Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. 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.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia]. (Mr. BARCIA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings]. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. John].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rodriguez]. (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Boyd].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop]. (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am being silenced, just as our amendments are being silenced here.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be allowed to yield time to me or answer my questions at this point?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want the opportunity to engage with the gentleman, and I will wait until after the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] makes his statement. Then I will ask for the opportunity for the gentleman to speak to answer my questions.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just want to say something, because I have served in this House for 15 years. I say to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings], I never would have done to you what you just did to me. You said to me that you would yield me time and then you did not do it, as a representative of your committee. It made me extremely angry that you said it to me twice. It is right in that record. I am the ranking member on this committee. I have to say no to our Democrats that cannot bring amendments up because of the rule that you have filed. I have to say no to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]. I have to say no to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn]. I have to say no to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall]. I have to say no to Members who are not going to be allowed to bring their amendments to the floor. I have a responsibility to the Members on my side just like you have a responsibility to the Members on your side. And I am very angry. I am glad the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is here on the floor because I do not think you are calling the shots here. I think they are being called above your pay grade in this House by the leadership. And when I, as a ranking member, was denied the right to offer my WIC amendment and it was given to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] on your side of the aisle, he is not even on our committee, and I have the experience, I thought, well maybe I am a woman, they kind of ignored me. Then you did it to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] ranking member on the Subcommittee on Interior and now it is being done to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. So it is a pattern. I can recognize a pattern. And I am embarrassed for the other side of the aisle as a party that they will not allow us to conduct decent debate on this floor. So I stand here today being sorry for them. I have never said this, maybe three times on the floor in my 15 years have I really felt outraged, and I am sorry that I have to say this to the gentleman in public, but my feelings are hurt. I would never have done to the gentleman what he has just done to me. And it is in that Record. So I want to say to my good friend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and to my good friend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and now to myself, we are all in the same boat. I do not know whether it is the Speaker, [Mr. Gingrich], I do not know if it is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], I do not know who is doing this, but we have always brought the Agriculture bill to the floor in a bipartisan way. We have agreed. It has been usually under an open rule. We have had a good debate.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would say to the gentleman that nobody yielded to me; I refuse to yield to him, and that is the problem with the way things are operating in this House today.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding before he begins his formal remarks, because it is a little unclear to me and to many of the Members regarding the proceedings that are about to ensue. May I ask the gentleman a couple of questions to clarify how this rule that we will be debating differs from the rule under which we were operating last evening.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman point out how this is different from the open rule under which we were debating last evening?

Ms. KAPTUR. When the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] made his opening statement, Mr. Speaker, he granted me the right to ask me a few questions. When he completed his remarks, he called on other Members. I wonder if he would be willing to answer the few questions that I have at this point. Would that be appropriate?

Ms. KAPTUR. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman cover which Members will not be allowed to offer amendments under this rule?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, which means I am the lead Democrat, and to protest the action of the Committee on Rules last night in putting a tourniquet on the debate that was to have occurred on our bill. Yesterday we had that bill on the floor, and generally it comes to the floor under an open rule. I might remind the membership that agriculture is America's most important industry. It provides our most positive balance-of-trade figures, and is an exceedingly important bill to our farmers, our food processors, our people involved in the fiber industry, the forestry industry, the fuel industry. This is not an unimportant bill. Yet, because of anger for other reasons, for other reasons, because Members like the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], and myself, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], as ranking members of our respective committees were summarily blocked in prior weeks from bringing our amendments to the floor on other bills, we are now being punished by putting a tourniquet on the debate on the agriculture bill today. As ranking members, we have not only been blocked from offering the amendments, but our amendments have then been given to Members of the other party. This is outrageous. In past years, I can assure you agriculture appropriations bills moved to the floor with bipartisan support. They were not the victim of ``gag'' rules. They were not used to send messages to the minority that they better behave or be punished. So now, our agriculture bill is being forced to be debated under such limited time, that key provisions will be given short shrift, not even allowing time to explain their full meaning to the Members. For example, on the important subject of youth tobacco prevention, the time allowed for debate is 10 minutes--to be divided 5 minutes on each side. On important commodity programs on which our families' livelihood depend--sugar, peanuts, tobacco--debate will be limited to 15 minutes per side. This is ludicrous. Further, the rule retroactively denies many Members the ability to offer their amendments--for example, Representative Furse of Oregon on Animal Damage Control; Representative Wynn of Maryland on Civil Rights Enforcement; Representative Hall of Ohio on food assistance to Korea; and Representative Meehan of Massachusetts is allotted 5 minutes only to discuss the important Youth Tobacco Prevention initiative. This is not the way to legislate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. It truly is unfair.