Marcy Kaptur: “I rise to support the Obey motion to strike this language. I came to the floor with a somewhat open mind, not having…”

“I rise to support the Obey motion to strike this language. I came to the floor with a somewhat open mind, not having been active on this particular provision, but being concerned about it, as we moved through the appropriations process. I underline 'appropriations process.' I think about some of the other authorizing language on this appropriations bill and how we have arrived at that language. For example, when the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) brought up the proposal that is now incorporated in the bill that dealt with lifting agriculture from the sanctions mandate in Pakistan, there was give-and-take on the committee. Members did not agree, but ultimately, by the time we got to the floor, we were able to work out our concerns on that authorizing language on this bill. The same is true with the civil rights provisions in this bill. We technically should not have those provisions in this bill. We recognized a national need. There were differences of opinion. We had problems finding the money, shifting accounts, but we did it together on a bipartisan basis. What is troubling to me, in a bill that is very, very broadly acceptable in this Chamber, is we now have a provision that was incorporated as authorizing language dealing with a very, very important subject where thousands and thousands and thousands of livelihoods are at stake.”