Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Gingrich budget reconciliation bill. First, let me state at the outset that I support a balanced budget. I voted in favor of the balanced budget amendment that passed in January 1995. I am committed to putting our fiscal house in order by supporting further cuts in spending to reduce the deficit. However, I cannot in good conscience support this budget bill, which would unfairly place the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of our Nation's seniors, children, disabled citizens, students, veterans, and working families, in order to provide a tax cut to the privileged few. Overall, middle-income working families earning less than $50,000 will lose $648 a year as a result of the tax provisions and cuts in programs under this bill, while wealthy families will receive an average tax cut of $14,050 per household. This bill imposes a $23.3 billion tax increase on 14.2 million working families with incomes under $28,553. Two-thirds of the $900 billion in program reductions in H.R. 2491 come from programs that are absolutely vital to the health, welfare, and safety of working men and women, their children and families--$270 billion from Medicare; $170 billion from Medicaid; and $200 billion in education, health and safety, and job training programs. medicare The Republican bill makes deep cuts of $270 billion and sweeping changes in the Medicare Program, which provides medical insurance to more than 36 million older and disabled people in our country. This body should have held comprehensive hearings on how best to structure the most extensive changes to the program since its inception 30 years ago--but did that happen? No, it did not. The legislative process used to move the Republican Medicare plan is a disgrace. Their plan was introduced on September 29, and one day of hearings was held before it was even distributed to Members. The House then left town for a 10-day recess. Upon returning on October 9, around-the-clock markups in two committees proceeded quickly. The very people who will be affected the most by these cuts, our Nation's seniors, were subject to arrest and silenced as the Republican leadership rushed their plan through the committees. We have spent 48 days holding hearings on Whitewater, Ruby Ridge, and Waco; why couldn't we manage to hold more than 1 day of hearings on Medicare? The trustees of the Medicare Program signalled earlier this year that reform is needed. I agree. There is a short-term financing crisis in the part A hospital insurance trust fund and a long-term financing challenge that needs much more careful consideration. But, for starters, the Republican proposal makes three times more in cuts than are immediately necessary to make Medicare solvent in the short term. Thus, premiums will increase by about $400 per senior. One-third of all senior citizens in our Nation basically live on Social Security. If costs go up, they will have to choose between health care and other essentials. Seniors will have to give up their own doctors as they are herded into HMO's with which seniors have little experience, as only 9 percent of current seniors participate in HMO's. Seniors will be kicked out of nursing homes, or their families will be bankrupted paying their $40,000 a year tab, due to deep cuts in long-term care. The Gingrich plan makes Medicare solvent only until 2006--the same as Democratic plans that cut only one-third as much. This much is clear: The Republicans had to slash Medicare to pay for their $245 billion tax break for the privileged few--but not a single penny goes to shore up the Medicare trust fund. One of the most unsettling aspects of the Republican plan is its utter failure to address waste, fraud, and abuse. Their plan will make it easier for unscrupulous medical practitioners and insurance providers to beat the system, and harder for prosecutors to convict them. It will weaken existing laws that punish fraud and abuse, and raise the burden of proof that the Government would have to meet in order to prove such cases. This bill would weaken the law that currently requires providers to ensure that the claims they submit to Medicare are true and accurate. It also creates new exemptions for those who offer incentives to physicians for patient referrals. Moreover, this bill would mean an even larger decrease in the already- insufficient number of fraud inspectors at the Department of Health and Human Services, at a time when over half the States in our country have no fraud inspectors whatsoever, and 11 States have only two. I recently met in my district with a group of citizens representing health professions, business, labor, retirees, insurance, and hospitals. The consensus of that group was that these cuts are draconian. They told me that any changes in Medicare that result in savings should be used for the preservation of Medicare, not tax cuts for the privileged few. They said we must fight waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as the spiraling costs of prescription drugs, labs, dental care, and durable medical equipment. Based on their assessment, it is clear that the Republican plan does not address the needed reforms in Medicare. medicaid The Republican Medicaid plan is shocking. Not only does their plan slash $170 billion from the program, eliminating health care coverage for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people in our Nation. But it also completely abolishes national standards for nursing homes and institutions caring for the mentally retarded. The Republicans want to leave this matter up to the States. The majority party must have forgotten why these Federal standards were created in the first place. It was because the States had failed so miserably in maintaining decent conditions and health care in many of these facilities. With their plan, we are faced with the prospect of returning to the days when patients' basic nutritional and medical needs were not met and when caregivers regularly abused patients with inhumane practices, such as tying them down or drugging them up. Their plan also eliminates spousal asset protection in the law, which means that States could require spouses of nursing home residents to sell their homes and cars to pay for their spouses' care. This plan will force spouses into poverty. It will also allow States to require adult children to pay for their parents' nursing home bills, forcing families to make the impossible choice of nursing home care for their parents or education for their children. veterans This bill would be a major blow to America's veterans and their families. It would force veterans to pay more for health care benefits through the year 2002, by raising prescription copayments, tightening collection procedures, and increasing per-diem charges for nursing home and hospital care. And the Republican bill would limit to $90 per month need-based pension benefits paid to nonservice connected veterans and surviving spouses who do not have children and who are in Medicaid- participating nursing homes. earned income tax credit I strongly oppose the provision in this bill that would raise taxes on working Americans earning under $50,000 a year by cutting the earned income tax credit by $20 billion. Millions of working Americans who are playing by the rules and paying taxes, but still earning so little that they and their families struggle to make ends meet will be hurt by this legislation. The ironic tragedy is that their sacrifice will go to pay for tax benefits for those who do not need them, to the wealthiest corporations and individuals of our Nation. It is the height of dishonesty to propose a $20 billion cut in a program intended to reward honest labor--to make sure that work is more profitable than welfare-- and then to hand the benefits of those cuts to multinational corporations and the privileged few. education The Republican bill jeopardizes the ability of young people in our country to invest in their own future. This bill would repeal the direct student loan program, and would cut other student loan programs--which are so vital to the educations of children from working families--by a total of $10.2 billion, in order to finance tax breaks for the well-to-do. The bill eliminates the interest-free grace period for new student loans, increases loan origination fees, adds new rebate fees, reduces the loan guarantee to 95 percent, and increases the interest rate for PLUS loans. Their bill also eliminates the direct student loan program at the request of the banking industry. This program is popular with students because they get their money faster, and with college administrators because the loans are simpler to administer. In short, this program works. Banks, however, preferring the profits and low risk of the guaranteed student loan program, demanded that the competition from the direct student loan program be eliminated. The Republicans have delivered a handout to the private financial institutions at the expense of students and colleges across our Nation. Corporate Welfare Tempted by the cover that this massive, multibillion-dollar bill gives them, the Republicans have added special interest corporate welfare provisions that would have little chance of becoming law if considered on their own, and have missed an opportunity to end $800 billion in already-existing corporate welfare programs. In fact, this reconciliation package doles out more new corporate welfare than it cuts. The repeal of the alternative minimum tax.--One new form of corporate welfare that can be found in this bill is the repeal of the alternative minimum tax, created in 1986 at the behest of President Reagan when it was learned that about half of large profitable United States and foreign companies avoided paying any taxes through loopholes. The Republican plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax would add an estimated $36 billion to the budget deficit, according to the GOP's own estimates. Currently, the alternative minimum tax levies a 20-percent tax on profits, before adjusting for certain tax preferences, to help ensure that all businesses and individuals earning substantial profits cannot entirely avoid paying taxes by using various deductions, exemptions, and exclusions. If the alternative minimum tax is repealed, it is estimated that 76,000 profitable corporations would pay no taxes by the year 2005. Corporate raids on workers' pension funds.--Perhaps the most egregious example of the Republicans putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of workers and taxpayers is the measure in this bill that would allow corporations to raid billions of dollars from workers' pension funds, jeopardizing the futures of millions of Americans. This legislation would remove steep tax penalties that currently discourage most companies from draining employees' pensions. Under this measure, businesses with pension plans holding at least 125 percent of the assets needed to meet anticipated pension liabilities would be able to drain their employees' pensions--for any purpose, for mergers or even to pay for perks like executive limousines--without even giving workers advance notice. The new plan would undo most of those restrictions--which were passed because in the 1980's, about $20 billion was drained from private pensions as corporate executives tapped them to finance takeovers and leveraged buyouts. Congress put a stop to such raiding in the late 1980's with a 50-percent tax penalty and other restrictions. At a time when our Nation's private pension plans are underfunded by $71 billion, we simply cannot afford to allow big business to raid the pension funds of working Americans, jeopardizing their retirement security and those of their families. Who will be left holding the bag when these pensions go belly-up? American taxpayers. what should be done I support tax fairness and a balanced budget. In fact, I wanted to support the alternative budget proposed by a coalition of my colleagues. However, three sections need further refinement. First, we need an entirely reformed medicare financing system. We do not need to force all these savings from seniors. Second, this alternative does not do nearly enough to close loopholes for corporate welfare. Third, the changes to Consumer Price Index need further study as to their effect nationwide and on seniors in my District and State. Furthermore, any reasonable budget bill should begin with closing existing tax loopholes that allow billionaires to avoid paying a significant portion of their U.S. tax liability by renouncing their U.S. citizenship and relocating to foreign countries. This is a loophole that benefits only about two dozen people a year; however, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that ending this practice could provide our country with an additional $3.6 billion over 10 years-- which I believe should be applied toward deficit reduction. Furthermore, if the majority is serious about balancing the budget, then it should get serious about weaning big businesses off corporate welfare and tax subsidies financed on the backs of American families. We should dedicate all of the spending cuts we have been making toward deficit reduction, not tax breaks for the well-to-do. I cannot support the mean-spirited cuts in this budget bill that would realize the most vulnerable in our society--like the elimination of low income energy assistance--while continuing tax policies that encourage multinational companies to move overseas and provide foreign companies doing business in the United States with tax breaks. Let us eliminate the transfer pricing loophole that allows foreign-owned corporations to move profits earned in America overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. That could save up to $143.5 billion. Let us eliminate the foreign tax credit. Why should corporations get a credit for taxes paid to a foreign country but only a tax deduction for State taxes paid in the United States? Why not save $82.5 billion and put our States on an even playing field with foreign countries? Let us repeal the U.S. territorial possessions tax credit that entices our companies offshore. That would save $19.7 billion. With that we could avoid Gingrich's tax increases on working families through cuts in the earned income tax credit. Above all, let us pass comprehensive campaign finance reform, so that America will know that its elected representatives are acting in the best interests of American citizens rather than at the beck and call of multinational corporations, megabanks, and special interests. To that end, I have introduced House Joint Resolution 114, a constitutional amendment that would, for the first time, allow Congress and the States to enact reasonable limits on Campaign spending in Federal, State and local elections, ending the current practice of allowing elections to be bought by the highest bidder. I have also introduced H.R. 2499, the Ethics in Foreign Lobbying Act of 1995, which would ban campaign contributions by foreign corporations so that they could no longer purchase favorable influence with legislators, selling the future of America's working families overseas. In addition, I have introduced H.R. 2498, the FACE-IT bill, which would close the revolving door that currently exists between government service and foreign lobbying. Let us achieve a balanced budget by having everyone pull their load in ways that strengthen America and our ability to create good jobs. Let us secure a better economic future for working Americans, not put an even heavier burden on the middle class. Newt Gingrich and his allies are looking for cuts in all the wrong places.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and rise in opposition to this Republican plan under which the seniors in our community alone will lose over $377 million over the next 7 years. I rise today in opposition to the bill before us and to raise serious concerns with the manner in which H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act, has been railroaded through the House of Representatives. Literally millions of citizens in our country depend on Medicare as their lifeline. These 36 million older and disabled people receive medical insurance through this program. Congress must proceed carefully before taking any action that will affect the lives and futures of millions of our families and their loved ones. Cutting $270 billion from Medicare and then transferring that money for tax cuts to the rich is absolutely wrong. timing On Friday, September 29, legislation was officially introduced to reform Medicare. What did the leadership of the House do next? Did it hold comprehensive hearings on the most sweeping changes to Medicare since its inception 30 years ago? No--they allowed only 1 day of hearings before their bill was distributed to Members and left town, only to return on October 9 and proceed with marking up the bill. No senior citizens were even invited to testify. The committees marked up around the clock until Wednesday October 11. Mr. Chairman, the legislative process used to move this bill has been a disgrace. This Congress has spent 48 days holding hearings on [[Page H 10347]] Whitewater, Ruby Ridge--we even spent an afternoon debating snails--but they could not manage to hold more than 1 day of hearings on Medicare. The very people who will be most affected by these cuts, our Nation's seniors, have been subject to arrest and silenced as the leadership rushed this bill through committees. Could we not have allowed just 1 day to hear their concerns? With $136 billion in the current Medicare part A trust fund there are funds to meet obligations for 7 years. We know we must act, but why the rush? Members, especially those not on the committees of jurisdiction such as myself, have been given very little time to review these sweeping changes. This is not the way to legislate. We have disenfranchised the American public by not allowing their elected representatives to do their job--to analyze and make an informed vote on Medicare reform. And the American people have been barred from testifying, and senior citizens in the hearing room were even arrested. republican plan and tax cuts Mr. Chairman, this past weekend I met with our community's health advisory group, a bipartisan group of citizens from my district representing health professions, businesses, labor, retirees, insurance, hospitals, and all health professions. The group was charged with analyzing the Medicare trustees report and the Medicare Preservation Act. The consensus of the group was that these Medicare cuts are draconian. Any changes in Medicare should be used only for the preservation of Medicare and should not be used to provide a tax cut for the wealthy. Our health advisory group stated that they would not operate a business the way this bill has been considered and that the Congress is making too many changes too fast. The members of the group also stated emphatically that this is absolutely the wrong time to be discussing a tax cut whose beneficiaries are primarily the wealthier among us, with those in upper incomes emphasizing that it is right that they pay their fair share. Our health advisory group suggests a short-term solution must address waste, fraud, and abuse, spiraling health costs of prescription drugs, labs, equipment, doctor and hospital fees, home health care, vision and dental care, and durable medical equipment. New ways to fix the long- term financing of Medicare must also be explored including the high cost of pharmaceuticals and private insurance. Research and development of drugs is a cost of doing business and should not be passed on the consumers in the form of higher prescription drug prices. A national commission must be set up for this purpose of developing a long-term solvency plan for the Medicare Program beyond 2010. The trustees report has been cited as the reason reform is needed. I agree. Medicare is facing a short-term financing crisis in the part A hospital insurance [HI] trust fund which we must solve this year and a long-term crisis which needs much more careful consideration. However the plan before us cuts $270 billion from Medicare when the trustees only call for $90 billion in savings. In addition, the plan before us doubles part B premiums and we all know that not one dime of that money will go to the HI trust fund cited in the trustees report. Where is all this money going? To a balanced budget? No. It is being used to pay for a $245 billion tax cut for the privileged few in our society. I cannot and will not vote for a bill which provides a tax cut to the wealthy on the backs of our senior citizens. fraud and abuse As I visit the senior centers of my district one message resonates. It is time to cut fraud and abuse. Find your savings by hiring more investigators to crack down on the crooks in the system, do not make cuts at the expense of seniors. Isn't it ironic that the majority passed legislation earlier this year that would eliminate 72 fraud and abuse inspectors at HHS Office of the Inspector General. The plan before us actually weakens the ability of HHS to detect waste, fraud, and abuse. In fact, the HHS Inspector General June Gibbs Brown states that this bill would: Make the existing civil monetary penalty and antikickback laws considerably more lenient and place an insurmountable burden of proof on the Government to punish illegal kickbacks; Relieve providers of the legal duty to use reasonable diligence for insuring that the claims they submit to Medicare and Medicaid are true and accurate; Create new exemptions to the law which could be exploited by those who wish to pay rewards or incentives to physicians for the referral of patients; and divert to private contractors scare resources currently devoted to law enforcement against fraud and abuse. In conclusion, let us take our time and truly study the changes that are needed to provide both long-and short-term solutions to our system of Medicare financing. Let me quote from the book ``Intensive Care'', ``The health care system in the U.S. is far too complicated for anyone or any group to claim that a single reform plan is the solution to the crisis. Rather than taking a huge first step with a new untested system, wouldn't it make sense to pilot test a number of proposals? This is the only reasonable method to determine what works and what doesn't work. The danger with scrapping any old system of any kind is that a new system may not be any better.'' Mr. Chairman, let us heed this advice. Send this bill back to the committees of jurisdiction and let us do this reform in a reasoned, bipartisan manner.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I introduce today a constitutional amendment that would, for the first time, allow Congress and the States to set reasonable limits on campaign expenditures. This amendment is necessary because campaign spending in our country is out of control. An estimated $540 million was spent on all elections in the United States in 1976--but by 1992, the amount spent had grown to $3 billion. And in the last House and Senate elections, a total of $724 million was spent--up more than 60 percent just since 1990. Candidates and elected officials have become professional beggars. Our Nation's elected representatives spend too little time doing the people's business, and too much time raising campaign funds. Yet the Supreme Court has ruled, in the case of Buckley versus Valeo, that campaign spending limits are an unconstitutional infringement on political expression. My amendment would change that by making it clear--as similar legislation introduced in the Senate by Senator Hollings would do--that Congress and the States are free to enact reasonable limits on election expenditures. I had hoped that a constitutional amendment would not be necessary. But campaign finance reform was conspicuously missing from the Republican Contract With America. And despite the Speaker's telegenic handshake with President Clinton in New Hampshire, where he vowed to develop a bipartisan commission to recommend changes to our system of financing campaigns, the Speaker has now backed off this issue. But this issue is too important to ignore. If passed, my amendment will go a long way toward rebuilding the public trust in our domestic system of government. To ensure that our Government is truly ``of the people, for the people, and by the people,'' we must end the current practice of allowing elections to be bought by the highest bidder.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico, and our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, for their outstanding leadership in shepherding this bill through conference. While I believe this bill provides adequate funding for agriculture programs and continues our support for American farmers which are the most productive in the world, I have serious concerns with two provisions in the conference report. First, the conference agreement includes language allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to fund all costs for agricultural equine quarantine inspection services in connection with the 1996 summer games. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is using American tax dollars to pay the fees foreign countries would owe a U.S. Government agency [USDA APHIS] for inspecting horses competing in the equestrian events at the Olympic Games. Let me repeat, this conference report includes language which forgives the fees foreign countries are required to pay for quarantine costs of horses competing in the equestrian competition at the Olympics and then forces U.S. taxpayers to pay the bill. Supporters of this provision in the conference argued that this was a goodwill gesture which will only cost approximately $300,000; $300,000 here, $300,000 there and soon you are talking about real money which can reduce the deficit. We all know that the days of struggling amateur athletes competing in the Olympic Games are long gone. Individuals often receive government support to compete or have the benefit of corporate sponsorship or endorsement contracts. Why should our taxpayers pay this bill? The Olympic organizers or the corporate sponsors who will make millions on this event should bear this cost. In addition, I object to the inclusion of language in the conference agreement which prohibits the USDA from enforcing regulations it recently issued, that would have prohibited processors from labeling poultry products chilled to below 26 degrees as fresh. On August 25 USDA issued regulations to take effect 1 year from now which would overturn longstanding USDA policy which allowed chickens that had been chilled to as low as 1 degree Fahrenheit to be labelled as fresh when they are put on sale. Consumers have a right to know whether the chicken they buy is truthfully labelled as fresh and has never been frozen. Everyone agrees that its a bad idea to re-freeze thawed chicken. Yet if the Senate language contained in the conference report prevails, consumers will not know if the chicken they are moving from the fridge to the freezer is being handled correctly. Mr. Speaker, California passed a law which would have prohibited the sale of frozen chickens as fresh. This law was struck down in Federal court. USDA, after 15 months of study, issued rules which give consumers truth in labelling. Under the rule, only chicken 26 degrees and above is labelled as fresh; 0 to 26 degrees must be labeled as hard chilled or previously hard chilled; and chicken at 0 or below must be labelled as frozen or previously frozen. Industry has two concerns, a 2 degree temperature variance is needed in order to ship chickens in extreme climates and that consumers will not buy chickens labelled as hard chilled. I appreciate industry's concerns but common sense dictates that you do not scrap a rule arrived at after 15 months of review and scientific study. Playing politics with food safety is wrong.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, today in this joint session of Congress commemorating the victory of freedom in the 20th century, as we remember and honor all those who served in World War II, I want to introduce to the House a veteran, a woman, a pilot who served as a Women Airforce Service Pilot, Lois M. Nelson of Ohio's Ninth District. Lois is a remarkable woman. A pilot before joining the service, she flew our B-17s, B-24's and many other planes from the factories to the front where they could do some good. She also flew planes that had been on the front back to the repair hangers and recalls ``you could smell the odor of combat on them; you knew where they had been.'' Lois and the more than one thousand other Women Airforce Service Pilots performing an invaluable and, unfortunately often overlooked, service in America's war effort. Let us remember them today. Lois represents all veterans from our community who are being commemorated here. Her life reminds us all of the treasured values of duty, honor, and country. Last August 26, the citizens of Lucas County held a ceremony establishing our community as a World War II Commemorative County. That commemoration was graced with Lois's poignant remarks, and I ask that those remarks be printed at this place in the Record on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Allied Victory. As a Nation, and as a people, we are always available to celebrate war. Flesh against flesh, blood against blood, and steel against steel. We mark with pride the winning of war, but with our ego centered on victory. Equally we turn our collective back on war if there is no winner. Turn back to the ending of the war in Korea. Remember that February day when Viet Nam released and returned prisoners, was it victory when Gerry Denton stepped off the plane and held Jane in his arms for the first time in over seven years? It was for Denton, but not for America. We celebrate victory perhaps, because we have never learned to celebrate peace. When I came home to Tucson after my time in the service of my country, my road was perhaps different from yours, and yours, [[Page E 1924]] not because I am a woman, because no sooner was the ink on my separation papers dry--than I was, along with so many other women, lost in the bright light of victory in Asia and in Europe. My return raised more eyebrows than salutes. The question of patriotism lost in the questions. A widow at 20, a reason, perhaps. A call to do what was needed to be done, a need to compete, anything you can do--I can do better. Or was it a legacy of generations of soldiers and sailors--a bloodline. An uncle in South Africa and winning the Victoria Cross-- dead in the Battle of the Marne in France. Cousins in the Battle of Normandy and in the landings in the Pacific. A brother in the North Atlantic on the run to Murmansk in Russia. Are my genes less willing? Willing to take the oath. Any less willing to work for victory? Parades! Celebrations! And perhaps--thanks for the peace. But no parades, no thanks, only the challenge that comes from the feeling, as soon as I took off that uniform, put my wings in a drawer and visited my mother's grave; that I was overcome by the feeling, my service had stepped into the glare of challenge, and somehow, never cast a shadow. Like many other women who answered the call, heard the challenge, we marched home to the sound of muffled drums and vanished. Over the past few years the drums have picked up the beat. Was it Desert Storm? Or was it the women in gun ships, on bomb runs. Or was it the shadow of the women in the 1940s who hit the flight lines running--who heard the call. Was it my cousin who, as a nurse, lead the children into safe haven from the bombing in Liverpool. Or was my cousin who commanded an ack ack battery near Dover and who met the ragged convoy coming from France and to find her badly burned brother in those wounded. My challenge to myself, and to you today, will be to pledge to volunteer for peace. To extend that hand that covers your heart and reach out to help. Help the fallen and the falling. To steady the step of those who have lost the way. Take the time to share--time--with those who have only the memory of other times. To wage a war for peace! Hear again the call to volunteer--when you raise your right hand to pledge your life, your energy, your compassion to win the peace. As veterans we share a common thread of willingness to be counted. Our Nation is calling on you again to be counted. Get out of the back row and step up front. Into the front lines, get the facts. Get the ammo of involvement and get off your fences and fight for the right to be an American. A nation that shows the way with people--not with the gold of treasury--the strength of industry--but a people who are celebrating peace--hearing and healing. I am proud of my American birth, I must also thank the warriors my family gave me in my heritage. A heritage I pledged for war and continue to pledge--again--for peace. My husband, of only four weeks, name is on this monument. I honor his name and will not forget his sacrifice.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, on August 26 the citizens of Toledo held a ceremony in commemoration of World War II. I was privileged to participate in that ceremony to honor the 70 million strong allied nations who achieved that victory. We honored in particular the 405,000 Americans who gave their lives in that struggle, our 671,000 wounded, and the 16 million who served abroad and on the home front. It was a moving ceremony, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the remarks of the participants be included here in the Congressional Record: World War II Commemorative Community Ceremony We are here today as free citizens, as the heirs of true patriots. It is especially fitting to commemorate together this 50th anniversary of Allied victory in World War II, and that we publicly pay tribute to the 400,000 dead Americans, 671,000 wounded, the 16 million who served in that war, and the over 70 million Allies who united in a struggle for freedom. I am pleased to tell you that the final site selection for our nation's World War II Memorial to be located in Washington, DC will be made by the first of October. Ground for the Memorial will be broken on November 4, 1995, a dedication which will kick off a week of celebrations and remembrance--of allied victory in Europe, in the Pacific, and in North Africa and the Mediterranean. The soon-to-be-built World War II Memorial in our Nation's Capital, which took five years of hard work to gain passage through Congress, will serve as a permanent memorial to the veterans of that war which preserved liberty in this generation. The memorial will also stand in tribute to the homefront families and civilians who served this nation in myriad ways. It is a memorial to the men who captained neighborhood drilling in blackouts, to ``Rosie the Riveter'', to all of the men and women who kept our country running while so many others were overseas, to everyone who bought a War Bond, who planted a Victory Garden, who carefully utilized ration cards for gasoline and food. And it is a memorial to our nation's truest legacy: the children born after the war, and their children, and their children, and on into the 21st century. In one way or another America will always be fighting against some form of tyranny, and for the rights of men and women to live in freedom and with dignity. We are reminded of the lofty words in America the Beautiful, ``those heroes proved in liberating strife who more than self their country loved, and mercy and sacrifice more than life.'' We are reminded of how great our debt is to those who went before, and what a real responsibility it is to measure up to them, to plan and work for our secure and free future, and that of our children. During this second half of the twentieth century, our country led the world into the nuclear age and tamed its awesome power. Our nation built the Hoover Dam and harnessed the powers of the oceans and the waters. Ours is still the finest health care system in the world even with its shortcomings. Social Security gives our senior citizens dignity in retirement. In the last 50 years, American lifted half of the nation out of poverty and built a middle class. The Statue of Liberty, Mother of Exiles, boldly remains a beacon of hope to the world's dreamers seeking sanctuary on our golden shores. She observes us today as the sons and daughters of those who faced a darkened world, with tyranny triumphant, and beat back the global forces of darkness to enshrine the rule of law. Our forbearers preserved the inalienable rights of each person and enlarged freedom for the majority. They forged an industrial and agricultural giant, prosperous and democratic, unknown in all the history of humankind. In things great and small, they affirmed again and again their fighting faith that tomorrow would be better than today, that they could make it so. We, the children of freedom, must rededicate ourselves to bettering America and charting a new course for a new century. We must infuse the spirit of America--our liberty and our nationhood--with a renewed optimism such as Carl Sandberg captured when he eloquently penned, ``I see America, not in the setting sun of a black night . . . I see America in the crimson light of a rising sun, fresh from the burning, creative hand of God. I see great days ahead, great days possible to men and women of will and vision. . . . '' In remembrance of those years of World War II and in recognition of all that has passed in the 50 years that followed the peace of the Spring and Fall of 1945, I am honored to present to Lucas County Commission President Sandy Isenberg this award, conferred by the President of the United States and the U.S. Department of Defense, designating Lucas County, Ohio as a World War II Commemorative Community.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, in Washington, we hear a lot of talk about legislative train wrecks these days. But has anyone noticed that America is hitched to a runaway locomotive racing us toward a record trade deficit this year? Today the Jobs and Fair Trade Caucus begins a monthly report to the American people called the Trade Deficit Watch. Our focus will be on how our Nation's trade deficit acts as an undertow in our economy, destroying good jobs, pulling wages down and displacing investments and industry here at home. The latest trade deficit figures released yesterday show that this year America will record an overall trade deficit of $164 billion, and just looking at the merchandise portion of that, we are talking about over $200 billion more of goods coming in here from abroad than we are able to sell in other markets. Folks, that is a bigger deficit than the budget deficit we are trying so hard to reduce. How will a $164 billion trade deficit this year affect the American people? Let us take a look at the historic debate that is about to occur here in Congress on Medicare. How does our historic trade deficit play a role in this debate? The administration often uses the ratio of 20,000 jobs equaling every 1 billion dollars' worth of trade. Therefore, a $164 billion deficit will put 3 million more good American jobs at risk, added to the 2 million well-paying manufacturing jobs that were destroyed since the 1980's. Unfair competition with low-wage, undemocratic countries puts continuing pressure, downward pressure, on wages in this country, and it is no surprise. Real wages and purchasing power in America have declined steadily over the past 20 years. Talk to your relatives, talk to people who work every day. They know what is happening with the buying power of their check. Think about this: With 5 million lost jobs, that is 5 million paychecks, fewer paychecks, from which FICA, the portion of your paycheck that pays for Medicare and Social Security, is not being collected. Think about this, too: Trade deficits have bled our manufacturing base almost dry. America is becoming a nation of temporary workers, the fastest growing segment job market in this country. Before, a worker earning a decent wage at General Motors contributed 33 cents an hour to Medicare and Social Security through their FICA deduction. But a temporary worker at Manpower who typically earns only $5 an hour contributes one-fourth as much, about 8 cents an hour, one- fourth as much as a worker who worked in one of those good jobs that we have continually destroyed over the last 15 years in this country. No wonder the Medicare trust fund and Social Security are in trouble. We have to keep finding new answers to try to refinance them. The high-skilled, high-wage jobs needed to fill the coffers of these programs are disappearing right before our eyes, and Washington has been asleep for 15 years at the wheel. But corporations and their profits have continued to soar. In fact, Wall Street is slaphappy at this point because with low-paid workers, corporations are required to pay only one-fourth of what they had been paying before into trust funds like Medicare. So, what is the Clinton administration and the Republican leadership doing about these trade deficits? Today the Committee on Ways and Means decided to adopt legislation which will allow more trade agreements to come down the pike without the American people having a say in the matter. This is called fast-track, and it is a bill that will force Congress to again consider trade agreements with no debate and without the ability to make amendments. In other words, it is a done deal when it comes to the floor. We are again ceding our constitutional responsibilities to the trade ambassadors. What, may I ask, are we on a fast track to? Are we going to continue putting every high-skilled, high-wage job with benefits in America on fast track right out of this country? It is happening in every single trade sector of this economy. We have got to stop cashing out American industries and American jobs for the sake of a few trade deals that make a few traders and their shareholders rich but bankrupt the rest of America. Look around the towns that you live in. How does the Clinton administration or Speaker Gingrich expect to balance the Federal budget or solve the Medicare problem if real wages for working Americans are locked in a race to the bottom because of trade policies that destroy good jobs and good wages here at home?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, we would all have enough money to pay for Medicare if the jobs in our country paid high enough wages to cover the cost of benefits. But, my friends, yesterday the Commerce Department reported again that our Nation is suffering the worst trade performance in our Nation's history. In April through June of this year, our current account deficit, the broadest measure of trade performance, jumped to $43.6 billion more in the whole, the worst results in history. The key reasons cited for this worsening record are our growing trade debt with Mexico, and that translates into more lost jobs, more lost benefits in this country for our workers. So now in Florida we have 100 more packinghouses out of business, ground to the ground, and 14,000 tomato workers out of work. In Milwaukee, WI, we have 7,000 more people laid off from Briggs & Stratton, jobs moved to Mexico, and in Topeka, workers at the Celophane plant there just had their wages cut to $8 an hour from an $11-an-hour level before. Let us go back to the drawing boards, recast NAFTA and stop taking our workers to the cleaners in this country.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of an extraordinary woman, Mrs. Eleanor Kahle of Toledo, who died at the age of 78 years young on August 13, 1995. Councilwoman and vice mayor emeritus, Eleanor Kahle, was a citizen-stateswoman, a mentor, a team player, and a friend to thousands. Her passing leaves a void in our community no one can adequately fill. Eleanor (Konieczka) Kahle, Polish-American by heritage, began her life on September 10, 1916, in what was then the small community of Sylvania outside of the city of Toledo. At the time of her death, she had become a citizen of the world. In fact, though over her lifetime she received recognitions too numerous to mention, the one she cherished most was her last, that of being named National Volunteer of the Year of Sister Cities International. It has been said that Eleanor Kahle had four careers in her life: that of wife and mother of six children, pastoral associate in the Catholic Church, executive director of the West Toledo Senior Center, and elected official in the city of Toledo. In all of these careers, Eleanor Kahle forged new ground. She took no responsibility more seriously than raising her six sons as a young widow, and delighted in their achievements as adults and in their children's. She was also a devoted woman of the church. There did not exist such a position as pastoral associate in the diocesan Catholic Church until Eleanor Kahle pursued its creation. In the 1970's as a pastoral associate, she was essentially the highest ranking woman in the Catholic Church, performing nearly all of the duties of the priesthood with the exception of the celebration of the Mass and the Sacraments. Doggedly pursuing the creation of a senior citizens center for several years in spite of tremendous opposition, she oversaw the birth of the thriving West Toledo Senior Center in 1979, directing its growth until her retirement in 1993. Today that center stands, 5,000 seniors strong, housed in a large, pleasant, refurbished building, as a true legacy to her. In 1983, I was honored by her service on my congressional staff in Washington as a special assistant on senior citizen issues, guiding and advising me as Congress debated changes in the Social Security system to assure its future solvency. She approached that opportunity with the zest, intelligence, and dedication that characterized her entire life. In 1987, at the age of 70, when most people would not dream of making such a major change in their life, Eleanor began her stellar political career as an elected official winning a seat on Toledo's city council. Four years later, in 1991, she finished first in the city council races among a field of eight, and was elected the city's vice mayor, one of only two women in Toledo history to rise to the post. Always planning and working toward unmet horizons she kept up the brisk pace of public life right until her unexpected illness, and never wavered from the idea that she might return to her duties. It was during her career as a councilwoman that Eleanor Kahle committed herself to the Sister Cities International ideals. She traveled abroad extensively as a goodwill ambassador for Toledo and our Nation, establishing new relationships with the cities of Szeged, Hungary, and Poznan, Poland. She hosted dozens of visitors in her home and was Toledo's most dedicated ambassador-at-large. In every endeavor, Eleanor Kahle conducted herself with grace, dignity, and eloquence. In her own mind, she never had to be the leader, ``just wanted to make sure the job got done.'' Yet in her persevering and joyful way, she led her community forward always, many times as a lone pioneer. Who can forget the twinkle in her eye or her cherubic grin. In the words of her children, while describing her and comparing her to the roses she so enjoyed, Eleanor Kahle was ``a true American beauty.'' In special memory of Eleanor's life, in honor of her gifts and talents, and in recognition of her achievements and the special roles she fulfilled so exceptionally in our community, our Nation, and our world, the Eleanor Kahle Memorial Scholarship Fund will be established at Lourdes College, to be awarded to a nontraditional student who wishes to pursue those goals which Eleanor cherished and toward which she strove. This scholarship will stand as a legacy to Eleanor, her life, and her ideals. On behalf of all the citizens of our community whose lives have been improved by her vigilant work, let us publicly thank her as well as her family for their selfless devotion to others. We shall miss her always and be inspired by her life's work. She remains our true friend.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about another company in our country and more bad news for America's workers as a result of NAFTA, the $20 billion trade loser. This time the damage comes from Topeka, KS, where workers at the Flexel cellophane plant are being forced to take another pay cut, this time for 11 percent. This was reported in the August 31 issue of the Capital-Journal, which is their local newspaper. That means for a worker in that company making $8.50 an hour they will now have their pay cut to close to $8 an hour, and all this has happened after a wage freeze at that company that has been in effect since 1991. In fact, workers at Flexel have seen their wages drop from $13 an hour 5 years ago now to the current proposal to ratchet them down even more, to $8 an hours. What has been happening to cause this ratcheting down of U.S. worker wages? Mexican-based cellophane manufacturing plants have been increasing their penetration of the United States market to nearly one- fifth, or 20 percent, of our marketplace, up from only 3 percent 4 years ago. Our workers are being forced again to compete against multinational companies that can set up shop anywhere on the globe in order to seek the lowest wages possible along with no environmental enforcement. In Mexico workers at those relocated cellophane plants earn about 50 cents an hour, and that is where America's wages are headed, my friends, and did you notice that the price of cellophane has not dropped in our grocery stores? You can figure out who is making the money off workers on both sides of the United States-Mexican border. It is time to cancel NAFTA, go back to the drawing boards and reshape it, and stand up for the hard-working families of our continent who all are being taken to the cleaners, and, if I might quote from a retiree from that particular plant in Kansas, he tells us a little bit about what the story is in that community. He said originally du Pont company built what was then called the Tecumseh cellophane plant and brought it on line in 1958, and back in those years that was the fifth plant in the United States making cellophane. Mr. Speaker, the news articles I will include in the Record indicate that there are only two left in this country. This worker went to work for that company in 1964 and retired in 1985. He says when he retired from the plant it was the last plant operating for du Pont in the United States making cellophane. About 1 year later it was sold to this owner, Flexel, out of Atlanta, GA, and when he left the company back in 1985, he was making just over $12 an hour. Mr. Speaker, he wrote me because he was shocked to find 10 years later the workers in that plant were making so much less. He said: Ms. Kaptur, the imports from Mexico have had an impact on this plant and its workers, and I'm concerned because I still have a lot of my friends working there. Unfortunately all those workers in the United States and the low-paid workers in Mexico will gain no fairness, they will gain no equity, because there is nothing in the trade agreement that tries to compensate for the difference in living standards, political standards, and environmental standards between these two adjacent nations. So, Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be submitting into the Record the entire story of what has happened in Topeka, KS, one community in our country that understands well the impact of footloose multinational corporations and what happens when the Government in Washington falls asleep and fails to protect the workers of this continent. [The articles referred to are as follows:] [From the Capital-Journal, Aug. 31, 1995] Pay Cut of 11 Percent Goes Into Effect on Monday (By Morgan Chilson) An 11 percent pay cut will begin Monday at the Flexel plant in Tecumseh, company officials told employees Wednesday. Pay cuts are part of a company-wide plan to reduce costs because of increased global competition and declining demand for cellophone, said Gerry Broz, site manager at the plant. Broz also stated adamantly Wednesday that reports from employees that company officials walked out on negotiations with Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, or UNITE, last week were ``completely inaccurate.'' ``After almost 10 months of good-faith bargaining and agreement on most issues, the company submitted a final proposal last Thursday calling for an 11 percent pay cut and work-rule changes that would lead to additional cost savings,'' Broz said. Broz told employees in meetings Wednesday that Flexel and the union deadlocked over the issue of wage concessions. Flexel officials opened financial information to a union auditor in the spring so employees would understand the economic difficulties facing the company, Broz said. Despite that, employees continued to ask for a five to 10 percent wage increase, he said. Broz didn't elaborate on what the additional money saving measures were, but employees highlighted the loss of premium pay or Sunday time-and-a half pay. The cuts change several regulations, such as what happens when an employee goes home from work sick, according to Randal Carnegie, an employee at Flexel who attended a morning meeting Wednesday. ``On the original program, if you get sick and if you work over two hours and you go home after that two hours, you get eight hours pay,'' Carnegie said. ``They've done away with that.'' Carnegie said the company also will no longer pay for annual physicals for employees. That expense will be out-of- pocket for the portion insurance doesn't cover, he said. For employees on full-time disability, the company will not begin payment of disability pay until after four days and then only with a doctor's excuse, Carnegie added. Disability pay did start the first day off work, he said. Carnegie, who has been working at Flexel for one year, makes $8.50 an hour at the plant. His hourly wage will drop to $8.04 an hour under the new cuts. A source familiar with the negotiating process who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the average base wage at the plant has decreased since 1993 to $12.78 per hour. An 11 percent decrease would lower that average base rate to $11.37. The plant employs over 240 employees, the source said. The base wage has gone down from the 1993 average salary of $13.66 per hour because of lower starting wages, the source said. Flexel Corp., based in Atlanta, owns the two remaining cellophane plants in the United States, the one in Tecumseh and one in Covington, Ind. The Covington plant felt its share of cutbacks in April, when about one-third of the plant's 345 employees were laid off, according to reports published in the Commercial News in Danville, Ill. That newspaper reported 20 salaried and 80 hourly employees were laid off. The last time employees were laid off at the Tecumseh plant was in 1989, when 12 salaried employees and 30 temporary employees were laid off. ``We don't want to cut Tecumseh wage roll jobs because we want to keep Tecumseh production levels high,'' Broz said. ``So we have no choice but to cut wages.'' Carnegie said many employees believe other cost-cutting measures weren't researched. For example, he said, workers currently are paid for lunch shifts and if that policy could be dropped, it would save the company 2.5 hours per week per person. Broz said it is untrue that other cost-cutting measures haven't been considered.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor in sadness today to pay tribute to a good friend and a man of exceptional political insight, Bill Morgan of Baton Rouge, LA. Bill died this week at the age of 53. Bill Morgan served the Congress as majority counsel to the Joint Economic Committee from 1977 to 1980. Subsequently, the worked as a media consultant on numerous campaigns throughout the south and midwest, including some of mine. I knew Bill as a knowledgeable, intelligent, and wise counselor. A person whose advice could be relied upon. He began his working life as a reporter. He went on to earn a masters degree in political science and a law degree from LSU. And he transformed his varied experience into his own political media consulting firm in 1983. A Vietnam veteran, he always distinguished himself by his love of country, his deep dedication, and his infectious sense of humor. Bill Morgan will be missed. We thank his family for sharing him with us and wish them Godspeed.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of an educator, a mother, a wife, a devoted citizen, a woman ahead of her time, and a friend. Mrs. Dolores A. [Bodnar] Kurek. Dolores Kurek was a woman of great dedication in my community and throughout the Nation. On June 2, 1995, she passed away, much too young, at the age of 59 after a long courageous struggle with cancer. Her presence will be greatly missed by the thousands of lives she touched, and continues to touch. Dolores Kurek was an exemplary leader in the field of science. She was the recipient of numerous awards including the engineering and math award in 1987, the exemplary women in science award, the teacher of the year award in 1991, and the Sears grant for science and engineering in 1993. However, for everyone who knew her, Dolores greatest award was not one she received, but one she gave. Her illustrious teaching career spanned over 20 years of care, commitment, and devotion to spreading her personal love for science. Her commitment to advancing women in the sciences was unmatched. She personally organized Women in the Sciences Career Day for thousands of young women in high school throughout our region. Even to the day of her passing, her personal quest for knowledge never faltered. Dolores Kurek was working on another Ph.D, this time in physics. She was continually learning for, and from, those around her. If the quote, ``Read not to contradict and confute nor believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider'' ever had any one in mind, it might just have as well been for Dolores Kurek. She was a life-long learner. She was a devoted wife of 38 years, a loving mother of six children, nine grandchildren, and a career educator at the high school and college level. The loss of Dolores Kurek is deeply felt throughout our community. It has been a personal gift and honor to have learned from her. I and all who knew her feel great privilege to have shared in her life and we express our gratitude for her life of dedication, commitment, and love. She will be missed.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of an extremely devoted public servant. Mr. Richard W. Boers, commissioner of Forestry and Open Space Planning for the city of Toledo, recently announced his retirement. I would like to recognize his numerous contributions to my district during his career. Mr. Boers was the youngest commissioner in the city of Toledo when he was appointed in 1966. Since his appointment, I have witnessed the flourishing of the city of Toledo under his leadership. Mr. Boers has been responsible for several recreational parks in Toledo area, where residents have enjoyed the beautiful greenery while walking, biking, and picnicking. The arts community has also prospered with the annual Crosby Festival for the Arts at the Toledo Botanical Gardens. It is because of his involvement with the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, that his festival has benefited the artists in the region, as well as those seeking the beauty and solitude offered by our encounters with nature. Mr. Boers has been instrumental in the Buckeye Basin project, the Urban Forestry Commission and Nature Education programs. In addition, Toledo has been classified as a Tree City USA for the past 15 years. Because of the efforts put forth by Mr. Boers, Toledo's natural beauty has emerged for several generations to appreciate. I sincerely wish the best for Mr. Boers and his family, and wish to thank him for insight and dedication to the city of Toledo. I know my colleagues join me in wishing Mr. Boers well in his retirement and expressing my deepest gratitude on behalf of the citizens of Toledo for his exceptional efforts to bring out one of the best of Toledo's bounty of attributes.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conyers amendment to referee the gigantic money interests who have their hands in the pockets of the American people. There has been enough money spent on lobbying this bill to sink a battleship. I wish to insert in the Record a partial list of what over $40 million in lobbying contributions has bought. I leave it to the American people to make their own judgments. This bill is living proof of what unlimited money can do to buy influence and the Congress of the United States. POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY REGIONAL BELL OPERATING COMPANIES [RBOC] HARD

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not trim, it literally guts Occupational Safety and Health by one-third and will adversely impact millions of workers across this country. This very morning an individual was killed in my district in an oil refinery. He was using high pressure hydroblasting equipment to clean refinery equipment, was hit by water sprayed at a pressure of in excess of 10,000 pounds per square inch, and was killed. This accident could have been prevented. Mr. Chairman, 55,000 workers die in our country and another 60,000 are permanently disabled each year in work-related deaths and injuries. Just in my region in the last 6 months there have been 11 work-related fatalities, a record number, two electrocutions, a fall from an elevated platform where no fall protection was used, an individual crushed by a forklift, a woman who was working on structural steel and was killed by a piece of that steel, a worker overcome by fumes while filling a rail car with CO2. Let us stand up for people who work. Let us value life. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the massive crippling in this bill of the National Labor Relations Board is a punitive effort to restrict the agency responsible for ensuring the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. This agency was created in 1935 to bring order and reduce violence in labor organization disputes. The agency has served our Nation for over 60 years, guarding against unfair labor practices by both employers and employees. Mr. colleagues who want to gut the NLRB should consider whether or not they really want disputes to be settled back in the streets, because that is where we are heading. In fact, with these massive cuts, it is going to take over 1,000 days before decisions are rendered by the NLRB. By disabling this agency, this bill strikes a hard blow against working Americans. Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for working families. Let us vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 1555. Here we are in the middle of the night considering the most sweeping rewrite of communications legislation in the last half century. I have to say to all the gentleman that have been complimented this evening for their marvelous footwork in conducting this debate at 2 a.m., I, as one Member, not serving on the committees of jurisdiction, am appalled that those people who would raise questions, like myself, would have 30 minutes, 30 minutes, to try to deal with legislation of this magnitude. Mr. Chairman, there are times in my career when I have been very proud of this House. One of those times was when we debated the Persian Gulf War. I think our estimation went up in the minds of the American people. There have been times when I have been very ashamed of this House, certainly during the S&L debate, brought up on Christmas Eve at midnight when it was snowing outside, or the Mexican peso bailout, where we did not fulfill our constitutional obligation. I feel the same way this evening on this particular bill. I feel muzzled as a Member of this body, and I am ashamed of this institution. There has been enough lobbying money spread around on this bill, over $20 million, to sink a battleship, and it has been spread on both sides of the aisle. This bill is not going to result in full competition. Are we kidding ourselves? It is going to result in full concentration, and the only question I have in my mind is how fast a pace that will occur at. In my district, what will happen is the single newspaper, that is owned by a very wealthy and well-meaning family, will soon buy out the television stations, because they already own the cable stations anyway. They will probably go after all the radio stations. I really do believe in free press in this country and I really do believe in competition. This bill will not result in that. I would say with all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] I guess Mr. Conyers. I guess I have to kind of leave him out of this equation, because his committee was absolutely resolved of all responsibilities in this, and that is the reason I am here at 2 a.m. in the morning.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], I was hoping the gentleman would have a little more influence, because I think he is a man of very good intentions. But I wanted an opportunity on this floor to have time to debate on the foreign ownership provisions. I will not be given that opportunity. There will not be an opportunity to offer amendments. I think the neutering of the Justice Department is an absolute abomination, when we see the possibilities for concentration in this bill. So as I leave this evening to drive home in my car, I find it a complete abomination, and I am ashamed of this House this evening. With a $1 trillion industry, with the rights of free press at stake, and competition in every one of our communities hanging in the balance, to be forced into this girdle, where we are only allowed 30 minutes during general debate, and then we will be put off on three little amendments tomorrow, maybe we will devote an hour or less to each of those, this is not the best that is in us. I feel tonight as I did during the savings and loan debate, during the Mexican peso bailout, and probably during GATT as well, that we are truly being muzzled, and that is not what representative democracy is all about. I feel sorry for America tonight. Mr. Chairman, here we are in the middle of the night, considering the most sweeping rewrite of communications laws in 60 years. The telecommunications industry represents 1/7 of our economy and is a trillion dollar industry. At stake is control of the airwaves and the information pathway into every American home. Not even the many appropriations bills that we have been debating for the past month before this Congress, will have a larger effect on consumer's pocketbooks. Consumers are promised choice and lower prices. Choice at what cost? Instead of creating competition by lowering prices and improving service, this bill allows the three monopolies to become one giant concentrated monopoly. It allows the 3 major players (cable, long distance, & local telephone) to partner or swallow potential competitors in each others business. The concentration could result in one company controlling the program's content, your local television stations, your cable company, your local telephone company, your long distance company, your local radio station, and your newspaper. Thus, controlling every aspect of access to information a consumer has and obliterate the likelihood of true competition. This bill also promises job creation. I doubt it. Last time I checked, we do not even produce a single television or telephone in our country. In addition, I have very serious concerns about the foreign ownership provisions. Currently, foreign ownership in common carriers (such as telephone, cellular, broadcast television and radio) cannot exceed 25%, except in cable where there is no restriction. At a time when our trade deficits are at record levels, we are throwing open media markets to foreign ownership. This bill would directly repeal foreign ownership restrictions on everything except broadcast television, which remains at 25%, thus allowing foreigners to control what America sees and should think and what America does not see. The bill leaves up to USTR crucial determinations regarding the rights of foreign interests to gain even more control. Why trust the USTR? That area of our government that has brought us record trade deficits for over a decade and can't even get our rice into Japan. I also find it very disturbing that the telecommunications industry has spent $20 million to lobby for this bill. To find out the real winners in this bill one only has to follow the money. This bill is just another reason we need real campaign finance reform in our political process. Moreover, this bill neuters the ability of our Justice Department to enforce the anti-trust laws against these giants who want to control every aspect of what you see, hear, and know. The bill basically turns our Justice Department Anti-Trust Division into paper pushers with no real enforcement power. I welcome some deregulation to create competition and diversity in these monopolistic industries. However, deregulation is fine. No regulation is anti-competitive and anti-democratic.

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. You are talking about over $8,100 a year, so I would disagree with the gentleman.

Ms. KAPTUR. The 7 years you are talking about----

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, just taking a very brief time, in looking at this chart there, I have seen this chart several times, but we know health insurance is rising faster.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, let me also add my congratulations and thanks to Keith Jewell, who has served as chief in our Office of Photography for so many years, for his distinguished service, for his courtesy, for his good humor, for all the years that he has served here, and we wish him very well in his future endeavors. We hope he will stop back many times to see us. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call upon the Clinton administration to convene a very high level working group, reporting directly to the President, to address the ever more serious and growing illicit drug trafficking problem facing us from Mexico, Central America, and South America. This drug scourge is truly crippling our Nation: every one of our neighborhoods, every town, every city, 80 percent of the crime in this country, the burglaries, the robberies, murder, 80 percent of the people in our prisons and our local jails, all related to the drug problem. Recently, three penetrating articles appeared in publications across the country that detailed the magnitude of this assault on civilized society. One of them appeared in the Nation magazine on July 10, 1995, written by Andrew Reding, entitled ``The Web of Corruption: Narco- politics in Mexico.'' He talks about the problem not just being a Mexican problem, of course, but a problem for our country as well. He then points out that integration of our continent's economies, formalized by the North American Free Trade Agreement, is increasingly binding our fates. He talks about the importance of a populous, unstable Mexico corrupted by narco-dollars threatening to subvert prospects for regional economic expansion. He adds that economic integration requires a common political currency, starting with democratic accountability and a rule of law. Then this past Sunday, in the New York Times, on July 31 and then yesterday, Monday, there were two superb articles summarizing the Mexican connection growing as the chief cocaine supplier to our country. In the article on Sunday and yesterday, the authors expressed a concern that the fate of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], got caught up in collusion by our Government with the Government of Mexico to not deal with the growing drug problems in order not to jeopardize the passage of that treaty. The article says that both the Clinton and Bush administrations kept the problems of drugs and corruption from jeopardizing the trade accord and the new economic partnership that it symbolized. A senior official for international drug policy in our government was quoted in the article as saying, ``People desperately wanted drugs not to become a complicating factor for NAFTA and there was a degree of illicit activity that was just accepted.'' ``What a shame for us as a country,'' the article states. It talks about a community just south of our border in Ciudada Juarez, Mexico, where the bodies of police informants, people who want to try to help, turn up around this sprawling border city, their mouths sometimes stuffed with one of the fingers that they might have pointed at drug traffickers. if you try to be an honest citizen, if you try to help, you can be sure that you will be shot for your desire to try to deal with this critical issue. As Mexico's political and economic ties to the United States have strengthened, American demand for illegal drugs has helped a new generation of Mexican traffickers to consolidate their power, carving out an ever-larger share of the world's drug trade and posing a growing threat on both sides of the border. If we do not do something both in the southern United States and in Mexico, Mexico will take over from Colombia in a few years as the traffickers' headquarters of choice, undermining democracy, undermining commercial development and, in fact, undermining the very free trade agreement that was supposed to be helped out by wiping out this drug trafficking. American officials, who once trumpeted Mexican cooperation in fighting drugs, now worry that the Government of Mexico has lost control of most of its police. When the authorities located a leading cocaine trafficker last month after his rented Learjet crashed as he flew to a wedding in Guadalajara, they needed army troops to capture him. The city's federal police commander and most of his deputies were on the trafficker's payroll, and while America's officials lavishly praised Mexico's cooperation in fighting drugs under the prior President, Mr. Salinas, growing evidence indicates that protection for the traffickers reached high into his administration. I urge the American people, I urge President Clinton, to read these articles I am going to put into the Record. Let us get serious. Let us deal with a real war on drugs in this country. It is ripping our Nation apart. (The articles referred to are as follows:) [From the Nation magazine, July 10, 1995] Web of Corruption--Narco-Politics in Mexico (By Andrew Reding) The Tijuana cartel is one of three powerful border cartels that manage the multi-billion-dollar business of transshipping cocaine from Colombia's Cali cartel and heroin from Southeast Asia and Pakistan into the United States. At one end of the border, in Matamoros, the Gulf cartel dominates the eastern delivery routes into Texas. The Juarez- based Chihuahua cartel, run by Amado Carillo Fuentes, dominates the central border. At the other end, strategically straddling the busiest of all border crossings, the Tijuana cartel dominates Pacific delivery routes. To defend this coveted turf from rivals, the Arellanos have hired what amounts to a private army, ranging from federal and state police to members of San Diego gangs. This is not just a Mexican problem but a U.S. one. Integration of the continent's economies, formalized by the North American Free Trade Agreement, is increasingly binding our fates. A populous, unstable Mexico corrupted by narco- dollars threatens to subvert prospects for regional economic expansion, overwhelm U.S. capacity to absorb immigrants, add to budget deficits with expensive bailouts and, as demonstrated by the harm inflicted on the dollar by the plunge of the peso, undermine our global stature and standard of living. Economic integration mandates a common political currency: democratic accountability and the rule of law. [From the New York Times, July 30, 1995] Mexican Connection Grows As Cocaine Supplier to U.S. (By Tim Golden) Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.--The bodies of police informants still turn up around this sprawling border city, their months sometimes stuffed with one of the fingers they might have pointed at drug traffickers. As Mexico's political and economic ties to the United States have strengthened in recent years, American demand for illegal drugs has helped a new generation of Mexican traffickers to consolidate their power, carving out an ever larger share of the world's drug trade and posing a growing threat on both sides of the border. ``If we don't do something, both in the southern United States and in Mexico, Mexico will take over from Colombia in a few years as the traffickers' headquarters of choice,'' the United States Ambassador to Mexico, James R. Jones, said. ``It will undermine democracy. It will undermine commercial development. It will undermine free trade.'' American officials who once trumpeted Mexican cooperation in fighting drugs now worry that the Government has lost control of most of its police. When the authorities located a leading cocaine trafficker last month after his rented Learjet crashed as he flew to a wedding in Guadalajara, they needed army troops to capture him. The city's federal police commander and most of his deputies were on the trafficker's payroll, officials said. While American officials lavishly praised Mexico's cooperation in fighting drugs under Mr. Salinas, growing evidence indicates that protection for the traffickers reached high into his Administration. Those directly implicated in taking bribes include former federal police commanders and two of the administration's three drug enforcement directors. American officials say huge amounts of drug money have flowed into Mexico's tourism, transportation and construction industries, helping to fuel the speculative rise of the economy until last year. Without offering details, a senior F.B.I. official, James Moody, asserted recently that many of the state-owned companies privatized under Mr. Salinas had been bought by traffickers. The bursts of violence that have attended the traffickers' rise have led many Mexicans to fear that their country is sliding toward the sort of terror that the Medellin cocaine cartel unleashed on Colombia during the late 1980's and early 1990's. In the last three years, the victims of drug-related shootings have included the Roman Catholic Cardinal of Guadalajara, a crusading police chief of Tijuana, two former state prosecutors and more than a dozen active and retired federal police officials. trade pact helps all entrepreneurs Law enforcement officials say more and more drug cargoes are moving through Mexico into the United States as part of the widening flow of legal commerce between the two countries. Clinton Administration officials insist that the 19-month- old trade agreement has not quickened the flow of drugs through Mexico. But United States Customs Service officials acknowledge that the smugglers are moving more of their drugs into the United States taking advantage of rising truck traffic and a falling rate of inspections.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, most Members do not know, tomorrow the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means is going to do it to United States workers again: to strike a deal to add Chile to NAFTA, and then bring the matter up here for a vote under a closed rule, with no opportunity for us to amend. The subcommittee has been so secretive that even members of the subcommittee were only given the legislation last Friday, late in the afternoon. This is just the latest example of what is wrong with U.S. trade policy: the handiwork of a few powerful people behind closed doors without full debate, and little public participation, and at the last minute, with no opportunity for us to fully debate or amend. Full debate is a precondition to representative democracy. For this reason, I and 50 of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, are requesting full hearings to be held on the NAFTA record to date by the Committee on Ways and Means before expanding any proposed NAFTA accord to include yet another country. America cannot afford billions more of trade deficit and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of more lost good-paying jobs. America cannot afford another bad trade agreement.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, tonight, in the few minutes allocated, I would like to talk a bit about why our people, the American people, are working harder, but in fact, they are finding that their dollar buys less. They are working longer hours, more hours; some families 2 and 3 jobs, and yet when they go to pay the bills at the end of the week, or at the end of the month, the dollar just does not stretch as far as it used to stretch. In fact, both Newsweek and Time magazines have had tremendous articles in the last month on wages in America and what is happening to the American family as a result. Today, Mr. speaker, the Commerce Department announced very disappointing economic statistics for our country: basically, that the economy is stuck dead in the water. There was a story on the front page of the New York Times today which I am going to put in the Record that reads in the first paragraph that the economy really had extremely paltry growth in the second quarter, and we, as a country, are stuck at the 50-yard line. We just cannot seem to move forward. The article also talks about the stagnation of wages and the job insecurity felt by millions and millions of our American families. One wonders why we do not hear more about it here in Washington because this is the reality of what our friends and neighbors are living with every day. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk a little bit about what I call the ``trade drag'' on our economy, the trade deficit drag that is really helping to hold down the ability of our people's wages to grow. If we think about the car races we might see at the Indianapolis 500, where they have to slow down and that big parachute comes out the back, and even a car that is going 150, 200 miles an hour stops almost in place. That is how a trade deficit works in terms of the ability of this economy to move forward. Over the last decade, our Nation has lost over $1 trillion, $1 trillion of economic growth, to other places in the world. We have been amassing gigantic trade deficits, more imports coming in here than our trade deficits, more imports coming in here than our exports going abroad, and that has created pressure on the companies and the workers in our country because of low wages and working conditions. There is no environmental enforcement in these other places around the world where these goods come from, and all of a sudden we find our workers in competition with the lowest-wage workers in the world in the most undemocratic places we could ever imagine living in. Let us look at some of the results of that. If we take a look at this year alone, we expect that we will have $184 million more of merchandise coming in here than we are sending off shore through our exports. This year we will have an increase over last year, when that deficit was $166 billion. When we figure every billion translates into 20,000 lost jobs in this country, all of a sudden we begin to think about things that are happening in our own communities back home and we begin to understand the dynamic of what is happening in 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000 places across this country where we are essentially exporting abroad our manufacturing productivity and importing goods from low-wage places around the world. We were told that NAFTA, the agreement with Mexico, would be a good thing for America. I would sure like to see some of the proponents get back on television; we have not heard a word from them lately because, in fact, the numbers are working exactly in reverse. If we look at the figures of both the United States and Mexico, prior to NAFTA signing we always sent more exports down there than imports were coming in from Mexico. But just in May of this year, we had a $1.6 million deficit with Mexico. That is just in 1 month; that is over 25,000 jobs. We have lost one plant a day to Mexico since NAFTA was signed. Mr. Speaker, our trade deficit with Mexico this year is expected to reach over $20 billion. That is an exact reversal of the trade figures prior to the signing of NAFTA. In fact, we are also amassing gigantic trade deficits with Canada for the first time. It is projected this year to be over $14 billion. So as a result of NAFTA, this year, the United States-Mexico-Canada combined, we will have over $34 billion trade deficit just with those two countries. Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the fiscal drag on the people of this country is that our trade policies are absolutely backward and do not benefit our people here at home. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: [From the New York Times, July 27, 1995] Clinton and the Economy (By David E. Sanger) Washington, July 27.--On Friday morning, the Commerce Department will issue a figure that until very recently the White House was dreading: an accounting of the economy's paltry growth in the second quarter of the year, a grim statistic that for much of the year looked as if it would be the first step off a steep cliff. The number will likely be around five-tenths of a percent, a long, long fall from the economy's spectacular performance last year. But now there is a growing consensus among economists and traders that the figure will likely be the year's worst and that a rebound is already under way. They are basing their optimism on the usual hodgepodge mix of home sales, the pace of exports, inventory levels and other straws in the economic wind that recently suggest that the worst is probably over. At the White House, officials are already declaring that the much talked-about ``soft landing'' has arrived. The second-quarter figure is coming out at a time that the second quarter seems no longer relevant,'' Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who has predicted publicly for several months that the rebound would start in the second half of the year, said today. ``The question now is how strongly do we resume growth.'' The political import of all this is lost on no one in Washington: It has been more than 40 years since a Democratic incumbent ran for the Presidency with the economy seemingly strong, inflation under control and unemployment off the front page. Against all the speculation just a few months ago, Bill Clinton now looks as though he may break the spell. What that means in concrete political terms--the first primary is still seven months away--is anyone's guess. Even if the economy does bounce back in the coming months, it is far from clear that there will be corresponding political gains for Mr. Clinton. Growth was strong and inflation was low last November, and the result was a Republican seizure of both the House and the Senate. In the postwar era, growth had to average more than 4.6 percent in the year leading up to an election for a Presidential incumbent to be re-elected. And the stagnation of wages and the job insecurity felt by millions of Americans remain a major economic problem, and an even bigger political one, a point Mr. Rubin and other Administration officials acknowledge. But an economy in downturn as the primaries approach seemed probable just a few months ago, and Mr. Clinton's economic advisers are delighting in the fact that the business cycle seems unlikely to give the Republicans any fresh ammunition. ``This gives tremendous momentum to the Clinton re-election candidacy,'' Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who until a few months ago was considered a likely candidate to run the campaign, said in his office today. ``We ought to take the quotes from all those guys on the Hill who were predicting doom and gloom and throw them back in their faces.'' The Republicans, of course, will retort that the man who brought about the soft landing was not Bill Clinton but one of their own: Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve. Last year he was regularly portrayed by the White House as the lurking force of evil in the economy, raising interest rates last year to head off inflation. On several occasions the White House forgot its stated policy of never arguing in public with the Federal Reserve, carping about its approach and saying that it would cost jobs and growth. More than a few times Mr. Rubin had to call his colleagues in the Cabinet and ask them, politely, to shut up. Now, after a considerable amount of revisionist thinking, Mr. Greenspan has become something of an economic hero in the White House. The interest-rate increases are now viewed in a kinder light, in part because they choked off inflation but especially because rates began to come down again last month. Suddenly the most likely successor to Alan Greenspan, whose term runs out next March, is Alan Greenspan. (The reality is that probably no one else could get confirmed: The Republican leaders of the Senate would probably hold up the nomination of any other candidate until after the next election.) Certainly not all the news has been good, and anyone wanting to construct a pessimistic outline for the months ahead has plenty to work with. In May, personal income declined slightly, the first fall since January [[Page H 7978]] 1994. In June, a leading index of manufacturing purchases declined for the second consecutive month, after nearly two years of growth. Car sales plunged alarmingly in the spring, leaving the chief executives of the Big Three shaken. Mortgage applications are down, even though interest rates have dropped nearly two points in eight months. the savings rate continues to fall. Some economists maintain that any good news is simply a delay of the inevitable. ``If the economy survives 1995 without a recession, next year will offer no respite from hazards,'' the Jerome Levy Economics Institute at Bard College wrote last week in one of the blitz of newsletter analyses that has preceded Friday's report on gross domestic product. ``The probability of a recession beginning either this year or next is 60 percent.'' If so, Mr. Clinton could find himself in exactly the condition he managed to exploit brilliantly against George Bush. But inflation seems increasingly unlikely to be an issue as the election approaches; it is not only down in this country but around the world. The job market has remained surprisingly strong, an impression bolstered today when the Government announced a large decline in claims for unemployment benefits. Retail sales are up, though much of that comes from huge promotions that car makers are using after they were caught by surprise by slow sales early in the year. There are three major issues that seem to bother the Administration's top official when they talk about the economy: What will happen to personal income, whether a showdown with the Republicans over the budget sends the markets into a tailspin and what happens if the country's export boom suddenly dries up. All the economic indicators in the country can turn up, but if income stays stagnant, Mr. Clinton's advisers agree, he will be unable to convince voters that much has changed, ``It's the problem the President works on the most,'' Mr. Rubin said today, referring to proposals in his budget for training and education. ``Because median real wages have not behaved well, too many Americans can't feel in their own lives what has happened in the economy.'' The second concern is that the battle over the budget will bring the Government to a standstill in October, with all kinds of hard-to-predict economic fallout. ``We've had the Government close for a day or two in the past; but what we are worried about is something much longer and worse,'' a top Administration official said recently. ``And it is unclear who would be blamed for that, Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich.'' And the third concern is that the hidden miracle of the economy--exports--will finally cool off. Just how much exports are rising is a matter of how you measure, but the trend is pointing to a 15 percent increase over last year, fueled by the weak dollar. That is a remarkable achievement at any time, but particularly when the country's No. 2 and No. 3 trading partners, Japan and Mexico, are in the most dire economic trouble they have suffered in years. Whether the country's economic growth can be sustained even if the domestic economy slows further, then, depends in large part on keeping up a huge flow of goods to Europe and Southeast Asia. And that means depending on economies over which Mr. Clinton has virtually no control. ``What no one has noticed in the past year or so is that now fully 50 percent of our exports go to the Pacific Basin,'' said Mickey Kantor, the United States trade representative and another potential candidate to run Mr. Clinton's compaign. ``That is why we have such a critical interest in continuing the market openings there and building those relationships.'' But Asia is also where the United States has its biggest trade deficits, and they, too, have widened over the year. That could be the wedge the Republicans turn to first.