Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, was the gentleman suggesting that there is one dime in money in the agricultural research account that goes to the family that he is talking about, that he claims receives funds? Is he saying agricultural research funds go, or is he trying to distort this argument?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I think the gentleman's purpose is to bring an interfamily fight within his party on the floor of this Congress. I am still having a little trouble understanding that fight. But we met the budget numbers our colleagues gave us in the bill we have brought to this floor. We dealt with hundreds of Members. We had all kinds of testimony. We dealt with every Member respectfully. We dealt with all kinds of interests across this country in crafting this bill. We are happy to have some attention, but it is interesting to me that there is just about a handful of Members with amendments to this bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has hundreds of amendments, and what I cannot figure out from what I have heard, and it is very confusing to me, people on his side saying he does not like the budget that his party prepared, so he is down here now trying to pick it apart and using our bill as the excuse. I do not understand. If my colleague has the votes, he should go back in his cloakroom and work out his own budget, and bring us back a repaired budget. But what he is doing is, he is making us a victim of some sort of squabble I still do not truly understand inside his party.

Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman would just be kind enough, Mr. Chairman, I have farmers in my district that raise sugar beets. I would challenge the gentleman any day to come and put in the day of work that they do. That is one heck of a dirty job, to raise beets in this country, and if there is a better beet that can get them a little bit more at processing time, I am for them.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I took to heart what the gentleman said, that we should not bring bills to the floor in an ill-considered manner. The gentleman is from the State of Indiana. As I recall, I did not receive any letters from the gentleman regarding projects in the gentleman's State or anywhere in the country relative to this bill. Did the gentleman come before our committee to testify, or send any correspondence regarding any line item in this bill, yes or no?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me just say, in reference to something the earlier speaker said, when we do not follow regular order, which means when we do not come to the subcommittee and the full committee and do not make views known, and then try to come to the floor and repair it, that is not regular order. Regular order is making Members' wishes known to the committee as we go through the regular process, because we have to deal with 435 Members. Now let me say, in reference specifically to this amendment, which is global climate change, in terms of global climate change, this is not a project that will be done in this Member's district. I know it will not be done in the chairman's district. But there is no issue more important to agriculture in this country and in the world than climate. I can remember one time walking into the office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, and he was watching television. But what was he watching? He was watching the weather as he was marking up one of the major authorizing bills for agriculture in this country. I kind of laughed, because the sound was not on. I said, Charlie, what are you really doing? He said, you know how important weather is. With changes in global climate, just a little bit of melt in any of the poles causes a change in the currents and the water. We have major research going on in terms of genetics, to try to make plants grow in deserts or where there is lack of rainfall. What about when we have major changes in climate, which happen at the edges, they certainly do, and how we get plant life to survive in those circumstances? What about the oceans? What about trying to do more in the way of production out of saltwater? There are all kinds of issues that we deal with relative to the globe and relative to climate. There is nothing more important for us to know about. Frankly, the Department of Agriculture is the department that farmers trust. They are not going to trust, with all due respect to the Environmental Protection Agency, but it has had a different view of what is in the air and a different perspective on climate. But in terms of plant life and animal life, the research depository and the intelligence is stored at the Department of Agriculture. We make it available to our farmers in the field through the modern wonders of technology, and frankly, we help the farmers of the world to the best of our ability feed the people of their own country. So I think to make any recommendation to eliminate this line item is certainly backwards looking. I would just say, and I am sorry that the gentleman left the floor, but I will bring it up again when he returns, if in fact he has a problem with special grants under the Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Service, I would recommend that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) eliminate the grants that he asked for. In fact, I will list just three of them, totaling over $691,000. We have a letter in our possession that was sent to one of the Members in our committee in which the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) asks for assistance to the State of Oklahoma, and asks for targeted line item funding through the agricultural appropriations bill. We do not have any discrimination against Oklahoma. We want to help Oklahoma. They include the following.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would reclaim my time and just say that the point is that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) put three projects in this bill. There are actually five projects he put in the bill, totalling well over $1 million. My feeling is that if he wants to eliminate $1 million from the bill, let him eliminate the projects for Oklahoma. Frankly, this Member would not eliminate projects for Oklahoma, but let me say what the projects are: Expanding wheat pasture research, $285,000; integrated production systems for horticulture crops, $180,000; preservation and processing research for fruits and vegetables, $226,000. That is just $691,000 for those three projects alone under the very account that he is now trying to cut for global climate research, which affects every farmer in this country and their future. So I would just say that I think the gentleman is maybe not quite knowledgeable enough about these accounts, because in fact, why would he add funding to a bill and to a set of accounts that he is trying to cut? Why would he not cut his own projects, rather than trying to cut a project that deals with the entire Nation's needs? My apologies to the State of Oklahoma, because they deserve a voice here. I would not have recommended that their particular projects be cut. But the fact is the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) sent a letter. THE CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has expired.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from North Carolina will further yield, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). That gets to my very point that he amends line 11, page 13, out of the special grant category. The project of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is in the special grant category. I wanted to get back to the letter that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) sent to the committee back on March 4. I am very glad that the gentleman brought it up himself here on the floor, because his letter says that Oklahoma State University met with him. They did not meet with another member of the committee. Through that meeting, the gentleman learned about the specific projects, and then I quote from the gentleman's letter, ``They have targeted to get line item funding through the Agriculture Appropriations bill this coming spring.'' This is the bill. This is the time we are talking about. The next paragraph goes through five different projects. The last paragraph the gentleman from Oklahoma says, ``They wish to receive funding,'' this is what he says to another member of the committee, ``in a line item form.'' The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) even tells them how he wants it, for each one; each one of the projects, he means. Then the gentleman says, ``And I wanted to inquire as to what support you plan to give them in regards to these projects as they progress through the Committee on Appropriations.'' I will tell my colleagues, when I receive a letter from a Member, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) did not send this particular letter to me, I would take it that when the gentleman lists which projects he wants on behalf of his university, that is a request for funds. So, therefore, if this is not a request for funds, I go back to my original proposal to the gentleman, because I understand he wants to cut funds, why not take the special grants that he has asked for, $285,000 for expanded wheat pasture, $180,000 for integrated production systems for horticulture crops, and $226,000 for preservation and processing research for fruits and vegetables, which total $691,000, and let us eliminate those first.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from North Carolina will further yield, which committee is that gentleman on?

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also wanted to make a couple of comments about the prior gentleman's remarks. No department percentagewise inside this government of the United States has been cut more than the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1993, there were 129,500 employees. Today the request of the department would fund 107,700. This is a reduction of over 21,800 positions. I would like any other department of the United States based on the amount of funds that it receives through the taxpayers to take this kind of cut. There have been over 35,000 positions cut in the U.S. Forest Service, battling forest fires. Look what has happened across this country over the last several years. In meat inspection, so vital to the health of this country, over 9,700 meat inspectors have been cut. I would say to the gentleman, we have had over a 30 percent cut in the staffing levels at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. So if you are looking for cuts, believe me, this agency is hemorrhaging. Part of the damage being caused in Oklahoma and other places in this country is because we are not paying attention to the production side of the equation inside the United States in rural America, and that is a true tragedy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a very respected member of the authorizing committee. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the esteemed gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who has spent so many hours and weeks working on this bill.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about my remaining time?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, is this a new amendment that the gentleman from Oklahoma is proposing?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Ms. KAPTUR. We do not have the amendment on this side and have not seen it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we have been provided now with copies of this amendment, so I withdraw my point of order.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry regarding the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention in regard to this amendment, which apparently has been withdrawn, it is just another example of misfeasance on the other side of the aisle trying to write legislation on the floor, not carefully thought through, never brought before the committee, account numbers even wrong on the amendment that is proposed. Now, I think the gentleman in his heart probably is trying to do what is right for the country, but again, the people that suffer from these kinds of ill-advised amendments are the people in rural America; and if the gentleman is not running for office again, that means the gentleman is really not accountable to them for his actions here today. This is just another example where we have been subjected to using our time as we watch the gentleman try to rewrite and correct this amendment on the floor. At the same time, we have had more bankruptcies today across this country. Some of the people that the gentleman really derides, that the gentleman says work in these buildings, they are the people that administer the programs that are trying to serve the farmers and the ranchers of this country, and I have great respect for them. A lot of them have given their lives over to the service of the American people. They are the finest, most educated, most dedicated employees anywhere in the world. As I have traveled the world and I have looked at agriculture in other places, and I have seen the faces of hungry people, and I have watched nations unable to take the best information available to humankind and make it available to those in the field, I understand how important these people are to America. We not only feed our own country, we feed the world. That does not happen by accident. Frankly, I do not want people to have to work in dilapidated circumstances with bad air-conditioning and bad heating systems and bad ventilation. I want the best for America. I want the best for our people to be able to serve the public, which is what we are here to do. I really think that whoever advised the gentleman on this amendment obviously was not studying the legislation very carefully, and I wish the gentleman had come before our subcommittee. We have a fine chairman. We have never had a better subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations than the Subcommittee on Agriculture. We would have been open. We would have worked with the gentleman. The gentleman never did that; the gentleman never made an appearance. I do not think he ever sent us a letter. I just want to put that on the Record. Request for Modification Offered by Mr. Coburn to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford