[Pages H5075-H5100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 482 and rule
XXIII, 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. 4101.

{time} 1045

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. 4101) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other
purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, June
23, 1998, amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. Bass) had been disposed of and section 738 had been read.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Miller of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Florida:
Add after the final section the following new section:

Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to make available or administer, or to pay the
salaries of personnel of the Department of Agriculture who
make available or administer, a loan to a processor of
sugarcane or sugar beets during fiscal year 1999 under
section 156 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7272) at a loan rate in excess of 17 cents per pound
for raw cane sugar and 21.9 cents per pound for refined beet
sugar.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Tuesday, June
23, 1998, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) will control 30
minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) or her designee each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. This amendment is a modest change in the sugar program in
this country, a one-cent change in sugar prices in this country.
Most of my colleagues do not realize that the sugar program is one of
those old-fashioned programs where the Federal Government here in
Washington has the bureaucracy that set a high price on sugar. This is
not part of the free enterprise system that most people think we have.
We have a price of sugar that the government sets that is over twice
what the price is around the world. In Canada the price of sugar is
about 9 cents a pound. In the United States it is about 22, 23 cents a
pound. This makes zero economic sense.
In 1996 we passed Freedom to Farm, a very significant and historic
piece of legislation for agriculture, because it really had a lot of
reforms that were very important and good for this country and good for
farmers. Our farmers are very effective and productive farmers and can
compete with farmers around the world. We are huge exporters of
agricultural products. But while we reformed lots of the grain programs
and other programs, we did not reform sugar. Sugar was one product that
basically escaped reform in the 1996 farm reform bill. The price of
sugar back before we had reform was about 22, 23 cents a pound, and it
is staying at that price because the government program continues to
exist to force the price up high while world prices have dropped down
to about 9 cents a pound.
One of the things I would point out, I remember reading right after
the passage of the Freedom to Farm bill what the historic change was.
In Time magazine there was an article not focusing on the good things
in that bill but about the sugar sweet deal that the sugar farmers got
by not reforming sugar and whether it was ABC News who did a story
earlier this year about ``It's Your Money'', or Readers Digest had a
story earlier this year, or the New York Times, they all referred to
the fact that sugar was not reformed. So as much as my opponents might
say, ``Oh, we reformed it,'' the bottom line is sugar prices are the
same basically as they were before we reformed it.
Let me describe briefly how the program works. The program works,
that we cannot grow enough sugar in this country so we must import
sugar. So what the government does is it controls the amount of sugar
allowed into this country and by basic supply and demand forces prices
up high. So while the world price is about 9 cents right now, in fact,
if you look at the Wall Street Journal, you look at commodity prices,
you have two prices for sugar, the price we pay in the United States
and the price around the world.
What is crazy about this, for example, Australia, one of the largest
exporters of sugar in the world, and it is not a subsidized program in
Australia, they will sell their sugar to anyone for 9 cents a pound,
but the United States, what do they sell it to us for? Twenty-two cents
a pound or so. It is crazy. That is foreign aid. That is corporate
subsidy of Australian sugar farmers. Whether we import it from the
Dominican Republic or Brazil or wherever, we are subsidizing foreign
sugar growers in this program.
This program of sugar that we have in this country is bad for
consumers, it is bad for jobs, and it is certainly bad for the
environment. For the consumers, they pay a higher price for sugar, not
just the sugar we buy off the shelves in the store but so many
different items of food contain sugar, whether it is the candy, whether
it is cough drops, whether it is ice cream or baked goods, sugar is
part of that and it is part of the total cost of the production. We all
know basic economics will tell you that cost and prices are related.
It is bad for the environment. I come from Florida. A great treasure
of the State of Florida is the Florida Everglades. Sadly it has been
damaged over the past 50 years for a variety of reasons, not just
because of agriculture certainly. We are in the process now of trying
to restore the Everglades. We have lost 50 percent of the Florida
Everglades for a variety of reasons, for agriculture and development
and more people in the State of Florida. But we found out this week
that it is going to cost us $7.5 billion over the next 20 years to
restore the Everglades as best as we can. A large part of the problem
is the amount of acreage going for sugar production, 500,000 acres. And
part of the solution is to buy a lot of that sugar land and also to
build retention ponds to filter the water that flows off the sugar
fields. How much is sugar paying in this plan? Less than 5 percent of
the cost. They are not even carrying their full load. But in addition
to that, because we have this crazy sugar program, we are having to pay
inflated prices for the land we are buying from the sugar farmers. We
create a program that makes the land more valuable and creates
incentives to

[[Page H5076]]

produce more sugar in the Everglades, and then we are going to have to
go out and buy it and pay this inflated price. That is the kind of
screwy government program that this is.
And jobs. This is a job loser in this country. Because we restrict
the amount of sugar imported, refineries are closing around this
country. They have been closing for years because of this program.
These are good jobs, union jobs by the way, because I have got letters
of support from organized labor saying, ``We're losing union jobs.''
It is also bad for the users of sugar. For example, one of the
classic cases is Bob's Candy down in Georgia that makes candy canes.
They pay this high price for sugar. They have opened a facility down in
the Caribbean. The same sugar is costing less than half the amount.
Here is a company that has been in business for three generations and
they are having a hard time to compete. Whether it is cereal, what have
you, the jobs are not coming to this country. They are producing the
cough drops in England and sending us cough drops rather than allowing
us to manufacture them in this country. It is a job loser in this
country.
The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that it is bad for the consumer, it
is bad for jobs and economic growth in this country, and it is
certainly bad for the environment. I think it is time that we get rid
of this big government program that no longer belongs in the free
enterprise country we live in today.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture.
(Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a minimal issue at all. I hope Members will
listen, because again I want to reiterate, a contract was made with
agriculture in 1996 that will be ending in the year 2002, that all
subsidies on all crops will be eliminated.
In the face of that contract, why are we singling out sugar growers?
This is not an attack on sugar companies. This is an attack on people
who grow sugar, who work in the fields. Why should we distinguish them
from soybeans or wheat or corn, if that happens to be your crop? ``Oh,
no, we have to identify sugar. Let's take them out of the contract.''
I say, ``Wrong.'' We made a contract, let us stick with it.
Is this a minimal question? Well, the people from CoBank do not think
so, because the senior Vice President, Mr. Cassidy, wrote a letter to
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) on June 18, 1998, at
which time this senior Vice President said, ``Look, we finance about
2,000 customers. There are $1 billion worth of loans in jeopardy if
this amendment passes.''
Banks do not operate on tomorrow. They operate on a year and two and
three-year commitments. Therefore, we are jeopardizing many, many sugar
growers. Why do that? Do not pass this amendment. Stay with the
contract the Congress made with farmers and with agriculture until the
year 2002.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from Mr. Jack
Cassidy to Chairman Livingston.
The text of the letter is as follows:

CoBank,

Denver, CO, June 18, 1998.
Hon. Robert L. Livingston,
Chairman, House Appropriations Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I'm writing to express CoBank's
opposition to an amendment to the pending Agricultural
Appropriations bill that would effectively end the federal
sugar policy.
With $19 billion in assets. CoBank is the largest bank in
the Farm Credit System. We provide financing to about 2,000
customers, including agricultural cooperatives, rural utility
systems, and to support the export of agricultural products.
At present, CoBank has 25 farmer-owned cooperative customers
involved in the sugar or sweetener industry, with loans from
CoBank totaling nearly $1 billion. CoBank's customers, their
farmer members, and CoBank itself have made numerous business
decisions and financial commitments based on the seven-year
farm bill passed by Congress in 1996. As you know, that
legislation included provisions vital to the U.S. sugar
industry at no cost to U.S. taxpayers. Great hardship would
result to sugar farmers and their cooperatives if Congress
fails to live up to the commitments made as part of the farm
bill.
For these reasons, we urge you to support the existing farm
bill provisions and oppose any proposals that would undermine
the existing sugar policy.
Please call me at 1-800/542-8072, extension 4362, if you or
your staff have any questions.
Sincerly.
Jack E. Cassidy,
Senior Vice President.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the 15 minutes under my control in
this debate to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), a key
leader in this House and truly one of the most knowledgeable and
hardworking and influential leaders on U.S. sugar policy. I would have
to say that no one could be a finer spokesman both for our producers as
well as our farm workers than the gentleman from Hawaii.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) will control 15 minutes, and is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Miller
amendment. I believe this amendment is nothing more than a proposal to
transfer wealth from farmers to giant food corporations. I believe it
would harm hardworking farm families in rural communities across this
country. Throughout much of farm country, farmers today are struggling.
I want to reiterate that. Farmers in the upper Midwest and in the
Midwest are struggling and having a very hard time paying their bills.
The Republican freedom to fail farm bill has sharply reduced prices for
sugar beets, wheat and other commodities. In States like Minnesota,
North Dakota, Montana and Idaho, many family farmers grow both wheat
and sugar beets. Wheat prices are down by 50 percent in just 2 years.
Fifty percent. Sugar beet prices are down by 12 percent. The sugar
program is one of the few areas that these farmers can go to in order
to get through very tough times. Now some want to cut this last
lifeline for these farmers.
This proposal would also harm rural economic development. The
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who strongly opposes this
amendment, has told me this program sustains 6,000 good-paying union
jobs in his area, his State alone.
The winners under this amendment are big food corporations, not
consumers. Although sugar and corn sweetener prices have dropped,
sweetened product prices continue to go up. Nothing in this amendment
assures consumers that they are going to get lower prices.

{time} 1100

This is a bad effort. It will hurt farmers, it will hurt consumers,
it will hurt our rural economy.
Democrats believe our farmers and rural communities deserve a fair
return for their hard work.
Let us stand up for farmers and reject this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) the cosponsor of this bill who
has been leading this effort for years. Maybe this year we will have
success.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Miller) for his able and capable leadership on this issue and rise in
support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to put an end to the Federal Government's
deal with the sugar industry and finally reform one of the most
invidious, inefficient, Byzantine, special-interest, Depression-era
Federal programs.
What do Americans get from the sugar program? Well, they get an
additional 1.4 billion a year in higher prices at the checkout line.
They get 500,000 acres of precious Florida wetlands destroyed and
another 5 acres of Everglade land destroyed every day. They get to lose
thousands of well-paying refinery jobs that are lost and sent overseas,
like jobs at Domino Sugar in my district because the price of sugar is
twice the world price.
Here is a list. Every red line, a refinery; a good-paying union job,
as the

[[Page H5077]]

gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) mentioned, gone, and huge subsidies
to a few wealthy sugar barons.
We heard a lot about the family farmer. Fifty-eight percent of this
subsidy, more than half, goes to Florida's Fanjul family, 58 percent of
this subsidy goes to one family who one would not characterize as
hardworking family farmers. No matter how we refine it, the sugar
program is a sour deal.
Opponents of Miller-Schumer warn that our amendment undermines
reforms made to the sugar program and hurts family farmers. Well, let
us hear the facts. Miller-Schumer begins the critical and long-overdue
step toward reform. It simply reduces the amount of money by which the
government will subsidize sugar prices. It does not eliminate the
subsidies; I think it should, but this is just 1 cent a pound. That is
it. The government reduces the loan rate for sugar cane and beets by 1
cent. That is not too much to ask in an industry where the subsidy is
$472 an acre; $472 an acre, 1,000 percent more than the subsidies for
wheat, corn and cotton.
My friend from Oregon said, ``Well, what about wheat, corn, cotton,
all the others?'' The one group that escaped any reform was sugar. This
is just catching them up to the rest. It is the only commodity that was
not reformed during the 1996 farm bill. They are still receiving a
welfare check.
We have a lot of feeling in this Chamber: Let us get rid of the
welfare system. My colleagues tell a poor mother of 18 years old, ``Get
rid of welfare.'' They do not tell Mr. Fanjul, ``Get rid of welfare.''
They do not tell the wealthy farmers, ``Get rid of welfare,'' or the
big agribusinesses. They are the ones who get the loans.
Now I would like to make another point. We are talking about this
issue as we debate campaign finance reform. If there was ever an issue
that showed why we needed campaign finance reform, it is sugar.
There are many people of goodwill who disagree with me. Look at their
districts and see why. I respect the gentleman from Hawaii and the
gentlewoman from Hawaii. I respect the people from the upper Midwest
who have lots of sugar beets in their district or some of the people
from Florida who may disagree with Mr. Miller. But we all know one
thing in this Chamber. If a couple of wealthy contributors had not
spread around the cash, this subsidy would have been gone a long time
ago because people who have no interest in this program vote for it
time and time and time again. Everyone knows, every single Member
knows, that this program is kept alive because of campaign
contributions, plain and simple, and the American people pay $1.4
billion for that reason.
So I say in conclusion, if my colleagues care about jobs, vote for
Miller-Schumer. If my colleagues care about the environment, and, by
the way, the League of Conservation Voters is going to make this a key
vote, a key vote this year, then vote for Miller-Schumer. If my
colleagues care about consumers and the extra dollars they are paying,
vote for Miller-Schumer.
This proposal is long overdue, it is fair, it is transitory. We once
and for all ought to do some real reform and not send 58 cents of every
dollar our consumers pay to a couple of wealthy individuals who have a
lot of clout around here.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
(Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, opponents of this program claim that no
changes were made in the 1996 farm bill, but that of course is not
true. The fact is Congress has made major reforms to the sugar program
in the 1996 farm bill, and this would be evident by looking at this
chart, which my colleagues can see each of the sections with the red
lines marked through it have been eliminated. That part of the program
is gone. Over here we have new sugar policy, the reform policy.
Let me tell my colleagues that the sugar program is really protection
at the border for the sugar industry in America. Without that
protection we will have no sugar industry, and the world price of sugar
is not what people say it is. That is the dump sugar price and should
be called that.
The people who want to reduce the cost of sugar do not care if we
have a sugar industry, they do not care if farmers in America continue
to grow sugar. We have already reduced the cost of sugar with the 1996
program changes, and it will probably go down again, and we have said
when other countries who subsidize their sugar quit subsidizing their
sugar we will reduce the tariffs that protect the American sugar
farmer. Protection at the border, that is what we have. There are no
checks to the Fanjuls, there are no government checks to anyone. There
is no government program subsidy; that is misleading, intentionally
misleading. And there is, if my colleagues watched the last speaker's
chart, not one refinery that has gone out of business since 1996.
Vote no on this amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of this amendment are arguing
that a 1-cent-per-pound reduction in the loan rate is minimal and
insignificant. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here is the truth, plain and simple:
The amendment is a $150 million heist from the pockets of thousands
of struggling family farmers in 16 States. Unlike the sponsors and
supporters of this amendment, I know many of those farmers, and they
are fighting to survive.
The truth is the amendment would reduce the 1985 raw sugar price
level by 5.6 percent. Are the sponsors of this amendment willing to
return to their 1985 salary levels and take an additional 5.6 percent
reduction? Now that is a reality check.
We have an economic crisis that is brewing in rural America. Farmers
want and need more alternative crops to grow and add value locally.
Sugar is an alternative crop that provides a flexible supply of sugar
to consumers. We need to continue this program especially in the upper
Midwest that is being hit by an agricultural recession.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-
Schumer amendment.
The U.S. sugar market is almost entirely controlled by the Department
of Agriculture and the owners who benefit from its subsidies. The
USDA's commodity loan program provides recipients loans at below market
rates making taxpayers bear all the risks while forcing sugar prices on
American consumers at twice the cost of the world market.
The U.S. sugar program stifles competition by not allowing market
forces to work. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars a year in higher
prices for sugar and sugar-containing products, and it is a job killer
in the sugar cane refining industry. Since the program was enacted,
thousands have lost their jobs. According to the General Accounting
Office, this command-and-control policy costs American consumers 1.4
billion annually.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are encouraging foreign countries to
implement free-market reforms, American price controls and import
quotas should be a thing of the past. The Miller-Schumer amendment will
make a modest change by lowering the loan rate 1 cent. This will not
end the sugar program nor devastate the sugar producers, but it is a
step in the right direction toward ending the sugar subsidy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder, as my colleagues know,
that people lose faith in government, politics. This government made a
contract with American farmers in 1996, and American farmers across the
board gave up parts of their farm support programs, and sugar was no
different. Sugar gave up its non-recourse loan program. Sugar, in fact,
assessed itself $288 million that is going to deficit reduction over
the next 7 years. Sugar farmers relying upon that contract, tens of
thousands of them in Louisiana, have made long-term commitments, and
this little 1-cent reduction in the loan rate that people say will not
devastate them translates to a 5.5 percent

[[Page H5078]]

reduction in the price of sugar for the farmer. For whom? For the big
multinational sugar refining corporations.
On, yes, there is money and politics involved in this. America made a
contract with its farmers. We ought to keep our word today. It is a 7-
year contract. American farmers depend upon that contract, have made
long-term commitments. Shame on this House if we break our word and
violate that contract.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to oppose in the
strongest possible terms this amendment which would effectively kill
off the United States sugar program.
As many of my colleagues know, I represent the second largest sugar
producing district in the country. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mark
Foley) my colleague, represents the largest.
Candidly, Mr. Chairman, I find it fascinating that we have Members in
this body who know absolutely nothing about the U.S. sugar program. Not
only do they not know about the program, they do not know the people
that I know that will lose their jobs. It has already started to
happen, not only in Florida but in California and in Hawaii where Mr.
Abercrombie comes from, and in Nebraska, Texas, Ohio, and Louisiana.
Do my colleagues know that the United States sugar industry creates
more than 420,000 jobs in 42 States? Do my colleagues know that the
United States sugar industry has a positive annual direct and indirect
economic impact on the United States economy of more than $26.2
billion?
Defeat Miller-Shumer.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to oppose in the strongest possible terms
this amendment which would effectively kill off the U.S. sugar program.
As many of my colleagues know, I represent the second largest sugar
producing district in the country. Candidly, Mr. Chairman, I find it
fascinating that we have Members of this body who truly know nothing
about the U.S. sugar program. Let me tell my colleagues something. If
the Miller-Schumer amendment passes, literally thousands of American
workers will be put out of work.
It has already started to happen. Not only in Florida but in
California, Hawaii, Nebraska, Texas, Ohio, and Louisiana.
Do my colleagues know that the U.S. sugar industry creates more than
420,000 jobs in 42 states?
Do my colleagues know that the U.S. sugar industry has a positive
annual direct and indirect economic impact on the U.S. economy of more
than $26.2 billion.
It's just that simple, my friends. The proposed amendment puts
hardworking people in the unemployment line. There is no getting around
that fact. Since Congress ``reformed'' the sugar program in 1996, many
sugarcane and sugarbeet farmers and many workers in cane and beet
processing mills have lost their livelihood. We have lost 14 beet or
cane processing mills since 1993. Two beet mills have closed just since
Freedom to Farm went into effect. All these mill closures are
permanent. As a result, no farmers in those regions can grow beets or
cane.
Mr. Chairman, I wish I had more time to get into more of the details.
But I don't. But let me be perfectly clear. This amendment is bad not
just for sugar growers, but for anyone in one of the 42 states whose
job directly or indirectly depends on the sugar industry.
Consider that when voting on this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided and foolish
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to oppose in the strongest possible terms
this amendment which would effectively kill off the U.S. sugar program.
As many of my colleagues know, I represent the second largest sugar
producing district in the country. And today we have heard many
arguments both in support of, and in opposition to this valuable USDA
program. But one of the arguments espoused by supporters of the Miller-
Schumer amendment is so egregious that I cannot possibly sit back and
listen while they toss around such falsehoods and misrepresentations of
the hardworking people of my district.
You have heard that the current sugar program and sugar farmers are
not good stewards of the environment and that the sugar companies are
irresponsible when it comes to environmental protection--specifically
regarding Florida's crown jewel, our Florida Everglades. Well, Mr.
Chairman, these claims are patently untrue. As a supporter of the
current sugar program and one of the most stalwart champions of
environmental protection in this body, I think I am uniquely qualified
to respond to some of the critics of this program.
American sugar farmers produce their sugar in a country with the
highest environmental standards in the world. American sugar farmers
comply with our government standards, at huge costs to their bottom
line, and compete with farmers in countries whose governments impose
little or no environmental compliance costs.
If there were no production or harvest of sugar in the U.S. we would
have to import all of our domestic needs. And from where, Mr. chairman?
Let me tell you. Foreign sugar is grown overwhelmingly in developing
countries. Most foreign sugar is grown in countries which do not yet
have the luxury of imposing environmental compliance costs on their
farms and factories. Most foreign sugar is grown in countries that
would have to clear rain forests or other fragile lands to increase
their production to replace the sugar grown responsibly by American
farmers.
Mr. Chairman, some will say that the sugar farmers are not cleaning
up the Everglades. This too is false! The Everglades Forever Act of
1994 was developed cooperatively by the federal government, the State
of Florida, environmental groups, and Florida farmers. Florida sugar
farmers already have committed up to $322 million to this restoration
project.
The bottom line is that if you support the amendment proposed today
to cripple U.S. sugar policy, you will do double damage to this
nation's and the world's environment: (1) The Florida sugar industry
will not be around to provide the $322 million for Everglades
restoration and preservation. And who knows what kind of development or
industry would replace them? And, (2) American sugar production will be
replaced with sugar from many of the nations that provide little or no
protection for the environment.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided and foolish
amendment.

{time} 1115

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, yesterday as we were closing the debate on
peanut subsidies, on that particular amendment my good friend, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), said if I would have voted
or if I did vote for the Freedom to Farm bill, that I should support
these reforms. Well, I want the record to reflect that I did not vote
for the Freedom to Farm bill in 1996, because I did not think that the
reforms they called for went far enough, if at all, in some cases.
I want to say, too, that our agriculture friends here in this body
are the nicest people in the entire House. It is incredible, from the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) on this side, to the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith),
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), literally some of
the most genuine wonderful people, close to the ground, and they truly
represent the farmers' interest in their demeanor and in their
civility.
But I really am frustrated that this new majority has reformed
virtually everything in sight and come up so grossly short on reforming
farm programs. Whether it is tobacco, whether it is peanuts, whether it
is sugar, this is still an egregious violation of the free market and
of the private sector in this country by the government.
I want to say that I will support the final agriculture
appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, but I want to support these
amendments, particularly this amendment, and I want to rise today and
speak for the thousands of employees in east Tennessee who love the
companies they work for, are proud of their jobs, and they happen to be
in the food business.
We hear about all the jobs on both sides, and I certainly would not
take exception or make a dispute out of it. But let me tell you,
Chattanooga Bakery makes Moon Pies. I have known those folks all my
life. McKee Foods makes Little Debbie's, you probably have had one.
They sell them all over this hemisphere. The first Coca-Cola bottling
plant in the country, Chattanooga, Tennessee. One of the largest M&M
Mars plants in the country is in my district. Planters and Life Savers
are made in my district. Double Cola is made in my district, Brock &
Brock Candy is made in my district.
That is thousands of good jobs, thousands of good jobs, and those
people

[[Page H5079]]

want us to oppose these subsidies because they inflate the price and
cut their own benefits in their company. As their employers can pay
market price for these commodities, they get better benefits, they get
higher wages, and they know it. These are good employers who treat
their people well.
The fact is, as sincere as all these folks are, this is corporate
welfare, pure and simple. The sugar daddies get away like bandits, and
the consumers and the taxpayers pay the price. That is the truth. That
is why Citizens Against Government Waste is scoring this vote, a very
responsible group that takes a real fair approach to this process, they
are scoring this, because they know that these farm price supports,
quotas, subsidies, are costing the American taxpayer, costing the
American consumer.
Good government says let us finish the job the Republicans have
started and truly reform these farm programs. As these amendments come
up, I want to stand in support of these amendments.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. It seems
like every year we have to rise and defend our American sugar
producers. I think we need to realize that the sugar program is not
corporate welfare. Beets and cane are grown in 17 different States in
these United States. The sugar beet industry employs 23,000 people in
my State alone, and generates about $525 million in economic activity
in Nebraska as well. Nationally the industry will generate $288 million
between 1996 and 2002 to help us reduce our Federal budget deficit.
I also rise once again, Mr. Chairman, to defend the House Committee
on Agriculture. As the gentleman from Illinois so aptly stated, we did
reform the sugar program. In 1996 the farm bill created a free domestic
sugar market, it froze the support price at 1995 levels, it imposed a
penalty on producers who forfeit their crops instead of repaying their
marketing loans, and it increased imports, and these changes
significantly impacted sugar growers. It certainly affected their
bottom line.
Proponents of the amendment believe that the one cent reduction is
not going to impact prices, that it would not hurt sugar producers in
my particular State. The amendment would cost my producers an
additional $60 per acre. At a time when farmers are certainly hurting
across this country because of low prices, it is ridiculous to inflict
these additional costs, especially when they would help only a few
large corporations.
The farm bill in 1996 did reform our sugar policy. It also made a
major commitment, a contract with our American farmers. Let us keep
that commitment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Miller
amendment, which abandons our commitment to provide a safety net for
America's family farmers. Families who grow sugar need a safety net in
case of a natural disaster such as drought or flooding, and that was
the commitment that we made 7 years ago when we made the commitment in
1996 for a 7-year commitment to these farmers. Now the amendment would
break that promise.
In my State alone, in Michigan, myself, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Barcia) and others have about 23,000 jobs that are tied to the
production of sugar; 2,800 families farm sugar beets, many in my
district.
Our Nation's sugar farmers are the most efficient in the world. They
should not go broke when the weather turns sour for them over one year.
If this amendment passes, more American farm families will be
vulnerable to the vagaries of the weather, sugar imports will rise, and
the sugar will come from producers abroad who use, in many instances,
child labor.
Most importantly, consumers will see no benefit. Giant multinational
food and soft drink manufacturing companies will only increase their
profit margins. They will not pass the savings along to the consumer.
They will pocket it, and that is not fair.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, particularly the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink), for their strong leadership on this issue. Let us keep our
commitment to America's sugar farmers and their families.
I urge my colleagues, oppose this Miller amendment, save our family
farms, and save our family farmers who grow sugar.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
(Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-
Schumer amendment. U.S. sugar policy is a win-win proposition. We win
by reducing the debt and by protecting our farmers from unfair foreign
trade.
As a member of the House Committee on the Budget, I want my
colleagues to know that U.S. sugar policy has been run at no net cost
since 1985. Since 1991, the U.S. sugar policy has actually been a
revenue raiser for the Federal Treasury.
Former President and Member of this House John Adams said ``Facts are
stubborn things,'' and here are some very stubborn facts. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that U.S. sugar policy will
generate $288 million in revenue over the life of the farm bill. By
law, every single cent of this is earmarked for debt reduction.
U.S. sugar farmers are among the most efficient in the world. Two-
thirds of the world's sugar is produced at a higher cost than that in
the United States. That is why U.S. sugar farmers endorse free trade.
Unfortunately, the world is far from free trade. More than 100
countries produce sugar, and every single one of them intervenes in the
market to protect their producers. That is why the world sugar market
fails to reflect the real cost of producing sugar.
For the past 15 years, the price of sugar on the world market has
averaged only one-half the cost of the average production. When most of
our trading partners do not play fair, how can we expect U.S. sugar
farmers or any American farmer to unilaterally disarm? Mr. Chairman,
unilateral disarmament was a stupid idea during the Cold War, and it is
a stupid idea for American farmers.
Mr. Chairman, I support a win-win sugar policy. Let us defeat the
Miller-Schumer amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
(Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
cheap-sugar, put-the-farmers-out-of-business amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing some
the best farmers in the world. They are the ones who give consumers
value for their dollar, not like the food processors, who have
historically failed to pass along savings while opposing the sugar
program.
The proponents of the amendment will tell you that we can buy sugar
more cheaply on the world market, but they ignore certain key points.
First, every other sugar-producing country in the world has a sugar
program that guarantees their growers more than our growers receive.
Ninety percent of their sugar is under contract. They sell the
remaining 10 percent at fire-sale prices for whatever it will bring,
still earning a profit with total revenues. How else can one explain a
world market price that for 10 years has been only one-half of the
actual average cost of producing sugar?
Secondly, every time our program has been shut down, the world price
has skyrocketed to a multiple of our support price.
Finally, our sugar producers are the first to say they will end their
program as soon as other sugar producing nations end their program. No
other country has yet stood up to that challenge.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
because I

[[Page H5080]]

believe it makes common sense. Ultimately I think this debate is really
not about sugar, it is not about the sugar subsidy program. What it is
really about is 300 years of economic theory and economic practice.
If you think about the words of, whether it is Adam Smith or Milton
Friedman, if you were to boil all of those thoughts down, 300 years,
you would boil them down to this, and that is to do the most good for
the most people, let markets work.
Unlike so many economic theories, if you look at the last 300 years
of economic practice, it has validated that. I see that daily with
tomato farmers and watermelon farmers and cucumber farmers in my
district who live by the markets. In fact, if you were to look at the
fall of the Soviet Union, what you would see is not nuclear arms or not
armies that brought it down, but markets brought it down.
So the fundamental question in this debate is do we want to let
markets work? Should there be a floor price for a product? If you say
yes, you are saying the opposite of what economic theory said over 300
years. If you were to say no, if you were to say there should be a
floor price, then why not a floor price with computers? Or, they are
striking in Detroit, why not a floor price for cars? Or why not a floor
price for homes?
We do not do that because it does not make common sense and it does
not do the most good for the most people. This is a case where we have
a sugar subsidy program that does a lot of good for one particular
family. They get $60 million a year in personal benefit, the Fanjul
family down in Palm Beach. But for the common farmer, it does not do
good, and it does not do good for the consumer. Therefore, I rise in
support of this amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I come from Quincy, which is a city
bordering the capital city of Massachusetts, Boston. We do not have
farms. We are lucky that we have gardens.
My constituents are working people. Many of them are union members.
They are Teamsters, they are carpenters. We cannot distinguish between
beet sugar and sugar cane, but we do know something about commitments.
We know something about fairness. And I understand that there was a
commitment made to the small farmer here in America, to the sugar
farmer. Many of them visited me during the course of the past 6 months.
They have made production plans based upon that commitment. They have
made family financial plans based upon that commitment.

{time} 1130

They have made business plans based upon that commitment. I know my
people respect commitment. They honor fairness. They also understand
that the small farmer in America is under siege by large multinational
agribusiness interests.
Let us support them. The small farmer is under siege. My constituents
understand that. They respect the historic role of the small farmer
here in America, its unique role in this country. We support the small
farmer. Defeat Miller-Schumer.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller-Schumer
amendment. By protecting sugar growers, the Federal Government sugar
price support and quota system effectively doubles the price of sugar
for U.S. consumers. The General Accounting Office estimates that the
program costs America $1.4 billion a year in higher grocery expenses.
Aside from bilking American consumers, the program also favors large
corporate interests over small farmers by focusing a large portion of
program benefits on a few corporate farmers. As we have heard from
previous speakers, approximately 1 percent of sugar farmers reaped 42
percent of all sugar program benefits in 1991. Within the narrower
sugar cane industry, 17 farms accounted for 55 percent of the benefits.
Furthermore, the program does not limit the amount of benefits each
sugar producer can receive, allowing a few large farms to accumulate
enormous windfalls. In 1991, 33 of the largest sugar farmers in United
States each received over $1 million in program benefits. In fact, one
of these huge agribusinesses accrued $30 million in program benefits
that same year.
The Federal Government sugar program provides a narrow subsidy to an
industry that does not need it. Because the program primarily benefits
a few large sugar growers at the expense of all American consumers, the
sugar price support system and import quota should be repealed. I urge
my colleagues to support the Miller-Schumer amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let us just set the facts straight. Since
the 1996 farm bill, wholesale refined sugar prices have dropped 12.1
percent, while retail refined sugar prices have increased to 1.2, ice
cream, 2.4; cereal, 6.6; candy, 3.7; cookies and cakes, 3.9.
Let us dispel the fact that this is an environmental vote. The Miami
Herald: ``Dismantling the U.S. sugar program will not save the
Everglades.''
Fact two, the working 200 richest in Forbes Magazine, none of them
are sugar barons. In fact, the only people mentioned are candy maker
Mars and Wrigley, the chewing gum.
Finally, to get a lecture on campaign finance reform from the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), the sponsor of the bill, who has
$10 million in his campaign account, I think is a little bit
sanctimonious.
Please defeat this amendment. It will not solve the problems. In
fact, to the contrary. If Members really want to help the consumer, I
would ask of the sponsors of the amendment to start pursuing the very
people who are charging the consumers more for products when their
supplies are costing them less.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following chart and the
article entitled ``Congress Weighs Sugar.''
The material referred to is as follows:

[From the Miami Herald, July 16, 1997]

Congress Weighs Sugar

Granted, Florida's sugar industry is hard to live with. It
has a lot of political muscle, which it flexes.
But sugar cane, the plant, is still the most benign crop
grown in the Everglades Agricultural Area, requiring less
water than rice and releasing fewer polluting nutrients than
vegetables or cattle pastures. That's something to consider
when arguing--as the U.S. House apparently intends to do in
the next few days--whether to dismantle the U.S. sugar
program.
Florida Republican Rep. Dan Miller, of Bradenton, and Rep.
Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., are offering the amendment, which
almost passed last year, to an appropriations bill.
There is, in this free-trade era, a case to be made of
abolishing U.S. supports for sugar and other agricultural
commodities. The programs do distort the market. That's their
purpose--to protect farmers from wildly fluctuating prices
and to make sure that they stay in business. The latter is of
more than passing interest of other businesses, too,
including banks.
Be that as it may, the Miller-Schumer amendment is
something of a litmus test among environmentalists who think
that all the woes of the Everglades would disappear if
Florida's sugar industry disappeared. They seem to assume
that land stripped of sugar cane will sprout sawgrass. It
won't, and Everglades restoration is not so simple.
Studies show that the crops that might supplant sugar cane
would pose greater threats of pollution and that Everglades
land once farmed but allowed to lie fallow is quickly
overgrown with melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, or other noxious
plants posing problems more serious than sugar cane does.
Whether dismantling the U.S. sugar program will put Florida
sugar growers out of business is uncertain; they are among
the world's most efficient. It is certain, however, that
Congress can't save the Everglades merely by dismantling
sugar's supports.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
(Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to the bill.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.

[[Page H5081]]

Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to focus on what this is really
all about. It is not about Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. It is much
more about Paul and Vanessa Kummer, family farmers near the Red River
of North Dakota.
I heard the preceding speaker say this is about big corporate farming
producing sugar. We do not even allow under State law corporate farming
in North Dakota, but the sugar program is absolutely a vital part of
our agriculture.
Our agriculture is under very severe stress, with the value of wheat
dropping 33 percent, barley dropping 29 percent, and virtually all of
our farmers losing money. The only thing that is lending a level of
stability to North Dakota agriculture is the sugar program. If this
amendment would pass, the average farmer having 100 acres of sugar
beets would lose $6,000 in a single year.
We are on our backs with North Dakota agriculture. We need help. This
would absolutely kick us when we are down. Please defeat this
amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Miller-Schumer amendment, and compliment my colleague, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller) for his outstanding leadership on this issue.
The United States sugar program, as it is spelled out in this
legislation, amounts to a sweet deal for the sugar producers. As was
pointed out by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) on the other
side of the aisle, only a small percentage of American families
benefit, family producers, benefit from this program. It is a raw one
for refiners, consumers, and the environment.
I thought programs that we initiate here in Congress were supposed to
help people. This one has managed to close 11 of 22 sugar refineries
here in the United States. Three of the well-known Domino Sugar
refineries have closed their doors, and I am afraid that the one that
remains in my district is the next target. It employs hundreds of
highly-paid industrial workers, many of them from New York's minority
community. By providing price support loan programs to producers, this
program is taking jobs away from the American worker at the same time
it is driving up costs for the American consumer.
Domestic sugar prices are still twice as high as the world price of
sugar. As long as this sugar program remains the same, so will the
prices.
The Federal Reserve, the USDA, and the President's Council on Wage
and Price Stability all agree on the obvious: Working families would
benefit from lower sugar prices. We have a chance to repair the damage
brought by this program. We have a chance to sweeten the deal for most
Americans. American consumers deserve lower prices, and American
workers deserve to keep their jobs. By voting for this amendment, it is
a modest one and in the right direction. Vote for Miller-Schumer.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress 20
years ago I had hundreds of sugar beet growers in the Sacramento
Valley. Today we have far fewer. Acreage is down. We have lost a number
of refineries. They are closing because there is not enough product
grown anymore, because the growers cannot make a living on the current
sugar price.
What we see every year when we have this debate is a fight between
the processors, the candy and other sugar-consuming industries, like
soft drinks, and those hardy farmers who continue to struggle to remain
in businesses. This is a predatory battle, and regardless of what we do
today, and I hope we defeat this amendment, it will continue to be a
predatory effort to eliminate sugar growers of all types in all 17
States that grow beets or cane sugar.
What we see, unfortunately, is an effort to appeal to consumers and
environmentalists. Frankly, if we continue to see dumping from overseas
sugar interests we will see the end of this domestic industry, and then
we will be at the mercy of people who bring their product here. And
sugar prices would certainly increase. If we continue to take land out
of agricultural production, it will not help preserve open space.
Environmentalists are wrong if they oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is, for environmentalists to take
up this cause and use this as a way of determining how people should
vote this fall by using this issue is wrong. We want to preserve
agricultural land, we want to preserve open space. We want to take care
not to push farmers who farm beets on marginal land out of this
industry. This is not just about Florida sugar and the everglades.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller
amendment. I want to say this. We hear over and over again about the
poor farmers. Forty-two percent of the sugar program's benefits go to
just 1 percent of the sugar producers. Thirty-three of these people get
more than $1 million. So much for poor farmers. Or how about this poor
struggling farmer, he gets $65 million, $65 million, to one poor little
farmer out there.
Mr. Chairman, this is a government-sanctioned cartel. We hear that it
does not cost consumers. Listen very carefully when they say that,
because the fine print says it costs you, it is just not a direct tax.
It costs $1 billion more at the cash register when Americans go to buy
products that have sugar in them.
The sugar program was to be reformed in the farm bill. I was here
before the farm bill. I was here during the farm bill. I worked for
sugar reform. I come from an area where there were reforms on cotton
and on peanuts and other commodities, but I can say this, sugar was not
reformed. I was there at the time. I served in Congress.
I can say this, since we are talking about a face. Savannah Foods and
Industry 2 years ago invited me to their 80-year anniversary. It is a
great company in Savannah, Georgia, that refines sugar. They invited me
to their 80-year anniversary 2 years ago. Last year they did not.
Why? Because they went out of business. They had to sell because of
this government-sanctioned cartel that kept sugar prices higher than
what they could sell it for. Because of this government-sanctioned
cartel, there are people like Robert Johnson, who worked for the
refinery for 18 years, whose daddy worked for the sugar refinery, who
is part of the Savannah great economy, and Mr. Johnson is not sure he
is going to have a job. It is now owned by what was a competitor, but
he does not know what tomorrow will bring, because of a government-
sanctioned cartel. Vote for the Miller amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) on seeing that we maintain a domestic sugar industry.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would
further reduce the farm price for sugar. Proponents of this amendment
continue to claim they are offering this in the name of ``consumers''.
Mr. Chairman, let us get the facts straight. There is no such thing
as a world free market. No matter how many Members stand up and say it,
there is not one. Right now the average world price we hear about is
9.46 cents. The average cost of producing sugar in the world is 18.04
cents. How can anyone in this country compete with the treasuries of
governments in other countries?
A lot has been said about the big sugar growers. Let me speak on
behalf of 300 sugar farmers in the Rio Grande valley of Texas that
depend upon the sugar program. They are the most efficient in the
world. If the Miller amendment should pass, they are out of business.
To those that say this concerns the consumer, how can it be in the
consumer's best interest when you have wholesale refined sugar dropping
by 12.1 cents since last year in the 1996 farm bill, while at the same
time the retail price has gone up 1.2 percent; ice cream, 2.4 cents,
cereal, 2.6 cents; candy, 3.7 cents, and cookies, 3.9? It is not the
sugar growers' fault.

[[Page H5082]]

Since the 1996 farm bill reforms went into effect, American sugar
farmers have experienced a price drop of 15%--double the drop this
amendment intends.
As a result, how much have consumers benefited from this 12% drop in
producer prices? To date, the answer is Zero, not a single bit. And the
proponents of this amendment would have you believe a further drop in
producer prices will help consumers?
What about the prices for products that contain sugar--like ice
cream, cereal, candy or cookies? While sugar has been dropping, the
prices for these products have been going up. The manufacturers of
these products have been paying farmers 12% less for the sugar they
buy, but charging retail consumers 2%-4% more for ice cream, cereal,
candy and cookies.
Not even the price of sugar on the grocery store shelf has seen a
similar reduction in price--in fact, the retail price in grocery stores
has increased.
Vote against the Miller-Schumer amendment. It's a blatant grab of
$150 million from the pockets of struggling American sugar growers to
further fatten the bottom line of already profitable multinational food
and beverage manufacturing and retailing corporations.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about how these wealthy families
are running these particular sugar operations. I happen to be the
representative of the largest sugar producer in the world, but I cannot
support the continued price-fixing by this government of sugar.
If Members have sugar farmers in their district living on the land, I
can understand their opposing the Miller amendment. If Members have
this as a prime industry within their own State, within their own area,
I can fully understand that. We do that every day in this body.

{time} 1145

But one thing I cannot understand is not taking into consideration
the downstream effect of this price fixing by the Federal Government.
We have heard from the gentlewoman from New York about the closing of
Domino Sugar. We have heard from various other Members about how it
affects the working American.
The sugar industry today, as far as the farming, is highly
mechanized, very highly mechanized. What we are talking about, and we
have already Members saying that this is not a subsidy. Baloney, it is
not a subsidy. It is a subsidy required and placed upon the consumers
of this country. It is a hidden tax. It is an insidious price-fixing by
the Federal Government that makes us less competitive on the goods that
we produce from sugar itself.
We heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) talk about the cost
of production was 18-point-some cents. What the Miller amendment does
is not do away with the total price structure; it drops it one penny,
still well above the cost of production. There is still plenty of
profit there.
So let us get this vote straight. This vote and this amendment is
pro-consumer. The Miller amendment is pro-environmental. This is a very
important environmental vote. I can tell my colleagues, just go down to
my Everglades and see the effect of runoff from the sugar industry. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Miller amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I do represent a number of family farmers who
are trying to make a living trying to produce sugar in Montana.
Mr. Chairman, we made a commitment to those producers in the
agriculture reform measure. What we said to them was we wanted to
increase the predictability and stability on the family farm, and we
said that this program would increase trade and increase imports and
increase competition.
That is what has happened as a consequence of the sugar program. We
have done that with no cost to the Treasury. There is no corporate
welfare and no subsidy. What this is really about is that the sugar
consumers, who are large candy companies, what they want to do is get
the benefit of the subsidy of foreign markets. There really is no free
market. There is no market in sugar, at least no market that reflects
the cost of production.
Our producers can compete with the producers anywhere in the world,
but they cannot compete with subsidies that come from foreign markets.
What this debate really is about, this debate is not about helping the
average American consumer of sugar. This is about helping those large
companies who want to enjoy the benefit of the subsidy of foreign
governments.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) who I think knows as much or more about the
sugar industry and its implications than anyone in the Chamber.
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii
(Mr. Abercrombie) for yielding to me this time.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today, but it is a mystery to me
how we can reconcile the notion that when the sugar prices go down by
12 percent and the so-called consumers in the soft drink industry,
candies, cakes, and cookies, their prices go up, that there is any
relationship with what they are talking about in reality. Let us get
real.
The 1996 farm act has caused major reform in the sugar industry. Our
prices have gone down. And if someone can believe that if our prices go
down, that the other sugar consumers' prices should also go down, just
look at the record. It has not. It has gone up.
So support for this Miller-Schumer amendment would be catastrophic.
We have done our job in our industry. Our workers are working hard. We
talk about the sugar industry or the sugar growers or somehow the
producers, we get into an idea that they are robots out there with some
rich farmer sitting in the breakfast room and the commodities are
getting grown by themselves. Let me tell my colleagues, farmers,
producers in the sugar industry are workers.
So this amendment has to do with our belief that workers, sugar
workers, farm workers, are the same and they deserve the same breaks
insofar as their ability to survive.
My industry in Hawaii has been devastated. We have lost about a dozen
major sugar producers in the State of Hawaii. We have about three left.
If this amendment should pass, one small plantation on the island of
Kauai working about 286 employees will suffer a million dollar loss. It
will probably throw that company out of business and the island will be
devastated.
For the whole State I am told it is going to cost about $17 million.
So today the debate is about workers and about saving American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Dan Miller-
Schumer Amendment which is an attempt to break a commitment this
Congress made to American Farmers just two years ago in the Farm Bill.
At that time we came to an agreement on how the commodity programs
would be run for the next seven years. Reforms were made in the sugar
and other programs, and in return farmers had assurances of what they
could expect over the next seven years.
Now, once again just like last year, we face an amendment by Mr. Dan
Miller and Mr. Schumer that will undo the commitments made in the Farm
bill and threaten the future of our domestic sugar industry.
This amendment which would reduce the domestic sugar price supports
by $.01 per pound threatens the survival of U.S. sugar farmers and will
mean an increase of cheaper foreign sugar into the U.S. marketplace.
Don't be fooled by the argument that if the sugar price support is
reduced the consumer would see the savings. This is absolutely not
true. Let's look at facts:
Since the Farm Bill passed in 1996 the wholesale price of sugar has
dropped by 12%, but have the consumers seen a drop in the price of
candy, sodas, or ice cream--No. In fact, the retail price of ice cream
has gone up by 2.4%, cereal by 2.6%, candy by 3.7% and cookies/cakes by
3.9%. The price of retail refined sugar has even gone up by 1.2%.
The price of sugar does not drive the consumer cost of products made
with sugar. It is the desire for higher profits by the big soft drink,
candy and confectionery conglomerates that drives consumer costs.
The Dan Miller-Schumer proponents use consumer cost as an issue to
mask the primary motive, which is allow more cheap foreign sugar into
the U.S. market so that the

[[Page H5083]]

mega food-conglomerates can make more money.
They often point to a flawed study General Accounting Office (GAO)
did in 1993 and subsequent report in 1997 to promote their idea that
the sugar program results in higher cost to consumers. We've heard some
of the figures from the GAO report used today, like a $1.4 billion cost
to consumers.
I asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take a look at what GAO
did in it's study. In a response to my inquiry dated October 24, 1995
from Under Secretary Eugene Moos, the USDA found that the GAO used
incorrect data and ignored key components of the sugar program when
making their conclusions. Furthermore, the GAO study assumes that
grocers and food manufacturers would pass every cent of the lower
prices right along to consumers.
The USDA further found that even using the GAO's flawed methods, it
could still show hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits to the
consumers depending upon which years were studied.
The USDA states that had the GAO looked at the time period from 1973-
75, rather than 1989-91, the analysis would have showed an annual
savings to domestic users and consumers of $350 million to $400
million.
The USDA analysis not only points out the flaws of the GAO study, but
it also reinforces the fact that the U.S. sugar growers do not receive
subsidies from the federal government and that the sugar program runs
at no cost to the government. In fact, U.S. sugar growers pay into the
U.S. Treasury $37 million annually through a marketing assessment.
Mr. Chair, U.S. consumers benefit from the U.S. sugar program. They
benefit from the stability it ensures, and the access it provides to
quality sugar produced by U.S. companies. A strong domestic sugar
industry contributes to our economy by producing jobs. Currently the
sugar industry accounts for over 400,000 jobs in the United States.
Many of these jobs are concentrated in certain areas of the country,
and account for a significant part of the economy in those regions.
In Hawaii, we have over 6,000 jobs dependent on the sugar industry.
These are good jobs that pay a living wage, include health benefits,
retirement and other benefits. U.S. sugar producers are providing these
jobs while complying with U.S. labor and environmental law.
The demise of the U.S. sugar industry would mean the loss of these
jobs to sugar producers overseas, that do not have labor or
environmental protections and in documented cases use child labor to
produce cheap sugar.
Are we willing to forsake our own sugar producers so that the
international food cartels can buy cheap sugar produced by twelve year-
olds in Brazil or Guatemala? I hope not.
A one cent reduction in the sugar price support will determine
whether my sugar growers in Hawaii can make it. One company, Gay and
Robinson, would lose $1 million in a year as a result of this Miller-
Schumer Amendment. As a company that is just breaking even, a $1
million loss could mean the end of the company and the jobs that it
supports on the island of Kauai which already has a 10% unemployment
rate. Our industry in Hawaii could lose $17 million.
Many of you have read recent reports of the dire state of Hawaii's
economy. We are not benefiting from the economic boom like the rest of
the country. Unemployment rates are high, our tourism industry is
lagging because of the downturn in the Asian markets. We have to depend
on other segments of our economy such as agriculture to maintain and
increase jobs.
Over the last decade Hawaii has seen the loss of many sugar
companies. We now have only three companies left. They need to be able
to rely on the sugar program as enacted in the 1996 Farm Bill. To amend
the program will seriously undercut our economy.
Gay and Robinson has made plans, they've made improvements, they are
planning for the future, hopefully to expand and add more jobs to an
island that desperately needs employment opportunities. They did these
things based on seven years of stability within the sugar program as
promised in the Farm Bill.
We cannot go back on our word. Businesses have made decisions based
on our commitment, families are depending upon employment based on the
commitment we made. This is not a esoteric fight about the simple price
of sugar--it is about the lives of working Americans who depend upon a
domestic sugar industry for their jobs.
I urge my colleagues to reject the false consumer cost argument based
on the GAO report, and vote today for a strong U.S. sugar industry that
will continue to provide jobs here in America. Defeat the Dan Miller-
Schumer Amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-
Schumer amendment to reform the Federal sugar program. As my colleague
from Florida just said, the sugar program is costing jobs in New York
and around the country.
In Yonkers, New York, the Refined Sugar Inc. sugar refinery is
hanging on by a thread because of this program. There are over 300 of
my constituents' jobs at stake at Refined Sugar. And just down the road
from Refined Sugar is the Domino Sugar plant in Brooklyn, which is
facing the same dire consequences as a result of this program. At
Domino 450 jobs are at stake.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this grossly outdated program should
be eliminated. Our Federal agriculture policy was never intended to
benefit a few privileged growers at the expense of 250 million American
consumers.
It is time for each Member of Congress to decide who deserves our
support, a few wealthy sugar barons or 250 million American consumers.
The answer is clear, Mr. Chairman. It is time to end the sugar program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Only 2 years ago we enacted major reforms to our sugar policy and
they have been tough reforms. Our 1996 farm bill created a free
domestic sugar market. We froze the support price at 1995 levels. We
required the USDA to impose a penalty on producers who forfeit their
crops instead of repaying marketing loans, and sugar is the only
commodity with such a penalty.
We even raised by 25 percent the amount that sugar growers pay in a
special assessment for debt reduction. And we increased imports to
allow the Secretary of Agriculture to bring more sugar into the United
States if we do not produce enough.
These reforms have had a significant impact on our growers. Prices
have gone down. Twenty-three thousand industry jobs in Michigan, and
nearly 3,000 family farmers in Michigan and farm families all across
the country have accepted our reforms, and they are doing the best they
can under a new program.
Our sugar program works. It is at no cost to the taxpayers and puts
money into the Treasury for debt reduction.
It is not fair to our growers. Let us keep our 7-year commitment, Mr.
Chairman. I urge my colleagues to reject the Miller-Schumer amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask Members to vote no
on this amendment, and that we keep our promises.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time
for each of us?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has 2
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has 4
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, for our colleagues who may not be on the floor with us
right now but listening to the exchange, I hope it has been
informative. Over the past 25 years in elective office, I have followed
a rule: Where we make a contract, a legislative agreement, that we
follow it.
Mr. Chairman, we made an agreement for 7 years and we compromised. I
did not want to have some of the provisions that we voted for with the
sugar bill previously. It has been mentioned by other speakers, and it
bears repeating as we close this debate, we had an overwhelming vote on
this bill. An overwhelming majority decided that we were coming to an
honorable compromise.
To jeopardize it now by raising the issue once again on this one-cent
change makes a devastating impact on those who depended on us keeping
our word. A 7-year commitment is not very long when it comes to
agriculture,

[[Page H5084]]

when it comes to making banking decisions.
When we talk about special interests, Mr. Speaker, I can tell my
colleagues I do represent a special interest, the special interest of
people living in Hawaii, in housing that they could not afford if they
were not able to keep the jobs they have right now. We are standing up
for those who are the field workers, for the farmers and producers. If
we keep our word to them, then I think we can hold our heads high as
legislators.
Mr. Chairman, we are fighting against wage slavery in the rest of the
world. How is it possible for us to say that we can compete in a market
in which we have child labor producing sugar, when we have oligarchs in
other countries producing sugar and dumping sugar in our market? That
is not the kind of thing we would be very proud of as a legacy to the
children of our country, to say that we violated labor standards,
health standards, environmental standards, all because we wanted to
have cheap manufacture of sugar.
Mr. Chairman, I ask in conclusion, please, let us keep our word as
legislators. Let us stick to the contract that we wrote with one
another. It is working and it is working for America.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, on the family farm a man's word has sealed many a deal.
Among working people, a handshake has led to an agreement. In corporate
America, they sign on the bottom line and that leads to an
understanding. In our judicial system, signing on the bottom line with
witnesses is an enforceable contract.
Only in the United States Congress, where we vote in the light of
day, in front of the witnesses of the press, before our constituents,
where we promulgate the action of this body into the law of the land
and print it officially for all to read, is a deal not a deal.
The working men and women who struggle in the heat back home trying
to raise a crop to feed their families, I can tell my colleagues, do
not look at this as corporate welfare. If any of my colleagues have a
doubt, I invite them down. We will put them on a nice tractor with a
big comfortable seat. We will let them sit there for 12 hours in the
98-degree heat of summer in south Louisiana. And at the end of the day
when they get off that tractor, I hope without help, we will talk about
welfare reform. They may have discovered a new concept. If it looks
like this, we want it.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a modest change in the sugar program. A
one-penny change in the sugar program. Less than 5 percent in the cost
of sugar. In 1996, when we passed the historic Freedom to Farm bill, I
offered an amendment to phase out the program. I think we should get
rid of the program. But some of the Members, my colleagues, said,
``Dan, we do not want to get too dramatic and do too much.''
That is why I have come back with a very modest change of one penny
on the price of sugar, and we are still over twice the world price even
with the penny.
Some Members have talked about a dump price, that we do not have fair
competition in the world. I believe we should have fair competition. I
think it is wrong when countries subsidize their products. And there
are countries, for example France, they subsidize sugar. But there are
laws on the books. The Secretary of Agriculture has the power to keep
that sugar out of this country. That is right and I fully support that.
But there are many countries that have a free market of sugar. The
two largest exporters of sugar, Australia and Brazil, they have
increased sugar production by 60 percent, selling on the world market.
There is a free market for sugar and our farmers can compete for sugar,
just like they do in wheat and corn, and we export the product.
Why are we protecting one industry? Sugar is a relatively small part
of the total agricultural production of this country. It is less than 2
percent for sugar and peanuts alone.

{time} 1200

Now, why should my colleagues support this amendment? First of all,
this is the sugar daddy of corporate welfare. So for conservatives, it
is a big government program that no longer makes any sense. In our free
enterprise system, it should go.
That is the reason organizations like Citizens for a Sound Economy,
Citizens Against Government Waste, they are going to rate this vote.
This is going to be rated by many organizations. Taxpayers for Common
Sense, Americans for Tax Reform, are all supporting this amendment.
With respect to the environment, this is a major environmental vote
because of the impact sugar has had, and they are not willing to step
up to the plate and pay their fair share of the cost of restoration of
the Everglades. That is the reason it is going to be a rated vote. The
Everglades Trust, the National Audubon Society, the World Wildlife
Fund, the Florida Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters,
are all rating this vote and saying vote for the Miller-Schumer
amendment.
We talk about jobs. Organized labor is even supporting this amendment
because it is union jobs that are disappearing from the refineries
around this country. Whether it is in Baltimore or New York City, we
are losing jobs, whether it is the manufacturing jobs down in Georgia
where they cannot make candy canes compete because sugar is so
expensive.
And ultimately it is the American consumer who is the American
taxpayer. We are saying this is a no net cost. In fact, the Federal
Government makes a little bit of money on the program, but not really.
Because the government is a major purchaser of food products, whether
it is the VA hospitals or the military or programs, CBO says it is a
$90-million-a-year cost to the Federal Government just in their
operations because of the sugar program.
But it is the American consumer who is the one that pays the most.
CBO, other economic studies, all show the cost is over a billion
dollars a year. In fact, it is $1.4 billion by CBO.
If we want to help the American consumers, if we want to help the
environment, if we want to help jobs in this country and if Members
believe the government is too big and we need to get rid of these big
government programs that try to run everything out of Washington, this
is an amendment to support.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, here they come again, the Members who hate production
agriculture, who do not believe that farmers out in the country doing
the real work, trying to provide for their families, deserve a chance.
Anything to get cheap food. Do not worry about where it comes from or
who has to lose their farm, their lifelong occupation, because of the
will of the Members who want to put them out of business and think that
food only comes from the grocery store.
Members might wonder why a guy from Iowa cares about the sugar
program. I will tell my colleagues. It has a dramatic impact on what
happens in the Midwest with the price of corn.
We have an example here. The price of corn sweetener, which is in
competition with sugar, has been down over 50 percent. Has it had any
effect as far as consumer prices? Yes. The carbonated soft drink cost
has actually gone up, almost a percent. Anyone who thinks that there is
going to be a benefit to the consumer simply is not looking at what are
the facts of the situation.
What a lot of these folks would like to see happen is to have the
price of sugar go down, put American production out, the sugar
producer, the farmer, put him out of business, import a bunch of cheap
sugar substitute for corn fructose in the soft drinks. That will cost
an already depressed Midwest corn producer at least 25 cents a bushel.
And at the low level of corn prices today, that would be devastating.
So Members can listen to the crowd that does not care about
agriculture, does not care about families out there working. Members
can listen to them

[[Page H5085]]

and they can listen to reason and we can keep our promise that we made
to agriculture in 1996.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. 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 482, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller)
will be postponed.
The point of order of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Royce

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Royce:
Add before the short title the following new section:

Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to carry out section 203 of
the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) or to pay
the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out a market
access program under such section.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend my colleagues
on the Committee on Agriculture and the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
of the Committee on Appropriations. They have done excellent work over
the past few years 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, and American consumers are benefiting from increased production.
And American consumers are benefiting from lower prices. That has been
one of the most significant achievements of Congress.
However, more work needs to be done. This amendment will prevent
money in this bill from being spent on the Market Access Program known
as MAP. This program provides $90 million in taxpayer subsidies per
year to agribusinesses to support their international advertising. This
is a relic from our former government-heavy agriculture system.
I have offered this amendment to eliminate one of what I consider the
more egregious corporate welfare programs, with the hope that a trend
will develop which would further rid the private sector of an intrusive
government.
The Federal Government first began financing corporate advertising in
1985 with the Targeted Export Assistance or TEA. It was established to
encourage commercial export markets for U.S. farm products at the time,
and then, after a critical audit of the General Accounting Office, it
was changed to the Market Promotion Program or MPP. Then after another
critical audit, it was changed to the Market Access Program or MAP in
1996.
The names may have changed after every critical audit, but the
program has not. Not unlike most good-intentioned Federal programs,
Federal funding of advertising turned out to be just another government
handout. I do not believe that working men and women should continue to
foot the bill for advertising subsidies to multinational corporations.
Promotional advertising for products is simply not the role of
government. It is the role of those private concerns that benefit from
the sale of those products.
In the past we have heard that agriculture is one of the most
important businesses in America and that is true. No doubt we will hear
this again as we debate this amendment. But the question is not whether
agriculture and American farmers are important. Without question, they
are. The question is whether MAP is a proper use of taxpayer money. It
is not proper, and it is not effective.
The future and continued performance of American agriculture is not
contingent upon handing out taxpayers' money for advertising. The
success of American agriculture results from the energy and ingenuity
of American farmers.
Department of Agriculture studies will no doubt be cited which seem
to show that MAP creates jobs and expands the economy by generating
several dollars in revenue for each subsidy dollar handed out. These
studies are based on inherently flawed methodology. They attribute
employment created and exports generated in agriculture to MAP's
existence, and this is too good to be true, frankly. What is not taken
into consideration is that our economy is strong. It is near full
employment. These jobs and exports would have been created anyway. In
other words, the rooster is taking credit for the sunrise.
The USDA studies also assume that MAP-funded advertising works. Well,
the department has no way to verify either assumption. In fact, a
General Accounting Office report found there is no clear relationship,
says the GAO, between the amounts 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 for advertising.
What is obvious on its face is that money handed out by government
bureaucrats does not magically multiply through some system of
multiplicity. Sure, recipients of MAP will sing its praises; most
people that receive free money always will.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that
the time be equally divided.
I yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), and I ask unanimous consent that she control the time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, is that
just on this amendment?
I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, just on this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
will control 10 minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen)
and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
(Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, the amendment to eliminate the MAP program,
I think many of us would like to see these programs eliminated. But the
problem is for American agriculture that we have to compete worldwide.
U.S. agriculture exported exports in excess of $55 billion in 1998,
resulting in a trade surplus of $25 billion which generated over $100
billion in related economic activity.
One thing that helps us achieve this laudable goal is MAP, the Market
Access Program. I just returned from the ministerial meeting of the WTO
in Geneva, and I can tell my colleagues, we have problems with the EU,
the European Union, who heavily subsidizes their exports. And probably
our biggest trade problem in agriculture is with the European Economic
Union.
The one thing that they really recognize and are concerned about is
our program like MAP, something that helps us get the attention of
customers around the world for agricultural products. If we eliminate
it at this time, it is like disarming while your adversaries continue
to arm. This is minuscule compared to what is spent by the European
Community to promote their exports. We need to keep this program until
the European Community, until the negotiators of the World Trade
Organization can bring other countries to the table and eliminate their
subsidies.
I suggest that this is a good no vote for agriculture.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5086]]

I rise in opposition to this amendment. If we think back to the
reforms we have made in our farm programs, trade is at the center,
international trade is at the center of trying to prepare and improve
our programs for the 21st century.
If we look at the trade ledger for our country today, the only
positive parts of the account exist in the areas of agriculture
largely. Over a third of our domestic production is exported and, in
fact, we have been experiencing a record trade surplus just in
agriculture of over $30 billion annually while the rest of the budget
and trade ledger is in serious deficit at historic levels.
So something in what we are doing is working, and the Market Access
Program is an important piece of this puzzle.
If Members look at who we are in competition with, it is U.S.
farmers, individual farm families, individual producers against the
European Union, against Asian production.

{time} 1215

It is very important that we help these farmers move their product
into the international marketplace. This program is targeted to smaller
producers and to farmers' cooperatives. It is not helping the big
companies.
In fact, if you look at the amount of money in the program, $90
million, it does not even come close to what the European Union is
currently spending, over $500 million, half a billion dollars, in
trying to promote their products in the international marketplace.
These exports just in agriculture represent well over a million jobs
in our country. Quite frankly, unless you have dealt in the
international market, you really do not understand how subsidized a lot
of our competitors' production actually is. Certainly their advertising
programs are. So I would rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. It
never ceases to amaze me around here. Everybody seems to want to put
the farmers out of business, especially small farmers. The Market
Access Program is so vital to, just take one part of the agriculture
industry, the apple growers in America, particularly in the Hudson
Valley.
We are up there, and the temperatures drop down to 30 or 40 below
zero. It is tough enough to make a living as it is. But this Market
Access Program has provided vital, vital help to these small farmers,
to export our apples into Europe, into Israel and different places.
The European Union does everything they can to stop everything from
going in there. This at least gives us a little bit of an advantage. It
is like promoting tourism in America. It is necessary. Promoting this
kind of a program is so vital to the small dairy farmers in America.
Please defeat this probably well-intentioned amendment by a well-
intentioned Member, but it is a bad amendment. Vote no.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, let us summarize why this amendment should be strongly
opposed. Why MAP? Why a Market Access Program? It is to help meet
foreign competition.
The European Union and other foreign competitors continue to enjoy a
10-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of export subsidies. The
European Union and other foreign competitors are moving aggressively in
providing other forms of assistance to maintain and expand their share
of the world market at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers.
The naivete of Members of this body who believe that somehow, some
way, unilaterally disarming our farmers is going to allow them to
compete in an international marketplace that is controlled by other
governments continues to amaze me. Member after Member has stood this
morning and offered just that kind of amendment.
Without U.S. policies and programs to help counter such subsidized
competition, American farmers and ranchers will continue to be at a
substantial disadvantage. In contrast to the high subsidies in Europe,
the 1996 farm bill reduced income support to producers in this country
over 7 years, making farm income and the economic well-being of
American agriculture even more dependent on continued access to foreign
markets. Now we hear again an effort to take away the remaining tools.
The MAP represents a successful public-private partnership. MAP is
specifically targeted to help small businesses, farm cooperatives, and
trade associations meet subsidized competition.
Market Access Program is administered on a cost-share basis by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture with farmers, ranchers, and other
participants required to contribute up to 50 percent toward the
programs cost.
Every $1 invested by United States taxpayers has resulted in $16 in
additional U.S. agricultural exports, according to the United States
Department of Agriculture.
MAP helps boost U.S. agriculture exports and meet foreign
competition. Also, let me say, we have reform. We have listened to the
valid criticisms of the MAP program. We are now providing for cost
share, direct assistance to small businesses, farm cooperatives, and
trade associations. This is what this body has told us to do. This is
what the Committee on Agriculture has striven to do.
Funds are to be used only to promote American-grown and produced
agriculture commodities and related products. There is a prohibition on
assistance to foreign firms and products. There is ongoing review and
certification of use of funds and program graduation.
When you have a successful program working we stop subsidizing, and
we say go forward in the marketplace, but we continue to attempt to
meet foreign competition.
In conclusion, I strongly urge that this amendment be rejected. I
hope that the committee, and when we get to conference, will find
additional monies in this particular area. As a Nation, we can work to
export our products or we can export our jobs.
This amendment, if it passed, will be an export of United States
jobs, make no mistake about it. USDA's export programs are a key part
of an overall trade strategy that is pro-growth, pro-trade and pro-job.
This amendment is anti- all of the above.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for the
opportunity to speak against this very ill-advised amendment, which
would have a tremendous detrimental effect, not only on the farm family
in Iowa, but across this country, but also on our balance of trade
situation.
Agriculture exports about $55 billion. For each $1 billion, there are
about 20,000 American jobs. It is extremely important to maintain this
program so that we can compete in the world market. We have got to also
understand that this program is on a 50/50 basis with the producer out
there who is paying half of the cost. The corn growers, the Soybean
Association, the pork producers, the beef folks, the cattlemen pay
their share to make sure that they have the opportunity to promote
their American product overseas and to make sure that the jobs stay
here in the United States rather than have our foreign competitors take
away our jobs.
This is extremely important to continue this very, very valuable
program. I would certainly urge a strong no vote to this ill-advised
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has 10
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 1
minute remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico has the right to close.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the pending
amendment. Corporate welfare. Everyone hates corporate welfare. We all
talk about it in our districts. Irate taxpayers bristle at the thought
of their hard-earned wages being given to large and profitable
companies, and justifiably so.

[[Page H5087]]

It is one thing to provide temporary welfare assistance to help poor
people, the people in need, get back on their feet, but to give
billions of dollars in subsidies to large cooperations is absolutely
absurd.
Of all the corporate subsidy programs maintained by the Federal
Government, the Market Access Program is one of the most notorious.
Since its creation back in 1985, the Market Access Program has
provided almost $1.5 billion to some of the biggest and wealthiest
corporations in this country. For example, in 1997, fiscal year 1997,
they doled out $2.6 million to Sunkist, $1.4 million to Blue Diamond,
$700,000 to Welch's Foods, and $600,000 to Ernest and Julio Gallo.
Other companies that have received market access funds include
McDonald's to sell Chicken McNuggets, Joseph Seagram and Sons to
promote Four Roses Whiskey.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line that many of the firms that have
received Market Access Program funds, including Burger King, Campbell
Soup, General Mills, Hershey Foods, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Quaker
Oats, Tyson Foods, can afford to pay for their own advertising. They do
not need the U.S. Government acting as their ad agency.
I urge my colleagues to support this great amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
An argument has been made that we were being out-subsidized 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 per capita 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. We should
continue striving to shed those vestiges of central planning instead of
defending those that had crept into our economy in the past.
Government has no business deciding which companies are worthy of
advertising funds. It is the government that must make this decision;
in this case, which company gets the funds. That is, frankly, 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 monies from companies to
finance the advertising of their competition, which is the direct
result of redistribution.
The main point is really whether private companies should pay for the
promotion of their own products or whether the American taxpayer should
be forced to pay. We do not force the American taxpayer to pay for
other corporate expenses. We do not force them to pay for furniture or
office supplies. In this case, we are having them pay for the
advertising budget. Why should they be forced to pay for this cost of
doing business?
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that this amendment was presented to us just a
few minutes ago because there are a lot of Members whose constituents
strongly support this program but who may not be able to speak because
of the lack of notice.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is as bad in its purpose as it is in its
timing, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Smith) to close.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let us get back to reality here
and directness. The numbers used by these people who attempt to
overnight the Market Access Program are 10 years old.
I have just returned from the European Union, Germany, France,
Belgium; and let me tell you that if you do not think we are out-
subsidized, you should have been with me. There was $45 billion by the
European Union, by the way, for agriculture products, $8 billion for
export subsidies to European farmers. We are asking here for a very
small Market Access Program that helps us advertise our products in
foreign countries where we are being outbid every day by the
governments.
This idea that these are large corporations is ridiculous. That is in
the past. These are small corporations. They are cooperatives such as
Sunkist, but these are made up of small operators and small farmers.
Let us not reduce ourselves to the argument that this is a big
government payoff. It is a 16-to-1 return of dollars. One dollar for
every $16 we receive; $1 invested, we receive $16 back.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I want to associate myself with the
gentleman's remarks and point out that 417 of the 564 companies
participating in this program are small businesses by SBA definition.
Mr. Chairman, there is probably no more important tool for export
promotion than MAP throughout the U.S. and particularly in California.
MAP was funded at $200 million as recently as 5 years ago, and was
authorized at one time for $350 million.
I believe those levels of support were recognition of the importance
of market promotion to the American economy.
Now MAP is down to a bare-bones $90 million.
MAP funds go to small companies--FAS says that 417 of the 564
companies participating in MAP qualify as ``small'' by the SBA
definition.
MAP has completely eliminated any branded product promotion by large
companies.
MAP funds don't just substitute for marketing efforts the company
would have undertaken anyway--in fact, it is a requirement of the
program that every dollar has to be matched by the company's own funds
as well.
MAP is important to the economy:
Agriculture exports are at approximately $60 billion (FY `96)--an
increase of some $19 billion or close to 50 percent since 1990.
In an average week this past year, U.S. producers, processors and
exporters shipped more than $1.1 billion worth of food and farm
products to foreign markets, compared with about $775 million per week
at the start of this decade.
The most recent agricultural trade surplus (FY `96) indicates a new
record of $27.4 billion.
In the most recent comparisons among 11 major industries, agriculture
ranked No. 1 as the leading positive contributor to the U.S.
merchandise trade balance.
As domestic farm supports are reduced, export markets become even
more critical for the economic well-being of our farmers and rural
communities, let alone the suburban and urban areas that depend upon
the employment generated from increased trade.
Agriculture exports strengthen farm income.
Agriculture exports provide jobs for nearly a million Americans.
Agriculture exports generate nearly $100 billion in related economic
activity.
MAP is critical to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain
and expand export markets in the new post-GATT environment, and MAP is
a proven success.
In California, MAP has been tremendously successful in helping
promote exports of California citrus, raisins, walnuts, prunes,
almonds, peaches and other specialty crops.
We have to remember that an increase in agriculture exports means
jobs: a 10% increase in agricultural exports creates over 13,000 new
jobs in agriculture and related industries like manufacturing,
processing, marketing and distribution.
Where do those increased ag exports come from?
For every $1 we invest in MAP, we reap a $16 return in additional
agriculture exports.
In short, the Market Promotion Program is a program that performs for
American taxpayers.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote no on this
amendment.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, the market access program, or MAP, provides
a valuable service, not only to American farmers, but to the entire
American economy.
Currently, MAP yields returns of $2 to $7 to the American economy for
every dollar of MAP funds spent overseas. The program is aimed at
increasing American exports and jobs by helping maintain, develop, and
expand U.S. agriculture export markets. In doing this, MAP requires all
funds to be used to promote only American grown and produced
commodities and related products.
MAP does not fund large multinational corporations, such as
McDonalds. Instead, this program, by law, excludes foreign, for-profit
companies and focuses on American small businesses. The only for-profit
companies allowed to receive MAP funds are small businesses, nonprofit
industry organizations, and private firms not represented by an
industry group.

[[Page H5088]]

Even then, MAP is not a straight handout, but is a valuable cost-
share program, where participants are required to contribute toward
total program costs from 10 percent for generic products to up to 50
percent or more for brand name products.
MAP was established under the 1990 Farm Act to target primarily
value-added products. With traditional commodity support programs being
phased out through 2002, MAP will be used as an important tool to
increase export markets and help stabilize commodity prices.
MAP is a proven success. Since 1986, when MAP's predecessor, the
targeted Export Assistance Program, was first authorized, U.S.
agricultural exports have doubled. In 1997 exports amounted to $57.3
billion, resulting in a $22 million agricultural trade surplus, and
providing jobs for approximately 1 million Americans.
MAP's success has occurred in spite of increased international
competition. Other organizations, such as the European Union, or EU,
have aggressively outspent the United States in promoting agricultural
commodities. In 1997, the EU budgeted $7.2 billion for export
subsidies. The EU and other foreign competitors also spent nearly $500
million on market promotion. However, through promotional campaigns
funded in part by MAP, American agriculture can be immensely successful
in foreign markets.
Mr. Chairman, this program works and it works well. It is targeted at
assisting American small businesses to gain fair access to foreign
markets.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for American jobs, to
vote for American small businesses, and to vote for support of the
Market Access Program.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, MAP HELPS BOOST U.S. AGRICULTURE
EXPORTS. U.S. agriculture exports expected to exceed $60 billion. Last
year exports amounted to $57.3 billion, resulting in a positive $22
billion agricultural trade surplus, result in a record trade surplus of
$30 billion, and generate over $100 billion in related economic
activity.
MAP HELPS PROVIDE NEEDED JOBS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. ECONOMY. Over one
million Americans have jobs which depend on U.S. agriculture exports.
Every billion dollars in U.S. agriculture exports creates as many as
20,000 new jobs.
MAP HELPS MEET SUBSIDIZED FOREIGN COMPETITION. The EU spends more on
wine promotion than U.S. spends for all commodities combined. European
Union (EU) and other foreign competitors continue to enjoy a 10 to 1
advantage over the U.S. in terms of export subsidies. EU and other
foreign competitors are moving aggressively in providing other forms of
assistance to maintain and expand their share of the world market at
the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers. Without U.S. policies and
programs to help counter such subsidized competition, American farmers
and ranchers will be at a substantial disadvantage.
MAP REPRESENTS A SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. MAP is
specifically targeted to help small businesses, farmer cooperatives and
trade associations meet subsidized foreign competition. MAP is
administered on a cost-share basis by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture with farmers, ranchers and other participants required to
contribute up to 50% toward the program's cost. Every $1 invested has
resulted in $16 in additional U.S. agricultural exports, according to
USDA. MAP helps boost U.S. agriculture exports, meet foreign
competition, improve U.S. balance of trade, strengthen farm income, and
protect American jobs.
The U.S. must continue to have in place policies and programs which
help maintain the ability of American agriculture to compete
effectively in a global marketplace still characterized by subsidized
foreign competition.
This is especially true under the new Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act), which resulted in the most sweeping
reforms in farm policy in over 60 years. While achieving significant
budget savings, it reduces income support to producers over 7 years;
eliminates acreage reduction programs; and provides increased planting
flexibility. More than ever, farm income and the economic well-being of
American agriculture are now dependent on continued access to foreign
markets and maintaining and strengthening U.S. agricultural exports.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 482, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
will be postponed.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the distinguished subcommittee chairman and another
Member of Congress has circulated an e-mail warning to Members that the
Bass-DeFazio amendment which passed by a 229 to 193 vote majority may
have cut more than we, the authors, stated.
The e-mail message claims the Bass-DeFazio amendment cut nearly $21
million from the Wildlife Services funding which would, as the e-mail
declares, put at risk ``safe transportation, safe drinking water, and
an abundant supply of safe and wholesome food, and, most importantly,
the safety of children.''
I assure my colleagues that that is not our intent. We worked with
the Legislative Counsel over the past couple weeks to draft an
amendment that cut only $10 million in Wildlife Services funding for
livestock protection, and we did not intend to cut health and safety
funding or research funding.

{time} 1230

However, because of a drafting error by Legislative Counsel, the
amendment may result in an additional cut of $10 million. It may. Not
necessarily will, but it may. To clarify the amendment and reassure
Members that it will only eliminate livestock protection funding, we
need only to insert one word that indicates the funding should be taken
from the Wildlife Services operating budget.
In a measure of good faith, I would hope that the gentleman from New
Mexico would accept our unanimous-consent request, which I have not
made yet, to clarify the amendment. The House has clearly spoken on
this issue. By a 36-vote margin, the House is on record as opposing
animal control subsidies for ranchers. I hope the chairman would not
use a typographical error by Legislative Counsel to stymie the will of
the House.

Request for Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bass

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to accept an
additional word ``operations'' to the amendment that passed the House
yesterday by a vote of 229-193.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New Hampshire?
Mr. SKEEN. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that the gentleman from New
Mexico objected. What we see here is a last-ditch attempt to preserve a
$10 million subsidy to western cattle and sheep ranchers. Half a
million dollars of this money flows to my own State, so I am not just
out there cutting in other people's States.
Seventeen western States receive $10 million to conduct activities on
predator control to protect livestock on private property at no expense
to the landowner. Clearly a large majority of the House supported that
amendment and that intent. As the gentleman from New Hampshire stated,
due to a drafting error by Legislative Counsel, we may have cut more
and may have extended the impact beyond that subsidy in the 17 western
States to private livestock and ranching interests. So we have a number
of opportunities here.
The gentleman from New Hampshire attempted to insert one word, the
word ``operations,'' to make absolutely clear what the 36-vote majority
of the House intended at that time. I shortly will offer another
opportunity to the chairman and would urge the chairman to take it,
because I have got to inform Members at this point in time, despite the
potential error, the groups that had vital interest in the original
vote are no longer interested in the original vote. The scoring will be
on the revote. Because even if the chairman objects, the inadvertent
language problem can certainly be fixed in the conference committee.
It was the clear intent of the House and a majority of this House to
end this subsidy to private ranching interests while fully protecting
public health and safety over a range of other issues that are
conducted by APHIS out of its $500 million budget. I am going to in a
moment give the chairman one more chance, because I know the chairman
believes he will prevail

[[Page H5089]]

and will be able to preserve the $10 million subsidy to the private
ranching interests for one more year.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. BASS. Is it not true that either of these two suggested changes
can easily be corrected in the committee of conference under technical
corrections? There is no need to worry if under the unfortunate
circumstance we have a revote that these corrections will not obviously
be made, because it is the intent of Congress to make this change.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and thank the gentleman.
There are a plethora of ways that this could be fixed. The simplest way
is by the insertion of the word ``operations'' which the chairman
objected to. I am going to propose changing a number. That is one
change in one number. That would fix the problem or any potential
problem. If the chairman objects there, it could still be fixed in
conference or with a technical correction later. That is correct. So
clearly the revote, if it occurs, will be on whether or not the Members
want to provide a $10 million subsidy to western cattle and ranching
interests which I believe a clear majority stated yesterday they do
not. That will be the vote that will be rated.

Request for Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the language
of the original amendment be changed on line 2 to not more than
$28,097,000.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
In the matter inserted in the Bass amendment providing for
``Limitation on Use of Funds'' strike ``$18,800,000'' and insert
``$28,000,000''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to begin a colloquy talking about the
tobacco issue. First of all I would like to say that every year since I
have been in Congress, I have introduced an amendment, or cosponsored
an amendment, to get rid of subsidy for the Risk Management Agency, the
crop insurance section, and the net cost of this, of this program. Each
year we have lost by a scratch. This year as we went into working on
the agriculture bill, we also have another bill which is the tobacco
bill coming up. As we have worked on that, none of the objections that
I have had have lessened. But it appears that the leadership now has
agreed that there will be no cost to taxpayers. They will eliminate all
cost to taxpayers of this particular program in the tobacco bill which
the Speaker of the House will be introducing in just a few weeks. I
would like to have confirmation of that.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for
yielding for the purpose of this colloquy. I recognize the
gentlewoman's long-standing role in trying to solve this program
funding issue which we debate each year. I would like to take this
opportunity to confirm that we on the Tobacco Task Force and in
leadership share her concerns and are committed to correcting this
problem as part of our efforts to craft tobacco legislation later next
month in a more comprehensive way.
I have to say that I myself personally feel very strongly. I have
consistently voted against the subsidy as she has. I would like to see
it eliminated. I will confirm that this will be a part of the tobacco
legislation.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentlewoman for her
comments. I want to ask one question to clarify what she just said. She
is saying that the tobacco legislation will eliminate any taxpayer
support for this program.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. That is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. As I understand
it, the designee for the leadership is the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce), and we appreciate the great work that we expect her to do which
I am sure she will. She is very aware that myself, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) have a piece of legislation that we think is an excellent piece
of legislation. We are not solidly in cement, but we would like some
assurance from the leadership's designee that the language that we are
talking about which would give protection as I see it to the small
farmer who we are very concerned about would be included in any piece
of legislation, whether it be an abbreviation or change of ours, or it
be one that the Speaker and the task force comes up with, that we could
have that assurance. I think it would make those of us on a bipartisan
nature who are working on this feel much better about that if we could
have that assurance at this time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. If the gentlewoman will yield, the assurance that
the gentleman is asking for is that this subsidy will not any longer be
in existence as a result of the tobacco legislation, he has that
assurance.
Mr. HANSEN. We do appreciate that. I would hope that the task force
would work with us closely on many of the things that are in our
legislation which I notice the Speaker of the House on television the
other night, I thought he was repeating our bill as he gave his
rendition on television, if I may respectfully say that.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. If I could ask the gentlewoman from Ohio to
comment further, it has been the assumption that a number of us who
have been working on tobacco legislation have had that somehow this
would be paid out of the settlement, so that the individual tobacco
farmer would not be eliminated from a program that all other farmers
could participate in, but that we would relieve the burden that I know
a number of Members have had of public support through the general fund
of the Government.
Is it contemplated that somehow the companies through the settlement
would make available funds to ensure that these growers can participate
in this program?
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. That still is a very viable possibility. We will
be working through the next 2 weeks of recess to further that goal. I
cannot say exactly that that is how it will happen, but I can say with
great assurance that it will no longer be a burden on the American
taxpayer.
Mr. FAZIO of California. There may be another approach taken, if the
gentlewoman will yield further, that I have not mentioned but still a
way in which these growers would not be discriminated against vis-a-vis
other agricultural producers?
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. That is being explored. There are several
different proposals on the table. I am sure the gentleman is aware that
there are many Members on our side of the aisle that are very
interested in this as well. I have been trying to work with them so
that these small farmers are not cast out overnight. But it does not
belong on the taxpayers' shoulders. I feel the same as the gentlewoman
from Washington in that respect.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to seeing the
legislation. Obviously I hope it is a comprehensive approach to the
solution to this problem but one that does not leave out the needs of
legitimate tobacco farmers in this country.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I want to
thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her leadership and the assurance
that the taxpayers will no longer pay this, and I will pull my
amendment.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 739. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Food and

[[Page H5090]]

Drug Administration for the testing, development, or approval
(including approval of production, manufacturing, or
distribution) of any drug for the chemical inducement of
abortion.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York reserves a point of
order.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is intended to do a
very discrete function. Number one, we should look at what the
definition of the charge to the Food and Drug Administration is. Let me
quote from page 96 of this bill:
``The programs of the Food and Drug Administration are designed to
achieve a single overall objective, consumer protection.''
Mr. Chairman, it is my contention that there is nothing associated
with consumer protection in the development and securing of
abortifacient drugs, that in fact this is an area far outside the
charge of the Food and Drug Administration.
What does this bill not do? This bill has no effect on the
development of any drug which has a purpose other than abortifacient of
an implanted blastocyst. This amendment will not prohibit the FDA from
conducting its legitimate oversight function, and following its
guidelines to in fact follow the charge of consumer protection.
Part of the point of order that I am sure will be raised is that this
is far reaching and goes outside the scope, which it does not, because
it is not intended to completely block research on efficacious drugs.
The other point that I would make, that the charge of the FDA is, is
to maintain surveillance over food, drugs, medical devices and
electronic products to ensure that they are safe, effective and
honestly labeled. The use of abortifacients supported by our tax
dollars, researched by our tax dollars, approved by our tax dollars,
has nothing to do with the charge of the FDA. It would seem to me that
if we wanted to be honest, that this is something that totally should
be ignored, is not an area of safe and effective oversight of the FDA,
and, in fact, raises several other troubling questions:
Number one is we should be seeking, regardless of our position on
pro-life or pro-choice, alternatives to abortion rather than making
abortion easier.
Number two, we markedly oversimplify the concept of abortifacient
drugs by saying that we can have a pill that will solve this problem.

{time} 1245

Number 3, there is significant scientific evidence today that
abortion is associated with a marked increase in the incidence of
breast cancer.
Number 4, abortion drugs are often dispensed without a doctor's
approval and oftentimes endanger a woman's health rather than protect
her health. Twelve States already give pharmacists the authority to
dispense these drugs without the aid of a physician.
Finally, if we talk about the research that has been done on the
abortifacient drugs that are presently available or used in that
manner, what we find is they are extremely ineffective. If my
colleagues look at the studies that have been done in Brazil or in
Europe on the multitude of drugs that are followed by this concept,
what they will find is that 8 to 10 percent failure rate to accomplish
what they were intended to do. What we find also is what has happened
to the children that have been exposed to these drugs, and again let me
bring this back.
What is the charge of the FDA? The charge of the Food and Drug
Administration is safety, is consumer protection. Having Federal
dollars spent to perfect and introduce and license and hold up a drug
that takes away life goes completely opposite of the charge of the Food
and Drug Administration.
Finally I would like to describe for my colleagues what happens to
children who have been exposed to this. About 12 percent of the women
who are exposed to the abortifacients that are out there now end up
having to have an instrumented procedure. So, first of all, it fails
for those 12 percent. Another 12 percent of the women do not abort. Of
those 12 percent of women who do not abort, 9 percent, 8 to 9 percent,
of the children are born.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, of the 8 to 9 percent of the children that
are born, 50 percent of those children, a large number, have
microcephaly, which is a smaller-than-normal brain which leads to
severe retardation, a large number have hydrocephaly, which means they
have an inability to circulate the fluid around the brain.
So if, in fact, we want the Food and Drug Administration to be about
consumer protection, then we in fact ought to ask them not to have
anything to do in their charge with abortifacient drugs.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for the purpose of
a question?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman's amendment mean that if
the application is submitted to FDA without the term, without the term
``chemical inducement of abortion'' as its stated purpose, would the
amendment apply?
Mr. COBURN. The amendment would not apply to any drug that is applied
to the FDA that the primary purpose is not intended to be an
abortifacient. For example, there is a drug that is presently on the
market called Cytotec. The gentlewoman is familiar with that drug. If
that drug were being applied for now, its primary intended use is for
ulcer prevention and treatment. This amendment would not preclude the
application of that NDA for that drug.
Mrs. LOWEY. So, if the gentleman would clarify once more for me, if
the application does not include the specific term ``chemical
inducement of abortion,'' what would the gentleman expect the
department to do?
Mr. COBURN. First of all, the department is much more knowledgeable
than my colleague might give them credit for. They understand what
drugs are used for, and they are scientists and very good at what they
do. And if, in fact, some company is making application for a drug that
the primary purpose is for something that fits the charge of the FDA,
consumer safety, not death, not killing, but consumer safety, then I
think they have very well the ability to figure out what the purpose of
that application is. And they also have to very clearly state in their
NDA what the purpose is for the drug.
Mrs. LOWEY. But then, if I can further ask for clarification again,
if the application is submitted to the FDA without the specific term
``chemical inducement of abortion'' as its stated purpose, would the
amendment apply?
Mr. COBURN. Again, I would give the gentlewoman the same answer:
If somebody applies for a drug that is intended to do chemical
induced abortion, and that is what they are asking for an NDA for, then
it would apply. If it is not intended for that, it would not apply. And
so therefore any drug that has any other use that might be beneficial
and under consumer protection, the charge of the FDA, would be
recognized as a legitimate NDA application.

Point of Order

Mrs. LOWEY. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman, with my point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York will state her point of
order.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Coburn amendment violates clause 2 of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House prohibiting authorization on an
appropriations bill.
Under clause 2 of rule XXI a provision is authorizing in nature if it
imposes a new duty on a Federal employee.
The Coburn amendment does just this by prohibiting the Food and Drug
Administration from expending any funds on an activity for which it
does not have a definition. Quote: ``Drug for the chemical inducement
of abortion,'' as the Coburn amendment is written, is not a term of art
that is legally recognized by the FDA.
I have a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services, and
will

[[Page H5091]]

ask that it appear in the Record, stating that the term is one that is
not recognized by the agency and would require interpretation.
Requiring the agency to define this term unto the Coburn amendment
means imposing a new duty on a Federal official.
This is clearly authorizing language.
Mr. Chairman, the memo goes on to say, and I quote: Under the
statute's drug-approval scheme, sponsors propose to the Food and Drug
Administration particular medical indications for which they seek to
conduct research. Sponsors then seek FDA approval to market the drug
for those proposed indications that the research demonstrates that the
drug is safe and effective for these indication.
Since sponsors are free to propose any medical indication for their
drugs and are unlikely to propose this precise language under this
amendment, FDA would need to interpret each of these terms in the
amendment in this context, chemical inducement and abortion, none of
which are defined in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and
evaluate whether the proposed indication was subjected to the
restriction.
I have a letter from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) the
former chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, agreeing with the
assessment that the Coburn amendment is authorizing in nature, and I
will ask that this letter be included in the Record as well.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Chair to sustain a point of order against
this amendment. It is a clear violation of rule XXI, clause 2 of the
Rules of the House.
One more point. The duty is they have to make a determination even if
the exact words of the application are different from those in the
gentleman's amendment. The FDA needs to determine the meaning of the
applicant's words, and I would suggest that the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) has conceded this point, and I thank the Chair, and again
I ask the Chair to sustain a point of order against this amendment. It
is a clear violation of rule XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the
gentlewoman's point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman's response on the
point of order.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment based first on a
limitation of funds. Number two, there is nothing in this amendment
that requires anything additional by the FDA because every NDA that
comes before the FDA today has to state the purpose for which the drug
application is made. And then finally is that we would not agree to a
stipulation, as the gentlewoman from New York pointed out, that would
limit anybody's application for any drug and to apply this Rule of the
House, we will happily concede, if we want to use the definition as she
stated initially, in terms of abortifacient, if that is what she
desires.
But the point is the actual functioning of the FDA, having brought
drugs to the FDA, having filed NDAs, her statement is inaccurate, it
does not follow the rules of the FDA, it is not a true statement to say
that this will require any additional burden on the FDA.
Mr. Chairman, the FDA already requires every drug that has applied
for it to state very specifically what its purpose is. If the purpose
for the drug is not abortifacient, then there is no problem. If the
purpose for the drug is it is, then the FDA would be limited.
This is a medical term under which the FDA already knows the
definition. There is no question about what the definition is. There is
no question in Federal law about what the definition is. So to confuse
the issue under this rule is wrong.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman for further
clarification?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may proceed on her point of order.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from
Oklahoma if the application for RU-486 did not include the terms in the
gentleman's amendment, how would the gentleman require the FDA to rule?
Mr. COBURN. What the gentlewoman from New York will have to tell me
first to answer that is how was the RU-486 applied for.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the gentleman a question.
Mr. COBURN. The question is that the RU-486 was not applied for under
that rule initially and is now.
Mrs. LOWEY. Yes, correct; or I am asking the gentleman, let us say if
RU-486 did not apply for the application, would those terms expressed
in the gentleman's amendment, how would the gentleman expect under his
amendment the FDA to rule?
Mr. COBURN. Very easily. RU-486 is used for other things besides
that. So, if they did not specify it, then that RU-486 would be
approved for whatever it is specified for.
Very straightforward. Any drug that follows the guidelines of the
FDA's NDA application process must state its intent. If RU-486 were
applied for and it was not stated intent to accomplish what it in fact
did, then it would be eligible for consideration under this rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to
the gentlewoman's point of order, and I would just like to say that the
point she is trying to make, I think, runs contrary to the whole
tradition of what we do here in the House in these appropriations
bills. It is the right and the prerogative of any Member to rise and
put limitations or specifications on how money is going to be spent,
and this man's amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma, is very simple
and straightforward.
We all know that abortion is a very controversial issue, it is
controversial in this body, it is controversial with the American
people, and the House of Representatives has repeatedly voted, for
example, that no Federal dollars will be used for performing abortions.
The so-called Hyde amendment language easily passes the House with
overwhelming majorities, and I think the reason for this is obvious.
Even though many Members may feel that they are personally pro-choice,
they think it is totally appropriate not to be spending Federal dollars
for performing abortions, and to ask that the Food and Drug
Administration not use its funds for putting abortion drugs on the
market I think is a very reasonable proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I would strongly recommend the Chair rule against the
gentlewoman's point of order and that the gentleman's amendment be
allowed to be debated and voted on according to the proceedings of the
House.

{time} 1300

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members that wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused, and I want some
clarification. As I understand what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) told us, he expects the FDA to make some kind of interpretation
of the primary intent of the drug.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, every
application made to the FDA has to have the primary intent of a drug,
as the gentleman well knows. My objection to the point of order is we
presented this just like every other limitation that has been placed in
this Congress on the dispensing of funds, and we have followed that
guidelines and made no new requirements on the part of the FDA.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not asking the
gentleman's conclusions on the point. I was trying to find out what he
would ask FDA to do if a manufacturer came in and said the primary
purpose of the drug was to be abortifacient. The gentleman would argue
then that his amendment would apply, is that correct?
Mr. COBURN. Yes.
Mr. WAXMAN. If the manufacturer came in and asked for approval of a
drug and it did not state that it was for that purpose, then the
amendment would not apply?
Mr. COBURN. That is true.
Mr. WAXMAN. Now, my point, Mr. Chairman, is that FDA has to look at
these words which are not words within the context of the FDA law. The
chemical inducement of abortion is a new phrase. It has no precedent in
FDA's statutory authority, it has no legal definition, no statutory
reference, no

[[Page H5092]]

regulatory guidance and no legislative history.
In other words, if this amendment were adopted, the head of the FDA
would have to look at the application from a drug manufacturer. If the
application said that the drug was being requested for approval for the
purpose of a chemical inducement of abortion, then I would say this
amendment would apply and there is no question about it.
But if the gentleman, as he stated earlier, would ask the FDA
administrator to in some way make some judgment that really that is
what they intend, even though they do not say it, then we are doing
something beyond a limitation on the use of the funds.
Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman would yield further, the FDA makes a
judgment on every drug application made to it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) may speak on
his point of order. When he is finished, the Chair will recognize other
Members. There is no yielding back and forth. Is the gentleman
finished?
Mr. WAXMAN. I did not realize there is no yielding back and forth.
The CHAIRMAN. There is not. If the gentleman wants to continue, he
may.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may conclude, my point is if the FDA
Commissioner has to make a judgment, then this amendment should not be
permitted in order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, based on the gentleman's interpretation
that unless the application for RU-486 contains the worlds ``chemical
induced abortion,'' the prohibition would not apply, I would withdraw
my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Are there any Members who wish to speak on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)?
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of this amendment. I think we
need to go back to what the role of the Food and Drug Administration
is, and that is the role of ensuring public safety and health, and that
is by approving medically necessary drugs and devices, as well as
ensuring food safety.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is
consistent with the mission of the FDA and simply bans funding for the
testing, development or approval of any drug which causes a chemical
abortion.
You see, women's health is really at stake. New evidence has
indicated that abortions increase the chances of breast cancer.
Presently breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer among middle-
aged women. If protecting all members of society is the goal of the
FDA, certainly we need to study this link exhaustively before we
approve any drug that causes a chemical abortion. Make no mistake, the
morning after pill which the FDA approved is not a contraceptive. It is
an abortifacient, meaning it causes a chemical abortion.
In my home state of Washington, for example, pharmacists are
permitted to dispense the ``morning after'' pill without a doctor's
prescription. A doctor gives the general prescription to the
pharmacist, the pharmacist interviews the woman, and then he decides or
she decides whether or not the woman is eligible for this abortion. The
protection of the doctor is then removed and the ramifications of the
woman's health, whether physical or emotional, are not even discussed.
Additionally, our taxpayer dollars should not be used for the FDA to
implement the abortion drug RU-486. The long-term effects of this
abortive are still unknown. In U.S. clinical trials, four women nearly
bled to death and required blood transfusions. Many women bled
profusely and required hospitalization, and 68 percent of the women
experienced such severe pain that medication was required.
It is unacceptable for the Federal Government through the vehicle of
the FDA to promote a drug whose sole purpose is to destroy the life of
another human being.
I think the goal of most lawmakers, whether Republican or Democrat,
is to find alternatives to abortion. But with the increased
accessibility of these abortion pills, unwanted pregnancies become the
medical equivalent of a simple headache. Just pop a pill, and your
problems all will go away. In our State it is as easy as calling the
hot line number which appeared in my State paper, 1-888-NOT-2-LATE.
Mr. Chairman, in an age of increased personal responsibility, this is
not a signal to be advertising to American women. It is not a signal to
be advertising to American youth.
The job of the FDA is to protect and promote the health of all
citizens. That includes the health of unborn children of America. The
funds in the agriculture appropriation bill should not be used by the
FDA to test, develop or approve any drug which substitutes abortives
for self-discipline, causing abortions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. The Coburn 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.
This amendment would block 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 when it is issued on approval letter for
the drug.
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 they should not be subject to congressional
interference.
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.
The amendment specifically bars the FDA from approving any drug for
the chemical inducement of abortion. But what does that term mean? The
FDA does not know. I have a letter here from their chief counsel that
says they have no idea what it means. Doctors and scientists do not
know what that phrase means either.
So in addition to stopping RU-486, this broad, vague amendment may
also prohibit the development of new contraceptive methods, if you
believe, as some do, that any form of hormonal contraception, like the
pill, is tantamount to 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 may also
prevent the FDA from preventing unsafe and unsupervised clinical
trials.
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 improve
important medications without Congressional interference. It is about
whether politics or science will govern our Nation's drug approval
process. This amendment would tie the FDA's hands, rendering it
absolutely helpless in its primary task to evaluate scientific data
consistent with its mandate to protect the public health.
Since Roe v. Wade, unfortunately, 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 the right wing's 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 unwanted pregnancies. It could make abortion, already one
of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States, even
safer. The drug would eliminate the need for surgery for women choosing
to use it. This would present tremendous health benefits for some
women.
RU-486 is also effective early in pregnancy. Women in France have
been

[[Page H5093]]

using RU-486 for a decade, and it is also available in Sweden and Great
Britain. Over 400,000 women have had abortions using RU-486. The New
England Medical Journal recently published clinical trials on RU-486
confirming its acceptability and effectiveness. RU-486 is safe and
effective.
Mr. Chairman, RU-486 has another significant advantage over current
abortion procedures. RU-486 can be given in the privacy of a
physician's office, away from clinics blockaded by protestors, away
from violence, harassment and intimidation. This change would give
women greater freedom and security. This is a fact that terrifies so
many.
What will the radical right do when RU-486 is approved? Will it
picket every doctor's office in America? Will it harass every woman in
the Nation? Thankfully, it cannot, and that is why it is fighting so
hard to block the approval of this drug.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) wants to turn the clock
back, back on scientific advances, back all the way to the back-alley
in the days of the wire hanger, back to the days when thousands of
women died every year from unsafe, illegal abortions.
Well, we have news for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). We
will not go back.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) that I am a mother of three and a grandmother of two, and,
frankly, I am sick and tired of debating abortion on this floor in the
House of Representatives. Restriction after restriction, ban after ban,
amendment after amendment. Enough.
If one really wants to reduce the number of abortions, 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 unwanted pregnancies, to reduce the number of abortions. We
need to make abortions less necessary, not more dangerous.
Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that this amendment is being offered to
an otherwise outstanding bill. Congress should not be ordering the FDA
to suppress a drug that is safe and effective. This amendment flies in
the face of sound science. It puts women's health in jeopardy, it sets
a dangerous precedent, and it should be defeated.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coburn amendment. I
encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in
support of the Coburn amendment.
As the gentlewoman from New York alluded to, the issue of abortion is
very controversial. The American people are very divided on this issue,
and there are many people who feel, as I do, very strongly on the
sanctity of human life.
The House of Representatives and the Senate have repeatedly voted to
restrict the use of Federal dollars when it comes to this issue. The
best example is the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the use of Federal
dollars for performing abortions.

{time} 1315

We have a very simple amendment here. We ask the Food and Drug
Administration not to get involved in this issue and not to get
involved in administering or testing or approving drugs for the
chemical inducement of abortion.
As to this issue that is being brought up that some of these drugs
are safe and effective, I really want to speak to that point. As a
physician, I took the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath you do
no harm. To say that these drugs are safe and effective, when in effect
they are lethal for the unborn child growing in the womb of the woman,
is a very deceptive and distorted use of the English language.
I would encourage all of my colleagues to seriously, those who are
pro-life, obviously, those who take a pro-life position, but in
particular those who may be personally pro-choice but may feel that it
is appropriate to not be using Federal dollars for these kinds of
purposes, consider that millions of Americans object to Federal dollars
being used for these kinds of purposes.
I think it is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I think it is a well-
thought-out amendment. I do not think there should be any confusion
over there at the FDA as to what this is about, despite the claims by
some that these words are somehow mysterious.
As to the claims of why there are so few pharmaceutical companies
doing contraceptive research, that has nothing to do with these claims
that it has some implication with those who oppose abortion. It is the
trial attorneys and all the litigation. That is why there are a limited
number of pharmaceutical companies doing research. It is very
expensive. Then when you do put a product on the market, if anything
goes wrong with those products, you get every lawyer in this country
looking to draw up a lawsuit in the case.
I think this is a very good amendment. I would encourage all of my
colleagues to vote yes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman
from Florida acted as if this were a government subsidy for some
abortion procedure. We are not talking about a government subsidy, we
are talking about the Food and Drug Administration reviewing an
application by a manufacturer who proposes to make a drug for a
specific purpose that he wants to go out and sell, which is legal.
Whether Members like abortion or not, it is legal to have abortions
in this country. Why should we stop the FDA from being able to consider
a drug that might be used for an abortion that would be safer than
other abortion procedures? Abortion is not going to stop. It is legal.
Why should we now impose our judgment, saying that the FDA cannot even
look at the science of what a manufacturer presents to it?
This amendment says we cannot test the substance, we cannot learn how
it works, or judge if it has benefits over other procedures. Even if it
became an approved drug, we could not manufacture it. This is the kind
of an amendment that bars private actions in the free market. What the
FDA does is not a subsidy. The FDA scrutinizes the science. They do not
make judgments as to what products are brought before them, nor should
they.
This amendment is wrong. It is certainly wrong to include it in an
appropriation bill, where no one has examined the implication of this
language for other FDA activities.
It is going to have a chill on manufacturers who want to deal with
anything that may be considered unpopular. Today it may be unpopular to
have an abortifacient, but a lot of manufacturers feel it might become
unpopular to develop new contraceptive drugs. The FDA may be stopped
from reviewing those drugs. This is a very wrong and offensive
precedent. I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Coburn amendment. Last
month myself and 14 of my colleagues sent a letter to the editor of the
New England Journal of Medicine. We did that because we wanted to take
issue with a report that they publicized.
In that report, they described the abortion drug RU-486 as ``safe.''
This report is being cited as a landmark study by the advocates of RU-
486 as proof of the safety and the effectiveness of the drug. Nothing
could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, that is a bizarre
conclusion, given the facts.
The authors reported that RU-486 ``. . . has been reported to be a
teratogenic in humans.'' What does that mean? In plain English, it
means the drug causes developmental malformations, or birth defects.
Unfortunately, the authors mention this almost as an afterthought.
Given the possibility that this two-drug hit in RU-486 may cause
birth defects unless drug-induced abortion occurs, the authors secured
a commitment, they secured a commitment from all the participants to
submit to a surgical abortion in the event the drugs fail.

[[Page H5094]]

The authors apparently sought to preempt the possibility of a
participant having second thoughts after the administration of the
drug, and their unborn child eventually being born with a skull
deformity or some other birth defect.
There were 106 women who were administered the drugs, but they were
not included in the final assessment phase of the study. The authors do
not know, they do not know, whether any of these women who were
administered the drug changed their minds and decided to carry their
child to full term. The authors do not know whether a child or a number
of children were born with a developmental malformation due to the
administration of the drug, even though they stated that such a
possibility may exist.
The authors claim that the two-drug regimen is effective in
terminating pregnancies. This is a very selective choice of words,
because what these drugs do is they are designed to kill human life. We
are disappointed with the authors' insensitivity to the drug's full
impact. At least 2,121 unborn children died because of the drugs
administered during this study. The fact that this two-drug regimen was
able to kill innocent human lives is nothing to celebrate.
We recognize the authors' intent in maintaining a narrow focus in
their study, but when at least 4,242 people are involved in an
experiment involving life or death, it would seem only appropriate that
those executing the experiment assess the impact of the drugs on all of
the study's participants, both the born and the unborn.
For these reasons, it is entirely inappropriate for the FDA to grant
final approval for RU-486. For those reasons, it is also totally
appropriate for my colleagues to support the Coburn amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment.
Make no mistake about it, this amendment is one more unwarranted
intrusion to tell the Food and Drug Administration how to do its job.
It is also one more time when Members of Congress step up here and act
like they know more than the scientists and the experts, and they are
going to tell scientists what their conclusions are before they even
get there. And it is one more step in the far right's campaign against
a woman's right for reproductive choice.
In 1993, following my election in 1992, I led the effort to bring RU-
486 under FDA. I did that so that RU-486 would be tested here in the
United States to ensure its safety and its effectiveness. My action and
my concern was that women in the United States have access to a safe
and effective method regarding unwanted pregnancies. I only wanted them
to have access when it was deemed safe by the FDA.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would set an alarming precedent by
allowing the unwarranted interference in the FDA's decision-making
process. It would prevent the FDA from testing, developing, or
approving any drug such as RU-486 for the chemical inducement of
abortion, no matter the wishes of the women in this country.
Let us get the FDA out of politics, let us get Members of Congress
out of the rights of women in their reproductive choice, and let us let
the FDA determine which drugs are safe, which drugs are effective, and
which drugs are good public health.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to make a point to the gentleman. The New England
Journal of Medicine and the FDA has declared this safe and effective.
Again, a Member of Congress should not be making this determination.
I just wanted to make one additional point. It seems to me many of us
reluctantly have been debating on this floor over and over again for
the past few years about late-term abortions, and how dangerous and how
inappropriate late-term abortions are.
RU-486 is effective and can be a choice of women early on in
pregnancy. Again, it is the choice of a woman. It is up to the FDA to
determine if it is safe. The FDA has said that it is safe and
effective, as has the New England Journal of Medicine.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will bring us back to the original
purpose of the Food and Drug Administration. I rise to support the
Coburn amendment.
As originally intended, the FDA should make their priority ensuring
the safety of food and developing medically necessary drugs. We simply
must provide America with a system where life-saving drugs are made
available to patients in a timely and effective manner.
Mr. Chairman, when was the FDA given the task of making abortion on
demand easier and more accessible? How does this action correspond with
the assertion of the liberals that abortion should be a rare
occurrence? Does not the FDA's current role in expediting the approval
of abortifacients, which destroy lives, stand in direct contradiction
to its responsibility to save them?
Mr. Chairman, abortion pills make unwanted pregnancy the medical
equivalent of a headache: pop a pill and it will go away. But there are
serious consequences for women. New scientific evidence has indicated
that abortion may increase the risk of breast cancer. This link should
be carefully examined before any new forms of abortion are approved.
But we cannot ensure the safety of women if the FDA is speeding
abortion pills through the approval process.
For the sake of women, we need to adopt the Coburn amendment. Just
consider these facts. Ten out of the 11 studies on American women
report an increased risk of breast cancer after having an induced
abortion. A metaanalysis in which all worldwide data were combined,
published by Dr. Joel Brind and fellow researchers, reported that an
induced abortion elevates a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by
30 percent. Currently, breast cancer is the leading form of cancer
among middle-aged American women.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to send a message to the FDA: Return to the
business of saving lives. If they truly care about the health of our
Nation's women, Members will vote for the Coburn amendment and fight to
keep women alive and well.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment. We are
constrained to come to the floor once again to send out an alert to
American women that once again, one of the perennial attempts to get
around Roe versus Wade and to stop abortions when they are most safe is
at hand.
The Coburn amendment has grave constitutional implications. Roe
versus Wade says we may not regulate abortion in the first trimester.
There is a reason for that, because that is when it is safest. If
anything, we want to encourage whatever abortions are to be done to be
done then or not at all. RU-486 is only for early abortions, and it
perhaps may be used for emergency contraception up to 72 hours after
intercourse; again, at the very earliest period when abortions are
performed.

{time} 1330

Moreover, this method may be the only method or the safest method
that some women should use. And that clearly comes under Roe vs. Wade's
concern with the health of the mother. Surgical abortion obviously
poses more risk, the most risk, at least as far as we know. And at
least given the kind of approval that RU-486 has thus far received, we
do know this, that for most of us a nonsurgical procedure is in fact
preferable.
We want to say to women who need abortions, while the rest of us for
other procedures will use nonsurgical procedures, we want them to
repair to surgical procedures, to invasive procedures only. For
abortion we make a distinction between women and men that we do not
otherwise make.
Mr. Chairman, if nonsurgical abortion is available, if it is the
safest method, it must be allowed. Most of us would choose nonsurgical
methods if they were available. Indeed, managed care requirements today
in health care often require us to use nonsurgical methods because they
are the least costly.
Why would we want to deny safe, nonsurgical approaches here? Why
would the government want to turn toward the most invasive form of
abortion? Why should the government not

[[Page H5095]]

step back and say whatever method women use is something that the
government is in no position to prescribe in the particular case?
Why is it not an absolute insult to women to deny them the right to
choose the safest method, if any method at all must be chosen? Why is
it not a risk to the health of women for whom more invasive methods
would simply not be prescribed? Should we not welcome the fact that
there is a choice for those women?
And why would this body want to engage in the know-nothing,
nonscientific practice of, for the first time in this Chamber, saying
what the FDA should approve and what it should not approve? That takes
us back to the kind of ignorance I would hope this body had escaped
long ago.
If this drug is safe, by denying the right to go through the approved
channels we are welcoming back-channel, black market approaches to
getting this drug. Surgical and invasive procedures are not preferable.
Once again, we are invading the territory of a physician and his
patient. Whenever we do that, we lose our way.
Let us stand back, even if we regard this as not the right way to go,
and leave it to those who are in the best position to make this most
personal of decisions, and that is the physician and the woman who has
to decide what is safest for her.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, let me make it very clear, and I think we all more and
more of us realize this, abortion is violence against children.
Abortion is violence against children. It is not some benign act that
benefits or nurtures. It kills babies.
Now that can be done by the hideous method that we have described
called partial-birth abortion where the brains are literally sucked out
of the body of a child. Or it can be done by dismemberment, by hooking
up a powerful loop-shaped knife, a curette, to a suction machine 20 to
30 times more powerful than the average vacuum cleaner. Or it could be
done by a myriad of chemical potions, salt solution that burns the baby
to death.
The other side on this issue will defend that as choice. That is
violence against children. Saline abortion is violence against
children. RU-486, Mr. Chairman, is just the newest form of baby
pesticide. A chemical that has no intention of nurturing, providing any
benefit to the baby, just kill the baby. Make the child a deceased
member of the human race.
Mr. Chairman, the FDA should be all about testing and helping to
bring to market those drugs that save and nurture and heal. RU-486 does
not heal, unless Members think that a baby is a disease or a wart or
some other disposable appendage that has to be done away with.
The ``choice'' rhetoric is cheap. It denigrates human life. Unborn
children are no different than my colleagues or I, except by reason of
their immaturity and their developmental status in life. That is all.
Nothing is added from the moment of fertilization until natural death.
When will we wake up and see that birth is an event that happens to
each and every one of us. It is not the beginning of life. And an
unborn child deserves at least the minimum respect of not having new
drugs, new devices developed that kill them.
It is a new mouse trap. How can we better kill those kids? These are
boys and girls that are being killed. Chemical abortions, RU-486, as we
all know, usually has its operative effect at around the seventh week.
Other chemical potions have it at other times during the pregnancy. But
all of them do the same thing. They kill the baby.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, support this very important
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I urge
everyone to support it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of points
that have been made. When discussing 486, the words ``safe'' and
``effective'' have been used. I want us to think about what those words
mean.
Safe and effective for whom? They are not safe for women. They cause
tremendous pain, tremendous discomfort, tremendous risk for blood
transfusion, tremendous risk for instrumentation, and tremendous risk
to the remaining fetuses and children who will be born outside of that
complication.
The other thing that was said, and words tell us a whole lot, what
was said is if we cannot use this medical form of abortion, it is a
limitation on contraception. That was made in an earlier statement,
which tells us exactly what people mean.
Abortion is a method of contraception in this country. The taking of
innocent human life is used as a method of contraception. I would make
two points. The Supreme Court said they did not know when life began.
But we know when life ends in this country, when there is not a
heartbeat and there is not a brain wave.
Well, there is a brain wave at 41 days post-conception, and there is
a heartbeat at 26 days post-conception, before most women know they are
pregnant. There is no question, life is present when RU-486 will be
applied. Should the government be in the business be of killing unborn
babies? I think not.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I stand before my colleagues as a cancer survivor to
strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment would not just block
access and research to reproductive health drugs, although that in
itself is enough reason to vote against it.
In an attempt to promote an anti-choice agenda, proponents of this
amendment are risking the lives of millions of Americans, because this
amendment would block the development of drugs that cure cancer and
other kinds of medical treatment because some of those drugs can cause
miscarriage, also known as spontaneous abortion.
Mr. Chairman, I am an ovarian cancer survivor. Millions of Americans
suffer from cancer every year. Anyone who has undergone chemotherapy
sessions in a desperate attempt to kill the cancer cells before they
kill them knows the warnings given by the doctor. If a woman is
pregnant, chemotherapy could endanger the pregnancy and induce
miscarriage. I was fortunate that those circumstances did not apply to
me. But if we pass this amendment, the development of new lifesaving
drugs would be blocked.
If cancer patients wait while researchers draw closer and closer to a
cure for cancer, this amendment would close the door in their faces. No
more hope. No chance of developing a drug that could save their lives.
When I received my cancer diagnosis, it felt as if the world had
stopped. The mind just cannot comprehend what is happening. And once it
does sink in, all one thinks about is how am I going to beat this? What
can I do to get my life back?
Let us make sure that patients who are faced with this difficult
moment have access to the best science that is available; not science
that is compromised by politics.
This amendment is a slap in the face to the women of America. It is a
slap in the face to anyone who has survived a cancer diagnosis. It is a
slap in the face to anyone who is fighting now to beat this deadly
disease.
Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone in this House who cares about improving
the health of Americans and the life of Americans to vote against this
very dangerous amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), I am very thankful that she is a cancer
survivor. This amendment in no way whatsoever will limit any drug
research.
The other reason why I know that that is the case is because I too am
a cancer survivor. I am 23 years out. I would never put forth an
amendment on the floor of this House that would limit that. What this
amendment does is have the FDA work on drugs that save life rather than
take life.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in strong

[[Page H5096]]

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 that
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 Congress should be to
approve drugs that save lives, not end lives.
With all the illnesses we have to deal with, cancer, AIDS, heart
disease, diabetes, the examples go on and on, why would we want to
spend our hard-earned dollars on drugs designed to exterminate our most
valued resource, our children?
There is a core principle at issue today: Whether the government is
obligated to provide the people's money to research and test new and
innovative ways to kill our children for a right pulled out of thin air
by a majority of the Supreme Court.

{time} 1345

Congress has the responsibility under our Constitution to ensure that
the money we collect from hardworking and productive Americans is spent
wisely.
Mr. Chairman, let us ensure the FDA uses America's resources to help
us and not kill us.
I would simply add, Mr. Chairman, that today I have heard a lot of
discussion with regard to the elevation of the science of the efficient
extermination of human life almost to the extent of a virtue. I think
we must be very careful in our rhetoric when we talk about that
efficient extermination of human life, that we do not go to a very
troubling time in our world's history, a time when Nazi Germany carried
on the efficient extermination of human life. Where do we go from here
with that argument? Do we go to the efficient extermination of life
that cannot sustain itself, to the aged and to the infirm?
Mr. Chairman, in order that we do not start down that slippery slope
or that we do not go further down that slippery slope, I urge a yes
vote on this amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman
that as a Jewish woman and one who knows many survivors of the
Holocaust, I personally resent the comparison of this amendment to the
Holocaust and the evils of the extermination that took place during
that tragic time that we have to learn from and not make comparisons
that perhaps are very inappropriate.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I go back to the words of Jeremiah the
profit, who said that he knew me in my mother's womb, and simply say
that there are those of us that do believe that life does begin at
conception and that we are indeed involved in the extermination of
human life in this very day.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that many who may be viewing these
proceedings would be surprised to discover we are debating the
agriculture appropriations bill. It has always been one of those bills
that passes here with great support on a bipartisan basis. I regret
very much that it today has been taken over by those who are, for want
of a better term, pursuing what we call a wedge issue.
I would not be surprised that despite all the work that has been done
by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to bring a very popular and broadly supported bill to
the floor, it could well be vetoed if this language were adopted by the
House today and remain in the bill through conference.
If it were somehow to become law, I believe it would be ultimately
considered unconstitutional because it clearly flies in the face of the
current Supreme Court view of a woman's right to choose in this
country, and clearly Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land.
But I am most troubled by the fact that for the first time since the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was placed on the books, since 1962, in
fact, we are attempting to legislate what we have until now wisely left
up to a regulatory authority to decide, and that is whether a safe and
effective drug should be brought to market.
Now, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and others have said
that this is an unsafe and ineffective drug. That is to be determined
by the FDA. That is their charge. We would be, I think, in terrible
error if we got in front of that decision and attempted to legislate
it. It would be unprecedented and I think totally inappropriate.
It is a fact, however, that in France and Great Britain and Sweden,
extensive clinical trials have demonstrated that it is safe and
effective. But this FDA, known to the rest of the world as perhaps the
bottom line gold standard for drug review systems, is being more
cautious, and they should be. That is correct. It is right that they
slow down this process of bringing RU-486 to the public because, in
fact, they want to determine a number of things about it before it is
made available to the general public.
The irony is, of course, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
indicated in his colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) earlier on the
point of order, it would be possible to bring RU-486 to the market for
some other purpose. And I think it is important to point out that there
are at least publicly reported uses for RU-486 that are unrelated to
termination of pregnancy.
So under the interpretation we heard today and the one in which we
are currently debating, we could have it on the market for other
purposes and the public, should they be interested in taking it for
termination of pregnancy, could well be exposed to an unsafe and
ineffective product because the FDA, under this amendment, has not been
allowed to make that determination to their satisfaction.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we would not want any
drug, no matter what its ill-use might be, if it has a positive use to
ever be denied by the FDA. We know lots of drugs today that are
approved by the FDA that have tremendously, terrible side effects.
Thalidomide has a terrible side effect profile, but yet it has some
tremendous positive benefits.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Reclaiming my time, the point I was making
is that there are purposes for which RU-486 might be approved under the
gentleman's interpretation that would make the public vulnerable, when
it uses them to terminate a pregnancy, to the potential for the very
unsafe and ineffective purposes that the gentleman ascribes to them. So
I think the gentleman is being somewhat duplicitous when he indicates
that he wants drugs to be made available for other purposes when in
fact he may be knowingly exposing the public to problems.
I would underscore ``may'' because I think it is very likely that the
FDA would determine otherwise and bring this to the market for a
variety of purposes.
The public should have their regulatory agency, the one we all look
to as the benchmark for drugs around the world, in a position to make
this without a political decision made by this Congress. I would say to
my colleagues that if this amendment is adopted we have opened
unfortunately a new avenue to be involved in an area that we should
best leave to science, to research.
We, as politicians with a variety of causes and beliefs, should not
be getting in the way of what this agency has done very effectively
since its founding and that is to bring scientific research to bear so
that drugs can be taken when appropriate for the most safe and
effective purposes.
There is no question, in my view, that for us to break the bounds
that we have imposed on ourselves since 1962, to politicize this agency
is to take a slippery slope we do not want to go down, even under the
wedge issue arguments that we are hearing today about abortion.
I would hope that my colleagues, even those who consider themselves
to be ``pro-life'' or ``antiabortion,'' will

[[Page H5097]]

think twice about using still one more mechanism to inject this
abortion debate into the deliberations of this Congress. Vote no on the
Coburn amendment.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It is sobering that
Saint Thomas Aquinas defined life as beginning at conception. I mention
that only to remind us that this difficult issue of when life begins is
an issue on which great religious leaders of the world have differed,
and so it is an issue on which a Nation that believes in freedom, that
enshrines freedom of religion in our Constitution, must have the
courage to allow our own people individually to decide.
I am a Republican in part because I take so seriously the issue of
personal responsibility. I believe each of us has the responsibility to
make wise choices, to support themselves, to contribute to their fellow
citizens and their communities. And I believe family planning
represents personal responsibility that is indeed one's obligation as a
mature, free adult, to plan the number of children they have, the
spacing between them. And so I believe contraceptives in general are
very important to freedom in our Nation and to the health of women and
the strength of families.
The issue before us today is whether we in a free Nation will have
the knowledge to use our freedom wisely and to take personal
responsibility for our lives. We cannot pass this amendment and not do
damage to the concept of freedom and the belief in the power of
knowledge as the essential foundation for a free society.
Many drugs, including chemotherapy and anti-ulcer medications, have
the side effect of inducing abortion. Under this amendment, you could
not do research on something, even if that was not its primary goal,
because it might have the side effect of inducing abortion.
I would remind this body that we spent months talking about fetal
tissue research because people did not want to use fetal tissue for
critical research that could cure critical and terribly important
diseases in America, and the goal was not to ultimately use fetal
tissue, the goal was to learn enough about it from the research to be
able to create the artificial substances or the substitute substances
that would allow us to create, to produce the drugs en masse that we
learned were necessary from fetal tissue research. And the issue here
is to learn enough from some of the rather crude, in the sense of their
mechanism, drugs like that that is the subject of this amendment so
that we can in time develop something that you take right away that
does not interfere with, that is not an abortifacient in your
definition because it has its effect before there is even
fertilization.
But we cannot get to that point if we do not allow science to move
forward and we do not get better experience. Why should I, as an
American woman, be told or my daughters be told that they must take
contraceptive pills months and months and months, years of their life,
when I believe, if we allow the research to go forward, we can provide
something that will give them a much more direct control over whether
or not conception takes place at implantation and the development of a
fetus.
I do want to conclude my comments by saying that wherever you block
the path of science, you block the development of knowledge and you
compromise the opportunity that only a free society can give you. In
freedom, we depend on knowledge to empower us to make the right
decisions.
I trust the women of America and the men to whom they are married to
make good decisions about whether or not to use one type of
contraception over another. I do not believe that it is the
government's responsibility to tell our citizens how or what mechanism
they should use. We do not want HMOs to do that, and I do not want the
government to do that.
So I would urge defeat of this amendment because I think it cuts off
essential research.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just again reemphasize, nothing in
this amendment limits any drug whose primary purpose is not an
abortifacient. There is no limitation on any research of any other drug
if its primary purpose is not that of an abortifacient.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, that may be the
gentleman's impression now or what his intent is, but we all know how
these things work in government. Frankly, it will have such a dampening
effect on research that it will affect research on things that have a
dual purpose or that could be perceived as having a dual purpose. That
is my concern about it.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the Coburn amendment, which will prohibit the FDA from
testing, developing or approving any drug that has the chemical
inducement of abortion connected to it.
Last time I looked, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal.
However, this Congress continues to attack a woman's right to choose.
This is the 85th vote against reproductive rights since the beginning
of the 104th Congress or maybe I should say since the beginning of the
antiwoman Congress.

{time} 1400

What might surprise some people is the fact that this vote is about
much more than reproductive rights. As my colleague on the other side
of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) was
pointing out. It is about biomedical research.
One of the drugs targeted by this amendment is used to treat a number
of conditions, among them, uterine fibroids, certain breast cancers,
and endometriosis. To my gentleman friends on the other side of the
aisle, it is even used to treat conditions affecting men, like
glaucoma, arthritis, AIDS, lupus, and some types of burns.
Blocking research and development of safe and effective drugs in the
name of abortion politics is just plain wrong. My opponents called
their position on reproductive rights pro-life and their position on
this bill pro-life, but this amendment and their position is anything
but. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Science should not be
compromised by politics. It would be a dampening affect on research. I
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no''.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), an amendment that could literally
save the lives of countless children throughout the United States.
Abortion creates several risks for women, it is well-known. Also,
abortion drugs are often dispensed without a doctor's approval. Because
of the numerous possible side effects associated with abortions, these
drugs should not be administered without consultation and medical
follow-up with the doctor.
The Food and Drug Administration has an ethical duty not to approve a
drug that will be harmful to mothers taking the drug. The research on
RU-486 is insufficient in regards to long-term effects, the linkage
with breast cancer and medical complications.
I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for taking steps
to save children and to save their mothers from these life-endangering
drugs. I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is a pretty amazing debate. I was sitting over in
my office listening to it, and I could not help but think that this is
yet another assault on women.
I am a physician also. In 1963, before there was abortion reform,
before the Rowe v. Wade was decided in the Supreme Court, I was an
intern in a hospital in New York State and stood next to the bed while
two women died from back-alley abortions.

[[Page H5098]]

We have come a long way since 1963. One of those women left six
children orphaned, and the other one left eight. We said as a society,
our Supreme Court said, women have a right to choose.
Yet, this Congress, I understand, the Republican Party has a problem
with women voters in this country. It is very clear. They assault them
over and over again. As the last speaker, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) talked about, 85 times in this session this issue has
come up.
It comes up on everything. It comes up on IMF funding. We will not
fund the International Monetary Fund if somebody, somewhere, somehow is
doing anything related to women's rights to choose. Military women
cannot use their own money to take care of this problem in a military
facility when they are assigned by this government to serve overseas.
We say, if you want an abortion, I do not care what the Supreme Court
says, we the Congress say you cannot have one in a military hospital,
even if you pay with your own money. That is the kind of assault we
have.
Here today we have a new twist on it. I think the slippery slope of
where we are going is really one to consider, because when we start
standing out here and saying what is good science and what is bad
science, and we choose this drug over that drug, what will be next in
that list?
Here we have the Food and Drug Administration says that this drug is
safe. They have done the tests. They are waiting for a pharmaceutical
manufacturer to step up and say we want to produce it in this country.
That is the only thing that stands between this particular
pharmaceutical being on the counter and not.
What this bill does is put a threat out to the pharmaceutical
industry, do not step up to produce this pharmaceutical, because if you
do, you are going to get the wrath of a certain segment of this
society.
My view is that when we start to threaten people and do not want to
listen to the science, we are going down a long slippery slope. I feel
like I am in Tennessee in the middle of the Scopes trial where it is
religion versus science.
We have the FDA. We asked them to look at this, and they looked at
it; and we say, well, we do not like the conclusion you came up with,
so we will use a little technical way of preventing it ever being put
on the counter.
I heard the gentlewoman from Washington come out here and mix this
whole thing up more with the drug overall, which is in the State of
Washington in the State legislature. They evaluated this, and it is not
pro-life. They looked at the issue and said ``We will give the pharmacy
board the right to deal with that issue,'' and they do it.
Anybody who wants, they can go to a pharmacy. If they follow a
protocol and they fit the protocol under the supervision of a doctor,
they can get the drug. They do not just hand it out to anybody that
comes into the drug store. I went and called the pharmacy board in the
State of Washington to find out what goes on.
The fact is that what we are saying here is that we want women to use
whatever antiquated way we have, not to have the best that science can
produce.
One of the fascinating things about the last 3\1/2\ years around
here, the bigger part of the assault on women is that we put on welfare
reform. We said we are going to throw people off welfare. What that has
done, in at least three States there has been an increase in abortions.
The very people who say they do not want abortion buy the mechanism of
driving people off welfare and giving women no way to feed their kids;
we are then leading to more abortions.
They do not want to do it with a pill. They want to put them through
surgery. I can understand why an obstetrician might want to do that if
he was in the business of doing this. But I do not hear obstetricians
who are in support of a woman's right to choose coming to this House
and saying ``Do not give them a pill because I want to make money doing
abortions.'' What I hear is that the pharmaceutical that is there will
do it just as effectively.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the first point I would make is there are
two obstetricians in this House, and neither of us would terminate a
baby and take that life unless it depended on the life of the mother.
There is no question. We know a lot about life. We get to see it. We
get to see a lot of death. So to answer the gentleman, there are two
obstetricians in this House, and we would not take the life of the baby
any time unless there is a cause in the life of the mother at risk.
Number two, let us not confuse what this issue is about. This is
about whether the Federal Government is going to spend money to figure
out how to kill babies. That is what it is. It is not anything else.
Should we be in the business of spending Federal tax dollars to
facilitate the death of children? It is not any other than that. We can
say it is, we can skirt around all the other issues, but this is about
whether or not we are going to have an institution of this government
which is charged with protecting life spend its resources to take life.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say I am on this
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, and this issue did not
come up for discussion.
We have in our laws the provision that no Federal funding will be
made available for abortions, time and time again, both domestically
and in foreign relations and in our appropriations for foreign
countries. This is because people differ on this issue, but we mainly
prohibit any Federal funding.
In this case we would have Federal funding because of an agency's
decision and not because of a vote of this body. I am against that. I
think abortion is wrong. That is my opinion. I think abortion is wrong.
I do not think for sure that we ought to have Federal funding.
This is a way that we can avoid having this attempt for Federal
funding for abortion when it is against the women of the people of
America.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, first of all, while I am very
much in favor of this amendment, I would like to say to the physicians
who choose not to do abortions, that is their choice. But when I was a
young woman, prior to Rowe v. Wade, I did not get that choice. I was
not allowed to make that choice. Neither was my physician husband
allowed to make the choice of whether he would provide safe and legal
abortions.
I do not think we should talk so broadly about choice. It is a
woman's choice and her family's choice and her physician's choice we
are talking about.
This has been, in my view, the most antichoice Congress that I have
ever had the sadness to witness. It is also the most antiscience
amendment that I have ever witnessed. But over and above that, it is an
antiwoman amendment.
Why should American women not have the right to access to the same
level of science as European women or British women? Why is this
Congress, a few people who have certain ideas, why are they preventing
American women access to good science?
I am asking the people of this body to understand that it is time for
us to step forward, to vote ``no'' on antichoice legislation, to vote
``no'' on antiscience legislation, and above all, to vote ``no'' on
antiwoman legislation.
We are 55 percent of the population of this country. We have a right
to make those choices. We do not have to give up that right that the
Supreme Court has stood for, that we have fought for. We are not going
back to back-room abortions. We will not do that. The women of this
country will not. If there is access to good science, let American
women have that access. So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no''. Vote for
women.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment of the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). As he spoke very eloquently just
a few moments ago, this is not about a choice for an unborn baby.
The Federal Government or those within this administration, whether
it is the FDA, they have their marching

[[Page H5099]]

orders, no matter what their personal view is, from the administration
to facilitate abortion on demand under any circumstance. That is not
what the American people support. I certainly do not support that.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) spoke a few minutes ago
about how he, as a physician, would only in the case of the
endangerment of the life of the mother take an unborn baby's life. If
we recall what so many people throughout the history of this country
have said, that we here in this body, I believe, are here to protect
the vulnerable; and certainly the unborn baby in the mother's womb is
among the most vulnerable that could ever exist.
I enthusiastically support the amendment of the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and certainly urge my colleagues to do the same.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Coburn
amendment. Women in America have a right to choose. I believe it is the
goal of all of us in this body to reduce the number of abortions and to
make abortions safe, legal, and rare. It is on the subject of safe that
I would like to address my remarks.
This amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
would prohibit the expenditure by the Food and Drug Administration of
funds for testing, development or approval, including approval of
production, manufacturing or distribution, of any drug for the chemical
inducement of abortion.
The RU-486, the chemical, the product in question, is a nonsurgical
abortion, and it is one that is also medically safe.

{time} 1415

Such a ban, as the gentleman from Oklahoma is proposing, would
unconstitutionally restrict the right to choose. For some women for
whom surgical abortion poses risks or is otherwise inappropriate, the
Coburn amendment would unconstitutionally again restrict the right to
choose. For others who live far from clinics, it would preclude the
possibility of receiving RU-486 in their physician's office, thus
burdening again the right to choose.
This option is an effective and nonsurgical method of early abortion
that has been in use since 1981. The drug was approved for use in
France, Great Britain and Sweden following extensive clinical trials
that determined its effectiveness and its safety.
In September 1996, the FDA issued an approval letter for early
abortion, but the agency is waiting for more information about its
manufacturing and labeling before giving Mifepristone final approval
and allow it to be prescribed to American women outside of clinical
trials.
I know this is a very difficult issue for our colleagues to deal
with. We have deep commitments in our point of view as to whether a
woman has a right to choose, and I certainly respect my colleagues'
views on the question of abortion. But the fact is that women do have a
right to choose that option, in consultation with their family, their
doctors, their God, and we should not make that decision a more
dangerous one for them.
Again, in the interest of making abortions in our country rare, legal
but safe when necessary, I urge my colleagues to vote against the
Coburn amendment. It always interests me to see over and over again in
this body how many times we vote against scientific research. By going
forward with this, we can learn a lot about making these processes even
safer for women. As Members of Congress who represent the people of our
country, we have a responsibility to do that. For that reason, I urge
my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on the Coburn amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I would just say, to do research to take life, to do
research to take life somehow does not smell right in this body; to
spend our dollars. I agree, nobody wins in abortion.
Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's point.
As a Catholic and a mother of five children myself and one who comes
from a family that is not always sympathetic to my point of view on
this subject, I understand and respect the gentleman's beliefs. But I
will say as a Catholic that I have done some of my own research on this
and the gentleman's statement implies that he knows when life begins. I
think that is really a mystery to all of us. St. Augustine himself when
he was asked would a fetus before 3 months, would that entity go to the
judgment day and be resurrected into heaven as a person, he said, ``No,
because before 3 months, it isn't a person.'' They made him a saint. He
is a saint of the church. He has a different view from some of my
colleagues on when life begins. We do not know. It is a mystery. So I
do not know how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can
determine that this is taking a life. I do not view it that way, and I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say with all due respect to the gentleman
from Oklahoma who is offering this amendment, I respect his sincerity
and the ferver with which he approaches this. As someone who does not
support Federal funding of abortion myself, I have studied his proposal
carefully. I am opposing him for three reasons, and I ask my colleagues
to give me forbearance on this.
The first is, as ranking member of this particular committee, number
one, this issue never came before us. We have not had one hearing,
certainly not at the subcommittee level. The FDA never referenced it in
its testimony. Then when we went to the full committee, this was never
considered. There have been absolutely no hearings on this matter,
which is a very serious scientific and medical as well as moral issue,
and I think it is inappropriate to try to attach it to this agriculture
bill. We have never been faced with this on this subcommittee before.
Secondly, I really do not think that at this point in the
deliberations in this Committee of the Whole that we are going to make
the proper, objective scientific judgment. Congress has never, and I
underline, never previously legislated the approval or disapproval of
any particular drug over which the FDA has responsibility for review.
These decisions on the appropriateness of medical devices and
medications are based in the agency solely on the scientific evidence
available. None of that has been presented to any single Member here,
with perhaps the exception of the author of the amendment. I do not
know. But we certainly have not had the benefit of that.
Thirdly, let me say that though the laws of our country say that
abortion under certain circumstances is legal, certainly when the life
of the mother is at stake, if this particular pill or medication or
drug would somehow alleviate pain and suffering, there is no reason
that we should in those circumstances disallow the FDA, with as little
testimony as we have had on this and as little experience as we have
had as a subcommittee and a full committee to deal with this, which
actually should be in the authorizing committee, there is no reason
that we should for any single life in this country deny that family the
ability to have access to that medication if they would need it. But I
really do not think that that should be the debate here today.
Based on the lack of hearings in our own committee, and with respect
for the chairman of our committee with a desire to try to have decent
scientific evidence, full hearings on the matter, and finally not to
deny any family that might find this necessary as a way to alleviate
pain and suffering of the mother, I think voting for the amendment
would be ill-advised at this time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, the ranking
member of this committee was so eloquent and she has done such a fine
job on this bill.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three points. Number one, we can
deny medical scientific fact. We have heard that argument a lot.
Scientific fact: Life is present at least at 26 days. We will
recognize that

[[Page H5100]]

in this country as a consequence of the logical recognition of when
death is. Death is the absence of brain waves, death is the absence of
a heartbeat, in all 50 States, also associated with the Federal code.
We know at least life is present at 26 days. We are talking about using
medicines to take life. We can deny it. But scientific fact has already
proven that the heart is beating in a fetus at 26 days. Scientific
fact, it has already been proven that the brain waves are functioning
in a fetus at 41 days. Most women in this country have barely
recognized conception by the time those two scientific facts have been
made available.
Number two. This was offered to the committee. The committee chose
not to put it in its mark. So it is not that we did not approach the
committee, we did in good faith, attempting to put this in the
committee's mark.
The gentlewoman makes a good point that there were not hearings on
it. There do not need to be hearings on this issue in this country. We
do not need to have a hearing, because the hearing is going to go back
to the same issue, is it right to take an unborn life or not. Is it
right? I mean, that is what it will all filter down to. My opinion, and
that of a large number of this country and the majority of this body,
is it is not right to take an unborn life. Scientific evidence now
shows, without a doubt, that life is present at least at 41 days.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say for purposes of the
record, this Member believes that life begins at conception. St.
Augustine may not agree with me. The author of the amendment may not
agree with me. We each make those decisions on our own. However, I
would say to the gentleman that as far as the procedures we follow on
committee, no one came to our staff, I as ranking member, and our
legislative people, regarding this particular amendment. It is
extremely complicated. Had I known, we would have asked for special
hearings on this amendment. But I would say with all due respect to the
gentleman, we were never afforded the opportunity to consider this. We
did not know this was going to come up until just yesterday.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would yield again
to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. To the gentlewoman from Ohio, I appreciate and I am sorry
that she was not made aware of that. This was given to the committee,
majority committee staff.
Finally, I too believe that life begins at conception. But I know
what the Supreme Court said, is they do not know when life begins. But
we know life is present at 26 days. We know it. There is no doubt about
it. Science has proven that by our very definition of death in this
country. We say that you are dead when you do not have brain waves and
you do not have a heartbeat. If you are dead, then if you have those
two things, you have got to be alive. Otherwise, the definition of
death is out the window in this country.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to speak on this important issue. As an advocate for women's choice, I
must strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Coburn's amendment will
prohibit the FDA from testing, developing, or approving any drug that
induces an abortion. However, Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about
Mifepristone or abortion. It is about the FDA's ability to test,
research, and approve any drug 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. These drugs should not be singled out simply because they are
reproductive health drugs. Mifepristone, a drug which has been
available to women in Europe for 20 years was found safe and effective
for early medical abortion by the FDA in 1986. The search, however for
an appropriate American manufacturer and distributor is being stymied
by anti choice extremists whose opposition to abortion has led to a
climate of intimidation and harassment. This amendment would not only
prohibit development and testing of drugs to be used to provide women
another safe and private reproductive choice, it also would target new
contraceptive development. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this
amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
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.
Mr. COBURN. 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 482, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Tiahrt) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, 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. 4101) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________