Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for moving this bill along. I know there are other Members who may be on their way to the floor right now, and we wanted to allow a little time for that. But meanwhile, I wanted to say a word about the overall bill and again to express my deep disappointment that the overall level of this discretionary bill is about 5 percent below last year's appropriated levels. I come from a part of the country where we have experienced quite a bit of flooding. We know that later this year we are going to have some additional requests for disaster assistance. With the limited amount of funding in this bill and the cuts across various accounts, it is going to make it very difficult, barring a supplemental of some sort, to meet all of the requirements that are necessary. As we look toward Members asking us how good is this bill, I guess the bottom line on this bill is that it is not nearly good enough in view of the challenges that are facing agriculture today. We appreciate all of the Members who have come down here today to offer amendments. I think that every single one that was passed and awaits votes this afternoon has improved the bill. Those that deal with downed animals, those that deal with the Office of Civil Rights, those that deal with our historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute, those that deal with improving the U.S. Department of Agriculture's attention to biofuels production, all of these are improvements. We were very pleased to see the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo) come to the floor to talk about the insular territories and their very, very significant dependence on agriculture, and over time the actual ignorance by our government toward these critical areas to our country. If I might just say an additional word on the energy title, one of the reasons we were so concerned about the U.S. Department of Agriculture's inattention to new fuels production is that there is not a corner of rural America where this is not uppermost in people's minds. Whether it is biodiesel, whether it is ethanol, farmers can see the future. Many of them are inventing it. Without question, rural America holds at least a minimum of 20 percent of the potential to displace our overreliance on imported petroleum. The budget, however, that the administration presented to us was severely underfunded. Not only was the Department of Agriculture not encouraged to move into the 21st century in energy production, but, in fact, the Department of Energy's accounts that deal with energy production and renewable energies were reduced 28 percent in the area of biomass, for example. Members should imagine a future where our capability in producing soy diesel and ethanol is enhanced by the Government of the United States assisting our farmers to bring new energy products online. These can actually produce real value-added and real income to the farm families of our country in the form of new fuels. We could do nothing more important in the first half of this century, in my opinion in the first decade of this century, than helping to convert from the hydrocarbon age to the carbohydrate age. Today, over 3 million vehicles on our roads already use E-85, ethanol, made of 85 percent ethanol. Every one of these vehicles is made by our manufacturers. The problem is if you buy a vehicle and you take it to the service station, drivers cannot get the fuel in every State and in every location. You can get it in Iowa. You can get it in Minnesota. Try to get it in Ohio. The real question is how do we move this industry forward when we know our farmers would rather produce to the market rather than produce to the mailboxes with subsidy payments. I am enjoying this opportunity to have the chairman of the authorizing committee sitting listening to this because I look for a great partnership between the Committee on Appropriations and the authorizing committee in the area of new fuels. It has been a real disappointment to watch the lethargy at the Department of Agriculture when energy futurists can see the potential in every account. Take a look at research. We have not even invented the plants yet that can give us the most Btus per ton. We are using existing technology to produce the fuels that we are processing today. But just in the research accounts, we are behind the times in getting the plants that would give us the most convertible sugars, the most Btus per ton. Take a look at how processing facilities are being built across the country, by farmers in places like the State of Minnesota. The State of Minnesota is such a leader; I believe she had the first ethanol plant in America. If we are going to have a national project for biofuels production, we should call it the Minnesota Project because they absolutely were first. Although when I was down in Iowa talking to farmers, they said yes, but Iowa farmers working in Minnesota actually accomplished it! My point is that some parts of America have seen the future. Farmers are using our waste products from the field, for example, and blending them rather than putting them in landfills or burning them heedlessly produces a Btu stream that we can process and then convert. I think that the record shows by January 2002, last year, there were well over 100 major fleets in our country that had implemented biodiesel programs, and the leading Federal agency for converting vehicles is not the Department of Agriculture. It is the U.S. Postal Service. I believe they have over 12,000 vehicles that use clean- burning fuels. We look at the U.S. Air Force, Army, U.S. Department of Energy, NASA, State fleets in States like my own, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Missouri, Delaware and New Jersey, city buses in places like the Cincinnati metropolitan area and the bi-state area of St. Louis, and major public utility fleets such as Commonwealth Edison, Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, Alabama Power and others.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than pleased to accept the gentleman's acceptance and to say that there could be no more important action of this government than dragging the U.S. Department of Agriculture into the 21st century, and helping America to become energy self-sufficient at last. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. The gentleman will accept this amendment on biofuels?

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and appreciate the chairman's acceptance of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Just for purposes of the debate and the record, let us show that this amendment would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from finalizing a rule on cost sharing between the Federal Government and co-operators, our States, local governments and industry groups on the cost of responding to animal or pest emergencies that threaten U.S. agriculture. We believe this to be a Federal responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I will not use the full time. I just wanted to say to my good friend from Virginia, the chairman of the authorizing committee, that the normal way, place the animal would be downed would be at the slaughterhouse anyway. The point we are trying to make is do not put it in the food chain. That is the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) amendment which he has not changed. So I just wanted to clarify that, and I also am concerned that at that slaughter facility that that diseased animal not contaminate the other animals. So there is a tremendous burden on that slaughterhouse, but the point of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) argument and amendment is do not put that sick animal in the food chain. I support his amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rehberg- Hooley amendment to say that the Committee bill provision indeed subverts the law. This Rehberg-Hooley provision was included in the farm bill. But when the opponents of that law found an opening in the subcommittee of agriculture appropriations to try to subvert the law, they took that opportunity. And so what we are talking about here is changing the law of our country that was passed here, as well as passed in the other body, and signed into law. We surely had plenty of consideration. That is number one. My second point is this amendment is being offered at a time when we have the highest number of meat recalls in the country's history. God forbid you are the parent of someone who just died from eating contaminated meat. I find it very interesting that those who oppose this say there are going to be all these high costs and all these problems. Do Members know that not one producer in Ohio has complained to me about this law? I represent cattlemen and cattlewomen. They raise a lot of different kinds of animals in our region. Producers want the labeling. In fact, the Ohio producers, the Great Lakes producers, are working on their own electronic ear tags because they do not want their meat mixed with other stuff that they do not know where it comes from. They want to be able to offer a quality product at a competitive price and get it on the shelves of the supermarket. The problem is that the supermarkets deny shelf space to independent producers. We know who wants this law subverted. It is not the ranchers; it is not the farmers. It is the people who want to make money off them. Any decent business person wants labeling of their product. Our father operated a family grocery and when he made his meatloafs, when he made his sausages, we had our own label tape that we pealed and put right on the package. We were so proud of his products. Our market was called Supreme Market, and to this day it sold the best meat I ever ate, the best sausage I ever ate. We were proud to label it. Good producers want labels on their quality products. In Ohio, the Great Lakes Family Farms has a special verification program. They eartag animals with all relevant information. They know what shots the animal got. They know which feed lot it was on and how much it weighed at 6 months, at 8 months. They know everything because they know their customers want to know, and that local label gives them a niche in the market to be able to offer quality meat. Mr. Chairman, in an era when the consumer wants to know, why is the Republican leadership trying to subvert the law and not give us as consumers the right to know where our meat comes from? It is simply because if you are going to mix in Argentinian beef or mix in some other kind of meat at the store, you do not want your customers to know. If you have some Uruguayan skinny steer that was wandering somewhere around Latin America, and then you are going to take some of that meat and blend it in with Ohio beef, you do not want anybody to know because you are going to make just as much money on that package. But the farmers know how to label. They are doing it already. They are doing it in our region, and those electronic ear tags are so complete and with technology being what it is today, we can know everything about an animal, even who its mother and father were. Do not give me this baloney it is going to be so much more expensive. Our farmers are already doing it. Ohio farmers can lead the way. In fact, the American Farm Bureau supports the law. It does not support subverting the law. They support country-of-origin labeling. In the letter that they have sent to us, they say those products should be labeled at the retail level. With increased trade, more products are being imported into the United States and the farm bureau is working with the agricultural marketing services to implement a program with the least amount of burden and cost to producers. So in addition to all of the names that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) read into the Record, I will include a letter from the American Farm Bureau. Mr. Chairman, Members might have noticed the recent stories about mad cow disease, BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, that is up in Canada now. We have to know where our meat comes from, and people who raise meat should be responsible for it, just like my father was responsible for his products. They ought to be proud of what they are producing and not ashamed, and not try to hide something on a package that when you take the hamburger out, it looks red on the outside and it is all brown on the inside. We all know what they are doing. We understand what that is all about. I think it is a worthy amendment. We have the technology to do it. I will place in the Record what the 4-H requires of our students as one of its projects to have labeling of beef. This is not rocket science. It can be done. American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC, June 24, 2003. Hon. Marcy Kaptur, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Kaptur: The American Farm Bureau Federation commends the Appropriations Committee for timely action on the FY04 agriculture spending bill. We ask that you consider the following information as the Appropriations Committee acts on the bill this week. We support full funding for the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA). Unfavorable weather conditions, uncertainties involved with international trade, the value of the dollar and record high input costs have converged to produce a turbulent and difficult time for agriculture. The industry has suffered through several consecutive years of historic low market prices and weather disasters. The new farm law helps address problems faced by American farmers and ranchers and it provides unprecedented funds for our nation's conservation needs. Changes in farm bill programs would be devastating not only to farmers and ranchers but the rural economy as well. Consequently, the Farm Bureau strongly encourages you to avoid making changes to FSRIA in the FY04 appropriations process. We commend the Committee for maintaining full funding of farm bill commodity programs. It is imperative that counter- cyclical payment rates, loan rates and direct payments be preserved as adopted in FSRIA. We are opposed to any changes in current payment limitations for direct payments, counter- cyclical payments, loan deficiency payments (LDP) and marketing loan gains (MLG), including a separate payment limitation for the peanut program. Current rules on spouses, three-entities, generic certificates and actively engaged requirements should be retained. AFBF supports country-of-origin labeling (COOL) as passed in the 2002 farm bill. Many farmers and ranchers believe that the products they grow in the United States should be labeled a product of the United States at the retail sales level. With increased trade, more products are being imported into the United States, giving the consumers greater choices at the marketplace. Farm Bureau is working with the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) at USDA to implement the program with the least amount of burden and costs to producers. We are disappointed the legislation blocks further work by USDA to implement country-of-origin labeling for meat and poultry products. We ask that you support the restoration of funding for this important program. Farm bill conservation programs should be fully funded. Full implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Conservation Security Program (CSP) is key to assisting agricultural producers in complying with environmental regulations and addressing important conservation issues nationwide. Program funding for technical assistance is essential if conservation programs are to be successful. While we are pleased that the bill increases funding for conservation operations activities, we are disappointed that funding for CSP is blocked and limits have been placed on EQIP. The development of alternative energy sources is not only significant to the advancement of American agriculture but also is vital to enhancing our nation's energy security. The 2002 farm bill contained an energy title that includes provisions for federal procurement of bio-based products, bio-refinery development grants, a biodiesel fuel education program, renewable energy development program, renewable energy systems, a bioenergy program and biomass research and development. These programs will assist rural economic development as well as increase our nation's energy independence. We are disappointed that the bill under consideration does not include funding for key programs that promote alternative energy sources. Thank you for your consideration of these issues of importance to farmers and ranchers. Sincerely, Bob Stallman, President.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member of the authorizing committee. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of our full committee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at a time of recession, rising unemployment in our country, the currency fluctuations that are affecting our markets internationally and great dependency on the Federal Government by our farm sector for economic survival, this bill fails to meet the needs of today's economy, including in rural America, for a countercyclical boost. It has been a great pleasure working with our chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), in trying to do the best with the allocation that we were afforded by the full committee; but it is very important as we proceed today to place on the record not only the condition of rural America but how this country and the government of this country is responding to it. The allocation that we received forced our committee to produce a bill that is nearly $1 billion under last year's level, indeed $872 million. This situation exists partly because of the fault of the administration which submitted a request to us that did not provide support in many critical areas. In part, it is the fault of this Republican Congress which adopted a budget resolution that did not recognize the vital role that agriculture plays as a pillar of our economy. In fact, the allocation, as I said, for this bill is well below the administration's request as well as last year's level. As a result, the bill underinvests in rural America. Surely in value- added production, where the future lies, it cripples our producers' efforts to earn more from the marketplace and less from support payments that continue to be forked over by the billions. The bill fails to meet the needs of other Americans who depend on agencies in the bill for nutrition, food safety, and other important services. Technically the bill provides $17.005 billion for discretionary programs, and that is about a percent below the budget request, but 5 percent below the 2003 level of $17.877 billion, a most astonishing set of cutbacks in America's leading domestic industry that still maintains a trade surplus in global markets. I might mention, if Members think about the total of our entire bill, about $17 billion, we are spending that much in 4 months in Iraq. According to what Secretary Rumsfeld has told Congress, we are spending about $4 billion a month, twice as much as we anticipated, to try to feed hungry people and deal with health clinics and all the related expenditures in keeping our troops well supplied. If we think about what we are asking for in this bill versus what we are spending in other places in the world, we can call into question what has been brought to the floor in this package. Now, among the funds and programs that are underfunded or at risk of inadequate support are farm loans, rural development, domestic food programs, international food aid, research, which is so important to the future, the Food & Drug Administration, such as approving medical devices, and a number of mandatory programs, for which funding is blocked. Funding for many new initiatives established in the farm bill to lead American agriculture into the 21st century is, once again, deferred. And in some other accounts, it is highly likely that additional funds may be needed when this bill goes to conference, but those funds simply will not be available. Let us talk about rural America. It is a part of our country on life support. We have a crisis in the rural parts of America born of concentration inside our market that is supposed to be competitive. As well, we have a crisis of diminishing U.S. exports. Even though our agricultural trade surplus at least helps to try to hold up our trade accounts, nonetheless, over the years we have had fewer agricultural exports and more imports coming into this country. So, agricultural America is beginning to tilt toward the negative in the same way as manufacturing America in terms of our trade accounts. We have a crisis in rural America of ignoring investment in new value-added developments such as bioenergy production in which this bill severely underinvests. The economic crisis in agriculture has social consequences in crime and social instability in the part of America that used to be called the heartland and always regarded as the cherished repository of our most fundamental values of free holding, of family, of faith, of community, and of stewardship. The New York Times ran a powerful article in December entitled ``Pastoral Poverty: The Seeds of Decline.'' It detailed the systematic decline of the social fabric across rural America. Here are some of the conditions that were mentioned: the rate of serious crime in predominantly rural States such as Kansas and Oklahoma is 50 percent higher than in places like New York State where we have some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country; bank robberies are most likely in towns of 10,000 to 25,000 people. The article went on to talk about people in rural areas making much less than their urban counterparts and much more likely to have only minimum-wage jobs. There were 300 times more seizures of methamphetamine labs in Iowa in 1999 than in New York and New Jersey combined, based on Drug Enforcement Administration figures. So if everything is so great, why is the social fabric disintegrating? The economic factors that lead to this social disintegration are very clear, and they have been accelerating for a number of years. This bill will only help exacerbate them because today it is no secret that all that is holding up rural America is Federal subsidy. Fifty cents of every farm dollar today is earned from the mailbox when the farmer goes out to get his subsidy check, not from the market. This bill could really do something to turn that around. It fails to do that. More farmers and ranchers are depending on off-farm income to supplement an economy that is not working for them. USDA's economists recently reported that more than half of all farm operators have off- farm income, and when other household members are added in the off-farm income level jumps to 85 percent. So farming is becoming more of a hobby-oriented activity out there because you cannot earn your income unless you have inherited an enormous amount from past generations and even then you are trying to hold up your current debt level. The market is not providing real income without the Federal subsidy. The stresses of rural life were also illustrated in a story last year about an Iowa program to provide mental health counseling to struggling farmers and their families. Surely this economic stress has an impact on people's ability to weather this economy over a number of years. But the funding so essential to help farmers make it in the market, in the competitive marketplace, is severely undermined in this bill. This is true with farm loan programs. Which help farmers to buy a farm or operate a farm; with rural development programs, which help both individuals and communities with homeownership, so essential to helping move our economy out of recession; water and sewer needs, which are hard investments that lead to growth; telecommunications and other vital services so necessary to help rural America jump-start into the private economy. All of these needed programs are either cut or fail to be funded in this bill. The bill falls far short of the true need. Let us go through them. Farm loans. Overall, the bill cuts farm loans by 5 percent below the request, providing $173 million less in loans. For three critical programs, farm ownership guaranteed loans, farm operating direct loans, and farm operating subsidized guaranteed loans, the bill provides about a half a billion dollars less in loans than last year. That is a 20 percent cut. That is a cut in investment for our future. Many other programs are cut. The business and industry guaranteed loan program is cut by 38 percent. This is where the new jobs will come from in rural America. Yet, in a time of recession, the administration and their congressional allies are cutting that by over a third. Single family guaranteed home loans are 4 percent below the 2003 request. And think about that. That is $120 million less to offer borrowers at a time when the housing industry is the only industry that is out there that is holding this economy up as it hemorrhages jobs in other sectors. The bill eliminates funding for the Rural Telephone Bank, which made $175 million of loans last year in 23 States. And we know that the utilities and the communications infrastructure of rural America is not at the same level as in our metropolitan areas. I think that is a very backward-looking cut. What about water and wastewater disposal grants, one of the core programs of rural development? Every single State in this Union has people, lots of people, backed up to try to get approval for these programs. The bill does provide more funding than the administration's request, but it is $43 million below what was spent last year and almost $250 million below the level that numerous Members of Congress asked of this committee to meet the realistic needs of rural development. Grants for distance learning and telemedicine and broadband are $24 million below this year's level. I do not have to tell anybody out there about the shortage of physicians and medical information in rural America compared to urban and suburban America. Funding for electric loan programs is nearly $1 billion below this year, a 20 percent reduction. How does that really help development across rural America? Let us now look at our domestic and international programs. They are underfunded. During this year, Democrats focused on the record demand for domestic food, such as women, infants and children's coupons and food stamps. Noting enormous lines at soup kitchens and food pantries this winter, we fought very hard for temporary emergency assistance for food, and for these food banks across America. The bill does not respond adequately to these concerns, that is for sure. Now, with the major rebuilding efforts that America is going to have to make in Iraq and Afghanistan, food will be critical to stabilizing the situation there; and we know that this bill falls far short of what is needed long-term. It simply cannot hold. We cannot meet these commitments without increasing the funding levels in these programs. Let us now look at our domestic food programs. I mentioned the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program. It is $10 million below the new authorized level in the farm bill. All you have to do is go out to the food banks in your region to see what the need really is and hear the concerns that have been expressed by food bank directors and by human service directors and church leaders across this country. Funding for the Women, Infants and Children's Program is reduced below the administration request. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is almost $20 million below this year. These are all programs that help keep people whole in bad economic times. Neither the administration request nor the bill that is before us today adequately provides funding for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, despite the fact that applications in recent years have far outpaced available funds. The Food and Drug Administration in this bill receives nearly $11 million less than what was requested. What does that mean? It means that we will not have full funding to implement the generic drug program, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, the over-the- counter drug program and the patient safety and adverse event reporting initiative. The bill will also halt work on the Arkansas regional lab and reduce funding for ongoing maintenance at Food and Drug Administration facilities by 25 percent. An area of interest to many Members is medical device funding. The administration made an agreement in 2002 with the medical device industry and authorizing committees here for new industry user fees in exchange for a set level of discretionary funding each year for the program. Under the statute, if total discretionary funds fall short of the required level over a several-year period, the program sunsets. But despite the fact that it was a party to this agreement, the administration completely failed to live up to its part of the deal last year and this year and did not request the required funds. At least 46 Members of both parties requested that the full amount for devices be provided. This bill provides an increase of $9 million over the request for the medical device program, but this is still short of the required level in order to really make the approval program work. I wanted to say a word about mandatory programs because the bill includes 10 provisions cutting mandatory agricultural programs by $540 million. These are programs that provide support for rural firefighters; dam rehabilitation; renewable energy, and what could be more important to our country than that when we hemorrhage in terms of our ability to balance our trade accounts because of imported petroleum; conservation, which was a promise made in the recent farm bill; telecommunications and research. These cuts in those mandatory programs will have a real impact across rural America. The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is cut by $95 million, more than twice the cut in this year's bill, despite a rapidly growing number of dams reaching the end of their useful lives across our country. Two years ago, the Natural Resource and Conservation Service had identified 1,450 dams in need of rehabilitation at a cost of about a half a billion dollars, $500 million. We have already spent that much money in the first half of July in Iraq, but we are not willing to spend that money here at home for infrastructure improvements. While the bill does provide an increase of $20 million in discretionary funding, the cut in mandatory funding makes it much harder to meet identified needs. It is estimated there is a backlog of over $80 million just to finish projects currently under way, so funding on both the discretion and the mandatory sides are needed. The bill eliminates the funding for rural firefighters. The bill eliminates all funding for the conservation security program. And in the Wetlands Reserve Program, so essential to assuring a healthy ecosystem, the bill cuts new enrollment in the program by a fifth, by 20 percent, which means that we will have so many fewer people who will be able to participate in a program that has a backlog of 736,000 acres. In the EQIP Program, the bill reduces funding by $25 million; and that means that there will be 1,450 producers who will not be able to get EQIP funding this year. In renewable energy, I think the bill is terribly ill-advised in zeroing out funding in a sector where America must restore her independence. And in value-added grants, which the farm bill asked for, this bill zeros out support for the new jobs of the future that could be created across rural America. In broadband loans for telecommunications, the bill eliminates all funding for this authorized program. And for the initiative for future agriculture and food systems, the bill cuts $120 million from this competitive grant program which is designed to do research in critical areas such as genomics, food safety, food technology, human nutrition, new and alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities and products, agricultural biotechnology, where so much of our future lies and the world's future, natural resource management, including precision agriculture, and farm efficiency and profitability. Other shortcomings in the bill I will quickly mention. Country-of- origin labeling. The bill prevents the implementation of origin labels for meat and meat products. This is a basic consumer right-to-know issue which the House unanimously supported when it instructed its conferees on the farm bill to support country-of-origin labeling for both meat and perishable products. In terms of the provisions for meatpacker audits, the administration asked Congress for $1 million for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration to audit the four largest steer and heifer meatpackers for compliance with that act. This might sound routine, but it is not. This would be the first time in the 82-year history of the Packers and Stockyards Act that the agency has required a large packer audit, but the bill conveniently does not provide the funding. Gosh, I wonder why. And then in the food safety and inspection provisions, the bill provides about $12 million less than requested for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. In terms of research, and this is really the seed corn for the future, the bill provides only half of the funding for the upgrading of security at our agricultural research labs. In addition to that, the Cooperative Research Education and Extension Service, overall funding is over the request of the administration but $22 million lower than this year's level. As a result, many important research institutions and activities, including our 1890 and 1994 institutions, are shortchanged. In addition, at least 95 Members of this House of both parties asked for a 5 percent increase in these research formula funds, but the bill does not provide this. Many Members also asked for $200 million for funding the national research initiative, but the bill provides only $149 million. The Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics Service would receive almost $12 million less than requested, forcing the postponement of important initiatives such as genomics research and improvement of statistical information in our New England States, Hawaii and Alaska. In concluding these opening remarks, I would just like to summarize by saying that budgets reveal priorities. This year we are seeing that the Republican Party in this House is willing to put huge tax breaks for the most well-off in our society and also military action around the world ahead of almost every other economic and social value in our country. Rural America needs to have market-oriented incentives, not dole for farmers from coast to coast. This bill is an important answer to the situation confronting our Nation in one of the most vital sectors of our economy, and we should not shortchange the future by the underinvestment that this bill represents. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the White House has been backtracking on how it was that fraudulent intelligence information was included by the President in his January State of the Union address delivered in this Chamber. Specifically, the statement by President Bush was that Iraq had sought to buy processed uranium for weapons of mass destruction from Niger, Africa. That information was wrong. Indeed, the documents involved appear to contain forged signatures of leaders from those nations who are no longer in office. How could this kind of information be placed in a State of the Union address? The current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. George Tenet, over the weekend has claimed publicly that he will take responsibility for this serious statement that misled Congress, misled the American people and indeed the people of the world about Iraq's intentions and capabilities relative to nuclear weaponry. The real question about this revelation is who exactly knew what and when did they know it? And who is responsible for these words being included in the President's State of the Union address, an address of such major proportion that preceded the invasion? At the same time as I ponder these questions as I know the American people are, I am in receipt of a letter from an intelligence officer. I have read it and reread it and reread it again. In the letter and in my dealings with intelligence officers, I have been told that they are trained to triple-check, to verify significant intelligence information, triple-check. So when a statement is made in the State of the Union address of such consequence, I ask myself, was it triple- checked? Who really knew what and when did they know it? Surely someone, more than one person in that White House and other places checked and rechecked and then checked again every word and every sentence in the speech. I know the President practiced the speech before coming here. All Presidents do. So who knew what and when did they know it? A retired intelligence officer from the Marine Corps wrote me this letter just a few months ago, but his words have been coming back to me, and I reread this after these revelations this weekend, and I want to share some of it with my colleagues. He says he is a retired United States Marine Corps officer with over 30 years of active and reserve service. Upon his retirement from the Marine Corps, he has worked in domestic intelligence and law enforcement in our country at a senior level. He basically informs me, in starting his letter, that his intelligence background is operationally based. But he says in the letter, first of all, there is no such thing as an intelligence failure, Congresswoman. Intelligence is a command function, just as operations is a command function, just as logistics is a command function. If a commander decides to do something that is not supported by intelligence, then that is a command failure, not an intelligence failure. He wrote to me that in his opinion the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had not been vetted through the intelligence community, and he adamantly believes that that process is absolutely critical to an adequate analysis of the question. I thought about those words a great deal. He says in his letter, look at the decision to go to war in Iraq. Our Commander in Chief decided to go to war, he planned for an operation, and nobody was about to give him any information to the contrary. I ask myself, even if they had that information? Who had the information? Who knew what and when did they know it? We have a responsibility to the Constitution, to this country and to the people of the world. We ought to get to the bottom of who knew what and when did they know it.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, tonight I come to the floor with a heavy heart because Ohio has lost one of her favorite sons on the 4th of July. I have asked for this time to say a few words on behalf of the people of our great State on the life of Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., who died of a heart attack last Saturday at age 61. Tony had just finished a heated race in his replica 1937 Chevy at a speedway in central Ohio. He loved competition, he loved turning a wrench, and he loved getting behind the wheel of his Legends car. No one would have known that he came from one of the most distinguished political families in Ohio history. Tony's father, Anthony J. Celebrezze, was mayor of Cleveland for 5 years and then served in President John F. Kennedy's cabinet as Secretary of what was then called Health, Education, and Welfare. Tony was a graduate of John Marshall High School in Cleveland and went on to the U.S. Naval Academy class of 1963. He served 5 years in the Navy and earned the Naval Commendation Medal. He received his law degree from Cleveland State University and launched his successful political career in 1974, winning election to the Ohio Senate. In 1978, he was elected Secretary of State and served one term. In 1982 he won the election as Ohio's Attorney General and won reelection in 1986. Tony was a very popular Ohio figure. He ran unsuccessfully for Governor in 1990. As Attorney General, Tony Celebrezze won accolades for his efforts to protect consumers and the environment. He made our State a better place. As the Columbus Dispatch noted, what those of us who knew Tony remember most about him was his decency, his warmth, and his humanity. ``Celebrezze,'' the Dispatch said, ``may not have won every race he entered, but he was a winner in every way that counted: as a man and as a public servant.'' He will be missed by his fellow Ohioans, as we extend our condolences to the Celebrezze family, his widow, Louisa; his 5 children, Anthony, III, Catherine, Charles, David, and Maria; his sisters, Jean and Susan and their husbands. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record this warm tribute that was written by the Columbus Dispatcher by Michael Curtin, along with a longer news story that details the accomplishments of this decent, community-minded family man whose intellect and good heart raised the character of our beloved State. As the articles state, as Ohio's chief law enforcement officer, Celebrezze negotiated a landmark court judgment against the U.S. Energy Department, giving the State the right to regulate nuclear and chemical waste at the Feeds Materials Production Center in Fernald, near Cincinnati. He also brought the first criminal prosecutions under Ohio's hazardous waste laws, expanded consumer protection, and helped bring the DARE program to Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I know that my time has almost expired, but let me just end by saying the words of the Dispatcher editorial: ``At a time when civility in politics seems virtually nonexistent, Celebrezze is remembered fondly by his many friends on both sides of the political fence.'' He understood that politics is a contact sport, but he never adopted the win-at-any-cost philosophy that does permanent damage and creates permanent enemies. Though his death came far too early, the date on which it occurred, Independence Day, is fitting considering how much of his life was devoted to service to his State and our Nation. Tonight we honor American patriot Anthony J. Celebrezze of Ohio. [From the Columbus Dispatch, July 6, 2003] Anthony J. Celebreeze Jr.; Ohio's Former Attorney General Dead of Heart Attack at 61 (By Mike Curtin and Joe Hallett) Anthony J. Celebrezze Jr., a former Ohio attorney general, secretary of state and state senator, died Friday night of cardiac arrest. He was 61. Celebrezze, a lifelong fan of auto racing and part of a Legends racing crew, was stricken after racing his replica 1937 Chevy sedan to a third-place finish at the Shady Bowl Speedway in DeGraff, in southwestern Logan County. Legends cars are five-eighths scale, fiberglass replicas of 1930s and 1940s NASCAR cars. Celebrezze's car was No. 63, marking the year he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. Those who knew him best say Celebrezze was happiest when he was around cars and racetracks. After leaving elective office at the end of 1990, he devoted himself more to the sport. ``He loved racing through and through. I don't think he would have wanted to go any other way,'' said his son, Anthony J. Celebrezze III. ``He enjoyed the daylights out of it.'' ``When we were campaigning together and the subject of racing would come up, he could go on and on about the fine points of engines and transmissions and gear reductions,'' recalled Eugene Branstool, who ran for lieutenant governor in 1990 when Celebrezze was the Democratic nominee for governor. After completing his eight-lap race in a preliminary heat Friday, Celebrezze complained of feeling ill, said Wayne Hill, a family spokesman. ``He said he was going to go rest in the truck for a little bit,'' Hill said. A short while later, his racing partners found him dead. Celebrezze had no known history of heart problems, Hill said. Celebrezze was pronounced dead about 9 p.m. by emergency medical personnel at the track, said Dr. Joshua Richards, coroner of neighboring Champaign County. ``A lot of drivers are going to be upset to hear the news,'' said Tim Williams of Columbus, who competed both with and against Celebrezze on the track. ``Everybody liked Tony. Here was a guy who was attorney general and who ran for governor, and yet he would do any task. He would do the grunt work. He quickly became one of the guys because he could talk the language. He knew the technical aspects.'' Before losing the 1990 governor's race to Republican George V. Voinovich, Celebrezze had risen steadily to become one of Ohio's leading Democrats. He began his political run in 1974 by winning election to the Ohio Senate, representing western Cuyahoga County. In 1978, he was elected secretary of state, ousting Republican Ted W. Brown, who had held the office for 28 years. In 1982, Celebrezze won his first of two terms as attorney general. As Ohio's chief law-enforcement officer, Celebrezze negotiated a landmark court judgment against the U.S. Energy Department, giving the state the right to regulate nuclear and chemical waste at the Feeds Materials Production Center in Fernald, near Cincinnati. Celebrezze also brought the first criminal prosecutions under Ohio's hazardous-waste laws, expanded consumer protection and helped bring the DARE program to Ohio. He was born into politics--the oldest of three children and only son of five-term Cleveland Mayor Anthony J. Celebrezze Sr. After serving as mayor from 1953 to '62, Celebrezze Sr. was appointed secretary of health, education and welfare by President Kennedy. From 1965 to '96, Celebrezze Sr. was a judge of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Paul Corey, a former teacher at Newton D. Baker Junior High School in Cleveland, remembers the young Celebrezze ``being badgered all the time if the garbage wasn't being picked up'' while his father was mayor. ``Tony was a beautiful human being,'' said Corey, who now lives in Columbus. ``What you see was what you got. He was a good, very quiet, well-mannered young man.'' Celebrezze graduated from John Marshall High School and entered the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1963. He served five years of active duty and earned the Naval Commendation Medal. For many years thereafter, he served as a captain in the U.S. Naval Reserve. Celebrezze earned a master's degree in 1966 from George Washington University and a law degree in 1973 from Cleveland State University. In June 1965, he married Louisa Staton Godwin of Williamson, N.C. They met while both worked at the U.S. Department of Defense. They are the parents of five children: Anthony J. Celebrezze III of Columbus; Catherine Celebrezze of New York City; Charles Celebrezze of Plantation, Fla.; David Celebrezze of Leesburg, Va., and Maria Celebrezze of Columbus. Mrs. Celebrezze, a licensed social worker, is known for her knowledge and appreciation of classical music. ``We have an agreement,'' her husband said in 1999. ``I don't go to her operas, and she doesn't go to the races.'' ``Actually, he did go to some of those (operas and concerts),'' Celebrezze's oldest son said. ``And she (his mother) went to a number of his races, although the only thing she knew was that they were going around in a circle.'' Throughout his political career, Celebrezze had no closer associate and friend than his chief of staff, William H. Chavanne. They met in 1974, when Chavanne worked on Celebrezze's state Senate campaign. ``I think he'll be remembered as somebody who was always concerned about doing a good job. He was hardworking and smart. He tried to never leave a job undone.'' Voinovich, said Celebrezze's industriousness impressed Republicans and Democrats: ``The thing that impressed me was that he was so conscientious with the work he did in state government.'' Voinovich, said he also noticed that Celebrezze, after leaving government, continued to work for community and civic causes. Since 1991, Celebrezze has practiced law. For the past two years, he practiced with the Columbus firm of Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter. He founded the firm's national regulatory and government-affairs area and was active in administrative law. Celebrezze ``was a true mentor. He took a lot of younger people under his wing.'' said law partner Kevin Kerns. ``He also was a friend, a tremendously loyal individual.'' James M. Ruvolo, Ohio Democratic chairman from 1983 to '91, said much of Celebrezze's political success stemmed from being genuine. ``Tony was a decent guy, and that came across,'' Ruvolo said. ``In politics, you run into people you respect, but you don't often run into people you respect and like. People respected and liked Tony.'' Besides his wife and children, Celebrezze is survived by his sisters, Jean Porto of Chevy Chase, MD., and Susan Sullivan of Boston. Calling hours in Columbus will be 4-8 p.m. Monday at O'Shaughnessy Funeral Home, 405 E. Town St. Calling hours in the Cleveland area will be 4-8 p.m. Tuesday at Corrigan's Funeral Home, 20820 Lorain Rd., Fairview Park. A funeral Mass will be held at 11 a.m. Wednesday in St. John Cathedral in downtown Cleveland. Burial will be in Holy Cross Cemetery.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Right. If you look at the rest of the world, a country like Canada negotiates price. Even parts of our government, the Department of Veterans Affairs gets a much better price than other seniors pay simply because they do group buying and do negotiated pricing with these companies. With the kinds of billions and billions of dollars of profit they have, there is a little cushion there for our senior citizens. I just want to thank the gentleman very much for standing up for the Democratic bill that should have been allowed to be offered here on this floor and was not. It is a sad day for our seniors. 2002 Pharmaceutical Contributions, By Party Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: $3,180,552; Democrats 5%; Republicans 95%. Pfizer Inc.: $1,804,522; Democrats 20%; Republicans 80%. Bristol-Myers Squibb: $1,590,813; Democrats 16%; Republicans 83%. Eli Lilly & Co.: $1,581,531; Democrats 25%; Republicans 75%. Pharmacia Corp.: $1,480,241; Democrats 22%; Republicans 78%. GlaxoSmithKline: $1,301,438; Democrats 22%; Republicans 78%. Wyeth: $1,188,919; Democrats 17%; Republicans 83%. Johnson & Johnson: $1,075,371; Democrats 39%; Republicans 61%. Schering-Plough Corp.: $1,057,978; Democrats 21%; Republicans 79%. Aventis: $954,349; Democrats 22%; Republicans 78%.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raised such good points on that, and I would just show another drug that some seniors buy is Prozac, which is used for depression. The U.S. retail price on that is about $302.97. It is a very expensive drug. In our country today with the Veterans Department and the DOD, Department of Defense, negotiating, we can get that down to $186.98. And so we can look at the drug saving. Here is another one, Prilosec, which is used for heartburn, which sells at about $134.99. With negotiation by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense, we have gotten that down to $63.32. Some of these prices are half. So when we look at what we are paying in the private sector, let us say, where they do not have negotiated pricing, if we apply that to what would be spent under the Medicare Part D that the Democrats have proposed, we would save literally billions and billions of dollars. And I wanted to say to the gentleman that I intend to place in the record tonight the names of these pharmaceutical companies and how much money they contributed to political campaigns back in 2002 so that people who are listening can take it right from the Congressional Record tonight. The source is the Center for Responsive Politics. And we will also place in the Record which political parties they gave money to. And one can go down the list, and, without question, the vast majority of money from the pharmaceutical giants that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) talked about this evening who make 50 percent of the profits of the Fortune 500, that is incredible. Was it Will Rogers who said we are getting the Government they are paying for? And they have paid for plenty here, and they are weighing in heavily. Frankly, I have seen some of our colleagues defeated around the country because of the ads, the hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads that they put on the air. And that is why we cannot get a really good prescription drug bill out of this Congress because they got what they paid for, and they protected themselves from negotiated pricing in this bill. Who would imagine that a bill on prescription drugs would prohibit the Government of the United States from trying to get the best price through group buying?

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, for many of the plans that exist around the country today, one of the real threats of the Republican plan is that employers who are offering drug plans today would choose to close those down and try to put their retired employees in this flawed plan that the Republicans have proposed. So it is actually a disincentive for private employers to continue offering the kind of coverage that they have traditionally. And there are many, many retirees who receive prescription drug coverage through their employer, but this plan really provides a way for them to cash out those better plans into a lesser plan, and we have already seen with the Federal employees that they were very worried about that. So Members of Congress very craftily made sure that they were covered, but they left seniors in America behind. They took care of a few thousand people, including themselves, but then they left 40 million Americans behind in the bill that has come out of this House. Very interesting. That is not really what we are elected to do. We are supposed to be here to represent the 280 million Americans who sent us here, not to feather-bed here first and take care of our own first and ignore everybody else that is out there. But that is literally what happened here this week. And for the Federal employees we should have a plan for all seniors that are as good as what they get, not the reverse.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order tonight, and certainly the people of New Jersey have sent the right Member here to fight this great fight. It is a privilege to stand here also with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who is such a critical member of our Committee on Ways and Means and knows more about this probably than any other Member of the House, and has fought so hard to maintain the Medicare program that our Democratic forebears created, and we proudly stand on their shoulders. To stand here with both you gentlemen tonight is truly an honor. I wanted to mention, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) said, the pharmaceutical companies around this Nation are making unbelievable profits off the pocketbooks of our senior citizens and their families, and to also mention that the reason we have such a terrible bill before us in the House and why we were denied the opportunity to offer a Democratic alternative, we were not even given a chance to debate our alternative, is because these very same pharmaceutical companies helped elect the people who have created this bill for the Congress. And an organization like PhRMA gave 95 percent of its political contributions last year to one political party, the party that prevailed by one vote here in this House 2 weeks ago in getting this very flawed bill before us. Now, the Republican Party has produced a bill that is really a trick on the senior citizens of this country. It is a trick because of the language they use in the title that does not bear out real substance on the inside. Let me give a couple examples just to refine what my colleagues have talked about tonight. I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) talked about the Democratic bill, which we were not allowed to offer, had a maximum premium per month for our seniors of $25. The Republican bill that passed starts out at $35 a month, but it does not have a cap so we really do not know what that monthly premium is going to be. The Democratic plan is a defined benefit plan. You know exactly what it costs, and you know exactly what you get from it. The Republican plan is what we call a defined contribution plan. You only get so much, and then you do not know how much more you are going to have to pay. It is very unpredictable. In the Democratic plan, which we were not allowed to offer, and imagine, a measure that affects over 40 million Americans and we were not even allowed to offer our alternative. I say to the majority, what are they afraid of? The deductible under the Democratic plan is $100 for seniors. Under the Republican plan, it is $250. Under the Democratic plan after you have paid your $2,000, if you reach that level which we call a catastrophic level, then you do not pay anything after that. We pick up the costs, the people of the United States through the premiums. Under the Republican plan, they make seniors pay an additional $1,500 beyond the $2,000 cap that we have in our bill, which means that it is going to cost seniors much more money under that plan. So you pay a higher monthly cost, and we are not really sure how high that will go under the Republican plan. You pay a higher deductible. You have to pay costs over $2,000, up to $3,500, and the reference that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) made to the fact that the Democratic bill provided for negotiated pricing for different drugs, the Republican plan prohibits us from negotiating the best price like we do already for the Department of Veterans Affairs and for the Department of Defense. This is just a chart of some of the drugs that people buy. Norvasc, seniors in my district are very familiar with Norvasc which is used for high blood pressure. The general price at a drugstore is $182.99. The Canadian price is $152.82. Through our negotiated pricing through the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have gotten a price of $102.11. We wanted to get the same kind of negotiated pricing in the bill that was debated 2 weeks ago. We were not allowed to even offer the amendment. I went up to the Committee on Rules, which met after midnight so nobody in America could really see what was going on, and we had to wait until 4:30 in the morning only to be denied the opportunity to offer this best-price amendment. We were trying to get not just Canadian prices, but even better prices on many of these drugs based on negotiated pricing. Our amendment was not even allowed to be offered. So the Republican plan is really a tricky plan, and you have to read the fine print. The differences are very striking. Let us say you live in a part of the country that has no plans. Let us say these private insurers who do not seem to be flocking to provide regular coverage under Medicare, if a plan does not exist in your part of the country, under the Democratic plan there is a fall- back government prescription drug plan that you can opt for. It requires that in the bill so no part of America would remain uncovered. The Republican bill does not provide that kind of fall-back where two private drug plans might fail to emerge, and we know they probably will fail to emerge. I was home over the weekend talking to seniors, and one woman said, I belong to an existing HMO in this community for prescription drugs, but right now my coverage stops at $600. I cannot get anything beyond that. If my drugs cost more than $600, I have to pay that. So the current plans that exist are very, very inadequate. I wanted to just take a moment to give, again, very specific information about the difference between the Democratic bill that we were not allowed to offer and the Republican bill which passed here by one vote in the middle of the night as they twisted arms, and we could see it happening right down that aisle. If a senior's yearly drug costs are $1,500 for prescription drugs, their out-of-pocket expenses under the Democratic plan would be $680. Their out-of-pocket costs under the Republican plan would be $920, which means that seniors whose drug costs are up to $1,500 a year would pay $240 more a year under the Republican plan. If a senior's yearly drug costs are $3,000 a year, their out-of- pocket expenses under the Democratic plan would be $980, but their out- of-pocket costs under the Republican plan would be $2,020. So the Republican plan costs seniors $1,040 more if their drug expenses go up to $3,000. What if their drugs cost $4,500 a year? Under the Democratic plan, their out-of-pocket costs would be $1,280; but under the Republican plan, their out-of-pocket costs would be $3,520. So the Republican plan costs seniors $4,500 more if their drug costs go up to $4,500 a year. So the sicker they get, the more it costs them under the Republican plan. I must say, I have a lot of seniors in my district and they do not earn more than $8,000 under Social Security. The Republican plan is an unaffordable plan. What if you are so sick that your drug costs are over $12,000? Under the Democratic plan, your out-of-pocket costs would be $2,300. Under the Republican plan, your costs would be $3,920. So the Republican plan would cost seniors in that case $1,620 more a year. So under the Democratic bill, as I have explained here, we tried to provide for negotiated pricing to match the Canadian prices and even better them in some instances. We were not allowed the opportunity to offer our amendment, and that is a major cost-saving amendment because it would use the power of group buying which every housewife in America knows about. Anybody who does shopping knows if you buy 12 cans of something, it is less expensive per unit than if you buy one. We are trying to do the same for 40 million people across this country. Imagine the savings involved, and the premium costs are less and guaranteed under the Democratic plan. Under the Republican plan, they start at $35 and raise it. The deductible is more affordable under the Democratic plan; under the Republican plan, it is more expensive. If I can just perhaps summarize why the Republican plan might be so bad and why it really is a trick on our seniors, it is because fundamentally the Republican Party has never supported Social Security and Medicare. Back when Social Security was first created by this Congress long before I was born, and we go back to the Committee on Ways and Means votes, there were no Republican votes to create Social Security back in the 1930s when you go into the record of what happened back in that Committee on Ways and Means room. When it got to the floor, enough people were embarrassed that they voted for it. Some did, not all. But back in committee where the real decisions are made, there was not a single Republican vote in the committee for Social Security. On Medicare, when President Johnson fought for the creation of Medicare, and I was a young girl then, Senator Bob Dole said in 1995, ``I was there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare in 1965 because we knew it would not work.'' Well, for several generations of senior citizens, indeed, it has worked. It has helped keep American families from going to the poor house and going bankrupt; and it has given American seniors a level of security they never knew before in American history. To me, Social Security and Medicare are the aorta of the Democratic Party of which I am proud to be a member. I look at some of the other quotes that have come from contemporary Republicans. One of the Members from the other body in charge of Republican policy said back in May as this debate got underway, ``Congress should gradually end the traditional Medicare program as an option for new beneficiaries in the future, leaving them to choose from a variety of private plans. I believe the standard benefit, the traditional Medicare program has to be phased out.'' This was in The New York Times, May 21, 2003. In this body, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), according to MSNBC stated, ``To those who would say that our bill would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is we certainly hope so. Old-fashioned Medicare isn't very good.'' He said that June 25, 2003. I would just like to say to the gentleman from California and to the gentleman from the other body, for our family and for 114,000 Ohioans in my district and for over 1.5 million Ohioans around our Buckeye State, we believe Medicare should be here to stay. We are here to strengthen it, not to weaken it; and we do not want to trick our seniors. We want to provide them with a guaranteed, affordable benefit that is voluntary if they wish to participate in something that is available to all. It is a great pleasure to be here this evening to put on the record the truth and the actual costs of both plans and to say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) thank you so very much for allowing me to join you this evening and to say I was somewhat offended this week when we came back here and our colleagues yesterday passed a measure in this House to give Members of Congress better prescription drug coverage than we are willing to give every single senior citizen that is out there. Members of Congress make over $150,000 a year. Some do not accept all of that. A lot of people donate some of that to charitable causes. But what is interesting is that the Republican majority in this House snuck through a bill here yesterday that would actually ask senior citizens to pay 100 percent of their drug costs, between $2,000 and $3,500 a year, but yet they did not apply that same measure to themselves the other night. They are going to take that cost away from themselves. It is really a tragedy. Why should Members of Congress exempt themselves from the same regimen that they are asking of senior citizens across this country who do not earn anything like $150,000 a year? It is simply wrong. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for allowing me to participate with him this evening and for his continuing leadership on this really critical, I call it aorta, issue for our country and our party.

Mrs. KAPTUR

Mrs. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I congratulate the 2003 Honorary Degree recipients from John Carroll University, Monsignor William Linder, who received a Doctor of Laws, and the recipients of a Doctorate in Humane Letters, Sonya Rendon Blacio and Mary Patricia McTeague. America is fortunate to be blessed with citizens of their high calibre and profound dedication. Monsignor William Linder has spent his life saving cities and souls. During the Newark riots of 1967, the New Jersey native, a parish priest at the time, stepped forward to bring people together and build trust. He moved through the battle zone, delivering food and transporting the injured to hospitals. After the smoke cleared, the priest called together a group of residents to set about rebuilding the city they loved. In Newark's Central Ward, they formed the New Community Corporation (NCC) and charged it with the mission of creating housing and the products and services that would bring jobs. The NCC has become the largest and most successful community development organization in the United States. It has brought new life to the old city of Newark, providing housing and jobs for thousands, and creating a community development model that is now being studied and emulated throughout the world. Monsignor Linder has won the McArthur Foundation ``Genius'' fellowship, and he has received countless honors in the course of his remarkable ministry to the people of northern New Jersey. He has said, ``I have never really thought of myself as a pastor to only Catholics. I am a pastor of people.'' In honor of Monsignor Linder, Professor George Bilgere penned the following poem: You walked into the battle zone Of Newark in the sixties A young, audacious, rabble-rousing priest, Hoping to rebuild the city from its core, To heal its broken heart, to do What no one believed you could do. The broken-hearted cities, The neighborhoods called Hough And Watts and Spanish Harlem, Are not the parts of America We think of saving When the bombs are falling, Or when the flag is waving Over baseball games in spring. Probably there aren't many flags Waving over East St. Louis or Cabrini Green Or Roxbury or Eight mile, But it's hard to know for sure Because no one travels there Who doesn't have to. Only those who have no choice Live in the broken heart Of America. But now, thirty-five years later, A gray-haired, audacious, rabble-rousing priest, You watch the Central Ward prosper While the country watches you, Taking hope from the strength and courage, The hard work of one stubborn man, One man of vision who understands That America will not be whole or free Until the cities, The broken-hearted cities, are healed. Sonya Rendon Blacio and Mary Patricia McTeague have had dramatic success in creating a new world in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Rendon, an Ecuadorian education, and McTeague, an American and a former nun, have built a school that is a model of both educational excellence and egalitarianism. At Escuela Nuevo Mondo, which the two women began in 1979, the school's 200 faculty members instruct 1400 tuition-paying students, the children of affluent Ecuador, in the morning. In the afternoon, 900 children of poverty receive the same education for free from the Fundacion Nuevo Mondo. Rendon and McTeague state that Nuevo Mondo is in truth ``a social revolution aimed at changing attitudes between social classes and opening doors to offer options to some of the 80 percent of Ecuadorians who otherwise would not have the opportunity for quality education, medical and social assistance.'' Today, Nuevo Mondo operates elementary and high schools, a commercial bakery, two day care centers, two medical centers and vocational training projects. The people of Ecuador continue to struggle, but Nuevo Mondo has been a beacon pointing the way to a new world. In honor of Sonya Rendon Blacio and Mary Patricia McTeague, Professor George Bilgere penned the following poem: On the coast of Ecuador, Out of poverty and despair, A new world is rising, One classroom at a time A Nuevo Mundo, where once Was only a jungle and a dream. At first your idea was simple; Build a school for their children So in the afternoon There would, at last, be a classroom For the children of the poor. But you learned over time That the rich, too, are poor, As long as they can't define The word hunger, or explain What it means to have no shoes, Or to be unable To read the Bible, or a novel, Or your name. Real change, you found, Comes only when the rich man suffers To learn from the beggar That they are brothers Who can help each other Ease the pain of the world; Only then will come the day When the old world passed Through hard work and love And the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Into the new world you dream of And are building from the jungle One classroom at a time, That Nuevo Mundo, where all Are brothers and sisters, Equal in every way.