Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the kind gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me a few brief moments here. I will not encroach on his time. I know he has been waiting. No one has been a finer leader on the issue of balancing our budget and getting the long-term debt and the annual deficits down than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). He has been a leader for all of us. So for him to yield me a few moments of his time this evening is a great privilege for me, and I thank the gentleman so very much. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to enter some remarks in the Record here concerning the recent ruling by the Federal Trade Commission that was highlighted in the New York Times yesterday and in every major newspaper around the country with the headline: ``Violence in the Media is Aimed at the Young, Federal Trade Commission says. Report finds pervasive and aggressive marketing of films and video games to our youth.'' I am so concerned about this I will be sending parts of my remarks tonight to the gentleman who represents the motion picture industry here in Washington, Mr. Jack Valenti, along with the heads of all of our three major commercial networks, along with the heads of those that sponsor MTV in our country, to say that we are the most affluent society in the world; and yet we witness constantly school shootings, teens committing murders, first graders carrying guns into our schools to shoot fellow students. We can all ask ourselves what is happening deep inside this society and why do we have to read about children committing crimes, violent crimes almost on a daily basis. With all the national reports indicating major crime is coming down in our country, why is it that parents in my neighborhood feel that they cannot allow their children to ride their bicycles more than two blocks away from the house because they fear for their lives and for their health? We live in a very, very working-class normal community in our country where people go to work every day, where seniors reside and so forth. Following the terrible events at Columbine High School last year, President Clinton ordered the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the role that the entertainment industry played in promoting youth violence. The report that came out by chairman Pitofsky of the Commission says, and I quote: ``For all three industry segments, the answer is yes. Targeted marketing to children of entertainment products with violent content is pervasive and aggressive. Whether we are talking about music recording, movies or computer games, companies in each entertainment segment routinely end run and thereby undermine parental warnings by target marketing their products to young audiences.'' I bring this up also because we did a recent survey in our office of constituents in our district asking them about television. Seventy-three percent of the respondents graded the impact of television on America's youth as unwholesome with a negative impact on youth development. Moreover, when asked to list three major concerns facing our country, constituents in Ohio's Ninth District responded television, radio, and movies contributed to the moral debasement of our youth. If that is not bad enough, and that is the reason I am down here tonight, I received this letter from the country of Ukraine this week from a religious leader in that country who says to me, ``Congresswoman, you know, there is a deep economical crisis in our country today. Social wounds are opened like crimes, alcoholism, prostitution, drugs, and much of the humanitarian help coming from all over the world is in the form of clothing and food and medical goods. But, please, there is a lot of bad, immoral, wild nourishment,'' and he puts those words in quotes,'' that comes here as an ultra modern one. ``All this stinking mud that comes to Ukraine comes from America and from Europe. The cult of violence and pornography just fell as locusts onto our children's souls and their schools, their houses, and on the streets. ``The television today is working for hell, straight. Children are unprotected as no one else.'' So I say to those in charge of the visual images put before the people of the world, when a Member of Congress receives a letter like this from a citizen in another country, I have to tell you, it is a heavy burden that we carry of true embarrassment. How do we defend this not just here at home, but abroad? It is defenseless. You cannot be happy about any of this. Do my colleagues know what he asks? And I am going to ask Mr. Valenti, I am going to ask the major media moguls of our country. He says, ``We need help with ethics in our schools. We need help with printing books to try to teach the youth here about our ethics. We need at least 10 copies of every book for every school library in our country. But, Congresswoman, publishing of these books on ethics cost money. ``Can you help us? In the current situation here, we do not have the ability to help ourselves yet.'' He says, ``Please share our opinion and our longing and then we ask you to help us in this thing for the children's good.'' So I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) allowing me these few moments this evening. I include this statement for the Record: Dear Congresswoman Kaptur: I ask you hoping your helping for us in the very necessary and important thing. ``Not with the bread alone lives a man''--these words might be the title of it. There is a deep economical crisis in Ukraine now: a lot of social wounds are opened like crimes, alcoholism, prostitution, drugs etc. Much of the humanitarian help now come here from all over the world. Most of it is clothes, food, remedy, some goods. But, gentlemen, besides it there are a lot of bad, immoral, wild ``spiritual'' nourishment that comes here as an ultramodern one. All this ``stinking mud'' comes to Ukraine from America and Europe. The cult of violence and pornography just fell as locust onto children souls in their schools, houses, on the streets. The television today is working for hell, straight. Children are unprotected. They, as none else, need the pure hopeful spiritual nourishment. In the network of the secondary schools is introduced such a subject as ethics--the very important subject especially in the new democratic countries of the Western and Middle Europe, as well as in the whole world. But there is a lot of administrative formalism here. We still don't have good books for pupils. Today we need at least 10 copies of every book for every school library. We work on this field a lot. But publishing of the thousands books needs considerable cost. Please share our opinion and our longing, then we ask you to help us in this thing, for the greater God's glory and for the children good. With respect,

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I support the McNulty resolution to disapprove the extension of trade waiver authority with Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, last year I supported the exact opposite position, in hopes that there would be signs in Vietnam that, in fact, that government would move toward a more open society. There are no signs of that, and political repression continues. Talk to people who live here in the United States who have relatives in Vietnam; many live in the Washington area. What was even more troubling to me and the reason for this change in my own position, and I am not going to use the person's name, but one of the two most important Americans in charge of shaping U.S. policy toward Vietnam was speaking with me the other day; and I said, what are you going to do about the treatment of workers in Vietnam under this trade authority to give them dignity, whether they are working for a U.S.-based company or some other multinational working over there? And this American said to me, oh, that is not a trade issue, that is probably more cultural. That offended me so much. Mr. Speaker, I think our government is on the wrong song sheet here. We ought to be for developing a civil society in Vietnam, beginning with humanitarian linkages, as our community is trying to do by helping build schools and clinics. We ought to be having educational exchanges to teach people something about democracy-building. We ought to have family reunification. We ought to have arts and cultural exchanges; but by golly, when top-ranking people from our own government fail to see that the basis of Jackson-Vanik is that political repression is wrong and this Nation ought to stand up for liberty at every cost, we ought to bring back those who are missing in action and call the government of Vietnam to task on that. But we need to support the McNulty resolution and deny the additional extension, because it is in freedom's interests here and abroad.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Association of Federal Credit Unions for deciding to take a leadership role in helping to raise funds for the National World War II Memorial. At its annual Defense Credit Union Summit, NAFCU President Fred Becker announced that association members will be encouraged to make a personal donation, or by encouraging their credit union members to support the memorial through a NAFCU/World War II Memorial pledge card. Members will also be able to use the pledge card to submit names for the Registry of Remembrances for the Memorial. I believe that all veterans and all families of veterans will appreciate this special campaign by the National Association of Federal Credit Unions. I encourage all of our colleagues to read the press release from NAFCU that I am submitting and to promote the program within their own Congressional Districts for the benefit of all World War II veterans.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher); and I rise to express my strong support for this resolution to disapprove most favored nation status for China. Why? Due to China's growing arrogance and record of transgressions, even in the wake of this body's unfortunate vote to grant unconditional permanent normal trade relations with China just a few weeks ago, by only a handful of votes I might add. So, what has happened? Three days after that vote, the Jiang regime clenched its fists even tighter on religious freedom in China when a Chinese court sentenced a Catholic priest to jail for 6 years. Why? For printing Bibles. And then 10 days after the vote here in the House, Communist China repressed free speech again when Chinese officials arrested Huang Qi, a Chinese Web site operator, for posting articles about government corruption and human rights violations in China, including the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square. At 5:15 on June 3, with the Chinese police at his door, Huang posted his last message on his Web site. It said, ``Thanks to all who make an effort on behalf of democracy in China.'' He wrote, ``They have come. Goodbye.'' Huang now faces a prison sentence of 10 years or more because the State says he is trying to subvert state power. And then 2 weeks after the vote here in this House, Communist China proved its unworthiness again when China broke its promise to open its markets to California-based Qualcomm Corporation's cellular phone technology, a deal that was key to China's earning U.S. support to join the World Trade Organization. And that was after the premier of China had personally assured Secretary Daley over at the Commerce Department that China would open its markets to Qualcomm, and they even signed a deal to that effect. Based on this abysmal continuing record of oppression and human rights abuses, no one should support permanent extension. Today, we have a chance to cast a vote; and it should be for disapproving most favored nation relations with China.

Ms. KAPTUR

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations. I would say to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I have serious concerns about the operation of our Nation's assistance programs with respect to Ukraine and Russia. The gentleman and his subcommittee have been most helpful, but I believe there are some remaining items that need attention, particularly in the arena of agriculture, where U.S. policy towards Russia and Ukraine have lacked primacy, have generally supported the old order rather than reform, and have been unrealistic in meeting the basic needs of villagers and small holders who are raising the majority of food in both nations. First, most people know that agriculture depends upon seasons. There is a time to plant, a time to nourish, and a time to harvest. No one of us can change this natural cycle. However, it is my experience that the Agency for International Development has not been sufficiently sensitive to these natural deadlines when considering applications for program assistance in agriculture. Approvals are delayed past planting dates. Termination dates are set earlier than harvest dates. It is as if the project is being set up to fail because these natural deadlines are being ignored. Can the chairman assure me that as we move towards conference on this bill, that we can work to be sure that AID focuses more attention on agricultural reform in Ukraine and Russia, that it improves the speed of its application review process, and that the duration of these projects comports with the seasonal deadline?

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman. Secondly, anyone who knows Ukraine knows that its economic future will be highly dependent upon a reformed agricultural sector. To fail to recognize this fact in any development program is to ignore this country's natural strength. While I know that the gentleman is not in a position to commit to a specific amount, I know that recent aid for agricultural development has been declining globally, both in terms of dollars and as a relative portion of the AID package. Can the chairman give me any assurances that we can work to increase the proportion of assistance to agricultural reform efforts in any aid package that is provided?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do intend to keep them brief, but we entered into a colloquy and I appreciate the gentleman's forbearance on that, but this was in the form of an amendment. I wanted to use the opportunity to speak about the lack of repayment by Ukraine of various debts that are owed to companies in our country and also to speak about U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine, particularly as it relates to a sector critical to long-term stability in those nations, agriculture and sustainable food production. Mr. Chairman, sadly and incredibly, U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine have ignored agriculture and those nations governments are not inclined to pursue a path toward reform without prodding. U.S. policies have not only failed to elevate agriculture's importance as a key economic and social transformation mechanism; but our actions have generally supported the old order, rather than the new, and have been seriously deficient in meeting the basic needs of villagers and small holders who are raising the majority of food in both nations. It is my intent to be very brief; however, I want to state for the record that students of history will attest, the economic and social systems of the former Soviet state were premised on the production of collective farms and the distribution of their earnings to social welfare concerns within those countries, everything from schools to hospitals. Thus, agriculture was more than a sidebar activity in the former Soviet Union. It was the spine of the economy. When the Soviet system collapsed, the West made a very serious, and I might add continuing mistake, in its efforts to help those nations reform and transform. It has largely ignored agriculture. How myopic. Any serious effort to transform the economies of those nations must be rooted in the countryside. Mr. Chairman, not only have the fundamentals of agricultural reform been largely absent from U.S. policy initiatives toward Russia and Ukraine, some of the steps we have taken have been absolutely wrong- headed. In Russia, for example, the direct food aid provided through AID and USAID has largely supported the very parastatal entities that still control production. A year ago, when the U.S. Government, without a vote of this Congress, sent over $1 billion of food aid to Russia, there was no agreement that the proceeds of the sale of those commodities would be used for reform in the rural countryside. In fact, the proceeds are being deposited in the Russian pension fund, an account over which we have no control, no voice, no oversight. Similarly in Ukraine, millions of dollars have been directed to what one can politely call the establishment, but not to people desperately trying to eke out a living. Take the issue of U.S. tractor sales to Ukraine. The sales were conducted through the government of Ukraine. Those tractors, which each cost $100,000 more than they would have cost in the free enterprise system, could only be afforded by the old collectives, not the humble entrepreneurs and women villagers in babushkas struggling to restore Ukraine as the breadbasket of that region. Whether the West likes to admit it or not, the vast majority of food being produced in those countries is now occurring on the small holder plots, largely tilled by older women. Nothing from our billions of dollars have ever reached these deserving people. Somebody somewhere better pay attention to what is happening in Russian and Ukraine. The West's media is captivated by the goings on in Moscow and Kiev and the political intrigue surrounding who the next prime minister or president will be. I will tell my colleagues, put on your mud boots and walk into the countryside where the pain gets deeper. Who is paying attention to the fact that 70 percent to 80 percent of the diet of ordinary citizens in Russia and Ukraine is bread and potatoes? It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to put my statement in the Record. I am going to submit everything that has gone wrong in terms of aide assistance to Russia and Ukraine since independence was granted there. I want to use this opportunity to speak about U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine, particularly as relates to a sector critical to long term stability in those nations--agriculture and sustainable food production. Sadly, incredibly, U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine have ignored agriculture. And, those nations' governments are not inclined to pursue a reform path without prodding. U.S. policies have not only failed to elevate agriculture's importance as a key to economic and social transformation. But our actions have generally supported the old order rather than the new, and have been seriously deficient in meeting the basic needs of villagers and small holders who are raising the majority of food in both nations. As students of history will attest, the economic and social systems of the former Soviet state were premised on the production of collective farms and the distribution of their earnings to social welfare concerns within the state--everything from schools to hospitals. Thus, agriculture was more than a sidebar issue in the former Soviet Union. It was spine of the economy. When the Soviet system collapsed, the west made a very serious--and I might add continuing--mistake in its efforts to help those nations reform and transform. It has largely ignored agriculture. How myopic. Any serious effort to transform the economies of these nations must be rooted in the countryside. Not only have the fundamentals of agricultural reform been largely absent from U.S. policy initiatives toward Russia and Ukraine, some of the steps we have taken have been absolutely wrong headed. In Russia, for example, the direct food aid provided through AID and USDA has largely supported the very parastatal entities that still control production. A year ago, when the U.S. government, without a vote of the Congress, sent over $1 billion in food aid to Russia, there was no agreement that the proceeds of the sale of those commodities would be used for reform in the rural countryside. In fact, the proceeds are being deposited in the Russian Pension fund--an account over which we have no control, no voice, no oversight. Similarly, in Ukraine, millions of dollars have been directed to what one can politely call the establishment, but not to people desperately trying to eke out a living. Take the issue of U.S. tractor sales to Ukraine. The sales were conducted through the government of Ukraine. Those tractors, which each cost $100,000 more than they would have cost in a free enterprise system, could only be afforded by the old collectives, not the humble entrepreneurs and women villagers in babushkas struggling to restore Ukraine as the breadbasket of that region. Whether the West likes to admit it or not, the vast majority of food being produced in those countries is now occurring on the small holder plots, largely tilled by older women. Nothing from our billions of dollars have even reached these deserving people. Somebody somewhere better pay attention to what is happening in Russia and Ukraine. The West's media is captivated by the goings on in Moscow and Kiev, and the political intrigue surrounding who the next prime minister or president might be. But I will tell you, put on your mud boots, and walk into the countryside where the pain gets deeper. Who's paying attention to the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the diet of ordinary citizens of Russia and Ukraine is bread and potatoes. Caloric intake is going down. If the price of bread rises, political unrest is not far behind. Time and again, the people of those nations go waiting and wanting, while assistance from the West misses the mark-- In Russia, the Russian Rural Credit Fund that could help real Russian farmers develop private operations goes waiting and wanting for cash, while U.S. assistance flows into government coffers; In Ukraine, in 1995, the U.S. government gave $3.6 million in commodities through Land O'Lakes to help Ukraine. The proceeds were to be used to help Ukrainian agriculture. But it didn't happen. For all these years, the U.S. government has tried to settle this matter, the latest offer being $1 million for settlement. Promises of payment were made last fall. Then last December, I personally asked newly reelected President Kuchma to intervene in this matter. Last winter, when I traveled to Ukraine, I left a similar request with the Prime Minister's office. Promises were made again when I held a meeting this year between USDA Secretary Dan Glickman and the Ukrainian Ambassador. But these promises have not resulted in performance. Instead, we have seen letter after letter, phone call after phone call, argument after argument about whether or not the right documents have been exchange or the correct contact number has been referenced. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, the grandmas in babushkas who till the fields, and literally feed that nation, don't even have good shovels or seed. They get no real help either from the West or from the government of Ukraine. What kind of wrong headedness is this? Frankly, we'd be better off to send them seed packets and small rototillers with enough fuel to make it through the planting season. It would be more practical and hit a home run where it matters. Our own Agency of International Development ignores the fact that agriculture depends upon seasons. There is a time to plant, a time to nourish, and a time to harvest. No one of us can change this natural timetable. So why would USAID ignore these natural deadlines when Americans attempting to make a difference in agriculture in the field face approval delays past planting dates? Or contract termination dates set earlier than harvest dates? It appears as if even the meager projects addressing rural reform are purposefully set to fail because natural deadlines are ignored. Let me focus on the amendment relating to Ukraine. It basically is a limitation amendment--limiting assistance to Ukraine, reducing it by an amount equal to the amount of any claim outstanding on the date of the enactment of this Act--whether that be a U.S. business enterprise, a U.S. private and voluntary organization against the government of Ukraine or any Ukrainian business enterprise. It is offered as a way of getting the attention of the government of Ukraine to the serious outstanding issues that block full cooperation between us, not just in agriculture but as partners in a market economy. It is my intention to withdraw this amendment this year, in hopes that final resolution can be reached on such matters as Land O'Lakes and Pioneer Seed. But, I reserve my rights to attach this amendment to subsequent legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I again thank the chairman. Finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Russian food aid, the Agency for International Development has not placed a high enough priority on agricultural and food systems development there. Would the chairman agree with me that any food aid provided to Russia should be leveraged for greater impact, that any resources generated by this aid should be directed toward substantial economic growth and a reformed agricultural sector, and that agricultural projects should focus on the private sector, especially small-scale producers, small hold farmers, and women in order to maximize impact in fostering reform and allowing aid to reach the greatest number of people?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically is a limitation amendment, limiting assistance to Ukraine reducing it by an amount equal to the amount of any claim outstanding on the date of enactment of this act, whether that to be a U.S. business enterprise, a U.S. private and voluntary organization against the government of Ukraine, or any Ukrainian business enterprise. It is my intention, as I discuss this, to draw attention to the lack of resolution on claims by Land O'Lakes and Pioneer and other such claims.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for his understanding, his assistance, his cooperation, his leadership, and his dispatch.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for taking time out of his busy schedule to be here on such a critical issue. I wanted to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, for allowing us just this moment. If so many billions of dollars were not involved, I would not press to spend a few extra moments here this afternoon. I wanted to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for allowing us this time. We have had absolutely no other opportunity to bring this to international attention than this moment. We think it is the right time, and we look forward to working with the authorizing and appropriations committees in the future to keep our assistance on a short lease and to recover assets that are due to our company and our people and to move our aid in the direction of reform in both of those very strategic nations.

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

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

Ms. KAPTUR. It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this amendment this year, in hopes that final resolution can be reached on such matters as Land O'Lakes and Pioneer Seed; but I reserve my rights to attach this amendment to subsequent legislation, including perhaps legislation emanating from the gentleman's commitment at the appropriate point.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), for whom I have the highest respect, who has been such a leader on civil rights matters, certainly those before the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to discuss the first of several amendments the gentlewoman wishes offer.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that would essentially attempt to address the farm crisis affecting so many regions across this country by providing $80 million under emergency designation out of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation for equity capital and grants to small and medium-sized producers for feasibility studies, business development strategies, restructuring small and medium-sized enterprises, and the processing and marketing of agricultural commodities organized through cooperatives. Ever since the passage of the Freedom to Farm Act, billions and billions of dollars have been spent by the people of the United States in trying to prop up rural America in emergency payments to our producers. From the numbers that I have been able to obtain, that emergency assistance has amounted to over $24.5 billion, and that is with a ``B.'' In order to qualify for those programs, one does not even have to have a crop in the ground. A recent GAO study that came out indicated that, in fact, in 1999, almost a third of the $4.5 billion in payments went to farms that would not have received it had we been using a traditional production measurement system that had existed prior to Freedom to Farm. So what we have is a situation where we have people going bankrupt in rural America, we have an AMTA payment, or an Agricultural Market Transition Assistance payment, that really does not go to people who desperately need it in many, many cases; and we need to find other measures to help farmers weather and adjust in this economy. The amendment that I am proposing would help farmers meet the market, and it is tough. Whether one is a sugar beet producer, whether one is a beef producer, whether one is in feed grains, it really does not matter what, unless one can economically restructure in this economy, find higher value-added products and bring those to market more directly with prices being what they are, one cannot afford to have a farm business that provides the majority of one's income. We know that while farmers want to depend on the market, we have not provided the economic tools for them to do that, and there is not any farm family in this country that wants to exist on subsidy. This amendment would actually spend far fewer dollars than current programs, and it would offer the opportunity of establishing co-op development ventures that would have permanence, would have a lasting impact in many places across this country. If we think about it, the amendment that we have drafted establishes a cap. No particular enterprise could get more than $500,000, excuse me, I should say $10 million out of the $80 million; and we would be looking at ways of helping farmers group together in order to use their combined assets to meet the market. It is real dollars that can help them not just bounce along in this economy, but perhaps survive long term. The amendment provides for grants that can be targeted toward feasibility studies and business development plans. We know many farmers do not know how to organize into a marketing co-op for milk, for sugar products, for honey products, whatever it might be. This would give them another mechanism. I know I was shocked to meet with sugar beet growers from Michigan who were just up against it, and not able to make it in the economy; and they said, Congresswoman, if we could just figure out how to reorganize ourselves as a business unit, we really want to remain in business. What amazed me about that conversation, in spite of the devastation that they are facing and even bankruptcy in some cases, they were struggling to find the means to meet the market. I was so impressed with their optimism; and, therefore, I would hope that as we move toward conference, that this kind of cooperative development mechanism might be able to be embedded into the base bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time that I might have to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield the time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), who has been such a leader in crafting this bill as well as the agriculture authorization bill and the crop insurance measure that was before us a few weeks ago, and we thank him for his leadership on behalf of rural America in every aspect. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia (Mr. Bishop), regarding concern related to the draft that is before us.