Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me commend my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for his hard work on this bill, though I cannot support the bill. I think it is like a two-legged dog being brought to the floor of the Congress today. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my remarks until closing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who has fought harder than any other Member here to try to get the needs of not just his district but rural America recognized.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) who has been such an active participant in these negotiations.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the able gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) who has worked so hard with us to try to make sure that the producers of Pennsylvania and the drought affected areas of this country are treated fairly in this measure.

Ms. KAPTUR. We are, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for his remarks and again plead with my colleagues, as we move to a motion to recommit, to support the motion to recommit and go back to subcommittee where it belongs and fix this bill. As you have listened to the speakers today, you have heard Members like the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). We look at the farmers in the Red River Valley. We can do better for them. They have had no crops. Just because some areas of the country have been benefited by this current conference report before us, simply because of who was in the room writing it, does not mean that other parts of America that have been deeply hurt by drought and by crop loss do not also deserve the attention of this broader membership. We need to fix what was done improperly by those who took the bill away from our committee where it rightfully belonged. How can you turn down someone like the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), an area of the country in the Northeast that really has not had a lot of losses in years past. Yet if we look at the specialty crop area, it is given almost no consideration in this legislation. Speaking for our region of the country, the heart of the midwest, for those people who are literally going bankrupt in the pork industry, why should they not be treated similarly to those who are in the row crop business? These are good Americans, too. They deserve the attention of this Congress. It is not going to take a Ph.D. or 6 years of education for us to go back into committee and fix this. All we need is people who are sensitive to the differing needs across this country to do a good job. I want to say to our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), no chairman could have treated his committee members more fairly than he has. To the staff who has worked with us throughout, they have my highest admiration on both sides of the aisle. However, what was done to us is unforgivable, and it is the reason that we have a two-legged dog bill before us today. Give us the opportunity next week to go back and do what is right for America, for those who are hurting today and to help position this marketplace for the future. No less is expected of us as leaders who know more about these subjects, frankly, than anyone else in the United States. So to produce a bill that is half baked just does not do credit to this institution. I beg my colleagues who are listening today, to those who are with us here on the floor, to support our motion to recommit. Let us go back and fix this thing and bring it back next week. America deserves better than we are able to produce today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who has been such an outspoken advocate for fairness to all people. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for whom I have the highest respect, the chairman of our committee, I know that no member of our committee could be proud of the bill that is on the floor today. Many have referenced that in their remarks. I would urge the membership to recommit this bill back to our subcommittee where it belongs to fix its flaws. In the years that I have been here in the Congress, I have never seen a conference report that comes to the floor where over one-third of our members do not even sign it. There was pressure put on a number of these people who did sign. This is not the way that one of the bills out of appropriations ought to come to the floor. I want to say a word about how this overall legislation is structured. Our concern does not necessarily go to the fundamental appropriations for the Department of Agriculture that are in the bill for the Year 2000. Our problem goes to the heart of the emergency package, the disaster assistance package, which is so fundamentally unfair. I would beg my colleagues to listen. I am going to spend a few minutes here and lay out some numbers. There are two parts to that portion of the legislation. There is $7.5 billion that goes out in economic assistance. That basically means low prices--trying to help people, as one of the gentlemen here said, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), meet cash flow problems in rural America. Of that $7.5 billion, $5.5 billion of it goes out under the AMTA formula. But, remember, AMTA is based on the planting of program crops in the years 1991 to 1995. It is not tied at all to what was planted this year, to what is planted now, prices received, or economic loss. In fact, there is no requirement to have planted a crop at all in order to get these dollars! In fact, there is nothing in that section of the bill for fruits and vegetables. Many of our Members are coming up here and saying we want a fair bill. There are provisions that are in there for sugar, for cotton, for peanuts, for tobacco, for oil seeds, for honey, for mohair. But there are no provisions for vegetables, for fruits, for revegetation. In fact, in that section of the bill, if we look at livestock, hog farmers, an industry that is on its knees, it only gets a chance to compete for up to $200 million nationally. Other claimants in that fund are livestock producers, including those suffering from natural disasters. So their ability to be made ``whole,'' or to even be helped to be made ``half'' or even ``40 percent,'' is almost nothing when you look at the losses that are out there. I will submit for the Record from the Governors of over a dozen States what they believe the losses to be in their areas. Or look at a State like Ohio, my own State, where over $600 million of losses is documented, with a letter from our Governor. Dollars in the bill for livestock amount to almost nothing as we try to keep some family farmers whole as they try to transition in this difficult rural economy. September 10, 1999. Hon. Trent Lott, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Richard A. Gephardt, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Lott and Daschle and Representatives Hastert and Gephardt: On behalf of farmers and agricultural communities in more than 12 states, we request your help in obtaining immediate federal emergency grant assistance to address the economic losses caused by this year's severe drought. Farmers and rural communities along the eastern seaboard--from Rhode Island to South Carolina and west to Ohio--are experiencing the worst drought in decades. The drought of 1999 is compounded by the farm crisis caused by low agriculture commodity prices. This combination is placing tremendous financial stress on farmers throughout the region. Initial estimates indicate that these states will experience agricultural losses in excess of $1.64 billion because of the severe and extended drought conditions. This will have a ripple effect on the economy. The USDA Disaster Declarations which have been issued for our states enable farmers to apply for emergency low interest loans; however, loan assistance programs do not adequately respond to this year's unexpected economic impact on the farm communities. Many farmers are simply not in the financial position to assume more debt when they have lost their income. We urge you to act quickly to include direct payment assistance to those producers impacted by the drought. The recently passed Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill provides assistance for the commodity price disaster, but does not address the natural disaster impacting our farmers. We request that the final aid package be augmented to provide adequate funding for USDA disaster assistance programs such as the Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program, the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, the Livestock Assistance and the Emergency Conservation Programs. These programs can provide the rapid response we are looking for and the agricultural community deserves. We further request that this disaster funding be earmarked for drought-impacted states. We appreciate your assistance in helping our farmers in this time of crisis. Sincerely, Bob Taft, Parris N. Glendening, Jim Hodges, Cecil H. Underwood, James S. Gilmore III, Lincoln C. Almond, George E. Pataki, Jim Hunt, John G. Rowland, Tom Carper, Tom Ridge, Christine T. Whitman.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Chair for doing a beautiful job of allowing equal time during this debate, which is something we were not allowed by the leadership of this institution in subcommittee. I would like to know how much time we have remaining on each side.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that comment. I thank the gentleman, and I apologize for taking this many minutes, but it is the only time I have been able to be unmuzzled through this whole process, so it feels sort of good. I just want to also want to state for the Record that in terms of the way this committee functions, when I first got to Congress, and I used to go to Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee meetings, there would be people that would come in and testify from around the country. They would talk about the country's needs. In addition to that we heard from Members of Congress, and they would come in, and they would talk to us about how they view the situation, whatever it might be in their area. And then we heard from people from the Executive Branch, and they would come in and they would make their plea. I always thought that the Committee on Appropriations ought to leave Washington and go out into the country and hold some hearings out there too. We never did that. But in the last 3 years, what has happened is all outside witnesses have been asked not to come to our committee, and so we began to hear from the narrower band of people. And then this year, even the Members of Congress were not brought into our committee; they were told we will just send a letter. And so we were left only, Mr. Speaker, with dealing with people from the administration. But the point is, whether it is the way this bill was handled or whether it is the way we are receiving information about the needs of rural America and agriculture in our country the viewing lens has gotten extremely myopic, Mr. Speaker, and that affects the way a bill looks when it comes forward here onto the floor of Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, I would beg my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule based on the way we have been treated. This is an emergency situation. If the leadership hears us, we can produce a bill that meets the needs of our country. We have had no conference report to look at. Members on our side, and I would daresay I would guess Members on the other side on our committee, have had no materials to really review. Then late last night after midnight, the Rules Committee met and then we were directed to come to the floor first thing in this morning. Members are saying to us, ``Jeez, are you really up at 10 o'clock in the morning with the agriculture appropriation?'' But yes, we are, and yet we have not had the opportunity even for an orderly briefing by our own conferees. Then some members ask us to put in the $500 million for natural disaster in that was inserted in the Labor, Health, and Human Services bill yesterday into this bill, but procedurally we cannot do it. So we are asking the Members to help us produce a good bill. We can do this. Give us the chance to do this. Please vote no on the rule. Please vote no on the bill when it comes before the membership. Mr. Speaker, with the crisis in rural America, the country knows we need to do the right job here. Give us the chance to do it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would just have to say that on the issue of milk, the committee was dismissed. A private meeting was held somewhere; I was not invited to that, and a decision was made. Do not ask me what they did, but of course the issue never came before our committee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I would say to my colleagues that I rise in opposition to the rule and I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. For me, this is a very sad day personally, I think it is a sad day for our committee, it is a sad day for this institution, and it is really a sad day for the people that this bill is meant to assist, the farmers in rural communities across this country that are being pounded by the lowest prices in the last decade and a half, and by horrendous weather conditions. Now, why do I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule and this bill? I believe that if we do this, the leadership of this institution--that should feel very bad about what it has done in this bill--the President of the United States, and the rest of the membership of this institution will do what is necessary to meet the needs of the farmers and rural dwellers of this country. Let me tell my colleagues what the process has done over the last week and a half. I have been here 17 years. This has never happened in a committee on which I have served. Twice last week we were recessed because the majority could not reach agreement on some of the amendments that our committee was duly debating. And so we were sent out into the woods, and we were never called back. And all of a sudden the deal began to be brokered in the offices of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Speaker Hastert. There were a lot of special interests that were accommodated as these discussions ensued, but the truth is that the needs of the American people were shelved as people took care of their regional interests. I do not have a problem with milk. I do not have a problem with citrus. I do not have a problem with hogs or specialty crops or corn or wheat or beans. But the issue is really bigger than that. The issue really is, will all interests of this country get a fair hearing in the normal committee process? That has not happened. This rule and bill were discussed after midnight last night up in the chambers here. Who was really present to hear that? And members of our committees never even had the text of the bill. Now, at some point, somebody has to say, stop, this game ought to be over. Members of our committee were appointed in good faith by the members of this institution to discharge our duties. We have a crisis situation in rural America where today the suicide rate is three times as great as it is in urban America. The pain is really deep. So we have even more of an obligation to produce a bill that meets the needs of our country. I do not have a bone to pick with our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), because his members were divested of their power, too, and that is not how this institution should work. Who is really afraid of open debate? Who is really afraid of that, and letting the normal committee process work? Let me just say, what are some of the issues that should have been brought up, that cannot be brought up under the process under this tourniquet rule and narrow-focused process that we have been forced to go through? We should be talking about targeting this assistance to the people that really need the help. At least 20 percent of the assistance that is in this bill is going to go to people that really do not need it. And people who really need it are not going to be able to get it because we have not had an opportunity to amend. People who serve on the Committee on the Budget ought to be concerned about that. Somebody ought to be taking a look at these formulas. We never had a chance to debate that in our committee. Now, what about adequate financing for victims of hurricanes and natural disasters across our country? This bill is a fig leaf for them. Yesterday in the Labor HHS appropriations the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) whose district is devastated was able to tuck in an additional $500 million in a Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriation bill to try to make up for what is not in this bill. Procedurally we cannot wed those two bills on this floor today, but that was just another sign of how inadequate this bill really is. The question really is, is it just North Carolina that needs help? What about the bill's inadequacies in terms of covering those who raise apples or specialty crops or vegetables or happen to be in the livestock industry like up in my part of the country, in the hog industry where they are on their knees? Are they second class producers, that they do not get in this bill? They did not get in the room with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert)? Somehow they were not in the line? Should we close our eyes to their needs? Are we really going to take care of the fundamental problem here, which is low prices and bad weather? There are not provisions in this bill really to clear our markets and to lift commodities off these markets through humanitarian shipments and monetized sales to other countries at the level that is necessary to begin to give some easing in prices in the markets here at home. So, this bill will not meet the needs of our country. We do not have any measure before us that will prevent the very same kind of chaos today next year in the market. If I look at the numbers, in the Commodity Credit Corporation over the last few years, we have spent more in this year trying to plug holes in Freedom to Farm. Rather, we should be going back and altering that, adding to it, changing it so we are not hemorrhaging in terms of the budget next year in trying to plug the holes in the dike in rural America. Just in this year alone, 1999, we will spend $18.4 billion to try to make up for the insufficiencies of Freedom to Farm. People are worried about Social Security and everything else, and Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues the bill before us today is not going to do a thing to change the fundamentals. There were a host of other provisions that Members wanted us to debate and, on the merits, vote up or down in the committee. We never had a chance to do that. On economic sanctions relative to countries like Cuba and others in the Middle East, in Africa, there was a royal debate. And it should have continued, and we should have had a right to vote. That did not happen. The democratic process was squelched by the leadership of this institution. In addition to that, we had Members who wanted to offer provisions dealing with protection of the American people on imported meats, making sure they were inspected and that plants were licensed in other places. Guess what? They never had a chance to bring those provisions up. What about poultry inspections and all the outbreaks that we have had across this country in salmonella and trying to get amendments in here to deal with the health and safety of the American people? Could not do it. Those were squelched too. Those Members left the committee room as we were asked to leave. Again I want to say we have no criticism of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). And I do not have any criticism of our subcommittee staff because they were poised to do a good job, but they were disposed of their duties. In many ways they are victims like the rest of us. My parents always said to do good, do not ignore the needs of others if you hope that some day they will respond when you have needs of your own. This vital life lesson got lost in this whole process.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise to object this evening to the manipulation of the leadership of this body, particularly the Speaker, Mr. Hastert, and the majority leader of the other body, Mr. Lott, that is essentially disenfranchising the membership of this body with regard to one of the most important issues before us, and, that is, meeting the needs of rural America, the disaster affected regions of our country, our farmers, who are experiencing historically low prices and bad weather, sort of twin eviscerators, that we are witnessing the hemorrhaging of equity out of rural America. For the record and for the American people and hopefully for my fellow Members, I come to the floor tonight to recount what has been happening here sort of below the surface where the press is generally not picking up on it. Employing what certainly must be the most unusual committee process I have ever experienced in my 17 years here in the House, the Republican leadership of this House has basically taken the drafting authority of our appropriations agriculture subcommittee away from our membership. Last week, the Republican leadership of this House as well as the Senate subcommittee twice recessed our conference committee because they could not reach agreement on the Republican side of the aisle on at least three provisions relating to regional compacts regarding milk, sanctions on terrorist states, and the level of disaster assistance that is really necessary in our country to meet the needs of our farmers in rural communities coast to coast. Our subcommittee has not met since last Wednesday due to that disorganization. Then over the weekend and early this week, Speaker Hastert and Senator Lott, their offices began drafting something for floor action. That effort is now being circulated in the form of a committee report that a majority of House subcommittee Republicans thus far, as of 5 p.m. today, had refused to sign, and which no Democrat had seen at all, certainly not those of the subcommittee of jurisdiction where we have legal responsibility to meet our obligations to the American people. The Republican leadership appears to be deal-making on such matters as mandatory price reporting, for example, to try to get a majority of the members on their side of the aisle to sign on to that report. The difficulty is that if that happens, let us say they make enough deals to bring that bill to the floor, that will be brought to the floor without our subcommittee membership in conference being allowed to amend and discuss under regular order as is required by the rules of this institution. Thus, Democrats for sure will not be able to offer amendments on such critical issues as the fairness and the adequacy of the formulas and the commodities and sectors to be covered in the bill, as well as the economic level of assistance and disaster assistance titles of the bill, which are extremely expensive and depending on how they are drafted benefit certain regions of the country and certain sectors more than others. We will not be able to deal with the sanctions issue, we will not be able to deal with many of the other titles of the bill that our members wanted a chance to discuss. We will only be left with the option on this floor of taking that report and being given a moment in time to vote to recommit it back to conference, which obviously has been recessed, if we do not like something that is in that report. As of Tuesday at 5 o'clock, now it is 6:25 here in Washington, the minority membership of the committee does not have a copy of the working document, at a time when rural America is in crisis. I have really been working with the leadership on our side of the aisle and I have pleaded with the leadership on the other side of the aisle to let us go back to regular order. This is wrong, this is not the way to run the Nation, and really what you find out is in the end that good government is good politics. If we use the full membership of this institution, if we each bring our experiences to the table, which is what a conference committee is supposed to be for, in the end we produce legislation that meets the needs of all corners and all quarters of our country. This is really the wrong way to do business. Today we had to pass a continuing resolution to keep this institution and the country operating for the next 2 weeks in order that these respective bills might be finished. The Agriculture appropriation bill this year is one of the most important we will bring before this body. These procedures that have been used are completely atypical. I would beg the leadership to go back to regular order.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, our World War II veterans remind us of a time when our country stood united in the pursuit of independence and liberty, whether it be for others on foreign soil, or here at home. Twelve years ago, Roger Durbin, my constituent and a World War II combat veteran, asked me why there was no national monument to honor those who served in this war. Legislation I sponsored and Congress passed will rectify that grievous oversight. However, until the memorial is completed, a new postage stamp will serve to recognize those contributing to the war effort. I am inserting in today's Record the following speech by Roger Durbin, documenting the bravery of those who served and celebrating the release of the new stamp in their honor. An Address by Roger Durbin Celebrating the Stamp Unveiling, November 19, 1998 Mr. Vice-President, Mr. Postmaster General, General Woerner, thank you for allowing me to share this honor with you today. It's a double honor for me to participate in a ceremony to unveil a stamp commemorating World War II. In 1979, I retired from the U.S. Postal Service after spending 32 years as a rural carrier in Berkey, Ohio, near Toledo. I've been told that I am that last surviving member of branch 4408 of the National Association of Letter Carriers. I am proud of my career as a letter carrier. But today, on the eve of Veteran's Day my thoughts are focused on a different uniform-one I wore in Europe in the 1940s. I was a member of the Tenth Armored Division and participated in the Battle of the Bulge, one of the costliest battles ever fought by Americans. I have memories of those cold bitter days that will be with me until I die. One memory I wish to share with you is about the Battle for Metz. It was the first time Metz had been captured in 1,500 years. Three bridges had to be built to cross the Mozells River at Thionville, France, while the 4th and 90th Infantry established a bridgehead. They met a terrible resistance. During the night, civilians pointed out to the Germans where the Americans were sleeping. By morning, only one man was still alive from the German counter-attack. Later history called this attack the ``Killing Fields of Kerling.'' When daylight came, it was a terrible sight-a sight that cannot be forgotten by those who saw it. The American dead were neatly stacked in the ditches like cords of wood. The German dead were in their foxholes, eyes wide open still keeping their vigil of surveillance. The retreating Germans had body-trapped their dead. They had to be removed by our engineers. Right then I decided that those Germans were really trying to kill me. ``Saving Private Ryan'' has brought attention to the horror of war to those born since World War II ended. The D-Day depicted was but one battle. Six hundred thousand American soldiers fought in the Battle of the Bulge. There were 91,000 casualties in just 30 days. The bitterness of that 1944 December cold cannot be forgotten. A wounded, bleeding soldier could be dead and frozen solid in just three hours. It was so cold that on Christmas night I had lain on top of the half-track transmission in an effort to get warm. We moved back east of Metz after the battle had ended to draw new equipment and to get replacements. The replacements were eighteen and nineteen year old boys that had been home with families for Christmas dinner in 1944. Those of us in the Tenth Armored Division who survived the Battle of the Bulge had the honor of being the first American soldiers from Patton's Third Army to cross the German border. The Tenth seized 450 towns and cities and earned more than 3,000 medals. But it was achieved at a terrible cost. When finished, the Tenth Armored had 8,381 killed, wounded, and missing casualties. There was a 78.5 percent turnover of personnel. As a nation we must never forget that cost. The stamp we are unveiling today commemorates World War II as one of the most significant events of the Twentieth Century. It is a fitting tribute for all who were involved in this struggle for a way of life, a world. This was the war that had the involvement of almost the entire population. Three years ago I had the honor of joining President Clinton in dedicating a World War II Memorial site on the Mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. We sprinkled sacred soil from sixteen overseas American cemeteries in which are buried thousands of Americans who were not as fortunate as I am. They never made it home. Ground is to be broken in 2000 and the memorial dedicated in 2002. When Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur started the memorial legislation eleven years ago there were 13.5 million living World War II veterans. An average of 30,000 World War II veterans now die each month. Only 7 million remain of those alive twelve years ago. For most of those now remaining, this stamp will be the nation's tribute to their service.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In closing this debate, let me just say that the whole debate should be about restoring the public's faith in our government and their trust. Allowing elections to be bought by the highest bidder will not restore that trust, and certainly raising campaign contribution limits will not restore that trust. To those who claim that campaigns in this decade cannot be won on just $100, look per contributor, look at what Lawton Chiles did in Florida. He was able to win in keeping within campaign finance spending limits. The law was reformed there, and he won. Let us bring back the people's trust in our Government. Vote against this amendment. We need limits, not increases in contribution levels.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my serious concern with the Veterans, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies for fiscal year 2000. I recognize the difficult balancing of priorities which the Chairman and the Ranking Member must do with the array of competing interests within this bill. But I find it ironic that the House in the space of one month can pass a tax bill that gives special breaks to select groups but cuts funding for the neediest of all--undermining our efforts to fuel the dream of home ownership for all Americans, reducing our efforts to create jobs, and revitalizing the forgotten corners of our towns and cities. America should do what is right. The Subcommittee funded VA Health Care at $1.7 billion, but the veterans' organizations submitted to the Congress the Independent Budget which calls for an increase of $3 billion--a more realistic estimate of the need. This bill does not go far enough to provide for the growing health care needs of our veterans as we enter the 21st Century. America should do what is right. I am seriously concerned about the adequacy of the Veteran Administration's response to the medical needs of 650,000 veterans with chronic mental illness. I am specifically concerned that as a result of (Veteran Health Administration) VHA's decision to rapidly downsize psychiatric hospitals, veterans with mental and substance abuse disorders are not receiving proper treatment and the services that they need and deserve. In particular, dollars saved by eliminating beds from inpatient psychiatric facilities are not being redirected to serve veterans with mental illness in the community. Between FY 1995 and FY 1997 the number of seriously mentally ill veterans treated at inpatient facilities decreased by nearly 20%. Currently, there is no indication that the twenty-two (Veteran's Integrated Service Networks) VISNs are compensating for the lack of inpatient care with either adequate alternative care settings or community-based services for veterans with mental illness. Frightening, over two-thirds of VHA outpatient facilities do not provide mental health care. Neither do they provide case management services for these veterans. Case management is essential for mentally ill veterans because of a pervasive lack of financial and family support. In addition, many members of this group need continued attention because they suffer from the dual diagnosis of mental illness and substances abuse. I am deeply concerned that the structural changes within VHA and the lack of community-based services threaten many veterans with homelessness. Sadly, 40% of all homeless males are veterans. I offered report language that emphasizes the need to reinvest resources in alternative community-based mental health services, including prescription drugs. The current situation of veterans who require treatment for mental illness should be a source of shame and embarrassment, and America should do what is right. The sad reality is that not everyone is sharing in the economic prosperity of the booming '90's. Instead of being financially able to invest in a home, over 12 million people are paying over 50 percent of their salary on rent. This bill fails to help these families. In fact, the bill will cost northwest Ohio 448 housing units for cash-strapped families next year. This bill also takes major swipes at many of our neediest citizens and their communities, ranging from cutting funding that keeps children safe from lead paint poisoning to denying housing for people with AIDS and for seniors. America should do what is right. The bill cuts Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) by $250 million, which would result in a loss of vital community development projects, and the 97,000 new jobs that would be created. Just in Toledo, our city would lose $3.8 million of current funding. The State of Ohio would forego over $7.3 million in community development assistance so vital to revitalizing all corners of our State. For the last 6 years, the Majority has been preaching community empowerment, CDBG is the essence of community empower. By giving communities the flexibility to create their priorities to invest CDBG funds, it empowers them to address their community's need as they see fit. The bill denies the Administration's request for incremental housing vouchers resulting in 128,000 families being denied housing vouchers. The bill would increase children's exposure to lead paint poisoning by cutting the Lead Hazard Control Grant program. The bill would slow the fight against housing discrimination by cutting the Fair Housing Assistance and Fair Housing Initiatives Programs. In my community, these funds have given the opportunity for many minority applicants to achieve the American dream of owning a home. The bill also fails to fund the rehabilitation of almost 28,000 units that would create quality housing for low- and moderate-income renter and owner families. The bill would result in almost 16,000 homeless people and persons with AIDS being denied essential services because of the cuts in homeless and Housing Assistance for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs. I would like to thank the Chairman and the rest of the Subcommittee Members for their support of report language that I offered that would help the residents of public housing by offering, what most Americans take for granted, which is adequate amount financial services located near where they live. Unfortunately, in our country, financial services are less common and less likely to be located in poor to low-moderate income neighborhoods. HUD, in conjunction with the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will study the feasibility of opening credit unions in public housing. With the introduction of credit union in public housing, we can cut down on welfare fraud and encourage financial independence. The bill cuts NASA by $1 billion. This cut will harm future space exploration programs, force NASA to slash programs and personnel and cripple our nation's basic scientific development for decades. This bill will drastically hurt our ability to maintain the balance of trade advantage in the first ``A'' in NASA--Aeronautics. This budget inhibits our ability to advance future developments of technology that will allow America to compete in the aeronautics industry in the 21st Century. We must do what is right. In conclusion, I am here today to urge my colleagues to do better for America, for the men and women veterans to whom our nation owes a great debt, for the families in desperate need for housing throughout this Nation, and protect basic research for the benefit of all Americans as we enter the 21st century.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, there is a simple reason for voting against the Hutchinson substitute. A vote for it destroys the first and only bipartisan piece of campaign finance reform ever to be passed in this Chamber. It destroys the only bill that will close the soft money loophole. Should this bill pass, it will pull the rug out from under Shays-Meehan. We cannot let that happen. The Hutchinson substitute does not stop soft money from influencing our Federal elections. It only does half the job. While this amendment calls for a ban on Federal soft money, it does not stop State parties from spending soft money on Federal elections. That is like bolting the front door to protect yourself from burglars while hanging a neon sign on the back door that says, ``Come on in.'' It is a shell game. You are only moving the soft money from the Federal parties to the State parties. The American people deserve better. The substitute leaves in place the current loophole through which unlimited dollars are funneled into Federal elections through sham issue ads as well. Please vote against the Hutchinson substitute. America must do better. Vote against the substitute.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. In addition to formal technical assistance funded by the interest earned on community development revolving loan fund loans, occasionally the National Credit Union Administration examiners will assist a small or a troubled credit union with some aspect of operations as part of the regular examination process. I also want to urge the National Credit Union Administration, when providing such assistance, to ensure that staff take special care to act in ways that respect and honor the dedication of a credit union's board and managers.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to emphasize then that when such technical assistance is made available to credit unions, the National Credit Union Administration should make every effort to ensure that such assistance is provided in a manner that is sensitive to the particular needs of the given credit union and considers the technical sophistication and background of the credit union's board and management. Specifically, the National Credit Union Administration should recognize the unique circumstances of community development credit unions as opposed to all other credit unions and assure that specific technical staff is designated and trained to provide appropriate assistance to community development credit unions which primarily serve low income communities which are a unique subset of all credit unions.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his cooperation on this matter. Mr. Chairman, in the bill, we have granted some additional funding to the National Credit Union Administration for its revolving loan fund for low income credit unions, and I thank the chairman for his leadership and consideration. The purpose of the revolving loan fund is to make low interest loans to credit unions that serve primarily low income populations, and the earnings from the fund are used for technical assistance grants to low income credit unions so we really can help people become bankable.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), in a colloquy.