[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H5663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      URGING MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST THE RULE ON THE AGRICULTURE 
                          APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  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.

                          ____________________