Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

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

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for the time. I just would like to know, for the record, does the gentleman's amendment in any way change existing law regarding immigration and food stamp eligibility?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. I am trying to understand the procedure here. The gentleman is formally offering an amendment?

Ms. KAPTUR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the author of the amendment a question.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the fine gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for offering this amendment, along with his distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). I would like to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for his steadfastness in standing up for inclusion of all farmers in our country, regardless of racial background, of ethnic background, of regional background. I really want to help the gentleman. I support his amendment. As we move to conference I hope that his dogged efforts today and those of his colleagues will help us find a better way forward. I hope that the chairman will work with us as we go into conference committee because what the gentleman is asking for here is not outlandish. He is asking for small increases in the office for civil rights, for tribal extension grants, for outreach to minority farmers and for Hispanic-serving institutions, all of which, along with Native Americans, deserve more attention in this bill. It is true that there are tremendous suits against the Department of Agriculture now totaling over $1 billion. The gentleman's amendment is just infinitesimal in comparison to that. But we know the unmet need that is out there. I just want to thank the gentleman. He has my support. He has my support not just here on the floor today but as we move to conference. I thank him for standing up for every farmer in America, regardless of where they might live, what their income or their background is. I commend the gentleman.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Blumenauer- Tancredo amendment. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the limited additional funds being proposed here for the Inspector General to focus on animal fighting certainly reflects what is happening in our country. Last year, we supported the amendments to provide $800,000 for the Inspector General to focus on animal fighting cases. This is a modest expansion to that. One of the items I wanted to point out is that when the Inspector General gets funds and they are able to work on a problem, if there is criminal wrongdoing there is a financial recovery to the government of the United States. An absolute relationship between the funds we give to the Inspector General and the ability for general accounts, Treasury accounts, to have increased criminal payments because of the litigation that is done through the Inspector General's office. So even though there is a little more money being provided in the amendment, believe me, it will be recovered and returned to the Treasury because of the fantastic job that the Inspector General does. In fact, we will probably end up with more money in the general treasury as a result of this amendment. With all that is going on with animal diseases, I think it is fair to say the Department should be more vigilant with respect to animal welfare issues. And I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for bringing this forward. It is a shame that funds are not requested within the administration's request; but they, like us, are trying to deal with unrealistically small allocations that our committee has been given. We will certainly support this amendment and hope to increase the Inspector General's accounts even more as we move toward conference. So the gentleman has my support and I commend him very much.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and would call for a vote on the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I rise in support of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Weiner) amendment regarding these APHIS accounts. He is particularly focused on the Asian long-horned beetle which is devastating there in New York City and Chicago. We have many other invasive species. The chart I am holding here gives some representation of the exponential increase in this particular account which combats these destructive invasive species. We call it APHIS. That stands for Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. If we look at the beginning of the 1990s to the present, the number of invasive species coming into this country is phenomenal, largely due to uninspected and nonfumigated material, much of it live, that ends up causing billions of dollars worth of biological damage across this country. Our forest systems are threatened. City trees are threatened. Our nursery industry is threatened. The maple sugar industry is threatened. If we look in every corner of this country, we have got an invasive species problem. What we have been doing, and I support the gentleman's amendment, is to try to assist the States to remediate even when there are no known biological predators for the given problem. This is a multibillion dollar problem we are trying to take care of with old technology in the sense that we are only taking taxpayer money to try to solve this problem, rather than place the burden on those commercial importers and others through our trade agreements who are causing the problem in the first place. We cannot let all the trees in New York City be wasted nor Emerald Ash borer in Ohio and Michigan that are killing all of our ash trees. We have a serious national problem. It is absorbing more and more of the money inside of our agriculture bill. I think the gentleman's amendment is very worthy. It is really a trade-off between a few windows in an account in buildings and facilities versus live material throughout in the country and major, major ecosystems that are threatened with absolute extinction. So there is no question we have to support the gentleman's amendment. But, long term, we have asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture time and again concerning these trade agreements to find us answers that deal with environmental remediation, that places the burden on those who are responsible for the damage in the first place. Every single year when they appear before our committee, they have no answer. This Secretary went to Qatar. I said to her, Madam Secretary, deal with these environmental problems that are causing devastation across our country. It never came out in any kind of a trade discussion that occurred by this administration. So, at the least, we have to support this gentleman's amendment. But let us recognize the magnitude of this problem that is being placed on the taxpayers of every single one of our States and especially burdensome to, for example, the citizens of Florida, the citizens of Ohio and Michigan, the citizens of New York and Illinois. We can go across this country. But until we get environmental standards built into these trade agreements, we are going to continue to gouge the taxpayers of this country. It is the wrong solution. But it is the only one we have. So I want to support the gentleman's amendment. It is just too bad that the only place we have to go is the taxpayers rather than finding solution as we do in any other tort case that you would have before the courts of this country i.e., those enterprises that caused the problems in the first place should assume the burden of remediation I think the Asian long- horned beetle came from China.

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to get a clarification from the Chair. If the majority has objections based on CBO numbers, where are those numbers? They have not been provided to the minority. So we do not understand the nature of the objection.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I did not get an answer to my question. Mr. Chairman, I asked the majority whether they have the information on the CBO scoring. The minority does not have that report. If this is going to be a factor in the judgment of the Chair, we would appreciate the information.

Ms. KAPTUR. Do I take it there is no CBO scoring that the majority is able to provide us with?

Ms. KAPTUR. I wish to be heard on the point of order. I wonder if the majority could share the CBO scoring with us. We do not have a report back, or at least it has not been referred to us in general.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we just want to get clarification. We have several speakers on this side, and if we were to be allotted 15 minutes on this side, not divided with the other side, that would allow for all of our people to speak.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, would it be acceptable if we were to move to 15 minutes equally divided?

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

Ms. KAPTUR. We would agree to that.

Ms. KAPTUR. Just amendments to this amendment?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, is that just on this amendment?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we did not hear the gentleman's request.

Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.