[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11935-11980]
[From the U.S. 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,

[[Page 11936]]

     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 
     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

[[Page 11937]]

     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, $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

[[Page 11938]]

     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 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.

[[Page 11939]]

  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 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,

[[Page 11940]]

     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 
     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

[[Page 11941]]

     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 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

[[Page 11942]]

     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 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

[[Page 11943]]

     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 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

[[Page 11944]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 11945]]

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 
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.

[[Page 11946]]


  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 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

[[Page 11947]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 11948]]

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.
  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 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

[[Page 11949]]

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 move 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 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

[[Page 11950]]

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.
  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)

[[Page 11951]]


     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, SMITH of Texas, ENGEL and MICA changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BOEHLERT and Mr. LARGENT 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. 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 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

[[Page 11952]]

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 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

[[Page 11953]]

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 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

[[Page 11954]]

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 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

[[Page 11955]]

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

[[Page 11956]]

those drugs can cause a spontaneous miscarriage.
  Let me read you a portion of a letter from the National Coalition of 
Cancer 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. 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-

[[Page 11957]]

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 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

[[Page 11958]]

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 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

[[Page 11959]]

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 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. 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.
  Second, 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

[[Page 11960]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 11961]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 11962]]

gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  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 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).

[[Page 11963]]


  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 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. 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

[[Page 11964]]

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 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

[[Page 11965]]

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.
  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

[[Page 11966]]

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 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

[[Page 11967]]

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 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

[[Page 11968]]


     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
     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.

[[Page 11969]]

  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 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.

[[Page 11970]]

  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 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

[[Page 11971]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 11972]]

  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 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.

[[Page 11973]]

  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
     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:

[[Page 11974]]

       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.

  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

[[Page 11975]]

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 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.

[[Page 11976]]



                             [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.
  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

[[Page 11977]]

$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.
  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

[[Page 11978]]

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 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

[[Page 11979]]

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
     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

[[Page 11980]]


     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.

                          ____________________