Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to acknowledge the hard work of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, members of our subcommittee, as well as the staff for their leadership, including our new staff director, Hank Moore, who has worked so hard this year. This bill makes a reasonable effort to apportion the limited resources available to our subcommittee to keep our Nation at the leading edge for food, fiber, new fuels, and forest production, as well as the counts relating to research, trade and food safety. May I begin by reminding my colleagues that food is not produced at the local grocery store. There is no question that agriculture and food processing are America's leading industries. Our farmers and our agricultural sector remain the most productive on the face of the Earth. They well understand, as we do, how difficult it is to maintain our Nation's commitment to excellence in agriculture in tight budgetary times. While on balance this bill seems like a reasonable effort to stretch a limited sum of money as far as possible, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill, we simply disagree on the levels of support needed for priority programs, including the Women, Infants and Children feeding program; the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the primary conservation operation in this country; and other programs like farmland protection which were not able to be funded at all in this bill, nor was the school breakfast pilot program that the administration requested. We must also keep in mind that this bill simply does not do enough to address the Depression-level conditions affecting many sectors of rural America from coast to coast, whether we are talking about the Salinas Valley, cattle country in Florida, hog producing country in the Midwest, cotton fields in Texas, the list goes on and on. This bill simply is an exceedingly limited response to an extremely serious situation afflicting many sectors of the farm economy across our Nation. As we consider this bill today, I would urge my colleagues to think about what is going on in rural America, as farmers continue to experience significant decreases in commodity prices. It started with wheat and with cattle, and it spread to the feed grains, to oil seeds, to cotton, to pork, and even now the dairy sectors. At the same time, the costs of production are not decreasing. In fact, they are increasing. Total farm debt has risen now to over $170 billion at the end of last year, up nearly 9 percent over the last 2 years. That means people are borrowing against their accumulated equity to make up for their lack of ability to receive a price for their product in the market. In fact, farmland values began declining in 1998, not a good sign. We know that USDA, the Department of Agriculture predicts the greatest strain this year will be on field crops. We know that wheat, corn, soybean, upland cotton, and rice crops experienced about a 17 percent drop last year; and they project that this year, 27 percent, there will be a 27 percent drop in prices from prior year averages. So we have a real tender situation here, which frankly this bill does not address. This bill puts blinders onto what is happening in rural America and basically says, well, we really do not have the money, so let us just continue like it was in years past, which will not solve the real situation out there. Overall, this bill does a number of useful things, but it can hardly be considered adequate. It is moving in the right direction but falls far short of the mark. All I can say is that our Nation has a responsibility beyond this bill to help a sector of our economy so vital to our national security. What is really happening in our country, as more bankruptcies occur in rural America, is the average age of farmers has now risen to 55. People are making live decisions out there about whether or not they are going to hold on to the farm or sell it off for another suburban development. This is not a good sign for America in the 21st Century. People really should not be selling off their seed corn for the future. Let me just mention that in the discretionary appropriations, which in this bill total $13.9 billion for the next fiscal year, if we just take a look at the Farm Credit and the Farm Service Agency people, the people doing the work, administering the programs in our Farm Service Agency offices, and the loans and so forth that are being made, there is an increase of less than one-fifth of 1 percent over the prior year. If we really take a look at what it is taking to hold agricultural America together today in this severely depressed economy in the rural countryside, we will find that the amounts in this bill are one-third below what was spent during this fiscal year and the last fiscal year as we attempted to prop up the disasters going on out there with the emergency bills that we were forced to pass outside the regular budget process. So this a very lean bill that truly will not meet the needs of rural America. We may be forced again into one of these extra budgetary sessions to try to figure out how we are going to prop up rural America in the months ahead. Let me also mention that the bill does try to meet the administration's request for the Food and Drug Administration to process additional drug approvals and to increase the safety of our food supply, with all the additional imports that are coming in here as well as pathogens found in food. We increased funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, very important to the health of the American people, and to some rural housing and rural development accounts, as well as for agricultural research and pest and disease control through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as well as the Natural Resources Conservation Service. But, more importantly, on the minus side there is no provision in this bill for any of the emergency assistance provided to rural America during this fiscal year. We do not continue any support for market support, nor any of the subsidies for the crop insurance premiums or the extra funds we provided to the Secretary of Agriculture to lift surplus commodities off the marketplace to try to get prices to rise in this country. So the situation facing our farmers in this bill is that, well, we really do not take care of them. We sort of continue things the way they were, and we may be forced to come back later in the year in order to deal with the hemorrhage that is occurring across this country. Let me also mention that in this bill we will probably be forced to reduce county office staff by another 650 staff positions. I think this is truly tragic, because we have got backlogs around the country of farmers waiting to receive payments after months and months because of disasters that have occurred from coast to coast. So reducing these staffing levels really does not make much sense, and yet it is the truth that is buried inside this bill. Further, the bill reduces funding for food aid programs, which are so important to support people around the world who live at the edge of hunger, but also to aid rural America. In fact, we lift surplus during this year that was sent to Russia; we have tried to assist the Kosovo refugees in the emergency supplemental that just passed, but there is nothing in this bill that continues that kind of additional surplus purchase. In fact, it will be reduced. So the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and our subcommittee have certainly tried to do what was best under the hand that we were dealt, but the bill falls far short of what is needed to address the urgent problems facing farmers across America. One thing is certain, no matter what forum or legislative vehicle is chosen, it is essential that Congress act today at least to move this bill forward and to move the first appropriation bill through this session of Congress. We are now approaching Memorial Day. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for fighting so hard for this school breakfast program and to say that with her leadership the members of the subcommittee and the full committee have attempted to do what was necessary. Unfortunately, the administration did not provide us with some of the information that we were expecting. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) worked with us at the subcommittee and full committee levels, and it is our firm intention to try to take this issue into conference to see if we cannot do something to move this pilot project forward. But I just want to say to the gentlewoman that without her interest and research and the deep dedication that she has shown, we would not be this far. I know we are not where the gentlewoman wants us to be yet, but without her leadership we would not be anywhere. We hope that as we move towards conference we might be able to accommodate some of this.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the clarification.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. So, there will be no votes between now and approximately 8 p.m., but debate will continue.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and would yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of our full committee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to perhaps have the gentleman from Florida on the other side talk about the schedule at this point, or the Chair, whomever knows what the schedule is for this evening. We understand that votes may be being rolled. If someone could clarify it for us, what is happening here now?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to remind my colleagues that we are actually debating an amendment. Now, we have heard speeches here on social security, we have gotten into Abraham Lincoln's life, and everything else. But I become increasingly angered as I see the irresponsibility of the majority party inside this institution. I am a loyal Member of this House, and I am rarely as partisan as some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. But I am going to get partisan now, because a bill that I have major responsibility for is being held up on this floor because of disarray inside the Republican Party. Who it is hurting is the farmers across this country. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield until I finish my statement to any Member on the other side of the aisle, since they are the reason for the continuing delay here today. I have served in this Congress now for 9 terms and I have the highest respect for the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), who has worked under enormous pressures of various types as we have moved this bill to the floor, the first appropriation bill to arrive on the floor, and rightly so for rural America, because no sector of this country is hurting more than rural America today. But as I look at the record of the Republican Congress during my tenure over the last several years, last year they could not clear a bill to assist rural America. We had to end up with that omnibus atrocity at the end of the year where we threw in some help for rural America, because they could not deal with their appropriation bills on time. And then just last week, 6 months late, they appropriated more money under an emergency basis to try to help rural America, as well as defense and Kosovo and Hurricane Mitch victims and all of the rest. They did not do it under regular order. The only part of the bill that they required to be offset for budget purposes was the agriculture piece, the part that affected citizens of the United States of America who have paid taxes. Now today I come down here, and what do I see? I see delay by a Member who is not up for reelection, let us put the cards right on the table; who has, according to what we have been told, between 100 and 200 amendments to an agriculture bill which is very important to rural America. So what I see today are delay tactics. I do not understand what is going on on the Republican side of the aisle. They can check my whole career, I probably have not used the word ``Republican'' in speeches on the floor 10 times in 17 years, but I am sick of it and what they are doing on agriculture. They are holding up our bill. I would just beg of the leadership, I will say to the leadership of their side of the aisle who voted with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), if this is any indication of what is about to happen over the next several days as we string this agony out and they make rural America wait again, I would just say, why do they not go back into their own little caucus and figure out what they are really for, because we have worked very hard for several months to produce this bill, and the people of America, particularly rural America, are waiting, and they are continuing to delay. I will specifically say to their leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), those who voted with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), why are they doing this? There are over 100 to 200 more amendments yet to come, and they are going to delay this bill? If these Members want a vote on social security, bring up a social security bill. They are in the majority. They can do anything they want. But why do they continue to take it out of the hide of rural America? I have a real problem here. I would just beg of the leadership to treat their committee chairs with respect, bring their bills to the floor in regular order, and do not nitpick us to death. Thank God we are not the other body. We are not supposed to have filibusters here. We are supposed to move the people's business. I am here to do that as a Democrat, and I wish they were here to do that as Republicans. Announcement by the Chairman

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who has fought for agriculture not only in Vermont, but throughout our country.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) from the authorizing committee, who has worked with us every step of the way on this bill.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the hard-working member of the authorizing committee.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding craftsman and labor leader in my District. Lawrence Bankowski, retired President of the American Flint Glass Workers Union (AFGWU), left this world on April 10, 1999 at the age of 68 after a long and valiant struggle with cancer. Born in Mt. Clemens, MI, Larry grew up in North Toledo, graduating from Woodward High School and attending the University of Toledo. He often worked up to three jobs at a time, and joined the AFGWU in 1955 when he went to work as a moldmaker for Ohio Permanent Mold Company, where he remained until 1973 when he was elected international union representative. He rose through the ranks in 25 years of dedicated service to the union, retiring as its International President in 1999. In representing the 121 year old AFGWU and its 18,000 members, Larry traveled to other countries, met with President Clinton, and served on the U.S. Department of Labor's Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations. He always championed the cause of working people, constantly urging that U.S. companies' production remain in the United States and that trade laws benefit workers everywhere. A very wise leader, Larry was diligent in his life long efforts and embodied the men and women he represented in the AFGWU. Throughout his years of service in the international union, he kept his focus on the needs of the rank and file, never losing sight that the men and women making up the AFGWU and their futures were what mattered most. He understood that union working men and women can unite to fight for their economic, social and political best interests. Larry Bankowski was also a dedicated family man, relishing time spent with his wife, children, and grandchildren. In the years I have been privileged to know him, his wife Betty, or one of his children or grandchildren always accompanied him. There is no way to adequately express our heartfelt condolences to Betty, their children Carol, Kathy, and Karen, his sisters and brother and grandchildren. May you find comfort in knowing Larry is at peace, and lives in the light he left shining in each of you, and of us. His kindness, dedication, and gentlemanly demeanor make our community and world finer and more humane.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished Member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for yielding this time to me, and on behalf of rural America and the real interests of rural America I must rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and urge my colleagues to instead support the Obey substitute that will be offered today after the next amendment to this bill. Let me thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for doing the best that he could inside his own caucus. He is a member of our subcommittee, and I know how deeply he feels these issues. But truly I would say to his leadership: This is not the way for America to deal with the crisis affecting U.S. citizens, our farmers from coast to coast, west to east, north to south. Why should we even consider an amendment here today which deals with such a teensy-weensy portion of a massive problem as part of an emergency supplemental dealing with Kosovo. We considered this bill dealing with rural America in the House several weeks ago, nearly 2 months ago, and then something happened over in the other body, and the leadership of both institutions were not able to get themselves together. And, Mr. Chairman, I would have to say to my dear friend from Florida (Mr. Young): This is not his fault either. He has my sympathy because I understand a little bit about Florida, and that I-75 runs between Ohio and Florida, so a lot of our people go down there during the winter and come back. And the gentleman has tried to do the best that he can under constraints that are being applied by the leadership of this House and the leadership of the other body. Mr. Chairman, it kind of reminds me of that old song by Peggy Lee when I look at this amendment: Is That All There Is? And when we look at the actual content of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), he has been cut back by his own leadership to only include a small portion of agricultural credit that is desperately needed by our farmers to get through this spring planting season. However even the administration's abysmal request to this Congress included funding for the staff to administer that. That is not in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Ag credit money that will unleash dollars in the private sector will not help farmers in this crisis because we need people to deliver the assistance, and we know that because of the depth of this crisis in our country the disaster payments from last year have not even been fully processed. And what has our Secretary of Agriculture been doing? He has been robbing one account over there to pay for another account just to try to keep staff people in place in these farm service agencies around the country, and last week all authority ran out. So the rob-Peter-to-pay- Paul mechanism that has been used because we have not been able to clear a bill because of the backwardness of the leadership of this institution now places the burden on the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a respected member of our subcommittee, who is trying to do the best he can, but I would like to ask: Where is the leadership of this House and where is the leadership of the other body to give the farmers of this country that we owe such a debt of gratitude to for keeping this Nation fed, food security fundamental to any body politic's peace, why can they not get their day in the sun? Why do we get back-doored at the end, in the last file in the cabinet in a bill dealing with Kosovo and we cannot even deal with the enormity of this problem? What kind of signal does the gentleman's amendment also give to farmers, because in that particular amendment we basically have to offset the $109 million that he is talking about, and why is the crisis in rural America any less of a crisis than what we are facing in Kosovo, in a foreign land, or Hurricane Mitch? What about the people of this country? I do not think I am xenophobic; I care very much about this country. The people of this country elected me to be here, and I think they should be at the front of the line, not at the back of the file cabinet. So, Mr. Chairman, I view what is happening in rural America a true emergency. We are now into Day 69 of this Congress, and we cannot even get a debate in here about the dimensions of people who are going bankrupt from coast to coast. So, with all due respect to the gentleman from Iowa, I think he has done the best job he can do with this amendment, but if people in this body really want to help rural America, we ought to vote no on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and yes on the Obey substitute and truly ask the leadership of this institution to bring up a freestanding bill that is an emergency for the people of this country who are trying to feed us and the world and are being ignored at the highest levels of this legislative body. Mr. Chairman, I just say that in the Obey substitute that will be offered we not only deal with agricultural credit, the full amount asked for by the administration, we ask for sufficient funds for people to administer that credit at our farm service agencies. We also deal with the three major credit programs in his amendment. We talk about emergency assistance for farm workers. We have special aid to those who produce hogs around this country who literally are on their knees. Also, our emergency conservation programs are attended to, livestock assistance for those affected by disasters. Our watershed and flood prevention programs, our rural water and sewer grants, rural housing and even food aid for Kosovo refugees: $175 million in Mr. Obey's substitute. With the surpluses we have on our backs here and with hungry people there, what a win-win for everyone. Why can we not get a freestanding vote on the needs of rural America in this Chamber? So I know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) tried very hard, but truly he needs the support of his own leadership, and I ask the House to support the Obey substitute and defeat the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I wish to state for the Record my sincere appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for the enormous assistance he provided our community during the consideration of the water resources bill last week. When we were on the floor, I did not have an opportunity to place it formally in the Record, but I would say that without his help, Northwestern Ohio would not have received the consideration that was placed in that bill, and I wish to acknowledge and deeply thank him for the help that he gave us. Without his assistance, our watersheds would have been given no attention, and I thank him very much.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Juanita Millender-McDonald) for championing this effort this evening and so many of the other initiatives that she has taken as a sparkling Member of this House, certainly the cause of women in this case, in her role as co-Vice Chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus to bring us all to the floor this evening to talk about Social Security, Medicare, and women in America. I also want to acknowledge the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Rosa DeLauro), the assistant Vice Chair of our caucus, and so many of the other women that have joined us this evening, our good friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Carrie Meek), the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Karen Thurman), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Eva Clayton), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney), and it literally goes from coast to coast. Without question, Social Security is the lifeboat for a majority of seniors in our country and certainly for women. And even with Social Security, the poorest people in America today are women over the age of 80. So even the current program, as critical as it is to families and to citizens across our Nation, could be made stronger. Certainly for women, we know that in the way that the formulas were written in past years they do not always receive as much as men because, when they did work, their pay was less. Others this evening have talked about women spending more time out of the work force raising their children, caring for their families, often caring for sick relatives. Women often work in jobs that have no pensions. I was amazed to go into a little cookie shop in an airport in Chicago a couple years ago and I approached someone who worked there and I said, ``How much do you pay?'' And they said, ``Minimum wage.'' And I said, ``What are my health benefits?'' They said, ``You would not get any of those or retirement. Only management gets that.'' I said, ``I guess I would not want to work here.'' But often one of the young women I was talking to did not know the answers to those questions. She had to go back and ask the manager back behind the swinging doors. So many women who are working do not ask the important question, ``What are my pension benefits?'' We know that most women who have lost their jobs as a result of ill- fated trade agreements, like NAFTA, lose their pensions as a result and, in fact, most of those who have lost their jobs under trade agreements like this, because they are minimum wage jobs and entry level jobs, are mainly minority women across this country. We also know that most women do not begin saving for their retirement and they think it will not matter to create a savings account that would be a supplementary account to Social Security. And if they do have a little savings account or an investment account, they do not hold it long enough so that it would grow in a little bit of a larger nest egg. I want to say something about that this evening. We also know that women who do manage to have a little bit of cash, if they have any at all, often do not look at other investments that they might make during their working years, for example, in buying a home. Today, with interest rates the way they are, many, many people, if they check it out, this is not just women but people working across this country and paying rent, you would be surprised if you really looked at all the available programs, through your city, through your county, through your locality. You would find you could buy a home today cheaper probably than you could rent it. You ought to check that out. Because a home can become a very important source of equity. You own it. It does not belong to someone else. It is very important this evening that all of us participate in this session to help educate the American people, and certainly women, about retirement planning. It is important if you are applying for a job to find out if that employer has a pension plan. Is it just Social Security? Or Social Security plus something else, like a 401(k) or an individual retirement account. If they do have a retirement account, what kind of plan is it? And are you, in fact, participating in that plan? Were you asked about it? Did you ask about it? You really also, if you are married, need to know what your spouse's plan is. I cannot tell you how many women have come to me after the death of their husband and they say, ``He didn't check the little box.'' That means that my retirement pay from the company, putting Social Security aside for the moment, is less. And they, of course, do receive lower payments from Social Security on the death of a spouse. So it is very important to know what your benefits are. You need to know which Social Security benefits you are entitled to. And the Social Security Administration will tell you that if you fill out the little card, they will be able to tell you how many quarters you have in, what your potential benefits might be, and you can get ready for that moment ahead of time. One of the biggest mistakes women make is not asking and not finding out soon enough. Another issue women have to be concerned about, and the American Association of Retired Persons recommends these tips for women in addition to Social Security, think of your retirement security as a necessary expense, and no matter how small your check, take a few pennies or dollars out of that every month and put that in a pension program that is separate from Social Security, that can augment Social Security, which should be your base plan. Think about setting up an Individual Retirement Account. Your banker, your credit union preferably, your employer can help you do this. But make sure that you control that money and that the employer does not control that money. Make sure you have a voice in that. Also, figure out ways to try to control your spending. Create a budget with savings in mind, cut unnecessary expenses and pay credit card balances. If you can, think about resoling your shoes rather than buying new shoes or moving up or down the hem in your skirt rather than buying a new one. There are lots of ways to put a little bit of money aside for the future. Really, it is a good idea to have a budget. Then you will come close to it or perhaps meet it, and you will begin to set up this little extra nest egg. Whatever you do, invest with inflation in mind. When women tend to invest, they do so in very low-yielding assets. They find out that the income from those assets in later years really does not cover inflation and taxes. So I think this evening is very important in helping women to think a little bit about planning for retirement. I know when I hold sessions in my own district on women and money, it is the most popular session that we have. Actually, more people attend that than the sessions we do on health. That is because women, though they have tremendous financial responsibilities in our schools, we do not always teach how to manage personal finances anymore. They used to have courses called home economics. Those are sort of outdated now, but we really need to have financial planning for all of our citizens, including women. I know every woman in this country has the ability to do that. So I think my message tonight as a part of this excellent session that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) has organized along with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is that Social Security is your base plan, and those of us here will make sure that Social Security remains sound as a promise between generations. It is an insurance program, a program of promise to the Nation. If there are seniors listening this evening, do not get high blood pressure, do not worry about Social Security. You do not have to contribute to any of those groups that make you pay money to say they will lobby for you here in Washington. We are your best lobbyists. Use us. You pay us through your tax dollars to do your work for you. Save those dollars that you are paying all those lobbying groups. Put it in an investment account for yourself to augment your Social Security. The most important thing you can do to preserve Social Security and Medicare is to elect the right people to Congress. You know who they are, because they are right at home where you live. You do not have to come here to Washington to meet them. Then if you have the ability, especially if you are younger or even if you are not that young, to set a little bit of extra money aside in a special savings account that earns interest, get a little bit of advice on that. Talk to some of your friends. Have some sessions where you live, in your neighborhood, in your church, in your senior retirement building. Start little clubs where you talk about investing money and take some of those bingo chips and take some of those little earnings that you have from bridge, even if it is a few dollars, and think about putting those dollars away and seeing what they will earn. Maybe you can do it as a group working with some of your credit union advisers, let us say, in your area. It is important for you to learn about money. As you learn more, your children will learn, your grandchildren will learn, and the best teachers in America are our mothers and grandmothers. So they can do a lot to help those who are younger than they are to plan for their own retirements. I really believe you can start saving at a very early age and you can start thinking about your future years, whether it is saving for education or saving for your retirement. I want to compliment the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald) for holding this special order this evening. She is doing a big favor to all the women and families of our country.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I wanted to especially on this bill come down here to the floor and compliment the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for including language in this bill relative to a study by the Corps of Engineers on the Western Lake Erie Basin Watershed at the crossroads of the Great Lakes. I want to just put on the record, without the help of these two gentlemen, our part of America could not solve the significant water problem that we have crossing several jurisdictions. This bill is so important. I hope every Member understands how hard these men have worked to really help every single corner of America. We have waited for years for this bill as our cities flood and our rural areas get devastated by extra water because of all of the development that has occurred in our region. We cannot solve this problem without them and without the help of the Corps being the umbrella entity that brings all these multiple jurisdictions together across Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. I just want to thank them for being men of the future and paying attention to places like Toledo, Ohio and the crossroads of the Great Lakes. Our hats are off to them. Madam Chairman, I include the following memorandum for the Record: Memorandum To: Marcy. From: George. Subject: Western Lake Erie Basin Watershed Study Talking Points. Date: April 29, 1999. The 1999 Water Resources Development Act, H.R. 1480, includes a provision authorizing the Western Lake Erie Watershed study. The Western Lake Erie Basin is the crossroads of the Great Lakes. The Maumee River, which empties into Lake Erie at Toledo is the largest tributary to the Great Lakes. My District and the City of Toledo sit at the mouth of the Maumee. The Corps of Engineers and other government agencies have conducted numerous studies in the Western Lake Erie basin, but no one has ever looked at the watershed as a whole. We understand now the indispensable interrelationship between the various elements of the watershed's ecosystem, the water, the farmland, the cities, the suburbs. If we are going to sustain the productive resources of the Western Lake Erie Basin, we must understand how all these elements work together. I hope and expect that this study will lead to an understanding of our region on which we can plan a sustainable future.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and want to thank him for his leadership on bringing this motion to the House. I felt compelled to speak on this because of the condition of rural America and the fact that again we are encountering delay in the consideration of this legislation; more amendments being offered in the other body, slowing down a very important supplemental package that contains many items relating to assistance for Central America and Hurricane Mitch, but equally important for the farmers here in this country. There is a literal depression that is affecting our country from coast to coast among people who are hard-working, taxpaying Americans, and this Congress is incapable of clearing a bill quickly to help the American people who so desperately need it. I find it completely ironic that now we here in the House have to instruct the conferees to go back to the other body and say, no, we do not want this amendment either because they are dipping into cuts in other accounts that deal with Y2K and other programs, but tucked under all of that is this giant need in rural America where farmers are being put at the end of the line waiting as Congress dithers more, is unable to reach any kind of conclusion, and we have to have more delays. So, to me, I will support the motion to instruct simply as an act of protest against the inability of this institution to protect the American people's interests. Frankly, I am very much interested in us being internationally involved and doing what is responsible elsewhere, but the point is that rural America is in depression and we are acting like nothing is happening. I just wish every tractor would come back to Washington and surround this place and make the leadership of this institution and the other body responsible for what is happening. Farm income is going to drop another 20 percent this year. USDA has used up all of its emergency loan authority. Credit is not being extended this spring. Seed companies back home are holding debt from last year. Now is planting season, my colleagues. Spring has been in existence for over a month now and we cannot bring a bill out of this Congress. Where is the leadership of this institution and the other body in trying to meet the real needs of the American people, which are urgent? For the life of me I do not understand. To me, it is a disgrace that we have to debate these kinds of amendments that are being loaded on over in the Senate and not clear that portion of the bill which is so desperately needed by our own people. I want to thank the ranking member on our full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), whose State is as heavily affected as my own, as well as every other Member here who understands the pain of the rural countryside today, what has happened to prices, as we sit here on our haunches and are unable to clear a bill. I ask again, where is the leadership in this body and in the other one to recognize the pain of the rural countryside? Please support the motion to instruct and, more importantly, disgorge the farm portion of this bill and get it moving.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, by the middle of the next millennium, the world's population is expected to reach 8 to 12 billion people. Right now we are adding about 86 million people annually. All of us must find common ground on the issues of land and resource use and sustainable communities. Recently, a groundbreaking took place in North Toledo to provide 49 families with new homes in the North River neighborhood. That event gave me great hope that, as a community--a multitude of jurisdictions in one of the most bountiful regions of the world--people in northwest Ohio are improving the quality of life in existing neighborhoods and making it attractive for commercial investment on reusable land-- precious land. As an Urban Planner myself, I hope that gone are the days that we neglect and abandon what has been developed for another site at the expense of the original location. To promote a livable community, cooperation between public and private institutions is essential. Cooperation between neighboring communities, cities, suburbs and rural areas will be the key to meeting the needs of the 21st century--greater populations, more traffic, sprawl, and pollution. We must have as our goal, a community that works together for our common good, not just individual special interests. Together, individuals, families, businesses and civic organizations must become involved in local planning, to ensure that every voice is heard and all concerns are represented at the table. By planning more wisely for more livable communities, we will be able to preserve our precious open spaces for generations to come. Such a conscious vision will enable families to enjoy our country's natural beauty. And we'll be able to preserve our precious farms and prime farmland which America has been losing at alarming record rates. U.S. Census figures show that from 1982 to 1992 Ohio lost 1.2 million acres of irreplaceable farmland to development. But unfortunately, this isn't native only to Ohio. Across the nation, prime farmland with the highest productivity is being lost. Globally, these sources of food, fiber and vegetable production cannot be reinvented. I'm pleased that the state of Ohio has stepped up to the plate and passed a farmland preservation bill. As a co-author of national legislation to preserve for agricultural production, I am gratified that our state will now join dozens of other in adopting a policy for land reuse and for the voluntary set-aside of land for agricultural production in perpetuity. Preserving our farmlands means revitalizing the core of our cities, townships and villages. The Mayor of Fostoria, Ohio had it right recently when he said, ``the best thing I can do to protect farmland is make my city worth investing in.'' For America's first two centuries, our communities have grown without more constraints. We could easily cast away old city neighborhoods for the suburbs and treat prime productive land as though it were no different from asphalt. Those choices won't be the same for those who live in the 21st century as the world's population reaches eight to twelve billion people. I'm reminded of the words of Daniel Webster: Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. We must put people and vision back at the center of our planning efforts. We must be conscious of our region and the earth as an ecosystem that needs tending. A common vision for an American future that is sustainable must be our objective.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I know.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman, who has been such a leader on education, allow me just to say this, because I do not know of any member of the gentleman's committee that has fought as hard for education as the gentleman has in his tenure here in this Congress, and the American people owe you a debt of gratitude for that. What is very interesting to me in our area of Ohio and around the Midwest, many companies that used to pay taxes for education and used to help schools, got abatement, tax abatement over the last 20 years, and now what is happening is educational systems across this country are faltering at the local level and asking the Congress to appropriate money in order to help for school construction. The President of the United States a couple of months ago was up here asking for money for school construction. This is a shift in priorities of the Federal Government to move into school modernization and construction. One of the reasons this is happening is that locally, these very same companies that have gotten abatement and are cutting back on their public responsibilities are then shifting that burden up to the Federal Government where we have a lot of other responsibilities, and it is very interesting to me that the gentleman has to fight for dollars for education, dear dollars that we need for curriculum, for instruction, for making up the differential between lower income districts and higher income districts, and yet now we also have to fund buildings. It is amazing to me how much foregone tax revenue there is at the local level. Just another example of corporate America not meeting its public responsibilities. I would wish for the Federal Reserve to do a study on that.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I wanted to come down here to the Floor of the House to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), my fine colleague, for his special order this evening. Madam Speaker, I was listening to the gentleman in my office and I was motivated to come down here when he was talking about the minimum wage and the struggle of people from our country to earn a decent living. I wanted to engage the gentleman in a colloquy, if I might, based on a speech that was made over the weekend and reported in the gentleman's home city of New York City by none other than the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. The story was reported in my local paper back home, the Toledo Blade, because he was talking about workers in our country and saying that, and I quote from the article, ``pockets of workers in America sometimes have to suffer for the national economy to get stronger.'' It was very interesting and, Madam Speaker, I would like to include that article for the Record at this point. Madam Speaker, I ordered a copy of his speech today, and I have read it, because he was speaking to a group in Texas and he was talking about NAFTA. He was talking about how successful it has been. I was very interested in the gentleman's remarks on minimum wage because Mr. Greenspan, in his speech, argues that international trade has lifted the standard of living of people in this country. I guess I wanted the gentleman to comment whether it is his view that some of the trade arrangements that we have locked ourselves into have been beneficial to the standard of living and to working families' incomes in this Nation. From what the gentleman was saying about the minimum wage, something is not working here. Obviously, all boats are not being lifted. What was interesting to me about Mr. Greenspan's remarks, in fact, when he said who had to suffer as a result of our trade agreements, he only said workers. He did not say shareholders. He did not say chief executive officers. He did not say executive assistants. He did not say managers. [From the Toledo Blade, April 17, 1999] Greenspan Contradicts U.S. Trade View--Competition is the Goal, He says Washington (NYT).--Alan Greenspan waded into the debate over trade policy yesterday, denouncing protectionist pressures and arguing that pockets of workers sometimes have to suffer for the national economy to get stronger. The Federal Reserve chairman did not address the biggest question on the trade agenda, the possible entry of China into the World Trade Organization. But he outlined a broad case for eliminating trade barriers and warned that attempts to halt the development of a more global economy are futile and harmful. Mr. Greenspan's influence could help the Clinton administration as it seeks to complete a deal with China and win congressional approval for the pact. But Mr. Greenspan criticized the administration for framing the benefits of trade in what he called the wrong way. The point of expanding trade is not to create jobs, Mr. Greenspan said, contradicting the President's main argument for why the United States should open new markets. Rather, Mr. Greenspan said, trade forces the United States to become more competitive, and to use its resources--people, technology and money--in the most productive way. The Fed chairman took the administration and Congress to task for taking what he called an overly narrow view of trade relations. ``I am concerned about the recent weakening of support for free trade in this country,'' Mr. Greenspan said in a speech to business executives and foreign ambassadors in Dallas. ``Should we endeavor to freeze competitive progress in place, we will almost certainly slow economic growth overall and impart substantial harm to those workers who would otherwise seek more effective long-term job opportunities,'' he said. Mr. Greenspan spoke after 10 days of debate within the administration and throughout Washington over how hard to push for a deal that would put China under the international rules of trade. Last week, Mr. Clinton backed away from a deal with China's prime minister, Zhu Rongji, despite sweeping concessions from the Chinese on a variety of trade issues. Mr. Clinton concluded that he would not be able to win approval from Congress because lawmakers are unhappy with China over accusations that it has violated human rights, spread nuclear weapons, and spied on American weapon programs. But after criticism from business leaders, Mr. Clinton restarted talks with China. My own view, and perhaps the gentleman would want to comment on this, if we look at our trade deficit with Mexico, now nearly $16 billion a year, making more down there than we are able to sell. They ship their goods here, we do not get as much down there, their people cannot afford to buy; our people lose jobs. China, which is an issue we are going to be discussing here, $50 billion, $60 billion in trade deficits. The poor workers in China are making 10 cents an hour, and yet we have the downward ratcheting of wages and benefits in this country, which force us to come to the floor here to ask for an increase in the minimum wage. I just wanted to come down to the floor and to introduce this news article where Mr. Greenspan contradicts U.S. trade views and criticizes Congress. I am mystified why we might be concerned. I thought the gentleman might want to add something to his earlier remarks.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would just yield to me for one more minute, I would say that Mr. Greenspan seems to think that all trade raises the standard of living of the American people. It might raise the standard of living of people who can afford to take him out to lunch or dinner along Wall Street in New York City or K Street here in Washington, D.C., but it has not raised the wages of the people that the gentleman from New York is talking about here, where we in Congress have to forcibly ratchet up the minimum wage because people are being told where they work here in the United States, well, if you want any kind of a small wage increase, or maybe you want better health insurance or health insurance at all, if you do not agree to that, we are going to Mexico. I do not understand why an intelligent person like Mr. Greenspan cannot feel the pain and understand the impact of these trade agreements on the vast majority of the American public that has not benefited from the big bang on Wall Street. The average wages of people in this country and their real buying power has not been going up. They are working; thank God we have done some things right in this country, but they are not able to meet prices. The other day I went to get a blouse back home, and I walked up to this one rack and I pulled it off the rack and I looked at it, it was $129 made in China. And Mr. Greenspan says in his speeches here that this trade is great for America because we get all these cheap goods. Where? Where are the cheap goods? All the garment workers in the gentleman's city who lost their jobs who were making not great wages, but at least they could keep house and home together, when those jobs were wiped out and replaced by Chinese jobs, I really do not see how he can say this helps the standard of living of the ordinary rank and file, the majority of people in this country. It certainly helps those who trade in stocks on Wall Street, would the gentleman not agree?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, can I be recognized since the gentleman acknowledged that we had spoken?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for his eloquent remarks this evening, which reflect not just an intellectual understanding of what agriculture means to this economy but his personal experience and bringing that kind of knowledge to this floor when so many of our Members do not know this particular industry firsthand, and to thank him for his sincerity and the weight of his arguments, which I know will help us as we try to carry the day here. He has been so convincing and his passion not just for people in Arkansas but across our country is completely demonstrated by his participating in this special order, and I want to personally thank him and thank the people of Arkansas for sending him here. I could not help but think as he was talking about independent agriculture what has happened to our country. Farmers work very hard and they try to get their product to market, and there are these gatekeepers now and some of the big processing companies really do hold the leverage and power in the system. It has been my experience in dealing with some of those processing companies that they do not care whether the meat comes from America or whether it is imported, whether the grain comes from America or whether it is imported, whether the vegetables come from America or they are imported, because they can literally process anything and it really does not matter. But I would just plead with my colleagues and plead with the American people who are listening this evening, think about the history of our country and what the roots of our freedom really are. When any segment of our society that has been so very important to us is on the ropes, about to lose their independence, we are all connected to that, and only because we have had independently-owned agriculture for most of our history have we been able to maintain our freedoms and the political stability that we have known. But if we look at what is happening to the processing of food today, if we look at the processing firms who racked up profits last year four times higher than in prior years, we have to begin to ask the question why, when we can buy an entire hog for $40, the price does not go down in the store? When these companies, the processing firms, can buy volumes and volumes of product produced by our farmers, and yet the price really does not go down in the store, what is happening there to consumers? Consumers need to be interested in this. We need to be asking our local grocer whether there are products on the shelves that come from local companies, local farmers. Where does the meat come from? Is it labeled? Where do the vegetables come from? Are they labeled? Are we eating American grown strawberries or strawberries from somewhere else? Only 2 percent of the food that comes onto the tables of America is literally inspected at our borders. And last year we imported over $30 billion worth of commodities into this country. And so, we begin to ask ourselves questions about the way this whole agricultural system has been transformed in the last 30 years. It is a very different America than it was for our forebears. And the question for us today is, is this the system? Do we like the system the way it is? We have less than a million people in farming production agriculture today, and now we are going to wipe out thousands and thousands and thousands more. Is that really the America we want? Try, if you are listening, call your local farmers, work with your local farm bureaus, work with your local associations, church groups, see if there is not a way to buy direct. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so we can let the American people know where this bill is whether it first came through the House, it had to then go to the Senate. The Senate has passed a bill. Under our rules, we now have to do what we say ``go to conference.'' That means to work out the differences between the House and Senate bill. The problem is the Senate has appointed conferees. But guess what? The leadership of this House has not appointed conferees. Therefore, we cannot clear a bill because they have not even worked out the differences. It is now into the fourth month of this Congress, and spring planting is now. People have to make life-and-death decisions now. I have had seed companies call me from back home saying, ``Marcy, I have debts from last year related to credit I extended, and I cannot do it again. I got a lot of farmers totally at risk here.'' And yet we are sort of fiddling here in this Chamber while rural America burns across this country and we cannot even get a conference committee appointed.