Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak this evening on behalf of the people of our congressional district in Ohio. All Members like to rise when something really significant has happened, and I come from a part of America, northern Ohio, that has always fought for the betterment of the working conditions of people, across our region, across our State, across our country, and indeed across the world. This past week, and I will place the article in the Record, something truly historic has occurred, something that deserves mention in the Congressional Record of our Nation, and that is the great victory by the Farm Labor Organizing Committee of Northwest Ohio and its magnificent leader, Baldemar Velasquez, in achieving the first labor agreement on behalf of thousands and thousands of migrant workers across this continent, for the first time giving them the ability to earn a decent wage, to have decent working conditions, and to contract for their labor, to begin to get rid of the corruption that surrounds individuals who move around this continent, exploiting people and forcing them to pay bounty if they want to go back to their nation, forcing them to pay a bounty if they want a job, and then ignore them, ignore their welfare when they are working with no rights at all. Every year, 9 million people come to the United States of America, most of them illegally, to work in our fields, picking blueberries, cutting cabbage, working in meat plants, working in food processing facilities with absolutely everybody sort of closing their eyes to their welfare, everybody making money off their backs, and yet those workers having no standing. This past week, through this incredible agreement, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee has finally given the most exploited people on this continent the first platform to stand on. I could not be prouder to represent any group of people than this group. I can remember as a young college graduate coming back to my community in Ohio and wearing a button that said FLOC, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, and it had the words ``viva la causa,'' long live the cause. Indeed the cause has finally been victorious across this great continent. This contract that the workers have gotten will cover over 8,000 workers, dozens of growers, and hopefully begin to ameliorate the terrible conditions forced on workers on this continent because of NAFTA, all that came before it and the worsening conditions that came after, as millions of Mexican farmers were thrown off their land and became a mobile group of people across this continent with no place to live, no decent wages, coming into our market, trafficked by among the most despicable people that have ever lived. I am just so proud of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee. This is the first contract for guest workers in our Nation's history, in Mexico's history, and, indeed, in Latin America's history. What will happen is that workers will receive a decent wage, not terrific for working in the hot sun 12 hours a day, $8.06 an hour, for the backbreaking work they do. It has been covered in articles in the Toledo Blade which reported this front page story: ``Pact to affect 8,000 migrants.'' The pact was signed in North Carolina after a several-year boycott of the second-largest pickling company in our country called Mt. Olive Pickle. It talks about FLOC's 35 years of struggle to provide migrant workers with better working conditions and fair wages. Initially, the contracts were signed locally in our region of Ohio with companies like Campbell's Soup and Vlasic Pickle, but finally it has expanded to other parts of the country where workers will now be paid $8.06 an hour, a federally set minimum wage rate for what are called H2-A workers, the workers that do come into our country. But again I say, so many are illegally trafficked by unscrupulous labor barons they call ``coyotes.'' And workers could earn up to $12 an hour on piecework. So it provides for people who have the ability to work harder to be paid more. Undocumented workers who are under control of unscrupulous smugglers and farm labor contractors, this provides the ability, finally, to get rid of those terrible, terrible individuals. Mr. Speaker, I could not be prouder than to come to this floor this evening and congratulate Baldemar Velasquez and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee for building a better world. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from the Toledo Blade. Pact to Affect 8,000 Migrants (By Jon Chavez) In what would be its first major organizing victory outside Ohio and Michigan, the Toledo-based Farm Labor Organizing Committee today is expected to sign a three-way labor agreement in North Carolina with Mt. Olive Pickle Co. Inc., which has been the subject of a FLOC boycott since 1999. At a ceremony in Raleigh, N.C., this morning, FLOC officials said they will sign a three-year labor pact with the North Carolina Growers Association, of Vass, N.C., which represents about 1,050 farms that raise 27 different crops ranging from cucumbers to tobacco, and a related agreement with Mt. Olive. It's a marked change in business in mostly nonunion North Carolina. The contracts will cover the most union workers in the state, and FLOC will be its largest labor organization. Covered by the agreements will be nearly 8,000 migrant workers who travel from Mexico to North Carolina, numbers that will more than double FLOC's membership rolls. Baldemar Velasquez, president of FLOC, was ecstatic yesterday. ``I knew eventually they would have to do something. I just never knew the timing would be this soon,'' he told The Blade. Lynn Williams, a spokesman for Mt. Olive, said the company would not comment until the contract is signed. How individual farmers feel is unclear. They can choose to opt out of the association, which a party to the contract. But how those growers would be affected is uncertain. The agreements cover migrants who harvest crops and work with visas issued under a U.S. Department of Labor program called H-2A. The growers association helps place H-2A workers at various farms as needed. The pacts will provide the workers with specific wage rates for either hourly work or for how much is picked (depending on the crop), a formal procedure to address grievances, and third-party verification to ensure all parties are living up to the agreement. FLOC was born in the fields of northwest Ohio nearly 35 years ago as a means to provide migrant workers with better working conditions and fair wages. Initially, it reached contracts with individual growers but became a formidable force in the industry when it reached an agreement in 1986 with Campbell Soup Co. and its subsidiary, Vlasic Pickle, and a group of growers to improve wages and working conditions. The agreements in North Carolina follow a similar arrangement and similarly occurred after years of public boycotts and pressure tactics by the farm union. In FLOC's agreement with Mt. Olive Pickle, the nation's second-largest pickle firm, the Mount Olive, N.C., company endorses the separate contract between the union and growers association and it provides economic incentives for the deal to occur. Mr. Velasquez said that about 60 cucumber growers will get a 10 percent price increase for their crops they supply to Mt. Olive. That increase will be passed along in the form of wage increases for the 800 to 1,000 workers who work for those growers. Those workers are paid $8.06 an hour, a federally set minimum wage rate for H-2A workers. Under the new pact, which raises pay rates, workers could earn up to $12 an hour. ``It depends, but a good picker could earn that,'' Mr. Velasquez said. Growers do not have to participate in the contract. However, those who remain in the association will be covered by the agreement and receive the crop price increases, said Stan Eury, director of the growers association. The agreements do not prohibit farmers who are not part of the association from supplying Mt. Olive Pickle. At least a few suppliers now do not belong to the association. David Rose, a sweet-potato and tobacco farmer from Nashville, N.C., said there have been rumors for months that a farm labor contract was in the works. He declined to say how many farmers might leave the association. Still, Mr. Rose, of JB Rose Farms Inc., said the labor agreements likely will have an impact on all farmers. The key provisions of the contracts were not necessarily wages. Workers frequently complained of abuses by growers but were fearful to report them because they might be blacklisted and later denied a work visa, Mr. Velasquez said. The agreements provide a list of worker rights, including a hiring seniority system that the union will administer through a work office to be set up in Mexico. ``The pact goes from Mexico all the way to Ohio, so that will eliminate debate around blacklisting of workers,'' Mr. Velasquez said. ``They'll be union members by the time they enter the U.S.'' For the growers, there is a formal grievance system and third-party inspections to verify compliance, which should protect the farmers' image if they are treating their workers right, he said. ``The worst part of it for them is the terrible negative image that comes with these issues,'' the Toledo labor leader said. ``They don't like the publicity.'' In a statement, Mr. Eury agreed that credibility is important. ``Unfortunately the lines have been blurred between the treatment of H-2A foreign guest-workers and undocumented workers who are under control of unscrupulous smugglers and farm labor contractors,'' the statement said. ``Our industry is continually judged as a whole by the misdeeds of a few.'' The three parties began negotiating about six weeks ago at the behest of Mt. Olive, Mr. Velasquez said. The first hint became publicly known last month when FLOC said a large growers' association agreed to not meddle in the union's organizing activity. After reaching agreement on key principles, details of the pact were worked out in about a week, Mr. Velasquez said. Both Mt. Olive and the growers researched FLOC's previous labor agreements with growers for Campbell and Vlasic. ``They studied it and told us they could live with it,'' Mr. Velasquez said. ``They had also called some growers in Ohio to see how it had worked up there. The growers gave them some positive feedback.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit the following article for the Record. Comment: Ukraine-U.S. Relations Hinge on Fall Elections (By Richard Holbrooke, Jan Kalicki and Mark Brzezinski) Sept. 27.--Americans are increasingly focused on our pivotal presidential choice on Nov. 2. But many may not be aware that partway around the world, at the doorstep of an expanded Europe, the citizens of Ukraine will be making an important choice in their Oct. 31 elections for president. Ukrainians will decide whether a pro-Western reformer, Viktor Yushchenko, or a pro-Russian statist, Viktor Yanukovich, will be elected. That choice is theirs and theirs alone to make. But friends of Ukraine can certainly express concern about issues at stake. The first issue is the freedom and fairness of the election process--to ensure that the power of the incumbent president, who cannot run again, is not mobilized to suppress open debate and unfettered choice. There is reason for concern, because oligarchic interests will likely try to stack the political deck, and to protect ill-gotten gains from past and pending privatizations. The second issue affects the United States even more directly, for Ukrainians will decide whether to support those who favor integration into NATO and the European Union, or those who favor realignment with Russia and Belarus, the latter already under the sway of an unsavory dictator. After meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last month, Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma amended his government's national security doctrine to turn away from NATO and the EU. The impact was felt immediately: Instead of continuing to plan to transport Caspian oil from the Black Sea to central Europe and eventually the Baltic, Kuchma now plans to transport Russian oil to the Black Sea and further congest the environmentally sensitive Turkish Straits. Both the EU and the Turkish government have expressed deep concern about this development. But the Bush administration has been largely silent. Our European and Turkish allies recognize the stakes. Will a country of 48 million people, almost the size of Texas, have the opportunity to pursue a common destiny with its neighbors to the north and west? Or will Ukraine take a course in which new lines could be drawn across post-Cold War Europe? Will energy flows continue to be subject to control by Russian monopolies, or will they reach markets competitively and support the freedom of Ukraine and the Caspian states? Strategically located between a newly assertive Russia and an expanded NATO and EU, Ukraine can be a bridge to increased cooperation between these two realms. Or it can create new grounds for division. What remains to be seen is whether this pivotal European country will take the path of reform or the path of increased state control. This decision will impact a similar drama being played out between reformers and statists across the vast expanse of Russia itself. The most important interest here is to create durable political, economic and security ties engaging the Euro-Atlantic community with both Russia and Ukraine. Americans can make clear where we stand: with those in Ukraine supporting free and democratic choice. With our European allies, we can make clear that EU and NATO doors are open if Ukrainians choose the path of integration and reform. But this brings us back to our own elections in November. There is one candidate who believes in democratic action, rather than ideology, and favors making common cause with our allies. There is another who has failed to do so, to the great detriment of America's vital national security interests. The stakes in the United States, as in Ukraine, could not be higher.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting the following article for the Record. Significant irregularities and improprieties have been found in the on-going presidential campaign in Ukraine by an election monitoring delegation of former Members of Congress in the Kharkiv, Poltava, and Sumy oblasts. Five former U.S. Congressmen--John Conlan (R-AZ), Arlen Erdahl (R-MN), Jack Hightower (D-TX), Gregory Laughlin (R- TX), Andrew Maguire (D-NJ), and Tom Sawyer (D-OH)--traveled to Ukraine on July 25-31, 2004 to monitor presidential election campaign activities in the region. The communities visited were: Kupiansk, Merefa, and Vovchansk in the Kharkiv oblast; Chutove, Dykanka and Karlivka in the Poltava oblast; and Lebedyn, Okhtyrka and Trostianets in the Sumy oblast. These former congressmen were registered by the Central Election Commission (CEC) of Ukraine and accorded all the rights and privileges provided to foreign observers by Ukraine's law on presidential elections. Ukraine is a signatory of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and therefore welcomes international observers to help secure a free and fair election. The congressmen's election monitoring activities included meetings with representatives of the main political parties, Ukrainian government officials, Central Election Committee, and U.S. officials in Kyiv. In the regions, the congressmen met with local government officials, representatives of NGOs, political parties, the media, and citizens, who shared their views and experiences of the political process in their respective communities. key findings of the first delegation to the Kharkiv, Poltava, and Sumy oblasts Generally, in the communities visited, local officials were very cooperative and generously shared their time and opinions with the delegation. Local officials provided space for meetings and assisted in extending invitations to representatives of political parties, media, and NGOs to meet with the delegation. The delegation does note, however, that there were occasions when opposition parties were not informed of the meetings and, thus, were denied an opportunity to express their views and have their respective cases heard. In conversations with participants in the meetings attended and in conversations with ordinary Ukrainian citizens, the delegation was appalled to find that an overwhelming number do not expect the outcome of the election to be fairly decided. Those that hold this view often reply that the outcome has already been determined and that the vote count will support that determination. Independent polls verify that around 70 percent of the population believes this. That reinforces the view that every effort must be made by observers to ensure that the vote count is accurate and fair. While the delegation cannot investigate the allegations made, it does note with deep concern the repeated allegations of the systematic use of the government's administrative resources to bring pressure upon voters to support the candidate endorsed by government authorities. These reports are too numerous, consistent, and from too many different locations to be set aside; in fact they appear to the delegation to constitute a pattern of officially sanctioned political activity by government employees that is in violation of Ukraine's law on presidential elections. The delegation is very concerned about these reports and appeals to the Ukrainian government to ensure that all local government officials strictly adhere to the law. Allegations include: threats regarding loss of jobs predominate; police preventing buses and automobiles from traveling to opposition rallies; forcing government workers, teachers, and hospital workers to sign petitions for pro-government candidate, Viktor Yanukovych; forcing regional councils to pass resolutions in support of Yanukovych; teachers and agricultural workers given quotas to collect signatures for Yanukovych, under threat to lose vacation time or jobs; students pressured to distribute Yanukovych literature; even patients have been threatened with discharge from hospitals and denial of medical services if they fail to sign and pledge to vote for Yanukovych. In every community the delegation visited, they were greeted with hope and anticipation of a brighter tomorrow. They welcomed contact with the wider world and were anxious to host foreign visitors to show off their country and its potential. They deserve an opportunity to go to the polls and freely express their views and to be secure in the knowledge that all their votes are counted accurately in accordance with the law of Ukraine. The delegation is a fact-finding mission and will report its findings to Ukraine's Central Election Commission, the U.S. Government, European governments, international organizations and the public through release to the mass media. The delegation does not support any candidate or political party and is only interested in helping ensure that the presidential election is free and fair. Programming is organized by the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation (USUF), in partnership with the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress (USAFMC) and is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Foundation's second delegation traveled in August to the Cherkasy, Kyiv, and Kirovohrad oblasts and also included parliamentarians from Spain and the Netherlands. The third delegation, comprised of congressmen and a former member of the German Bundestag, traveled to the Kherson region during the week of September 19-25, 2004 to observe election campaign activities in the Kherson, Mykolayiv, and Zaporizhzhya oblasts.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is headed in the wrong direction on jobs and our economy. And one-party control in the White House, in the Congress, in the House and in the other body, the Senate, has made for a plundering of our national wealth. We have not seen the type of actions that have been going on in this Capital since the time of the 1920s in the last century: extravagant borrowing, historic debt levels, a rising gap between the rich and the poor and a sluggish job market, real softness, even with the new term being invented, ``jobless recovery.'' Now, the President says that the reason this is happening is because we are at war. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the first administration since the time of Roosevelt that has not been able to create jobs during war. In fact, if you look, after World War II, we have had job creation by every U.S. President, Democrat or Republican, until now. War always leads to job creation, but not under this President, because the fundamental economic policies are all out of whack. This week, in the business pages of the New York Times, the chief of the International Monetary Fund talked about the hazards to the international economy as well as to the U.S. economy because of our budget and fiscal policies. He says that the United States is going to have to tackle its growing indebtedness to avoid a threat to the entire world economy. He says that our deficit remaining well over 4 percent of gross domestic product for years to come is a risk not just for the United States but, indeed, for the entire world. He talks about the rising budget deficit, which this President supports at $420 billion more this year, and references the extraordinary trade imbalance, now at a half a trillion dollars, the highest in American history, and he says, these deficits could set off a sudden fall in the dollar and reverse any chance of global recovery. And others say that these conditions of a high-budget deficit and an extraordinary trade deficit will result in the quiet erosion of American dominance of the world economy. Similarly, an economist with the New York Times had an article this week, the title of which is U.S. and Trade Partners Maintain Unhealthy Long-term Relationship, and the Institute of International Economics, a center of expertise in this field, says, America's constantly rising deficits, our budget deficit and trade deficit, are a disaster in the making. No one could say it more clearly. He says, this substitute for Americans, the positive side of the equation is they get to consume more than they produce. And maybe that works for a short time. But the down side of the United States is that most of their imports are purchased on credit extended by trading partners. And that indebtedness is now over $4.4 trillion, nearly twice what it was just 4 years ago and an increasingly costly arrangement for Americans and a potentially risky one of the Nation's foreign creditors, which means that another institute has agreed with what the head of the international monetary funds as said. Experts are saying that they are alarmed that this set of arrangements could unravel abruptly with the dollar falling in value and the dollar rising and with inflation rising. The dollar falling, inflation rising, that happened during the Great Depression in the last century. The United States, this article goes on to say, is caught in a gradual, almost imperceptible deterioration brought on by the yawning deficit in trade and other international transactions and the deterioration is going to continue for a long time. No one knows how this situation will unwind, but it certainly will. The current account deficit was equal to 5.7 percent of domestic activity in the second quarter and this was a record and unusually rapid rise from the last quarter. In fact, the trade deficit has risen to a level of $477 billion, a 10-percent rise just over last year. Again, this article says the dollar in response would have to fall in value, forcing prices to rise in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I know my time has expired, but let me say that the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction. We need a fundamental change. That change can take place on November 2. Let us put adults in charge.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, shortly our country will experience an extraordinarily important Presidential election, and this evening I wish to discuss another important Presidential election that is occurring very far from the United States this year as well. That is in the nation of Ukraine, one of the nations that was spun out of the collapse of the Soviet Union. And make note of the very close presidential race ongoing in that country which is struggling its way forward. Recently in USA Today, there was a story that one of the leading candidates, Viktor Yushchenko, became ill and on September 6 was hospitalized in Austria. And the doctors there, a panel of nearly a dozen doctors, determined indeed that he had been poisoned. Prosecutors in Ukraine said in a statement they were investigating charges of attempted murder. Attempted murder of a presidential candidate in a nation whose independence is only a little over 10 years old. In an address to deputies in the parliament in that country this week, candidate Viktor Yushchenko appeared haggard, his face was red and swollen; it was partially paralyzed with one of his eyes constantly tearing up. And I wish to read this evening some of what he told his fellow deputies in that parliament in a emotional speech. He said to take a good look at him to make sure that the same thing did not happen to any of them, because the problem he was bearing was not one of cuisine, not a problem of food, as some had tried to portray his plight. And he advised his colleagues, Do not be so quick to judge. I would like to ask every one of the 450 parliament members in the chamber, have you ever seen me drunk over the past 10 to 20 years? Raise your hands if you have. And no one did. And then he pointed at all of the government-controlled media, Inter, UT1, and One Plus One, and asked them, Have you ever in your life seen me not in control of myself? Because there had been references on that television, government controlled, that his illness was caused by food poisoning or perhaps alcohol. But he said, What happened to me was not a problem of cuisine or a problem of diet, but rather as soon as you fall out of favor with the authorities of Ukraine and as soon as you start posing a tiny threat, and indeed he is tied in the polls with the current president of that country, they will throw you away like a piece of paper. He said, Friends, we are talking about the Ukrainian political kitchen where assassinations are ordered. Remember, he said, former National Bank chairman Vadym Petrovych Hetman walking around alive in this chamber in 1998. Who killed him? President Kuchma said it was a question of honor for him, that the prosecutor-general will give an answer and tell us who the killer is. Time has passed, and there is no answer. In 1991 right-wing leader and presidential candidate Vyacheslav Chornovil was in that chamber alive. We pretend we do not know who killed him with a Kamaz lorry. But in 2000 as well, campaigning journalist Heorhiy Gongadze was sitting in the balcony, as our press sits here in this Congress, writing political reports. Well, who cut his head off? We do not seem to know, Viktor Yushchenko said. Although one prosecutor said once that the killer has already been found and that his surname begins with the letter K, but he was not brave enough to give us a few more letters. Two and a half years ago, opposition parliamentarian Oleh Oleksenko was sitting in the chamber. Who poisoned him? Four weeks ago Alik Aslanov was sitting among us in that chamber. But with his last borrowed seven and a half hryvnyas, the last loan in his life, he bought a liter of petrol and burned himself. Who killed him? The alcoholic head of the district administration who represents the United Democrat Party or the arrogant head of the collective farm? Who killed him? Do not ask who is next. Every one of us will be next. And if you ask how this fate spared me, I will say, wrong dose, wrong time and my angels awake. That is what helped me return back to the living. Let us draw a couple of lessons here. Lesson number one, I would really like us to receive an answer. Who did it and who is the killer? But you know very well who the killer is. The government is the killer. And never will this prosecutor-general give an answer to who killed Gongadze, who killed Hetman, and who tried to kill many others. Let us draw a political lesson and appeal to you, my dear people's deputies. Show a little heroism today for Ukraine's sake and you will see Ukraine democratic and its people free and prosperous. Do not forget this lesson or this lesson will get you. These very compelling words are placed here, the citadel of freedom, by Viktor Yushchenko, presidential candidate in Ukraine, who is fighting, not just for his life but for the future of freedom in his nation. The article referred to is as follows: [From USA Today, Sept. 22, 2004] Ukraine Candidate Poisoning Investigated Kiev, Ukraine.--Ukrainian prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into the alleged poisoning of a leading candidate in a crucial presidential election scheduled for next month, officials said. The candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, became sick more than two weeks ago, and his campaign charged that he was poisoned by political opponents. The allegations have roiled the already heated race to replace outgoing President Leonid Kuchma. Yushchenko, a leading opposition figure who is running neck-in-neck with the ruling party's candidate, became ill Sept. 6 and was hospitalized in Austria. After he was discharged Saturday, doctors in Vienna said it was possible he had been poisoned but they could not confirm it. Prosecutors said in a statement that they were investigating charges of ``attempted murder of a statesman or a public figure.'' They offered few details and did not indicate if authorities had substantiated the poisoning charges or identified suspects. Prosecutor General Henadiy Vasiliev later told reporters ``not to make hasty conclusions'' and to wait for the results of the examination. He said authorities hadn't ruled out anything in their investigation and that his office had contacted Austrian authorities. Ukrainian lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to set up a commission to investigate the incident. Neither outgoing Kuchma nor Viktor Yanukovych, Yuchchenko's main opponent and Kuchma's hand-picked choice in the Oct. 31 presidential race, have commented publicly on the allegations. However, a number of Kuchma's allies have charged that Yushchenko had merely eaten bad sushi. In his address to deputies on Tuesday, Yushchenko accused Kuchma's administration of ``being capable of brewing political assassinations.'' He appeared haggard, with his face red, swollen, partially paralyzed and with one eye constantly tearing up. Voters in this ex-Soviet republic of 48 million have become increasingly disenchanted with Kuchma's decade in power. His administration had been marred by a series of scandals, rampant corruption and dozens of suspicious deaths of political opponents and opposition journalists. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defense Minister Yevhen Marchuk stepped down Wednesday, citing in part the June explosion at a major ordnance depot that rained rockets, shells and shrapnel over a wide area, the Interfax news agency reported. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry confirmed Marchuk ``has asked the President to be relieved from duties,'' but he gave no other details. Marchuk's resignation came after he had defended himself in parliament against allegations he illegally provided soldiers and helicopters to help fight fires in Turkey. Marchuk's resignation was seen as another sign of upheaval in the government ahead of the Oct. 31 vote.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the Bush administration's increase on our senior citizens of Part B of Medicare, which is the doctors' coverage, of an additional $139.20 per year. That means that seniors will begin paying an additional $11.60 a month, the total premium being $78.20 per month. So over the course of a year, the increase over the previous amount is 17 percent. This is on top of a 14 percent increase from last year. This is going to eat up a substantial chunk of the cost of living allowance that seniors truly depend upon, and with heating prices in the winter increasing, gasoline prices increasing, food prices increasing, this is a huge, unprecedented increase in the Medicare Part B premium. Mr. Speaker, normally this premium increase would be announced in October when the Social Security COLA increases lock in so that seniors could calculate their budget for the coming year. But the Bush administration actually announced this increase during a holiday weekend just about a month ago, hoping that no one would really take notice. The question I have is how much of this increase is actually due to the fact that the Bush administration refuses to let the government of the United States negotiate the best prices for pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs with these big companies that contribute so much to campaigns here in Washington, and, because of that, our seniors are going to have to bear the cost of an additional 17 percent increase. This is the largest increase in the history of the program. Under this administration, Medicare premiums have increased twice as much as during the Clinton presidency, which lasted 8 years. So in a short 3\1/ 2\ years, they have increased the amount twice compared to the prior 8 years. And the premium increase comes on the heels of a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, not to permit the government to negotiate the best price and not to permit our seniors to buy prescription drugs that come in here that are safe and approved by FDA from Canada and other places. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should never compromise on safety, nor should we restrict the competition that could be instrumental in holding down rising prices for our Medicare beneficiaries. So I offered an amendment that was passed in this House on the agriculture bill that would permit the FDA to allow the reimportation of drugs from Canada and overseas at lower prices. When our bill was sent over to the Senate, the other body, they struck that provision out. So I would hope that Senator Kerry would go back over to the Senate and hold a press conference and merely tell the Republicans over there to put my amendment back in, because it would do what the Republican prescription drug bill forbids doing, and that is allowing the same drugs that are sold here that exist in Canada and other places to be brought into this country so our seniors do not have to pay these exorbitant prices. And with these rising medicare premiums, it is really something to think about. The Republicans not only do not permit the reimportation of drugs, they lock the hands of the Federal Government to negotiate the best price. And who ends up paying the burden of the increase? Our senior citizens, and they have just gotten the bill, and, as I said, over the next year, they are going to be paying an additional $139.20 on the doctor's portion, the Medicare Part B premium. That is simply wrong, when the wealthiest people in this country, those earning over $1 million, have gotten over $100,000 a year in additional tax cuts from the Bush administration and so many people in our country have absolutely no health insurance at all. And our seniors are having to choose in the wintertime between food and medicine and heating the places in which they live. So I wanted to say a word about that this evening and also to place in the Record an article from the New York Times today about the tragic, tragic beheading of Eugene Armstrong from Hillsdale, Michigan. I want to draw to the attention of the American people the fact that there is an additional hostage being held, Mr. Jack Hensley of Marietta, Georgia. These men were contractors. They were not under the employ of our U.S. military, and I think that the jagged line between civilian and military inside of Iraq is something this administration has done. There are over 25,000 contractors in Iraq right now, and when they get in trouble, nobody helps them. In fact, Mr. Hensley's brother said that over the last few days, few weeks, those that were guarding these gentlemen disappeared; they left. They were fearful of their own welfare, yet these Americans remain there. In the case of Mr. Hensley, he was in touch with his wife, saying that he wanted financially to remain there because he is laid off. He was a worker from our country, laid off, and she had been urging him to come back home because the family had become increasingly concerned that their guards were leaving. Now, what kind of a military operation is it where we have 25,000 contractors whose lives are at risk, yet they may be earning more money than our regular military? But the lines are blurred, and one really cannot tell who has responsibility. Here we have another situation of a patriotic American who has lost his life so tragically over in Iraq simply because this administration cannot get it right, and they cannot conduct a military operation where people's lives are protected in theater to the greatest extent possible. We had the armored Humvees with no armor. We have Guard and Reserve forces strung out, without the kind of backup they need, tired, in the field. We are short two divisions in the U.S. military, and now we have civilians really performing functions that the regular military should do. These gentlemen were doing construction which is normally done by the Army Corps of Engineers, who have backup. In this case, we have Americans whose body guards end up leaving, and they are cold in the field. They have nobody to help them. What kind of a system, what kind of a military operation is this administration conducting in the nation of Iraq? I want to place these additional articles from the New York Times in the Record, along with a chart showing the increasing number of hostages being taken in Iraq over the last several months, and it is on the increase. Grief and an Evening Vigil in a Michigan Small Town (By Danny Hakim) Hillsdale, MI, Sept. 20.--Scores of townspeople gathered at an impromptu candlelight vigil in the early evening here after hearing that a Westerner identified as Eugene Armstrong had been executed in Iraq. Mr. Armstrong grew up in this town of about 8,000 people in southern Michigan, and though he left more than a dozen years ago to travel the world, his brothers and cousins remain here. ``We're just devastated.'' said Cyndi Armstrong, a cousin by marriage who attended the vigil on behalf of the family. ``I don't know what else to say about how we feel.'' Mr. Armstrong, a 53-year-old construction worker known as Jack, lived with his wife in Thailand. Cyndi Armstrong said F.B.I. officials first notified members of the Armstrong family last week that he and two other Western workers had been kidnapped in Iraq. Among those notified, she said, was Mr. Armstrong's mother, who lives in Germany. Few in the crowd here knew Mr. Armstrong well because he left Hillsdale long ago. His brothers chose not to attend the vigil. ``His brothers are broken up about it,'' said a cousin of Jack Armstrong, Pat Armstrong, who served as a marine in the Middle East during the first Persian Gulf war and who said he was not happy about how the latest Iraq war had deteriorated. ``I think we should steamroll them, either that or leave'' Pat Armstrong said. ``Eliminate the problem or leave instead of not trying to upset too many people.'' The vigil took place in the early evening while it was still light in front of the Hillsdale County Courthouse on a town square framed by light poles bearing hanging planters with purple flowers. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, candles were wedged into plastic coffee cup lids and passed through the crowd, and a local pastor, Randy Branson, was asked to say a few words. ``We know the price of freedom is being paid all across the globe,'' Mr. Branson said. ``Today we pray for freedom and the two men who are still being held.'' Cyndi Armstrong said Jack Armstrong loved to travel and had spent time in Germany before moving to Thailand. ``He was a great guy and he loved his country,'' she said, twisting an American flag in her hands. ``He liked to travel; he liked to read books. I didn't know him personally very well, but he was a great guy, and he will be missed very much.'' Richard Buehrle, 46, a cook who knows one of Mr. Armstrong's brothers, said: ``I heard about it at 2:30 this afternoon. I was kind of shocked, but it didn't really surprise me. Once they're captured over there, it's touch and go.'' Mrs. Armstrong said that only two weeks ago her own daughter enlisted in the Army. She did not want to talk about her personal feelings on the war, Ms. Armstrong said, though she supported her daughter's decision. Still, she said, it was hard to comprehend what had happened to Mr. Armstrong. ``I don't understand,'' she said, ``Jack was there to help them, not to hurt them.'' Jack Hensley of Marietta, Ga., is the remaining American hostage from the three construction workers who were taken from their house in Baghdad. The third is a Briton. Earlier Monday, Mr. Hensley's relatives spoke to reporters about his kidnapping. His brother, Ty Hensley, told NBC News that he and his brother had been regular e-mail correspondents before the kidnapping. Ty Hensley said his brother had become increasingly concerned in the week and a half before he and his colleagues were abducted. Their guards were leaving one by one because of death threats, Jack Hensley had written, and he believed the three Westerners were being watched. Ty Hensley said that his brother had gone to Iraq when he could not find construction work at home and that leaving early would have been a financial blow. But he said Jack's wife, Patty, had tried to persuade him to come home anyway. ``I'm sure that he had signed a year contract,'' Ty Hensley said of his brother. ``It was important that he make it a year for him financially, but she began talking to him in very strong capacity to come back over the last week and a half. And she told him it does not matter financially, to come home. ``I talked to Jack every other day through e-mail,'' Mr. Hensley continued. ``And the type of work that he is doing, again, is to work with the Iraqi people in helping develop a water system for the Iraqi people. He's helped work on a school, rebuild a museum and also housing for the Iraqi people.'' hostages in iraq In addition to two Americans, Nicholas Berg and Eugene Armstrong, at least 27 people from 9 different countries are believed to have been killed in captivity this year, according to information from reporters for The New York Times and news agencies. At least 22 others are still being held hostage, but at least 81 have been released or rescued.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want this evening to talk about two national records. Unfortunately, they are records we wish had not happened. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will place in the Record a story from the New York Times today. [From the New York Times, Sept. 7, 2004] Bush Unlikely To Fulfill Vow on Deficit, Budget Office Projects (By Edmund L. Andrews) Washington, Sept. 7--Almost regardless of what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush is very unlikely to fulfill his promise of reducing the federal budget deficit by half within five years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said today. In the last independent assessment of Mr. Bush's fiscal legacy before the elections, the Congressional agency said that if there were no change to existing law, the federal deficit would decline only modestly from a record of $422 billion in 2004 to about $312 billion in 2009. If Mr. Bush persuades Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, he will fall even farther short of his promise. The federal deficit could reach nearly $500 billion in 2009 and the federal debt could swell by $4.8 trillion over the next decade. The new estimate is the first time that the Congressional agency has projected that President Bush will not be able to fulfill his promise, made last February, to cut the deficit by half. Budget projections, by Congress as well as the administration, have been notoriously wrong in the past-- failing to anticipate a flood of tax revenue during the last 1990's and then badly underestimating a plunge in revenue after the stock market collapsed in 2000. But the new report is sobering because it arrives at similar conclusions even when analysts made extremely optimistic assumptions about war costs in Iraq and robust economic growth. ``The message is that you cannot grow your way out of this,'' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former chief economist on President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. If anything, Congressional analysts are more optimistic about economic growth, which usually leads to higher tax revenue, than Wall Street analysts or the White House. The Congressional report also estimated the budget outlook with three different assumptions about the course of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the unlikely possibility that no more money would be needed after next year. Stripping out all war costs for the two countries after next year, the Congressional analysts said the federal government would save $536 billion over the next five years. But making Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent, one of the president's top priorities, would cost $549 billion through 2009 and $2.2 trillion through 2014. Averting a massive increase in the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax that was originally designed to keep people from taking too much advantage of loopholes, would cost another $150 billion over the next five years and more than $400 billion over ten years. Democrats said the new report showed Mr. Bush's tax cuts and spending policies had been reckless in transforming a record budget surplus to a record budget deficit, just a few years before the nation's retiring baby boomers start to drive up Social Security and Medicare entitlement costs by tens of billions of dollars a year. ``When the Bush administration took office in 2001, C.B.O. projected a $397 billion surplus for 2004,'' said Representative John W. Spratt of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee. ``Under the fiscal policies of this administration, the bottom line of the budget has worsened by $819 billion in 2004 alone.'' Republicans quickly countered by saying that the federal deficit this year will be smaller, and tax revenue will be higher, than either the administration or the Congressional Budget Office predicted in January and February. ``This report underscores that our policies are working to create a stronger economy, more jobs and a lower deficit,'' said Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa, the chairman of the House Budget Committee. Mr. Speaker, the headline reads: ``Bush Unlikely to Fulfill Vow on Deficit, Budget Office Projects.'' The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has said regardless of what happens in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush is very unlikely to fulfill his promise of reducing our Federal deficit by half within 5 years, which is what had been promised. In fact, the fiscal legacy of this administration is simply horrendous. By the end of this decade it is anticipated that the Federal debt could swell by nearly an additional $5 trillion. President Bush will not keep his promise made last February right here to cut the deficit by half. In fact, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is director of the Congressional Budget Office and former chief economist on the President's Council of Economic Advisors, has said the message is you cannot grow your way out of this. The policies of this administration, the fiscal policies, are truly reckless. And I think what is of deep concern to me and to our constituents in Ohio is that when you rack up a deficit of this proportion where you are borrowing against Social Security trust funds and borrowing from foreign countries to float this debt, you leave the trust fund in jeopardy and you end up giving your independence over to those who are financing you. And who are those holders of U.S. dollar reserves? Who are the holders of 42 percent of the bonds and securities that we have to pay off? China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, many other Middle Eastern countries. Our tax revenues then have to go to pay interest, 42 percent of this debt now being owned by foreign interests. This is a story which is an unfortunate development that we need to reverse this year and next year and the following year by electing people to the Presidency and to this Congress who are responsible with the taxpayers' dollars. The second record I wish to place in the Record this evening is the death toll, just announced for U.S. troops in Iraq which passed 1,000 today, a milestone marking the continuing high cost of the war 18 months after President Bush declared an end to major combat and more than 2 months since the nominal return of sovereignty to Iraq. This is truly a tragedy. The total today of those killed reached 1,001, including 756 combat deaths. According to casualties.org, a Web site that tallies U.S. military casualties in Iraq, mainly from U.S. military news releases, including combat and noncombat causes, 855 U.S. troops have died since May 1 of last year, and 140 have died since the return of sovereignty on June 28. A total of 6,916 were wounded as of the end of August, and this past August was the most cruel of all months of this war. Our soldiers were being attacked about 2,000 times in the month of August, an average of 67 times daily, which is double the rate of attack in July when forces were attacked about 1,000 times or an average of 37 times daily. I will place this article from Knight Ridder news in the Record at this point. [From Knight Ridder, Sept. 7, 2004] U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Passes 1,000 (By Dogen Hannah) Baghdad, Iraq--(KRT).--The death toll for U.S. troops in Iraq passed 1,000 on Tuesday, a milestone marking the continuing high cost of the war 16 months after President Bush declared an end to major combat and more than two months since the nominal return of sovereignty to Iraq. The total, which reached 1,001, included 756 combat deaths, according to icasualties.org, a Web site that tallies U.S. military casualties in Iraq mainly from U.S. military news releases. Including combat and noncombat causes, 855 U.S. troops have died since May 1 last year, and 140 have died since the return of sovereignty on June 28. The daily casualty toll has been slowly rising since major combat operations ended--it now averages more than two deaths each day. April was the deadliest month of the war, with 135 U.S. soldiers losing their lives during a broad uprising in central and southern Iraq. Fifty-four U.S. troops died in July, 66 in August, and 23 so far in September. A total of 6,916 were wounded as of the end of August, of which 3,076 returned to duty within 72 hours. Pitched battles such as last month's three-week showdown with a militia in Najaf, during which seven Marines and two soldiers died, have grabbed headlines. But months of attacks on or by U.S. forces elsewhere have added to the toll, even as fledgling Iraqi forces shoulder more of the burden of quelling the tenacious insurgency. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan: ``We remember, honor and mourn the loss of all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.'' Army Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the rising death toll should be kept in perspective. Each death is regrettable, he said, but the overall toll is relatively small compared with how long U.S. forces have been in Iraq and how many service members have served in the country. ``I'm not sure it is a large number when you look at it in the big scheme of things,'' Boylan said. ``The thing that concerns me is people equating success or failure with the number. The first casualty to the last casualty, whenever that will be, is just as important and shouldn't be pegged to numbers.'' The latest deaths include four soldiers killed Tuesday in Baghdad and a soldier who died Tuesday from injuries received from a roadside bomb attack Monday on a convoy in Baghdad. On Monday, the deadliest day for U.S. forces in four months, seven Marines were killed in a massive car bombing on the outskirts of Fallujah, a notorious hotspot of anti-U.S. sentiment about 40 miles west of Baghdad. Three soldiers also were killed in Baghdad and elsewhere. The approximately 140,000 U.S. service members in Iraq are deployed across a vast region stretching from Iraq's northern border with Turkey, Syria and Iran, through the country's middle and into its southern provinces. The rest of southern Iraq is the responsibility of coalition forces led by Britain and Poland. The coalition's mission is to support the fledgling interim Iraqi government's efforts to prepare the country for nationwide parliamentary elections by Jan. 31, including establishing law and order. Boylan said U.S. military leaders have acknowledged that the insurgency is making their job difficult. ``It may not happen as fast as everybody would like,'' Boylan said. ``It's hard work, especially when there are groups of people who don't want you in their area, for whatever reason.'' Multinational soldiers were attacked about 2,000 times in August, or an average of 67 times daily, a record since the April 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, a military spokesman said this week. In July, the coalition was attacked about 1,000 times, or an average of 37 times daily. Mortar rounds rain on military bases. Improvised explosive devices and car bombs blow apart military convoys. Gunmen armed with assault rifles, sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenades prey on Marines and soldiers patrolling in armored vehicles or on foot. ``It kind of runs the whole gamut,'' Boylan said of the perils facing U.S. forces. ``There's still an active threat. We have to guard against that every day.'' Soldiers such as Army Staff Sgt. Mathew Barker, whose 1st Cavalry company is stationed in an Iraqi National Guard building in northern Baghdad barricaded behind razor wire and earthen barriers, remain alert to the threats but try not to let the danger impede their mission. ``If you spend every waking moment worrying about what's going to happen, it isn't going to do you any good,'' Barker said. ``Unfortunately, due to the nature of the operation-- guerrilla-style tactics--you're going to have casualties. But we have a mission to accomplish.'' The number of organized, ``full-time'' insurgents is hard to quantify but is believed to be between 4,000 and 6,000, Boylan said. Also, there are an unknown number of individuals occasionally participating in insurgent activities, sometimes for money, he said. Other reported estimates, including from U.S. military sources speaking on condition of anonymity, have put the insurgency's size as high as 20,000. Much of the danger to U.S. forces continues to be within, and emanate from, the so-called Sunni Triangle. The region north and west of Baghdad and bounded by the predominantly Sunni Muslim cities of Tikrit, Ramadi and Baquouba is an insurgent stronghold. So hostile are certain areas that the military has designated some cities--including Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra in the Sunni Triangle and the southern cities of Kufa and Latifiya--``no-go zones.'' Yet, Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz said this week that U.S. forces might seek to gain control of Fallujah before next year's parliamentary election. Such a move could add significantly to the number of U.S. casualties. Barker, the 1st Cavalry soldier in Baghdad, looks on the casualty count with a certain degree of stoicism. ``We're Army. This is our job. This is what we signed up to do,'' he said. Yet he and his fellow soldiers also are keenly aware of the mounting death toll. Reading the Army's newspaper, Stars and Stripes, they can't ignore the rising number and the names of their fallen comrades-in-arms. ``Yes, it's a low figure compared to how many people have been here,'' Barker said. ``But one death is more than enough.'' Later this month I will begin a Special Order on the anniversary of September 11 that addresses the root causes of terrorism and where the rising antagonism against the United States and the West emanates from. For until we address the root causes of the hate, we cannot possibly contain the rising insurgency that cuts across borders, Nations and cultures, and our soldiers are paying the largest price for this. Tonight we wish to thank those men and women serving our Nation through the military, whose mission is extraordinarily difficult and whose patriotism is at the highest levels, and they deserve our highest esteem and appreciation.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Moroccan so- called free trade agreement and ask the question, why has the United States as a result of these free trade agreements over the last 20 years amassed the largest trade deficit in the United States history? They have told us when NAFTA was passed we would have a trade balance. We would in fact have hundreds of thousands of new jobs in this country. What have we got? We have got the largest trade deficit with Mexico we have ever had, the largest trade deficit with Canada we have ever had, and an outwash of jobs from the United States to Mexico, over 900,000 jobs and counting, nearly a million jobs. NAFTA did not work. Then they said, well, let us sign the China Free Trade Agreement. Boy, that will really be great. We will bring democracy to China. What have we got? We have got the largest growing trade deficit in the history of the United States with China. Every day companies are closing in this country, moving more production to China where wages are what? Ten cents an hour, 20 cents an hour. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) asked the opposition here, what is the minimum wage in Morocco? Nobody stood up. Do you know what it is? Eighty cents, 80 cents an hour in Morocco. What makes you think if we pass another NAFTA-like trade agreement, this time with Morocco, are we going to make it any better? This is no different than what we have had. In fact, it is more of the same and even worse. Our trade balance with Morocco is going down. Now, I think this agreement with Morocco has nothing to do with trade. It has everything to do with the Sahara and with oil relationships along the western side, and that is a whole other story not for this debate. But why would we want to sign a free trade agreement with a kingdom? Why would we want to empower a monarchy which this will do? You cannot have free trade with a country that is not free. Look at Saudi Arabia, where the majority of terrorists came from. That is a kingdom. Why would we want to empower those who hold assets in undemocratic countries? That is exactly what this agreement will do with Morocco. This agreement is worse than NAFTA. NAFTA's labor and environmental provisions are a joke anyway. They are just side agreements with no teeth. This agreement has nothing, let me repeat, this has nothing to do with labor or environment. It does not have anything like the Jordanian trade agreement which made a step toward labor and the environment. Further, this agreement blocks the reimportation of prescription drugs as the Australian agreement did. This agreement provides for the privatization of public services, more outsourcing of our service jobs in this country. There are no adjustment provisions in this agreement for workers who lose their jobs. In fact, in the old NAFTA agreement, they now do not even want to count how many American workers are losing jobs in this country so we can provide them with transitional assistance here at home. This agreement has no adjustment provisions. One of the interesting provisions in this bill deals with Chapter 11. It guarantees that if investors get in trouble in Morocco--such as, what if terrorists do some things over there we do not like--this agreement protects their private risk through government. Even our own constitution does not do that on investment. Investors get a good deal in this agreement, workers do not. Let me address one of the other unusual aspects of this agreement. It changes the wording of the provisions that deal with agriculture and food safety from being ``equal to'' to what is called ``equivalency''. Who is going to define equivalency on food safety and how it is different from ``equal to''? Or who is going to define equivalency on prescription drugs? What it does is it puts us on a downward path compared to the high standards we have set in this country for our own food and drug safety. This is a bad deal. It is a bad deal economically. It is a bad deal politically. In view of our standing in the Muslim and Arab world, this is a bad deal. It does not promote democracy. I encourage my colleagues in this body to vote no on this NAFTA-like expansion that now aims to include Morocco.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in special tribute to a beloved citizen of Ohio, Dr. Arthur Naparstek, a brilliant scholar, humanitarian, and community-builder. Dr. Naparstek dedicated his life to raising a beautiful family, teaching the leaders of this new generation, strengthening the communities in which he lived along with communities across our country and world, and giving voice to the most needy people in neighborhoods across our nation. To his beloved wife Belleruth, an amazing woman, to his precious children--Keila, Aaron, and Abe--our state and people express very deepest sympathy. We owe Art a lasting debt of gratitude for the exceptional manner in which he lived his life. I first met Art and Belleruth during the 1970's when Dr. Naparstek worked with Msgr. Geno Baroni as the top policy analyst for the National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs in Washington, D.C. This organization provided hope as well as technical assistance and analysis across urban America in some of the most forgotten, ethnically and racially diverse places in our nation. Through the Center, Dr. Naparstek embraced the nation during the tumultuous modern Civil Rights era and helped move her forward. Dr. Naparstek began his professional career in Gary, Indiana working as an advisor to Mayor Richard Hatcher, the first African American mayor of that city. Art was always looking for ways to understand the dynamic of urban America, and to build bridges between people of varying heritage. During the Civil Rights era, I think it is fair to say, Dr. Naparstek became one of the leading intellects that probed the nature of urban unrest, what to do about it, and how to rebuild America's cities, neighborhood by neighborhood. During the Administration of President Jimmy Carter, it was Dr. Naparstek who wrote the authorizing legislation for the National Commission on Neighborhoods, creating a national effort to document, understand, and share what was being accomplished across our nation to build interracial and interethnic understanding and to revitalize the back streets of our nation. Dr. Naparstek looked at poverty head on. He never flinched. His probing mind and gregarious nature lent an optimistic tone to every encounter. His pathbreaking work helped spearhead national legislation that followed in so many critical areas of American life--addressing the redlining of poor communities through passage of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the National Commission on Neighborhoods, and even welfare reform and culturally sensitive treatment for the mentally ill and the forgotten. His scope was amazing. As professor and later Dean of the Case Western Reserve University School of Applied Social Sciences, he took his national legacy from works such as People, Building Neighborhoods and put it to work teaching a diverse student body. During the last quarter of his life, his efforts were applied to the improvement of Cleveland's needy communities, as he had done in so many other locations. During the 1990's, he served as director for the Cleveland Foundation's Commission on Poverty. He always applied knowledge to better the human condition. His rare dedication to the underprivileged became a lifelong mission. Born in New York City, the son of Polish immigrants, his career spanned the nation. He graduated with a master's degree in social work from New York University and a doctorate from Brandeis University Florence Heller School of Advanced Studies in social Welfare Administration. One of the recent conversations I held with Art involved how to begin to build toward peace in the war ravaged Israeli-Palestinian situation. He was already deeply engaged in community development planning in that part of the world. I truly regret that we will not have his firm hand guiding us as we carry on his great vision for a better life for all people. He truly appreciated the valued variants of a common humanity. May his family find peace in the knowledge we are all better for his generous life, for his probing mind, and for his good heart. May he rest in peace. I might add, though, he would not expect us to rest at all. So, let us carry his good works forward. Shalom.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the eloquent gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time and thank him for his great work on this and so many other issues, including humanitarian concerns around our globe. Also to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), who is with us here tonight, for moving this legislation, and to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who has been such a faithful leader as well. It is a joy to be with them. Mr. Speaker, I will share a story about the idea that anchors this program and how it originally started. In February of 2000, I had the pleasure of visiting with Senator George McGovern while he served as U.S. Ambassador to the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. At that time he shared with me an editorial that he had written that he was hoping would get published in the Washington Post at the end of that month, and it was. Referring to our own school lunch program here in our country, he asked a simple but provocative question, this man of the world and a decorated fighter pilot from World War II. He said, ``Why not provide a similar modest meal every day for every needy child in the world?'' He was thinking big, as he always thought big, and he knew that hunger and poverty was at the root of desperation, that it is at the root of what makes young people susceptible to the siren cry of all that is horrible, including terrorism. And he knew this before 9-11 because he had worked on it throughout his career, from his days as director of the Food for Peace Program through his days in the Senate and to this very moment as one of the world's most eloquent proponents on behalf of people who ask only for a fair chance at a decent life. We came back to Washington, and when Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman was Secretary and Under Secretary for Farm and International Agricultural Programs was Gus Schumacher, we were able to move legislation through the administration and this House as part of the fiscal 2001 appropriation bill to support the beginnings of this program. Later that summer, President Clinton announced the creation of the program, encouraging other nations to join with us; and this all culminated in the McGovern-Dole Global Food Program, established as one of the greatest accomplishments of the 2002 Farm bill. We started with $300 million, but unfortunately that declined every year, bottoming out in the current fiscal year of $56 million. The bill that we had on the floor yesterday raised it to a level of $75 million but serving only a fraction of the need that Senator McGovern had originally imagined; that well over $1 billion, we spend all of that on weapons, but here is food. Just imagine if we could put food in schools that would counter the madrassas in some of the most troubled parts of the world, what a difference we could make. So I am pleased to join with my colleagues tonight to commend the gentlemen for bringing this wonderful bill to the floor to recognize the McGovern-Dole Global Food Program and to provide the kind of funding and support for it that could affect the lives of literally millions and millions of the young people of the Earth who will be our leaders of the future. So as Senator McGovern said in his original editorial, there is no more useful task in the modern world than feeding the children on whom the future depends, and it is the right thing to do. I include the following material for the Record: [From the Washington Post Web site, Feb. 27, 2000] Too Many Children Are Hungry. Time for Lunch (By George McGovern) Rome.--On a recent fact-finding trip through Africa that took me to some of the most painfully destitute areas of the planet, I visited villages where conditions were heartbreaking: overcrowded shacks, no water safe to drink, no medical care, primitive agriculture, emaciated women and children. What touched my soul most deeply was one village school. Hungry youngsters yawned or stared vacantly, seemingly unable to concentrate on anything other than their empty stomachs. During recess, there was no childish laughter, no running or playing--only the same lethargy and weariness that pervaded the classroom. The saddest part of that scene was its terrible familiarity. In the 40 years that I have observed food assistance programs, I have seen similar poverty in Asia and Latin America. Conditions are nearly as bad in parts of Russia and the Balkans. There are now an estimated 790 million chronically hungry people in the world, of whom 300 million are school-age or younger. Most of them live in Africa and Asia. We in the United States can do something about it. We can emulate one of the most beneficial programs ever launched on behalf of children--the U.S. school lunch program. For the past 22 years--through legislation I cosponsored with former senator Robert Dole--America has provided a nutritious meal to almost any student who can't afford one; currently, about 27 million children are fed every day. By any reasonable criteria, this program has been a smashing success. It attracts children to school and keeps them there under conditions in which they are able to learn and grow. Why not provide a similar modest meal every day for every needy child in the world? Could not such a program of health, healing and hope be the centerpiece of the current U.N. commitment to cut world hunger in half by the year 2015? The U.N. World Food Program already has launched some efforts in this direction. After considerable discussion with some of the world's experts in nutrition and food assistance, I have concluded that it would be both practical and right for the United States, within the U.N. framework, to take the lead in organizing a worldwide school lunch program. There is precedent for success in this approach. In 1961, shortly after President John F. Kennedy named me the first director of U.S. Food for Peace, I received a telephone call from a dean at the University of Georgia. He told me that in his judgment, the federal school lunch program had done more to advance the development of the South than any other federal program. He pointed out that malnourished children seldom make good strudents--it's difficult to concentrate on reading, writing and arithmetic when you are hungry. He concluded: ``If I had to preserve one federal program above all others, I would choose the school lunch program.'' And he urged me to draw on its example in extending Food for Peace help to our fellow humans abroad. I soon found a place to experiment with the dean's conviction--the poverty stricken Puno area of Peru. Puno had an illiteracy rate of 90 percent--unsurprising, since nine out of 10 students dropped out of school by the sixth grade. Even those brief years of education were blighted by malnutrition, lethargy and dulled minds. With the cooperation of a remarkable priest, the Rev. John McClellan of the Maryknoll Fathers, I launched a school lunch program in Puno in October 1961. The United States made the food available, and the Maryknoll Fathers--with the help of local parents--prepared and served it. The government of Prime Minister Pedro Beltran built kitchens and dining halls and assisted with distribution. Forty-five Peace Corps workers contributed to the effort. We began by feeding 30,000 children. Within six months, school attendance had increased 40 percent and academic performance had improved by 50 percent. That kind of success inspired expansion: By 1965, Peru was feeding more than 1 million schoolchildren a day. And it wasn't just happening in Peru. Three years after the first program was launched in Puno, Food for Peace was providing 12 million children in Latin America with meals. Today, with local governments carrying most of the cost, the figure has more than doubled. It is difficult to locate an informed person in Latin America who doesn't sing the praises of the school lunch program. Study after study shows that a higher percentage of children attend school and remain through graduation when lunch is provided. Academic performance improves. Children are not only smarter but stronger. And there is another benefit in an overcrowded world: As a society's educational level rises--especially among girls-- the birthrate goes down. Education is the surest foundation for responsible family planning. Some may ask: Can the United States, even with the help of other nations, afford all this? What will it cost American taxpayers? These are legitimate questions, and they deserve thoughtful answers. Having studied a number of cost analyses, I believe that we could launch a start-up program, providing lunches to millions of hungry schoolchildren not now being fed, for about $3 billion a year. This would expand some existing U.N. and local programs, and would include a three-tiered price system similar to the one in the United States: Depending on what their families can afford, students pay all, part or none of the cost of their meal. That $3 billion would be provided in the same way as funding for most international relief programs--with 25 percent paid by the United States, and the rest by other donor nations. In addition, I would recommend that the United Nations copy another wonderfully successful American program--the supplementary feeding program for pregnant and nursing women and their children below the age of 5, known as WIC. It is in these early years that a child is most likely to be scarred and handicapped for life by malnutrition. I estimate that a serious attempt at beginning a worldwide WIC program would cost close to $1 billion a year, with the United States again paying 25 percent. For both programs, therefore, the initial cost to American taxpayers would be about $1 billion a year. Over the subsequent years, the programs would grow in scope--and presumably in cost. But the United States would benefit, too. First, since most of the U.S. contribution would be in the form of agricultural commodities, the market for cereal grain, dairy products and livestock would be strengthened. Second, since U.S. law requires that at least half of all foreign assistance must be carried in American ships, our Merchant Marine would benefit materially--as would the trucks and trains carrying the commodities to ports for shipment. Over the past year, I have talked with ranchers and farmers in my home state, South Dakota, and in Montana who tell me they can't hold on for more than another year or two unless there is some relief from price-depressing surpluses. Ironically, it is the efficiency and productivity of American farmers, the best in the world, that breeds the low prices now threatening to put them out of business. It would be a happier irony if feeding hungry children became the means of helping to save American farmers, ranchers and dairymen. Other farm surplus countries such as France, Canada and Australia would experience similar benefits. We now that the emergency demands of World Wars I and II greatly stimulated the farm and industrial economies of the United States. The cost of these gigantic wars was enormous-- vastly larger than what is proposed here for a war against hunger. But they greatly enriched the American economy. We could expect proportionate benefits from a school lunch program. More than half a century ago, I flew 35 missions as a bomber pilot, operating from a base in Cerignola, Italy. I never doubted the soundness of our cause in helping to smash Hitler's terrible war machine. But I'm especially proud of my final mission: At the end of the war, we filled our bombers with unused military rations and flew them to the devastated cities of Europe. I will never forget the grateful people, some of them our recent enemies, waiting eagerly to receive and distribute the boxes of surplus food. I imagined some of these same people taking cover from our bombs only a short time earlier, now looking into the skies for hope and deliverance. That postwar food delivery was practical: There would have been no point in hauling unused C-rations back to the United States. It was effective: We fed people who might have starved, and we began the process of rebuilding war-torn Europe. Most of all, it was the right thing to do. For the same reasons, we should enlist today in the effort to provide a daily meal to every needy student around the world. Having returned to Italy after so many years, I believe that my mission again is practical: Americans produce more food than we can eat or profitably sell. It can be effective: There is no more useful task in the modern world than feeding the children on whom its future depends. And it is the right thing to do. George McGovern is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture in Rome. His book, ``Ending World Hunger in Our Time,'' will be published this fall by Simon & Schuster.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I doubt anyone can hold a candle to him relative to trade. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this trade proposal, in a way reluctantly. I had held such hope that this particular proposal could be the template for trade agreements that could be negotiated between the developed democracies of the world, and that following on the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, we could actually produce the first trade agreement between developed democracies that would provide the gold standard for the world, that we could really use proactively. This one falls far short of doing that. You might ask the question, Would we have this agreement before us if Australia did not have troops in Iraq? It is kind of interesting that this is coming up at this particular moment. One of my concerns about this agreement is that Australia may become another back door trade route to the U.S., sort of the new Hong Kong, because of all the current difficulties in Hong Kong NOW. This agreement is imperfect. It does not really provide a comprehensive set of provisions to really deal with trade between nations that want higher standards of living, but that in fact you will get more Chinese goods and Chinese investment going into Australia and then coming here under this so-called ``free trade'' agreement because of all the economic and commerical difficulties that Hong Kong is having since the handover to the Chinese. We know that this particular agreement would allow drug companies to challenge decisions on coverage and payment, so we further weaken the abilities of developed democracies to try to provide affordable health care for all their people. The agreement is absolutely inadequate in terms of comprehensive labor and environmental standards. We should accept no less. In fact, my dream would be that we would learn how to strike trade agreements between developed countries, and then ask third world nations to join that consortium in order to raise standards of living around the world, rather than force all nations in this race to the bottom, including our own, where wages among the majority have fallen. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from the Wall Street Journal, ``Trade Agreement May Undercut Importing of Inexpensive Drugs,'' and also a set of standards we should use in any trade agreement based on a review of some of our other trade agreements. There standards should be expected from any trade agreement this Nation negotiates. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' This agreement is too incomplete and imperfect. [From the New York Times, July 12, 2004] Trade Agreement May Undercut Importing of Inexpensive Drugs (By Elizabeth Becker and Robert Pear) Washington, July 11.--Congress is poised to approve an international trade agreement that could have the effect of thwarting a goal pursued by many lawmakers of both parties: the import of inexpensive prescription drugs to help millions of Americans without health insurance. The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to prevent imports of drugs to the United States and also to challenge decisions by Australia about what drugs should be covered by the country's health plan, the prices paid for them and how they can be used. It represents the administration's model for strengthening the protection of expensive brand-name drugs in wealthy countries, where the biggest profits can be made. In negotiating the pact, the United States, for the first time, challenged how a foreign industrialized country operates its national health program to provide inexpensive drugs to its own citizens. Americans without insurance pay some of the world's highest prices for brand-name prescription drugs, in part because the United States does not have such a plan. Only in the last few weeks have lawmakers realized that the proposed Australia trade agreement--the Bush administration's first free trade agreement with a developed country--could have major implications for health policy and programs in the United States. The debate over the drug imports, an issue with immense political appeal, has been raging for 4 years, with little reference to the arcane details of trade policy. Most trade agreements are so complex that lawmakers rarely investigate all the provisions, which typically cover such diverse areas as manufacturing, tourism, insurance, agriculture, and increasingly, pharmaceuticals. Bush administration officials oppose legalizing imports of inexpensive prescription drugs, citing safety concerns. Instead, with strong backing from the pharmaceutical industry, they have said they want to raise the price of drugs overseas to spread the burden of research and development that is borne disproportionately by the United States. Many Democrats, with the support of AARP, consumer groups and a substantial number of Republicans, are promoting legislation to lower drug costs by importing less expensive medicines from Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and other countries where prices are regulated through public health programs. These two competing approaches represent very different ways of helping Americans who typically pay much more for brand-name prescription drugs than people in the rest of the industrialized world. Leaders in both houses of Congress hope to approve the free trade agreement in the next week or two. Last Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee endorsed the pact, which promises to increase American manufacturing exports by as much as $2 billion a year and preserve jobs here. Health advocates and officials in developing countries have intensely debated the effects of trade deals on the ability of poor nations to provide inexpensive generic drugs to their citizens, especially those with AIDS. But in Congress, the significance of the agreement for health policy has generally been lost in the trade debate. The chief sponsor of the Senate bill, Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said: ``This administration opposes re-importation even to the extent of writing barriers to it into its trade agreements. I don't understand why our trade ambassador is inserting this prohibition into trade agreements before Congress settles the issue.'' Senator John McCain, an author of the drug-import bill, sees the agreement with Australia as hampering consumers' access to drugs from other countries. His spokesman said the senator worried that ``it only protects powerful special interests.'' Gary C. Hufbauer, a senior analyst at the Institute for International Economics, said ``the Australia free trade agreement is a skirmish in a larger war'' over how to reduce the huge difference in prices paid for drugs in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world. Kevin Outterson, an associate law professor at West Virginia University, agreed. ``The United States has put a marker down and is now using trade agreements to tell countries how they can reimburse their own citizens for prescription drugs,'' he said. The United States does not import any significant amount of low-cost prescription drugs from Australia, in part because federal laws effectively prohibit such imports. But a number of states are considering imports from Australia and Canada, as a way to save money, and American officials have made clear that the Australia agreement sets a precedent they hope to follow in negotiations with other countries. Trade experts and the pharmaceutical industry offer no assurance that drug prices will fall in the United States if they rise abroad. Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel's trade subcommittee, voted for the agreement, which could help industries in his state. But Mr. Levin said the trade pact would give a potent weapon to opponents of the drug-import bill, who could argue that ``passing it would violate our international obligations.'' Such violations could lead to trade sanctions costing the United States and its exporters millions of dollars. One provision of the trade agreement with Australia protects the right of patent owners, like drug companies, to ``prevent importation'' of products on which they own the patents. Mr. Dorgan's bill would eliminate this right. The trade pact is ``almost completely inconsistent with drug-import bills'' that have broad support in Congress, Mr. Levin said. But Representative Bill Thomas, the California Republican who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said, ``The only workable procedure is to write trade agreements according to current law.'' For years, drug companies have objected to Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, under which government officials decide which drugs to cover and how much to pay for them. Before the government decides whether to cover a drug, experts analyze its clinical benefits, safety and ``cost- effectiveness,'' compared with other treatments. Joseph M. Damond, and associate vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said Australia's drug benefit system amounted to an unfair trade practice. ``The solution is to get rid of these artificial price controls in other developed countries and create real marketplace incentives for innovation,'' Mr. Damond said. While the trade pact has barely been noticed here, it has touched off an impassioned national debate in Australia, where the Parliament is also close to approving it. The Australian trade minister, Mark Vaile, promised that ``there is nothing in the free trade agreement that would increase drug prices in Australia.'' But a recent report from a committee of the Australian Parliament saw a serious possibility that ``Australians would pay more for certain medicines,'' and that drug companies would gain more leverage over government decisions there. Bush administration officials noted that the Trade Act of 2002 said its negotiators should try to eliminate price controls and other regulations that limit access to foreign markets. Dr. Mark B. McClellan, the former commissioner of food and drugs now in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, said last year that foreign price controls left American consumers paying most of the cost for pharmaceutical research and development, and that, he said, was unacceptable. Executive Summary NAFTA and The Future of Global Trade The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is now ten years old. At its heart, it embodies the new heroic struggle of working men and women to gain a foothold in the rough and tumble global economy dominated by multinational corporate giants. Unfortunately, it pits local workers and farmers against global investors. It pits Neustro Maiz, a peasant tortilla co-op in southern Mexico, against ADM, the US grain trade giant. It pits Norma McFadden of Sandusky, Ohio, who lost her middle class job with benefits at Dixon Ticonderoga, against Ana Luisa Cruz of Cuidad Juarez, who earns $7 a day with no benefits. For NAFTA to be credible as a model for future trade agreements, it must be amended. People should be more important than goods. A human face to trade must be negotiated. Without it, the global divide between poverty and wealth will exacerbate. More popular unrest will result from unfair trade, and the social compact so necessary for global cooperation will be shattered. NAFTA is important because it serves as the major template for a new global economic order integrating rich and poor nations through trade and investment. Mexico, Canada and the U.S. were to integrate their economies and, as a result, be better positioned to compete globally. It was touted as the neo-liberal model that would lift the economic condition of all people. All ships, no matter how small, were to be brought forward. But NAFTA worked exactly in the reverse. Affected workers in all three nations saw their wages and working conditions lowered. As capital moved across borders with no social policies in place, NAFTA has triggered an international race to the bottom as even Mexico has lost 218,000 jobs to China, a lower wage environment with a notorious record of human rights abuses. Capital and wealth have become more concentrated in all three nations. The middle class in the U.S. is experiencing a growing squeeze on benefits and job quality. In Mexico, an endless supply of ``starvation wage'' workers was unleashed. Now the Bush Administration is trying to spread the same model to Central America using Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and throughout the rest of the Western Hemisphere with the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). If these agreements are passed, it is clear that only the same can be expected, that is, expanding job washout, underemployment, and trade deficits in the U.S. without improved living standards in the poor countries with whom it trades. A reformed trade model among trading nations is needed that yields rising standards of living for workers and farmers. This must be based on transparent and enforceable rules of law concerning labor, environment and business. Continental sustainable wage and labor standards should be adopted. Trade accords must also incorporate industrial and agricultural adjustment provisions, and currency alignment. An infrastructure investment plan should be negotiated as a core provision of any trade agreement. Along with complementary systems for education and safe, reliable medical care for all of their citizens, including the over 9 million immigrants traveling as itinerant labor to the U.S. every year. recommendations Policy reforms are essential to amending NAFTA and other trade agreements that have yielded such huge U.S. trade deficits, job washout, and lowered standards of living. a continental assessment of nafta should be launched to address its shortcomings An intracontinental parliamentary Working Group on Trade and Working Life in America, comprised of U.S., Mexican, and Canadian members, should be established with the goal of amending NAFTA to address its shortcomings. Such a working group should analyze the results of NAFTA and its impact on workers, farmers and communities. The Working Group should define a sustainable wage standard for workers in each country and a continental labor registration system along with enforceable labor and environmental standards. It would identify the massive continental labor displacements that are occurring, often with no social safety net in place. It would explore options to deal with divergence in education and health as well as currency fluctuations and impact of trade on infrastructure, investment, and migration. It would harmonize inequitable tax systems and augment credit systems for the safe and non-usurious continental transfer of remittances by mobile workers. It would also propose funds in the form of adjustment assistance to cushion continental economic integration. The organization would include as a key component an intracontinental Agricultural Working Committee to address the hardships faced by farmers and farm labor in all three countries. trade agreements should yield trade balances If NAFTA were working in the interests of the U.S., there would be a trade surplus with Canada and Mexico, as the U.S. exported more than it imported. Exactly the reverse is true. In 2003, the NAFTA trade gap equaled $100 billion--$42 billion with Mexico and $85 billion with Canada. This represents a serious drag on U.S. gross domestic product and a loss of wealth. Indeed the U.S.-NAFTA trade balance with low-wage Mexico as well as Canada has turned decidedly more negative, and worsened each year, contrary to NAFTA's stated aims. When a trade agreement yields major and growing deficits for more than three years, it ought to be renegotiated. develop an alternative trade block paradigm Trade agreements must be structured to achieve rising standards of living for a broad middle class, not just the capital class. The current NAFTA model fails to address the root causes of market dysfunction and growing U.S. trade deficits i.e., the managed market and regulated trade approaches being employed by its European and Asian competitors. With NAFTA, the U.S. chose a low wage strategy to meet this real competition from trading counterparts that were gaining global edge. The U.S. must counter the managed market and regulated trade approaches of its major competitors. harmonize quality of life up, not down Rather than allowing transnational companies to set the rules of engagement, democratic nations first should forge international trade agreements with the world's developed democracies and then invite in developing nations to participate in this ``free world'' Global Trade Organization. Such an effort holds the potential to transition these nations upward to the same democratic, legal, and environmental systems of the free world. Instead, the trade relationships that have been forged link the economic systems of first world democratic nations to Third World, undemocratic, non-transparent systems. Social concerns like education, environment, infrastructure, labor conditions, and health have been ignored. The downward ``race to the bottom'' push of NAFTA continues to be felt in the U.S. as well as Mexico and Canada. trade accords should produce living wage jobs, less poverty and an improved environment If NAFTA were working, more good U.S. jobs would be created, outnumbering job losses. In Mexico, workers would experience a rising standard of living. Exactly the opposite is true. Conservative estimates indicate the U.S. has lost 880,000 jobs due to NAFTA. These jobs are largely in U.S. companies that merely relocate to Mexico paying ``hunger wages.'' Wages in Mexico have been cut by a third. If NAFTA were working in the interest of Mexicans, there would be a reduction in poverty, a growing middle class, and environmental improvement. Instead there is a rollback in wages, deplorable working conditions, and growing economic concentration of wealth in a few hands, forcing huge social dislocation. As U.S. jobs are sucked into Mexico, not only do more people vanish from the middle class but also U.S. schools lose property taxes. In a state like Ohio that has lost nearly 200,000 jobs to Mexico, the economic decline is visible. Ohio's income growth is declining. In 1999, according to Ohio Department of Development statistics, citizens in Ohio lost $30.7 billion in total income compared to the past year. The state itself lost $15 billion. As a result, college tuition has increased, with average student undergraduate debt rising to record levels of $18,900. Nursing homes are understaffed with low paid workers, and the ranks of uninsured Ohioans has risen to 1.3 million. The State is raising taxes on everything from sales, to gas and to property to try to fill the gap of a fleeing private sector. Quality of life is sliding backwards. NAFTA-related environmental enforcement remains largely nonexistent. If NAFTA were working, environmental improvement in Mexico would be upgrading; it is sliding backward. Transition U.S./Canadian displaced workers to comparable employment and Mexico's workers and peasants to land holding and living wage standard. NAFTA--displaced workers in the U.S. largely have been abandoned in their efforts to reposition to new employment. Unemployment benefits expire, training is inadequate, and health benefits expire or are unaffordable. Experienced workers rarely find jobs with comparable pay or benefits. Mexico's vast underclass, underpaid, and exploited, lacks a living wage, affordable elementary education, basic health care, and systems to gain property ownership and affordable credit even for basic purchases. In order to move forward with any future trade agreements, NAFTA must acknowledge its human toll and respond accordingly. NAFTA provisions have led to the displacement of thousands of small business, industrial and agricultural workers throughout the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Little provision has been made to assist these workers, farmers, and communities with any transitional adjustment assistance. In Mexico, this has caused masses of people to stream toward the border and the maquiladora zones in search for jobs. The North American Development Bank, which was established to help local communities build their human and physical infrastructures, has been an abject failure. It should promote economic investment in those regions of Mexico and the United States where jobs have been hollowed out due to NAFTA, or infrastructure is needed. Bank assets could be enhanced by financial contributions that flow from trade- related transactions. Create new continental law enforcement body to combat growing crime along U.S.-Mexico border region related to border workers, drugs, and unsolved murders of hundreds of Mexican women. The United States Departments of Labor and Homeland Security should be tasked not only with stopping the trafficking of bonded laborers but devising a continental labor identification card. Along with mass migration, the border has seen an explosion in the illicit drug trade. Law enforcement officers on both sides of the border must battle smuggling in narcotics and persons. A continental working group should be directed to recommend a new solution for combating crimes that result from the illegal drug and bonded worker trade that spans the border.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my distinguished colleague from Chicago, Illinois and all of the Members at the end of a very long day for having the courtesy to listen to him and these serious concerns. We certainly will take this to conference, and we will not forget that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) was the one who reminded us to do it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this will not take a great deal of time. I yield to the very distinguished 12-year Member of this institution, the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush) for a very brief colloquy.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in closing today, I would just like to ask the Members of this House to think about the communities that they represent, how many farmers markets, how many potential farmers markets, how many roadside stands could be helped by additional marketing authority. We are not taking or creating any new money here. We are just moving money from an information account to a direct-market account for farmers to put income in their pockets through direct marketing of their own product, made and grown and harvested with their own hard labor. And I am always proud to stand up on behalf of the farmers of our country and try to help them find new ways to the market. I would urge the membership to vote in favor of the Kaptur amendment for farmers markets across this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the farm bill established for the first time the Farmers Market Promotion Program to expand and promote our farmers markets around the country, to help farmers increase their sales at roadside stands and community-supported farmers markets across this country. My proposal would take $6 million from the Chief Information Officer's account and put it in this program. Though authorized by the farm bill, there were no funds appropriated to this account that were in the bill that cleared the subcommittee. What this program does, it would give additional traction to farmers who are farming especially around our large urban areas to earn money from the market place rather than from subsidy programs. It is a direct-marketing program. None of the dollars in this measure go to buildings and so forth. And it is really aimed at those farmers that are trying to hang on and earn money from the market place. The average age of farmers in our country is now about 58 years old. This is a very small amount of money coming out of a bill that is over $80 billion, but really it has so much effect. If you go up here just on the street on the Mall and you look at the farmers market that operates outside the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the roadside stands that exist in many of the communities in which we live, or I was talking to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and on the Lower East Side of Manhattan this weekend, farmers were able to bring their product there and have a real opportunity to market in a very high-priced part of the United States where there is a lot of the poverty. This program is aimed at expanding those types of efforts and connecting the farm to the town, helping our farmers move their diversified product. And many of these farmers are not on any subsidy program. They raise vegetables. They raise fruits. They process the product. They bring them to the farmers market. This would really help them to expand their ability to market. So we just basically move funds inside the bill from the administrative account of the Chief Information Officer, and we put it over in the account that deals with this farmers market program that was established in the new farm bill. When Secretary Veneman spoke at the opening of the USDA Farmers Market just a little more than 2 weeks ago, she talked about how farmers were gravitating to farmers markets and trying more sophisticated ways to market their products because of the difficulties that are being faced in the general market place itself as it becomes more difficult for small entrepreneurs, small business people to move their product to market. So we know that the need is great. The 2002 Census of Agriculture showed a 37 percent increase just since 1997 in direct sales to consumers. And we know that the interest is there. We know our farmers need a lot of help in marketing. Most farmers, if you ask them what is the worst thing they do, they say it is market simply because they spend all their time growing, all their time picking and displaying, and it is hard for them to move product to market. This is something that will make a difference immediately. It will also help farmers avoid the slotting fees that they have to pay if they are asked to show in a supermarket. They cannot afford $50,000 or $25,000 to put their product right on the shelf. It gives them an alternate direct-marketing opportunity. I would ask the Members for their support of this very worthy program, to give life to the farmers marketing program that was authorized in the new farm bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman so very much for that. I would be concluding my remarks and saying with all of our veterans returning home, many of them disabled now, this is an absolutely perfect opportunity to transition them into jobs with adequate training and why should we not be using tax dollars to help our own people get jobs right here at home. I thank the chairman very much for his consideration and for the membership. This is a great victory for the American people. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds in this bill to pay for outsourcing food stamp call center jobs to foreign countries. We used to have amendments on these bills that were identified ``Buy American.'' Today I offer one to ``Hire an American.'' It would basically change the behavior of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and our respective States that receive food stamp dollars and in turn are outsourcing the call center jobs associated with food stamps to Mexico and to India and to other foreign countries. The Richmond Times Dispatch reported in March that 38 States had been exporting our jobs since 2001. Since then we have learned from the Congressional Research Service that in fact 42 States have outsourced some part of their food stamp call center operations. Think about that. The calls relate to food stamps for people inside the United States of America. Only Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and Wyoming have their call centers exclusively inside the United States. Other States are beginning to look at this issue and take action, but this deserves national attention since these are dollars that fund the food stamp programs in all of our States. It is also ironic that the biggest account in this entire bill is the food stamp program, ringing in at $33 billion being paid out to needy Americans. Given the complexity that some people face when trying to complete those applications or find out where there may be stores that accept electronic benefit technology, you would expect that our constituents would be able to reach someone in their own community or our States who might be better able to relate to the problems that they are facing in their own lives. So we provide $33 billion for food stamps to all of our States, and that is a program that has increased 46 percent in just the last 4 years. Many banking companies have become the intermediaries that are administrating the food stamp program and end up putting those jobs in other countries. Would it not be better use of American taxpayer funds to try to hire unemployed individuals? In fact, some of those receiving food stamps who could get off these food stamps by having good jobs at these call centers.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a very able member of our subcommittee. (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters pertaining to this issue. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, July 12, 2004. Secretary Ann W. Veneman, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Veneman: We are writing to request information regarding nearly $4 billion in unpaid credits for the sale of U.S. agricultural commodities to Iraq. The Departments of Treasury and Agriculture have failed to adequately respond to previous requests for this information. During hearings before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal 2004, the Foreign Agricultural Service was asked to provide copies of minutes, transcripts, and reports from the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies. Requests were also made for the date, the amount, and specific votes by members of the National Advisory Council for each of the Commodity Credit Corporation Program credit guarantees that were approved for Iraq. While USDA did participate in many of these meetings, the response was that USDA did not have such records, including the names of its own personnel who may have been involved in these meetings. Instead, it was suggested that the Department of Treasury would have these records. In response to these questions, USDA made a promise a year ago that the Department would work with Treasury to obtain these records. Despite this pledge, no information has been provided. (Fiscal 2004 hearing, Part 7, page 641) In fact, when the issue was raised again earlier this year in questions presented to Secretary Veneman, the response was the ``the Department does not have any additional information.'' (Fiscal 2005 hearings, Part 8, page 327) Given that the outstanding debt is nearly $4 billion in combined principle and interest and that this debt is still carried on the books of CCC, it is very difficult to believe and harder to accept that more detailed records of how these credits were approved do not exist. This is a matter that should be resolved before any additional credit of any kind is extended to be sure that limited resources are being used in the most indicious manner. Additionally, in response to questions presented to the Foreign Agricultural Service during hearings this year, it was suggested that an IMF debt sustainability analysis was expected by early May, a U.S. Government Country Risk Assessment was expected by early June, and a determination by the Paris Club on debt treatment was expected as soon as this month. (Fiscal 2005 hearings, Part 7, page 922) We request summaries of each of these reports as well. We ask that you provide the requested documents as soon as possible. Sincerely, Marcy Kaptur, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Committee on Appropriations. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member, Committee on Government, Reform.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the fine gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today would simply restate existing law, that none of the funds available in this act can be used to provide credit for use in Iraq in violation of our agricultural trade acts. Again, it is a restatement of existing law that the Commodity Credit Corporation cannot make any credit available to any country that the Secretary determines cannot adequately service its debt. Let us take a look at Iraq, which now owes the United States over $4 billion. And some people may be saying, well, what does the Agriculture Department have to do with debts owed from Iraq? The facts are, going way back to the 1980s, it was through the Commodity Credit Corporation of the Department of Agriculture that the Saddam Hussein regime was financed, and the $4 billion in which Iraq is in default falls squarely in our laps in this committee. I do not favor the forgiveness of those debts. In fact, at the time, and this is recounted in a book called ``The Spider's Web,'' by Alan Friedman, ``The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq,'' there were statements made at the time by James Baker, among others, that these debts would be paid back through oil revenues. And what this amendment attempts to do is to say, we ought to support existing law. We should not permit the Department of Agriculture to extend credits to Iraq. It is a place in transition. There is not a normal commercial environment in which to conduct business. And it is a place still rife with corruption. Sometimes it is hard to know who is friend and who is enemy. The real question for us, for the USDA, should be: How should normal commercial transactions be handled with Iraq? The past is prologue. U.S. law was violated in the past when it concerned Iraq, and it was repeatedly used to implement foreign policy objectives that were not known by the vast majority of Members of this Congress or the American people themselves. The history of U.S. transactions with Iraq has been marked by fraud, deception, manipulation, unreported loans, and outright crime. Rumor has it that the administration is considering using CCC authority again to begin to try to sell products to Iraq. We should ask ourselves, how do we get strict oversight on this potential activity and, frankly, it should not be allowed in a normal business transaction. Here we have a chart, and this indicates who owes us the $4 billion. If we go back to the 1980s and 1990s, booked currently through, this is as of December of last year, it is very interesting who the American taxpayers are being asked to bail out. The Arab American Bank: they got $394,517,000 from the taxpayers of the United States, and now Iraq wants those debts forgiven. How about the Gulf International Bank. They get $907 million. They do not sound like a very poor institution to me. How about the National Bank of Kuwait. Why should our taxpayers give them $297,938? Why should we not get this money back? Now, it is interesting, there is a little bank here in Texas, First City Texas Houston Bank, they got bailed out by the taxpayers, $95,469,000. It is sort of interesting to look at who some of the people in place were when these deals were made. How about Kenneth Lay who was on the board of directors? How about James Elkins, Jr., who was chair until 1988? How about Jeff Skilling, who was working in the risk management division of that institution? Why should the American people pay the bill for this? This is all caught up in the policies that the Department of Agriculture did not want to implement, if we go back to the record and look; and now the American people have bailed out these banks, and Iraq wants forgiveness on this debt. Why do we not go back to the original thought, and that is, let the oil revenues pay this off? Why should we, through our accounts of the Commodity Credit Corporation and the American people, be asked to bail out some of the wealthiest institutions on the globe? How about Morgan Guarantee Trust Company of New York? $284,077,000. This is the record, and, of course, the big one, the Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro in Italy, $810 million. We all know the scandal that was involved with that. The point is, these are still claims outstanding, principle and interest in default by the nation of Iraq. My amendment would say, we should not open commercial relations with Iraq until these debts are paid, and all we do in the amendment is to reaffirm existing law. These are not normal circumstances in which we are dealing. There is uncertainty regarding the condition of the Iraqi economy, the ruling authorities, and a host of other issues that make additional credits risky at this time. And we should not put the taxpayers further at risk. They are already $4 billion on the hook, having bailed out these institutions that should have paid us in the first place. At the subcommittee level, we offered a more restrictive amendment which did not receive broad support in the committee; and so we brought back another amendment that merely restates existing law. I would ask the Members to consider my amendment to make sure that we are protected, our taxpayers are protected, and based on the history with this country that the largest banks in the world not have their hands in the pockets of our taxpayers. So I would ask for support for the Kaptur amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.