Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan marked its president's first anniversary in office on May 20, 2001. President Chen Shui-bian, a Taiwan-born statesman, should be commended for his leadership and vision for his country. President Chen has protected the tradition of political liberty for the 23 million citizens of Taiwan. His strong support for an educated population strives to ensure a society based on freedom and opportunity. I applaud his openness to democracy and the free exchange of ideas with other nations and cultures. With the continued encouragement and assistance from the West, Taiwan can continue to be a beacon of hope for freedom in Asia. On the occasion of President Chen's first anniversary in office, I wish President Chen Godspeed and good fortune as he transits through New York en route to Central America later this month.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in order to present my 5- minute special order.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for allowing me to precede him here this evening. He is always very gracious and accommodating to other Members. Mr. Speaker, this evening I begin what will be a series of 5-minute speeches to place in the Record information about a very important trip on our continent that was taken by religious leaders of Canada to Mexico in a fact-finding trip subsequent to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. They traveled there in late March and early April, and in fact have produced probably one of the finest documents I have had the opportunity to read regarding what has happened in the last 7 years post-NAFTA. The delegation included representatives of the Presbyterian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Religious Conference, and the Inter- Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America. They traveled throughout Mexico to all different regions, and this evening I will only talk about a few of the areas that they visited. The compelling report that they have produced tells all of us who are going to be faced very shortly with a vote on fast-track extension, to move NAFTA to expand its concepts to all of Latin America, to think twice about what we are doing and to go back and redress some of the horrendous conditions that the original NAFTA agreement has created in our own country and in the other two major nations on this continent, Canada and Mexico. The group first visited the Sierra Tarahumara, which is in the central part of the country in the region of Chihuahua, and I will only read parts of their written report. They begin saying, ``In the once densely forested mountains of the Tarahumara Sierra, we met with the indigenous communities of San Alonso, who gave us a letter for our government, signed with their thumbprints that pleads for 'an end to the impoverishment of our people.' '' They said, ``People here once lived from agriculture and from selling small amounts of timber, but changes to forestry controls under free trade have brought multinational corporations and clear-cutting. Soils for food crops are eroding,'' and it is important to say the soil layer in Mexico is very thin. For them, it is survival. They said, ``Laws have been imposed that favor companies from other countries. The local Catholic Church referred to legislation that had preceded NAFTA's passage, and said these laws have enabled much wealth to be taken from the Sierra, leaving behind growing poverty.'' They said, ``We saw the impact of this in the ulcerated sightless corneas of a child, whose mother had nothing to feed him now, but a soup of ground corn. We sat with an indigenous woman who had brought her dying baby to a dispensary run by nuns, and heard that 48 percent of infants in the Sierra die before the age of 5 because of chronic malnutrition. Other than suicide, a new phenomenon in these indigenous communities, the nuns told us, many see only two alternatives: To cultivate marijuana or poppies for drug traffickers or to migrate north in search of work, abandoning ancestral land, breaking up families and splintering communities.'' They said, ``In the community of Baborigame, we heard how 48 percent of children die before the age of 5 from poverty-induced chronic malnutrition. We personally witnessed the desperation of mothers of children who had died. The Carmelite Sisters told us that the situation is worsening. Indigenous people who once were able to eat corn and beans now often can only afford to eat a soup of ground corn, and lately they also have witnessed a new cause of death previously unheard of in these historic indigenous communities, suicides due to sheer hopelessness.'' The report goes on to talk about policies associated with NAFTA have effectively privatized what were once community lands, or ejido lands, that provided rural and indigenous communities with guaranteed land in perpetuity. Unable to get a just price for their products and saddled with overwhelming and unpayable debts, Mexican farmers are increasingly being forced to sell those lands, leading to a growing concentration of land in few hands. They say those buying up the land and who are renting from farmers unable to make a go of it, including multinationals like PepsiCo, have basically used the land now to produce potatoes for the fast food market in our three countries. Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the future. I will enter this particular report in the Record. Report of the Ecumenical Church Leaders Delegation to Mexico--March 28- April 6, 2001 introduction From March 28 to April 6, 2001, five Canadian church leaders travelled to Mexico as part of an ecumenical fact- finding delegation organized by the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America (ICCHRLA). The delegation was made up of: Rev. Glen Davis, Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Canada; Mgr. Jean Gagnon, Auxiliary Bishop of Quebec City; Archbishop Thomas Morgan, Anglican Diocese of Saskatoon; the Very Rev. Robert Smith, former Moderator of the United Church of Canada; Sr. Priscilla Solomon, Canadian Religious Conference; Suzanne Rumsey and Kathy Price, Inter- Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America. The delegation's mission was to explore the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement--along with free trade policies and legislative changes that were implemented prior to 1994 in order to make Mexico ``NAFTA-ready''--on human rights. The delegation's time in Mexico focused on three areas: visits with indigenous and non-indigenous communities in the Sierra Tarahumara; visits with communities of small farmers in Central Chihuahua; visits with workers and migrants in the Special Border Zone of Ciudad Juarez. the sierra tarahumara In the southern mountain region of the state of Chihuahua, known as the Sierra Tarahumara, our delegation visited indigenous communities where we heard how privatization of state Forestry Services and the lifting of controls over logging--policies implemented in the lead up to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement--have coincided with the arrival of transnational forestry companies and intensive, largely unregulated logging. This has resulted in the denuding of forests that once provided edible plants, medicinal herbs and a livelihood to the Tepahuane, Raramuri and Huichol indigenous peoples, along with growing desertification, depletion of soils and shrinking of agricultural harvests. Meanwhile, we were told that NAFTA has enabled cheap wood imports to enter Mexico from countries such as the United States, Chile, Brazil and even Russia (via the U.S.), driving down the price that indigenous communities can obtain for the timber resources on their land, contributing to growing poverty as well as pressure to cut down more and more trees in order to make a living. ``We want the impoverishment of our people to end,'' states a simple yet eloquent letter we were given, signed by 73 members of the indigenous community of San Alonso, who asked us to pass it on to you. We have attached their letter to ours and ask you to read its urgent plea for controls to stop the degradation of their environment by the rapacious operations of multinational corporations. Efforts by communities to halt these practices have been largely ignored, or worse still, met with threats and violence. The Catholic Diocese of the Tarahumara told us in unequivocal terms that NAFTA is to blame for the increased clearcutting by multinational companies that are destroying the region's forests. Indeed, the Diocese told us they have brought a complaint to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in Montreal citing violations of Articles 14 and 15 of the NAFTA side agreement but to no avail. In ``Our Word About the Destruction of the Forest'' the Diocese states: ``Laws have been imposed that favour companies from other countries . . . These laws have enabled much wealth to leave the Sierra, leaving behind growing poverty . . . Exploitation of the forest has brought no benefits to the majority of the inhabitants of the Sierra . . . If we do not halt the destruction, we are heading for death.'' In the community of Baborigame, we heard how 48 percent of children die before the age of five from preventable diseases that result from poverty-induced chronic malnutrition. We personally witnessed the desperation of a mother whose baby would have died, had the Carmelite sisters, who run a small dispensary, not taken him to the nearest hospital, three hours away. The Carmelite sisters also told us that the situation is worsening; indigenous people who once ate corn and beans, now often can only afford to eat a soup of ground corn and lately they have witnessed a new cause of death, previously unheard of in indigenous communities; suicides due to sheer hopelessness. In such a context, many indigenous inhabitants feel they have little option but to choose between two terrible alternatives: abandon their land and migrate north in search of work (a process that is causing family, community and cultural disintegration) or turn to cultivating drugs like marijuana and poppies, illicit crops which unlike others, fetch a price that enables them to feed their families. Drug trafficking is present throughout the Sierra because there is no work, we were told by the Diocese of Tarahumara. ``The people need to survive in this impoverished mountain region.'' We were outraged at the price these people are paying for their survival. We also heard from the respected, church-based Commission for Solidarity and the Defence of Human Rights (COSYDDHAC) how instead of providing solutions to the hard economic realities and growing poverty that have forced some into drug cultivation, the Mexican government has militarized the region. COSYDDHAC has documented arbitrary detentions, torture, disappearances and assassinations committed by the police and military, who justify their actions in the name of the ``war on drugs''. In a joint letter to the Mexican government that was shared with us, Bishop Jose Luis Dibildox and 28 priests, religious and lay workers stated: ``The methods used by the army create a doubt in the minds of the public as to what is the real aim of their actions, which in some instances seem to be responding to other interests, such as the militarization of Mexico, especially in indigenous regions.'' In Baborigame, we witnessed the trauma and terror that repression by state security forces is causing amongst inhabitants of the community. We witnessed the pain of people whose relatives were shot down in cold blood, victims who included a local indigenous leader. We share the grave concern of the Tarahumara Diocese that ``instead of seeking ways to ease tensions, and bring about well-being and peace, we see actions that will bring war and death.'' The Farming Region of Central Chihuahua In rural communities in the state of Chihuahua, we witnessed the terrible human impact on small farmers of policies that have consciously neglected and excluded them. Since the implementation of policies that were entrenched in NAFTA, communities where families once made a living from farming basic grains for local markets and their own consumption have found it increasingly difficult to survive. As a result, men of working age are forced to abandon their farms and migrate north in search of temporary jobs. Many of them work illegally in the United States, having been unable to obtain a work visa. As a result, they are paid exploitative wages and denied the rights and benefits accorded to others. The suffering caused by these realities was evident in our conversations with inhabitants of the communities we visited. ``We have become half men because we are no longer able to provide for our families. We can no longer be husbands to our wives, or fathers to our children,'' we were told by small farmers who must leave their communities in search of work for 4 to 5 months at a time. This means the women, as they told us, ``are left to assume the roles of both women and men'', taking on a triple work load of caring for their homes and families, looking after their farms, and often seeking paid work in order to feed their children. The exodus from the countryside, as we were told by the respected Democratic Campesino Organization, as well as many of the farming families we met with, is a direct result of economic policies that were enacted to make Mexico NAFTA- ready. Unlike in the United States--and to a lesser extent in Canada--where basic grains producers continue to be subsidized for the costs of production, subisidies to corn producers in Mexico were competely phased out in 1997, 12 years ahead of schedule, thus creating an unlevel playing field. Moreover, since NAFTA came into effect in 1994, tariffs have been lifted and cheap corn and beans from the U.S. have flooded the Mexican market, making it impossible for Mexico producers to compete. In addition, free market policies that began prior to 1994 but which have been made permanent in NAFTA, have resulted in the elimination of credit for small farmers, leaving them at the mercy of local loan sharks who charge usurious interest rates. All of these policies have had a predictable effect, one which was impossible to ignore in the faces of those we met with: increasing poverty and increasing desperation as families worry how they will get by from one day to the next. As in the Sierra Tarahumara, we heard of families reduced to a diet of cornmeal soup, and of the existence of preventable diseases due to chronic malnutrition. It is this situation, in which vast numbers are robbed of their very dignity, that is forcing people to leave in search of other means to survive, provoking family and community disintegration in the process. Policies associated with NAFTA have also effectively privatized what were once communal or ejido lands, that provided rural and indigenous communities with a guaranteed land base in perpetuity. Unable to get a just price for their products and saddled with overwhelming and unpayable debts, Mexican farmers are increasingly being forced to sell those lands, leading to growing concentration of land in few hands. Those buying up the land or renting from farmers unable to make a go of it,--including multinationals like PepsiCo--have used vast extensions to produce potatoes for the fast food markets of the three NAFTA countries. In an arid state where we were told that ``water is gold,'' PepsiCo was able to obtain access to wells, which small farmers had been denied, and its large scale irrigation has reduced the already alarmingly low water table. This, together with extensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has meant that arable land is being destroyed, and with it, the means for rural Mexicans to be guaranteed the basic human right to adequate nutrition and food security. It is clear to us that one of the factors that is fueling this crisis in the countryside is that a significant proportion of Mexico's gross domestic product is being used to service its foreign debt. We wish to share with you what we were told by the Democratic Campeesino Organization, a position which we support: ``Developing countries like Mexico need to have food security and policies that guarantee that security, because if they don't, the 40 million people who live in poverty and the 20 million people who live in extreme poverty in Mexico will continue to migrate north.'' Ciudad Juarez In the border city of Ciudad Juarez--home to 397 maquila factories employing 281,000 workers that assemble electronics products and car parts for export to the United States and Canada--we saw where many whose means of survival has been eliminated under free trade in the Tarahumara Sierra, or the failed farms of the plains of Chihuahua, end up. It is a reality we would not wish on anyone. The political leaders of this hemisphere have, on numerous occasions, told their citizens it will take time for the benefits of free trade to be realized and equitably shared. In Ciudad Juarez we came face to face with what 30 years of free trade has wrought on countless human lives. That is because the city has operated as a free trade zone since the 1970s, when the first maquila assembly factories were established under rules that provide generous incentives for foreign investors, while workers are paid what can only be called exploitative wages and denied rights which Canadian workers take for granted. What we saw in Cuidad Juarez is nothing less than economic slavery. Until the recent recession in the United States, unemployment in Cuidad Juarez stood at an astonishing 0 percent. Yet 58 percent of those fully employed workers and their families live below the poverty line. Of that total 18 percent live in poverty and 40 percent live in extreme poverty. In 1976, a maquila worker earned a salary in pesos that was the equivalent of US$11 a day, yet the value of that salary is now as little as just US$4.50 a day, due to currency devaluations under free trade. As one maquila worker put it, ``You have the choice to clothe yourself or to feed yourself.'' What does a maquila salary buy? We visited several colonias where maquila workers have no choice but to live and this was how one member of our delegation described his reaction: ``I stood in the dust and saw houses pulled together, framed with packing pallets from the maquila, and covered with cardboard. I saw the barrels that once carried chemicals to the maquilas with their dwindling supply of tepid, unpotable water. And you know what I discovered? I discovered that these people are employed 10 to 16 hours a day producing cheap microwaves, cheap TVs, cheap computers for Canada. And our government says, ``NAFTA is a good deal for Canada!' Mr. Prime Minister, you have not been to this shantytown. A day's work for a salary equivalent to the cost of a jug of milk is not a good deal for anyone! If my car is cheaper because of what I saw here, that is unacceptable.'' In Juarez, we saw with our own eyes what a local priest had told us, you can work for a Fortune 500 company and live in a cardboard house. Indeed, we were appalled at the living conditions of thousands upon thousands of people who exist without decent housing, and without access to essential social services like water, sanitation, health care, and education. Time and again, we heard from young workers about the dehumanizing impact of the highly controlled environment of the maquilas. Assembly lines are often sped up by supervisors in order to meet high production quotas, approval must be obtained for bathroom breaks, which are carefully timed and future breaks denied if the time is exceeded. Workers told us they are treated ``like a machine, a cog in the wheel.'' Exhausted young women workers, demoralized by salaries that do not afford the means for anything more than basic survival, added: ``The maquilas have robbed us of our dreams for a better future.'' Workers also told us they are fearful about the long term effects of being exposed to chemical solvents without adequate protection, in denial of their right to a healthy work environment. As we heard repeatedly: ``The only right people have here is the right of a job. But in reality that's nothing more than the right to be exploited.'' None of the maquila workers we spoke to in Juarez had the right to unionize freely to defend their rights. The experience of workers who have tried to challenge such a situation was brought home painfully to us by the testimony we received from maquila worker, Pedro Lopez, from the state of Tamaulipas. Mr. Lopez told us about his experience trying to help organize an independence union at the Duro Bag Company, a maquila where labour rights were routinely violated. The first such initiative to occur under the new administration of President Vicente Fox, the vote took place on March 2, in what can only be described as conditions of fear, intimidation and violence. Workers were locked inside the factory and had to declare their vote verbally (rather than a secret ballot) in the presence of heavily armed men (who the day before had entered the plant with machine guns), hired by the ``official'' union affiliated with Mexico's former ruling PRI party. International and Mexican observers were not allowed to enter. Needless to say, the independent union lost the vote. The following day, Mr. Lopez had to be hospitalized when his vehicle was forced off the road by two others, the ``accident'' leaving a scar still visible on his face. The 3 metre high fence that runs along the border with the United States--a sign that desperate people from other parts of Mexico can come to Juarez to be a source of cheap labour in the maquila factories but are not welcome any further north--was always visible during our stay. Visible too was the militarized U.S. border patrol, posted along the fence at regular intervals. Borders between Canada, the United States and Mexico under NAFTA have been opened to the free passage of goods and capital but not to people. It is deeply troubling to us that a wall has been erected on the border between the United States and Mexico under NAFTA, in contrast to the experience of Europe, where the Berlin Wall has been dismantled and the European Union has opened up its borders to increased movement of workers between member countries. As we heard from social organizations in Juarez, militarizing the border does not stop those desperate for the means to adequately provide for their families from trying to get across. It only makes the crossing more dangerous, as those attempting to get into the US take greater risks, such as picking routes that require days walking in the desert or other hazards. A study by the University of Houston recorded over 300 deaths during border crossings in 2000.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stump legislation to construct the World War II memorial exactly where it should be, as a memorial to the victory of liberty over tyranny in the 20th century, between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, exactly where it should be placed, so that freedom from the 18th, the 19th, and 20th centuries will be celebrated along our avenue of democracy. It has now taken longer to approve this memorial, three times longer, actually, than it did to fight the war. It is time for America to say ``thank you'' to our greatest generation, and to make it more than words. The public has a new-found fascination with the World War II generation, thanks to Tom Brokaw's book, movies such as ``Saving Private Ryan,'' and other commemorations of our Nation's finest hour. Outside the beltway, more than half a million Americans have responded to a national fund-raising appeal by contributing more than $150 million to the World War II Memorial project. In fact, just this past week, in my district, I returned to accept a check from schoolchildren, 7th and 8th graders at Anthony Wayne, Jr. School for $2,154 to contribute to the memorial's construction. Young people, the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren who have been given the freedom we have today are contributing across this country. We owe them and their predecessors the kind of thanks that a grateful Nation expresses. Unfortunately, this project has been snarled in a new round of political tussling and legal wrangling inside this beltway. I do not question the motives of the memorial's opponents, but it is time to move forward. There have been 22 public hearings by organizations like the National Capital Planning Commission, the Fine Arts Commission approving the construction of this memorial. The money has been raised and it is on deposit. All the respective legislation has been passed. Both Chambers of this Congress have said yes, yes, yes. Over 8 years, we have said yes. The ground has been dedicated. It is time to move forward with construction of the World War II memorial at the Rainbow Pool site. I say that not just as a Member of Congress, but as a city planner that helped take a look at the site, that has worked with the architects to make sure that the design was appropriate, blocking no views; and all public input has made this a better design than we began with originally. Of the 16 million veterans who served during World War II, approximately 5 million still survive. Every day, approximately 1,100 World War II veterans pass away, never to see the memorial in Washington that will stand as testimony to what they did for us, with the heroism and the self-sacrifice that have given us a new generation of children of freedom. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to move forward with construction of the World War II memorial. The time for delay is over. We not only honor our World War II veterans during this Armed Services Week in doing so, but we also say, we understand the cause for which they fought and it deserves recognition on the central part of our mall, complementing what we have done for the 18th century, the 19th century, and finally, the 20th century. Support the Stump bill, H.R. 1696.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week the President sent to Congress his International Trade Agenda for 2001. Members who were expecting a detailed and responsible approach were sorely disappointed. First, the President is trying to play the name game. He knows that Congress has repeatedly rejected Fast Track, most recently in 1998. He also knows that he does not have the support or votes in this Congress to pass this misguided approach. So instead of pushing an initiative that is bound to fail, he is trying to confuse the public and lead the press to believe that this is some kind of novel idea. By any other name, Fast Track is Fast Track. Let us get real. Trade promotion authority, or TPA as it is being now referred to, is really nothing new. Congress rejected it before, and we will do so again. Let us remember why we rejected it in the first place. Without congressional oversight and input, trade agreements will be negotiated by unrepresentative delegates, who were never elected, standing up for the rights of international corporations, instead of our hardworking constituents, not to mention that a thing called the Constitution of the United States grants to Congress the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Our Founding Fathers granted Congress this responsibility as a check on the executive branch. It is critical that we do not trade away the right to represent our constituents. They have sent us here to represent their wishes, not those of only international corporations looking to their bottom line. The second round of the name game came when President Bush referred to labor and environment as core standards. If these are core standards, why are they not being included in the core text of trade agreements? That would make sense, would it not? Instead, the President wants labor rights, get ready for this, to be enforced by the U.S. Agency for International Development and environmental standards by the World Health Organization. Who is he kidding? Not Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do exactly what they have done numerous times before. Reject this name game. Reject Fast Track. Stand up for the American people, their standard of living, their right to work for a living wage, their right to live in an environment which is not polluting, and to use the power of this marketplace to raise living standards in other parts of the world, not pull us down to their standards. Reject Fast Track. Reject the name game. Reject trade promotion authority.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of service of Nancy Atkins from Toledo, Ohio. Nancy is retiring on May 1, 2001 after twenty years at the helm of Toledo Metropolitan Mission (TMM), a faith-based agency dedicated to uplifting the underserved. Concurrently, she led the metro Toledo Churches United (MeTCU) for the past fifteen of those years. The last ten years also found her leading these organizations' umbrella agency, Toledo Ecumenical Area Ministries. Thomas Paine said, ``I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.'' This sentiment has been the guiding principle behind these organizations' development under Nancy's ever-present leadership. Nancy's leadership positioned TMM as the strongest advocate for the weakest among us, influencing or developing programs for poor people, children, struggling women, homeless people, and older people. TMM has weighed in heavily on issues affecting these disaffected groups of people, from housing to health care to the impact of welfare reform. TMM and MeTCU are respected as voices of true compassion, never forgetting Christ's admonition, ``Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me.'' Nancy has empowered TMM to lead the charge for the rights of those most vulnerable and yet ignored. Her guidance saw TMM develop more than a dozen programs to address those rights, forged coalitions of agencies committed to those rights, and nurtured in many the growth of self-advocacy for those rights. A member of more than fifteen community, social justice, and inter- religious organizations, Nancy Atkins has galvanized the role of TMM in bringing the rights of all to the table and ensuring that no one is left out of the discussion. She has fostered a spirit of cooperation while working together toward common goals and practical solutions. Truly, her contribution to the success of TMM and its mission cannot be underestimated. Mindful of Dr. Martin Luther King's creed that ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'' Nancy Atkins' leadership these past two decades has been the embodiment of social justice. If the measure of a person is her legacy, then Nancy Atkins' legacy thus far is beyond measure. Her daily presence at TMM will be sorely missed, but her imprimatur is there, it will not fade. She will remain a vibrant contributor to its mission for she will always be a part of our community. We wish her well in retirement, and hope she is able to spend time doing all those things she most enjoys.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize an outstanding woman of my district, Anna M.H. Verhesen. Ann was awarded the Key to the Golden Door Award by Toledo's International Institute on March 31, 2001. This award is given to a naturalized citizen who has made a significant contribution to the betterment of people. I join with people from throughout my community in congratulating Ann on her receipt of this award. A dedicated and tireless advocate for the poor, unrecognized, and underserved, Ann's passion was grown in her while a very young child as she and her family protected many people fleeing Nazi persecution in Holland. Born to Hendrikus and Henrika (Kluesssjen) Verhesen in 1932, Ann began her career in service while still in the Netherlands and employed as a child care and social worker until emigrating to Canada with her family in 1959. While in Canada, Ann took her vows as a Grey Nun. In 1968, she came to the United States, serving in child care at the St. Lawrence Home in Massachusetts. A 1970 fire burned her very badly, and that accident brought her to Toledo, to the St. Vincent Hospital Burn Unit for healing. After her release, she was a counselor for substance abuse and mental health patients, and she created the Tennyson Center, the hospital's substance abuse detoxification and treatment unit. She subsequently returned to Massachusetts continuing her social work, and serving as vocation director for the Grey Nuns until 1979. She returned to St. Vincent's in 1981 and was the coordinator of community services for the next decade. During her tenure she established the Open Door, a men's half-way house for alcoholics and its counterpart for women, Harbor House, and David's House for people with AIDS. She became a vocal advocate for the homeless among us. Even while actively engaged in this work Ann pursued her studies, receiving her undergraduate degree in 1981 and her Master's in 1992. She left the Grey Nuns in the latter 1990s and now counsels in private practice. She was sworn in as a United States citizen in 1994. Even before Pope Paul VI voiced, ``If you want peace, work for justice'' Ann Verhesen lived this creed. The International Institute perfectly explains her avocation in awarding the honor, ``A model of gentle yet persistent advocacy for the outcast, Ann has reached out to those whom society has no time or interest in assisting. She has challenged hospitals to address their services to those who are addicted, while simultaneously challenging those who are addicted to change their lives. Ann is often the silent force behind change.'' This is a truly fitting tribute to a most remarkable yet humblest of women.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the sesquicentennial of the Academy of Medicine of Toledo and Lucas County in my district. The organization celebrates this anniversary on June 22, 2001. Eight Toledo physicians originally came together in 1851 to form the Toledo Medical Association, founded ``for the cultivation of the science of medicine and the promotion of public health, the advancement of the character and honor of the profession, and the elevation of the standards of the medical education.'' From the outset, the organization was aggressive in its efforts to raise the standard of medicine. This goal was accomplished by fighting quackery, stopping advertising by physicians, introducing professional standards and across-the-board fees for physicians, sharing knowledge of difficult cases and medicate advancements, and improving the quality of medical education by promoting a medical school. The Toledo Medical Society played an integral role in the development, birth, and growth of the former Toledo Medical College which was established in 1882. Following the Civil War, the Toledo Medical Association pioneered efforts in the new field of public health. The association worked to insure a safe milk and water supply, advocated for state-of-the-art treatment of tuberculosis, and promoted immunizations against devastating contagious disease. During this time the organization also helped the establishment of Toledo's hospitals. As the Toledo metropolitan area grew by the turn of the century, the Toledo Medical Association merged with the Lucas County Medical Society to form the current Academy of Medicine of Toledo and Lucas County. This combined organization enabled the medical profession to unite in a larger, more effective, political force and stronger advocates. As physicians in record numbers enlisted in the battle of World War I, the Academy supported their families and maintained their practices. At the end of the war during the influenza epidemic of 1918, many Academy members lost their lives including its first President, Dr. Julius Jacobson. In the decades between the two World Wars, the Academy continued to expand its outreach, forming a physician answering service--the first medical society to do so--and further developing effort to address diseases scourging the population like tuberculosis. Many society members answered the call during World War II, and in response to the Cold War which followed the Academy aided in the area's civil defense response. Public health initiatives continued, with the Academy focusing on public education in the 1960s and 1970s. As the nation reached a critical shortage of physicians in the 1970s, the Academy again spearheaded the establishment of a medical school. The Medical College of Ohio was established in Toledo in 1976 and trains physicians yet today. The Academy provides financial scholarships to outstanding students, and more than one-third of the school's graduates remain in the Toledo area. Meeting the challenges of the times, the Academy has been a driving force behind HIV/AIDS education, smoking prevention and cessation programs, childhood immunization programs, the battle against environmental degradation, and it has sought to find a role in the development of HMOs and other government health initiatives. Even while serving the Toledo area population, the Academy has also sponsored several medical missions promoting international health to the most impoverished of our world. From its beginning 150 years ago, the Academy of Medicine has been an organization at the forefront of quality health care, evolving as the times demand so that the organization and its members remain effective. I know it will continue to be a viable force for decades to come. I join with our community in recognizing the Academy of Medicine's achievements in the past 150 years, and look forward with anticipation to its future. No community in America could be served by a finer organization than ours. Onward.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize an outstanding man in my district, Gunvantray B. Mehta, MD. Dr. Mehta was awarded the Key to the Golden Door Award by Toledo's International Institute on March 31, 2001. This award is given to a naturalized citizen who has made a significant contribution to the betterment of people. I join with people from throughout my community in congratulating Dr. Mehta on his receipt of this award. Born in Gujarat, India, Dr. Mehta first traveled to New York in 1972 for advanced medical study in Radiology at the Nassau County Medical Center. He arrived in Toledo later in that decade, where he joined X- Ray Associates in 1978. Initially drawn to Toledo to be nearer family, Dr. Mehta was soon immersed in its vibrant and active Indian community. As a strong leader in that community, Dr. Mehta has long been involved in its signature events including productions of Ramayan and shakunthla. He organized a memorable seven day celebration culminating in the 1989 opening of Toledo's Hindu Temple and served as its first president. Dr. Mehta is also a leader in the medical community, and is an active participant in several local, state, and national professional organizations. He is currently the president of X-Ray Associates. Married to I'la, the couple has two children, daughter Dr. Minal and son Sandip. The International Institute's tribute notes, ``When asked who was the one person who made the greatest impact on his life, Dr. Mehta quickly answers his mother. From her, he learned that helping people should become second nature, and without having to think about it, a way of life. She motivated him to strive for excellence.'' I have known Dr. Mehta for many years. He is a caring, generous, and deeply committed man. While putting the American Dream into action, he never lost touch with his ancestry, his faith, or his country of origin. He is an ambassador in the truest sense of the word. How fortunate our community has been to have the Mehta family a part of us.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, this morning constituents of our Ninth District of Ohio woke up to reports of more job cuts at our local Jeep plant. The Toledo Blade ran two headlines. One reads, ``Jeep reductions: Firm warns up to 2,035 Toledo jobs to be cut.'' The second headline read, ``Expanded PT Cruiser Output Bypasses City of Toledo for Mexico.'' Welcome to post-NAFTA America. Here we have a company shifting production from the United States at the expense of our workers. Make no mistake, these are excellent jobs we are talking about. These are not minimum-wage jobs with no benefits. These are not low-tech jobs. They are the type of jobs that any community in America would fight for. These are middle-class jobs. That is what Toledo and the State of Ohio did, in fact. They went out and fought for the Jeep jobs. The taxpayers invested hundreds of millions of dollars to keep those jobs in Ohio and in the United States, and now Chrysler is cutting 2,000 jobs in Toledo at the same time as it is adding production lines in Mexico to make the popular PT Cruiser. Now President Bush wants to expand NAFTA, he tells us. Is this the promise of NAFTA, 2,000 more families out of work and good jobs in our country? Is this what the future looks like under a hemispheric NAFTA known as Free Trade of the Americas, FTAA? Is this what you get with Fast Track? President Bush went to Quebec City last week to push for NAFTA's expansion to the free trade of the Americas. He made some interesting claims about what his version of free trade envisions. There was some talk about labor rights and environmental standards and democracy. That sounds well and good, but we need to see concrete action to back up the rhetoric. In Quebec City, President Bush said it is clear to me that ours is a hemisphere united by freedom. How about the freedom of workers to earn a living wage and to know that they are protected against workplace injury and guaranteed the right to organize the worth of their labor? How about the freedom for families to know what is in their food? How about the freedom of a mother on the border in Mexico knowing that the water is safe to drink and the air fit to breathe? How about the freedom for Members of Congress to have access to all the working documents and drafts of these agreements, not only the multinational giants that helped to negotiate the agreement that we are likely to consider? In Quebec City, President Bush said, ``Our commitment to open trade must be matched by a strong commitment to protecting our environment and improving labor standards.'' But then he did a pirouette and he said, ``We should not allow labor and environmental codicils to destroy the spirit of free trade.'' He had it right the first time. Those of us on the other side of the argument have been saying for years that these trade agreements should give individuals the same rights as multinational corporations. The President was wrong when he said labor and environmental provisions would destroy free trade. If free trade cannot accommodate labor and environmental concerns, it does not deserve to be known as free. If the extension of the right for labor to organize, the right to free speech and the right to a safe and livable environment are things that would destroy a trade regime, maybe we should reconsider our trade priorities. Adding labor and environmental rights as a side agreement or included with fig-leaf compromises is completely unacceptable. We learned our lesson with NAFTA, the hard way. President Bush said, and I quote, ``I am confident I will have trade promotion authority by the end of the year because I think most people in the United States Congress understand that trade is beneficial to our hemisphere. ``It is in our Nation's best interest to have the President have trade promotion authority,'' he said. Congress does understand that trade can be beneficial to our hemisphere. We also know it can be unbeneficial. We do not need Fast Track to create a trading system that is fair to all nations and workers. We need a trading system that will lift up workers everywhere and help us maintain our standard of living in America. We need a trade agreement that will lift workers up, not leave behind 2,000 more families in Toledo while factories in Mexico gear up to meet a demand for a very popular vehicle on the backs of an exploited workforce that works for slave wages. Madam Speaker, our rallying cry as we approach the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas debate must be free trade among free people and no less.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the record a story of two young women whose voices we in hear. Last Thursday, ``Ms. A'' and ``Ms. B'' traveled from Bangladesh to our nation's Capital to tell their story. The two women are the survivors of the horrendous fire that occurred in the Chowdhury Knitwear factory in Bangladesh on November 25, 2000. Sadly, their story echoes the events of the 1911 fire that occurred at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City where 146 young garment workers were killed. The women traveled to the United States to tell their compelling story of the dangerous working conditions under which they are forced to work. Fifty-one of their co-workers were killed in the fire that blazed through the factory. Many of the workers were electrocuted, suffocated, or trampled to death, due to the doors of the factory being locked that evening by the owners to keep union organizers out. Through timid voices they explained that they are forced to work long hours, and had not received a raise in two years. They spoke of their fear for their jobs when they returned home because of their trip to the United States. However, they stated that they traveled to the United States to tell their story in hope of making a difference for the workers in the Chowdhury factory in Bangladesh and workers around the world. In Bangladesh nearly 80% of garment workers do not earn the legal monthly minimum wage of $17. The average workday is 12-14 hours, many times for as little as 5 cents an hour. The workers are denied the right to organize and are subjected to deplorable working conditions. ``Ms. A''and ``Ms. B'' sew for first-world clients at the Chowdhury Knitwear Factory. The factory produces towels and bedding products that are shipped to the European Union. However, the owner of the factory owns and operates another factory across the street that makes products that are shipped to the United States. Unfortunately, there are many factory workers who can tell stories such as ``Ms. A'' and ``Ms. B's''. There are factories like the Chowdhury Knitwear factory in Bangladesh all over the world. In the past decade hundreds of workers have been killed in factory fires throughout Asia, in Thailand, and in China. We have a responsibility to impel companies in countries such as Bangladesh to provide their workers with safe conditions and the right to organize, and collectively bargain. America should not allow the import of goods from nations that allow the exploitation of their own workers. As a member of the International Workers Right Caucus, I strongly urge the United States Congress, and all nations to ratify the International Labor Organization Standards providing individuals abroad basic worker rights. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the record the story of these women and their associates because I am their voice, the voice that can be heard by the American public, and by the U.S. government. It is because of the conditions that exist at the Chowdhury Knitwear factory in Bangladesh that I will continue to fight for labor rights both home and abroad.

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) for yielding to me to continue a Special Order that I began last night during this 5-minute segment on the condition of the U.S. economy. I am very grateful for these few minutes just to continue, as I will every evening where I have a chance. Mr. Speaker, this relates to America's great need for a new declaration of economic independence and my great disappointment at the debate that occurred in the Congress here in the House last week concerning the tax measures that were before us and then again today, where if we count up the cumulative total of all of these measures we are talking about $3 trillion over the so-called 10-year window. This is an enormous amount of money for a country that currently has over $5.6 trillion worth of debt that we have to pay back, and every year we are paying more and more in the way of interest on that debt. This year alone we are projected to spend well over $450 billion just on the debt alone. In addition to that, the United States has the worst-ever current account trade deficit amounting to over $500 billion last year, that essentially requires that we sell our assets or borrow $1.5 billion a day net from foreign interests. Now, the trade deficit is basically about more goods coming into our country than our goods going out. This essentially results from flawed trade agreements that have enabled countries like the People's Republic of China, that is now holding 24 of our military personnel, to gain perhaps a $100 billion advantageous this year from their net exports to this country versus our ability to export into that economy. So what is wrong with the Bush tax and budget plan? First, the President's tax and budget plan does not pay down the overall debt. In fact, his budget is based on what I would call wildly optimistic, 10- year projections that, in fact, cause the debt to spiral, particularly when over $3 trillion is being returned in that period to a country that still owes $5.6 trillion. Now, it is interesting that the 10-year window is used for projections when, in fact, the President is only elected for 4 years and we here in Congress only budget one year at a time. So we cannot use a 10-year window. If experience is a good teacher, as it surely should be, we know that projections in the past have been off by vast magnitudes, sometimes as much as 75 percent in one year. Now major revenue hemorrhages are going to occur after the year 2005 because Social Security and medical care bills will rise as more people from the baby boom generation begin retiring. The administration budget risks ratcheting up what is already a spiraling debt burden, particularly after 2005. So his proposals threaten long-term economic growth and the long-term solvency of both Social Security and Medicare. Moreover, the administration's budget is inherently unfair, because nearly half of the tax benefits go to people earning over $900,000 a year, only the top 1 percent of earners in this country. It is no question in my mind that the President's powerful allies are setting their own table for slashing corporate income tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent, as most corporations, many of them, do not pay taxes even now; none at all. I will be reading into the Record, when we return later in the month, the names of many of the corporations in our country that pay absolutely no taxes at all. Many of these same interests want to cut the corporate capital gains tax, repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax and other technical changes like faster depreciation for faster write-offs. These corporate titans, the ones that are pushing us to make these changes here, saw their pay increases at over 535 percent over the last 10 years. Imagine that. Imagine your salary quintupling over the last 10 years. And now they want that to double again in the next decade. Now, is there any doubt whatsoever that the measures that have been before us are truly lopsided? The shower of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will dramatically increase the tax burden on millions of people in the middle class. All one has to do is look at the fine print of the bill. It does nothing for low-wage workers and literally leaves out over 12\1/2\ million families with children. The President claims that the typical family of four would get a $1,600 tax cut. However, more than 85 percent of taxpayers will get tax cuts less than that amount and many will get nothing at all. One-third of families with children in our country will get nothing from the entire package. The basic tax grab for those at the top end, along with lowering rates for only some, does absolutely nothing to lift those in our society burdened by low wages and high taxes, largely payroll taxes. We know that the regressive payroll tax has to be adjusted, but the plan that came before us did absolutely nothing about that. So while the rich get richer, thanks to the Bush plan, the impact of his tax schemes will cut funding for the environment in half over the next 10 years; spending on veterans will be slashed; Justice programs such as the COPS program and in-schools and community policing programs all will be cut; agriculture will be cut; transportation will be cut by nearly one-fifth with our roads jammed and our air control towers not being the most modern in the world. We are going to see cuts in Medicare and cuts in Social Security if that program is adopted by the other body. Not only is the administration doing nothing to ease the California energy crisis, their budget cuts certain critical Department of Energy programs as much as 30 percent. So America really does need a new declaration of economic independence because rising interest payments on the Federal debt are at a post-World War II record high, as American family savings rates move downward. U.S. trade deficits are at record levels, with China now being the largest holder of U.S. dollar reserves, $100 billion more this year alone. The number of Americans who believe Social Security will be there for them when they retire is down, at the same time as we see so many families losing their 401(k) assets because of what has been happening in the stock market. The relative portion of taxes being paid by the middle class and poor Americans is going up. At the same time, the relative portion of taxes paid by American and foreign corporations making record profits in the United States as they ship jobs to the Third World is going down. Enforcement of antitrust laws is down. So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the administration and its powerful allies will be back for more bites of our Republic's apple. I really do think that we need a responsible budget. We expect the President of our country to lead us to a higher calling. The future of our country and its stability should be our primary goal, not the gratification of powerful special interests that was so evident here during last week and, in fact, today. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa, who has been such a voice for attention to the problems of agricultural America, for yielding to me.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Maryland for those overly generous introductory remarks. I will read them in my lower moments. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Concurrent Resolution 66 and offer my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the ranking member of the subcommittee that is moving this legislation to the floor. I thank him for his consistent and strong and forceful support of women's issues here in this Congress, including the publication of the History of Women's Service to our Nation at the Federal level. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). Ohio is the first State in the Union through Oberlin College to admit women to higher education. We thank both of these really wonderful men for allowing us--the women of America--to walk alongside them as we move onward in this 21st century. If other matters in this institution flowed through such capable hands as the gentleman's from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman's from Ohio (Mr. Ney), I think we could move other bills through this Congress in a more expeditious fashion. The entire Nation would be more properly served. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that 11 years ago when the 101st Congress marked the bicentenary of this institution, the volume that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) referenced, Women in Congress, 1917 to 1990, was published. The second most senior Congresswoman in the House then, Congresswoman Lindy Boggs of Louisiana, who later was appointed as the first woman Ambassador to the Vatican, took responsibility for the printing of that document. Since that time, another 79 women have served. Thus a new edition of Women of Congress will gather in one updated volume information for teachers, students and future Members of this body, information about the 208 women out of the nearly 12,000 Americans that have served in this institution to date, throughout all of America's history, including the 61 who now serve here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I see that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) are here with us this afternoon. They really are a part of a very new, but growing and important part of American history. We currently have 74 women serving in both the House and the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this would actually be a reprint of that original version, and the resolution for this was entered this past March during Women's History Month. Let me say it is a particular privilege to remind our colleagues that this resolution is cosponsored by every single woman serving in the House, as well as every other single Member of the House Committee on Administration. I deeply thank every one of them, especially the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a force inside this institution for equal voices for women, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for allowing us to participate in this introduction and passage today. During the first 128 years of America's history, no woman served in either House of this Congress for nearly a century and a quarter. Finally, in the early years of this past century, the 20th century, after decades of struggle for women's political and social equality, we began to see some fruit be born. In 1917, Jeanette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in this House of Representatives, and then 5 years later, Rebecca Felton of Georgia became the first woman Senator. So, for our entire history, the written word and the spoken word of women in political environments is still very fresh and very new. Since Representatives Rankin and Felton broke the congressional gender barrier, dozens of women have followed in their footsteps. We wait for the day when it will be thousands. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the 21st century, the time has come to update and reprint ``Women in Congress.'' With it America marks the progress and substantial contribution that women are making in this most democratic legislative body on Earth. I am confident that a revised volume will quickly become, like the previous edition, a tremendous historical resource and serve to inspire readers across America to seek careers in public service. I hope my colleagues in the House support this resolution. It is important especially that we do this and thus introduced this resolution during Women's History Month in March; and thus the concurrent resolution that I have introduced would provide for the reprinting of that revised edition of the House document. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution to reprint and update the edition of Women in Congress, 1917 to 1990, to make it current for this new 21st century, when all opportunities are available to young women and men across our country, and, indeed, America is an ideal for so much of the world to follow.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, America needs a new declaration of economic independence: Freedom, justice, opportunity. These are the values that our parents, grandparents, and forebears lived and died for. These are the values that prompt young men and women to give themselves to military and public service. These are the values that reflect the highest ideals of our country and what America has historically offered to the world. Thus, last week's debate on taxes, the first major economic debate of the 21st century and of the new Presidency, disappointed me greatly. The debate should have centered on what is the wisest economic course of action for the sustenance of our republic. But the debate basically boiled down to what every American can take for himself or herself. The President went around the country divisively and derisively saying, ``It's not the government's money; it's your money.'' Except for one thing: We, the American people, are the government. His rhetoric appealed to the most selfish instincts imaginable; and his proposals are proving he is headed towards government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Contrast his base appeal with that of President John F. Kennedy who once summoned Americans to ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country, and what we together can do for the freedom of humankind. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues in the other body to choose a wiser economic course than the House and the President, a prudent course, a responsible course for our Nation's future. We should not imperil our Nation's economic growth through reckless tax cuts. America should first pay its bills. The facts are that the interest payments alone on America's $5.5 trillion debt account for an ever-increasing percentage of the annual budget. Look at this chart. This shows since 1975, interest payments on our national debt have grown every year. This is the year 2000 right here, highest ever, and projected this year, over $434 billion of interest payments alone on the debt. So what is all this talk about this magic surplus? And think about how these interest payments crowd out other important national investments we could be making, in Social Security and Medicare, where we must pay those bills, in defense and education, in veterans benefits, in transportation, in the environment and certainly in agriculture. In the 1990s, due to unparalleled economic growth and strong budget discipline by Members of this House, we began to turn our ship of state around in the proper direction by finally beginning to get our bills paid. But I urge anyone to go to the U.S. Department of Treasury Web site and see for yourselves what America still owes. Here is the Web site number right up here, http://publicdebt.treas.gov. Let me point out also that the percentage of foreign holders of the Federal debt has tripled since I was a freshman on the Banking Committee, going from 12 percent of what is being bought by others today to a resounding 41 percent. The largest investor in the U.S. Federal debt is now Japan, holding over $340 billion. Do you have any question in your mind why our products cannot gain fair access to Japan's markets when she is holding the purse strings? Something has gone terribly, terribly wrong with our economic policies. In fact, interest on our debt now exceeds more than we pay in an annual year for the defense of this Nation. It is double what we spend annually on Medicaid and Medicare. And it dwarfs critical spending in other nondefense areas like education, transportation, veterans, agriculture, all put together into one. I wanted to add to that our trade deficit. Every single year over the last 20 years, America's trade deficit with the world has deepened to historically all-time levels. Almost $500 billion more imports coming into this country on an annual basis than our exports going out. And you ask yourself who is now the largest holder of these private dollars related to goods trade with America? I can tell you it is the People's Republic of China, which is far from my definition of a republic, with over $80 billion of holdings in U.S. dollar reserves. So what is wrong with the Bush plan? Tomorrow night I am going to continue on that, but let me first say that the President's tax and budget plan ought to lead to paying down our debt and ushering in a new era of economic independence for our country.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, during this women's history month, it is with great pleasure that I rise to announce that I have today introduced a resolution expressing the sense of this House of Representatives that artwork displayed in our Capitol, the upcoming Capitol Visitors' Center and the office buildings of the House of Representatives should better represent the contributions of women to American society. I am pleased to be joined by 16 of our colleagues as original cosponsors and encourage all of our other colleagues to join in this effort. Mr. Speaker, the majority of our Nation's residents are female. The mothers and grandmothers of America have carried life forward in our Republic now for over 2 centuries. Females, in fact, outnumber males, according to the 2000 census estimates, by 6 million: 140 million women, 134 million men. The statue of a woman called Freedom crowns the dome of our Capitol building. Sixty-four Members of the House and 13 Members of the Senate are now women. We pledge allegiance to a flag that was designed by a woman. Sojourner Truth was committed to freedom and the abolition of slavery in the mid-1800s. Rosie the Riveter symbolized the contributions of women to our victory and the victory of freedom in World War II. Rosa Parks has been a major inspiration of every American concerned about civil rights. Our own colleague, now retired Geraldine Ferraro, became the first woman to be the candidate of a major political party for the office of vice president. One would think that given the contributions that women have made to the world and to our Nation, as mothers, scientists, educators, astronauts, political leaders, mentors of our youth, having artwork in our Capitol that commemorates their contributions would be automatic. But sadly, in this year of 2001, this simply is not the case. In fact, less than 5 percent of the artwork displayed in all of these buildings displays or honors the contributions that women have made to America. It really is a shocking figure. In 1995, I sponsored a resolution to establish a Commission on Women's Art in the Capitol. Then in 1997, I sought to include a directive in the report on the fiscal 1998 legislative branch appropriation bill to direct the Architect of the Capitol to prepare a plan for the procurement and display of art that is more fully representative of the contributions of American women to our society. I was told by then chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), that he believed this language was not necessary and would usurp the authority of the Joint Committee on the Library and the Fine Arts Board, and nothing happened. In 1998, I was successful in getting a similar statement of support included in the fiscal 1999 legislative branch appropriations bill; and then in 1999, I similarly introduced House Resolution 202, a resolution virtually identical to the one that I am now introducing in this new 107th Congress. Mr. Speaker, our parents have taught us that those things worth having are worth fighting for. Today we renew that fight. We renew this fight with the recognition that we are planning on constructing a new Capitol Visitors' Center that has the opportunity to appropriately represent the contributions of women, as well as men, from the very beginning of that annex's construction. So often in the past we have been told that it is difficult to find space in the Capitol or in the House buildings for additional artwork commemorating women. So adding pieces to commemorate the contributions of women has been limited. That argument will not be valid with respect to the new Capitol Visitors' Center, where we will have an opportunity to get it right from the beginning. As our constituents, especially our young constituents, come into this Capitol they should be impressed with a sense of inclusion. America is made up of both men and women, mighty in strength and mighty in spirit, of Native Americans, of pilgrim Americans, of immigrant Americans and of recent Americans. Each and every one of these groups deserves to be recognized and celebrated for the contributions they have made to building this magnificent Republic. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that at long last we can consider this resolution this year so we can begin to provide the level of recognition that the contributions of women to American society deserve, and I would implore my male colleagues, this is not a heavy lift. This is actually a fairly straightforward initiative that can be accomplished in regular order. Please give the women of America the recognition that they rightly deserve in these important buildings.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the 276 million of us who do not work in the farming and ranching sectors need to take time today on National Agriculture Day to give thanks to the 700,000 men and women of American agriculture for all they do to feed our Nation and, indeed, much of the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay highest tribute to some of the hardest working people in America. I know of no other people who take such great financial risks, give more of themselves each and every day, and who do so with great discipline and dignity. With the depression that is afflicting rural regions of our country, America needs a new declaration of economic independence, and that declaration should insist that America's farmers and ranchers are not expendable. Their husbandry and stewardship are central pillars of our national security and freedom. Today, we are witnessing an alarming hollowing out of America's countryside and a wanton destruction of precious arable lands that have sustained us and on which future generations will depend. Rural America is on life support. The current farm depression, now in its fourth year, is the deepest since 1915. This year's prices were at a 27-year low. The average age of our farmers is 57 years, and now they are getting over three-fourths of their earnings in public support because the market does not work for them. And up until today, National Agriculture Day, what have we heard from the new administration? Silence. Not the peacefulness of the countryside, but the eerie solemnness of the graveyard. President Bush, when he delivered his State of the Union address just a few weeks ago in this Chamber, had nothing to offer America's farmers. No plans. No solutions. No ideas. The budget that he has submitted so far suggests that agriculture's crisis will be taken care of out of something called a contingency fund. That sounds like it is tangential. Now, how exactly is that supposed to happen? The President has talked largely about estate taxes, implying that farmers can leave their properties to sons and daughters. But what does that do to earn a living today and hold on for the rest of their productive years? Anyone who saw the New York Times story this past weekend saw the heart-wrenching story about potato growers in Idaho facing their lowest prices in decades. They are worried about having an income. What will a tax cut do for them? Then yesterday the President spoke on our Nation's energy policy. But, for agriculture, it was again the sound of silence. America has the ability to convert many of our crops into ethanol and biodiesel, throwing off the yoke of international fuel dependency. In fact, if we just converted our strategic petroleum reserve to a strategic fuels reserve and only fill 2 percent of it with biofuels, we would double the production of both ethanol and biodiesel in this country, helping to build that new industry from inside this Nation. But the President did not mention it, not a word. But he did express his appreciation just yesterday to the OPEC ministers who agreed to hold price increases to only 7 percent for imported fuel. He thought that gesture by them was comforting. It is not comforting to me. Mr. President, why do you not offer some comfort to America's farmers and ranchers and help them get their prices up the same 7 percent that you are willing to accept for oil? Why do you not help them develop new products like ethanol and biodiesel? Why do you not tell them what you propose to break them out of the cycle of dependency on government farm payments? Why do you not offer an agriculture policy that our farmers and ranchers can look toward the future? Let me start in this way. America's farmers and ranchers need a new farm bill that gives equal footing to them in our global marketplace, starting out with contracting rights. We need a budget from the executive branch that addresses the farm crisis and positions American agriculture for the future. We need to meet America's energy crisis with a major national commitment to biofuels. We must invest in new ways for farmers and ranchers to move their products to the market domestically and internationally. We need to restore a free market in agriculture and enforce antitrust laws. We must give farmers and ranchers a place at the bargaining table in global trade negotiations, starting with the reform of NAFTA and the proposal for the free trade agreement of the Americas. We must launch a new homesteading program that ties the chance to retain your farm or to own a farm mortgage and title to conservation and holding and preserving our arable land for future generations who will depend on it. Mr. President, it is National Agriculture Day. Help us celebrate it by giving America's farmers and ranchers the respect and the attention they deserve at the highest levels.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, the 101st Congress marked the bicentenary of this institution by compiling and printing a volume entitled Women in Congress, 1917 to 1990, a compendium of photographs and brief biographies of the 129 women who had served in the House and Senate as of that time. The senior congresswoman in the House then, Congresswoman Lindy Boggs of Louisiana, who was later appointed as the United States of America's first woman ambassador to the Vatican, took responsibility for the printing of that document. Since then, another 79 women have served. Thus, a new addition of ``Women in Congress'' would gather in one updated volume useful information for teachers, students and others about the 208 women who have served to date through all of America's history, including the 61 who now serve here in the House and the 13 serving in the other body. Currently we have 74 women serving in both the House and Senate, and 461 men. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the 21st century, the time has come to update and reprint ``Women in Congress.'' With it America marks the progress and substantial contribution that women are making in this most democratic legislative body on Earth. I am confident that a revised volume will quickly become, like the previous edition, a tremendous historical resource and serve to inspire readers across America to seek careers in public service. I hope my colleagues in the House support this resolution. It is important especially that we do this and introduce this resolution during Women's History Month; and thus the concurrent resolution that I have introduced would provide for the reprinting of that revised edition of the House document. It is a particular privilege to announce this resolution in that it is cosponsored by every single woman serving in the House, as well as every single Member of the Committee on House Administration. I thank each and every one of them for their support and especially the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a force inside this institution for an equal voice for women. During the first 128 years of America's history, no woman served in either House of the Congress. That is nearly a century and a quarter. Finally, in the early years of the 20th century, decades of struggle for women's political and social equality began to bear fruit. In 1917, Jeanette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in this House of Representatives; and then 5 years later, Rebecca Felton of Georgia became the first women Senator. So our history, the written word and the spoken word, of women in political environments is still very, very fresh. Since Representative Rankin and Senator Felton broke the congressional gender barrier, dozens of women have followed in their footsteps. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to sponsor the resolution that I have dropped today to reprint and update the edition of ``Women in Congress, 1917-1990,'' to make it current for this new 21st century when all opportunities are available to young women across our country; and, indeed, America is an ideal for so much of the world to follow.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to report to my colleagues and to our country indeed on an extremely troubling event that occurred early this morning in the nation of Ukraine, the most important strategic nation in Central Europe today. What happened was that Ukrainian police, and I am quoting from an international news report, launched an early morning strike on opponents of President Leonid Kuchma, swiftly pulling down a makeshift tent camp which had become a focus of protests against that country's leader. I might add, having just returned from that country, those demonstrators were peaceful; they were living in freezing temperatures, in tents; and they have a right to assemble; they have a right to speech; they have a right to express their opinion. The news report goes on, as police tore down the tents, demonstrators tried to wrest back meager belongings which were dumped into lorries. Those resisting were manhandled into the back of unmarked gray trucks. Several protestors waving the blue and yellow Ukrainian national flag threw themselves desperately in front of the vehicles before being dragged away. Four hundred police arrested 100 peaceful demonstrators. The demonstrators, who have braved months of freezing temperatures and alleged harassment in one of the most potent symbols of resistance against that country's President, vowed not to give up. Two hundred people, bystanders, watched as officers rapidly dismantled the camp. They were shouting, shame on the police. Most seemed stunned by the action against the peaceful tent dwellers. I have some pictures here from the international press showing the arrest of peaceful demonstrators. Now, politically I may not agree with some of those demonstrators in terms of their ideology. Some may be of the far right or the far left. It really does not matter. They have a right to assemble. The government of Ukraine is saying, well, the courts of Ukraine ordered them to be dismantled because they were assembled in a part of the city where they did not have a permit. Having been there, I can say they were large sidewalks. They were not bothering anybody. It was in a median strip. The question is, why would that government choose to forcibly remove these demonstrators at this time? Our delegation, having just returned from Ukraine, spent over 2 hours with the President of that country offering the President the help of the West and getting at the bottom of what was causing the demonstrators to assemble, and that is the beheading of a journalist in that country and the possible implication of the President of that nation in that terrible act. We offered the President advice, saying that transparency in investigation, objectivity in investigation, could raise the confidence level of his own people and, in fact, all freedom-loving peoples. We received his assurance that freedom of assembly would not be marred, that freedom of speech would be able to continue, that freedom of press would be allowed. We said we would come back here to Washington and offer a resolution in which we would support those principles being maintained in that country as it emerges into a more democratic arrangement, and yet today we hear about this awful act in that country. Now, as we develop this resolution, as Members of this body, we are going to word a stronger resolution because we believe that regardless of an individual's views, one cannot compromise freedom of assembly; one cannot compromise freedom of speech; one cannot compromise freedom of press. I would urge in the strongest possible terms the government of that nation to find a central place in which these demonstrators might be allowed to express their opinions. They were not even talking. They were merely staying in tents in cold weather. The government says, well, there were no toilets in the area. Let me say, respectfully, in many places there are no toilets in that country. It is important that freedom be allowed to emerge. The West has to be a strong voice for freedom of assembly, the very principles that allow a democratic nation to emerge. Again, we would offer to the President of Ukraine all of the institutions that this country has to offer, with our friends in the OSCE, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe; to have a thorough and impartial investigation; to raise the confidence level of citizens of Ukraine and citizens of the free world everywhere that investigations are being pursued thoroughly, completely, in a fair-minded and open manner. To do this, to take this action, is a terrible, terrible sign to the West, and we ask that government to please provide an area for people to freely demonstrate. [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2001] Ukrainian Police Tear Down Anti-Kuchma Tent Camp Kiev.--Ukrainian police launched an early morning strike on opponents of President Leonid Kuchma on Thursday, swiftly pulling down a makeshift tent camp which has become a focus of protests against the country's leader. To cries of ``Shame, shame'' and ``Kuchma out!'' from bystanders, some 400 policemen took about an hour to surround and evict around 100 occupants from some 50 tents on Kiev's elegant Kreshchatyk street. The camp was set up in December by protesters demanding that Kuchma investigate the mysterious death of a journalist, which has triggered a huge scandal in Ukraine. The United States and European Union have expressed concern over the case and Kuchma's office published a letter from George W. Bush, during the Ukrainian leader to pursue reform and respect the rights of individuals. As police tore down the tents, demonstrators tried to wrest back meager belongings, which were dumped into lorries. Those resisting were manhandled into the back of unmarked gray trucks. Several protesters waving the blue and yellow Ukrainian national flag threw themselves desperately in front of the vehicles before being dragged away. The demonstrators, who have braved months of freezing temperatures and alleged harassment in one of the most potent symbols of resistance against Kuchma, vowed not to give up. ``We'll put them back up. I can't say right now how quickly, but we'll be back,'' said a visibly-shaken Yuri Lutsenko, one of the leaders of the Ukraine Without Kuchma movement. Around 200 people watched as officers rapidly dismantled the camp, several shouting ``Shame on the police.'' Most seemed stunned by the action against the peaceful tent- dwellers. Lutsenko, whose movement includes opposition parties, rights groups and ordinary citizens, said 40 protesters were arrested. Police spokesman Olexander Zarubytsky said 15 people had been charged with preventing officials from carrying out their duties. The scandal was sparked when journalist Georgiy Gongadze, who was critical of Kuchma's rule, went missing. It intensified when a headless corpse was found outside Kiev in November. case of the headless corpse Kuchma's involvement was alleged when opposition politicians published tapes in which a voice similar to his was heard giving orders to ``deal with'' the reporter. Austrian experts said on Wednesday that they could not verify that the voice was Kuchma's. But the International Press Institute, a press freedom group, said that after nearly two months of deliberation it seemed hard to believe that the hundreds of hours of expletive-strewn recordings had been faked. Kuchma denies all involvement but this did not prevent the U.S. and European statements of concern, as well as those from international human rights groups. The Ukrainian president's office said the letter from Bush urged Kuchma to pursue reform and respect the rights of individuals. It also said the United States was ready to help Ukraine get through its current difficulties. The tent dwellers, whose eviction had been ordered by a Kiev court, accused police of violating their freedom. ``You should have more respect for the constitution,'' one shouted as he was carried off by around 20 police. ``It is unbelievable, I am an invalid and he is pushing me around,'' said Vitaly Yushevich, who was pulled out of his tent by a burly police officer and bundled out of the camp. Police said the protesters' belongings would be returned. ``We are carrying out the court's orders. . . . All the tents' occupiers will be able to claim their property back later,'' said a police officer at the scene.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Also to that country, we would urge Ukraine to follow the principles of freedom of speech, press, assembly, the rule of law, and nonviolence. We want to walk alongside them. As they get through this particular crisis, we know their country will be stronger, just as ours will be stronger as a result of the crises that we have been through. We expressed our deep regrets to the families who are so troubled by the disappearance of Mr. Gongadze, and we also reiterated and believe that in the meeting with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and President Kuchma, we got the first commitment of an agreement from the Ukrainian government to use resources in the West to help get at the bottom of what actually created the crime. We urge the government of Ukraine to use us. We believe that the confidence of the people of Ukraine and the West depends on a fair and thorough investigation of the facts. We are going to be introducing a resolution here in the House to express the sense that this Congress wants this incident resolved peacefully. So I wanted to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the Record this evening, I just again want to thank the gentleman so very much for the gentleman's international leadership in bringing this all together and doing what is historically correct and imperative for peace in this new millennium. Mr. Speaker, I also include for the Record an article that relates to Russia and some of the difficulties that church-related organizations are having in accessing properties. The article referred to is as follows: Ice Curtain in the East (By Geraldine Fagan) On 7 January, Russia's Orthodox Church celebrated the two- thousandth anniversary of the birth of Christ. Thousands attended the Christmas liturgy in Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, triumphantly, and, many have averred, tastelessly, restored to the city's skyline more than 60 years after Stalin ordered its obliteration from it. Live coverage of the event was marred, however, when Patriarch Alexis II arrived more than an hour late, delayed by his participation in the day's informal meetings between President Putin and the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder. As the television cameras panned in on the massed faithful awaiting their Patriarch, they picked out the emerald robes of seemingly the most senior cleric in attendance--Mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin, head of Russia's Central Spiritual Directorate of Muslims. For the third year running, the chief representative of Russia's Roman Catholics, Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, had not been invited. Catholic-Orthodox relations in Russia remain poor. The Moscow Patriarchate's frequent complaints that the Catholic Church is engaging in rampant proselytism translate into a state policy of containment. In Moscow, there are 27 Masses in more than 10 languages every Sunday--almost all of which take place under two roofs. Attempts to reclaim the third historically Catholic building of the church of SS Peter and Paul in order to relieve the strain have been fruitless. When Cardinal Angelo Sodano acting as papal legate made a request to Mayor Luzhkov's office for three plots of land to build chapels in lieu of the return of the church of SS Peter and Paul, he reportedly received a strong and swift rejection. According to one Catholic source in Moscow, the Catholic Church has agreed not to create any new institutions or structures in the city, so that the number of legally registered parishes totals five. The remainder--including those which group Filipinos, Latin Americans, Koreans and Iraqis--are either termed ``pastoral points'' in an official directory of the Catholic Church in Russia for the year 2000, or else are not listed at all. In addition, the two apostolic administrations (``diocese'' would be too provocative a term) of southern European Russia and eastern Siberia have been denied registration because they are headed by foreigners. Bishop Jerzy Mazur, a Pole, and Bishop Clemens Pickel, a German, have been told that they will be granted Russian citizenship only if they marry a Russian, and currently have to pass any noninternal documentation--such as invitations for visiting foreign clergy--to their counterparts with legal status in Moscow or Novosibirsk. By contrast, the American- born Berl Lazar, the Kremlin's preferred choice as chief rabbi over Adolf Shayevich, who is backed by the industrialist and oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky, faced no obstruction in obtaining Russian citizenship. The chancellor of the Moscow-based European Apostolic Administration, the Catholic priest Fr Igor Kovalevsky, insists that the Catholic Church in Russia ``is just trying to function normally and provide for its minority here. We are not posing any competition at all.'' With 60 per cent of the Russian population claiming to be Orthodox, and the Catholic Church bending over backwards to keep to its own while simultaneously supporting the Orthodox through foundations such as Aid to the Church in Need, it is intended difficult to see why the Catholic minority of approximately 500,000 is subject to so much hostility. Orthodox fears of competition appear more realistic, however, when one takes into account the fact that so few Russians are truly touched by Orthodoxy. Where they have a presence, Catholics might constitute 1 per cent of the population, with practising Orthodox making up another 3 per cent. In addition, the concentration of Orthodox parishes is such that 8,450, or almost half, are situated not in Russia, but in the west in Ukraine. The vast area of Siberia east of the Yenisei River, by contrast, contains approximately 500 parishes. The Orthodox Church's current total of 19,000 parishes is still only a fraction of the 78,000 it had before the Revolution, and the euphoria of the early 1990s when many new believers were received is a thing of the past. Does this mean that the much-vaunted revival of Orthodoxy in Russia is a fiction? Many Western commentators have looked for it in vain, expecting a healthy revival to exhibit certain characteristics, such as social work, a desire for ecumenical dialogue or a move towards modernising liturgical language. By contrast, they have seen a rise in nationalism within the Church coupled with virulent anti-Catholicism. If one can speak of a revival, it does not exhibit those characteristics sought for by Western Christians. There is a core of sincere, sober-minded practising Orthodox in Russia devoted to their Church, but they tend to concentrate upon the vertical aspects of church life. Asked whether there had been an Orthodox revival in Russia, one young parishioner told me that it was difficult to know hat such a revival would be like from the point of view of the New Testament, since ``God's kingdom is not of this world''. In the light of such sentiments, it is perhaps easier to understand why one of the strongest elements of revival is not in the social sphere, but monasticism. Compared with their Christian counterparts in western Europe, however, practising Orthodox are stronger within sections of society such as academia and youth, where they tend to enjoy the respect of their non- believing peers rather than experiencing their scepticism. Nationalist feeling among these practising Orthodox, however, remains passive. Nationalists prefer to parade on the streets with banners rather than attend church, and, as before the Revolution, only a tiny minority of Orthodox monarchists belong to the virulently nationalist Black Hundreds movement. There are in any case two forms of nationalism in Russia--Stalinist and pre-revolutionary. Most nationalists belong in the first category and are indifferent to religion. This does not stop them from being opposed to the institution of the Catholic Church, however, since there is a general perception that it belongs to an organised anti- Russian force, and all Russians were taught in school that Catholics were crusaders from the Baltics repelled by the national hero Alexander Nevsky. Although punching above their weight, practising Orthodox in favour of ecumenical dialogue are indeed very few. In the Soviet era, the pro-ecumenical element within the Church gained an artificial influence because of its usefulness to the foreign policy aims of the regime, and precisely for that reason is now frequently viewed with derision by post-revival practising believers. For most Orthodox, ecumenical dialogue with Catholics (and others) is impossible for a simple reason--they are heretics. To Russian Orthodox, however, this does not necessarily conjure up emotive images of burnings at the stake: one parishioner matter-of-factly explained to me that the word ``heresy'' merely derives from the Greek for ``opinion''; that is, anything deviating from Orthodox tradition is the product of the mistaken human notion that this tradition could be improved upon. In one Moscow parish I recently heard a sermon in which the priest likened Orthodoxy to the calculation 22=4. At some stage, he said, Catholics (and others) decided that in fact it would be more accurate to say 22=4.000025. ``You can build a chair with those people using their calculations and it will turn out all right'', he explained to the congregation, ``but if you both build spaceships and set your course on a far-off planet, their spaceship will end up somewhere else''. The Catholic concept promoted by Pope John Paul II of a Europe breathing with two lungs, East and West, is not theologically possible for Orthodox in Russia. No amount of sensitive diplomacy and donations of floating churches from Catholics will change that. There are signs, however, that the Vatican might be becoming wise to all this. The passivity towards Orthodox criticism throughout the past decade in Russia, culminating in intense diplomatic efforts to bring the Pope here in the symbolic year of 2000, has brought few returns. In the light of this, it is of some significance that the recently- returned and restored Church of the Immaculate Conception in Moscow is now openly referred to as a cathedral. Of much greater import is the planned papal visit to predominantly Orthodox Ukraine, set up without the agreement of the leader of the only officially-recognised Orthodox Church in that country--the one that gives allegiance to the Moscow Patriarchate. It looks as if Catholic-Russian Orthodox relations might be about to become stormier, if also more open.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and most able colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for arranging for this special order. I wanted to publicly acknowledge the incredibly important role he is playing in helping to build bridges to nations that were our former enemies. I think as history is written, as surely it will be, and we look back at the challenge to building the peace as opposed to only fighting either hot or cold wars, the role of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will be absolutely essential and recognized, and I hope the American people as they listen to this special order today will understand that it is in America's interest to build functioning democracies in that part of the world; that we cannot afford to ignore the millions and millions of people that live there and still need to learn about the institutions of freedom, certainly in the management of their own instruments of governance. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has been the leader in establishing the Congressional Duma exchange in Russia. For the last 8 years, sometimes I am sure it was a lonely task trying to make friendships with people who had just recently been some of our most harsh critics and bitter enemies, and yet the gentleman has pursued this year after year after year. To me, that is the test of true leadership, and I wanted to say that. I hope the gentleman's constituents are listening to this. I hope the American people are listening because truly we have to figure out how to build a peace that will last, and it can only come through communication with the leaders of those countries and with the people institution of those countries. In the brief time I have to say something tonight, I also wanted to acknowledge, in terms of Ukraine, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), who is our partner in this effort, Republican and Democrat working together on behalf of the interests of freedom, in signing the agreement that we would like to submit to the Record this evening for the new Congressional Rada exchange for Ukraine. It is modeled on the impressive work that the gentleman has done, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in Russia for these past several years. We have a lot of work to do in Ukraine and we arrived at a most delicate moment, and I will say a word about that in a second. But I wanted to say to my colleagues here this evening, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), what a great thrill it was for me to be able to travel with him, with his wife; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who was with us a little earlier this evening; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who has a major responsibility on the Moldovan Parliamentary Exchange. To be there particularly at this time and to experience the ambassadors' wisdom really, the ambassador of the United States to Russia, Mr. James Collins, the ambassador from the United States to Ukraine, Ambassador Carlos Pascual. Honestly, they are among the most able citizens that we could send into that most complex part of the world. As an American, I was just very proud to be there and to be able to listen to them and to learn from them, and to have their help in meeting the people that we needed to in those countries. At the urging of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), several of us attempted to put the beginnings of an agreement on housing, helping Russia to begin, begin the first mortgage system. It will not be easy. It is a vast country with 13 time zones, no sense of free enterprise, no institutions in place, either financial or in terms of the substantive work that needs to be done to create a mortgage system based on collateral, including land. There is no system of collateralizing land to borrow against. But America must help in this endeavor. We cannot be like ostriches with our heads in the ground. We have to use the instruments of freedom, all the institutions we have available to us, to try at this moment in history to make a difference. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for leading us down that path, recognizing that community development is an equal partner, along with a strong defense, in order to help nations remain at peace. In terms of Ukraine, I just wanted to say that we arrived at a time when the President of the country obviously is under extreme duress. There are charges and countercharges, and the institutions of that country are not strong enough to conduct a full and thorough investigation of the actual criminal acts that were involved in the beheading of a very well known journalist in that country who had been a critic of many aspects of the current government. I wish to submit to the Record also this evening the press statement that all of us created in Ukraine and released to the international press encouraging that there be a full investigation, and in fact, even engaging other partners from the West, from Europe, from the United States, in trying to get at the true facts in this case. The press statement referred to is as follows: U.S. Delegation Conducts Whirlwind Fact-Finding Visit of Russia, Moldova and Ukraine delegation urges peaceful, democratic resolution to current crisis; delegation establishes historic u.s. congress-verkhovena rada parliamentary exchange A Congressional delegation of seven members of the U.S. Congress led by the Honorable Curt Weldon (R-PA) is completing a three-nation visit including Russia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The purpose of this visit was to continue the relationships established seven years ago between the United States House of Representatives and the Russian Duma, and to establish similar relationships with the parliaments of Moldova and Ukraine. The other members of the delegation include: Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Representative Bob Schaffer, (R-CO), Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Representative Joe Hoeffel, (D-PA), and Representative Ander Crenshaw, (R-FL). The Congressional delegation participated in over 40 scheduled meetings in the three countries that included meeting with the Presidents of Moldova and Ukraine, as well as the leadership of the parliaments, senior civilian cabinet level officials and military leaders in all three countries. In Russia and Ukraine, the delegation met with prominent media figures concerned with press freedoms in their respective countries. While meeting with President Leonid Kuchma and other officials in Kyiv, the delegation expressed its serious concerns with the Heorhiy Gongadze incident, and believes the subsequent investigation must be pursued irrespective of where it may lead. That pursuit must be compatible with the following principals: The freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the rule of law; and nonviolence. The delegation believes that any settlement of the Gongadze crisis not taking the above points into account would adversely affect future Ukrainian/American relations. The delegation also: Extends its sincere sympathy to the families and associates of Mr. Gongadze; reiterates the offer of technical support from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; expresses its strong belief and insistence that a credible and independent investigation is essential in order to earn the confidence of Ukraine and the rest of the world community; affirms the principle that those accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty; and intends to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives to express the sense of Congress that this incident should be resolved peacefully. During the over two hour meeting with President Kuchma, the delegation was gratified to receive the commitment of the President to follow the rule of law, maintain the freedom of the press and assembly, and to use restraint in the use of force. U.S. Congress-Rada Parliamentary Exchange We, the undersigned members of the United States House of Representatives and members of the Parliament of Ukraine, do hereby establish the U.S. Congress-Rada Parliamentary Exchange (further referred to as CRPE), for the purpose of facilitating expanded strategic relations between the United States and Ukraine. The purpose of CRPE is to foster closer relations between our two legislatures to address key bilateral issues. It is the goal of the CRPE Parliament to examine issues of mutual understanding and continue a constructive dialogue toward permanent peace and prosperity. Having reviewed the work of the initial congressional delegation to Ukraine in November 1999, which participated in discussions of mutual interest in trade, economic well-being, energy reformation, agriculture, and military relations, CRPE will promote closer relationships between the lawmakers of both countries. Building upon the strategic partnership between the Untied States and Ukraine first established in 1996, the CRPE shall serve as a conduit in further developing and continuing economic and political cooperation between the two countries. Now, be it resolved by affirmation of the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives, with the support of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, and the Parliamentarians of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada there is hereby established, the U.S. Congress-Rada Parliamentary Exchange. Be it further resolved, the Exchange shall: (1) Constitute a working group to help resolve any issues hampering an expansion of economic and political cooperation between the United States and Ukraine; and, (2) Establish items of discussion by the CRPE which encompass economic relations, trade, space exploration, health-care, the environment, agriculture, natural sources, and any other matter important to the promotion of close ties between the United States and Ukraine; and, (3) Convene bi-annually in the United States and Ukraine to formally exchange viewpoints brought about by current events. The CRPE will from time to time issue recommendations to be pursued in each legislature. The founders of the CRPE hereby acknowledge the leaders of the Congress of the United States, in coordination with the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, and the Parliament of Ukraine, for their dedication to establishing the Exchange. Signed at Washington, D.C. November 18, 1999 by: Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Signed at Kyiv, on November 30, 1999 by: Hon. Oleksander Tkachenko, Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament.