Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield that 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) to control.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in opposition to this amendment, though I think it has some very good intentions, and it will no doubt cause discussion inside the Wildlife Service offices across this country. Nonetheless, it is the only Federal program that we have to control damage by wild animals, not just to farm property but to individuals. I can think in my own State of Ohio, for example, this program, in cooperation with our State and local agencies, has been involved in establishing a rabies-free barrier to stop the western migration of raccoons infected with rabies. We have seen this program operate hand in hand with the Centers for Disease Control and State health departments in control of other disease such as Lyme disease and other wildlife-borne disease. I know I am amazed myself sometimes, I live in a city, to watch city dwellers try to encourage deer to come up to their back doors, wild animals. Lyme disease all through our part of the country, and yet they do not see a connection between their behavior and the feeding that they are doing of wild animals. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important program. According to Utah State University, their Institute for Wildlife Biology, overall in our country losses from wildlife damage approach $3 billion annually and fully one-third of that is estimated by the Federal Aviation Administration to be lost by the airline industry from birds. Today, this particular amendment I think, though it is well- intentioned, would have the net effect of cutting by almost one-quarter the amount of funds we have to spend on animal damage control of our crops and of our populations. If we take a look at the impact of this program, more than two-thirds of our Nation's farms receive some type of wildlife damage each year. Commodity crops absorb staggering losses from wildlife. These include corn, rice, sunflower, carrots, wheat, sorghum and other seed grain crops. If we look at ducks and geese who trample, eat, and soil seed and grain crops, young growing crops such as carrots, rice and corn. Deer and smaller mammals eat corn, wheat, decorative shrubbery, sorghum, and garden vegetables. Black bears damage timber resources by clawing the bark of young trees and disrupting the flow of nutrients necessary for proper growth. And fish-eating birds such as the great blue heron, cormorants, pelicans, and the black-crowned night heron cause aquaculturists, especially catfish and trout farmers, heavy losses each year. There is not pure right on either side of this equation. But there is a balance which we are trying to strike here. I think that wildlife services very often provides the only viable assistance in minimizing these losses both to plant life, to other animal life, and to human life. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) are very wise in trying to encourage modern practices at the Wildlife Service. If there are better ways to deal with these wildlife populations, we certainly should be taking the best research and information into account. I think the message has been heard loud and clear and we hope that that message will continue. But I do think that these predator control programs are very, very important. Especially living in an area that is both urban and rural, we see this all the time. So I would object to this particular amendment and would share the view of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) that it is important that we keep the funding in the base bill and that we act responsibly to try to maintain levels for a balanced wildlife services program in our country.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that statement, but it appears by this 2 hours of debate now that certain people must not have been talked to, and we should not have been presenting a bill like this which has such a controversial provision in it. I would hope that, in listening to what has happened here, that perhaps some of these other interests could be accommodated and listened to down the road. But this is atypical of the rest of the bill.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise today and commend my good friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for his leadership in helping put this bill together, and all the members of our subcommittee who have worked so very, very hard over the last several months. There are other provisions in this bill that we also need to acknowledge many of our members. We want to thank the Committee on Rules for allowing several provisions to be included in the base bill that are self-executing concerning the civil rights provisions as well as lifting the sanctions in terms of food for Pakistan. We want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) in that regard, as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who worked so very hard along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) York on the civil rights provisions in the bill, along with the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney). We are grateful to all these members and so many more who helped us craft a good bill. I want to state that without question this particular measure helps keep our Nation at the leading edge for food, fiber, fuel and forest production as well as research, trade and food safety. The jurisdiction of this subcommittee is very broad. There is no question that agriculture is America's leading industry and that our farmers and our agricultural industries remain the most productive in the world, and they well understand, as we do, how difficult it is to maintain our nation's commitment to excellence in agriculture in these tight budgetary times. Our bill contains $56.1 billion for 1999 in total budget authority, of which $13.6 billion is for discretionary programs and $42.5 billion is in mandatory programs which we have very little ability to influence. Our bill is $2.2 billion below the administration's budget request, and in fact over two-thirds of our bill's spending is directed in the mandatory area, largely the nutrition programs like our school lunch and breakfast programs as well as the Food Stamp Program. Those comprise nearly two-thirds, 70 percent, of what is in this bill. We believe this bill is as balanced a bill as we could get to try to accommodate our farmers, the needs of food and drug safety, the needs of rural development in communities across this country as well as protecting the safety of consumers and those in our population who are most nutritionally and medically at risk. Our committee has fashioned a bill that is the best possible bill within the allocation it has been dealt, and I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for being gracious and treating both sides of the aisle evenhandedly. I appreciate his bipartisanship and his sensitivity to balancing the burden of these tight funding levels between various constituencies served by this bill. I would be remiss if I did not point out, however, that the funding levels are simply inadequate for several of our most critically important programs in the bill, beginning with food safety, but also including WIC, the Women, Infants and Children's feeding program, all of our rural conservation programs, our youth tobacco prevention initiative and our rural water and sewer, as well as the temporary emergency feeding programs serving so many of our food kitchens and food banks. Without an additional allocation of resources, we continue to betray our commitment to American farmers, and to all consumers who benefit from the bounty that they produce. For example, let us go through some of these shortcomings. As hard as we tried, we were unable to fully accommodate the requests for food safety in this bill, which provides only $15 million of the additional funds requested by the President, who asked for $95 million additional funds for the food safety initiative. In the WIC program, so important to pregnant women and children across this country, the funding level is frozen in the bill at the 1998 level of $3.9 billion, which is $157 million below the President's budget request. This freeze level could mean the reduction of up to a few hundred thousand additional women, infants and children who will not be able to be served by WIC. In the youth tobacco prevention area, the bill includes $34 million for the President's tobacco initiative. However, the President had requested $100 million over that level, a level of $134 million for the Food and Drug Administration. We could not accommodate that full request. On the important conservation programs for our farmers, the primary source of technical assistance to producers and landowners are funded at $784.4 million, but this is $5 million below last year's level and $51.9 million below the President's budget request. This bill makes further reductions in critical mandatory conservation programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which is called EQIP, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. In addition, this bill includes no funding for the farmland protection program, because it has not been authorized. These lands are absolutely irreplaceable as a world resource, and it is really sad that in this measure we cannot include continuation of appropriations in that program because the authorizers have not brought that bill forward. In terms of TEFAP, the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, there is a $10 million reduction in this mandatory program compared to last year. It is under this program that we distribute commodities to individuals greatly in need of assistance. Demand for food assistance at our food banks and soup kitchens is increasing due to the implementation of welfare reform, and I would hope as we move toward conference, that we might be able to find a way at least to keep this program at last year's level, fully aware that the increased demand is occurring in food banks across this country. In terms of rural water and sewer, while we appreciate the increase of $39.5 million for direct water and sewer loans, we are concerned that this amount simply is not enough. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has told us that over $2.5 billion in backlog remains in the water and sewer program, and we must be able in future years to find additional funding to meet these critical needs for affordable water and sewer necessary to improve the life in our rural areas. Mr. Chairman, those who serve farmers and work with agriculture are taught over and over again that there is a big difference between money and wealth. Our job on this Committee on Agriculture is to help create the wealth of America through the investments we make in food, fiber, new fuels and forestry production, all essential components. Market-oriented farm policy means farming for the market and not the government, and requires investments in research and conservation and sustainability, in education and technology transfer, which will keep our agriculture competitive as we move into the new century. Traditional farm programs under this bill and in the past continue to receive a decreasing portion of Federal support and, in my view, we should be targeting our scarce agricultural dollars to family farmers, especially those who are smaller, to assure competition in an industry now dominated by megagiants. In recent decades, we have slowly eroded the historic base of American agriculture, the family farmer, moving more in the direction of giant corporate farms. It is kind of interesting to look at the numbers in the area of agriculture trade. We have to work hard to keep our edge in the international marketplace. As American agricultural exports grow and weather the volatile global markets, foreign agricultural exports are being shipped to the United States in greater magnitude. Since the early 1980s, U.S. agricultural exports initially declined from a level of about $43 billion to a low of $26 billion in 1986, and then hit a record level of $60 billion in exports in 1996. While that looks great in terms of overall dollar value, the fact is that the price per bushel to the average farmer has not really gone up, but in fact they are having to sell greater volumes and try to farm greater acreage in order just to meet the income levels they were able to achieve in the past. In many cases, products that our own farmers grow and process are being replaced by imports coming into our shores. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to express my appreciation again to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for putting together the best bill that we could under the circumstances that we were dealt. Let me remind our colleagues that the agriculture portion of Federal spending has taken more than its fair share of cuts in these past several years. Discretionary funding for this coming year is $130 million below comparable spending of last year, but total amounts provided under this bill, both in the mandatory and discretionary accounts, have declined by almost 30 percent, by one-third, since 1994. It is clear that agriculture, rural development and nutritional programs continue to bear more than their fair share of overall budget reductions. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time. I want to acknowledge the hardworking members of our staff, certainly Mr. Tim Sanders, Sally Chadbourne, Bobbie Jeanquart, and John Ziolkowski have served us so very well during this process and we want to thank them very, very much for doing the very best job they could for our country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) that I do not think that there is a Member of this institution on either side of the aisle and in either Chamber who is more dedicated and more fervent and more committed to serving the needs of hungry people in our country and in other countries than is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). We have tried very, very hard and done the best that we could to the moment in this bill we are bringing to the floor to deal with the emergency needs across this country in our feeding kitchens. We know that they are there, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has made us more aware of these needs. I could not let the moment go by without recognizing him and his dedication to this cause. On the merits, he is absolutely correct. I know that this is the case in our State of Ohio, with all of the changes made in welfare reform, and I understand the pressures that our chairman was under as we tried to mark and cut and trim and do everything we could to produce a bill that satisfied across the board. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) that I will work very hard, as we move toward conference, with him and with our chairman and with the conferees to try to see if we cannot do better than we have done to this point. One of the changes that we did make in the bill was to provide greater administrative flexibility to the States in the administration of the $135 million that is in the measure for these programs. This should free up some commodities to food banks. It is still not enough, but we would hope that the States and the Governors would pay particular attention to these changes. That does not solve the gentleman's problem, which is the gross amount included for this account. I wanted to give the gentleman an opportunity to expand on his earlier statements, if he wishes at this point.

Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Congressman for being so vigilant on this particular request for plant genome sequencing at Loyola University of Chicago. No one has been a stronger advocate in this Congress than has the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). We will work with him as this legislative process moves forward, and urge the gentleman to also consider pursuing funding in the National Science Foundation plant genome initiative. But we will continue to work with the gentleman.

Ms. KAPTUR. That is correct.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule allowing consideration of H.R. 4101, the Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. This rule allows for the orderly consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill. It waives points of order against unauthorized programs in the bill. The rule also self-executes an amendment that waives the statute of limitations for minority farmers who have complaints against the Department of Agriculture for discriminatory actions that occurred in the past. This language has been cleared with the Judiciary Committee and the Administration, and we support its inclusion in this bill. The amendment self-enacted by the rule also provides the necessary offsets for scoring against the bill resulting from both the lan- guage providing relief to minority farmers and the scoring created by the provision excluding agricultural exports from sanctions against India and Pakistan. Again, I support this rule and the amendment it provides for. My only disappointment is that the rule did not make in order an amendment by Congresswoman Lowey which would provide for civil penalties to be used a tool against meat and poultry plants which violate food safety laws. I support the efforts of the gentlelady from New York on behalf of American consumers, and will work with her to ensure the enactment of that provision. Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Agriculture Appropriations Bill. I thank my colleagues on the Rules Committee, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this opportunity because I will be offering amendments later in the month concerning foreign contributions to U.S. campaigns, and I respect my colleague from Ohio and his desire to preserve the rights of U.S. citizens regardless of where they work to participate in our political system. But I have to say to both the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) that sometimes what appears is not always everything that should appear in the offering of an amendment, and I think, as we move through this bill, there may be the opportunity to refine some of the concepts in the amendment currently on the floor from other issues that also bear on the subject of national interest versus any purely private interest. And I think under our laws it is pretty clear that U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens and that we have a problem in this country in foreign money infecting U.S. campaigns on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, we have seen what has happened when millions and millions of dollars manages to come into this country either as independent expenditures or for various candidates not being disclosed properly, and in some cases, even though the law says foreign citizens shall not contribute, in fact they end up contributing because the disclosure requirements for foreign contributions are not kept in a separate category at the FEC. This issue is not as simple as it first appears on the surface, and so I would say with all due respect to my colleague from Ohio, though I respect the right of individual Americans to contribute to campaigns, I draw the line where in fact those contributions are coming from foreign interests. I do not care who those foreign interests are, this is a nationally sovereign country, and we should be able to safeguard the election processes inside our nation. Now let me draw an example for those of us who served during this period of time when Toshiba Company through a subsidiary in northern Europe gave away U.S. submarine technology to the then Soviet state, and if I were asked if I think Toshiba should be able to contribute to U.S. elections, I would say absolutely not. Their ability to try to subvert the rightful penalties that they should have paid for that incredible act against this country and our national security should not have been rewarded by allowing that corporation to participate in any way in the U.S. political process. Now for their employees, for their employees to be able to participate as U.S. citizens they should be able to participate in their elections if they wish to support a candidate absolutely. But there are serious problems with the way in which foreign contributions are booked and with the way in which records are kept at the FEC. I have studied this now for almost 10 years. I know this issue inside and out. So I would just say that I would vote present on the proposal offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) if it were brought to a full vote here. I would encourage the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to work with us as we try to get equal disclosure on foreign contributions into the elections in this country and to try to draw a very clear line here on what we are talking about. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between U.S. citizens and foreign interest participating in U.S. elections.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) very much, and I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for alerting me to the fact that this amendment would be discussed, and we look forward to working with the gentleman as our amendment comes up on the floor.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lifetime of contributions that Mr. Jack Sizemore has made to our community and district. On this, the occasion of his retirement, I wish to thank this tireless advocate for the workers and families of our community for his ardent support of our district and Northwest Ohio. The position from which he is retiring, Director of Region 2-B of the United Auto Workers Union and member of the UAW International Executive Board, represents the pinnacle of a long and dedicated career. Born and educated in Toledo, at Whitener High School. The University of Toledo, Mr. Sizemore went to work as a precision grinder in the same Dana Corporation plant that employed his father producing heavy-duty transmissions. He wasted no time becoming involved in the union, UAW Local 12, and won election as a steward in the Dana Unit one year after beginning his employment. Three years later, he was elected as a member of the unit's shop committee and a UAW Convention delegate. When the UAW Dana National Negotiating Committee was founded in 1967, Mr. Sizemore was on board as a member. He participated in national bargaining with the committee until 1974. He was also Vice President of the UAW Dana Council and Chairperson of the Dana Unit Shop Committee during that same time. Before being elected as Director of UAW Region 2-B in 1986, he served as International Representative and Assistant Director. Throughout his career he has fought for the Herment of The standard of living for all our citizenry. Mr. Sizemore's presence has not been limited to the labor community. He has given his time and energy in the education, sports and business circles of Toledo. He is a member of the University of Toledo Board of Trustees, the Private Industry council of Toledo, the Board of Trustees of the United Way and St. Vincent Hospital, to name a few. He is also active in the Democratic party, serving on the State Executive Committee and Democratic National Committee. During all this service, he and his wife, Carol, have raised eight children and are enjoying the blessing of fifteen grandchildren. As he completes his tenure as dealership of the United Auto Workers, our entire community warmly congratulates him for his steady leadership and careful negotiating skills that have retained jobs, upgraded our way of life, and given strength to the cause of workers throughout our nation. Godspeed to Jack and Carol and their family in years hence

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of a distinguished scholar and civic activist, Dr. Arthur J. Naparstek. On Saturday, May 30, 1998, Dr. Naparstek will be joined by his family and friends to celebrate his 60th birthday. It gives me great pleasure to wish my dear friend, Arthur, a very happy birthday. Dr. Arthur J. Naparstek is a nationally recognized authority and leading theorist on community change and community organization. Since 1962 he has been extremely dedicated to improving the lives of those less fortunate by teaching others how to develop neighborhood strategies and coalitions to build stronger communities. Since 1983, Dr. Naparstek has been the Coyle Professor of Social Work at the School for Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland where he served as Dean for nearly a decade. As Director of the Cleveland Foundation Commission on Poverty from 1990 to 1993, Dr. Naparstek initiated the drafting of the commission's report which served as the basis for HUD's $2.6 billion Urban Revitalization Demonstration Act (HOPE VI). In July 1994, in recognition of his service to combat inner city poverty, President Clinton appointed Dr. Naparstek to the Board of Trustees of the Corporation for National Service. Throughout his career, he has been an innovator, a reformer, a new idea creator. His pathbreaking research and testimony before Congress helped lead to passage of significant national legislation including: The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, The Community Revitalization Act, and the National Neighborhood Commission. His writings are prolific and span a wide range of subject areas: Rethinking Poverty Through a Community-Building Approach Initiative; Neighborhood Networks for Humane Mental Health Care; and Community Building: New Strategies for Community Development. Arthur's unmatched commitment to community service is an example of a true American patriot as he remains extremely active in both the public and private sector. He has directed the Cleveland Foundation Commission on Poverty, worked with the National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs, the Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the White House Conference on Neighborhoods and many other civic organizations. Dr. Naparstek is also the author of numerous reports, articles, and books that address the importance of community building and development. Dr. Arthur Naparstek earned his doctorate from Brandeis University and his Master's Degree from New York University. He received his undergraduate degree from Illinois Wesleyan University. Dr. Naparstek is married to Belleruth, and they are the proud parents of Aaron, Keila, and Abram. Americans all across this country should tip their hats to Dr. Naparstek, a lifelong prophet empowering people in our urban corridors to overcome poverty and hopelessness. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to wish Dr. Arthur Naparstek--a rare and gifted talent--a very happy birthday. Mazel tov.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the many contributions that Emmanuel Baptist Church has made to my district during the past 100 years of existence. Founded as the Oakwood Baptist Church in 1898 and merged with Heston Street Baptist Church in 1911, the congregation moved to its current location, on Laskey Road, in 1961. The Church established a school in 1967 and grew, grade by grade, until a new high school building was built in 1978. This school can now be proud of an enrollment over 400. The Church ministers to community members of all ages; from a weekly club, AWANA, for preschool through sixth grade, to a part-time visitation pastor, Rev. Charles Vermilyea, who calls on those hospitalized or with special needs. Other ministries include Ladies Alone for widows, Shepherds Ministry for those mentally handicapped, and Campus Bible Fellowship for students at the University of Toledo. Their charity does not stop there, as 20% of the weekly offerings go to missionary endeavors. The activities of the Church also extend far beyond the boundaries of my district. In fact, this Anniversary celebration began with plans to build a new auditorium for a mission church in Crato, Brazil. Dozens of parishioners traveled to Brazil to assist in the building of the auditorium. The Emmanuel Baptist Church has been a meaningful part of our community for over 100 years, and we hope for just as many years to come. Let us offer prayer and honor to the members of Emmanuel Baptist Church just as they have offered prayer and honor to the members of our community for a century.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays- Meehan proposal as the first important step towards reform, the first important step. I have listened to these arguments about free speech. Well, if money is now equated with free speech, then lack of money is equated with lack of free speech. It makes sense to me. Let the American people be the judge. What we really do need is a constitutional amendment that will overturn Buckley versus Valeo. It is outdated. Think about this. In 1994 the average Member sitting here had to spend nearly $1 million when they were in competitive House races to hold onto their seats for a job that pays one-tenth as much. If they ran for the other body, the S-E-N-A-T-E, then they had to spend close to $4.5 million for a job that pays about $130,000 to $136,000 a year. Let the American people be the judge. In 1994, no House challenger won spending less than $100,000 in this Chamber for a job that pays $136,000. In 1996, the number of congressional candidates financing their campaigns with $100,000 or more of their own money was over 109 candidates. The American people are voting at all time lows. They know that the money changers are in the temple here. I would say to the people of New Hampshire and Iowa, they have enormous power to change this system. They should not let a single presidential candidate through their States until they are willing to agree to limits.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, yes, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because I really do not think it is the job of the Committee on Rules to thwart the will of the committees of this House, both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Appropriations. Because this rule, in fact, destroys the delicate balance that has been struck between key provisions in this bill. For example, as Dean Kleckner, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, says, the bill is very carefully crafted, balancing the needs of four communities: our research committee, those farmers that need crop insurance, food stamps for over 250,000 legal, and I underline legal, immigrants, and of course rural development. One of the other reasons to vote ``no'' on the rule is it actually is a budget buster because, in effect, the offsets that are included in the provisions that are struck leave us with $1.2 billion in additional deficit because of what has happened in the way the rule is crafted. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''. This is bad policy. It is bad procedure. And it undermines key agricultural interests across this nation.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Titanic Gingrich stall proceeding and the previous question as well as the rule. Mr. Speaker, throughout the recent history of the Rules Committee, no other major issue has ever been subjected to such a convoluted process as campaign finance reform is being accorded; By proposing no less than 11 substitutes, and currently considering nearly 600 amendments, a ``doomsday'' scenario is being presented to the American people; Previously, the Republican leadership blocked reform efforts, made promises for floor action and reneged and delayed, brought up meaningless legislation on the suspension calendar and made a mockery of the House. Today, the effort now is to kill reform by overloading the process; The Republican leadership is proposing an endless debate that will take us well into the summer, will result in no resolution, and will fail to bring about much needed reform; As our colleague Joe Moakley has said, ``We'll just go through a lot of motion and not get any action.'' [From the Washington Post, May 21, 1998] Raft of Campaign Finance Reform Plans May Mean Lengthy House Debate (By Helen Dewar) Rival camps in the fight over campaign finance legislation got the official go-ahead yesterday for a free-for-all on the issue in the House that could last well into summer. Under a procedure approved by the Rules Committee after a lengthy hearing, the House will begin debate today on a dozen plans, including alternative proposals to ban or sharply curtail the unregulated ``soft money'' donations to political parties at the heart of fund-raising abuses in the 1996 presidential campaign. No votes are anticipated until after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, and still to be determined by the committee is the problem of how to deal with an extraordinary load of amendments, including 586 that have been filed so far. Never in the history of the Rules Committee has it faced such a formidable load of amendments, said committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon R-N.Y.), who promised to prune the list to manageable proportions over the recess. He dismissed some lawmakers' complaints that the process could take all summer. ``It could but it won't,'' he said. Without interruption, the bill could be wound up in four days, he added. Only a couple of months ago, House Republican leaders resorted to extraordinary means to block votes on the leading proposals, including a total soft-money ban proposed by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) and a somewhat less stringent alternative proposed by a bipartisan group of freshmen. But their tactics created an uproar, and, in order to keep from losing control of the House on the issue, GOP leaders did a sudden about-face and opted for a wide-open process providing for votes on a multitude of plans and even more numerous amendments to them. As a result, the reform groups, once united in opposition to the leaders' tactics, are competing against each other, raising the possibility that none of the plans would get enough votes for passage--or that all of them would get bogged down in a struggle over amendments. Now it was Democratic leaders, as well as their Republican counterparts, who were getting caught in the squeeze. Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has been pushing for the Shays-Meehan bill, raised some hackles at a Democratic caucus Tuesday night when, according to several observers, he acknowledge without apparent disapproval that some Democrats would also support the freshmen's bill. At yesterday's hearing, several lawmakers expressed concern that the debate might be stretched out over weeks, with interruptions for other business, making it little more than ``filler'' to plug into open spaces in the schedule. Several also objected to allowing amendments to each of the plans as they come up for votes, instead of holding them in reserve for action on the final version, saying this could lead to lethal delays. ``We'll just go through a lot of motion and not [get] any action,'' said Rep. Joe Moakley (Mass.), ranking the committee's ranking Democrat.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of an educator in our community. A lifelong educator with the Toledo Public School system, Ben Williams will be feted at a retirement event that will also serve as a scholarship dinner in his honor on May 23, 1998 in Toledo. A product of the Toledo Public Schools himself, Ben began his career in 1968 at Woodward High School, where he taught general science and coached freshman boys basketball. Ben truly discovered his passion as a teacher and coach at Toledo's Scott High School in 1969, where he remained until retirement. While at Scott, he taught health education, became Chair of the Physical Education Department, and coached the junior varsity and varsity boys basketball teams. During his seventeen years as head coach, his teams have won an amazing ten City Championships, and last year, the Scott Bulldogs won the Ohio State Championship. No doubt, the Bulldogs with this victory expressed their appreciation to him for his lifelong dedication to them. Eight of the teams under his leadership have ranked among the top ten Ohio AAA teams. His accomplishments earned Ben the designation of AAA Boys Basketball Coach of the Year. Ben's success as a basketball coach has not been simply about fostering technical skills and teamwork on the basketball court. States a noted local sportscaster, ``While building the area's top basketball program at Scott, Ben has not let his players forget why they are in school. He not only insists on athletic achievement but academic efforts as well.'' Indeed, 90 percent of his players have gone on to college! Truly a mentor to his players, Ben puts his philosophy into action, explaining ``Most of our boys come from broken homes. I spend more time with them than the typical coach. I have a year-round relationship with them. We try to keep basketball in perspective. Academic achievement and personality improvement are the most important things.'' Ben also founded the City of Toledo Recreation Department's Annual Early Bird Basketball Clinic, serving over 600 children in each of the 8 years he directed the program. He has directed various recreation and youth offices in both Toledo and Erie, Pennsylvania. Finally, he worked with the University of Toledo's Summer Sports Program for 13 years, from 1970 to 1983. Ben Williams is a graduate of Bowling Green State University, where he earned both his undergraduate and graduate degrees. He has also worked toward his doctorate at Gannon College in Pennsylvania, George Washington University, and Sir George William's University in Montreal. He holds a teaching award from Phi Beta Kappa, and has received many other awards for his exemplary teaching and service to our community. In addition to an extraordinarily successful teaching and coaching career, Ben is happily married to Arielle. They are the proud and earnest parents of Robert, Kristie, and Leah. Perhaps Ben Williams' proudest professional moment came when Scott High School last year renamed its field house in his honor. In accepting the tribute, Ben spoke of his State Championship team. ``This close unit has shown what discipline, hard work, and caring can do for all who wish to beat the odds.'' Indeed these stand as fitting words by which we all might live.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special constituent and friend of mine, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick, on the occasion of the Ohio Women's Bar Association's creation of its highest award for professional excellence in her name. It gives me great pleasure to wish Justice Resnick my warmest congratulations on this truly special occasion. Alice Robie Resnick was the fourth woman to be elected to statewide office in Ohio when elected to the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1988. She has been extremely dedicated to improving the legal profession, the judiciary and assisting the status of women in Ohio during her thirty year career as a lawyer and judge. In December, 1991, Justice Resnick, along with U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia Hemann and Cleveland attorney Pamela Hultin, initiated the formation of the Ohio Women's Bar Association. The Ohio Women' Bar Association is the only statewide bar association within Ohio solely dedicated toward advancing the interests of women attorneys while encouraging the networking and creation of a statewide mentor program for women attorneys. In recognition for Justice Resnick's education, professional endeavors and commitment as a leader in the legal field in Ohio, and award in her name. This award will be bestowed upon a deserving attorney for each year to follow. On May 8, 1998, Ohio Women's Bar Association President Kirsti S. Talikka will be presenting Justice Resnick with the Ohio Women's Bar Association's Justice Alice Robie Resnick Award of Distinction, at its annual meeting in Dayton, Ohio. It gives me great pleasure to rise today, Mr. Speaker, and join the OWBA in congratulating Justice Resnick and wishing her continued success.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) for yielding me this time, and I want to lend my strong support to the Skaggs provision in the bill, though I will oppose final passage of the bill because it puts the costs on the backs of the elderly and Section 8 contract renewals across this country. Mr. Chairman, I support the Skaggs provision completely, and just wanted to say for the record how heartily I congratulate the gentleman. I also want to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), my good friend, as well as others on the committee who may not agree with us, when I was first elected to Congress, having been a child of the Vietnam era and watching my friends shot to death and come home dismembered and so forth, I made a promise that I would never be a part of a Congress that sent our troops into battle without a vote. I think all of us understood what that war did to this country, dividing us even until today. Many high level elected officials, sometimes rising as high as the Presidency of the United States, not wanting to reflect on that experience, still being afraid of it and all the feelings that it dredges up. 50,000 people killed in Vietnam, over 54,000 since that time by death through suicide. It was an experience that none of us alive today should ever forget. Mr. Chairman, I decided I could never be here and allow that type of back-door war to occur again. And yet I experienced the Persian Gulf buildup as a Member of this Congress and was a party to a suit filed by 52 colleagues to force President Bush to come to this Congress. There was no prouder moment. Judge Green said in his ruling when we went to court that the Court had no hesitation in concluding that an offensive entry into Iraq by several hundred thousand servicemen could be described as war within the meaning of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. I think that this Congress has no more serious constitutional responsibility and obligation than to vote on any offensive military action. I want to say to the gentleman from Colorado, I really congratulate him in his closing months here as a Member of the House for having the courage to bring this up and having this country and its people meet its constitutional obligations.