Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is very clear that we have a difference of philosophy and maybe religious beliefs. I happen to think that I am a person who believes in life and that I support the right to life. I also support the right-to- life decision-making being that of the woman, her God and her family, and what we are doing here is to now just intrude into the very infrastructure of government to be able to say that not even our Food and Drug Administration, which has the main responsibility of dealing with the drugs that Americans take to heal themselves, now we are suggesting that even the most benign of drugs that may ultimately cause or induce a miscarriage, we now are prohibiting women, we are prohibiting those who have ulcers, those who have breast cancer, from even getting that fair treatment by the FDA doing that right kind of testing. This interferes with the 30-day process that the Food and Drug Administration has for any new drug that, if they do not comment on it, the manufacturer can move forward. I think it is tragic when we as a government globally decide to interfere with the private rights of a woman and deny the good testing of a drug that may save lives. I believe in life. I want to save lives. This amendment should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close at this point. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for many of the reasons that were stated earlier. The first one is that I do not think that this Congress should be prejudging medical science. We have talked this afternoon about how scientific discoveries and how science proceeds, often with unintended consequences. We have talked about how many of the drugs currently being used to treat mental illness in this country were discovered by accident. They were not discovered in this country, they were discovered in France. They were discovered during operating room procedures when patients were trying to be put at ease and the process of pain remediated during operations, and, all of a sudden, for some reason, certain drugs worked. Eventually they came to this country, and even today we do not understand why they work to help patients with serious mental illness. But for some in our population, they have been able to be given great relief and help through those drugs. The same was talked about with x-rays. When the scientists invented x-rays, it was an accident. They really went in there with one objective, and, all of a sudden, they made a mistake and it turned out to be an x-ray, and sometimes science is not quite as scientific as it seems. I think that this particular Chamber should not be judging what is science and what is not science. For the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), which I would really encourage the Members to read if they are going to be voting on this, because I do not think his amendment says what he purports to do in his oral remarks here, but this amendment would absolutely set a dangerous precedent. This Congress has never legislated the approval or disapproval of any drugs. That is the job of the Food and Drug Administration. We pay for scientists. We, as taxpayers, pay to make sure that what reaches our shelves is safe; but we do not prejudge what is medically relevant. We also know that many drugs are tested at the end of use for treatment of more than one illness, disease, or condition. We do not really control that. So I would say that on the basis of science alone this amendment should be rejected. I think that the committee also on which we serve, and we are a very responsible committee, we are the first one on this floor, we are trying to clear this bill under regular order, and I do believe that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has been given sufficient time, actually a lot of time over the last several weeks, to express his points of view, which have been very well articulated. But the truth is, our subcommittee never had any hearings on this particular matter. The reason is we are the Committee on Appropriations. We do not try to tell FDA what to do. We expect the authorizing committees will deal with that. If my experience proves me right, my guess would be that if there are concerns about something that is inappropriate, that is best taken to the authorizing committees. This amendment is not going to be in the Senate bill, and it is not going to become a part of the final legislation. So I would say based on science, based on safe procedures, that this is something the FDA should be implementing, and also based on regular order, the gentleman's amendment should be defeated. I would urge my colleagues to do so.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished Member.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the committee. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the remaining time on both sides, please.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess my point is to the gentleman that scientific inquiry and the work of the FDA by its very nature probes into the unknown, and even though the gentleman says that a given drug has to state a purpose, I am saying that we do not always know, once science begins to move, all of the various applications that science might ultimately have for that substance. So I think that one of the reasons for my opposition to the amendment is I do not think we ought to prejudge science. We ought to let the Food and Drug Administration move forward, the scientists ought to move forward. Let them do what they do best. I would guess that most drugs have more than one application, and the chemicals that go into them. Even today, many drugs are given, prescription drugs in fact, that may have side effects or other results that even the FDA scientists have not anticipated as they begin. The second reason I oppose the gentleman's amendment is because I really do believe that this should be within the Food and Drug Administration. I do not think that we should be making this decision on the floor. We should leave it up to the people over at FDA to decide the procedures for drug approval and so forth, and Federal law currently provides that no Federal money can be spent for abortion. That has been on the books for many, many, many years. So I think that we should let the FDA do its job. Finally, I would say to the gentleman, with all due respect, this subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture had absolutely no testimony on this issue. The gentleman is bringing a very important issue to the floor. I personally, as just one member of that subcommittee, would have appreciated to have the FDA testify before us, many scientists, to talk about the chemistry of what the gentleman is concerned about, to try to perfect the language of what the gentleman is trying to offer here. We really have heard from no one in the public on this particular subcommittee. So I find it somewhat uncomfortable to try to accept the gentleman's amendment, when our subcommittee really had absolutely nothing, we did not spend one minute on this within the committee itself. So for those three reasons, and I want to yield time to other Members to comment, on the basis of science, on the basis of the safety by having the FDA involved, and also committee procedure, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, on many votes we share similar values, a similar point of view, and this Member certainly does not have a voting record of supporting Federal funding for abortion. I have read carefully the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a bit different from the one the gentleman offered 1 or 2 years ago, if I recall. I think that the wording of the gentleman's amendment has a worthy purpose. The problem is, I oppose the gentleman's amendment respectfully for three reasons. First of all, on the basis of science. I do not think that we can really say with certainty and the kind of broad language that the gentleman has included in his amendment that you know for certain what every drug will be used for. I do not have a Ph.D. in science myself, but certainly in the area of medical science, if I think about the decade of the brain that we are now working our way through and all of the discoveries that have been made, for example, in the area of mental illness, most of them by accident; in places like France, for example, where patients were on operating tables, and in order to alleviate pain they were using certain types of pain medications, and, all of a sudden, they discovered, my gosh, why did that work to help to diminish hallucinations and other conditions relating to mental illness? We certainly are in a period of time now where many of these medications that were by accident discovered to have application for the remediation of the symptoms of mental illness are being worked on, and medical science is at a new horizon in terms of hopefully finding answers for the millions and millions of people that suffer from those illnesses. I think similarly to some of the lab experiments that have been done, even the discovery of the X-ray itself was an accident. They did not go in there, I think it was Mr. Roentgen, was that not the name, to actually discover x-rays, but it happened. All of a sudden we have a major technology like that that has been used around the world now because of the ability of science to probe into the unknown, but then to figure out practical applications. I think the gentleman's desire to limit abortion is a very worthy objective, and I do not think anybody on this side of the aisle would disagree with the objective. The problem is that you cannot really say to medical science that you are going to know for every drug or every chemical that FDA reviews, you are going to know that it would have an end result that you are talking about.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, yes, we will on this side control the 1 hour in opposition.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment and her efforts to protect our consumers. Without question, food safety has to be a number one priority and responsibility of this committee. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has been promoting this for a number of years. Why should not foreign meat imported into this country adhere to the same rigorous standards that our livestock producers here at home must meet? Last year we know the Department, I think the gentlewoman referenced, allowed $3 billion, with a B, pounds of meat and poultry to be imported from 32 foreign countries on to our shores. This amendment simply requires USDA to enforce our food safety laws and protect our consumers. I just want to make sure that the letter from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association is entered into the Record as part of this amendment, and I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Washington, DC, May 24, 1999. Hon. Carrie P. Meek, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Meek: On behalf of the members of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), I wanted to inform you that NCBA supports the language on inspection equivalency you plan to offer to the FY 2000 House Agriculture Appropriations measure. We appreciate your staff reviewing the proposed amendment with us. NCBA strongly supports measures that work, through sound science, to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of the U.S. food supply. In addition, we are constantly engaged in trade discussions and disputes with other countries who use the ``equivalency'' issue as a barrier to U.S. beef and other livestock products. Your proposed amendment certainly would reiterate the Secretary of Agriculture's important role in making sure that any beef, other meat, or poultry products imported into the United States adhere to the same rigorous standards that America's cattlemen and women, and other livestock producers meet. Thank you for your leadership on this matter. We look forward to its successful inclusion in the Agriculture Appropriations package. Please let us know if we can be of assistance in this effort. Sincerely, Dale W. Moore, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to inform the membership this bill has been moving at record speeds today, and I want to express my personal appreciation to the majority for avoiding the kind of difficulty we faced on the floor the week before last on this bill. We have several Members that had wanted to offer amendments to the bill, and I think some of them did not anticipate it would have moved as swiftly as it has this afternoon, and I just wanted to make sure and put on the record that there may be some remaining amendments. Mr. Chairman, I see the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is rising to her feet here, and there may be some other Members who were not aware until just a few moments ago that this bill would be on the floor and moving as expeditiously as it has today. So I just wanted to reemphasize that point and give our Members an opportunity to come to the floor. We have attempted to call their offices and so forth. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment relates to a special effort for outreach for our socially disadvantaged farmers. Members might recall, last year we made an effort to try to help the Department of Agriculture to resolve former civil rights problems that existed with loan programs and programs that were there to reach many of the small- scale farmers and ranchers, those grants that go through our 1890 and 1862 land grant institutions, American Indian community colleges, Hispanic- and Latino-serving institutions, as well as all minorities involved in agriculture. I think we did a good job of it. We took the unusual step of waiving statutes of limitation to allow complaints involving racial discrimination to move forward. This amendment this year would not increase the budget but would merely allow the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer up to $7 million from the rural housing salaries and expenses account to this program. If the Secretary uses the full authority to do that, that would mean that this outreach program for socially disadvantaged farmers would be brought up to the $10 million request level by the administration for fiscal year 2000. This program is important, because it provides technical and managerial assistance to small-scale farmers and ranchers. There is a particular emphasis in the program on farmers from minority groups, but the program is not just limited to racial or ethnic minorities. It is carried out through grants to colleges and universities, including the 1890 and 1862 land grant institutions, American Indian community colleges and Hispanic- and Latino-serving institutions as well as through grants to community-based organizations throughout our country. These institutions and organizations in turn provide intensive training and management assistance to small farmers and ranchers. This assistance includes, for example, preparing individualized farm plans, helping in upgrading accounting systems, and applying for credit, aid and better understanding and taking advantage of USDA programs and services. This outreach is especially crucial now because of the crisis afflicting rural America. And it is vital to helping small and minority farmers and ranchers weather these hard times and stay on the land. I think it also adds to an important civil rights sensitivity that we need to continue pressing at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I want to compliment Secretary Glickman and his staff for being open to the efforts of this Congress to serve all of America. For these reasons, I am pleased to offer this amendment. I greatly appreciate the support of the gentleman from New Mexico for this initiative, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.