between abortion
and breast cancer. Unfortunately, many who commit abortions do not want
to let women know about that risk.
Breast cancer is the leading form of cancer among middle-age American
women, but we do not even want to tell women who are considering
abortion of this risk.
Ten out of 11 studies on American women report an increased risk of
breast cancer after having an induced abortion.
A meta-analysis in which all worldwide data were combined reported
that an induced abortion elevates a woman's risk of developing breast
cancer by 30 percent. How can we in good conscience approve new forms
of abortion before we study the breast cancer and abortion link further
and let women know of the risk?
This is the kind of investigation that should be done. This kind of
information should be held in hearings before the committee. So I urge
the Members to support the Coburn amendment to protect women, both born
and unborn.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from the State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I might just say to the last speaker, very quickly,
that in fact the editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute
has said that there is insufficient evidence that exists to link
induced abortion and breast cancer. That is a medical opinion.
Let me move onto this amendment this afternoon. I am shocked, quite
frankly, that we are going through this debate again this year after
the outcry of the many medical and pharmaceutical organizations who
opposed this amendment last year. It is an unprecedented invasion into
the FDA's approval process.
Quite frankly, this is a place where Congress has no right to be. We
are not scientists. We do not know what is best for the health of
American citizens.
This amendment is intended to block research. It blocks not only
drugs that are currently in the pipeline, but potential future
breakthroughs in biomedical research. It is an attempt to promote an
anti-choice agenda. I have respect for people who have a different view
of this issue on choice than I do, but the proponents of this amendment
are risking the lives of millions of Americans, because this amendment
would also block the development of drugs to cure cancer, ulcers,
rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy, and other medical conditions because
some of those drugs can cause a spontaneous miscarriage.
Let me read you a portion of a letter from the National Coalition of
Cancer
[[Page H3800]]
Research that is just one of the many medical organizations that is
firmly opposed to this amendment:
``Attempting to legislate any drug's approval or disapproval is
inappropriate. It starts down a slippery slope of prohibiting
development in certain drug categories. The comment that the ranking
member of this committee made, not only does it threaten the
credibility of the drug approval process, it would impede the
development of pharmaceuticals to treat different diseases not related
to reproduction, such as cancer. If disease or condition-specific
approval is dictated by legislative action, drug researchists' efforts
to develop new therapies will be stymied.'' By passing this, the FDA's
approval process would be prevented from having the opportunity to do
something about this issue.
Let me just talk to you for a second as a cancer survivor. I am a
survivor of ovarian cancer; 25,500 women will contract ovarian cancer
this year; one-half of them will die. Any chemotherapy drug that is
taken by anyone with cancer, any chemotherapy drug has the propensity
to cause a spontaneous miscarriage. Why do we take our personal
philosophy about where we are on choice and try to foist it on the
millions of Americans who, through no fault of their own, contract
cancer or a serious illness?
{time} 1445
Why would we relegate millions of women to die because we have a
particular view on choice?
Mr. Chairman, it is wrong for us to prevent biomedical research. We
have an obligation. We spend billions of dollars to promote what
happens at the National Institutes of Health because we believe we have
the obligation to cure disease in this country. Do not take an action
here this afternoon that would in fact condemn millions to die because
somehow we want to score a point on choice in this country.
It is wrong, it is unconscionable, and I plead with my colleagues to
defeat this outrageous amendment this afternoon.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time allotted to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
during his brief absence.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am happy and pleased to
yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I think most of us agree that we would
like to be seeking alternatives to abortion, rather than making
abortion more accessible.
But the one issue that I wanted to speak on today is what has been
shown scientifically as an increased risk of breast cancer. Supposedly
there is a link between breast cancer and abortion. This should be
examined much more thoroughly before any new forms are approved.
Ten out of 11 studies on American women report an increased risk of
breast cancer after having an induced abortion, particularly among
women with a history of breast cancer in their families. We know this
is already a major problem which we are trying to effectively deal with
because currently cancer is the leading form, or breast cancer is the
leading form of cancer among middle-aged American women.
In the few countries in which RU-486 is available, it is strictly
regulated by the government's health care systems. However, in the
U.S., control of abortion drugs is more lax, and sometimes they are
often dispensed without a doctor's approval, which again potentially
endangers women's health.
But because of the potentially dangerous side effects of abortion,
and this is not just physical, this is emotional, as well, these drugs
should not be administered without consultation and medical follow-up
with a doctor. So I hope we give this serious thought.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the great State of New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of
the committee.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding
time to me.
Before I address the overall issue, I would like to respond to my
colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) by reading
another quote.
``The Danish researchers concluded that induced abortion has no
effect on the risk of breast cancer.'' When reporting on a particular
study, the New York Times stated: ``This longstanding issue shall now
be settled. No evidence exists to link induced abortion and breast
cancer.''
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment.
The amendment would stop the drug approval process in its tracks by
placing unprecedented roadblocks in front of the FDA. It puts ideology
ahead of science and compromises women's health.
The Coburn amendment would block the final approval of a drug, RU-
486, that the FDA has already declared to be safe and effective. I
repeat, this amendment would block final approval of a drug that the
FDA has already declared safe and effective.
This amendment would make FDA drug approval contingent not on science
but on politics. The FDA is charged with protecting the public's
health, and should not be subject to congressional interference. Should
we subject each FDA decision to a congressional vote? Mr. Chairman, let
us allow the FDA to do its job free from right-wing intimidation. The
American people do not want the Christian Coalition in charge of our
Nation's drug approval process.
This amendment may also prohibit the development of new, more
effective contraceptive methods, if Members believe, as some do, that
any form of hormonal contraception, like in this bill, is tantamount to
an abortion.
What about other drugs that as a side effect may induce abortion,
like many chemotherapy drugs and anti-ulcer medication? Will research
be halted on these lifesaving drugs as well? This amendment is too
vague even to give us a clear answer to that question.
So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about much more than RU-486. It
is about whether the FDA will be free to test, develop, and approve
needed drugs without congressional interference. It is about whether
politics or science will govern our Nation's drug approval process.
Since Roe v. Wade, the anti-choice minority has attempted to stymie
contraceptive research and suppress advances in reproductive health.
For example, there used to be 13 pharmaceutical companies engaged in
contraceptive research. There are now four. Thankfully, despite
pressure tactics, scientists have made some important progress. Among
the most significant is the development of RU-486.
RU-486 would make a dramatic difference in the options available to
women facing unintended pregnancies. It could make abortion, already
one of the safest medical procedures, even safer. Women in France have
been using RU-486 for a decade. It is also available in Sweden and
Great Britain.
Over 400,000 women have had abortions using RU-486. The New England
Journal of Medicine has published clinical trials confirming its
acceptability and effectiveness. Also, RU-486 has another significant
advantage over current abortion procedures, it can be given in the
privacy of a physician's office.
What will the right do when it is approved? Will it picket every
doctor's office in America? Will it harass every woman in the Nation?
Thankfully, it cannot. That is why it is fighting to block the approval
of this drug.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I just want to respond briefly to the
previous speaker. When I hear talk of the so-called anti-choice
minority, I find that not only empirically unsound, because the data
clearly shows America is moving increasingly toward the right-to-life
position. But its insulting as well. Minority? I don't think so. As a
matter of fact, two polls recently came out. One was done by Faye
Wattleton's group, the former president of the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America. According to The Center for Gender Equality
Survey, January of
[[Page H3801]]
1999: ``Seventy percent of women favor more restrictions on
abortions;'' women, 70 percent. That doesn't sound like a ``minority''
to me. The survey also found fifty-three percent of women today favor
banning abortion except for rape, incest, and life of the mother. Rape,
incest and life of the mother is about two or three percent of all the
reasons as to why abortions are procured. So most women want most
abortions made illegal.
Most of the 4,000 babies who die, each day in America from abortion
would be saved if the opinions of a majority of women--if their
sentiment--were enacted into law. The Coburn amendment does far less
than what a majority of women want and we are not talking even remotely
about banning abortion in this pending amendment. Yet, 53 percent of
women today favor banning abortion, except for rape, incest, or life of
the mother.
The survey interestingly points out that that is up from 45 percent
of women just 2 years ago. So there is a sea change occurring.
Americans are beginning to wake up to the fact that abortion is
violence against children.
There is also a USA Today CNN Gallup poll that found that 55 percent
of all men and women say abortion in America should be legal only under
rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. So again, a majority
of men and women and a majority of just women that have been found in
the USA Today-CNN poll and the Center for Gender Equality survey that
the majority is in favor of protecting the lives of innocent unborn
children, except in the most extreme circumstances that, frankly,
rarely, rarely happen.
If we had legislation that protected those children, again, we would
be saving most of the lives. When polled on funding, an overwhelming
majority of Americans in every poll, and I ask Members to look at their
own polls in their own districts, most will show clearly an
overwhelming majority of Americans are against using taxpayer-funded
monies to pay for abortions, except in the rarest of cases.
This legislation, this amendment, the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is the Hyde amendment of the FDA.
Let us be very clear about it, it is the Hyde amendment being applied
to testing of those drugs that are used to procure an abortion.
I believe history and human rights observance are on our side, the
pro-life side. Some day the viewpoint from the pro-abortion side will
be seen as so misguided and even cruel that people will say, how could
they have imposed such violence on innocent, unborn children,
especially at a time when we know more about unborn children than ever
before in the history of mankind or womankind. Today microsurgery on
unborn children, is almost common place. Children are literally lifted
out of the mother's womb and surgery is performed, and then they are
reinserted to grow and develop and mature until birth time.
Birth has to be seen, I say to my colleagues, as an event that
happens to each and every one of us. It is not the beginning of human
life. That happens much, much sooner than that at fertilization.
What the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is trying to do with
his amendment is to say that babies are not junk. They are not
throwaways. Some Members want to allow the FDA to invent the newest
form of mousetrap, to come up with another more lethal way of
destroying unborn children. We can't allow that to happen. And RU-486
is not really a morning after drug, it is used up to 7 weeks after
fertilization. It causes the abortion to occur usually after 7 weeks
into the gestational cycle. That is not morning after.
I find it offensive, that my tax dollars, American people, not some
so-called anti-choice minority but a pro-life majority are used to test
and approve deadly poisons for children.
The pro-abortion side does not enjoy a majority in this country.
Through manipulation of poll data over the years the pro-abortion side
has given the impression, the perception that that is the case, but now
the pollsters are now asking more specific and enlightening questions,
and all of a sudden it is revealing that, one, more people are pro-
life, and also, when they ask the same question over the last several
years, there has been a change in our direction.
My friend from New York Mrs. Lowey says there is no linkage of
abortion and breast cancer. Yet 10 out of 11 studies on American women
report an increase in breast cancer when women under goes abortion. The
``denial'' people remind me, of the tobacco Institute denials who year
after year said there is no connection between smoking and lung cancer.
There is a compelling linkage of breast cancer and abortion. Dr.
Janet Daling, with a National Cancer Institute-funded study, found that
after just one abortion there is an increase in the aggregate of all
women of about 50 percent in the propensity to get breast cancer. She
is not a pro-lifer. She does not agree with my position or that of the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
She also found that if a woman aborts her first baby that number
shoots up to 150 percent. Shame on those who say there is no linkage.
They are misleading women. They are misleading women. And putting women
at risk.
Dr. Daling also found that where there is a history of breast cancer
in that family, the vote skyrockets to 270 percent when abortion is
involved. So if the mother, or the grandmother or sister or someone in
that family has had breast cancer, one abortion means that there is a
greater likelihood that she will get breast cancer. Why the coverup
We would hope that the FDA would spend more time looking at drugs to
mitigate breast cancer and to try to get rid of that terrible, terrible
disease, and that the whole abortion establishment would stop the
cover-up, and begin informing women about their risks.
Let me just also point out, Mr. Chairman, that RU-486 and chemical
abortions, just like dismemberment abortions, just like those abortions
where the baby's brains are literally sucked out, partial birth
abortions, chemical abortions are just another way of killing the baby.
I think it is time to stop pro-abortion sophistry and the ignoring of
the basic fact that every act of abortion takes a life. It is violence
against children. Some day we are going to realize that, Mr. Chairman.
We do not want our tax dollars being used to perfect another way,
another chemical poison, another baby pesticide to kill babies. That is
what we are talking about. Come up with drugs that heal, do not promote
drugs and make me and my colleagues on the pro-life side on both sides
of the aisle fund and pay for killing agents.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to refer my colleague
again to statements from the National Cancer Institute, because we feel
so strongly that we should not be mixing up politics and science,
confusing our own personal views, and I respect the gentleman's, on
whether or not women should have a choice. I would expect that the
gentleman respects others'.
In 1996 the National Cancer Institute, concerned that some anti-
abortion groups were misrepresenting the science on the subject, issued
a statement, not my statement, their statement, and I quote, ``The
available data on the relationship between induced abortions or
spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, and breast cancer are
inconsistent, inconclusive. There is no evident of a direct
relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous
abortion.''
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as I
pointed out earlier in the debate 10 of the 11 studies on American
women reported an increase on breast cancer when the women had an
abortion. You may say there needs to be more studies. I say there needs
to be more studies. Everybody says that.
But when we get a preponderance of studies pointing in the same
direction, I think we should alert women that there is a negative
devastating side effect sometimes manifesting itself 20 to 30 years
down the line that cannot be ignored and trivialized.
When Janet Daling's study came out, which was National Cancer
Institute-funded it received adequate coverage in
[[Page H3802]]
the Washington Post for one day. Then all trace of the story was killed
with spin from the abortion rights side.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim control
of the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the National Cancer Institute
study. The gentlewoman added one word there that totally throws out
what they said, ``spontaneous.'' If we add all the spontaneous
abortions in with the induced abortions, we will not get an effect,
because the number of spontaneous abortions is close to 600,000 to
700,000 per year, 800,000 in some studies. So by combining that data, a
normal response to a wrong and incomplete reproductive event to the
termination of a normal event, we do not have good data. They know
that. That is why they put that material in there.
I want to continue my point, if I may. I will be happy to debate back
and forth with the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, I heard from this floor statements exactly opposite of
what I said was the intention of my amendment. I am deeply concerned
that people would use untruth about what this intended amendment is.
Everyone knows me well enough that I am not going to oppose good
research for things that help people get well.
There is nothing, and it does not matter what the gentlewoman says,
there is nothing in this amendment that will eliminate any cure for
cancer, eliminate any process under which any drug can be studied for
cancer, because the actual application that the Food and Drug uses,
which is right here, it says, what is the purpose for the IND. And if
the purpose is chemical inducement for abortion, then they cannot do
it. If it says anything else other than that, they cannot.
Finally, I would like to comment about the comments on whether or not
we ought to be involved in this.
{time} 1500
If the issue of life is not something this House should debate, I do
not know what we should debate. There is nothing more important,
whether it is the end of life or beginning of life.
We can have our differences. We have a Supreme Court ruling; I
understand that. But to say we should not be debating and then finally
to say that Congress should not try to work what it thinks the will is,
I would propose that most of those who oppose this amendment voted for
the amendments that limited drive-through deliveries, that limited
drive-through mastectomies, so they have already said that they believe
that Congress should practice medicine.
My colleagues cannot claim both sides of this issue. Either they
think it is a proper position for this government or this Congress to
get involved in things that are wrong or they do not.
Now my colleagues may not agree with the issue, but to use the false
premise that we should not be discussing this is intellectually
dishonest; it is inappropriate and misstates the situation.
There is nothing in this amendment that will limit NCI's research
whatsoever into any cancer treatment, into any treatment whatsoever in
any way. To claim otherwise is to distort the truth for purposes of
debate and to not carry out an equitable and fair debate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the remaining
time on both sides, please.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 44\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 40\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that, as I listened to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and his desire to try to protect life, I
think that his amendment and the words of his amendment, in fact, do
not do that. So there is not a disagreement with the objective, but
rather the means to get there.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) very much for yielding to me this time.
This bill does not provide taxpayers subsidies for abortion. This
bill before us is an appropriation to fund the Food and Drug
Administration. The Food and Drug Administration receives applications
from those private industries that manufacture drugs who come to them
and say we want to market our drug. But the law says we must apply to
FDA to assure the public that the drug is safe and effective. The FDA
then uses its scientific method to determine whether the drug ought to
be sold as safe and effective.
The Coburn amendment would prevent the FDA from using science. It
would say to the FDA they may not approve a drug that is safe and
effective because we are going to substitute a political judgment for
what has been a scientific judgment under which the FDA has been
mandated in carrying out its responsibilities. So what we are doing is
preventing taxpayers' funding of the Food and Drug Administration to
determine whether a drug is safe and effective.
Now, there is an interesting argument that the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) makes, and I am sure he is sincere, that his
amendment would only apply to a drug solely to be used for abortion
purposes. But that is not what his amendment says. His amendment says
that the FDA cannot use any of its funds for testing, development, or
approval of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion. Well,
``for the chemical inducement of abortion'' may be a side effect of a
drug that may be intended to cure cancer. It may be intended for some
other purpose.
Now abortion is legal. If abortion is legal, why should we not allow
funds to be used by private enterprise to develop a drug that would
lead to safer abortions, earlier, safer abortions?
We have heard the story about the link of abortions with breast
cancer. I have seen no evidence of that. But let us say that there is a
drug that would allow a termination of a pregnancy without any
additional risk that may now be out there for those who do decide to
terminate a pregnancy.
This amendment is a political amendment. It really is inappropriate
in this legislation not to allow the FDA to do its job, which is to use
science, to allow research based on science as the FDA considers
whether a drug ought to be marketed to the American people.
I would hope that we would oppose this amendment and let FDA do its
job and allow a procedure that is legal to be done in the safest
possible way.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to respond to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman). Number one, the definition of ``for'' under the dictionary
that we have in the House is with the object or purpose of.
The gentleman refuses to address our issue. Our issue is that Federal
dollars should not be used to enhance the taking of life. Now, his
claim that he has no knowledge of the connection between breast cancer
and abortion, I can take that. He probably had not read the studies. I
have read every study. Having been trained in science and having read
all studies associated with breast cancer and abortion, I think there
is some legitimacy to it. I do not know how much there is, but I have
read it at least.
Number two is, for the gentleman to object that this is not a place
for this debate, again it is not inappropriate, for we have an
opportunity as Members of this House to put limitation amendments on
appropriations bills. We may not like it, and I understand that, but it
does not mean that it is inappropriate or wrong for us to do it.
I also have the legislative history where my dear friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has been very effective in
doing some of these same things in the past himself. So the use of a
limitation amendment on an appropriation bill is both appropriate and
within the rules of the House.
So again I want to say this amendment will not, and I will take my
colleagues to the application of the Food
[[Page H3803]]
and Drug Administration, one has to list a purpose or indication for a
drug when one applies. If that is something other than the inducement
of abortion, then they can approve anything. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) knows that. He knows what the forms say. He
knows more about the Food and Drug Administration than anybody in this
Congress. I understand that. But he also knows full well that this
amendment will have its intended purpose, and that no drug whatsoever
which has a purpose other than that will be limited in any way.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will insert for the Record a statement
from the Food and Drug Administration where they say very clearly they
do not read the gentleman's amendment as he does. Their lawyers have
said this will prevent them from dealing with any drug that is brought
to them for approval that may have the consequence of terminating a
pregnancy.
But my view is, even if its original intended purpose is to terminate
a pregnancy, if it is a safer way to do that, we may be saving lives as
a result. We may be saving the life of the mother.
Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, let me give the gentleman from
California some reasons why we have breast cancer associated with
abnormal pregnancies. When a woman is pregnant, there is a large
increase of both estrogen and progesterone. The abrupt termination of
those, one has turn-on factors in the breast tissue which are not
modulated in a normal cycle that the body knows how to do it. That is
why we also see an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have
late onset pregnancies.
This is not something that is new to the medical community. This is
something that we suspect, and now we are starting to see data for. I
understand the gentleman's opposition. I would say I would be happy to
take an amendment from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that
puts the word ``solely'' in there. I would happily agree to that. But I
think his real objection is that we should not be doing this. But the
point is I am happy to accept an amendment that will say solely for
that, because, as a practicing physician, I know we sometimes get
consequences that are ill-effective, and I have no intention of
stopping it.
The final point that I would make is the lawyers for the FDA ought to
read the legislative history. This passed the House last year, and the
history on it shows very much, we actually even had a ruling from the
Chair which the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) had the point of
order on, which said this would do that, and the Chair ruled it would
not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). The Supreme
Court has told us that we have to allow the killing of unborn children
on demand. It has not, however, told us the government has an
obligation to facilitate this service.
This amendment would help ensure that American taxpayers do not end
up funding the approval of drugs that are designed to kill our unborn
children. FDA's mission, as it was created by this very Congress,
should be to approve drugs that save lives, not end lives.
I would just hasten to add that Congress does have oversight
responsibility with regard to all agencies of the Federal Government.
It has been stated that Congress is sticking its nose into places it
should not be. Well, if Congress should not be here now, then it is
assumed that the proponents of that philosophy say that the Federal
Government should not have been involved in the Food and Drug
Administration's creation.
Secondly, there has been the point made with regard to the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court decision that has been made. Earlier today
we heard an oath from a new Member that said he swore to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States. He did not say anything
about according to what the Supreme Court says that the Constitution
says.
Separation of powers says that the House of Representatives, the
Congress, has the constitutional obligation to determine constitutional
intent; and that is what the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) is doing right here, saying that it is Congress'
obligation to determine how the taxpayers' money is spent.
The point has also been made that Congress are not scientists. Well,
there are several of us that happen to be scientists. We are not in the
area with regard to medical science, but we have been told about other
doctrines of science, other theories of science; and that is one of
those old theories that we are asked to subscribe to today.
{time} 1515
And that is that we are led to believe that if a child, if an
individual is conceived, that 9 months later it turns into something
that it was not. During the Dark Ages and shortly thereafter, that was
a scientific theory that was subscribed to, called spontaneous
generation, which said basically if rancid meat sat in the corner for
24 days, there will be flies there. So that meant that rancid meat
ultimately turned into flies.
Well, that is not the point here. The point is that a child at
conception is a child at conception, it is a child 2 months after
conception, it is a child 9 months after conception, and it is a child
2 years after it is born.
We should not, as Members of this House, be asked to subscribe to a
theory in science that was done away with hundreds of years ago by
scientific knowledge at that time. Therefore, we are being asked to
facilitate the FDA doing something safe and effective. If that child is
a child at conception, and it does not automatically spontaneously
generate into a child sometime later, then we are to make sure that
drugs are safe and effective for children that are inside the womb as
well and not be facilitating the destruction of that human life.
Finally, I will say that there has been much said here about cancer
survivorship, and I would be one that would say that I am pleased at
the rate of survivorship of Members of this House, Members of this
Chamber. My mother is a cancer survivor. However, my father had cancer
and he is not a survivor of cancer. This weekend I am going to take
part in a relay for life where those survivors of cancer are going to
come and celebrate life. My father will not get to take part in that
process this year because he is not a survivor of cancer, but I can
tell my colleague this: that the way my father raised me is such that
he would not take one innocent child's life in order for him to survive
cancer.
And that is not what this amendment does. It says and I quote, ``None
of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Food and
Drug Administration for the testing, development, or approval,
including approval of production, manufacture or distribution, of any
drug for the chemical inducement of abortion.''
This amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma simply deals with a
phenomenon of the day, and that is RU486, an abortifacient, that is not
being used to treat people and cure people of cancer as it could have
my father. Let us remove all the veneer, let us remove all of the
camouflage over this and tell the story as it is. The gentleman's
amendment will not stop one drop of research into saving people's lives
that have cancer. I wish that research would have happened a few years
earlier, so that my father could have taken part in that relay for life
this weekend.
Let us do say a word for life today. Let us say that innocent preborn
life is worth securing, is worth protecting and is at least worth not
spending taxpayer dollars on to find a more efficient way to
exterminate it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am frankly disturbed by the claims that
are being made by the proponents of this amendment. The proponents of
the amendment say that the drug cannot be used for the sole purpose of
abortion or the primary purpose of abortion, but
[[Page H3804]]
that is not what the text of the amendment says. What the text of the
amendment says is none of the funds appropriated shall be used for the
testing, development or approval of any drug for the chemical
inducement of abortion. Those words are not in there.
But there are more problems than that. The other problems are that
there is no recognized definition by the FDA of the words ``chemical,''
``inducement,'' or ``abortion.'' So nobody is filing applications with
the FDA saying we want to use this research solely for the purpose of
the chemical inducement of abortion.
The truth is the way this amendment is written it would prevent
research on many, many drugs which may have a side effect of causing
abortion. And if my colleagues believe the last speaker, many people
believe that that is appropriate. Many people believe that it is a
worthwhile societal goal to have millions of cancer victims die in
order to stop what may be abortions. That is unacceptable both from a
human and a scientific standpoint.
The truth is under this amendment we would be banning research of
drugs which would cause miscarriages by treating cancer, hypertension,
cirrhosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and even some vaccines. We cannot
sacrifice scientific research into abortion, which is legal, or equally
importantly into cancer and all these other things simply because of a
political agenda. And that is what we are talking about here. We are
talking about a political agenda.
And the reason this amendment is written so broadly is because there
are people who would ban drugs whose primary purpose is for other
purposes, like cancer research, in order to stop abortion. And that is
wrong. Defeat the amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would
restrict the FDA from its current system of research and testing of
drugs that could eventually save lives.
Reproductive health drugs should be subject to the FDA's strict
science-based requirements which any drug must meet before approval can
be granted, but this amendment would prevent the FDA from reviewing any
drug that could possibly induce miscarriages as a side effect.
Health research is threatened when we legislate decisions that should
be left to medical researchers and doctors. Under current law, a
company that wants to begin clinical trials on a new drug submits its
application to the FDA for approval and, if the application has not
been responded to within 30 days, the company is free to move forward.
With this amendment, no funds could be used to oversee or even
disapprove of such tests.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that there
is nothing in the legislative history or the ruling of the Chair from
last year or the legal parameters that we have had that makes the
gentlewoman's statement a true statement.
The fact is that all drugs whose sole purpose is something other than
the chemical inducement of abortion have free reign at the FDA, and I
thank the gentlewoman
Mrs. MORELLA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's
amendment, though, would say review of any drug that could possibly
induce a miscarriage as a possible side effect.
Well, now this amendment is opposed by such groups as the National
Coalition for Cancer Research and the American Medical Association, and
they believe very strongly, as we do, that attempting to legislate any
drug's approval or disapproval is inappropriate and that not only does
it threaten the credibility of the drug approval process, but it would
impede development of pharmaceuticals that may be used either as
contraceptives or to treat diseases related to reproduction.
As a matter of fact, it was during last year's debate that drug
companies stated that researchers and pharmaceutical companies would be
less likely to invest in drugs that might cause miscarriages, and
currently many drugs do have this side effect.
So if disease- or condition-specific approval is dictated by
legislative action, we are in big trouble. So I urge my colleagues to
vote against this amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon), and I would note for the House that he is a
medical doctor.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and as Yogi Berra said, ``It's like deja vu all
over again.'' We are having this argument now and it is the same set of
arguments as we had last year when the Coburn amendment passed the
House, I believe by a margin of 223 to 202. I would encourage all my
colleagues to vote in support of the Coburn amendment.
I believe very strongly that this is a very reasonable and prudent
amendment. As has been very, very clearly stated by the gentleman from
Oklahoma, when these pharmaceutical companies, medical schools,
individuals put in these applications for new drug approval, they put
down what its indication is. And the Coburn language is very specific.
We had a ruling from the Chair on this issue last year. If the specific
indication is to induce chemical abortion, under the provision of his
amendment they will be barred from doing that.
Now, I practiced internal medicine for 15 years prior to coming to
the House. I still see patients occasionally on weekends. I have had
the unfortunate experience of diagnosing people with cancer; indeed,
the even more unfortunate experience of seeing many of my patients die.
And I would not support any amendment that in any way would interfere
with the new development and approval of drugs for the treatment of
cancer. And I think it is very disingenuous for anybody to imply that
this amendment would have that kind of an implication. This amendment
is very, very clear in its language. It is very, very well targeted.
I would also like to point out that what we are talking about today
is very, very significant. The FDA has been around for years, and it
has safeguarded the American people from the introduction of many
potentially dangerous drugs. A great example of this is thalidomide, a
drug that was introduced in Europe and produced terrible birth defects.
But our American Food and Drug Administration never approved that drug
and, thus, prevented millions of American babies from being born with
such a type of malformation.
The Food and Drug Administration has never had a drug application
before it where the specific intent of the drug was to lead to the
death of an unborn baby. Now, abortion, obviously, is a very
controversial issue. Every time these issues come up, the arguments are
very, very impassioned. And they should be because it is an issue of
life and death.
We all know that the baby in the womb has a beating heart. At 40 days
it has detectable brain waves. Those are the criteria that I used to
use when I practiced medicine to make a determination as to whether or
not somebody was dead or alive. So this is a very, very significant
issue. And to have the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviewing a
drug and approving a drug where its intended purpose is to kill the
unborn baby in the womb, I think, is very, very inappropriate. I think
it is very, very appropriate for us to speak on this issue. So,
therefore, I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the Coburn amendment.
I just want to touch on one additional issue that has come up in the
course of this debate, and that is the reported possible link between
abortion and breast cancer. My colleagues, I have reviewed the studies
on this issue and the studies are very, very compelling that there
really is a link. The statement released by the NCI, I believe, is a
very disingenuous statement. It really sincerely ignores the facts on
this issue.
If my colleagues actually take the time to read the studies, it is
very, very bothersome to me that there are a lot of people within the
cancer research community that are turning a blind eye to this issue.
Now, finally, let me close by saying the President of the United
States once
[[Page H3805]]
said in a speech that he wanted to make abortion safe, legal and rare.
There are lots of us who hold that abortion is never safe for the
unborn baby in the womb, and I do not think anybody would argue with
that. Some people may want to turn a blind eye to the humanity of that
child in the womb, but it is never safe for the child in the womb.
Might I also say that there has been absolutely no effort on the part
of the administration to truly make abortion rare. Indeed, in trying to
push through something like this, we are in many ways trying to
facilitate abortion, trying to make it easier, make it more common. And
I do not think we should be going in that direction.
I applaud the gentleman for introducing this amendment, and I
encourage everyone to support it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to manage the time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The author of this amendment may, in fact, believe that it is
narrowly drawn and will not affect other research that is being done,
but I think his comments a few speakers ago, when the gentleman from
California was talking, that he was willing to accept a clarifying
amendment, indicates even a specter of doubt in his own mind that there
may be a problem with this amendment.
The fact is, even with the ruling of the Chair, this issue would not
be decided by the Chair; it is ultimately decided across the street at
the Supreme Court.
{time} 1530
That is what is to happen if we go through with this type of
amendment because it may address RU-486 today, but it will open the
door for lawsuits to address other types of research tomorrow and it
will not be decided in this body or in the other body, it will be
decided in the courts. This is a very dangerous precedent-setting
amendment that takes the Congress, in my opinion, down the wrong path
where we do not want to go.
The gentleman raised the issue of drive-through mastectomies and
drive-through deliveries, and, yes, voted for those. I do not know if
the gentleman did or not. I think that is a dangerous position for us
to take. But here we are going even further. And I think this amendment
is so broadly drawn that it creates a serious problem, and I think the
House ought to reject it.
Our other colleague from Indiana talked about removing the veneer.
Well, let us do remove the veneer. This is not just about RU-486. This
is about chipping away once again at ``Roe v. Wade'' and getting this
in front of the Supreme Court again and seeing if they can overturn a
woman's right to choose. That is what this is about. But in the wake of
doing that, it creates a lot of damage in the research world.
I hope my colleagues will oppose this poorly drafted amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who is, I might say, in opposition to my
amendment.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me, knowing that I oppose his amendment. And I do oppose
his amendment very strongly.
The law of the land is that abortion is legal, whether we like it or
not. The law of the land and Supreme Court decisions have given women
total control over the decision of whether they will get pregnant and
carry a pregnancy during the first trimester. That right is compromised
as the fetus grows and women have essentially no right to abortion
except under extreme circumstances that are life-threatening toward the
end of their pregnancy.
Now, that is simply the law of the land. If my colleagues do not like
it, bring a bill to ban abortion, and let us debate that on the floor
as the representatives of the people. Let us see if America wants a
policy that bans abortion.
Italy has reversed their policy banning abortion because if we ban
abortion, we just raise the number of women who die, who die getting
illegal abortions. And we know that that was true in our history.
When we first made abortions legal, the big change was not an
increase in abortions, because there was not any increase in abortion.
The big change was a radical, precipitous decline in maternal deaths.
So, mark my words, this is about abortion. Women have a right to
abortion and they have a right to a variety of safe, legal procedures.
Women in Europe have had access to this method for 20 years.
This is not about thalidomide. This is about something that women in
Europe have used for 20 years. Our FDA has reviewed it on the basis of
science. That is their job. And under that standard, they have found it
to be an effective agent. And women have every bit as great a right in
America to a pharmaceutical agent as they do to the surgical
procedures. Why would men, in America particularly, want to make the
decision for women that they have to go, in a sense, under the knife
rather than taking a pharmaceutical pill?
So this is, by gum, about a woman's right to choose and the right to
abortion in the very earliest months when even there may not have been
any fertilization of the egg. This is not necessarily an abortive
phase. It depends on what happened and what did not happen, which they
do not know at the time they take it. It is a very big advance. And to
deny it and stop it on the floor this way is to indicate that we will
approach contraceptive research the same way and that we will narrow
rigorously the options available to women to manage their reproductive
capability and, with it, their health.
I strongly oppose this amendment. This Congress should not be banning
by procedure methods of abortion.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) who I believe has
left the floor.
But he referred to this administration and said they have done
nothing to make abortion rare. I would invite him and my other
colleagues to join us in supporting our contraceptive coverage bill,
because that is really the way we reduce the number of abortions.
Having the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan and other private
insurance plans cover contraceptives will reduce the number of
abortions, and the administration has been strongly supportive of that.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn
amendment.
In my first term in the House of Representatives in 1993, during the
Year of the Woman, with my good sisters and a good number of men, we
fought here on the House floor so that the United States could have
expanded healthy alternatives to surgical abortions. We supported
research development and availability of drugs for medical abortions,
like RU-486, in the United States.
Since then, I have witnessed RU-486 being made available in Europe,
while here in our country in the United States, here in this Congress,
we have had to fight back the far right's constant blows against RU-486
and women's health in general.
I am saddened to say it, but this is the same attack by the
conservatives as last year and the year before and the year before
that. This amendment seeks to deny women the right to early and safe
drugs, such as RU-486, when faced with a crisis pregnancy. Further,
because it bans the Federal Drug Administration from approving drugs
like RU-486, it represents an unprecedented threat to the FDA's
approval process.
Let us make no mistake about it. These repeat attacks are an
unwarranted intrusion on a woman's life and a woman's right to good
health, and this attack is by the extreme right. Let
[[Page H3806]]
us get the far right out of women's health, get politics out of
science, and allow the FDA to determine what drugs are safe for women.
Once again, I urge my colleagues, vote against the Coburn amendment,
vote for women and women's health.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think, as a physician, I listen to
this debate and it is very interesting to watch us practice medicine
out here on the floor of the House of Representatives.
It is pretty clear that if the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
wanted to ban RU-486, that is what he would have put in this amendment.
But it is very clear that this is not what the intention is. The
intention is to get a law out there that they can then get involved in
lawsuits. It is a very well-known political strategy over the last 10
years to start something and get involved in the courts and tie it up
forever.
Now, if they have pharmaceutical companies, and the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) knows this, they screen all kinds of drugs. Right
now, I heard thalidomide mentioned here on the floor. And it became a
very bad drug because of its effects on newborn babies and causing
defects. It is now being used for another illness. And when
pharmaceutical companies screen, they do not know exactly what it is
going to be used for. And what they are essentially doing here is
opening the door for a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company who
comes to the FDA, having spent $20 or $40 or $100 million developing a
drug, and if somebody says, this causes abortion, therefore, we have a
cause of action against them and we stop it, they are interfering in a
process that is presently legal.
A woman has a right to an abortion, and pharmaceutical companies have
a right to develop drugs to do that in a very safe way. And for us to
get into that position, the logical slope that they are headed down
here, has already been mentioned. The next thing will be, when the
sperm meets the egg, if that is a baby, then the next thing is going to
be we must ban all birth control.
We already have difficulty getting birth control paid for by the
Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. And so we know what is in
their minds. But beyond that, the next thing will be an amendment out
here on maybe the HHS appropriation to prevent any money from being
used for medical school training of any school that trains anybody to
do abortions. Because if we go back and back and back up the stream,
why should we waste money training physicians, obstetricians, in the
skill of doing a safe abortion? We should not because they are ending
the life of a child, and we get into all this inflammatory rhetoric.
Now, everybody knows that is wrong. And this amendment is just the
beginning of it. It is designed to do that and it is designed to hide
what it is up to.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time for her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. This is an antichoice, an
antiscience science amendment. It is not just about RU-486. It is about
FDA's ability to test, research, and approve any drug based on sound
scientific evidence which may have as a side effect a miscarriage. It
could slow or stop research on a wide range of life-saving drugs.
Science, not politics, should determine what drugs are approved. This
is why the National Coalition for Cancer Research, the American Medical
Assocation, the American Public Health Association, among others,
oppose this amendment.
Many drugs, including chemotherapy and antiulcer medication, have the
side effects of inducing abortion. This is why pregnant women are
advised against taking certain medications.
One of the drugs targeted by this amendment, mefipristone, is not
just a drug to make abortion safer. It has also shown to be useful in
treating uterine fibrosis, endometriosis, glaucoma, and certain breast
cancer tumors.
Another drug targeted by this amendment, methotrexate, has also been
used to treat a wide array of conditions including arthritis, lupus,
and some forms of cancerous tumors. Blocking research and development
of safe and effective drugs in the name of abortion politics is just
plain wrong. Never before has Congress told the FDA to approve or
disapprove of a particular drug.
This vote is the 108th antichoice vote before this Congress since the
new majority came to power. We should not be attempting to appeal or
repeal a woman's right to choose procedure by procedure. This is
antiscience, antichoice, antiwoman. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 23\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 27
minutes remaining.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
{time} 1545
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment,
because I think it is important for this Congress to change the culture
of this country by renewing our commitment to the value of life. This
is not the time to send a signal to all Americans that abortions of
convenience are a way to solve the problem of promiscuity and
recreational sex. It is a hoax on the American people and women, in
particular, to suggest that this is a healthy way to handle an unwanted
pregnancy. We must not send the signal that it is easy as a pill to end
an unwanted pregnancy.
This is one of the most important issues facing our country today,
because as we look around at the violence and the apparent disregard
for life in every walk of life, we have got to question if this type of
ease in ending life is contributing to that. This amendment will do
what it needs to do in stopping the approval of a way of life in
America, in restoring value to life to all ages in America.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me this time, because I would like to devote my time to why I
think there is confusion about this amendment. The gentleman may be a
doctor, but in drawing his amendment it is clear that he is not a
lawyer. He says he has drawn an amendment to stop the FDA from
approving RU-486. The language he has used instructs us on an amendment
to stop the FDA from testing drugs that can treat cancer, high blood
pressure, ectopic pregnancy, fibroids, epilepsy. The list is very long.
The reason is that although the gentleman mysteriously says that he
would accept an amendment to limit the language, he does not propose
language of that kind. Why has he brought broad language here?
The reason that his language is defective is that, in the law, it is
overinclusive and overbroad. Therefore, in the words he used, it must
have unintended effects. In the law it is called a chilling effect.
What that means in this case is that a pharmaceutical company will not
come forward with a drug that may cure cancer because that company
believes it may be sued because of the overinclusive language he has
used. It ought to stop every Member in this body when they know that
every chemotherapy drug can cause a miscarriage. If, in fact, this
amendment had been in the law at the time these drugs were being
produced, people who are alive today by the hundreds of thousands would
be dead.
I ask you, how many people would be dead today if we consider how
many drugs are on the market that have unintended effects that none of
us could possibly approve, deadly effects? That is why politics and
medicine, or politics and science are like oil and water. You get into
politicians overreaching
[[Page H3807]]
when you insert political judgments into what should be only scientific
matters.
Nor is this one of those great ethical issues on the frontiers of
science, where ethicists and politicians have some reason to intrude,
because abortion is legal, and I regret to say that miscarriages are
also legal. We are entitled to ask, where does it begin, where will it
end? I believe we must today let it end with legitimate scientific
research. If we care anything about the many drugs that will be stopped
by this amendment, we must defeat the Coburn amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, in the earlier debate I did not say
something that I think needs to be said out here. We hear all these
polls, that the American people do not like abortion and all this
stuff. But I would tell you, in the election of 1998 in the State of
Washington, the issue of partial-birth abortion was on the ballot, and
the people turned it down.
Now, you can tell me all you want about polls but the only poll that
really matters is when people actually come out and vote. I believe
that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has
really put her finger on the whole issue. Because if you open up a
cause of action against every pharmaceutical company that brings
anything to the market or to the FDA for approval that might cause an
abortion, you are going to chill the pharmaceutical industry, which is
exactly the reverse of what I see in the appropriations process. We put
all this money into the National Institutes of Health because we
treasure our health care system, including the pharmaceutical industry.
It is a bad amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
amendment. This amendment would ban FDA approval of RU-486 which has
been found safe and effective for early, nonsurgical abortion and is
awaiting final approval by the FDA. RU-486 would expand access to safe
abortion for American women. Its consideration for approval should be
dependent on the science, not dictated by antichoice ideologues.
This debate is not about RU-486 or abortion. It is about the FDA's
ability to test, research, and approve any drugs for a legal purpose
based on sound scientific evidence. Reproductive health drugs should be
subject to the FDA's strict science-based requirements that any drug
must meet before approval can be granted, but they should not be
singled out because they are reproductive health drugs.
The FDA found mifepristone which has been available in Europe widely
for nearly 20 years, safe and effective for early medical abortion 3
years ago. The approval was based on extensive clinical trials in this
country and in France. They await information on manufacturing and
labeling of the drug before final approval can be issued.
This amendment could have dangerous implications for the development
of drugs that are used for purposes other than terminating a pregnancy.
Many drugs, including those for chemotherapy and antiulcer medication,
have the side effect of inducing an abortion. That is why pregnant
women are advised that taking such a medication could imperil their
pregnancy. New developments in the treatment of these and other
conditions, for cancer and for other conditions, would be prohibited
under the broad scope of this amendment. New contraceptive development
would also be targeted.
Mr. Chairman, the right to abortion services should be safe and
legal. The Supreme Court grants this right. What this amendment would
do, even at the price of letting people who otherwise would not have to
die from cancer, die from cancer because it would prevent the
development, the approval of certain chemotherapies, what this would do
is to deny the FDA the right to approve a drug simply because it would
do what is legal and is a guaranteed right and that, Mr. Chairman, is
wrong. That is why the amendment should be rejected.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have heard again the tactic from the other side, it is to
misdirect, to dodge. This is not about creating lawsuits. This is not
about preventing drug research in other areas. This amendment is
written very clearly. I would happily have taken an amendment from the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) because then I would have felt
he would have been obligated to vote for the amendment, and that is why
he would not offer it. We understand that.
This is about spending Federal money in a way to figure out how to
kill unborn children. That is what this amendment is about. There is no
ulterior motive to it. It is saying, is it a principle position of this
country to tax working families and then take that money and spend it
on science on how to figure out how to kill an unborn baby. That is
what this amendment does. They know that is what it does. The only
thing that we are hearing is that this will limit cancer research, this
will make unintended consequences. That is not true at all. Having been
in the drug manufacturing business, having applied for NDAs and INDs, I
understand full well how the FDA works. There is an area on the
application. You have to specify what you are applying that drug for.
If it is for anything other than the inducement of abortion, this law
will have no effect.
The other side understands that but they do not have an argument
against that, so, therefore, they use an argument that is not based on
any intellectual honesty. It is based on a dishonest pass out of
bounds. This is about, and I am not ashamed to say, I do not think one
dollar of Federal taxpayer money should be used to figure out how to
kill an unborn child. I have no embarrassment for that whatsoever. I am
proud to make that statement.
If we look at what is going on in our country, we understand where
violence comes from. The first act of violence is to violate a baby in
its mother's womb. When we decide that that life has no value, then no
life has value, regardless of what the Supreme Court said. At 19 days
postconception, a baby has a heartbeat. At 41 days postconception, the
baby has brain waves. In this country, in every State, in every
territory you are alive if you have brain waves and a heartbeat, and
you are only dead if you do not. So explain to me why a baby at 5\1/2\
weeks postconception is not considered alive when if you are considered
the opposite of that, you are considered dead. We are schizophrenic in
our law because we cannot have equal justice under the law for the
unborn when we want the convenience of doing what we in fact know is
wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the honorable gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for making a necessary stand for life and against
the culture of death. The question is about abortion. It is a shame
that in discussing this life-and-death issue, the forces of prolife are
demonized as antichoice ideologues.
One good thing that has come from this debate has been the use of the
word ``abortion.'' You are getting away, however slowly, from the
euphemism of ``choice,'' because, of course, there is no choice for the
unborn whatsoever. The question is, should Federal funds be used to pay
for learning how to make chemical warfare on a defenseless, unborn
child? You relegate that child to nothingness because you do not
consider the well-being of the child. You only consider the woman who
for one reason or another wants an abortion, and that is a tragedy. But
life is precious. And once it has begun, that life ought to be
protected.
Now, yes, abortion is legal. More is the pity. What a shame on this
country's conscience. But the policy of this government and this
Congress has been not to coerce money from working people to pay for
the extermination of a human life once it has begun. Those people
arguing against the gentleman from Oklahoma are all for abortion. They
think that is a good thing. God bless them for thinking so. I think it
is a horrible thing. I think it is morally wrong. I do not think people
ought to be coerced into supporting it because it
[[Page H3808]]
is morally wrong. I hope Members will support the Coburn amendment as I
do.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the committee for yielding me this time and for her great service on
the Subcommittee on Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the comments made by the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and distinguished and
respected he is. He talked about the chemical warfare that we would be
waging on the unborn. But I want to point out to my colleagues that the
Hyde amendment allows for termination of a pregnancy in cases of rape,
incest and life of the mother. If this is indeed the Hyde amendment and
what the gentleman from Illinois believes and those who support the
Hyde amendment, then why would they not want to have women have access
to safe, early, nonsurgical abortion?
{time} 1600
I certainly respect the gentleman's religious beliefs and understand
them, as a Catholic, myself, and mother of five, grandmother of four,
and that we do not think abortion is a good thing. Abortion is a
failure, it is a failure across the board. But to deprive the FDA of
the opportunity to engage in research which would provide safe,
nonsurgical terminations of pregnancy in case of rape, incest and life
of the mother seems entirely contradictory to what the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is, if he sincerely
believes in that, and I do believe he is sincere. It would trample on
the FDA's ability to test, research and approve drugs based on sound
scientific evidence, and in that respect the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is starting to have this body,
this room, this Chamber, look like the Flat Earth Society again, Mr.
Chairman.
We have our Flat Earth Society days around here, and this appears to
be one of them. RU-486 has been available to women in Europe for nearly
20 years. After extensive clinical trials in this country and France,
the FDA has determined that this drug is safe and effective for an
early medical abortion such as the kind allowed under the Hyde
amendment for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
But this amendment is not about access to one safe and effective
drug. The Coburn amendment would have a dangerous chilling effect on
the development of drugs that are used for a wide variety of purposes,
Mr. Chairman. Drugs used to treat other conditions including cancers
and ulcers can induce abortion. The FDA's ability to consider approval
of these therapies would be abolished.
And RU-486 also has promise for other potential medical uses
including treatments for breast cancer, HIV and burns. The Coburn
amendment forces researchers to turn away from these promising
treatment opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, the Coburn amendment puts a social agenda ahead of a
woman's needs, ahead of needs of individuals confronting a variety of
diseases, ahead of rulemaking authority of the FDA. Once again, this
Congress must decide whether to put political agendas ahead of health
research.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wonder if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) might stand
and take a question? Might I inquire, and I would be happy to yield her
to answer, what part of my amendment would eliminate RU-486 from being
used in breast cancer research, burns or any other portion?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I say the gentleman's amendment would have
a chilling effect on the research. Medical research thrives, we have
free and open inquiry.
Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, there is nothing in the amendment
that will have such an effect.
Again, we are seeing an attempt at characterizing the amendment in
something other than it is. I understand why, because there is not a
good factual argument against the Federal Government taking taxpayer
dollars to figure out how to kill children. It is another part of the
problem that we find ourselves in our society today.
There is nothing in this amendment that will limit in any way what
the FDA can do if a drug manufacturer comes and uses, says I want to
take 486 and get an indication for it for burns and breast cancer
treatment; there is nothing in this amendment that will limit them from
it. All they have to do is say that is what we are going to do with it.
And if they want to then let a doctor use it in an unapproved way,
that is up to them. But to approve a drug for the very purpose of
taking life goes against everything our country is founded on: the
pursuit of life. And we are pursuing ways to take life.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished Member.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
Ohio.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from
Oklahoma is aware that NIH is currently looking at RU-486 as
potentially a very effective method of addressing both breast cancer
and brain tumors. They feel that there is a substantial potential with
RU-486. That ability to research the capability of RU-486 would be
completely terminated under this legislation.
So my colleague's suggestion is inconsistent with the facts.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this amendment that
will keep a drug manufacturer or the manufacturer of RU-486 from making
an application to use that drug in any way they want except the
chemical inducement of abortion. That is a fact.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The lawyers' opinion is quite different, but I
think we will make that point subsequently on the record.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia, and I would like to pick up where the gentleman left off,
particularly acknowledge the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), that
none of us rise to the floor of the House to challenge any of the
beliefs, and I know the very sincere beliefs held by you and many who
oppose the women's right to choose along with my respected colleague on
the Committee on the Judiciary.
But if I might share with those who are listening, the language of
this amendment, which indicates that none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this act may be used by the Food and Drug
Administration for testing, development or approval including approval
of production, manufacturing or distribution of any drug for the
chemical inducement of abortion. It may sound narrowly focused, but if
I may draw the gentleman's attention to the fact that chemotherapy
drugs can cause a miscarriage, most of these drugs would not have been
developed and future drugs may be jeopardized just by the broadness of
the language.
I rise today in opposition to the Coburn Amendment that would limit
FDA testing on the drug mifepristone or RU-486. This amendment, as
drafted, would limit FDA testing on any drug that might induce
miscarriage, including drugs that treat cancer, ulcers and rheumatoid
arthritis.
The FDA is charged with determining whether a drug is safe and
effective. Mifepristone satisfied that requirement in 1996 based on
clinical trials and it is expected to receive final approval soon.
Mifepristione was developed as a drug that induces chemical
miscarriage. It has other potential use in treating conditions such as
infertility, ectopic pregnancy, endometriosis, uterine fibroids and
breast cancer.
For example, chemotherapy drugs can cause miscarriage. Most of these
drugs would have not been developed, and future drugs may be
jeopardized. Research of potential treatments for each of these
conditions is crucial to women's health. Controversy concerning this
particular drug should not be a barrier to treatment.
[[Page H3809]]
Science should dictate what drugs are approved by the FDA, not
politics. Congress has never instructed the FDA to approve or
disapprove a drug. The FDA protocol for drug approval depends upon
rigorous and objective scientific evaluation of a drug's safety.
Ultimately, this is a decision that should be made by the researchers
and doctors.
This amendment could jeopardize the integrity of the FDA approval
process. Under this process, a company that wants to begin clinical
trials on a new drug must submit an application for FDA approval. If
that application has not been approved within 30 days, the company may
move forward.
This amendment would prevent the FDA from reviewing any application
for a drug that might induce miscarriage. No funds would be available
for the FDA to even oversee any trials.
Therefore, I urge my Colleagues to oppose this amendment. We cannot
afford to inhibit research on certain health conditions based upon the
controversy of the particular drug. We also cannot allow the FDA to be
limited in its ability to approve drugs based on politics.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is very clear that we have a difference of philosophy and maybe
religious beliefs. I happen to think that I am a person who believes in
life and that I support the right to life. I also support the right-to-
life decision-making being that of the woman, her God and her family,
and what we are doing here is to now just intrude into the very
infrastructure of government to be able to say that not even our Food
and Drug Administration, which has the main responsibility of dealing
with the drugs that Americans take to heal themselves, now we are
suggesting that even the most benign of drugs that may ultimately cause
or induce a miscarriage, we now are prohibiting women, we are
prohibiting those who have ulcers, those who have breast cancer, from
even getting that fair treatment by the FDA doing that right kind of
testing.
This interferes with the 30-day process that the Food and Drug
Administration has for any new drug that, if they do not comment on it,
the manufacturer can move forward. I think it is tragic when we as a
government globally decide to interfere with the private rights of a
woman and deny the good testing of a drug that may save lives.
I believe in life. I want to save lives. This amendment should be
defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak on
this amendment.
As my colleagues know, I think the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma is fraught with two fundamental problems. One is a
philosophical inconsistency. I have come, in my brief time here, to
view Mr. Coburn as a consistent, conservative voice in this Congress,
something that he should be proud of perhaps.
Yet by the same token we have an amendment here that is so counter to
that philosophy that we here in this Chamber are now going to wade into
the operations of doctors and physicians and clinical experts to decide
how to interpret the word ``for,'' because that is what this comes down
to. How Mr. Coburn interprets the word ``for'' is very narrowly. It
says it is only RU-486.
The American Medical Association, the American College, American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical
Women's Association and others interpret it is that a whole litany of
research will now be off the table because that word ``for'' is
ambiguous, and that is the second problem with this bill. It is
intellectually ambiguous.
It is difficult to determine when research begins what the outcome
might be. It is difficult for scientists sometimes to know when they
are doing research on figuring out how to put a shuttle into space,
that they might get technology that produces something far different.
The same is true here, that the problem with this amendment is, it is
crafted in such a way that the gentleman says it is to simply stop RU-
486 except if RU-486 turns out to cure cancer, then it is okay.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a way for us to be operating in this
Chamber. This is a very dangerous amendment.
I understand the argument that the gentleman is making about
abortion. I disagree with it with every ounce of my strength, but I
understand that. The problem is with this amendment is it conceivably
opens the door to prohibitions about all kinds of other types of
research.
It is simply not the type of business we should be doing here, and it
is not the type of business that anyone that considers themselves in
this body a conservative and is intellectually honest in that position
should be taking.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as we close this debate, I would like to
address some remarks again to my good friend, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) because I respect his point of view. We may
differ on this issue, but I certainly respect his point of view.
As a mother and grandmother of four-and-a-half, I have to tell my
colleague after 10 years of serving in this body I am so tired of
debating abortion on the floor of the House, restriction after
restriction, ban after ban, amendment after amendment. If we really
want to reduce the number of abortions, please work with us to increase
funds for family planning. Work with us to ensure that women have
access to prescription contraceptives.
I have been working to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the
numbers of abortions. We need to make abortions less necessary, not
more dangerous, and I am sorry that this amendment is being offered to
an otherwise outstanding bill.
The amendment was offered last year. Although it passed the House
narrowly, it faced a veto threat from the administration, rejected by
the Senate members of the agriculture appropriations conference
committee, and strong opposition from medical groups, patient advocacy
organizations and the biomedical community. It was wisely stripped out
of the final version of the bill signed by the President.
The amendment faces the same widespread opposition today, but I hope
that this year my colleagues will send this amendment to the defeat it
frankly deserves right here in the House floor.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should not inject politics into the FDA's drug
approval process. This amendment ignores sound science, it puts women's
health in jeopardy, and it should be defeated.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
The prior gentlewoman from New York was so right. We spend an
enormous amount of our time in this body trying to restrict women's
access to the best and safest reproductive health care. If we can
channel this energy into more productive activities, maybe we can find
more money for the women and infant care program or even help to
prevent more of the unplanned pregnancies that are the cause of this
problem. None of us want to support abortion, and hopefully all of us
want to create an environment where there will be far fewer abortions.
But what we are talking about today is really the political practice
of medicine, and this amendment should be opposed. The drug
mifepristone known as RU-486 has been proven a safe and effective
method through clinical trials.
We now know that there are researchers at the National Institutes for
Health that believe that RU-486 could be a very effective drug in
treating breast cancer, in treating brain tumors, and yet this
amendment would preclude that kind of research from being conducted
because as part of the FDA approval process, drug trials can proceed
only if the FDA does not disapprove of a trial. If the FDA is
prohibited from reviewing applications under the Coburn amendment,
research may be conducted without the safety of review and oversight of
the FDA. So women would be asked to participate in trials with no
review of the safety of the protocol.
So that is not going to happen, and as a result, we may be precluding
very important advances in medicine. But
[[Page H3810]]
we also are told by the lawyers that there is, and I accept the fact it
is unintentional, but it is a very important side effect because there
are many drugs whose principal purpose may not be abortion, but in
fact, are effective in chemotherapy, cancer treatments, hypertension,
cirrhosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ectopic pregnancies, ulcers, epilepsy,
severe viral infections, all kinds of drugs that may have a corollary
effect of inducing abortion.
Those drugs are important. We should be supporting them. We should
not be engaged in the political practice of medicine. I urge rejection
of this amendment.
{time} 1615
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from Ohio and the gentleman
from Virginia and the gentlewoman from New York this is not a fun
debate for me either. I am not happy that we are here doing this. But,
you know, if one child is not aborted because we have this debate, I am
willing to do it all night long, 365 days a year. That is how much I
value life.
Now, I want to discuss for a minute, you say we should not be
politicizing the FDA with this action. Well, I want to tell you, the
FDA is already politicized. How many drugs do you know of that have
been approved of basically on research done overseas? There is zero,
except one. Guess what drug that is? Guess what drug that is? That is
RU-486.
The vast majority of the studies on RU-486 were not conducted in this
country; they were conducted overseas. That totally is a whole new
precedent for the FDA. They have never before done that on any new drug
approval.
The second thing I would say is this amendment will have no effect
whatsoever on any other utilization of any other drug. Cytotec, which
is the second drug used with RU-486, is used to protect the lining of
the stomach. It is a prostaglandin inhibitor. We use prostaglandins
today. We are actually starting to use Cytotec, a very strong component
of this, to induce labor. I did it about a week ago, first time.
So we did not learn that from it being studied on the basis of it
being an abortifacient or a drug to induce abortion. We learned that
because that drug was developed to protect the lining of the stomach
for people who have ulcers, consequently learning that you do not dare
take that drug if you are pregnant.
Well, if it works in terms of causing uterine contractions, what
about using it to induce labor? Maybe it is safer than pitocin or other
prostaglandins. So there is no limitation that is going to come about
from this amendment.
Five percent of the women who take this drug get a uterine infection,
which, when you have a uterine infection, number one, it will affect
your ability to conceive in the future. One hundred percent of the
women lose more blood with a chemically induced abortion than they
would either through a spontaneous or a surgical abortion. It may not
be important to you, but if it is you losing the blood, it becomes very
important.
Number three, more than one-third of them end up delivering the
conceptus outside of the clinic. In France, they have very selected
rules on how you can use this drug. None of those are protected and
planned in this country.
So is the issue all of the things that we have heard: Not being able
to use research? Not being able to get cancer drugs? No, it is not. The
issue is nobody from the opposing viewpoint, either from the Republican
or Democrat side of the aisle, answered the question, should Federal
money be used to help find ways to kill babies? Nobody wants to answer
that question. That is because there is not a good answer. Nobody
agrees with it. So, therefore, we see arguments that are something
other than that. We distort what the argument is because there is not a
good argument.
We will not limit in any way the ability of the FDA to do any
research. What we will say is, is if your number one goal is to figure
out how to kill an unborn baby, number one, first of all, this does not
work in 2 days or 3 days or 5 days or 6 days postconception. I am sorry
if that is what people think. This works 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8
weeks after. It is not a morning-after drug. That is now how it is
going to be used.
What this is going to do is say if you are intending to bring a drug
to the market, then the FDA should not spend the first Federal
taxpayer's money to figure out how to kill a baby. All right, if that
is a consequence of it, of some other intended purpose, maybe that is
okay. Because these drugs, Cytotec is going to be used for that. You do
not have to have approval of the FDA to use drugs in ways other than
how they are indicated. We all know that.
So Cytotec is already being used to induce abortions. The point is
should we spend the money, your children's, your grandchildren's, our
community's money, to figure out how to take a life? My answer is no. I
ask you, should we really do that? I do not believe most people think
we should.
That does not say that abortion still is not legal. It is. The
question comes, when you have done, as I have, and sat there at the
bottom of a table when a woman delivers a 10-week fetus or a 12-week
fetus, and hold it in your hand, and she is distraught and crying
because that baby was created by her and her partner, and is totally
unique to anything else that has ever been created or ever will be
created. It has a totally unique genetic structure, it is a God-
ordained being, and we are going to say it is okay, we are going to
figure out ways to kill those God-ordained beings, and we are going to
say for convenience sake, because we made a mistake, because somebody
erred, because somebody failed to protect themselves, that it is okay
to destroy that life, I reject it. I do not dislike anybody who
disagrees with me on that, but I reject that as an argument of the
heart and of the soul.
If we are going to decide in this country that you are dead when you
do not have heartbeat and brain waves, but you are alive in all 50
States and territories when you do, how can we reject the argument that
at 41 days every fetus, every unborn child, has a heartbeat and a brain
wave? Now, you cannot deny that scientific fact. That is absolutely
proven. So the response to that question is ``we will talk about
something different.''
It is a hard issue, I understand. I wish we did not have unintended
pregnancy. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have the
same goal on that. We believe in getting there a different way. I am
not supporting some of her contraceptive research, because I am seeing
what is happening with contraceptives and sexually transmitted disease
and cancer of the cervix, which is at an all-time high in this country,
under the false assumption you are safe, when a condom offers no
protection from human papilloma virus whatsoever, yet we tell all our
kids they are safe.
Well, I am tired of all the deceit around the arguments. There is
good science. I am a scientist by training. I have read the studies. I
have looked at it. This amendment is designed for one thing only.
The gentleman from Washington State gave me more credit. I have never
thought out about to figure out how to be devious enough to set up
lawsuits. My purpose was to say no taxpayer money from Oklahoma or
anywhere else ought to be used in figuring out how to kill children.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close at this point.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for
many of the reasons that were stated earlier. The first one is that I
do not think that this Congress should be prejudging medical science.
We have talked this afternoon about how scientific discoveries and how
science proceeds, often with unintended consequences. We have talked
about how many of the drugs currently being used to treat mental
illness in this country were discovered by accident.
They were not discovered in this country, they were discovered in
France. They were discovered during operating room procedures when
patients were trying to be put at ease and the process of pain
remediated during operations, and, all of a sudden, for some reason,
certain drugs worked. Eventually they came to this country, and even
today we do not understand
[[Page H3811]]
why they work to help patients with serious mental illness. But for
some in our population, they have been able to be given great relief
and help through those drugs.
The same was talked about with x-rays. When the scientists invented
x-rays, it was an accident. They really went in there with one
objective, and, all of a sudden, they made a mistake and it turned out
to be an x-ray, and sometimes science is not quite as scientific as it
seems. I think that this particular Chamber should not be judging what
is science and what is not science.
For the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), which
I would really encourage the Members to read if they are going to be
voting on this, because I do not think his amendment says what he
purports to do in his oral remarks here, but this amendment would
absolutely set a dangerous precedent.
This Congress has never legislated the approval or disapproval of any
drugs. That is the job of the Food and Drug Administration. We pay for
scientists. We, as taxpayers, pay to make sure that what reaches our
shelves is safe; but we do not prejudge what is medically relevant.
We also know that many drugs are tested at the end of use for
treatment of more than one illness, disease, or condition. We do not
really control that. So I would say that on the basis of science alone
this amendment should be rejected.
I think that the committee also on which we serve, and we are a very
responsible committee, we are the first one on this floor, we are
trying to clear this bill under regular order, and I do believe that
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has been given sufficient
time, actually a lot of time over the last several weeks, to express
his points of view, which have been very well articulated.
But the truth is, our subcommittee never had any hearings on this
particular matter. The reason is we are the Committee on
Appropriations. We do not try to tell FDA what to do. We expect the
authorizing committees will deal with that.
If my experience proves me right, my guess would be that if there are
concerns about something that is inappropriate, that is best taken to
the authorizing committees.
This amendment is not going to be in the Senate bill, and it is not
going to become a part of the final legislation.
So I would say based on science, based on safe procedures, that this
is something the FDA should be implementing, and also based on regular
order, the gentleman's amendment should be defeated. I would urge my
colleagues to do so.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn
amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that would ban the
Federal Drug Administration from using funds to test, develop, or
approve Mifepristone (RU-486)--a drug which has been found to be safe
and effective for early, non-surgical abortion.
This is yet another political vote and political debate on a drug
whose benefits have been scientifically proven. This amendment is an
unwarranted intrusion into the work of the FDA, whose job is to decide
whether to approve RU-486 or other drugs based on health and safety--
not abortion politics.
Medical abortions and RU-486, if approved, would allow more choices
to women seeking abortion. Medical abortions are a better health option
for some women. Medical abortions allow women to avoid surgery as well
as protect their privacy--women can receive RU-486 in pill form in a
regular doctor's office, and be spared the trauma of protesters and
violence that continue to stigmatize these women for exercising their
constitutionally protected right to choose.
Approval of RU-486 is critical so that doctors may use this procedure
when they believe it is the safest way to end a pregnancy and leave the
woman with the best chance to have a healthy baby in the future.
New contraceptive development would also be targeted. Many anti-
choice groups believe that some contraceptive methods cause an
abortion. This is untrue. If that contention were accepted as fact,
research and development of man new contraceptives would come to a
halt. This amendment would deprive women of the benefits of significant
contraceptive advances.
Make no mistake, a vote for this amendment endangers the health of
women, and adds to the long list of barriers set by the majority in
Congress that make reproductive health services more dangerous and
difficult to obtain. I strongly oppose the Coburn amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 214, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 173]
AYES--217
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--214
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
[[Page H3812]]
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--4
Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
McCollum
Waters
{time} 1646
Mr. REYES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. DREIER, TAYLOR of North Carolina, OXLEY and BATEMAN changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 17 Offered By Mr. Chabot
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Chabot:
Insert before the short title the following new section:
Sec. . (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be used to award any
new allocations under the market access program or to pay the
salaries of personnel to award such allocations.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is
simple. Hard-working taxpayers should not have to subsidize the
advertising costs of America's private corporations, yet this is
exactly what the Market Access Program does.
Since 1986, the Federal Government has extracted well over $1 billion
from the pockets of American taxpayers and handed it to multimillion
dollar corporations to subsidize their marketing programs in foreign
countries. In other words, the U.S. taxpayer is helping successful
private companies and trade associations advertise their wares in
foreign countries.
Mr. Chairman, I think the American people would agree that their
money could be better spent on deficit reduction for education. Rather
than subsidize private businesses and corporations, that money could
much better be spent on deficit reduction or on education or on saving
Social Security, on the environment, or on tax cuts.
In the past, we have witnessed MAP supporters present some good-
sounding arguments for preserving what is in my view a corporate
welfare scheme. The only problem is that when we cut through the pro-
MAP propaganda, there is no credible evidence to back up their claims.
Let me give my colleagues an example. MAP supporters have argued that
this so-called business government partnership creates jobs. But I
think, Mr. Chairman, that the American people know that the only jobs
usually created by big government spending programs are for big
government bureaucracies.
This view of the MAP program is backed by the General Accounting
Office. GAO studies indicated that this program has no discernible
effect on U.S. agricultural exports. So if the program cannot increase
U.S. exports, how can it possibly create more private-sector jobs?
For years, supporters of MAP have lauded the economic benefits
created by the program. However, in April 1999, a GAO report, requested
by myself and Senator Schumer and a bipartisan group of House Members,
concluded that the economic benefits of this program are uncertain at
best.
According to that report, it seems that the Foreign Agricultural
Service, the bureaucracy which administers this corporate welfare
program, has used certain assumptions that the OMB has determined to be
inadequate for economic benefit analysis. For example, the Foreign
Agricultural Service assumes that there are no opportunity costs for
promoting one product over another.
But even if my colleagues do believe these supposed benefits, they
have all the more reason to support this amendment. These numbers, if
accurate, prove that, given these positive returns on an investment
overseas, MAP-supported corporations and trade associations ought to be
spending their own money and not the money of the taxpayers of this
Nation.
My opposition to MAP is not based solely on the false premises of its
supporters. I am offering this amendment today because we simply do not
need this wasteful program. Let us be honest. Most American businesses
do not benefit and do not try to take advantage of government handouts
like this MAP program.
In the case of MAP, as in most corporate welfare programs,
beneficiaries consist primarily of politically well-connected
corporations and trade associations. Most, if not all of these
organizations, would advertise their products overseas, even without
MAP funds. They probably would work much harder to ensure that the
money is well spent.
Let me give just one example of the kind of waste and mismanagement
that this program breeds. We all remember a few years ago when the
California Raisin Board sponsored the ``I heard it through the
grapevine'' raisin commercial. Based on the success of that commercial
in the U.S., MAP decided that it would be a good idea to use that
commercial to attempt to boost raisin sales in Japan and put $3 million
into the project.
Not surprisingly, however, the ads played in English, leaving many
Japanese confused, unaware that the dancing characters were raisins.
Most thought they were potatoes or chocolate. In addition, many
Japanese children were afraid of the wrinkled, misshapen figures. This,
of course, is the kind of wasteful spending that inevitably occurs when
we give someone the ability to spend other people's money.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should end the practice of wasting tax dollars
on special interest spending programs that unfairly take money from
hard-working families to help profitable private companies pad their
bottom line. MAP is a massive corporate welfare program that we should
eliminate today.
Finally, in MAP, MAP's proponents have argued that due to recent
reforms, big corporations no longer receive MAP funds. It is true that
in June 1998, in order to correct some of the more egregious abuses of
the MAP, Market Access Program, the Foreign Agricultural Service
revised its regulations to limit a company to 5 years of assistance in
a particular country. After this 5-year period had expired, companies
were to be graduated from the country's market. Translation: These
billion-dollar corporations were no longer to receive tax dollars to
fund their product promotions.
So I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote to get rid of this
very wasteful program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is an annual debate, and I am not sure why we have
to have it. Virtually all of our competitor nations spend money to
promote their products against ours. We have had testimony from both
USDA and many private-sector companies about the success of the
program, particularly for small enterprises.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to do the
same.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
{time} 1700
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and
am somewhat surprised that a Member from Ohio, where agriculture is our
leading industry, would offer this particular amendment. If one reads
the changes that have been made in this program, particularly targeting
its benefits at small- and medium-sized operations, I think some of
what the gentleman has said might have been true many years ago, but
they are certainly not true today.
If one looks at what is happening in rural America, which is swimming
in surpluses, and we know that for this
[[Page H3813]]
country to help rural America make it we must expand our exports in
spite of collapses in the Asian economy and other places, there is one
program we do not want to cut at all and it is this program.
I think what is really hard sometimes for Members who represent only
urban or suburban areas, where production does not occur, where people
largely reside but perhaps where agricultural development does not
happen on an everyday basis, it is hard to understand how a farmer, who
may raise beans or may raise animals and who wish to export a product,
many times those same farmers cannot even sell in Cincinnati. A farmer
over in Butler County, the only way they can get product into the City
of Cincinnati is to perhaps sell at their farmers' market. They cannot
even get their products on the shelves of the stores in Cincinnati.
Imagine how difficult it is for that same farmer to move product into
Japan or any other part of Asia or Latin America or Europe.
This market access program is the only mechanism we have to help
growers move product abroad. This is not Procter & Gamble. This is not
where we can take production and move it anyplace in the world and then
distribute the product. This is not U.S. Shoe, where all of their
products are made abroad and then imported into Cincinnati and
distributed to the rest of the United States. This is trying to help
our producers in this country to be able to lift product off our market
and take it somewhere else.
And, Mr. Chairman, I underline ``producers.'' This is really a very,
very important program. And if my colleagues know the trade accounts of
this Nation, where every year we are going into more and more serious
trade deficit, every single year more imports coming in here than
exports going out, the one rosy light in a very bleak set of tables is
agriculture. And the light is not getting brighter; it is getting
dimmer as the years go on, but it is still lit up. And the reason is
because we have been able to move product elsewhere around the world.
So I would just say to the gentleman, in a State where our leading
industry is agriculture, in a Nation where the agricultural accounts
represent the only positive side of the trade ledger, this is exactly
the program we do not want to cut. And we do not want to cut it
particularly at a time when rural America is in deep depressions. This
is a time to help our people, not to penalize them, and especially to
meet the subsidized kind of programs that our trade competitors have on
the books all across the world.
Stand up for American agriculture when she is calling us and asking
us to hear her voice.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment by my
colleague. While I am sure it is well intended, it is like some of the
other amendments we often get but, fortunately, this year have not
gotten on this bill dealing with important crops like peanuts, sugar,
and tobacco. But let me speak to the MAP, the Market Access Program.
The United States is outspent more than 20 to 1 by our foreign
competitors spending money on export promotion and export subsidies. In
1997, the leading U.S. competitors spent $924 million to promote
agricultural exports, much of it in this country, and the United States
spends $90 million. Ninety million dollars spent by the United States
compared to $924 million by our competitors.
There is no limit placed on the amount that can be spent by exporting
countries for agricultural promotion. The WTO does not limit that. And
right now, while the U.S. has diminished the amount they have spent,
other countries in the world are expanding the amount that they are
spending to promote their products in this country and other places in
the world.
Foreign spending in the U.S. on promoting our competitors'
agriculture is growing. A hundred million was spent in 1997 for that
purpose. That much more. The biggest spenders are New Zealand, Italy,
Spain, Australia and Canada.
The U.S. exports have gone down over the past 3 years. This is not
the time when we should be cutting the funds necessary to promote our
exports. SUDA estimates that agricultural exports will be only $49
billion this year. Just 3 years ago they were $60 billion. We have
serious problems in American agriculture. The way to address them is
not to cut the promotional funds needed to make us competitive around
the world, and I reluctantly would rise and ask my colleagues to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues should wake up and smell the coffee. That
Juan Valdez, who is in all our homes, on our television sets, telling
us about the virtues of Colombian coffee, and we see him in those
advertisements in every grocery store promoting that coffee, where do
my colleagues think that money comes from? It comes from the Colombian
Coffee Growers Association. And why are they doing it? They are paying
to promote their product. Not a brand name but a generic name.
Well, what is wrong with us doing the same thing? How are we going to
sell agriculture around the world? We produce in agriculture, which is
essentially if we really look at this, a lot of small farmers getting
together and promoting a product. They have to, under this program,
come up with 50 percent of the money. The Federal Government comes in
only after they have initiated it and they do a match.
Remember Riuniti Wine that was advertising all over America a few
years ago? Where do my colleagues think the advertising for that came
from? Marketing promotion from Italy to get Americans to drink Italian
wine.
Now, we export $60 billion worth of food around the world. Why do my
colleagues think people buy our food? Because we help promote it, just
like anyone would sell anything else. Well, this is the program that
helps promote it. Only this program does not allow, as the author of
the amendment indicated, big corporate agriculture to benefit. This
program ties it to small- and medium-sized companies. He says this is
big corporate welfare. Well, there is no big corporate welfare in the
Seed Trade Association, in the Asparagus Association, in the Kiwi
Commission, in the Prune Board, in the North American Blueberry
Council, in the Catfish Institute, in the Apple Association. That is
not big corporate welfare. Last time I checked, these products were
being grown by small farmers, and they are trying to get their products
sold.
Now, why is it good for America? Because the one area where our
balance of trade is strong is in agriculture. We export $60 billion and
we import $30 billion. We cannot say that about any other industry in
America. We are actually selling more than we are taking in. That is
what it is all about. Well, this is the program that helps do it. Why
would we want to undermine that program?
A lot of the data being quoted is old data. In the last few years we
amended this program and we said participants had to come up with a
match, they had to be for small businesses, they cannot be those big
conglomerates, and so we have limited the amount of funding that can be
given to anybody. This helps sell American agriculture. It is the only
way we are going to be able to sell it. Support this program. It is not
big corporate welfare, it is small American farmers being able to sell
their product abroad. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
I have great respect for the sponsor of this amendment, but not so
much respect that I want to vote for it. In fact, I am going to oppose
it, simply because what my friend from California just stated is
absolutely true.
What happens in this Market Access Program is this. Growers and
consortiums, Sunkist for orange juice, TreeTop for apple juice, which
is very prominent out my way in the State of Washington, get together
and they decide how they can best promote their products overseas. They
pay half the freight. The taxpayer pays half and the sponsor, the
marketer, pays the other half. And that is what is fair about this
program.
It has been cut down dramatically since I have been in this House. I
have seen Members on both sides of the aisle have some concern about
this; people, by the way, who do not care much
[[Page H3814]]
about agriculture and do not understand exports, but they have managed
to whittle down this particular expenditure in the agriculture
appropriations bill such that it is down to virtually very little when
it can do so much. It can do so much.
What I think the sponsor does not appreciate, and maybe others who
might support this do not appreciate, is that when we submit this
amount of money, the small amount of money relative to the rest of the
agriculture budget for market promotion, for promotion of our products
overseas, that has direct impact on the farmer. It has direct impact on
rural America.
And talking about big corporate welfare, that is not the case in this
particular program. This helps the grower, the farmer, the person who
works the land and presents a product that can be exported overseas and
dramatically helps our balance of trade.
As the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) said, agriculture is a
huge benefactor to the balance of trade. It helps our country by
exporting products. So, number one, it is a small amount relative to
what it used to be and what it is in the agriculture budget; number
two, it helps the small farmer, it helps the grower; number three, it
helps the American economy, especially the rural economy, because we
are essentially buying shelf space and competing with European and
other products around the world; and, finally, the governments of these
other countries are subsidizing tremendous amounts of money to their
growers and their producers to sell products in our country.
So this is a small way, a fair shared way that our products can get
on the shelf in Europe, and our growers, our producers, our farmers,
our market system, the export market system can work in our country.
So, again, I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot). He is a good Member and has good ideas, but this one is one
that should be defeated. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
We have had some good discussion here already, and I am not going to
try to repeat it over and over, but I appreciate the things that have
been said. I might just give my colleagues a little lesson in history
that some Members might not be aware of about the American farmer. We
are in a crisis in agriculture, no question about it. I live out there,
as many of my colleagues do. I just spent a week in my district, and it
is tough and it is real.
A few years ago, when we had the Ag crisis of the 1980s, it was
interesting to me, and that is what motivated me to get involved in
this arena, the political arena, we had people going to their lenders
and different organizations, and I will not get into that, and they
told our farmers to go back and sell their cow herds or sell their
sows, or do this or that. In other words, dispose of their factory, in
a sense. We do not want to do that again. We have to get out there and
be competitive in the export market.
In my State we have to export about 40 percent to make things work.
That is kind of a reflection of the country. We have to do about the
same thing to make things work. As we have heard many of our colleagues
say already, agriculture puts a plus on the trade deficit in our favor,
so we cannot let this happen. It is not a time to let up and say we are
not going to go out there and be competitive.
In our Committee on Agriculture here a number of weeks ago, we had
the Secretary come and talk to us and mention the unprecedented 3 years
in a row that there has been overproduction. And so when our people go
to sell to someone else, they say, excuse me, we have something we want
to sell. And so this is a time when we want to cut back on the
promotion. We cannot do that.
So I encourage a ``no'' vote and hope that we can do that; that we
can give a leg up for the American farmer and agriculture production.
It is important to all of us. I do not care where we live, what part of
the country, what we do, it is important to all of us and let us not
forget that.
{time} 1715
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, since the Great Depression, American farmers were
shackled by the Federal Government with programs and regulations that
kept them from producing all they could. We all remember how many
farmers were paid not to grow certain crops; they were paid subsidies
to grow others.
Over the last few years, our colleagues on the agriculture and
agricultural appropriation committees have done an excellent job in
reducing harmful government interference in American agriculture and
putting it on the road back to the market system that works so well.
American farmers are now unshackled and free to produce as they see
fit, not as Washington tells them.
However, more work remains to be done. The market access program is a
relic of our former government-heavy agricultural system. The MAP
program, the Market Access Program, provides millions of dollars in
taxpayer subsidies per year to agribusinesses to supplement their
international advertising and marketing.
We have heard that agriculture is one of the most important
businesses in America, and we have also heard that advertising American
agriculture overseas is critical. And I agree with these points. They
are certainly true.
The question is not whether agriculture and American farmers are
important. Without question, they are very important to this economy.
And we all know that advertising is an essential part of doing
business. The question is whether MAP is a proper use of taxpayer
money. And it is not.
The cost of advertising should be borne by the firms which stand to
benefit, not the taxpayers.
Let me also say that I do not believe that working men and women
should continue to foot the bill for advertising subsidies to
multinational corporations. Promotional advertising for product is
simply not the role of government. It is the role of those private
concerns that benefit from the sale of those products.
The future and continued performance of American agriculture is not
contingent upon handing out taxpayer money for advertising. The success
of American agriculture results from the energy and ingenuity of
American farmers, not government subsidies.
Let me also say that as far as the GAO report, the GAO report found
that there is no clear relationship between the amount spent on
government export promotion and changes in the level of U.S. exports.
In a separate report, the GAO questioned whether funds are actually
supporting additional promotional activities or if they are simply
replacing private industry funds. What is obvious on its face is that
money handed out by government bureaucrats does not magically become
several dollars.
And let me say that another argument that is often made is that we
are being outsubsidized by the European Union and other countries
throughout the world. I might point out that our economy is
outperforming those countries by every measure.
Our gross national product dwarfs most every other country in the
world. We have the most productive workers. Our per capita income is
highest. Unemployment is almost nonexistent.
I, for one, do not wish to follow the European model of subsidies. I
do not think that many of my colleagues do either. We should continue
striving to shed these vestiges of central planning instead of
defending those that have crept into our economy in the past.
Government has no business deciding which companies are worthy of
advertising funds. That is precisely what the free market is there to
do, to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible. The
government ought not to be taking tax money from companies to finance
the advertising of their competition, which is the direct result of
redistribution.
I make no argument that advertising sells products. This is obvious.
The point, however, is whether private conditions should pay for the
promotion of their own product or whether the American taxpayer should
be forced to do so. We do not force the American taxpayer to pay for
other corporate expenses like office supplies. American taxpayers
should not pay for this cost of doing business.
[[Page H3815]]
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that, obviously, as we look at this program,
the question is, is this a program that is of value to the American
people? Is it a program of value to the American farmers? And should we
be investing in promoting the American farmers' product abroad?
I think there is value in investing in the promotion of the American
farmers, because not only is that a public policy that we support our
farmers. True enough, in 1996, we had a farm bill that said we were
removing ourselves from the subsidy model and we are going more to a
market model. I personally did not support that. But nevertheless, even
in a market-driven model, not to have this tool is counterproductive.
This tool simply says that it is a tool to market our farmers who
were heretofore dependent and subsidized. Our farmers are having a very
difficult time. If we are not going to make the market available as a
tool to them, as we pull away the safety net, how do we expect our
farmers in rural areas to survive? How is it that they are going to be
on a competitive basis with other countries subsidizing large
quantities if we expect they have no safety net, and yet we are not
going to give them the tools to survive?
We are struggling in rural America. I cannot think of a commodity
that made money in my State. And without this tool, they certainly
would not have it. And the claim that this only goes to large
corporations, indeed, that has been in the past, but this program has
been improved. Indeed, it goes now to small farmers, to associations.
What kind of commodities does it support? It supports dry beans,
eggs, frozen potatoes, grapes, peanuts. My colleagues would expect me
to say peanuts because I am from North Carolina. But also pears. All of
these small farmers' products, associations getting together, having
their government to recognize the importance of their coming together
and promoting their goods.
We travel abroad and we find that other countries are subsidizing the
marketing of their products. We make our farmers less competitive when
we remove this tool.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, as well-
meaning as it might be. This is counterproductive to the needs of the
farmers in the rural areas.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few points. The idea that
this money goes to large corporations is simply bogus. This money is
matched by money which is raised from producers, such as pork
producers, who are hurting so badly today. The cattlemen, the corn
growers, the soybean growers put their own money with this. This is not
to enhance a particular brand name. It is to sell U.S., high-quality
pork, corn products, feed products overseas.
One part of the argument that I think is really missing is what
effect do agricultural exports have on Americans as far as their jobs?
And one gentleman made a statement about people working hard to pay
taxes and using their money for this. Well, the fact of the matter is,
in the State of California, where that gentleman was from, there are
124,000 jobs directly dependent upon agricultural exports. Think of it,
124,000 jobs which could be greatly reduced if we lose our export
markets and if we do not continue to grow in our exports.
In Ohio there are 27,000 jobs directly related to agricultural
exports. It is extraordinarily important in a State like Ohio to
maintain those good, high-paying jobs which are dependent upon
agricultural exports.
In the State of Iowa, a smaller population State, it has a huge
impact. We have 80,000 jobs in Iowa that are directly related to
agricultural exports. So when we talk about this program being some
kind of corporate welfare, I hope people here will recognize the fact
that our constituents at home are dependent upon agricultural exports.
It is very important that we go and promote high quality American
pork overseas, not a particular company, but American pork. It is very
important that we promote American soybeans and find new uses for those
product overseas for corn products, for beef overseas.
It is extremely important. We have a tremendous number of jobs that
are directly dependent.
So let us not just talk about exporting and competing with other
nations. Let us talk about at home in our own districts how important
it is that we continue to use the tools available that the producers
themselves are willing to contribute to to sell their products overseas
which create good jobs at home in our own districts, high-paying jobs,
and really are the future for agriculture in the international
marketplace.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the fiscal year 2000
Agriculture Appropriations bill. I commend the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), the ranking member, and all my colleagues on the subcommittee
for bringing this bill to us, a bill which supports American farmers in
rural communities. This bill comes to us after much time, deliberation,
and discussion. I thank the subcommittee for their hard work.
I want to address the current amendment to eliminate the Market
Access Program. This program is vital to the success of our farmers. If
this amendment passes, we as a Congress are to blame for handing over
U.S. agricultural market share to foreign competitors.
I believe with my whole heart that the American farmers are the most
efficient in the world and produce the best products at the lowest
prices and provide the safest food of anyone in the world. With this
knowledge, I confidently say that given an equal opportunity, American
farmers can compete and succeed against agricultural products from any
other country.
However, American farmers are not being given this equal opportunity.
The United States is outspent by more than 20 to 1 by our foreign
competitors, promoting and subsidizing their own product.
In 1997, the leading U.S. competitor spent $924 million to promote
their agriculture exports, $100 million of that spent on promotions
here in the United States. Conversely, we grant our farmers assistance
to the tune of $90 million to help them compete against our
competitor's $924 million.
Rather than having this annual debate aimed at eliminating the
program, I argue that Congress should rather be discussing a funding
increase for the Market Access Program. This is the only program aimed
correctly at helping U.S. agriculture products around the world.
Our competitors have no limits on what they will spend to assist
their farmers in edging out our product. Their success is evidenced by
the fact that U.S. ag exports have decreased by $11 billion since 1996.
In conclusion, let me simply say the Market Access Program is a
valuable tool we are able to provide our farmers. This tool not only
helps them compete abroad, but it also supports thousands of U.S.
export jobs, 24,000 in my State of North Carolina alone.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of U.S. farmers by voting
against this amendment.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been
offered by my colleague, who intends on eliminating the Market Access
Program.
We revisit this issue annually. Reforms have been undertaken. The
Foreign Agriculture Service reviews proposals submitted by the
agriculture cooperatives and nonprofit organizations. They must provide
matching funds. The FAS scrutinizes expenses and the performances.
Farmers across the country are suffering from prices having dropped.
Export opportunities have been withering, and they are trying to gain a
market share in countries around the world. They are competing with
odds against them.
Eliminating the cost share assistance of MAP would make that struggle
even harder.
As we have eliminated the trade barriers between our country and
other
[[Page H3816]]
countries, and we have not required the same relaxation in other
countries as our farmers are competing with their hands tied behind
their backs, we are trying to help them to search out other markets,
other opportunities, beyond their traditional markets. We have tried to
do this and we have been successful at it.
The money spent in this program, $90 million, has returned, according
to estimates, $12.5 billion trade surplus in agriculture. And when our
country has a trade deficit of billions of dollars, this is the only
part of our trade and our export that actually has a trade surplus.
{time} 1730
In the Northeast and in Maine in particular, there are families that
own apple orchards that are hurting. The money that would be helping to
generate business for them in the United Kingdom is a generic promotion
for MacIntosh apples which they are providing the match for. This is
not a government handout but a match is required for them to
participate in this program. It is a Federal program that is helping
family farmers in a region where family farmers are struggling. I have
been working with lobstermen, using the MAP funds trying to open up
Asian markets to them. And I have helped family-owned sardine canneries
secure assistance.
This is not some huge welfare for huge corporations. This is for
fishermen, for farmers, for people who are working in family-owned
businesses who have chosen a rugged way of life to put food on the
tables of America and the world. This program is aimed at small- and
medium-sized companies. It has been reformed and it is working. It is
one of the few areas of our Federal export-import program that is
working very successfully and is working for small- and medium-sized
family farms. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment
and to keep this program working.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this shortsighted
amendment which would have a huge impact on the constituents in my
district, Sonoma and Marin Counties in California, a district where
some of the world's finest wines are produced. If this amendment
passes, our world famous wine would certainly have a more difficult
time competing in the world market. So would our neighboring districts,
Napa County, Mendocino County and neighboring States, Oregon and
Washington, and States across the country, like Arkansas.
This amendment would impact the small wine producers, those who rely
upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete in the global
marketplace. Let us be clear. The playing field in the world export
market for wines is not level. Unlike Europe and unlike South America,
U.S. wine producers receive no production subsidies, no subsidies
whatsoever, for their production. Furthermore, our competitors outspend
the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1.
Mr. Chairman, small California wineries suffer in such a lopsided
marketplace without some marketing assistance. Let there be no mistake,
this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses. Eighty-nine
percent of the wineries that participate in the Market Access Program
are small wineries. Furthermore, the Market Access Program is not a
handout. It is a partnership, a partnership between small businesses
and the USDA. And it provides funds on a cost-share basis. The European
Union export subsidies amounted to approximately $10 billion last year,
Mr. Chairman. In fact, the European Union spends more on export
promotion for wine than the United States does for all of our
agricultural programs combined.
We need only look at last year to see this unfair disparity. Market
promotion funds for the American wine industry totalled approximately
$5 million. The heavily subsidized European wine industry received $1.5
billion. That is $5 million in the United States and $1.5 billion in
Europe. The money we spend to increase the markets for American
agricultural products is money well spent. Because of assistance from
the Market Access Program, U.S. wine exports had their 14th consecutive
record-breaking year in 1998, reaching $537 million. This level is $100
million over the year before, which means that each Market Access
Program dollar generated a $20 increase in exports.
Just as important, California wines can now be found on the retail
shelves of over 164 countries. In the last 10 years, an additional
7,500 full-time jobs and 5,000 part-time jobs have been created by
exporting wine. This is not only good for the American balance of
trade, it is good for the American economy.
Mr. Chairman, we should help export U.S. products, not U.S. jobs.
Oppose this amendment.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Chabot
amendment to the Market Access Program (MAP). Unfortunately, some of my
colleagues appear not to understand the importance of MAP to our
producers.
Two weeks ago, the director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture
was in town to discuss agriculture policy with Members of Congress and
the administration. We discussed in general terms all of the options
for supporting American producers, and keeping US agriculture
competitive in the world market. But there was one thing the director
specifically asked for, and that was continued funding for the Market
Access Program.
Nebraska's central location and small population base make it
difficult for many individual producers to compete internationally. MAP
funds help our producers, and the Nebraska Department of Agriculture,
to overcome this hurdle by partially funding market service, and trade
and research missions to foreign countries. These funds help support
and promote the buying, selling, and development of Nebraska
agricultural products. In today's market, this is critical.
Let's face it, our producers must export in order to survive and
prosper. And their products must be competitive on the world market.
The Market Access Program is one small way we can help our producers. I
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and to support
our producers.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 72,
noes 355, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 174]
AYES--72
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Berkley
Bilbray
Campbell
Chabot
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Conyers
Cox
Crane
DeLay
DeMint
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Graham
Hayworth
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Istook
Kelly
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Largent
Lazio
Linder
LoBiondo
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Paul
Petri
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rivers
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sununu
Tierney
Toomey
Wamp
Weiner
Wu
NOES--355
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
[[Page H3817]]
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Chenoweth
Ford
McCollum
Ney
Waters
{time} 1755
Mr. VENTO and Mr. GILMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. DeLAY, COBURN, KIND, ISTOOK and LAZIO changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 174, I was present and voted
``no'', but was not recorded, this is my third new voting card. I will
now seal a 4th voting card.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000''.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida
Mr. YOUNG OF FLORIDA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida:
At the end of the bill, immediately preceding the short
title, insert the following new section:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
appropriations under this Act for the following agencies and
activities are hereby reduced to the following respective
amounts:
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments:
Repairs, Renovation and Construction................................0
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service:
Integrated Activities...............................................0
Agricultural Research Service:
Buildings and Facilities............................................0
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Administrative Expenses................................$375,879,000
Food and Drug Administration:..........................................
Salaries and Expenses...................................1,198,384,000
Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
{time} 1800
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the agriculture bill as we
present it was at the 302(b) level, but was over last year's spending
limits. In consultation with many Members on both sides of the aisle,
we had some agreement and some disagreement that we would make some
adjustments in the total of this bill in order to make additional
funding available for some of the other bills that will come along
later. So we developed this amendment in lieu of all of the amendments
that our friend from Oklahoma had filed in advance of the consideration
of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, this bill in its original form is approximately $14
billion new discretionary budget authority. This amendment would reduce
that amount by $102,500,000.
We have gone carefully through these accounts. What we are doing in
most of these cases is delaying some construction, at least until next
year, construction that is not essential to the farm programs that we
are all trying to preserve.
By doing this amendment, we are able to guarantee that the money that
is going into the system to help our farmers as they are planting and
as they are preparing to harvest later in the year, that we help our
farmers do what we have to do to help them to stay alive, to keep the
family farms and to keep those people who are producing the food for
America, to keep them in business.
This amendment, while it is a substantial cut based on the overall
amount in the bill, it is not that great. It is merely in most of the
cases postponing until next year some of the construction that we would
have done originally in this bill. So I would ask the Members to
expedite the consideration of this amendment so we can complete this
bill and get it into conference.
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
[Fiscal year 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount in Amount in Revised amount
committee bill amendment by amendment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments $166,364,000 ($26,000,000) $140,364,000
\1\......................................................
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension
Service:
Integrated activities................................. 10,000,000 (10,000,000) 0
Agricultural Research Service:
Buildings and Facilities.............................. 44,500,000 (44,500,000) 0
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account 377,879,000 (2,000,000) 375,879,000
administrative expenses..............................
Food and Drug Administration:
Salaries and Expenses \2\............................. 1,218,384,000 (20,000,000) 1,198,384,000
-----------------------------------------------------
(102,500,000) ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of which $26,000,000 shall be reduced from repairs, renovation, and construction.
\2\ Of which $10,000,000 shall be reduced from payments to the General Services Administration.
[[Page H3818]]
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we had heard on this side that this amendment might be
coming, and I want to say to the chairman of our full committee, there
is no Member that I would respect more in this House than the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young). I believe he is a man of integrity who would
want to do what is right for America, and especially for rural America,
as troubled as she is right now.
We have had an opportunity to review this amendment just for a few
moments, and I would have to say overall to the membership that what
this amendment does is it cuts an additional $102 million of the funds
that are available to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to meet the
needs of rural America.
Now, let me say that I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I
strongly oppose it. I am sorry that I have to do that, because the
chairman of the subcommittee and I came out of subcommittee in hopes we
could have the kind of bipartisan unity that has always characterized
this bill when it reaches the floor. But I think that I have to oppose
the bill today for many reasons.
One of them is that, overall, if you look at the amount of funds that
we will spend in our country today to serve the needs of rural America,
we are about 33 percent under for the Year 2000 what we will spend this
year just to prevent the hemorrhages that are going on from coast to
coast, whether it is cattle country in Florida, whether we are talking
about grain producers in the Midwest, whether we are talking about
cotton ranchers down in Texas or whether we are talking about the
Salinas Valley in California. We are talking about a situation that
just does not need Band-Aids, but serious repair.
When we brought this bill for the Year 2000 to the floor, as
uncomfortable as we were, we felt that, well, okay, so it is a big
Band-Aid to get us through, but we know later in the year we are going
to have to do more. Now for us to accept an additional $102 million in
cuts is beyond what we feel is the right thing to do for America.
This may be, with all due respect to the majority in this House, the
right way to get you out of a political box among various warring
factions inside the Republican Caucus, but it is not the right thing to
do for America.
For example, one of the major areas you cut is under the Agricultural
Research Service. I do not know how many of you have ever been out in
these Agricultural Research Service buildings. These are not fancy
places. I mean, this is where the structures of the building kind of
get rusty. These do not look like America's defense facilities or
America's NASA facilities. Yet, in fact this is where the future of
America is being reborn every day because of the general use of
research that goes on.
Yet in this cut, what do we do? We are cutting the Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center by over $13 million. It affects the State
of Maryland. For New York, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. In
Pennsylvania, the Eastern Regional Research Center. In California, both
in Albany and in Davis, their research labs. In Illinois, and this one
really surprised me, in Peoria, the National Center for the
Agricultural Utilization Research Service.
Now, that is only one of the many cuts in this bill. There is an
additional $10 million in research that is cut from the Cooperative
Research Service and our extension programs. When we cut that
additional $10 million, that adds to the $3 million that was already
cut below last year, so it is a net negative of $13 million in those
cooperative research accounts below this year.
Research really is the seed corn of the future, and, with what is
going on in rural America today, we need every single dime of that
research working to invent the new technologies for the future that can
help us preserve our food and fiber and fuel production inside the
boundaries of this country.
We are very troubled by the additional $20 million cut proposed in
this amendment in the Food and Drug Administration. Here we are talking
about the inspection service for food safety. We all know what is going
on across this country with added needs for food safety. We have had
plenty of outbreaks, in everything from cyclosporin to E. coli,
everything that has affected citizens across this country. We do not
need to cut the salaries and expenses account for the Food and Drug
Administration.
I heard ad nauseam in our subcommittee about the need to approve
different devices and prescription drugs, that FDA was not moving fast
enough, we needed to do more. America was not moving fast enough to
meet the commercial marketplace. We had to do more for FDA. Well, this
budget does less for FDA.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to mention that one of
the cuts in here relates to the repairs to the South Building along
Independence Avenue here, the Agricultural Building, $26 million, a
building whose heating and cooling systems dates back to the 1930s, the
first major repair as we get ready for the 21st century. We have been
waiting and waiting and waiting. This measure actually completely
eliminates any construction, real improvements that could occur in that
building, one of the relics around this city.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would have to say I know the gentleman is
struggling. For those of us on this subcommittee who have worked very
hard for many months on this bill, this is an important moment for us.
So I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I strongly
oppose the gentleman in his efforts to remove an additional $102
million from the accounts for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
the Food and Drug Administration, at a time when America is asking us
to do more in these areas, and particularly now when rural America is
in crisis. This is absolutely not the place to make these cuts.
I would encourage the gentleman to go back and look at some of the
other accounts, and would strongly urge the membership to vote no on
this Young amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, back in North Dakota this afternoon there are a number
of farmers I represent wondering whether they will even be able to get
through until next fall. We have had an unprecedented level of rain. It
has destroyed the planting season, on top of the hardship they already
faced because prices are below the cost of production, at a time when
they have not been able to get for their crop what it costs them to
grow the crop, and then on top of it production difficulties that have
utterly disrupted their ability to get the crop in the ground.
This is a time of crisis in North Dakota. I would think it is a time
of crisis well beyond a provincial concern as a North Dakota
Congressman, because I am talking constantly with many Members
representing farmers around the country. While your production
dimensions may be different than ours, the fundamental is the same:
Prices have not covered the cost of production, and that is
irrespective of commodity and irrespective of region, and it has given
us a crisis in agriculture.
I believe the floor consideration of the agriculture appropriations
bill has been an utter travesty. At one point we had more than 100
amendments filed against it. Fortunately, we have worked that out. But
now I cannot tell you how dispiriting it is to be an advocate for
farmers in this country and have the chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations bring forward a $100-plus million cut.
Let me just tell you where $10 million of that would fall: Research
and extension. Now, when this body, under a Republican majority, passed
the freedom to farm law, you told farmers things were going to be
different and they were going to be wonderful. They were going to have
freedom to do new things, freedom to plant, freedom to do all kinds of
things based upon the marketplace.
We know what has happened. Prices have collapsed and farmers are
unprotected and farmers are going broke all over the country.
The agriculture research and extension component of this budget is
what we need to deliver on the promise you
[[Page H3819]]
made to rural America, research to develop the new crop alternatives
for people that cannot make money based on what they have been growing;
new production methods that are more cost efficient, that will help
keep these people in the game. It is part of the promise you made. Then
extension, because it is extension that gets the research out of the
universities and the land grant universities and out to the farmers so
they can put it to work.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. A question: Is the gentleman aware that just a
month ago in the supplemental we did add an additional $600 million
over and above all the budgetary figures? So we are not ignoring the
plight of the farmer. We are trying to expedite this bill to get this
amendment considered, whether it goes up or down, and get the bill into
conference, so this additional money can get into the hands of the
farmer. We did just a month ago add another $600 million over and above
every budget figure.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that was relative to a
disaster, an emergency disaster occurring in agriculture. The Farm
Bureau, another supporter of the freedom to farm bill, said you should
have passed $6 billion, not $600 million.
I do not lay this on the chairman's shoulders. I have an enormous
amount of respect for the chairman. But the fact of the matter is that
that $600 million did not deal with extension and research, the $10
million I am talking about, and I cite that as an example.
Just a few months earlier than that, you set a 302(b) allocation for
the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations. The
gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) went to work, working with
the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and all of
the Members. They came up with a bill within the allocation. They did
everything right, and it is not right that agriculture should be
bushwhacked on the floor of the House in this dark hour of despair by a
$100 million cut.
I urge Members, put party aside, put urban-rural aside, think about
what is right and think about what is fair and reject this amendment.
{time} 1815
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pease). The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 195, not voting 6, as follows.
[Roll No. 175]
AYES--234
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
Markey
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--6
Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
Ford
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
Waters
{time} 1834
Mr. STRICKLAND and Ms. KILPATRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. KELLY and Messrs. LIPINSKI, TIERNEY, DELAHUNT, NETHERCUTT,
TAUZIN, and SPENCE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 175, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the passage of this bill. I
regret doing so, and I intended to support it. The comity in this body
requires, I think, that we give notice to one another of actions that
are being taken.
Now, I understand the Republican Conference met, and they have had
trouble passing this bill, and they had a discussion. I do not know
what went on. I was not in the conference. Apparently there was a
determination, well, we will cut some programs from the bill. We will
cut some items from the bill, $102.5 million. These items were cut
after going through the subcommittee and full committee.
[[Page H3820]]
My belief is that they were not cut substantively, that is to say, I
do not believe for one second that a substantive judgment was made with
reference to the merits of these particular projects. In my opinion,
these cuts were made essentially as somewhat an across-the-board cut in
order to get the requisite number of votes to pass this bill on the
Republican side of the aisle.
Now, when we were in charge, I opposed those kinds of amendments, and
I oppose them when we are not in charge.
My colleagues will not be surprised to learn that one of the projects
cut was mine. Now, it was not mine personally, it was a lab facility,
the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, which this Nation has
created. It happens to be located in my district. But it is America's
research facility, and it is the best research facility in the world.
Every farmer, not just in America, but throughout the world relies on
the research that that institution has produced. In fact, productivity
at every farm in America and every farm in the world that uses our
technology is very substantially up because of the product of the
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
I was not singled out. Peoria, Illinois, had a project; the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) took a hit. Others took a hit. So I do not
perceive this to have been a partisan hit. I do not ascribe my
colleagues' motives as partisan. I ascribe them to needing to get
votes.
But I suggest to my colleagues, and I suggest to my colleagues on the
other side, my side of the aisle, this is not the way to legislate.
This is not the way to make critical judgments on the priorities of
America.
Now, I know one of my colleague's Members had a lot of amendments,
and he was going to offer hundreds perhaps until next week, and perhaps
this got him on board. It appears that it did. He is not offering
amendments anymore.
I talked to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for whom I
have not only great respect, but unrestrained affection. I think he is
one of the finest Members of this body. Frankly, one of the other
Members with whom I am very close, and he would say that, I hope it
does not hurt his reputation, is the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen). I do not think they would have done this. I do not think they
did do it. I think they were the instruments.
But I do not think this is a good day for agriculture, for farmers,
for consumers. I want to say something else about this bill. It plays a
game, this $102 million. It takes $10 million in rental payments from
FDA and says, we will not pay it.
My colleagues just passed a bankruptcy act that said something about
personal responsibility, about paying one's bills. But in the amendment
for which my colleagues just voted, they said, but one does not have to
pay one's rent, do not worry about it. So that when GSA goes to
refurbish or maintain or build new facilities, there will not be any
money in the pot.
Why? Because we did not pay our rent. Guess what? It is free. It is
supply side maintenance and building of capital assets. That is what
this amendment does that my colleagues voted for.
I would hope that my colleagues would vote against this bill. I would
hope that we could go back to the board. If my colleagues want to cut,
if the majority will is to cut, then let us do so in a rational,
considered way, not by this, it was not midnight, but I had no notice
of it, and I suggest that perhaps most Members did not have notice of
it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have watched the debate over
agriculture appropriations for the past two days. Farmers are the
backbone of my state. The economy of Wisconsin is based on
agriculture--if our farmers suffer, the economy of our entire state
suffers. These issues are vital to the people of the district I serve;
however, no issue in agriculture is as vital to the farmers of
Wisconsin as the reform of the dairy market order system.
This country, one of the most technologically advanced countries in
the world, continues, at the behest of Congress, to force an antiquated
system of price-fixing in the dairy industry that violates every free
market principle. Congress has been manipulating the dairy industry for
far too long. This system had a purpose in the 1930's; it was designed
to encourage milk production in regions of this country that were
suffering dairy shortages. But this system has outlived its usefulness.
Advances in technology and transportation have eliminated the need for
this system.
The current marketing order is unfair and inefficient for a number of
reasons. Not only does it force higher prices for dairy products based
on distance from my home state of Wisconsin; it also allows the
Northeast Dairy Compact to operate. This is not a free market system;
in fact, it is a system that violates most free market principles. It
encourages overproduction and inefficient methods of production.
The farmers in my district are suffering because they live too close
to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. How many members of Congress even know how
far their district is from Eau Claire, Wisconsin? Yet the way dairy
products are priced is based on that distance. Does that make sense to
anyone? It surely doesn't make sense to me or the farmers of
Wisconsin--a State where we are losing more family farms each year than
many of you have in your entire state.
Make no mistake about it--this system hurts Wisconsin and hurts
Wisconsin farmers--and this Congress is responsible for that. The USDA
reform initiative is a small step to alleviate a situation that has
been plaguing dairy farmers in the Midwest for far too long. According
to USDA analysis, incorporating the changes in the Federal Milk
Marketing Order Class I differential prices lowers average annual
revenue in all federal order markets by only $2.8 million and raises
farm revenue for the U.S. by $3.2 million. As we all know, these price
differentials do not represent the actual market price. This reform is
essentially revenue neutral for a $25 billion industry; yet many of my
colleagues continue to use scare tactics claiming that these changes
will cost hundreds on millions of dollars. The USDA estimates that the
reform will result in a loss to farmers in some districts of
approximately $.02/per hundredweight.
This system needs to be reformed because it unfairly penalizes the
Midwest dairy farmers and it hurts consumers and taxpayers. They are
being asked to subsidize inefficiencies in the production of dairy
products. They are being asked to pay for a program that continues to
waste their tax dollars. They are being asked to pay higher prices at
the supermarket for food.
We are no longer giving farmers in certain areas of the country an
incentive to product more milk. We are now giving them an incentive to
overproduce milk. This type of system does not provide an incentive for
farmers to operate efficiently or to produce items that are natural to
their agricultural environment. How can we vote against a system that
encourages the market to operate more efficiently?
If this House forces its will on the USDA, you will be silencing the
voices of millions of farmers around the country who have been heard on
this issue by USDA and deserve the right to vote on this reform. This
reform must be supported by \2/3\ of the farmers in a region before it
can be implemented in that region.
The USDA assures us that this reform will only create a more
equitable free market system; it will not seriously impact prices paid
for dairy products in any region of this country. It will be a win-win
for everyone; I urge you to support these minute changes the USDA has
made that will mean everything to the farmers in the first district of
Wisconsin.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to
H.R. 1906, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000.
It had been my intention to support H.R. 1906 because it contains
many worthy, programs that are of benefit not just to our farmers, but
to all Americans. However, in a last-minute ploy, the Republican
leadership decided to make deep cuts to this bill that call into
question their commitment to both American farmers and American
consumers who rely on adequate funding for these programs. Those cuts
included important agricultural construction projects in California,
including improvements to the Agricultural Research Service's Western
Regional Research Center at Albany and construction of the Western
Human Nutrition Laboratory at Davis. These projects are supported by
the Department of Agriculture, they were in the President's budget
request, and there was no opposition to including the necessary
construction funds prior to today. I am very disappointed that the
Republican leadership has chosen to pull the rug out from under these
vital facilities.
H.R. 1906, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, was not a
perfect bill, but I believe Chairman Joe Skeen and Ranking Member Marcy
Kaptur and their subcommittee members did a commendable job under tough
budget constraints to fund the many deserving programs in this bill.
The last-minute amendment offered by Rep. Bill Young to appease the
right wing of his party works against that spirit of bipartisanship.
[[Page H3821]]
This bill's scope, the so-called ``agriculture'' appropriations bill,
is sweeping, from agriculture research, rural development and land
conservation programs to food safety and operations of the Food and
Drug Administration. Administration of our farm programs and marketing
of our agricultural commodities is also included, yet the greatest
share of the funding goes for nutrition programs, including food
stamps, school breakfast and lunch, and the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children or WIC.
I'm particularly grateful to the committee for adding funding within
the extension activities of the Cooperative State Research Education
and Extension Service for an after-school program in Los Angeles. Our
4-H after school activity program is operating at 21 sites, and over
4,000 kids are participating in educational field trips, getting
homework assistance and receiving other types of mentoring. This
program is a wonderful antidote to the drug and gang activity to which
many of the kids in my district are susceptible. I very much appreciate
this one-time infusion of funding so we can sustain the program and
establish a long-term partnership between the government and businesses
in our community.
I am also grateful that the bill contains an increase of $5 million
for farm labor housing in the Rural Cooperative Service and $9 million
for rural housing assistance grants, which can also be used for non-
profit organizations of farm workers. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers
are some of the nation's most poorly housed populations. The last
documented national study indicated a shortage of some 800,000 units of
affordable housing for farmworkers. However, farmworker households are
some of the poorest, yet least assisted households in the nation. So,
the need for housing is great, and the committee has responded, within
its overall budget constraints, to make some needed progress in this
area.
The nutrition programs in this bill benefit many of my constituents
and people of all ages across the United States. However, I share the
concern that has been expressed about adequate funding for the WIC
program. Prior studies have demonstrated that for every $1 spent on the
WIC program, up to $3 is saved in costs to Medicaid and other federal
programs. That easily makes WIC one of the most cost-effective programs
administered by the federal government. Although the committee
increased funding by $81 million over last year, the amount provided is
$100 million less than the President's budget request.
WIC serves 1.2 million Californians, and we are making enormous
strides in using the funds to serve all the mothers and children in
need. On May 24, the California Department of Health Services lowered
the maximum price it would pay for milk, eggs, cheese, cereal, juice
and other foods in the WIC market basket in order to avoid having to
cut 25,000 poor mothers and children from its roster. While other
states may easily serve their WIC recipients with the funds distributed
to them, California must use its funding shrewdly in order to serve all
those in need. The Effective Food and Nutrition Education Program
(EFNEP) of the Extension Service also plays an important role in
working with WIC mothers and others to help them build positive
lifelong nutrition habits and skill. I urge the chairman and the
committee to reassess the WIC funding level during its conference with
the Senate in order to ensure that no qualified women and children miss
out on the benefits of this program, which contribute to a healthy
America.
California is the largest agricultural producing state in the nation,
and I am phased that the committee has recommended funding for other
programs of benefit to our farmers. Unlike many producers in the
Midwest who have long benefited from agriculture price support
programs, many of our California producers have been engaged in market-
oriented agriculture for many years. That's why the Market Access
Program (MAP) is so important to our cooperatives, small farmers and
other producers who are making aggressive efforts to expand markets
overseas. I'm pleased that the committee has funded MAP at its full
authorized level.
In addition, agricultural research into the special problems that
affect California commodities takes on added importance to our
producers. Research into integrated pest management and into
alternatives to methyl bromide are just some of the vital research
projects under way at the University of California, and funding for the
Agricultural Research Service, for cooperative federal-state research,
for competitive research grants, and for special research grants are
all important parts of this bill.
There are many other programs in the bill that I could comment on,
including the food safety program and the youth anti-tobacco initiative
in the Food and Drug Administration. These are areas where we would all
like to do more if possible, but the committee originally reported a
responsible bill based on its budget allocation. Now these partisan
floor shenanigans call into question our ability to improve funding for
these programs if opportunities present themselves later in the
appropriations endgame.
In short, I would like to support this bill and the programs of
benefit to my constituents and the people of California and the nation.
However, I cannot in good conscience vote for final passage because the
Republican majority has made a decision to depart from the usual
bipartisan manner in which we consider this bill, in pursuit of their
own political purposes. I hope that the House-Senate conference
committee will make the needed improvements in this bill that will draw
the customary widespread, bipartisan support before we send the final
version to the President late in this fiscal year.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Food Contact Notification (FCN) program. The FCN program was authorized
in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, and
received start-up funding in FY 1999. However, FY 2000 Agriculture
Appropriations does not provide additional money. Without a funding
source, either in the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations or through
user fees, this program will not be implemented.
By reducing a significant regulatory burden, the FCN reforms expedite
the approval of food contact substances, like plastic, paper and
aluminum used in food packaging. Under this new streamlined regulatory
system, it would be possible for safe food-contact materials to be
marketed after only 120 days of filing notification with the FDA--
shortening the current process from as much as six years to only a few
months. Both consumers and manufacturers would benefit by the
availability of better products in a more timely manner.
In fact, during the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations hearing the
Committee recognized the value of the FCN program. Despite that
endorsement, I am concerned that both the Committee and the
Administration are relying on the future authorization of user fees to
fund the FCN program. Yet to date, no fee authorization bill has been
introduced, much less discussed in any detail. Without either an
appropriation or an assurance of user fee authorization, the FCN
program will not be implemented, and important progress in food
packaging will be delayed.
It will be unfortunate if this innovative new program was
unintentionally thwarted. For that reason, I urge the Chairman and
Ranking Member to assure that at least the authorized level of funding
be made available in the event that a fee system cannot be enacted in
time for FY 2000.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1906) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 185, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is there a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair
will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1845
Motion to Recommit
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1906 to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the amount otherwise provided for salaries and expenses for
the Food and Drug Administration is hereby increased by
$20,000,000.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its present form.
In
[[Page H3822]]
substance, we will be providing one-third fewer dollars this year than
we are providing at the present time to support the needs of our
farmers, and that creates no compulsion at all to vote for this bill as
far as I am concerned.
This recommittal motion restores $21 million to the Food and Drug
Administration just cut by the previous amendment. Now, those who are
opposed to this amendment will say the money is not needed. If that is
the case, I would ask one simple question: Why did we put it in the
bill in the first place?
This cut, as the gentleman from Maryland indicated, was not made to
solve any substantive problem with the bill. It was made to simply
solve a political problem within the majority party caucus because the
problem was that last week they had a worse week than Charismatic and
they were trying to figure out how to recover. And so what they decided
to do is to try to take a nip and a tuck out of some bills without
regard to the substantive effect.
This amendment was not meant to solve a substantive problem. It was
meant to simply help the majority party get another week through the
legislative agenda while they try to figure out how to correct the fact
that they are essentially $35 billion from reality in terms of overall
appropriations.
If Members are opposed to this amendment, I would simply ask: Are we
really doing too much to achieve food safety in this country? Are we
really doing too much to inspect foreign fruits and vegetables? Are we
really doing too much to speed the delivery of new life-saving drugs to
the marketplace?
We will, sometime this year, be voting on about $15 billion for the
National Institutes of Health. About $5 billion of that will be for
cancer research. We have been told that the chairman of the
subcommittee on the majority side wants to double spending for the
National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years. That is a lot of
``blagole.''
But no matter how much we put into research, if we contribute to
bottlenecks at FDA, we are delaying the day when new life-saving drugs
will reach the marketplace; life-saving drugs that deal with cancer,
that deal with Parkinson's Disease, that deal with every other disease
known to man.
I would urge my colleagues when they cast their votes tonight on this
amendment to vote on substance, not politics; vote to restore this
badly needed $21 million. That is the least we can do to correct some
of the damage just done by the previous amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that this
particular Member is going to support the gentleman's motion to
recommit and then will end the evening by voting against the bill,
which I apologize to the subcommittee chair and to the full committee
chair. It was not my intention as a loyal member, having gone through
all those meetings, to do that. And I would urge all my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on final passage as well, and I feel sad to do that today.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Just 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, we all popped the champagne corks and
celebrated the passage of a bipartisan budget agreement signed by the
President of the United States, the Democrats and the Republicans in
the Congress, and now it is time to follow through on that agreement.
We must, on both sides of the aisle, follow through on our obligation.
Look what is ahead in terms of spending: Veterans' bills, processing
of their health care claims, water and sewer grants, housing for the
low income, education, money for teachers, Medicaid, children's health
and immunizations, money for the National Park Service for land
acquisition, for trails, for shelters, for the Department of Interior,
research money for diabetes, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, heart,
jobs programs of all natures. In essence, this is only the first
appropriations bill. Everything else that is in our $1.7 trillion
budget lies down the road.
By supporting this decrease in funding on this bill right now, we
free up more money down the road to have more options on these very,
very important programs, and that is why we need to pass the bill in
its present form, as amended.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me simply
say that we in the House and our colleagues in the Senate and our
President at the White House agreed to a balanced budget proposal in
1997. We set budget caps for this fiscal year and for the next fiscal
year. And if my colleagues think this year is tough, wait till next
year, because that budget cap goes down even more than it did this
year.
But if we are going to be true to ourselves, if we are going to be
true to the fiscal restraint that we put into effect and that all of
our leaders signed off on, if we are going to stay within that budget
cap, we are going to have to make some tough decisions, and today we
are making some tough decisions.
Vote against this motion to recommit, vote for the bill. Let us get
this bill into conference and get the money on the way to the American
farmers where the help is really needed and bring that amount up to
over $14 billion just in the supplemental for 1999 and this fiscal year
2000 bill.
Make the tough choice, vote against this motion and let us pass this
bill and get it to conference.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207,
noes 220, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 176]
AYES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
[[Page H3823]]
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--220
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Chenoweth
Ford
Hilleary
McCollum
Mica
Waters
{time} 1907
Mr. CAMP changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DOYLE and Mr. McINTYRE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 176, I was avoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246,
nays 183, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 177]
YEAS--246
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--183
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--6
Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
Ford
McCollum
Waters
Wexler
{time} 1923
Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________