Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I commend the 100th birthday of Lue Ida Hill from Swanton, Ohio. This remarkable woman lives a life that celebrates every day as a gift, every sunrise as the herald of new opportunities. When Mrs. Hill referred to her centennial birthday as ``just another day'', she does so not to comment on the routine of life, the monotony of ``just another day'', she sets an example to us all that everyday, indeed, every moment, ought to be a cause for celebration. For by celebrating, we give thanks for the blessings bestowed upon us by God. Mrs. Hill has never known what most of us call retirement, for she continues to keep herself busy by helping her neighbors and bringing joy to those around her. With a bow in her hair, a tradition she began while working as a butcher, she was careening about her home in a motorcycle sidecar just months before her birthday. Lue Ida is a first class woman from a first class community. She's never stopped working, whether it was at the farm helping out with the plowing or mending shirts for Arizona State University students. She's done it all with a gracious and genuine smile. Now, with 68 grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren, Lue Ida keeps the fellow residents of the Harborside Healthcare Facility hopping. There, they refer to her as a social butterfly, playing cards and chatting with her friends and neighbors. If only we could all be half the ``butterfly'' Lue Ida is. Bringing happiness to those around us, joy to our loved ones, and recognizing the gift of what we have instead of complaining for what we don't. Our entire community wishes to extend its warmest and most caring congratulations to Lue Ida Hill on the attainment of her 100th year. Few Americans reach this incredible life pinnacle. May God bless Lue Ida and keep her as America and the world move toward the new millennium. She is a legendary teacher to us all.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, not so many years ago, an inspiring U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, gave heart not only to our people but to those living under the sickle and boot of Communism in eastern and central Europe. In a moment that history will remember always, he stood in West Berlin, an island of democracy in a sea of totalitarianism. He championed for the world the cause of freedom with the proud boast, ``Ich bin ein Berliner.'' I am a Berliner. Today, as this Congress stands on the verge of voting on permanent trade privileges to Communist China, it is incumbent upon us to remind ourselves of Taiwan, the only outpost for democracy in the Pacific Rim. Does mainland China, a Communist nation, whose human rights record is deteriorating, really deserve a blank check from this Congress of the United States? There is not one iota of indication that that totalitarian regime has any respect for liberty's cause. President Kennedy, on June 25, 1963, at the City Hall in West Berlin said, ``I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin, and your distinguished Chancellor. Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was `civis Romanus sum.' I am a Roman. Today the proudest boast is, `Ich bin ein Berliner.' ``There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world? Let them come to Berlin.'' And I might say today, for freedom lovers, they should say, let them come to Taiwan. ``There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future.'' He said, ``Let them come to Berlin.'' ``There are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it's true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Let them come to Berlin. ``Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.'' He said, ``I know of no town, no city that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force and hope and the determination of the City of West Berlin.'' And I would say today that that is true of Taiwan. ``While the wall was the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system for all the world to see, we took no satisfaction in it. What is true of that city,'' he said, ``is true of Germany. Real and lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. ``In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free.'' He said, ``You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is a part of the main. So let me ask you,'' he said, ``as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this City of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind. ``Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to the day when this city will be joined as one, and this country, and this great continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front line for almost two decades. All free men, wherever they may live,'' he said, ``are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words `Ich bin ein Berliner.' '' Today, as we embark upon a debate on China, America should aspire to no less an ideal than our forbearers who carried the torch of liberty with no fear of the cost. America's lot should be cast with Taiwan as the democratic hope of the Pacific Rim. All free men and women, wherever they may live, are citizens of Taiwan. And, therefore, as a free citizen, I take pride in opposing any special trade privileges for Communist China. There is no other choice for freedom lovers.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my very able colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), for taking out this special order tonight on the important issue of prescription drugs. I would like to lend my verbal support and moral support to everything she is trying to do in taking on this great leadership challenge for our Nation. This past weekend I visited one of my dear friends back home who was denied coverage for prescription drugs, and was told that if he were to try to save his life in a cancer treatment, he and his wife would have to cough up $1,500 a week. How would Members like to have to face that decision as they are trying to save their lives, and their family is surrounding them at one of the most difficult times it has ever faced? So I am with the gentlewoman in her efforts here to do what is right for our senior citizens as well as our families. The people in the room in the hospital were from all ages, all the relatives. Here they had to contend with these insurance companies and all these prescription drug problems when they were trying to deal with a life and death situation. I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan. We admire the gentlewoman's work and she has our support. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to advise my colleagues about one more reason that this Congress should not approve a blank check that will be before us in about 5 weeks called ``Approving Permanent Normal Trade Status for the People's Republic of China.'' I want Members to know, and I am placing in the Record the story of another one of my constituents from near Toledo, Ohio, in the village of White House. I hope the message I give tonight will reach the White House here in Washington. This is the story of Ciping Huang, a Chinese American at the University of Toledo, married to a gentleman from my community. She has been harassed, detained, interrogated, and expelled from China because of her association as a member of the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars in our Nation. She has been refused reentry into China to visit her ill father who is suffering from cancer, and I can think of no better example of the callous disregard for human rights exhibited daily by the government of the People's Republic of China than her story. I will read her letter to you, and I hope to bring her to Washington as this debate ensues. She says, ``Dear Congresswoman, my name is Ciping Huang and I am a council member of the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars in the United States.'' She has been an elected officer in that organization, which was established in 1989, after the Tiananmen Square massacre. ``Unfortunately,'' she writes, ``our involvement, our association's involvement, in democracy and freedom for China has resulted in harsh treatment by the Chinese Communist government, in particular on our student members as they try to return to their homeland. Whether a Chinese citizen or an American citizen, our members can be harassed, detained, threatened or kicked out of China because of our activities. And what are our activities? Consistent delivery of overseas donations to the June 4 massacre victims and families from Tiananmen Square. We support and have supported conditional yearly renewal of the most favored nation trade status for China, and because we lobby the United States Congress to provide protection for Chinese students and scholars from punishment by the Chinese Government due to their roles in fighting for democracy since 1989. She says, ``Take my story as an example. In 1998, while I went home to visit my aging parents in China, I was taken away by the secret police for interrogation on many details related to our student association and the activities of other Chinese Democratic groups and organizations. For several days, they tried to force me to do things I did not want to do, including signing a confession letter. On the fifth day I was given 20 minutes to pack my luggage and say good-bye to my scared parents and was forced into Hong Kong. Still, the secret police told me they had treated me leniently because I am married to an American. He had contacted his congressional representative, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), in order to protect me. The government told me I must cooperate with them afterwards and do what they wanted me to do if I ever wanted to return home to visit my parents again. Last September, I learned my father had a 102 degree fever for several days and was diagnosed with cancer. I decided to take a trip back home immediately. However, about 20 police stopped me at the Shanghai International Airport. They searched my luggage and would not let me make phone calls or even go to the bathroom. In the airport I asked them to respect the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the Chinese President had just signed, and let me go visit my ill father, but my plea was simply ignored. I was put on the airplane back to Tokyo, even though they knew that the hospital had sent us a critical condition notice which stated that my father could die any minute. In Tokyo, I repeatedly appealed to the Chinese authorities to allow me into China for basic humanitarian reasons but to no avail. Up until this day, I still have not been able to visit my poor father. ``For a long time,'' she says, I have viewed America, its people and its government as the ones who hold the moral flags high who would be willing to help and sometimes sacrifice themselves for the people in the rest of the world to gain their basic human rights and dignity, and for humanitarian reasons. Now for this permanent normal trade status, as well as admission to the WTO, the World Trade Organization, I wish you could prove that again. I wish you could answer this question correctly: Is business more important than the principles we live by? Do we care about the human rights condition of more than 1.2 billion human lives In the past, the annual congressional conditional renewal of most favored nation to China was able to provide some leverage for Chinese human rights improvement, such as the release of some political prisoners and the relaxation of the political atmosphere within China. Unfortunately, as you all know, without the attachment of the human rights improvement, conditions in China have deteriorated in the last few years. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert the remainder of this letter in the Record, and I will come to the floor again to read the conclusion. The Chinese Communist government has not and will not learn democracy and respect human dignity from the PNTR. They would only take its passage as an advantage and signal that it is OK to continue their miserable, poor record on human rights and democracy. But, if America could care less about people far away (look at what they have done to FaLun Gong members and Taiwan recently), I hope you do realize that the PNTR would do no more benefit for American workers, especially those in the trade Unions where people earn a living wage with health and retirement benefits. In China, there are no real workers unions; thus, it puts American workers in a much more disadvantaged position to compete with. Let me stress, I wish that America will protect the human rights of its own people. Furthermore, America should help to protect the human rights of its own people by helping to protect the human rights of the people in the other countries. Only when these countries have human rights and democracy, shall the world be in peace. And I wish we could hold morality above money, but not the other way around. And I wish none of us, including our democratic government, would have to kneel in front of a dictatorial government for money, or mercy, or the human rights we deserve to have. And finally, with all of your conscience and help, I wish that in the near future, I would be able to visit my ill father in my homeland. Thank you all. Sincerely, Ciping Huang.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for bringing this important measure to this body. I stand in strong support of it and urge my colleagues to think as this bill moves forward how America can, in fact, be energy independent. We are two-thirds dependent on foreign sources of supply, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve offers us a temporary cushion here at home. I think, as the bill moves forward in the other body and as compromises are reached, I would urge my colleagues to consider swapping a portion of the oil that is in the reserve for ethanol and biodiesel, or even as new fuel is purchased and there is currently a gap in the reserve of several million barrels, to consider looking at ethanol as one of the ways in which America can become more self- sufficient in fuel production and usage. I would recommend a level of about 300 million gallons of ethanol and 100 million of biodiesel. Both of these are at competitive prices now if one looks at the market. And even if all of that were purchased and stored on farm, we would still only be looking at 1 to 2 percent of the entire fuel reserve being comprised of these biobased fuels. In terms of what is happening in rural America today, this is absolutely a way forward for our country. And if one looks at the State of Ohio, we are one of the biggest ethanol users in the Nation. About 40 percent of the additives in our fuels, as opposed to MTBE, is actually comprised of biofuels, ethanol being the leading one. So I would implore the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, as these discussions proceed in the Senate, to please consider this. It would make economic sense. I think it makes defense sense. It certainly makes energy sense for our country in view of what is happening across our country with farmers facing the necessity of looking at new fuels. This is a wonderful new market. In addition to that, representing the coal belt of America, from Pennsylvania through the Virginias, through Illinois, and so forth, I would also recommend looking at cleaning up coal and using the methane that can be spun off of that as another additive. I would hope that as these discussions proceed that those in charge of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would also be looking at energy self-sufficiency for the Nation as an imperative. I again commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for this measure and thank him for yielding me the time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, functioning democracy in the newly emerging independent states of the former Soviet Union requires setting up new political institutions and developing the means of conducting the people's business. As we have seen in many of these countries, this is proving to be a challenge beyond the patience and political will of their leaders, particularly given the harsh economic conditions throughout the region. More often than not, responsible economic policies represent, in the short term, even greater hardships for the people whose support is essential if democracy and market economy are to be sustained in these countries. In Ukraine this challenge was put to test earlier this year when the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, was confronted with a serious political crisis over the selection of the Speaker and other leadership positions. The Leftist forces, though in the minority, have managed to control the parliament for the past 18 months, thwarting the majority's efforts to implement President Kuchma's legislative agenda. A vivid description of how the leftist speaker, Oleksandr Tkachenko, thwarted the majority and the subsequent developments that lead to his ouster are provided in a report by the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation. In Update on Ukraine, February 24, 2000, Markian Bilynskj writes. ``Until January 21, the final day of the fourth parliamentary session, the Rada was presided over by a chairman whose political ambitions and sense of indispensability were matched only by his limitations. Oleksandr Tkachenko had been elected essentially by default 18 months earlier as elements within the Rada and beyond fought to prevent the chairmanship from falling into the hands of anyone harboring presidential ambitions. His eventual, somewhat surprise decision to run brought about a further politicization of the legislative process and was the principal reason behind the Rada's growing ineffectiveness. Tkanchenko's final unabashed identification with the communist candidate--a fitting conclusion to what can only be described as a parody of an election campaign-- represented an abandonment of any pretense as impartiality and irreversibly undermined his credibility as Rada chairman. At the same time, President Leonid Kuchma's re-election altered the broader political context within which the Rada had to operate to such an extent that Tkachenko was transformed from a largely compromise figure into an anachronism''. After the December election, President Kuchma's administration joined with the pro-reform majority to challenge Speaker Oleksandr Tkachenko and his Communist-Left forces and succeeded in electing a new Speaker and many of the leadership positions in the Rada. The result is a newly constituted parliament with a majority now occupying key positions that is capable of responding to President Kuchma and Prime Minister Yuschenko's reform agendas. I would like to submit for the record and bring to the attention of my colleagues an interview with Grigority Surkis, a prominent, businessman and member of the Rada. It's Time for Transparency (By Grigoriy Surkis) It would be desirable if our Parliament did not have deep divisions between the majority and minority factions; however this is not possible due to deep-rooted ideological divisions in the country. Former Speaker Tkachenko, leader of the Communists in the Rada, demonstrated his inability to work out a compromise even when the majority announced a willingness to work cooperatively with Communist leaders on a legislative program. By the way, leaders of the Ukraine Communists should learn a lesson from their Russian counterparts, who recently made a deal with the pro-government factions in organizing the Duma and distributing assignments among party leaders. They have a difficult time understanding that Communist authoritarianism does not exist in post-Soviet societies, nor is it as strong after eight years of democracy. However, it remains to be seen how the pro-government bloc in Russia will get the Communist Speaker of the Duma to act on progressive legislation and actually achieve results. I sincerely wish that this arrangement will work so that the people of Russia benefit from progressive changes that will improve living standards that make for a better society. In my opinion, Ukraine has chosen the right path. In parliament, we formed a majority bloc by uniting the ``healthy'' forces who were committed to reform legislation. This is necessary to ensure speedy action on a range of progressive proposals to deal with the problems of our pension system, taxes, and the criminal and civil code. This will help us to clean house in the Rada and institute badly needed changes that, in the past, impeded our efforts to confront these needs. Is compromise possible? Let's think about it. We want our people to live in a new environment but there are some who want to pull us back to the old Soviet system. To go back is to lose hope and confidence in our ability to improve our situation. The reformers want a government that will enable people to own property while the Communists want people to be the property of the state. We believe that the Constitution is the basic law, but they still believe the ``Party'' is the supreme authority. Finally, in a democracy it is acceptable to have a compromise, which is how people work out their differences. But the old guard distrusts working with what they see as the ``bourgeois'' and reject efforts to resolve differences amicably. So we are not talking about compromise in terms of confronting the issues and resolving differences, but the Communists see any negotiations with reformers as selling out or imposing a kompromat on us. I am reminded of the words of the great Golda Meir, who was born in Kiev, who once said: ``We want to live. Our neighbors want to see us dead. I am afraid that this does not leave any space for compromise''. The problem would not be so serious if we were talking only about Parliament. However, we are talking about society as a whole. The Leftists seem committed to destroying the Rada, the one institution that ensures representation of the people in government decision-making. Perhaps they do not know about Abraham Lincoln's statement that a house divided cannot succeed and that their intransigence will prevent democracy from taking root in Ukraine. Everyone knows what happens to the person if his right leg makes two steps forward and the left remains rooted in the same spot. I want to stress again that after the 1999 presidential election, it became obvious that a divided parliament with a Communist as Speaker would prove unacceptable and only serve to obstruct the reform agenda of the government. Had the Communists prevailed, they would have taken the country down the back road of political fatalism. Yet there are some who worry that the unfairness of winners hides the guilt of losers. I can only say that if the Leftists had won the election, we would not be asking these questions. I am afraid that if the majority had allowed a Communist to remain as Speaker, it would have proved to be a temporary solution, similar to what will happen with the Duma. In the United States, it is possible for the Republicans to control the Congress and the other party to have the Presidency. This is possible because America has 200 years of experience working within a democratic system. Our country does not have time to wait. For us, every day without enacting and implementing laws is a huge setback for a country that must accomplish so much in a critically short time. The majority knows that it is impossible to form a parliament without the opposition, and it is our intention to treat proposals from the opposition seriously. We have assumed political responsibility that gives us an opportunity to cooperate with the newly re-elected president who bears the main responsibility for society as a whole. We recognize that it is the president who must provide the leadership and direct the institutions of government. Throughout the years of Ukraine's independence, there is not a single case when the three branches of power simultaneously worked together on behalf of Ukrainian citizens. Today we must take responsibility and are ready to be accountable for our actions. Once again, we do not have time. The majority of Ukrainian citizens spoke very clearly in the recent election by giving President Kuchma a new four-year term. By this vote, they rejected the Communist Party and the idea of turning back to the old system where freedom and human rights did not exist. The Communists, of course, feel threatened by the new democratic forces and their reform agenda. They do not want to relinquish power and recognize that a new generation of intelligent and resourceful leaders is taking charge. That is the promise of democracy and, if given a chance to succeed, the future of Ukraine in the new millennium.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to say to the gentleman from Colorado that had he contacted our subcommittee at any point during our discussions on this, perhaps we could have clarified some of the misinformation that he is bringing to the floor. This is not an office building. This is a laboratory. One-quarter of all imported food that comes into our country is probed and the samples from that are sent through this lab. Keep in mind that in our country today, we only are able to test, the American people cannot even believe this but it is true, less than 2 percent of what comes over our borders. But of what we do test, one- quarter is sent to this lab, which by the way I wish he would put up the picture of the current obsolescent, dilapidated embarrassment that sits in South Los Angeles today that calls itself a building and a lab which is unsafe for the workers to work in. The reason this is an emergency, and we should have passed this last year, is simply because the building is in such bad shape if this does not pass and we cannot start construction very soon, and this has been a competitively bid project, that means that we are going to have to move everybody out of that lab and put them somewhere else which will be a waste of taxpayers' money. We ought to get this building up. If he takes the trees off that little drawing he has got there and just look at the building, it does not look too fancy to me. They had to come in within budget, what was budgeted for it. If we think about what is happening in our country today, 5,000 people died last year of food poisoning in our country. Seventy-three million had different types of illnesses related to food. Of what is coming over the border, over 5 percent of what we do test has microbiological pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella and shigella. This is a serious situation. We should not ask people to work in those kinds of conditions. It is an embarrassment to the city of Los Angeles to have this antiquated structure there. I do not think it would be a very pleasant place to go to work. As conditions are today, it certainly is not. This particular lab located where it is in Southern California, way out there in the Southwest, I am sure his California colleagues do not support this because we have so much produce coming in from Mexico now and it is growing at alarming rates, we have to be able to test this in the public interest. I should tell the gentleman that the L.A. district, not just this lab or the border but the L.A. district, the region, represents one of the three largest ports of entry for all commodities coming into the United States. This is a place that needs attention. I do not think it would be very wise to shut it down or to try to transfer it to some other part of the country. If we probe in Texas, we have to send the probes over to Los Angeles because we do not have enough money to build other labs. I say let us build a structure that will stand for a number of years. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, if he had come to our committee and we could have spent time talking with him about this, we would be happy to work with him in the months ahead. I personally will be willing to go with the gentleman out there and see what we have got now. I leave it to the experts to build the new lab, but let us move on with it. It is the 21st century, let us get out of the 19th. Defeat the Tancredo amendment.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for continuing his crusade on behalf of America's jobs, our workers, our communities. We certainly would be pleased to accept the agreement, in agreement with the majority here today. I want to thank the gentleman again for keeping our eyes focused on what we should, and that is, America's strength and productivity.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am proposing is very straightforward. Essentially what it does is it allows the Secretary of Energy at this time of very high gas prices to take a portion of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, draw it down, and use the proceeds to purchase ethanol and biodiesel, adding those to the reserves that we have across this country. There is no budget impact to this proposal. Essentially what we are doing here is recognizing that rising gas prices, in fact, harm and create havoc within our economy. This is a great economic vulnerability and a great military vulnerability. We also recognize that we want to encourage domestic production of all fuels to the best extent possible. My colleagues should know that 92 percent of the fuels, the crude in the Petroleum Reserve, in the SPRO, has been imported. So it is not domestic. In fact, what fueled America this past year, over two-thirds of it is all imported. This is not a position that we should permit for our great country. This amendment promotes alternative fuels focused on biofuels, specifically ethanol and biodiesel. It is a very reasonable proposal. Even after being implemented, this would represent less than 2 percent of all fuel that is in the reserve. In addition, it is very competitive in the sense that, if one looks at the prices of ethanol now at about a dollar a gallon, when one purchases the amount we are talking about here, 300 million gallons, and biodiesel at $1.50, we are at the point now where it makes sense to do this. In addition, let me say, if one looks at the SPRO today, there are about 750 million barrels in it or allowed to be in it. But only 575 million are actually in it, which means we have a shortfall of 175 million barrels. So there is room in terms of the authority that exists within the law. So I would just ask for favorable consideration of this. In particular, at a time when prices in rural America are so very low, let us use the cellulose, let us use the power of the fields and force of our country and help put us on a course of renewables and not such dependence on imported fuel inside this great economy. I ask for favorable consideration of the membership of what I believe is a very worthy amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point Of Order

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I have the greatest respect in the world for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee, and also the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. I would hope that, as we move toward conference, we might find some language that would achieve some of what we wish to have happen here, giving direction to the administration at a time in our country where the American people expect us to do more than dither here in the Nation's chief legislative body. I really think we have a reasonable direction here. I thank the gentleman from Florida for permitting me to talk on this amendment. I will withdraw the amendment in hopes that, as we move toward conference, we might be able to find some reasonable course here to help America find a better way in this new century.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to our colleagues, do not take a safe food supply for granted. We have to thank the lab workers across our country who work at wages below what they would earn in the private sector and in this Los Angeles lab I want to pin a gold star on every one of them because they work under terrible, terrible conditions. Yet they are there because they are dedicated to the public health and welfare of the people of the United States and to food safety. We still have the safest food supply in the world but we have got some tears in the fabric. One of the answers for us is to try to provide a more modern facility where we can test faster, move more product through and increase the amount of surveillance that we do as imports absolutely avalanche into this country. Remember, we only check now under 2 percent of the food that you buy, the fresh fruits and vegetables that you buy in the store, we only check less than 2 percent. We have had outbreaks across this country. The question becomes, are we going to put our money where our mouth is in terms of food safety for our families and for our children? Defeat the Tancredo amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, that is the gentleman that denied me the right to offer my amendments on this floor. Now, I want to say on this oil business that for us to continue foreign dependence is absolutely a military vulnerability to the United States of America. We had an amendment that would have allowed the Secretary of Energy to purchase domestically produced product and put it in the reserve and we have been denied that opportunity here on the floor. Finally, in the area of farm crisis here at home, low prices across this country, our farmers biting the dust, small and medium-sized farmers; we had an amendment in here that would have permitted the Secretary of Agriculture to offer equity capital in loans to those small and medium-sized farmers trying to reposition in this cruel marketplace today. We were disallowed the ability to do that. This is the year of 2000. They cannot hang on until next year. I want to say that many of our Members here also went up to the Committee on Rules yesterday. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who was just here on the floor asking for plum pox which is going to destroy the fruit crop in Pennsylvania and it will spread to other States. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for special crop disasters in New York and California and other places; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mr. DeLauro) on lobster fisheries; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) on the spread of bovine tuberculosis in the State of Michigan; and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) who just appeared on fisheries on the West Coast. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Too many of our Members have been excluded.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield to the gentleman; I do not have enough time right now. The gentleman did not give me the right to offer these amendments.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in utter consternation that the Republican majority has not allowed Democrats to offer worthy amendments under this so-called open rule. First of all, allowing only 10 minutes to debate war in Colombia and a major U.S. commitment that will be long term is absolutely reprehensible. Secondly, on the domestic scene, when we look at oil prices and our total dependence on foreign sources of supply into this economy, and the fact that we have not been allowed to offer amendments that would ask our Secretary of Energy to begin to move toward renewables here at home, giving him the right to purchase ethanol and bio diesel, to fill that strategic petroleum reserve, which, by the way, 90 percent of it has been imported foreign oil.

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain this amendment so everyone is aware of what we are proposing here. First of all, I do not think it is a surprise to say to anyone in this chamber tonight that rural America and farmers are experiencing the lowest prices in modern history, in all sectors, and this particular supplemental bill is the only opportunity we have to try to offer greater assistance to those small- and medium-sized enterprises that this year, not the 2001 appropriation, but this year, in the year of 2000, need assistance in trying to reposition themselves for the marketplace. This amendment essentially provides $130 million of funds, makes them available, through the Commodity Credit Corporation essentially as an emergency. And because it is the Commodity Credit Corporation, those dollars do not flow through the appropriations process. It makes up to that amount, $130 million, available to farmers and farmer-owned cooperatives for feasibility studies to reposition their businesses, business development strategies, restructuring of their own individual operations into cooperative operations to try to meet the market that is out there, as well as the processing and marketing of those commodities to try to get them to the market. Now this is different from the language that we offered in full committee the other day. We have done a lot of consultation with the department. We have changed the language a little bit to include both equity capital and loans. We have put a ceiling on the amount of funds that any one enterprise could get at $10 million, up to that amount out of the $30 million. We have worked with the American Meat Institute to address many of the concerns that they had about the original language. We have made this much more specific. I also wanted to say that this particular amendment is better than the kind of bills this Congress has been passing to try to plug holes in the dike of Freedom to Farm. We have literally appropriated billions of dollars to producers across this country and, as everyone knows, the formula is not based on what people produce or may have lost this year because of bad weather or low prices, the formula is based on something that is 6 years old, that has no relationship to what has actually been done in the field or on the ranch in any given year. So those AMTA payments are going out in a very inequitable way. And many sectors of rural America, vegetable and fruit producers, certainly those involved in the sugar beet industry, citrus, livestock, any sector that is not row crop, have been deeply hurt and not aided through the AMTA system. This measure would give some hope to those farmers. And I have met many of them. They have come to my office. And God bless them, because, as they are losing everything they have worked for, all they are asking for is the ability to reposition, try to combine together in co-ops to try to survive. Now, this Congress ought to listen to them. These are people who are feeding our country and literally feeding the world and they are losing everything that they have worked for. It seems to me that we actually have a marvelous opportunity here in this year of 2000. Many of these people cannot hang on until 2001 when our other bill comes through this Congress. Hopefully, it will. So if we think about the AMTA payment scheme in our country today, five districts got 20 percent of the money that went out under the last financing that was done last year. And so many large operators got huge amounts of money. I had people in the Midwest come up to me and say that they really felt guilty because so-and-so up the street, who was a small- and medium-sized farmer, was going under, and they got payments when they did not even produce a crop. So even the farmers in America know what is going on out there. The credit systems in these communities are extremely fragile. All I am asking for is the ability to provide a line of credit to these farmers who deserve our attention here in the Congress of the United States. So I would really ask the cooperation of the majority in this effort in this emergency bill. There is no greater emergency than what is going on in rural America today. I am asking for support to try to find a way to work this measure in this Congress as a part of the supplemental bill as it moves through. I would ask for that consideration. Point of Order

Ms. KAPTUR. I do. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has tried to be understanding in prior years in the measures that we have brought forward. So in the spirit of that, I would hope that during the conference committee that the gentleman would give consideration to working with our subcommittee to see if we cannot find a way to incorporate the spirit of this in some of what is done. I would humbly withdraw this amendment this evening knowing full well that the farmers of America deserve a better turn than we are giving them tonight.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today at the request of the Auxiliary of the Joseph W. Diehn American Legion Post in Toledo, Oh. The auxiliary has asked that its 2000 Annual Americanism Program be officially recognized, and I am pleased to submit the auxiliary's report for the record. The American Legion Auxiliary continues to play a vital role in holding dear the flame of freedom and imbuing its spirit in generations of young people through its annual Americanism program. Further, the program benefits the young participants directly by awarding academic scholarships to winners. The Joseph W. Diehn American Legion Post Auxiliary's Legislative Chair, Jane Ann Rhoades submits: ``On February 20, 2000, J.W. Diehn held its annual Americanism program. The program was opened by Sylvania's Town Crier. Colors were posted by the newly formed Post Color Guard. The program was attended by local dignitaries including Sylvania's Mayor, Craig Stough, and Lucas County Commissioner Harry Barlos. ``The Sylvania Southview band played the `Star Spangled Banner' and several patriotic hymns, including those of each branch of the armed services. ``The Americanism and Government test winners were presented with scholarships. This year's topic was `Voting and the Importance of One Vote.' The winners were Chung Van Koh of Southview, Karen Wabeke of Northview, and Mike Samples of Northview. The government test winners were Rustam Salari of Southview, Jeff Allota of Northview, and Alexi Osborne of Southview. ``Miss Poppy, Cortney Furguson, read the `Poppy Story.' The program concluded with the singing of ``God Bless the USA.'''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to a veteran political leader of our 9th Congressional District. Arthur Wilkowski, former state legislator and judge, passed from this life on November 30, 1999 at the age of 70 years. After teaching for many years and eventually earning a law degree from the University of Toledo in 1959, Art began his foray into politics the hard way. He ran unsuccessfully for state representative in 1960 and Toledo City Council in 1963. In 1969, after gaining appointment to the Ohio House Representatives he battled his way to re- election, and held the position until his resignation in 1983. Throughout his tenure in the Ohio General Assembly, and later during brief stints as a federal judge and magistrate, Art was widely regarded as among the finest of orators and his speeches were well known. Former colleague Barney Quilter, Speaker Pro Tempore, recalled ``When he spoke on the floor of the House, everybody listened. They knew they would know more than when the speech started.'' Current Ohio House Minority Leader Jack Ford ``was in awe of the former legislator's talent'' though he did not serve with him. ``He would do everything from a little Shakespeare to language from the Founding Fathers,'' Representative Ford said. Art Wilkowski championed causes near and dear to him, regardless of controversy or popularity. He worked tirelessly on many different issues, but was most devoted to the creation of the Ohio Civilian Conservation Corp and the development of a high-speed passenger rail system. In his tribute to Art, Mr. Quilter noted, ``He took his ideas and turned them into law in Columbus. He was probably the brightest person I knew in the legislature.'' Perhaps the highest praise comes from long-time consumer advocate and community leader Mike Ferner who commented, ``He was uncommonly courageous. A lot of people will remark on his oratorical skills, but to me, his courage and integrity were more significant.'' Choosing to resign from the Ohio General Assembly in July of 1983, Art wrote that ``public service was the fulfillment of all my boyhood dreams and aspirations, as such related to a productive life.'' Though his presence and skill were sorely missed in the Ohio House of Representatives, he was able to resume his law practice in Toledo's Polish Village taking on more legal work on behalf of clients who could not pay a cent for his brilliant work, serve an appointment to the 6th District Court of Appeals, and write. He was serving on the Lucas County Probate Court as Magistrate at the time of his death. Art Wilkowski was genuine and generous, and a man committed to his ideals. He will be missed not only by his family, but our community as well. We offer our heartfelt condolences to his children Kathy, Craig, and Keith, grandchildren, and sisters Helen, Wanda, and Olga. May fond memories of the precious gift of Art's life sustain them.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, during the short interlude we call life, we sometimes have the rare and memorable occasion to meet someone who exudes such a sense of positive accomplishment that we are forever changed just from that encounter. I had that special experience when I met and heard Marsha Pyle Martin, who served as chair of the Farm Credit Administration Board. She appeared before our Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations to thoughtfully and persuasively argue that we need to be concerned about the financial condition of America's farmers and the future of agriculture in rural America. I am sad to tell our colleagues that Ms. Martin passed from this life to her blessed rewards on January 9. This afternoon she is being celebrated in a memorial service at the Farm Credit Administration Offices in McLean, Virginia. She is a woman who deserves this celebration, for she has helped so many by her caring for America's farmers and her advocacy on their behalf and for building a sound farm credit system in this country. Marsha Pyle Martin was the first woman who ever served as chair of the Farm Credit Administration. While that was a first for FCA, it was far from that for her. After all, she was the first woman senior executive in the Farm Credit System when she served as vice president of the Farm Credit Bank of Texas. She also was the first woman to serve as a director of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation. I remember most vividly when she appeared before our subcommittee. Her dedication, her passion, her knowledge both overwhelmed and imposed her sense of purpose on our committee. She wanted efficient and competitive credit markets for borrowers, and it showed. She recognized the changing face of agriculture in America and wanted to both embrace and support the changes that are necessary for America's farmers to continue as the finest in the world. Those who know agriculture know that the availability of credit at reasonable terms is critical, vital to success; and those who knew Marsha Pyle Martin knew that such a system was both her goal and her mandate to those who worked for and with her. To her husband Britt, to her daughters Michelle and K.B. and her two grandchildren, I can only extend our deepest sympathies for the unexpected loss of their loved one. But may they be comforted and inspired by the fact that each and every day she tried to make a positive difference for people. Each and every day positive change was her goal and her accomplishment. If only more people shared her vision, her energy, her commitment, just imagine how much better a place this world would be. Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in thanking Marsha Pyle Martin for her lifetime of contribution. May her eternal reward be no less than triple what she gave in this world. For, because of her, many people live each day as a better one than they might have were it not for her. May I ask the House, in her memory, for a moment of silence.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my profoundest condolences to the Sisters of St. Francis and all of the friends of our dear, beloved Sr. Damien, upon her passing from this life into the next. Sister Mary Damien was a treasured friend and gifted educator in Toledo, Ohio. She was an absolute inspiration, a master craftswoman of teaching, a singularly focused and dedicated educator. To watch Sr. Damien practice her craft was pure joy. She knew every trick to command the attention of students and to grade them on an infinite variety of skills she hoped they would come to master. I recall, as an adult, visiting her class at Central Catholic High School with a former classmate from Little Flower Grade School, which was attended when Sister Damien was our teacher and principal. As we observed her work with her Geometry students, we remembered and reveled in the moment. She was unrivaled in her trade. She kept a black notebook on her desk, with the name of each student in it. As the months of the school year went by, there appeared thousands of crosshatches aside each student's name, indicating that student's performance on technical material as well as other measures of performance. Those notebooks were as detailed as the program for the Mars launch. She graded students for everything--from participation to effort to appearance. Though one could never be certain what all the categories were, every student knew there was always room for improvement. I can still hear her teaching students how to spell commonly misspelled words, and remember the distinction she drew between ``pupil'' and ``student'' as she tried to get young minds to grow. She had a unique ability to challenge her students to exercise ``the gray matter between the ears'' even as she never stopped using hers. She embodied a living metaphor for lifelong learning. Sr. Damien always wore her habit, a most pious Sister of St. Francis. She never pushed religion, but she lived her vows every day. Her holiness and piety moved with her. I must also offer public gratitude to her for her abiding kindness to our family, through good times and those that were difficult. She was always there for us, and I am sure, for countless others. She lived for others, and it was a double joy to know her as we, her students, became adults and shared the wonderful gift of a lifespan together. Sister Mary Damien was a stern task master, yet beloved by all of her students. We consider ourselves many times blessed to have known her and been helped to grow through her tutelage. What she selflessly gave to all of us--literally thousands of students who were fortunate to sit at her knee--is priceless. Her contributions to others will live through the people she helped to advance educationally and spiritually. What a legacy she has left as she served Christ and our Blessed Mother as a Sister of St. Francis.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an historic occasion. Memorial United Church of Christ in East Toledo celebrates its 100th anniversary this month. In early 1899, Mr. J. Herman Overbeck was inspired to form a mission church of the First Reformed Church. On May 7, 1899, shortly after Mr. Overbeck's death, Reform Church leaders including Reverend Henry Gersmann, Eberhard Gerkens, John Olrich, Frederick Dahn, August Overbeck, Karl Benner, and Wilhelm Dahlmeyer came together as a committee to bring Mr. Overbeck's dream to fruition. The fully paid building was formally dedicated on November 12, 1899, the church's official anniversary date. Services were conducted and a church school was organized. On Palm Sunday, April 18, 1900, the German Evangelical Reformed Memorial Church was formally organized with 37 original members. The membership flourished with the neighborhood, and in 1920 the congregation decided to build a new church. The new building was dedicated on February 26, 1922. In 1943, Memorial Church became independent, no longer a mission church. The church grew large in both membership and property. Both the neighborhood and the church began to change in the 1970's, and Memorial grew with these changes as well. Women were allowed a more active role in the church beginning in the 1970's and 1980's, serving as deacons and church elders. The 1990's have brought Reverend Jena Garrison as Pastor, and a renewed spirit among members. Generations of families now attend the church together, as it has moved from a neighborhood church to a family church. Throughout its century of worship, the congregants of Memorial United Church of Christ have lived the Ecclesiastes verse ``To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven . . .'' As the seasons changed into decades and then a century, the congregation has grown, flourished, and redirected itself. It was born at the twilight of the last century, yet is poised on the dawn of the new century to continue to meet the spiritual needs of the faithful. Its future is challenged by its promise as the congregation of Memorial United Church of Christ recalls their journey: the road, the people, the vision and the faith which brought them to this milestone.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lorraine Clair, of Delta, OH. Lorraine passed from this life on October 12, 1999. Lorraine had been an elected official in Fulton County, Ohio since 1983, serving first on the village council, then as Vice Mayor, and was elected Mayor beginning in 1986 through her retirement in 1998. Lorraine Clair graduated from Liberty Center High School in 1959, went on to study cosmetology at the Toledo Academy of Beauty Culture, and worked as a beautician for many years, eventually leaving her profession to be a wife and mother. Tapped to run for Delta Village Council in 1983, Lorraine entered the political area, a career she clearly enjoyed. As her daughter noted, ``After she was named Vice Mayor and then became the Mayor, she just ran from there.'' At many Fulton County events, Mayor Clair could be found trying to meet with everyone in the room, charming and gracious, chatting amiably or discussing farming, business, families, or issues of the day with ease. Delta grew and prospered throughout Lorraine's tenure as Mayor. Under her administration a wastewater treatment plant was built, streets were resurfaced and rebuilt, three new housing subdivisions were built, and the village park was developed, including a new shelterhouse. She led the local effort to bring new industry to Delta, which now features two steel mills and the industries which contribute to the mills. Before she had to retire due to declining health, Mayor Clair had begun planning for a new 50,000 gallon water tower. Lorraine's drive as Mayor was summed up by her successor who stated, ``She cared quite a bit about the community and the overall quality of life. She was particularly concerned with youth activities and about things for our seniors to do.'' This summation is an honorable legacy for a woman who remained a lifelong resident of Fulton County, rising to lead one of its communities, and working with fellow elected officials to keep the county a viable community. In addition to her public legacy, Lorraine Clair leaves an even greater personal one: her children Kirk, Michelle, and Melissa and six grandchildren. We express our heartfelt condolences to them, to her mother Rennetta, brothers Calvin and Tim, and sisters Lorrinda and Leann, and leave them with these words from poet Haydn Marshall, `` . . . for every joy that passes something beautiful remains.''