Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for joining us and for being a vigilant voice not just for farmers in North Carolina but across this country and in trying to get the majority here to do what is right for our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), one of the most knowledgeable Members of the entire Congress on the subject of rural America and agriculture.

Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time for just a moment, the gentleman was talking about the importance of production in this country. I completely agree. And also it is important to understand how our farmers are organized to produce; whether they become franchisees to some big processing company or whether they are allowed to own their own farmstead and make their own decisions on what they wish to raise and be able to pledge their own assets against borrowing. What is happening so often across our country now, in order to survive, and I do not think most urban dwellers or suburban dwellers understand this, these farmers are oftentimes having to lock themselves into economic arrangements where they totally are losing their independence. They are no longer independent farmers.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, as some of our colleagues discussed earlier this evening, rural America is in economic depression. Tonight I would like to ask the question of: Where is the beef? Where is the bill that is supposed to come out of this Congress that meets the needs of farmers across this country who are losing equity, increasing debt, and many, many of them putting their farms up for sale? Recently I stood on this floor and read to my colleagues a letter I received from a constituent who comes from a farming family of many generations. She called the American farmer an endangered species and asked if Congress even cared about saving them. I care about saving the independent American farmer, Mr. Speaker. But the leadership of this Congress is very, very irresponsible. Where is the bill? Where is the beef? Some Members of this Congress are doing all they can to get a bill out of here that addresses the concerns of farmers across this country. But many other Members are unaware or literally are playing politics by holding relief to our farmers hostage to other bills, literally putting a tourniquet on the credit so essential as life lines to farmers across this country. It is awful that, while the American economy is at one of the strongest points in recent history, the benefits are not flowing to every community. In fact, the benefits are flowing out of the pockets and the bank accounts of our farmers. They are continuing to experience significant declines in prices that began over a year ago. In fact, over the last 15 years, one would ask oneself the question: Why would one even want to be an independent farmer in America? The price declines experienced by wheat and cattle producers over the last couple of years have now expanded across rural America to include the feed grains, oilseed, cotton, pork, rice, and now even the dairy sector at 50-year lows. In some instances, prices are now lower than during the 1940s. Coupled with that is the increasing cost of production and farm equipment and fuel. Those prices do not go down, only up. For the Record this evening, I want to submit some of these prices. Imagine how many bushels of wheat one would have to supply to a local grain company when wheat is now selling at $2.66 a bushel. Fifteen years ago, it was selling at $3.39. In corn, it is at all time record lows, $2 a bushel. In soybeans, $5.05. Those prices had been on a continuing decline. In cattle and steers, the prices continue to go down. Certainly in the hog area were at all time lows at $35.41. It is almost amazing that one can buy an entire animal for that amount. Then of course one would have to add on the slaughter costs. But across this country, farmers are burying their animals. They cannot meet the cost of production. These are people who work very, very hard for a living. Farm income is expected to fall by next year by an additional 20 percent. That means taking 20 percent of one's equity away from one. How would that feel for any American family? We know that exports are also down, nearly 20 percent in the last 3 years. Exports of wheat are down 15.4 percent; corn is down 19.2 percent; soybeans down 8.3 percent; cotton down nearly half. Is it any wonder that there is a cry across America in our rural communities? Farmers are losing their equity big time. The only question remains, how long can they hang on? Total farm debt in the last 2 years is rising, over $170 billion, nearly a 10 percent increase. Equity down, debt up. The drop in income, coupled with declining asset values for many producers, means they cannot obtain credit. This Congress should be guaranteeing that credit for America's farmers. I ask again, where is the bill? Where is the beef? Those who do obtain credit will find that they will be using it for cash expenses rather than for investment or for improvement. They will find themselves squeezed out as they try to repay debt on current income. And prices for next year do not look any better. Many farmers who struggled with cash flow last year resulting from low prices and adverse weather will likely see their situation worsen as this year and next year move forward. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the greatest financial strain in 1999, this year, will be on field crops: Wheat, corn, soybeans, upland cotton, rice. Net income will be 17 percent below previous 5-year averages. And this year current projections show there will be an additional 27 percent below the previous 5-year average. My colleagues, this is very, very serious. And I think the political problem inside here in some ways reflects America's folly, taking our food production system for granted. Because, of course, we were only able to create this civilization when the tillers of the soil and those who raised our livestock were able to feed more than their own family, became more efficient, were able to feed the Nation and so much of the world. We came to take them for granted. They only comprise 2.8 percent of those who work in America. They truly are a minority. And so most of the public does not even see the sweat on their brow, the debts that they have had to amass as they try to continue in the work that they love. While the equity level of farmers is relatively high, farm lenders report that farmers are depleting their equity at a faster rate than earlier in this decade. And unlike the 1980s, when many of them loaned up and they got debt heavy, what this group now is doing, and the average age of farmers being about 55 years of age in America, they are saying, why take on more debt, why weather more of this crisis, let us get out of this business. What a tragedy for our country. When we think about it, when we walk around the Capitol and we see all the statutes and look at the murals on the walls, what do they represent? They represent the abundance of this land; the ability of the American people to have a stable political unit built on independent farmers, independent ownership of land; the ability to survive and, in the process, to be able to produce enough to feed one's neighbors. Most Americans do not pay more than 10 percent of their income for food. Most of the world pays over half of their income for food. We owe much to our farmers. We are blessed with fertile soil in this country and hardworking people. Our country was built on the sweat of their labor. In fact, they are so good, unfortunately, that most of the rest of the society does not even see them any more. We cannot turn our back, Mr. Speaker, on our farmers, because they have never turned their back on us. This Congress, the leadership of this Congress tomorrow could bring up the emergency farm bill if there were the will. We ought to start with credit for planting this spring, but that is not sufficient. We have to look at price transparency. We have to look at risk management. I want to say a word, before I recognize several of my colleagues who have joined me here this evening, about why it is so hard for farmers to make a living. If we look at the concentration that is continuing to afflict this industry and how difficult it is for an independent producer to make it in America, our independent farmers are being squeezed out. If we take a look at pork, most Americans do not know that six companies in this country control the processing that brings that pork to America's tables, those ribs, that pork sausage. Companies like Smithfield, IBP, ConAgra, Cargill, Farmland Industries, and Hormel control 75 percent of all pork slaughter in this country. If a farmer has animals and he wants to get them to market, he does not go to the retail store, he has to go to the processing company, and it is the processing company that decides whether his animal will get to market. The processing company decides what that farmer will receive per pound for that animal, and they decide, generally by deals with the retail stores, on which shelves might that farmer's product arrive. The independent farmer has nothing to say about all of that. In Ohio, the area where I come from, due to a lack of independent slaughter facilities and last year's closing of Thornapple's up in Michigan, along with the dumping of Canadian hogs on our market, our pork farmers in Ohio are suffering greatly. They are lucky if they can find companies willing to take their animals. And it is not just in pork. In beef, four firms control 83 percent of all beef slaughter in this country, four firms control 73 percent of all sheep slaughter, and four firms control 62 percent of flour milling. And I can tell my colleagues this, at the regional level the concentration is even worse when farmers cannot find a way to get their products to market. Truly, this is a battle between David and Goliath, and Goliath is winning. I want to recognize some of my colleagues who have joined me this evening; certainly the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bob Etheridge), who has been down here every day trying to get a bill out of this institution. We have a Speaker from Illinois. There are lots of feed grains in Illinois. Why is a bill not moving? We have a Whip in this Chamber who is from Texas where cotton and cattle are in trouble. Why can we not move a bill out of this Chamber? I yield to my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and thank him for his tremendous work and leadership on this issue, not just for his own State but for farmers across our country.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would ask people to visit their farmers' market and take advantage of farm fresh produce. Ask your grocer to procure locally-grown products, even eggs, poultry. Very interesting to see how few are able to actually participate in supplying the shelves. That is not by accident. It is because of the system that we have today. We need local solutions, as well as national solutions, to this problem. I would urge the Members, I would say to the Speaker, that the American people should call their Members of Congress, particularly those in the leadership, and they should be asking for clearance of the emergency supplemental farm bill here in this Congress. It would only solve part of the problem. The biggest share remains ahead of us. If we could release credit for this spring, that would permit some of our farmers to remain in business. But America must be concerned with the next generation of farmers and how she is going to preserve an independent agriculture, if at all, for the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I see our fine colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who has joined us this evening, who has spent her life working in rural development and is such an effective voice for the economic interests of all people, and I thank her very much for joining us and for her. I can tell the other Members and the Speaker pro tempore here this evening that she is really effective and communicates this message on agriculture every day to the people who need to move bills inside this Congress, and I thank her for joining us.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to think that a million farmers can feed 270 million people in this country and a third more abroad.

Ms. KAPTUR. Millions and millions, to understand how magnificent the work that they do is.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for being here late this evening on behalf of America's farmers who need a voice in this Chamber. We must be their voice, we must get the leadership of this institution to move a bill. I wish we could move it this week because it could be done. We can work out these differences. As the gentlewoman says, you can go up to the Committee on the Budget, they work until 2 a.m., and they get it done. A lot of our farmers are plowing their fields at 2 a.m. in the morning also. It is not a 9 to 5 job. And as I was listening to the gentlewoman's remarks, I was thinking about the song America the Beautiful, where we talk about the fruited plains, about the amber waves of grain, and how different America would look if we were to lose this tremendous productive capacity that we have. And most Americans probably say, ``Well, gosh, we've, you know, had attrition of farmers over the whole century, so what makes this different?'' What makes this different is the structure of the industry at the end of the 20th century and that, in fact, the people who are in farming today are what we would call the diehards. They are the ones that have survived downturns in the economy, the current depression in rural America, all kinds of drought, all kinds of disease. These are the best farmers. They have had to survive everything, and now we risk losing them because of the current economy and the inability of this Congress to clear a bill that will keep rural America functioning for the sake of the Nation. And as the prior gentleman talked about the stock market and the gentlewoman talked about what is happening in the rest of the economy, as one of our former chairmen of our committee used to say, there is a difference between money and wealth. And Wall Street can generate a lot of dollars, but those really are rather representative; they are a mirror of what is happening elsewhere in the economy. When you talk about rural America and the ability of independent farming to survive, you are talking about the real wealth of America spread among many owners, not a few, and what is really at stake today is the ability of that group of people to survive and prosper, or are they going to be franchisees of large processing firms if they are even allowed to remain in business at all? The situation in America today, at the end of the 20th century, is as serious as it has ever been. And so I want to thank the gentlewoman for being down here tonight. Along with her, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and also the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). We again make a plea to the leadership of this Chamber that delay is not an option. The Speaker of this House and the other body, the other body's leadership, are fiddling while rural America burns. America needs our independent farmers, Mr. Speaker, and they need us. They need this Congress. And so I ask the leadership: Where is the emergency farm bill? Where is the beef?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is, did the gentleman not reference a prior speaker and therefore under the rules am I not allowed to respond?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would mention to the gentleman, with all due respect, the President never asked for these offsets. And, also, I know that inside the Department of Agriculture they are drowning in commodities. When the administration sends a request up here, it is not always perfect because of what happens over at OMB. I know, and the gentleman obviously knows, that silos across this country are bursting at the seams. We have food to send around the world, and our farmers need help on the price in order that they can make it through this planting year. The tragedy is that the credit program that is buried in this bill, that will help our farmers get their spring crops in the ground, will not happen fast enough for them. They do not even have the assistance that was passed last year in the emergency bill that was passed at the end of the year. They will not get that until June. So shame on this Congress and shame on the administration, too.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Obey amendment, and I want to really thank the gentleman for crafting a careful amendment that looked at every single detail of this bill. Truly, others have dealt with the plutonium issues and with other aspects of the offsets, but in the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), he specifically targets the PL-480 program, and I really want to focus my remarks there in the time that I have. I cannot believe that in the bill that the majority has given us, that they would attempt to take $30 million or any amount, actually, from the PL-480 program. Now what is that? That is a program that lifts commodities off our market and sends them around the world. To not fund this program at the level requested really, and that is inadequate from the administration standpoint simply because they know Congress will add funds to that account in view of the situation, if we choose to cut these dollars, we are basically saying there are no more hungry people in the world. That is an absolutely ridiculous position. Not only that, but here at home the need, the need, to move commodities is simply profound. What is happening in rural America is something that we have not seen in our adult lifetimes, with the levels of price drops, whether we are talking about the milk market, whether we are talking about hogs, whether we are talking about grain, or whether we are talking about cotton. I mean, go down the list. Rice, historic price drops. We know what has happened in the Asian markets, we know what has happened to our former market in Eastern Europe because of the collapse of the ruble, the situations all around the world which have hurt our export markets. But here at home, because of good weather, we have an enormous surplus which has driven prices to all-time lows. People in my part of the country are burying animals. This seems so illogical in a time when our feeding kitchens are absolutely begging for food. This is one tool that we have, PL-480, to help lift some of America's surplus, our bounty, to share it with those in the world that many of our esteemed Members, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tony Hall), of my own State, and former Congressman Bill Emerson of Missouri, worked so hard to sensitize this Congress and the American people on the needs of the hungry around the world. So I just find it incredible that this particular measure was inserted into this offset provision. And I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for bringing it to the attention of not just this Congress but the American people and people of good heart everywhere. There is absolutely no reason that America cannot lift this bounty and share it worldwide, and why the PL-480 program was selected leaves me in a state of disbelief. So I rise, Mr. Chairman, in strong support of the Obey amendment, particularly because of the ill-advised provision that deals with clipping the wings of PL-480, which does not need to be cut but in fact increased to benefit our farmers, our communities here at home, as well as those around the world who beg us for food.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for pointing that out. If we look at what has happened with prices, the figure that the gentleman stated, the over $1 billion figure, will help us to buy more with the American tax dollar to send abroad. That is true. But the amount of surplus that we have on domestic markets is drowning our rural communities. As we sit here and argue today, and we will not produce a bill that will aid our farmers this spring, this Congress is going to fail in that responsibility. This should have been the first bill this Congress considered when we convened this year, and we have failed that responsibility to our own people. The surplus is gigantic, but the need abroad is even greater, if we look at what is happening in Russia, what is happening in Asia, and what is happening in Central America and Honduras.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, our very esteemed ranking member.

Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I might also say that the administration's request to us through the Department of Agriculture was cleared through the Office of Management and Budget in the executive branch. My own guess is that the Department of Agriculture would like to increase the PL-480 program a whole lot more than the budget submission that reached this Congress. It has to go through the filter of OMB, and that is an unrealistic way in which to make decisions about policy. We reflect the will of the American people here, and rural America is crying out to us. We ought to use every single tool that we have, and we should not cut a dime out of the PL-480 program, with all due respect to the gentleman, who represents a great citrus-producing State, a great beef-producing State, a great milk-producing State. There is a lot that happens there in the State of Florida, and I know the gentleman has to defend his party on the floor today, but truly this should not be in this bill.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and thank him for his leadership on the committee in trying to strengthen this supplemental bill. I also want to congratulate the new chairman of the committee who has tried hard to put a bill together, but I must say to my colleagues it is truly inadequate. Certainly from the standpoint of agriculture America's farmers are in crisis. Mr. Chairman, this bill should have been up here two months ago. We have been witnessing price declines at record levels across this country with an additional income drop for our farmers this year of over 20 percent. This House bill falls so far short of the mark. Though it contains much needed credit authority to help farmers over this spring planting period, it is too little, too late. As we stand here, equipment auctions are going on across the country, bankruptcies mount, and people cannot move product to market. One of the most curious aspects of this particular measure is that one of the budget offsets in the bill is to reduce the P.L. 480 Program, which is a program at the Department of Agriculture where we take surplus, which we have plenty of on this market, and move it into foreign markets to help hungry people around the world, and there are certainly lots of those, but also to help our farmers here at home get out from under the weight of all this production which is helping prices to continue to plummet here in the domestic market. So we should have been able to perfect a more perfect bill. Unfortunately, this is not the one. I wanted to mention that the bill contains some very important language that has to do with the Russian food aid package that is currently being delivered, over a billion dollars of Russian food aid, and yet very few checks by the government of the United States in order to assure that that product is not diverted and graft does not occur. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record questions that we should ask the executive branch and expand congressional oversight of that Russian food aid package as it proceeds over the next several weeks. Our American family farmers are suffering. While the general economy is strong, the U.S. agricultural economy continues to experience significant declines in agriculture commodity prices that began over a year ago. The price declines experienced by wheat and cattle producers over the last couple of years have expanded now to all of the feed grains, oil seed, cotton, pork and now the dairy sectors at record all- time lows. Farm income is expected to fall from $53 billion in 1996 to $43 billion next year, nearly a 20-percent decline. The Republican Leadership has again let down the American farmer. The credit guarantee assistance needed by farmers to obtain credit during spring planting is again delayed by the inability of the Republican Leadership to deal with legislation on a timely basis. Farmers and ranchers have a cash flow squeeze this year and the demand for USDA's farm lending programs has increased dramatically this year to 4 times the normal rate. Many states have already exhausted their loan funds and farmers cannot get their crops in the ground without the credit to purchase their inputs. USDA reports that the Farm Service Agency will begin to layoff temporary employees at the end of this week. These employees assist with the backlog in delivering assistance to farmers suffering from low prices and crop disasters. The demand for Loan Deficiency Payments is exploding. For 1997 crops USDA paid about $160 million for farmers and ranchers for LDP's. For 1998, LDP's are currently $2.3 billion and that total is expected to climb to $3.2 billion before the season ends. We expect to issue about $3.5 billion in LDP's in 1999, 65 percent more than 1998. Farmers in my district have been waiting to get paid for LDP's since October, and they will wait because we have been unable to present them with a final bill prior to leaving on our recess. united states food aid 1. Who is going to guarantee that the money from the sale of the commodities in the various regions of Russia gets into the Special Account for transfer to the Pension Fund? What will be done if the money is not deposited within the time specified in the Resolution of the Russian Government (70 days for wheat and rice, 90 days for all other commodities)? 2. How many rubles are anticipated from the sale of the U.S. commodities for the Russian Pension Fund? The Pension Fund has an arrears of around 23 billion rubles. 3. How many people on the Russian side with be actively involved in monitoring the U.S. food shipments? 4. There have been articles in the Russian press criticizing U.S. food aid, saying it is not needed and that it will destroy the private agriculture sector. What is the relationship between U.S. food aid and the development of privatized agriculture in Russia? future food aid 5. What is the evidence that Russia will need additional food aid later in the year? What are projections for grain and livestock production in the coming year? 6. If additional food aid from the USDA is requested by Russia, will it be conducted by Russia through an open tender this time around instead of a closed tender? 7. If additional food aid is extended from the U.S., how should funds resulting from the sale of this food aid be used? How can the U.S. be assured it will not be diverted to a bank outside of Russia or just disappear? russian agriculture 8. What is Russia's strategy for developing the agriculture sector in Russia and for improving the quality of life in the rural areas of Russia? 9. What is the future for private farming and for truly privatized farms in Russia? investment 10. What is being done to create a climate that attracts U.S. investment in Russian agriculture? How can the commercial risk associated with this investment be reduced given the current economic crisis in Russia? 11. Sector Reform: What are Russian priorities to revitalize growth in the agriculture sector given the Duma's opposition on such important questions as private land ownership and tax reform? 12. Farm Profitability: A key task for the Russian government is the creation of viable farms from existing, large-scale unprofitable farms. The main barriers to farm profitability include the lack of good, market-knowledgeable managers, over-staffing, and reluctance to abandon or significantly restructure operations on large farms that are unprofitable. In what ways will the government help large farms to restructure? 13. Private Family Farms: Small private family farms and dacha (garden) plots account for about 9 percent of total farm land in Russia, yet produce significant percentages of total agricultural output: potatoes--89%, vegetables--76%, meat--48%, milk--42%, and eggs--30%. What measures are being taken to assist private plot holders and owners of family farms to expand their holdings and to meet their needs for credit? 14. Private Investment: Many prior functions of the government under a command economy such as credit, supply and distribution of inputs and marketing of commodities and food products can no longer be provided by the state, nor is there an institution for extending improved technologies (both production and managerial) to farms. There is an increasing role for the private sector, both Russian and foreign, to help. What role will the federal and regional governments play in attracting private investment in Russian agriculture, and are there specific programs, policies or incentives which the Ministry of Agriculture will promote? 15. Agriculture Finance: What work is being done to encourage the establishment of private lending institutions for the farm sector other than commercial banks? In this regard, what is the status of the draft legislation on rural credit cooperatives? What other measures is the Russian government taking to establish a sustainable source of credit for agriculture--both for operating capital and for long-term investment? 16. Next Year's Harvest: What are the prospects for next year's harvest? Is there expected to be a shortfall, and how would Russia deal with this situation if it develops? 17. Investment Policy: Many foreign agribusiness companies willing to invest in Russian agriculture are hesitant to do so because of several factors: lack of land markets and long-term land leasing procedures, complicated and excessive taxation, contradictory federal and regional laws, particularly with regard to land ownership and use, administrative trade barriers imposed by regions which prevent the movement of grain, and lack of legal procedures for the enforcement of business contracts and resolving disputes. What can the Ministry of Agriculture do to address these issues? The bill before us $1.2 billion includes language directing the Executive Branch and USDA to strengthen monitoring effort on the $1.2 billion Russian Food Aid package. This Russian food aid package was put together through existing authorities and has not been subject to congressional oversight. The Congress was not a part of the negotiating team but this is an effort to interject ourselves into the oversight of this assistance. These shipments are likely to be subject to graft and major diversion and, sadly, strengthen the hand of the very instrumentalities in Russia that have approved reform in agriculture. The magnitude of this package is unprecedented. Deliveries will be staggered over the next several months--but I believe it may even be necessary for us to suspend shipments for a short time frame in order to evaluate our progress in ensuring that our assistance gets to the people it is intended. We have had discussions with the USDA over the past four months which have resulted in substantial changes being made to the monitoring effort but they simply are not enough. We have gone from two monitors locate din Moscow, to thirteen full time monitors and 30 individuals in the consulates and Embassies assisting with a country team effort. Thus the report language in the bill states: Russian Food Aid Based on past experience with regard to U.S. commodity shipments to Russia, the Committee is seriously concerned about the likelihood of diversion in the distribution of the current $1,200,000 Russian food aid package which was negotiated by the Executive Branch. The Committee urges the Secretary of Agriculture to implement swiftly the provisions of the sales agreement that allow suspension of shipments if and when diversions occur. In addition, the Secretary should ensure that sufficient staff is available for oversight, monitoring and control procedures to minimize potential misuse and improper losses of food commodities provided under the three food aid agreements between the Governments of the United States and the Russian Federation. The Committee expects the Secretary to directly involve the Inspector General in auditing these shipments. The Secretary of Agriculture shall report to the Committee by June 15, 1999, regarding his efforts to increase oversight and monitoring; the extent to which other federal agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations have contributed to the monitoring effort; the number of frequency of spot-checks and their findings; how the agency handled reports of diversions; and the extent to which the distribution of commodities was coordinated with local government officials and private farming organizations. The Committee also expects the Secretary to report on how the food aid package was coordinated with the State Department to meet our strategic goals in the region and the involvement of the Interagency Task Force assembled by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow to oversee these shipments. The Secretary shall also report on how this and subsequent food aid shipments contribute to the development and reform of private agriculture in the Newly Independent States.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, our scientists have just discovered a new fault line that exists underneath downtown Los Angeles. This fault line, called Puente Hills, is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide and it was invisible until recently. The 1987 Whittier Narrows quake, which caused eight deaths and $358 million worth of damage, was the result of a rupture of just 10 percent of the Puente Hills fault line. Obviously, this fault line has the potential to do a great deal of harm to the good people in Los Angeles and we would be foolish to ignore it. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another fault line in America that is invisible to our eyes, the American economy. And the American workers are sitting on a fault line that is shifting below us; and, like many in Los Angeles, we are ignoring it, hoping it will go away. The fault line is our trade deficit. And as it grows, America is at greater risk of our very economic foundation being rocked. We recently learned that the trade deficit grew to its highest level in the last decade, projected again this year at over $250 billion. According to the Commerce Department just this past month, $93.76 billion worth more of imports landed on our shores while our exports again fell. These are not just numbers. They are part of the shifting ground underneath America's economic feet. And for some, they could not escape the cracks in the ground. I am talking about workers like the 6,000 at the Levi's plants, most of them women, that recently packed up and closed to ship manufacturing to undemocratic nations overseas. I am talking about the workers at Huffy Bicycle in Ohio who lost their jobs to Mexico's exploited workforce, or the thousands of workers at Anchor Glass or General Electric or Henry I. Siegel or VF Knitwear or Zenith Television or Dole Food, and the list goes on. They have seen the ground shift and they felt the earthquake. They have just seen some of the consequences of a growing trade deficit. According to the Economic Policy Institute, between 1979 and 1994 nearly 2.5 million jobs in our country were lost to America's backward trade policy, which says to America's workers the solution for them is to work for shrinking wages and benefits and net worth in order to buy more imported products from places where workers have absolutely no rights. The second consequence of the trade deficit is its crippling effect on wages here at home. Workers who lose their manufacturing jobs still have to find some way to feed, clothe, and educate their families; and usually that is in the form of a service job with a substantial pay and benefit cut. The Economic Policy Institute points out that increasing imports from low-wage, undemocratic countries are contributing to decreasing wages of our workers. Our U.S. firms and workers are forced to cut their standards of living to compete. They cut wages or cut hours or cut benefits to reduce costs. And as a result, our workers are finding that their real buying power of their wages has been declining for almost 15 years. In fact, the growing gigantic trade deficit literally lops off a whopping 25 percent of the economic bang that would occur inside this economy if in fact our trade ledger was balanced. Probably the biggest consequence of this deficit is what it does to our long-term competitiveness, as America writes off one industry after another: televisions, electronics, clothing, recently steel. We have seen how many parts of this economy have been savagely hit. Mr. Speaker, this fault line in America cannot be ignored. We can see the consequences getting worse every year. But the people being hurt cannot afford high-powered lobbyists in this city. If we want American workers to be able to increase their net worth, save for their futures, invest in the stock market, start their own small businesses, we need to make sure our economic foundation is rock solid. Mr. Speaker, we ignore this trade deficit, this fault line, at our own peril.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on Appropriations passed the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill that will provide desperately needed aid to defend America's farmers against depression- level prices, as well as to provide desperately needed assistance to the disaster struck nations in Central America. This Congress now needs to move quickly to meet our obligations to our family farmers and to the devastated nations south of our border. I am also pleased to see this spirit of compassion alive in my hometown of Toledo, Ohio. This past Monday, a delegation of 45 Toledo volunteers, including our Mayor Carlton Finkbeiner, traveled to Honduras to help the victims of Hurricane Mitch. Volunteers versed in housing construction are working with care to build 600 homes in Marcovia. At the same time, volunteers with health care training are joining with the International Medical Corps and Catholic Relief Services to provide victims with basic health care in Catacamas, Choluteca, and Marcovia. These goodwill ambassadors from Ohio's Ninth District deserve recognition in this well of the House today. I commend them for their wonderful efforts to bring aid to a devastated region and assistance to our fellow citizens in this hemisphere. I echo their call for action by this Congress on the Emergency Supplemental Bill to help the devastated people of Honduras and Central America but also our farmers here at home. Let this Congress be as humanitarian as the people of Toledo, Ohio.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because our American family farmers are suffering. While the general economy is strong, the U.S. agricultural economy continues to experience significant declines in agriculture commodity prices that began over a year ago. The price declines experienced by wheat and cattle producers over the last couple of years have expanded now to all of the feed grains, oil seed, cotton, pork and now the dairy sectors at record all-time lows. Farm income is expected to fall from $53 billion in 1996 to $43 billion next year, nearly a 20 percent decline. Mr. Speaker, last week I met with a number of farmers just from Ohio. One left me with a letter that I would like to read tonight. It says: Dear Ms. Kaptur: The purpose of my Washington, D.C. trip is twofold. Not only am I here today representing Ottawa County, but as a wife and partner of an Ottawa County farmer. I am very concerned about the plight of America's farmers. I can remember as a youngster back in the late 1940s all the farmers, eight full-time farmers within just 2 miles of here who lived on our road in northwest Ohio. They had dairy cows, hogs and chickens. At the present time within that same two miles there is only one full-time farmer. Since our numbers are dwindling and the American farmer only makes up 1.8 percent of our population, the American farmer is fast becoming an endangered species. I want to know what is going to happen to the American farmer, and does Washington and our Nation really care? With the way our grain prices are falling and our costs are increasing, how is a present-day farmer going to continue and also encourage new generations to enter the farming profession? The prices are lower now than during the 1940s. With the combination of low prices and the loss of productive agricultural ground to urban sprawl, most farming operations will cease to exist. Where is our Nation going to obtain its food? If the United States relies in greater and greater measure on foreign countries to supply its food needs, their food checkoff day will surpass the February 9 date. Since U.S. consumers have never gone hungry, they have no concept if they lose the American farmer, their safe food supply could diminish or be completely cut off. How long can the average American farmer afford to spend $168,000 for just one piece of equipment? With the statistics that I am enclosing the American farmer will not be able to stay in business. Therefore agriculture will not be one of America's major industries. We are fighting for our livelihood and need yours and Congress' help. Does anybody care? Does anybody even know? Regards, Dee. She also left me with a breakdown of their family farming operation, which I will place in the Record, but basically what it shows is their total production cost last year was $375,000, including what they had to pay for running their land, the cost of producing corn, the cost of producing soybeans and wheat, however their total income was only $317,430, leaving them with a negative income last year of $57,570. The question to be addressed is how today's or tomorrow's farmer is going to continue to produce food for a Nation in the world if he or she cannot purchase needed equipment and meet the costs of doing business. How many other Americans have to purchase equipment like combines which retail at $211,000 minus dealer discounts equaling about $168,000 less trade-ins on equipment. So that leaves them with about $111,000 to finance for 10 years at 8.75 percent interest for an annual payment of $17,204. How will they continue to make that payment when their negative income prohibits them from showing any profit? There is an increasing concentration throughout agriculture today. This concentration is severely distorting the market signals that farmers use to know what to produce, when to produce and how to make a profit. This concentration is hurting the marketplace and free competition. These market conditions are deeply hurting our family farms and threatening the economic stability of real communities across our country. Dee asks, what can we do? First I say Congress, this Congress and this executive branch, must recognize the faces of rural America and understand the crisis out there. We must increase market transparency on prices and we should revisit freedom to farm and provide these farmers who provide our food with the safety net against these kinds of international market manipulations.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and underlying legislation H.R. 975 which has been brought to us by our diligent colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I wanted to thank our good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) also for helping move this through the Committee on Rules. It is time to put steel back into the spine of America. 10,000 American steelworkers losing their jobs is beyond belief. The administration's delay to enforce dumping laws in this country, unforgivable. Since 1997, a glut of dumped imports on our shores, Indonesia up 612 percent, Japan 157 percent, Australia 156 percent, South Africa, 107 percent and Korea 105 percent; most of those countries are not covered by the administration's agreement. If we in this Congress cannot stand up for our own when they are being unfairly dumped on, it is fair to ask, when do we stand up for anyone? Support the rule. Support H.R. 975.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work and achievements of a shepherd to our entire community, Reverend Dr. H.M. Crenshaw, a spiritual leader of enormous dimension. Reverend Crenshaw's 30 years of personal ministry to the Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church congregation is to be recognized in a special celebration in Toledo, OH on March 13, 1999. After his ordination as a minister in 1952, Reverend Crenshaw pastored in the First Baptist Church of Rossford, Ohio from 1953 until 1958. He then went on to First Baptist Church in Fostoria, OH, and during his decade-long tenure there he led the congregation in the building of a new church as well as the purchase of additional land. In December of 1968, Reverend Crenshaw was called to minister to the congregation of Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church, where he remains today. A true community leader, Reverend Crenshaw has guided his congregation through growth, property acquisition, and building expansion and enhancement. Through it all, he has been a revitalizing force both in the community and the church. Recognizing the deeper needs of the youth in the church's neighborhood, Reverend Crenshaw founded the Jerusalem Outreach Center in 1982. With a goal to motivate and direct young people not targeted by other programs to fully realize their greatest potential, Reverend Crenshaw and the Jerusalem Outreach Center staff have helped over 1,675 at-risk youth and their families. Working through referrals from the juvenile court and juvenile justice systems, the local school system and an area mentoring program, the Jerusalem Outreach Center has redirected the path for these young people and their families. Further, the center serves as a beacon in the neighborhood: a welcoming place for the youth. Ever mindful of the need to provide stewardship to promising young people, Reverend and Mrs. Crenshaw established the Crenshaw Scholarship Fund in memory of their deceased daughter Marilyn. This fund has contributed over $12,500.00 toward the college education of students in the church. The holder of a Bachelor of Theology from the International Bible Institute and Seminary, a Master of Arts in Psychology and Counseling from Ashland Theological Seminary, a Doctorate of Divinity from Calvary Bible College, and an Honorary Doctorate from Selma University, Reverend Crenshaw is the author of a book, ``A Reality Roadmap for Delinquent Youth'' and a teaching video, ``The Reality of Therapeutic Techniques in Working with Delinquent Youth.'' In addition to pastoring to his congregation, engaging in outreach to troubled youth, and raising a family, Reverend Crenshaw has also found time to serve on several key area boards including the Lucas County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Lucas County Mental Health Advisory Council, Baptist Pastors' Conference, Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, Interracial Religious Coalition, Board of Community Relations, the Board of Education's Alternative School Programming Committee, Baptist Ministers Conference, and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the American Baptist Theological Seminary Extension of Toledo. His unwavering commitment to the causes of social justice, his dedication to God and living His Word, and his deep involvement in the fabric of our community have earned Reverend Crenshaw the admiration of many in our area who hold him in high esteem. He has been showered with honors too numerous to mention, has received commendations from federal, state, and city officials, and has received accolades from his peers in the psychology, counseling, and ministerial fields. Reverend Crenshaw is married to Frances, and together they have raised five children: Marvin, Shirley, the late Marilyn, Vanessa and Kay. They are also proud and loving grandparents to O'Shai and O'Lajidai, and great grandson O'Mauryai. The constant thread through Reverend Crenshaw's life of service is his devotion to ``his ministry in saving souls.'' I am greatly honored and deeply humbled to join his congregation and community in offering thanks for his 30 years as pastor of Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church. May God continue to bless him, his wife, their family and the Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church congregation.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is faced with a very imperfect situation, a President who has deeply disgraceed our Nation and an independent prosecutor who has compromised the integrity of the investigative process. The damage both men have rendered is strewn across the American landscape, and now the Committee on the Judiciary of this House has produced a one-sided, rampantly partisan option for this membership to consider. Healing our Nation must be the paramount consideration of this body, and our people must be spared from further division. Even though it appears that President Clinton lied under oath, which could be a high crime, proving perjury in a court of law is a highly technical legal matter not easily established. On the other hand, a Senate trial would not require the same level of judicial proof, but it is unlikely the Senate will be able to assemble a working supermajority for any of the impeachment charges. The House of its own accord can act to resolve this situation assigning proper penalties and punishments but likely will fail to do so placing this entire matter in the netherworld between the Senate, unlikely to reach a conclusion and a legal system in which wrongdoing will be difficult to prove. Our Nation needs to move forward. I am left with no option but to vote against the committee's recommendations in spite of my disdain for the President's actions. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is faced with a very imperfect situation. A President who has deeply disgraced our Nation, and an independent prosecutor who has compromised the integrity of the investigative process. The damage both men have rendered is strewn across the American landscape. Now, the Judiciary Committee of this House has produced a one-sided, rampantly partisan option for the membership to consider. Healing our Nation must be the paramount consideration of this body. The American people must be spared from further divisions. Even though it appears President Clinton lied under oath which would be a high crime, proving perjury in a court of law is a highly technical legal matter not easily established. On the other hand, a Senate trial would not require the same level of judicial proof, but it is unlikely the Senate will be able to assemble a working supermajority for any of the impeachment charges. The House of its own accord can act to resolve this situation, assigning proper penalties and punishments, but likely will fail to do so, placing this entire matter in the netherworld between a Senate unlikely to reach a conclusion and a legal system in which wrong doing will be difficult to prove. To drag our nation through further partisan wrangling in the Senate seems very unwise. [Thus] I conclude further Congressional deliberations on this set of charges are not in the nation's interests. Though the charges against President Clinton are serious, they are best adjudicated in the courts where regular rules of evidence and due process apply. Since other alternatives are not available to this House as a result of the Judiciary Committee's flawed proceedings, I am left with no option but to vote against the Committee's recommendation, in spite of my disdain for the Presidents' actions and his failure to take responsibility for them. Our Nation needs to move forward. Mindful of the strongly divided opinion of the American people and citizens of my home district regarding the pending set of votes on the four Articles of Impeachment against President Bill Clinton, it is my obligation to state publicly my reasons for voting as I will today. In this regard, partisanship is irrelevant. Personalities are irrelevant. Healing our nation must be paramount. Carrying out the nation's regular business must proceed. In regard to the Clinton charges, we must respect the rule of law, administer it to preserve the integrity of the Constitution, and recommend proper judicial proceedings to resolve the matter at hand. Throughout this process, I have weighted: ``To what extent do the President's actions, along with those of the investigative processes that have led to our current predicament in the House, undermine or strengthen the Constitutional standards I am sworn to uphold?'' In an expeditious manner, we must resolve this situation in the nation's best interests. I believe the nation must be spared further divisions on this matter. the process President Bill Clinton has deeply disgraced our nation by his conduct, and unwillingness to assume responsibility for his actions. Over one year ago, he should have exercised a more honorable course and spared our nation the wrenching that has affected every family in America and politically split the nation into two warring camps. Further, the behavior of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his careless, and at times willful manipulation of the investigative process, has compromised the integrity of these proceedings, leaving the American people and this Congress divided. Neither of these men has acted in the national interest. The damage they have rendered is strewn across our landscape. Likewise, the Judiciary Committee in its deliberations has been rampantly partisan. The recommendations it has produced for House consideration are one-sided and only partly represent the courses of action deemed worthy of debate by the full House. So we are left with a very imperfect situation. President Clinton will have much accounting to do in the years hence. I have concluded in the national interest that final resolution of any legal charges against him is best left in the courts. Here he should be afforded a fair and impartial trial by jury where proper rules of evidence apply, outside the limelight that has convoluted this entire process. Any penalties and punishments placed on the President should be commensurate with proven charges. Regarding the role of the Independent Prosecutor, and the behavior of Mr. Staff and his investigators, no instrumentality of our government should be above the law. Accordingly, many questions arise as to the propriety and fairness of the Independent Prosecutor's investigative proceedings to date, as well as about the raw partisanship of the Judiciary Committee's deliberations. By whose authority and under what constraints were key witnesses wired and testimony obtained by the Independent Prosecutor? Why were there so many leaks of privileged information from the grand jury--everything from the evidence about the blue dress to a broadened investigation that began with Whitewater but led to the investigation of the President's personal affairs? In Ohio, breaches of grand jury secrecy are prosecutable. Mr. Starr's own ethics advisor Sam Dash resigned over concerns that the Independent Counsel had exceeded his mandate to simply report to Congress on any impeachable offenses he discovered. Dash said he had ``no other choice but to resign'' because of the independent counsel's abuse of office. Much of the behavior of the Independent Prosecutor was as irresponsible as the President's, and both have led to public cynicism about the integrity of our political and judicial systems. Accordingly, Congress immediately should examine the procedures employed by Mr. Starr to gain evidence and administer the duties of his office. He and future Independent Prosecutors should be held accountable for the breaches of integrity associated with the investigative process. legal options I hold the highest respect for our nation's judicial system. It is my duty to uphold it against all enemies foreign and domestic. My job includes preventing its abuse. In this regard, President Bill Clinton has much accounting to do. Yet, in spite of President Clinton's egregious, dishonorable, irresponsible and, yes, alleged criminal behavior, he should not be held to either a higher nor a lower standard than any American in the administration of justice. He deserves his day in court with a judge and jury sworn to administer justice fairly. But as President, it is not unfair for us to expect more of him and hold him to a higher moral standard. In my judgment, the crimes of which President Clinton is accused do not meet the Constitutional standard for conviction based on ``bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Though his dishonorable behavior has wounded our nation's moral sensibilities and, tragically, he has reduced the honor associated with the office of President--and, in fact, elected office as a profession--in my judgment these circumstances do not rise to a ``high crime'' against the state as such, as I read the Constitution. However, reading the Starr Referral and the Committee documents and studying the law has convinced me that the perjury charges are the most serious rendered against the President. They go to the heart of our judicial system's foundation--telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'' Perjury is a felony, a crime against the state, and strikes at the core of our judicial system. By his moral position as the secular leader of our nation, President Clinton sets a standard, whether he wishes so nor not. Even though it appears President Clinton lied under oath, proving in a court of law that he perjured himself if a highly technical legal matter not easily proven. In a court of law, proving such would be fraught with inference, innuendo, in the end likely yielding not enough proof with corroborating witnesses to convict on the basis of perjury. On the other hand, a Senate trial would not require the same level of judicial proof, thus holding the possibility of placing penalties and punishments on the President commensurate with proven charges of damage to the republic. However, it is unlikely the Senate will be able to assembly a working majority for any of the impeachment charges. The House of its own accord could have acted in order to resolve this situation, assigning proper penalties and punishments, but will fail to do so, placing this entire matter in the netherworld between a Senate unlikely to reach a conclusion and a legal system in which wrong doing will be difficult to prove. Yet, to drag the nation through more legal wrangling in the Senate seems very unwise, especially in view of the politics and partisanship that will rue the day. For the record, let me point out the role of the House in impeachment differs from the Senate. The House acts almost like a grand jury, with each of us behaving like judges in a civil proceeding. Yet, the House is hampered Constitutionally in its ability to discover evidence, call witnesses, and cross examine. Thus, the Committee, by it very nature, has put forward a report that contains only partial findings of alleged wrongdoing. Our vote will be to refer those partial findings and charges to the Senate for an actual trial. It is in the Senate that full evidence is weighed, witnesses are called, and cross-examination occurs. No Member of the House has been afforded the benefit of a full range of witnesses, with the opportunity to cross-examine, with rules of evidence being respected. Further, the partisanship of the Judiciary Committee has been extremely troubling with the end result being that the full House is not afforded a range of proposals on which to vote to apply the proper judicial remedy relating to the President. Unlike previous impeachment hearings in the House--such as Andrew Johnson's in which the Committee studied the referral for eight months and defeated the resolution by a two to one margin, and at the hearings relating to President Nixon in which the House deliberated for six months and accepted the Committee report on a vote of 412 to 3--this process has been fraught with raw partisanship. The Committee has deliberated for a month, votes in the Committee have been strictly along party lines, and for the most part votes in the full House will mirror that pattern. Thus, this Member has little confidence the Committee has acted responsibly and with due process. Nonetheless, I believe the Judiciary Committee's findings to be serious, particularly relating to the articles of alleged perjury and obstruction of justice. The allegations of perjury in Articles 1 and 2 are indeed serious since perjury, if proven, is a felony and, in my opinion, rise to the Constitutional standard of a high crime. But, proving perjury is a highly technical matter. Evidence and testimony in this regard are critical. The House Committee report has not proven perjury. To commit perjury, an untruth must be knowingly stated, under oath at an official proceeding. And that statement must be material with regard to the matter at hand. Since the Paula Jones case has been dismissed, the matter at hand would only involve the Lewinsky situation. Regarding the President's testimony before the grand jury in this regard, the legal question, as aside from the moral question, becomes, Did President Clinton lie, or did he simply exercise his rights under the law not to volunteer more details? Just because he didn't testify as much as some may have wanted, does not mean he perjured himself. The evidence against him in this care must be compelling and the judicial standard to measure perjury is not ``preponderance of evidence'', nor is it ``clear and convincing evidence.'' But, rather, the standard is the highest one of ``evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.'' The fact that the House is wresting with the evidence means there is a reasonable doubt, and thus a judicial finding of perjury will be difficult to obtain. In addition, some of the allegations in the Committee's report suggest that the definition on ``sexual relation'' President Clinton used before the grand jury was one with the intent to give perjurious statements. A lawyer would ask, where is the evidence of intent? Decisions of perjury cannot be made on the basis of conclusions nor suppositions, only on the basis of fact. One cannot assume an inference on an inference. Otherwise the evidence is inadmissible. Further, the report charges President Clinton ``didn't recall'' matter on several occasions. But what evidence do we have that demonstrates this. Again, this painstaking evidence must be collected, presented, rebutted. Otherwise, the charge cannot be sustained. In any case, the legal process will ensure for quite some time in resolving these questions. Moreover, convincing a defendant on perjury is most difficult where proof of falsity rests with contradictory statements of just one other person other than the defendant. In such cases, the defendant cannot be convicted. This means that just one other material witness with a contradictory story would not be enough to prove falsehood by the President. Additional witnesses, unlikely to be found, would have to come forward. This legal precedent actually dates back to Mosaic law. However, if the defendant changes his/her story and contradicts him/ herself, then they can be convicted. This is not likely to happen, given the President's adherence to his original statement before the grand jury. In anticipating the likely outcome of such a proceeding, if a jury of 12 persons, knowing the strict legal standards for conviction on perjury, were faced with the evidence in this case and asked ``did he lie'', ``did he knowingly do it'', and coupled this with Monica Lewinsky's testimony wherein the definition of sexual relations is brought into question, it is doubtful a jury would convict him of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt because of the substantial weight of circumstances evidence and lack of other credible witnesses. Again, there is a distinction between what is legally provable and what the public may demand as morally right. Further, in meeting the Constitutional test of conviction based on ``bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors,'' the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors of open to interpretation. Most scholars agree that these crimes would gravitate to crimes against the state or the government--such as bribery by a foreign interest, or outright treason. But again the Constitution does not say outright high crimes against the state. So, much is left to interpretation, and this is why this case is so important. Depending on how the House acts, a legal standard and process will be established against which future Constitutional questions regarding impeachment for inappropriate conduct that may be morally reprehensible, but not necessarily criminal, that affects the functioning of the apparatus of the state beyond the ``bribery, treason and high crimes and misdemeanors'' standard. conclusion In summary, though President Bill Clinton has deeply offended the moral character of the nation, his acts cannot be termed high crimes against the interests of the state. Further, proving perjury from a legal standpoint will be exceedingly difficult in a regular court of law. But his case appropriately should be remanded there. Using the Senate as the venture for resolution risk further damaging to the national interest. One certainly can question whether President Clinton's personal, reckless behavior bordered on being a security risk, and this is a serious matter. But no apparent weakening of the state's direct interest resulted from his actions. Regarding the interests of the state and our nation, we have reached the point where it becomes compelling for the public good for Congress to stop rendering this matter in public. Further proceedings in the Senate are unlikely to yield the 2/3 votes necessary to pursue any conclusive course of action. Thus, I conclude that further Congressional deliberations on this set of charges are not in the nation's best interests. Though the charges against President Clinton are serious, they are best adjudicated in the courts where regular rules of evidence and due process apply. Since other alternatives are not available to this House as a result of the Judiciary Committee's flawed proceedings, I am left with no option but to vote against the Committee's recommendations, in spite of my disdain for the President's actions. The nation needs to move forward.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a legendary leader of my community. Tom Hart of Toledo, Ohio, died on the morning of August 25, 1998 at the age of 62 after waging a battle of courage and grace against cancer. A veteran, Tom was born and raised in Toledo, graduating from Central Catholic High School and the University of Toledo, and establishing a successful marketing and public relations firm in his hometown. As his business grew, he earned a solid reputation for his marketing expertise, his connection to the community, and his creativity. Tom Hart was, in fact, the mastermind behind many of the Toledo area's successful political ad campaigns. From 1967 through 1987, his ads were part of eleven mayoral election victories. Long-time Toledo Mayor and elder statesman Harry Kessler noted, ``He could put more in a 22 second commercial than any man I ever knew.'' His style in advertising became a fixture in our regional landscape, as Tom won many awards over the years for his creativity and achievement. His ads have become part of Northwest Ohio's political and financial history. Strongly committed to his community, Tom gave freely and often of his time and talents. He was frequently a gifted master of ceremonies for many community functions. One prominent businessman described, ``The guy was into giving back to the community. That was his ethic. He wasn't afraid to put his time and effort into helping people.'' Feted as both a business and community leader, nonetheless family was first and foremost to Tom Hart. To his wife, Kathleen, his children Sheila, Mary Lynn, Michael, and Timothy, and nine grandchildren, he leaves a legacy of love and commitment. May their memories of this strong, self-willed, self-made man, devoted husband, father, and grandfather, shine through to sustain them.