Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In view of the time, I think it is our intention to be respectful to the Members and their needs to catch their flights. Our motion instructs conferees to simply insist that the funding level of $76 million provided in the House-passed bill for the WIC Program, which was agreed to overwhelmingly by this body yesterday, prevailed in conference with the Senate. The Senate version of the bill includes only $58 million for the WIC Program, and in its statement of administration policy on the Senate version of the bill, the administration estimated that the number of women, infants, and children served would be reduced by 75,000 to 100,000 participants if the $58 million number prevailed. So we ask, Mr. Speaker, that we have this motion to instruct the conferees, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for his consideration. We very much want the House to instruct the conferees to be very vigilant in maintaining the language as passed here yesterday, and I would ask the membership to support the full funding level for all participants in WIC.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just wanted to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] from the authorizing committee and say we will welcome the work of his committee later this fall. In addition to that, I think WIC is one of the most audited and studied programs in the entire Government of the United States. There are currently four studies ongoing on the program which I know will enlighten the gentleman's work, including one that the Committee on the Budget is doing in conjunction with the GAO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Ms. KAPTUR. I have no additional speakers.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding this time to me, and I would say to my colleague on the committee that, yes, we do have questions about this program, the most important question being will we maintain the people on the program who are already on it in this fiscal year? And the Department of Agriculture has given us excellent numbers; they have surveyed every Governor. States like California, without these funds, will be cutting thousands of recipients. California alone needs over $26 million just to complete this fiscal year. So we know what the challenge is. In the amendment, the $38 million that is provided out of this major, major emergency appropriations bill will merely keep current beneficiaries on the program, pregnant women, low-birth weight babies and young children. That is the purpose of this. Without the amendment States will have to cut over 180,000 current beneficiaries from the program. So it is somewhat disingenuous to say that we do not believe the numbers, because in fact the U.S. Department of Agriculture in April, this April, surveyed the various States. I only have a minute and a half so I cannot yield to the gentleman, but I wanted to clarify what the prior speaker had said. I want to urge my colleagues to pass the Kaptur-Riggs-Roukema-Roemer-Quinn amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] very much for her leadership on this, not just this year but in prior years. I think her commitment is clear. We know that this prevents sick children from being admitted to hospital rooms across this country.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree that the Governor of California needs the money to maintain current participants in this program?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman obviously knows, being a member of the subcommittee, that the money for this is coming from an offset in another account, and in fact, there is no committee that has taken more cuts than the Committee on Agriculture. The gentleman from the State of Arkansas knows that. So the gentleman obviously knows that this is not new money. This is money that is being shifted from other programs, because we all have a commitment to reduce the deficit.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan Kaptur-Roukema-Riggs-Roemer-Quinn amendment. It provides enough support to maintain the current participation level of pregnant women and low birthweight children around this country. The support is paid for then by an offset to the NASA accounts, the wind tunnel accounts, which are being canceled. Keep in mind, for a few hundred dollars per participant we save, on average, $20,000 for children who would be admitted to hospital rooms across the country with anemia, with all kinds of conditions, that are a direct result of poor nutrition. This is a wise investment for America, fully paid for, fully proven. Support the bipartisan Kaptur-Roukema amendment. I thank my dear colleague, the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Marge Roukema, for working so hard on this. It is an honor to work with her.

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the WIC Program is structured in such a way to allow approximately 2 percent of total funding to be carried over from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year because in the act, in the statute, WIC cannot create any deficits. So those dollars are dollars that pay for current beneficiaries. I am sure that the gentlewoman that just spoke is unfamiliar with the program, being a new Member, but there is absolutely no way that WIC can overspend its dollars, and in addition to that, the fund for rural America is already over subscribed. We are going to have to cut water projects, sewer projects all over this country, housing projects. To throw the WIC's dollars in there makes absolutely no sense because there is not enough money to begin with.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House worked its will and rightfully defeated a flawed rule imposed by some members of the Republican leadership to restrict debate on the important women, infants and children's feeding program. Today those Members who refused to eliminate over 180,000 pregnant mothers, their low birth weight babies and children from their lifeline to nutrition will achieve a great victory. We will keep our promise to assure America's future by taking proper care of the children of today. I personally want to thank those Republicans who heard our pleas and want to do what is right for America. I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] who worked so very hard in the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] for her leadership, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], and I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for bringing a revised rule to the floor today.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is mutual. I understand what has happened here. In a way it is laughable, but in a way it is truly sad, because I remember the debates in subcommittee, I remember the debates in full committee, and I have to say that the amendment that we submitted was very different in terms of where we took the initial funding. We were trying to be somewhat flexible when we came before the committee. We feel that we were hijacked in the process, but I really feel that the name of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] should be on there.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just point out that the gentleman from California who just addressed this House never appeared before the subcommittee. The gentleman said he served on the Committee on Appropriations before. When the WIC issue was being hotly debated in the subcommittee, the gentleman never walked in the door. When we were debating this in the full committee, the gentleman never made his appearance. And when his colleague from his side of the aisle circulated the letter on WIC, he never signed the letter saying that he supported the current level, a level of funding to support current recipients. So it seems to me the gentleman truly is a Johnny-come-lately to the battle. As far as holding hearings this fall, the problem is the people being cut off today, not next fall. That is why we need the supplemental appropriation bill passed with that money in there. Waiting until next fall does not solve the current problem we are having, which goes to prove the gentleman really does not understand the program to begin with and what this fight is all about. I think to ice out one of your colleagues who has fought this hard on the issue is truly a disgrace to the institution. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and urge Members to vote no on the rule; among other reasons, because it has a self-executing procedure that denies us an opportunity to debate WIC. It is not a bipartisan effort. It does not allow us to fully consider what is being done in the bill to tap NASA funds and shift those dollars to other places. I find it amusing but sad that there are some who are trying to hold this baby close to their breast but they were nowhere to be seen when the babies were dying in subcommittee and full committee.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I would be delighted to appear before the gentleman's subcommittee. I thought it was very curious that when we were holding hearings on the WIC Program the gentleman did not appear before our committee, when 180,000 women were cut from the program by the gentleman's party.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], my distinguished colleague, for yielding me this time. I wish to say that I rise in opposition to this rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule. As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, let me point out to my colleagues that the only reason that the bill appears the way it does this morning is that the Republican majority has been embarrassed, embarrassed into including WIC funding to serve the current level of recipients. Over 180,000 women and children were going to be eliminated from this program, based on the votes taken on the record at the subcommittee level and the full committee level. I am usually not this partisan, but boy, this morning I am. They are so embarrassed at what has happened at the subcommittee level and the full committee level, they have hidden, attempted to hide their voting record and their handiwork inside this bill through a self-executing rule that will not permit us even to talk about WIC on this floor. Now, let me set the record straight as to who has been fighting for America's pregnant women and children. At the subcommittee level, not one Republican voted for WIC support at a level to serve current beneficiaries. Every single Republican voted to cut over 180,000 women and children from that program this year. Every single Democrat voted to protect pregnant women and vulnerable children in need of decent nutrition. My colleagues can look back at the voting record at the subcommittee level. Then at the full committee level of appropriations, of 34 Republicans out of a 60-member committee, only 2, only 2 voted to protect America's at-risk women and children. Only 2 out of 34. All Democrats voted to protect America's women and children. So the Republican Party, fearing a backlash, as they should, have tried to cover their tracks inside this rule, and how have they done this? They have muzzled the debate process through the self-executing rule and have moved funds from NASA accounts, if anybody here cares about NASA, into the WIC Program, but nobody has had a chance to even think about or debate at the subcommittee or full committee level where that money is supposed to come from. If it is coming from the wind tunnel projects, how is that going to affect our NASA exports, which is one area where we really do have a positive trade balance. In any case, I just wanted to set the record straight this morning and say we understand what is going on. We understand what is going on, and we understand the games they are playing, and my colleagues should be embarrassed. I just have to say I am sorry that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my friend and the chairman of the Committee on Rules, had to be strong-armed into this by the red-faced members of his own party. I am proud to be a Democrat this morning. I am proud to have been a party that fought for America's women and children at every single level. I also have to say, because I do not think she could say it for herself, I really think if anybody's name in the Republican Party should be associated with the WIC Program, it should be the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. Hers should have been the lead name because she was the one that circulated the letter on the Republican side of the aisle. I do not want to get her into trouble, but she should not be a second-stringer on this, she should be right up here with me today. It is too bad that a member of the Republican Party has to be handled that way. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question and against the rule. We should be able to debate the WIC Program on the floor of this Congress.

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

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his strong support of the WIC program, making sure that there is a funding stream for WIC that is not smoke and mirrors, one that we can depend on and one that is not just invented a few hours before a bill comes to the floor. I can say that I serve as a member on two of the subcommittees of concern here, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, dealing with the WIC funding, and the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies as well, which includes the NASA budget. We never had any kind of hearings with NASA on taking money from that account and placing it in the WIC account. It was very unclear to us yesterday when we went before the Committee on Rules. We were told, well, maybe they might make a rule in order where we could debate the funding issue. Then it turns out to be a self-executing rule, and when we asked the Committee on Rules yesterday when we testified, well, where is the money coming from, they said, well, we think it may be coming from a NASA account. I said which NASA account? Well, was it the wind tunnel account? They said, well, maybe it is section 8, maybe it is not NASA. It was very confusing up in the Committee on Rules, and then today we are presented with a self-executing rule where apparently the money is being taken from some NASA account. This was never, never talked about, as the gentleman from Georgia knows, in our Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, and I can assure the gentleman that as a member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, which includes the NASA budget, we never talked about this and had the opportunity to deal with the agency people from NASA. So I think for those of us who are fighting for the WIC Program and for certainty, not just after next fall, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] said he wants to hold hearings next fall. We have people being taken off the rolls today around the country, including in his own State of California, where the Governor has written us and said he needs an additional $27 million just in California alone.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].