Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci). (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the fighter for justice.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to enter into the record, because the staff gets so little recognition and just reading their names does not seem to be enough, but I do have to say we have the best staff in the Congress on this subcommittee. To Tim Sanders, our hat is off to him, to Sally Chadbourne, to Bobbi Jeanquart, to John Ziolkowski, to Martin Delgado and Jim Richards. I thank them very much for helping America help our people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. There is no harder fighter in our country for the needs of farmers and ranchers, including dairy farmers in his own state.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that, again, we urge our colleagues to vote for this bill. For those who are anxious to catch their planes to go home, let me say that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman and I, did not select this period in which to debate our bill. We were given this time. We feel that it is an important bill. We apologize to the Members who missed their 4 o'clock flights. It was not our choice to go up before the Committee on Rules this afternoon. I can say this, and the gentleman cannot. We ask for the Members' support of our bill.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Just this week Levi Strauss announced the layoff of 6,395 U.S. workers at 11 plants. Kodak has announced plans to lay off up to 14,000 workers, and hundreds of workers at Huffy Bicycle in Celina, Ohio have just gotten the pink slip. By voting no on extending fast track authority today, this House has the opportunity to redefine U.S. trade negotiating policy from one which gives away the store to one which establishes an international trade regime of fair and reciprocal trade with our trade competitors. Just look at the evidence on agriculture. The consultation provisions included in this bill have no practical effect. They mean nothing. Just with our NAFTA trading partners on this continent, what had been a surplus has now turned into a $2 billion negative balance, adversely impacting our agricultural trade sector. Existing trade agreements adversely affect U.S. farmers by lack of inspection on food safety, surges in agriculture imports, an inadequate trade dispute resolution system, and no way to hedge currency fluctuations. Overall since the Trade Act of 1974, where fast track was first approved, our trade deficit has moved from $9 billion to $220 billion. Vote no on fast track. Stand up for the U.S. standard of living. By voting no on every Fast Track authority today, the House has the opportunity to redefine U.S. trade negotiating policy--from one which gives away the store--to one that establishes an international trade regime of fair and reciprocal trade agreements between our nation and our trading competitors. Look at the evidence on agriculture provisions: The consultation provisions in the modifications made to H.R. 2621 in regard to agriculture issues have no practical effect. Just with our NAFTA trading partners, what has been a surplus imports rose by $3 billion and exports by only $1 billion--a $2 billion negative impact on our agricultural trade balance. Take the Florida tomato industry, for instance. In 1991, Florida had 300 tomato producers. In 1995, there were only 75. The problems existing trade agreements have created that adversely affect U.S. farmers include: Lack of inspection of food imports; Surges in agricultural imports; An inadequate trade dispute resolution system; and Currency fluctuations. Overall, since the Trade Act of 1974, implementation of fast track, the U.S. has suffered a negative merchandise trade balance. From $9 billion in 1976 to an estimated $220 billion in 1998. The problem is not trade but our trade policy. Our trade policy serves the needs of nominally American multinational corporations whose business visions and plans are global in scope and which maintain no national allegiance. Our trade policy has failed America's small businesses families, America's working families, and America's consumers. When a multinational conglomerate moves a factory overseas, the local grocery doesn't go with it. The auto parts store loses its customers. Small supplier companies lost their customer. American small business hurts. Real wages for American working people have fallen since 1973. Consumers pay as much for an Arrow shirt made in Thailand as for the same shirt made in the U.S. Fast Track is not required for good trade agreements. It is required to get bad trade deals through Congress. This Administration has negotiated 220 plus trade agreements without fast track. The fast track bill we consider today actually puts limits on the President's negotiating options rather than giving him a free hand to negotiate. Our trade balance with MERCOSUR countries has steadily improved since 1990 (from -$3.2 billion to +$9.2 billion in 1996) without a free trade agreement. MERCOSUR countries have an average tariff of 14%. China is touted as the great new market for American exports. The average annual income in China is $2,200. China has many tariffs on consumer goods of 40% or higher. Imports to China have to survive an obstacle course of non-tariff barriers including import regulations that are not even published. China demands technology transfers to accompany the importation of high-value-added goods in order to develop domestic competition. NAFTA's promises have proved illusory. Our trade surplus with Mexico has become a $16 billion trade deficit. NAFTA has eliminated 400,000 job opportunities in the U.S. The labor and environmental side agreements have provide toothless and unworkable. Just this week Levi Strauss announced the layoff of 6,395 workers at 11 plants and Kodak has announced plans to lay off up to 14,000 U.S. workers; 100's at Huffy Bicycle in Celina, Ohio. NAFTA has failed Mexico. The Mexican standard of living has been cut by 50% Maquiladoras have increased not decreased and their employees live in squalor. Most U.S. exports to Mexico turn around and come back as imports. The Mexican market for U.S. exports has been a disappointment. The solution is a U.S. trade policy that demands reciprocal treatment of labor and environmental issues on a par with market access and tariff issues. Vote no on fast track!!!

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for this opportunity, and also our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). With all of the rumors and the swirling of media events here in Washington, I think it is important to say something about these 2 individuals who have worked so well together. They do not always agree, but they produced a bill; some may agree with it, some may not agree. But it is an example of Congress working at its best and we need to pat them on the back for that and thank them. I also wanted to rise today and pay tribute to one of our colleagues who just walked off the floor here for a few minutes and to extend my personal gratitude to him on behalf of this institution, myself and our country, and that is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), truly a high-minded gentleman, someone with extraordinary intelligence and the gentlemanly demeanor that is so welcome. He has an incisive knowledge of the rules, and demonstrates truly gracious behavior in every single instance in which we have had a chance to deal with him. I am sorry he is not here, and I know he would be very embarrassed by all of these laudatory remarks. But he has been such a valued colleague to serve with and a rare talent that has raised this institution's standing as representative of our people. In fact, the standard that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) set raised America and our people always. I know that our country and this House, and certainly this Member, will sorely miss his presence in future meetings of this subcommittee. He has been an unforgettable Member with whom to serve. And if only in my own career, and I am sure other Members feel this way, we could model ourselves on him, America would be so much better for it.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Members to please support our motion to instruct in order to assure that the farmers and the ranchers of this country in many cases are allowed to plant a crop, to move their livestock, to keep this country whole in its economy and moving forward.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my motion to instruct conferees on this agricultural appropriations bill, and fundamentally this motion would require the conferees on H.R. 4101, which is the 1999 appropriations bill for agriculture and related agencies, to agree to the language in the Senate bill which provides funding for agricultural disaster assistance, including reserve inventories, and designates that assistance as emergency spending without offsets. Mr. Speaker, there is a real crisis facing most American farmers and rural communities today, and many have been unduly affected by the drought and other extreme and unusual weather conditions. Some are suffering the impact of crop disease, and others have been impacted by falling farm prices and an increasing inability to obtain credit. While the rest of the country may be experiencing economic recovery, thousands of farm and ranch families and the communities that depend on them have been left behind. But the current farm crisis is one that will eventually touch every American, rural and urban, if we do not address this problem and this set of circumstances immediately. The Senate agriculture appropriation bill provides a total of $521 million in emergency spending to begin to assist farmers in addressing this crisis. My motion does not address the adequacy of the funding level. That provision was added in July before the true extent of the summer drought and its impact on crops and livestock could be known. The appropriate funding level is something that we on the Committee on Appropriations will be discussing with the administration, with the authorizing committee and the Members most impacted by this crisis as we move to completion of this appropriations conference. But my motion does address the designation of the funding provided to assist farmers in crisis as emergency spending, as defined under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, with no offsetting reductions in other areas. This has symmetry with the Senate bill. I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that the Congress has been offsetting emergency spending since 1994 and that this emergency should be treated no differently than the other supplemental spending bills we have passed. Well, it seems to us that we have found a way to bend these self-imposed rules on offsets in selected emergencies. We have done so in the supplemental appropriation bill passed last year. We offset only domestic emergency spending, not the defense-related emergency spending included in that bill. Surely our Nation's farmers are as deserving of emergency assistance and designation, particularly this year, as have been our military forces in prior years, and the offsets used for the earlier domestic supplemental bills were primarily funds from the HUD section 8 housing program, funding which we will eventually need to pay back in that program to ensure adequate low-income housing for low-income citizens, particularly the elderly who need this program. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to addressing funding for natural disasters and other emergencies. It is time to abandon the so-called budget shell games and face our responsibilities and address the real emergencies facing our country today. Mr. Speaker, this farm emergency is real. Several of my colleagues who are here on the floor have districts more directly impacted by this crisis, and I will be pleased to yield to them so that they can discuss the severity of this crisis and the immediate impact on their constituents. I ask that the House support this motion to instruct conferees and send a message to America's farmers that we recognize the impact of this farm crisis, that we recognize the contributions that farmers and ranchers make to this country's economic success and the well-being of our families and that we are going to act in a responsible way to assure that they get the assistance they need to get beyond this crisis and continue to ensure the productivity of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who has worked as hard as any Member, harder than most Members in this Congress on this particular issue.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to note again that the motion to instruct does not set a dollar level. There was a reference by the prior speaker of $521 million. The motion to instruct does not address the adequacy of the funding level. All it does is says that this assistance should be in the form of emergency spending as in past supplemental bills that have dealt with defense, for example. So it does not set a level. Let me also place on the record if I might some of the figures that have been given to us from various States in the union. For example, in the State of Georgia, where the farmers and ranchers have been subjected to freezes, floods, and now drought through much of last year and this year, farmgate losses there are estimated to be three-quarters of a billion dollars, over $767 million as estimated by the University of Georgia extension economists. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) talked a lot about the losses in North Dakota. I know that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) will shortly be addressing the Minnesota situation and the Red River Valley in general. But the amount of flooded acres are at historic levels over several years with the compounding factor of wheat Scab there and of course record low prices that are even putting a further downdraft on farm income and productivity in all of these places. If we look across the country, USDA, as well as private forecasters, are not expecting price conditions to do any better for the near future due to freezes, floods, droughts, hurricanes, fires and for sure the Asian financial crisis which is affecting our markets and our ability to sell. We know that up to a quarter of the farmers in many States will not get financing to put in a crop this fall or next spring and bankers are calling in and asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide assistance. So this is not a problem that is diminishing. This is a problem that appears to be growing as we move through 1998. Texas losses already are at over $2 billion as our esteemed colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) have reminded us. We have drought currently spreading from the southwest up to parts of Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas; in the southeast all the way to Virginia where over 400,000 acres are affected by drought. We have fires in Florida. We have seen those on television and even floods in my own home State in Ohio as well as Michigan. So this is a national problem that demands a national solution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge). I thank the gentleman so very much for coming down and for his leadership throughout this past year on these issues of concern to our farmers and ranchers.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time on both sides, please.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). I know that the pain and suffering that is being borne by farm families in that region of the country is particularly acute, and we want to commend the gentleman from Texas for his leadership and for his willingness to come down here today and help us on that measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to place in the Record communications that have been sent to this House from the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Mr. Dean Kleckner, where the federation met with the task force representing 10 different State Farm Bureau Presidents to consider the situation that is facing rural America. I would like to include their report in the Record, but I just wanted to quote one section here, which indicates that net farm income is projected to fall by over $7 billion this year, and the level of a $500 million disaster allocation will not begin to address this shortfall. They are asking Congress to focus on immediate remedies to redress producers, and given the magnitude of the agricultural economic problem, emergency supplemental funding of several billion dollars is justified. I think in view of the Farm Bureau's position over past years, this is quite a significant statement, and we appreciate their hard work in helping us resolve this situation for our producers across the country. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the correspondence just referred to in my statement. American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC, September 11, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, The Speaker, House of Representatives, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I recently appointed a task force of 10 state Farm Bureau presidents to consider the economic situation facing agriculture and to make recommendations regarding legislative and administrative changes necessary to increase farm income. The task force filed its report, and the leadership of the American Farm Bureau Federation wholeheartedly approved those recommendations. The attached report outlines the priorities that Farm Bureau believes need to be implemented to increase farm income and agricultural exports. When producers agreed to support the FAIR Act in 1996, Congress assured them that its passage would be accompanied by regulatory reform, tax changes, private property protection, and trade policies designed to improve our global competitiveness. These commitments have not been met, thus exacerbating the current farm crisis. I urge you to take immediate action to help alleviate the crisis currently facing farmers and ranchers. Sincerely, Dean Kleckner, President. Report of the Committee on the Farm Economy, September 11, 1998, Bob Stallman, Chairman When producers agreed to support the FAIR Act in 1996, they were assured by Congress that its passage would be accompanied by regulatory reform, tax changes, private property protection and trade policies designed to improve global competitiveness and increase foreign markets. These commitments have not been met thus exacerbating the current farm crisis. Farm Bureau has long been a proponent of balancing the budget and the ``pay as you go'' concept of offsetting increased spending with reductions elsewhere in the budget. However, the failure of Congress to fulfill its commitments necessitates immediate restitution by requesting emergency supplemental funding to assist producers facing depressed prices and/or weather-related disasters. Farm Bureau firmly believes that current low price are not due to the failure of the FAIR Act. Instead, they are reflective of the failure to compete aggressively in foreign markets due to government restrictions and the inability or unwillingness of the Administration and Congress to fulfill their promise to open foreign markets for U.S. producers. With 96 percent of the customers living outside U.S. borders, these failures cannot be allowed to continue. In the limited time prior to adjournment, Congress must focus on the agricultural issues which will immediately aid producers suffering through disasters and low prices, as well as trade issues where the impact may not be immediate--but if ignored until the next Congress--will adversely affect the agricultural economy for years to come. The problems facing agriculture are diverse--low commodity prices, crop disaster losses, livestock feed losses, and export market barriers that have reduced overseas markets. A ``one size solution won't fit all.'' Therefore, the proposed solutions address each of the problems individually. Giving that background, Congress and the Administration must focus on the following agricultural priorities: Short Term needs Supplemental crop insurance payments A crop disaster assistance program must be implemented. The $500 million in emergency funding included in the Senate agricultural appropriations bill is insufficient. It is imperative that any disaster assistance be implemented in a way that maintains the integrity of the crop insurance program. We must avoid sending a signal to producers that discourages them from further participation in the program. The crop insurance program is so inflexible it cannot be adjusted to unique situations. It is incapable of responding to multi-year disasters and leaves producers unable to insure crops at a reasonable level. Supplemental crop insurance payments must be made for those suffering from disasters. Payments should not be limited to those suffering from multi- year disasters. Sanctions Indemnity Program Unilateral trade sanctions are costing American farmers access to critical markets. Those lost markets have caused poor market prices and reduced sales volume. Program and minor crop producers must be compensated for those lost markets via direct funding. Sanctions Indemnity Payments should not be restricted by any payment limitations. Unilateral sanctions have become the weapons of the moment to address actions by our trading partners when the U.S. disagrees with some action they take. There is no record of unilateral sanctions producing anything favorable from either an economic or political standpoint. They simply shut U.S. producers out of needed markets. Our competitors are only too happy to sell in these markets. The U.S. earns the reputation as a unreliable supplier when sanctions are imposed. There currently are about 120 unilateral trade sanctions in place. Over half of those have been implemented during the last four years. It is estimated that over 11 percent of the world's wheat market lies outside the reach of U.S. producers. Changes to the FAIR Act Congress must avoid abandoning the market-based policies of the FAIR Act. Producers are reallocating their resources in a more efficient manner than the government could ever dictate. The loan program is intended as a method to lessen pressure to sell at harvest time and spread sales throughout the marketing year. It is a marketing tool for producers, not an income support program. Raising commodity loan rates or extending the loan period should be discouraged. Such action would be a clear signal to our competitors that once again we are willing to forego our markets and guarantee sales to them. It is a short term fix that has grave longer term economic implications. Any possible short term gains will be obliterated by storage cost, lower prices when the loans ultimately come due and the loss of world market share. Both farm producers and taxpayers would lose. Disaster Feed Assistance Program Funding is needed for some type of assistance to livestock producers suffering weather related disasters. Congress should fund a Disaster Reserve Assistance Program or Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program to reimburse those producers who have experienced disaster related losses for a substantial portion of the cost of purchasing feed.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out, one of the previous speakers expressed some concerns about the budget. I just want to say that of all the subcommittees in this House, this Subcommittee on Agriculture has taken more cuts, has laid off more people, over 10,000 at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has consolidated more offices at the local level, has had to cap research dollars below levels at which we would prefer to fund them. We have had to cut back on our trade promotion programs at a time when we are having trouble with exports. If we look at the choices that we have had to make, there has been no more responsible committee or subcommittee in this Congress than this Subcommittee on Agriculture. If one is concerned about attempting to deal with balancing the budget, we have done more than our fair share. I would hope that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), in trying to find a true answer to this, could look across accounts, including to some of the accounts that are outside the jurisdiction of this committee. This is an issue that the Committee on the Budget should have dealt with. We do not have a budget resolution this year. Why should the farmers and ranchers of this country be asked to pay the price of the Committee on the Budget inside this Congress that did not do its job? It just seems to me that we have taken the hits, substantial hits in this committee at a time when rural America is crying out to us for attention. It would be a travesty not to meet our public obligations to the people who are producing the real wealth of this country simply because some procedural group inside this Congress, not this subcommittee, and not this full committee, did not do their job. So, I think we have a higher calling here today with this motion to instruct. We welcome the gentleman's support and ideas as we move forward here. But, please, understand what is going on on this budget situation. It is not the work of this subcommittee, nor the full committee, nor in fact the Committee on Agriculture of this Congress, but other problems that we are facing in other venues here. There is no reason we could penalize the farmers and ranchers of this country because of the inaction of some elements of this institution and the other body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who has been such a leader on trying to get assistance to our farmers and ranchers. (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to time remaining.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sophie Madej, a remarkable woman, a Polish-American from Chicago who recently closed the doors to her neighborhood diner, The Busy Bee Restaurant. Ms. Madej's Busy Bee was a beloved community gathering place for 33 years. Ms. Madej purchased the restaurant in 1965, fourteen years after she courageously immigrated to the United States from Germany. Her country of birth was Poland though, a land which she was forced to flee in 1943 due to the Nazi's labor laws. Ms. Madej, who recently turned seventy on July 5, plans on visiting her homeland during her retirement. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I submit today, for the record, an article from The Chicago Sun-Times that acknowledges the work of Sophie Madej and the closing of her Busy Bee Restaurant. Although, the Busy Bee will be missed, all of those who dined there will have many lasting memories. May I wish Ms. Madej continued happiness and success.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge The Neighborhood Improvement Foundation of Toledo, Inc., commonly referred to NIFTI, on its recent selection as a Citationist for the 1998 President's Service Awards. Awarded from a pool of approximately 3,600 nominations, NIFTI was one of thirty chosen for this prestigious recognition. Organized in 1957, NIFTI's mission over the past 41 years has been to improve the quality of life in the Toledo metropolitan area through cleanup, beautification efforts, and by encouraging environmental awareness. NIFTI's role as a community organizer and activist has provided Toledo residents with a voice along with a viable means to eliminate urban blight, making our city a cleaner and safer place to live and work. NIFTI volunteers, numbering in the thousands, are a collaboration of concerned individuals, corporations, local government and other community organizations. NIFTI, through its various programs, encourages volunteerism in both the adult and youth populations. In addition, NIFTI has effectively promoted neighborhood responsibility in the central city. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to thank NIFTI for all of its positive contributions to the city of Toledo. NIFTI's efforts toward solving serious social ills are representative of the spirit of community service that has made our nation and my congressional district a better place to live. To the Neighborhood Improvement Foundation of Toledo, Inc., congratulations on being named a recipient of such a noble award.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, we all know the name Russell Weston, Jr., and we all know that he tragically took the lives of two fine Americans, Officers Jacob J. Chestnut and John Gibson. But many Americans still do not know that this tragedy could have been avoided, not by installing even more security here, but by improving the state of health care available to the seriously mentally ill among our citizens. The state of psychiatric care in our country has spawned growing homelessness, more neglect, as well as increasing violence since deinstitutionalization of mental patients occurred over 2 decades ago with no community follow-up. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and I are working hard to establish a special House task force on serious mental illness. This task force would be responsible for examining the state of our mental health system, especially those who are not being adequately treated. This task force would gather testimony about what America can and should do. Please support our effort to establish a task force on mental illness. Contact the leadership. Urge them to move so we can begin to repair the tattered dreams of millions of American families.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Act. This has truly been a classic ``David-versus-Goliath'' confrontation between widely different interests. The ``Davids'' in this instance are the thousands of not-for-profit small credit unions throughout the nation, such as Little Flower Parish Federal Credit Union in Toledo. Little Flower has 1,700 members, with total assets of $5 million. I'm proud to be one of those members. This is a confrontation that pits member-owned credit unions that are not-for-profit cooperatives against banks that often place the interests of shareholders and profits over and above the need of consumers and communities. With higher fees becoming more prevalent and banking options shrinking for many consumers, there can be little doubt that credit unions have helped to keep banks in check by being viable financial alternatives for millions of Americans. America's consumers will now be guaranteed more options and alternatives when it comes to conducting their financial business and transactions. As was stated in an editorial in the Toledo Blade earlier this year, ``Credit unions are about local folks helping local folks.'' I'll continue to support the ``local folks'' who place community and family over profits only and will continue to fully support America's credit unions and the rights of all Americans to join and belong to their local credit union. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1151 is right for all Americans.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. That is correct. We lift that out and we table the remainder of the bill. The gentleman was saying and the gentlewoman from New York was saying that Chrysler Corporation employees could not contribute or people should not be allowed to contribute. We agree that U.S. citizens should be allowed to contribute. This amendment, as modified, has nothing to do with that. All it provides is for disclosure as we do with U.S. contributions that are currently flowing into campaigns. We are saying that we want to create a clearinghouse at the FEC for all these donations. We will do that by recording existing information from the Lobbying Disclosure Act, from the Foreign Agents Administration.