Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim control of the time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Number one, the definition of ``for'' under the dictionary that we have in the House is with the object or purpose of. The gentleman refuses to address our issue. Our issue is that Federal dollars should not be used to enhance the taking of life. Now, his claim that he has no knowledge of the connection between breast cancer and abortion, I can take that. He probably had not read the studies. I have read every study. Having been trained in science and having read all studies associated with breast cancer and abortion, I think there is some legitimacy to it. I do not know how much there is, but I have read it at least. Number two is, for the gentleman to object that this is not a place for this debate, again it is not inappropriate, for we have an opportunity as Members of this House to put limitation amendments on appropriations bills. We may not like it, and I understand that, but it does not mean that it is inappropriate or wrong for us to do it. I also have the legislative history where my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has been very effective in doing some of these same things in the past himself. So the use of a limitation amendment on an appropriation bill is both appropriate and within the rules of the House. So again I want to say this amendment will not, and I will take my colleagues to the application of the Food and Drug Administration, one has to list a purpose or indication for a drug when one applies. If that is something other than the inducement of abortion, then they can approve anything. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) knows that. He knows what the forms say. He knows more about the Food and Drug Administration than anybody in this Congress. I understand that. But he also knows full well that this amendment will have its intended purpose, and that no drug whatsoever which has a purpose other than that will be limited in any way.

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, there is nothing in the amendment that will have such an effect. Again, we are seeing an attempt at characterizing the amendment in something other than it is. I understand why, because there is not a good factual argument against the Federal Government taking taxpayer dollars to figure out how to kill children. It is another part of the problem that we find ourselves in our society today. There is nothing in this amendment that will limit in any way what the FDA can do if a drug manufacturer comes and uses, says I want to take 486 and get an indication for it for burns and breast cancer treatment; there is nothing in this amendment that will limit them from it. All they have to do is say that is what we are going to do with it. And if they want to then let a doctor use it in an unapproved way, that is up to them. But to approve a drug for the very purpose of taking life goes against everything our country is founded on: the pursuit of life. And we are pursuing ways to take life. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that there is nothing in the legislative history or the ruling of the Chair from last year or the legal parameters that we have had that makes the gentlewoman's statement a true statement. The fact is that all drugs whose sole purpose is something other than the chemical inducement of abortion have free reign at the FDA, and I thank the gentlewoman

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, let me give the gentleman from California some reasons why we have breast cancer associated with abnormal pregnancies. When a woman is pregnant, there is a large increase of both estrogen and progesterone. The abrupt termination of those, one has turn-on factors in the breast tissue which are not modulated in a normal cycle that the body knows how to do it. That is why we also see an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have late onset pregnancies. This is not something that is new to the medical community. This is something that we suspect, and now we are starting to see data for. I understand the gentleman's opposition. I would say I would be happy to take an amendment from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that puts the word ``solely'' in there. I would happily agree to that. But I think his real objection is that we should not be doing this. But the point is I am happy to accept an amendment that will say solely for that, because, as a practicing physician, I know we sometimes get consequences that are ill-effective, and I have no intention of stopping it. The final point that I would make is the lawyers for the FDA ought to read the legislative history. This passed the House last year, and the history on it shows very much, we actually even had a ruling from the Chair which the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) had the point of order on, which said this would do that, and the Chair ruled it would not. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond. Mr. Chairman, again, what the gentlewoman just said is it is against the Federal law to use Federal dollars for abortion, but in fact when the FDA approves a drug whose sole purpose is to kill unborn children, that is spending Federal dollars to perform abortion. So I would counter that. Number two, there was no intention to come before your committee on this issue. This is a well-known issue, this is well documented. There is lots written on RU-486 and Cytotech, and through this discussion I will be happy to give you all of the references in the literature on that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this amendment that will keep a drug manufacturer or the manufacturer of RU-486 from making an application to use that drug in any way they want except the chemical inducement of abortion. That is a fact.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wonder if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) might stand and take a question? Might I inquire, and I would be happy to yield her to answer, what part of my amendment would eliminate RU-486 from being used in breast cancer research, burns or any other portion?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who is, I might say, in opposition to my amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), and I would note for the House that he is a medical doctor.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record as supporting this amendment. As a physician and as a Member of Congress from a cattle and farm State, to me it is unconscionable that we can produce cattle and butcher it in the State of Oklahoma and ship it to Kansas under great quality standards, but, at the same time, meat produced outside of this country can come anywhere in this country and not meet those same standards. I would like to say, as a Member of Congress from a cattle producing State, that this not only makes sense from a standpoint of food safety, but also is eminently fair to our cattle producers and our consumers. This will not raise the cost. What it will do is assure that the American consumer is getting what they paid for. The imported goods coming into this country ought to have to meet the same standard as the provider of goods in this country domestically produced. So I support the amendment.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control one-half of the time, 1 hour, and allow the opposition to control one-half.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this was not sent to the Committee on Appropriations. This was sent, one letter, to another Member asking his status on those projects.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to address a couple of things that the ranking member of the committee said. First of all, my first comments were that I supported the research, that I planned on withdrawing this amendment, that I thought it was good that the American people knew where we were spending the money. So I want to put some of this in so that they can get some flavor of where we are spending the money. ``Sugarbeet research. The Committee is aware of the need for additional funding to adequately support the ARS sugarbeet research program at Fort Collins, Colorado, to strengthen sugarbeet research at the ARS laboratory. The Committee directs the ARS to fund this project in FY 2000 at least at the same level as in FY 1999.'' But in fact what are the prices of sugar in this country and how much are we subsidizing sugar versus what the price is in the rest of the world? There is no question we should be directing our research to improve our productivity, and I am for that. But now we are directing research to a program where we are subsidizing and falsely charging in this country a higher price for sugar than what the market would ever have us have. So it is not about not agreeing with the research. It is about sending money into areas where we have a market that is not working today because we have overproduction, and we are spending research to enhance that overproduction more, which means a lot more money is going to come out of the subsidy programs that are available for sugar beet or sugar. So the question is, should we not have a discussion about these things? And I am sure there is a defensible position for that. I am not saying there is not, and I am saying that I support without a doubt, and I will make a unanimous consent, and I hope that it is agreed to, to withdraw this amendment. But we still have a 6.5 percent increase in agricultural research of which most is directed to specific Members' requests and programs, and we ought to talk about what that is. Do we have a coherent, to talk about what that is. Do you have a coherent, cogent policy for research that is directed fundamentally at the basic needs that we have in this country?

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.