Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. How about if I ask the Chair under what part of the rule could I bring up this amendment? It is my understanding that I am barred from bringing up this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. But the Chair obviously knows what the rule is. Does the Chair not know?

Ms. KAPTUR. Now, wait a minute. I am not sitting down. I have served in this Chamber for 13 years. I want to know from the Chair if the rule provides me the right to offer my amendment to restore the funds for the drug elimination program. My amendment transfers those funds from FEMA, which is in the same bill, to the account at HUD for drug elimination. I just heard the chairman say amendments in order are cutting amendments. My amendment is not a cutting amendment. It is a transfer amendment. I have a right to know the answer to that question. There are lives at stake all over this country on this amendment. It is important for me to know the answer. That is, I would expect the Chair could answer that question for me, with all due respect.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get an answer to my question. I listened and the gentleman from New York said the rule provides that we can offer amendments to cut. My amendment is not a cutting amendment, Mr. Speaker, my amendment is an amendment to transfer money from FEMA to the Drug Elimination Program. But I am not made in order on this floor. I would like the chairman, whom I have great respect for, to please explain to me whether under the rule I will be allowed an opportunity to have a full debate on that amendment as approved by the committee. I have been told I cannot offer this amendment. I have a right to know that. He said I could offer this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the chairman of the subcommittee, no one could be more cordial or helpful than the gentleman has been in committee and in subcommittee as we develop these extremely complex bills, with lots of pressure from many outside interests, as we saw in that last vote. My problem is not with the committee, Mr. Chairman, my problem is with the Committee on Rules in our attempts to get a freestanding vote on this exceedingly important question of the continuation of the drug elimination program in and around our public housing projects, which affects almost every single metropolitan area and many smaller towns and communities in this country. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the rule, because my amendment is one of its victims. We all know that there is no greater scourge affecting our communities than the drug scourge. It has been this way for a while. However, this bill, for the first time since 1988, completely strikes out all of the money for our drug elimination efforts in nearby neighborhoods around public housing. The Committee on Rules refused to make in order my amendment, which would maintain last year's level of support, which is about $290 million for drug elimination in 1996, and we did so in a budget-neutral way. We transferred money in the amendment from FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, so it is budget neutral. Let me say again, this program has existed and has been functioning since 1988. It has an excellent track record. It has helped every community in this country deal with the kind of cancer that is spreading throughout our neighborhoods because of these gang leaders and drug lords associated with drugs. Mr. Chairman, in a few moments the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], our distinguished chairman, will insist on his point of order against my amendment. I have a hunch that the Chair will rule that I cannot bring up my amendment for a full debate before this body. It is my intention to then appeal the Chair's ruling, and a motion will be made to table my appeal. I ask my colleagues to please vote no on the motion to table the appeal, because in effect, that will be the only vote that we have on saving this very worthy initiative. I guess my basic question, Mr. Chairman, is why should we pull the rug out from under the citizens of our country by taking away the only program that exists to fight drugs and crime in some of the most fragile neighborhoods in [[Page H 7874]] this Nation? To make matters worse, if my amendment does not prevail, what ultimately happens is as this fiscal year winds down and the next fiscal year begins, the money that is so-called being saved, and I put that word in quotes, the money that would be taken from these very worthy initiatives from coast-to-coast, will be frittered away on tax breaks that will be given to the privileged few. That will not be done in our committee, that will be done over in the Committee on Ways and Means. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there is really no savings as a result of what is being done here. We are eliminating an exceedingly effective program. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this program, and I said to the majority leader just now, it is amazing what happens in politics, I am defending a program that was pioneered by Jack Kemp when he was HUD Secretary. This has had broad bipartisan support over the years, and has really helped our community stem the drug tide, because, as we all know, it is not restricted to one neighborhood. The drug lords and those that they hire, they move across communities. They move into the suburbs, into the city. Since 1989 HUD was given a helping hand to hundreds and hundred of our mayors in towns and police forces across this country. In my own town of Toledo, OH, a medium-size city, our Toledo Police Department saw a 20 percent decrease in just 1 year in drug activity in those areas that received help from this program. Yet, the appropriations bill recommended zero funding, zero funding in this program that is doing so much to effectively combat what drug lords and gang violence is doing all over this country. I literally walked through the streets of Chicago when Congressman Charlie Hayes served in this body at a time when there were snipers on the roofs of some of the public housing projects in Chicago, projects being controlled by drug lords. As a result of this very worthy effort, that does not happen, that does not happen to the extent that it used to. Mr. Chairman, what is really amazing is how we could be abandoning a program that has been as universally successful as this one, in giving our mayors, our police departments, our citizens the necessary tools to fight crime. It seems to me we cannot afford to continue them. Let me remind my colleagues, my amendment would pay for itself through an offset of $34 million from FEMA's disaster assistance account, because this particular program only spends out at the rate of 7 percent a year, and it seems we have found money for everything from the space station to disasters everywhere in the Nation. There could be no greater disaster than what is happening in our communities as a result of the drug trade. One of the reasons I really beg special consideration here, I offered an amendment in the full committee on this very subject. We got bipartisan support, we came within 5 votes of carrying the amendment, there were 16 Members who were not in the committee when we took the vote. Any objection that could have existed to the amendment as originally offered was worked out. We went to the Committee on Rules, we made our presentation, and I thought we would be granted the opportunity to offer this amendment. The FEMA account has been dipped into for other purposes since we held that vote in committee. Thus, it seems to me that for $34 million in the next cycle, we have a very worthy proposal that deserves the consideration of our colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I also have a list here that includes communities across the country. Before Members vote on the motion to table the appeal, I want them to come up to me and take a look at this list. Columbus, OH, gets over $1 million a year. Every community of the leadership of this Congress receives help. The community of chairman of the Committee on Rules, Albany, NY, receives help in his program. We can go coast to coast. Every single district in this country benefits from this program. I would remind my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that this is not a partisan issue. Let me quote what Jack Kemp said in 1991 when he was visiting a project in one of our Nation's major cities. He said, ``Our drug elimination funding represents a substantial commitment'' by the then Bush administration, ``to rid public housing of the scourge of drugs and drug-related crime. Two years ago the bush administration announced a substantial moral and financial commitment to return public housing neighborhoods to the families for whom they were intended. Today this effort is showing significant results.'' I agree with Mr. Kemp, Mr. Chairman. We, as Members of this House, should do everything possible to help our local communities combat the scourge of drugs. I find it the height of lunacy to eliminate an effort that has proven itself in city after city just in order to bankroll through tax breaks largely the Fortune 500 big daddies that will get plenty of good treatment here, come the end of the year. My colleagues should know that if my amendment is ruled out of order, I will appeal the ruling of the Chair. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on any subsequent motions to table my appeal of the ruling of the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this week America celebrates the 30th anniversary of Medicare. Thirty years ago, Medicare brought to our senior population, for the first time, health security they never enjoyed before. They knew that whatever their circumstances, medical care would be available if they suffered from sickness or accident. All that is threatened now. The majority party's budget does wage war on Medicare. It cuts $270 billion from Medicare to finance tax breaks for the privileged few. Seniors will lose their choice of physician unless they can afford to pay more. Everybody in this place can, because they earn $130,000 a year. Their budget will provide seniors cut-rate, substandard medical care unless they can afford to pay more. Their proposed cuts will deprive seniors of the security Medicare now provides, unless they can afford to pay more. To curb costs, why not rein in rising insurance company premiums costs, along with hospital costs and prescription drug costs? Why pick on our grandparents first? Let us not let America backpedal into the 21st century.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of the Coleman amendment and of the contract rights of the bus drivers in my district. Nobody has a right to take those away. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coleman amendment. No one in this body has the right to cancel a contract, privately negotiated, between workers and their employers. Section 13(c) has served as the basis for stable and productive collective bargaining in the transit industry. Its repeal would undermine a system of labor relations that works and replace it with labor strife. No one in this body has the right to cancel private contracts in Toledo, OH. Across our Nation, over 200,000 bus drivers and mass transit employees are protected by the collective bargaining agreements covered by section 13(c). The purpose of section 13(c) is to assure transit workers that their collective bargaining contracts will not be jeopardized by Federal transit aid programs. It provides a fair mechanism for the continuation of collective bargaining agreements in the face of service or structural changes. This makes perfect sense. It would be unproductive, even silly, if every shift in Federal transit policy resulted in reopening union contracts and risked labor conflicts. Section 13(c) helps avoid strikes and lockouts. Do the advocates of its repeal want strikes and lockouts? In part because of 13(c), the transit industry's growth and expansion in urban, suburban and rural areas has been accomplished without needlessly harming transit workers and with the substantial support of transit labor rather than its opposition. Some argue that 13(c) should be repealed because it slows the Federal transit grant process. I agree that some reforms are in order, but repeal is an amputation where a course of antibiotics would suffice. The Transportation Committee is already considering appropriate changes to section 13(c) which would assure the timely release of grants. Reforms such as a guarantee of certification [[Page H 7596]] within 60 days, the application of model labor agreements, and expedited decisions make steps in the right direction without throwing out a labor relations mechanism that works. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Coleman amendment. Let's let the authorization process work and avoid even more slash-and- burn legislation in this appropriations bill.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, today I rise to say thank you and pay tribute to the historic career of Mrs. Lenore Donnelly, originally of Worcester, MA, now of Virginia, who, for the last 10 years, has served this House with distinction, vivacity, good humor, and professionalism as Chief of Pages on the Democratic side of the aisle. Today is her last official day in this capacity as she retires to pursue family and personal interests. Lenny came to Washington to work for Senator John F. Kennedy in the Presidential campaign in 1959 and later became a member of his White House staff. She served in helping to arrange private and congressional tours of the White House and worked on arrangements for the President's trips within the United States and abroad, often traveling on such trips, including the famous trip to Ireland. After the President's tragic assassination, she continued under President Johnson to serve at the White House during that administration. She worked in Senator Robert F. Kennedy's campaign for President, and after that Senator's tragic assassination, worked out of the New York office on his funeral arrangements at St. Patrick's Cathedral and the historic train ride bringing the Senator's body back to Washington. Later she became Deputy Chief of the U.S. Capitol Guide Service, responsible for the orientation, supervision, and direction of all Capitol guides and tours. In 1985 she was appointed as Chief of Democratic Pages by Speaker O'Neill and has worked with over 2,000 young American Pages from all over the United States, responsible for their training, orientation, guidance, counseling, and familiarization with House procedures and conduct in this Chamber. We wish her Godspeed, along with her husband, Ray Donnelly, who has been active in planning the Korean War Veterans Memorial being dedicated on July 27 on the Mall. America could have had no finer daughter in service to this Nation. She has served millions and millions of our citizens as well as visitors from throughout the world. Thank you, Mrs. Donnelly.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee regarding an important project at Toledo Express Airport. The air traffic control facility at the Toledo Express Airport has experienced several equipment and structural problems during the last few years. There have been several near misses. The tower is now nearly 50 years old and at 57 feet, it is 43 feet shorter than towers at similar airports. Visibility is inadequate and the facility needs relocation. Rather than waiting for the FAA to address this problem, the Toledo- Lucas County Port Authority has taken the initiative and proposed to construct a tower meeting FAA specifications. Construction would be financed by bonds issued by the Port Authority, and the FAA would move into the tower under a leaseback arrangement. This proposal would cut 3 years off of the time it would take the FAA to construct a tower under its normal procedures and save significant interest costs. We have discussed this proposal. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], as well as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], have been most gracious and helpful. It is my understanding that the gentleman supports the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority proposal for the construction and leaseback of a Toledo Express Airport tower, is that correct?

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman, all my pilots, people that work near the airport, all that work in the control towers, and I thank the gentleman for his interest and assistance in this matter.

Ms. KAPTUR. It is my further understanding that the gentleman does encourage the FAA to do all it can to facilitate and expedite the project?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] for yielding this time to me and rise with a heavy heart as we discuss this entire situation involving China, and I see--as the American birthright--the ideal that this Nation and others around the world are conceived in liberty and should be dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal with certain inalienable rights. I think that is what our Nation is here for, as a beacon to the rest of the world, but what we see so often is that our foreign policy has been directed to certain financial interests, and in fact our foreign policy, rather than being a representation of the best ideals in us, has really become a kind of deal-making exercise. Mr. Speaker, we should probably call China MFN the Boeing MFN because supporters of MFN for China and keeping that special trade status protected say that exports to China will create jobs here. However Boeing, one of the chief beneficiaries of nearly $2 billion worth of airplane sales to China, recently announced over 5,000 people in our country are being laid off because they are going to replace that production with production in China, and I think what is so troubling is that China has done nothing to promote democracy. It has done nothing to stop China from selling missile technology to rogue nations like Pakistan. China has done nothing to end labor abuses in its own country affecting both men and women who are voiceless as we debate there today. They have done nothing to end human rights abuses like the detention and arrest of American citizen Harry Wu. But in fact our China policy not only does not stand up for democracy, but from an economic standpoint has led to a flood of cheap imports into our country--expected to reach over $32 billion this year alone--representing an increase over last year, and in fact since China's crackdown on democracy in 1989, our country has suffered a net loss of over $100 billion in China. Mr. Speaker, when we debated the crime bill, we talked about three strikes and you're out. It seems to me here we have got five strikes and you're out, and we ought to go back to the negotiating table and figure out what we stand for fundamentally as citizens of the freest nation on Earth. China MFN is just another smokescreen for the rights of capital surmounting the rights of people and the ideals of democratic freedom. Free trade can only exist among free people. When is the United States of America going to recall its own birthright? I am very upset that the Wolf amendment will not be offered here for a vote up or down in this Congress today. I stand here with a very heavy heart. I ask, ``Why don't we stand up for what our Constitution says we are here for?''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to rise in very strong support of the Sanders amendment. To my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], I would say what is going on has nothing to do with sniping, it has nothing to do with a new President, nothing to do with a new leadership in the Congress. It has everything to do with the establishment of precedent in a republic that is over 200 years old. I want to commend the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for forcing us to meet our constitutional responsibilities. If any Member believes it is wrong that the Government of the United States, by the agreement of perhaps six men, decided to send billions of dollars to Mexico to bail out their investments, without a vote of Congress, without a vote of Congress, if members believe that was wrong, as I do, they will support the Sanders amendment. The backdoor use of an obscure fund in the Treasury called the Economic Stabilization Fund, a fund that the Clinton administration essentially raided, with the collusion of about four leaders in this House and a few over in the Senate, is unprecedented in both magnitude of the dollars involved, the purposes for which the fund was originally established several decades ago, and also the duration and risk attached to what has been done. Mr. Chairman, I really respect my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, as a staunch defender of our Constitution. Thus, it surprises me a bit to hear him [[Page H 7217]] argue in the way he has argued this afternoon. Our country has never extended loans to a foreign country on a medium- or long-term basis from this fund, never $20 billion and more of commitment. This particular commitment was 20 times as large as any prior use of this fund. Never has it been the will of this Congress to provide the executive branch with unlimited authority of this sort.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and let me sum up by saying nothing is more important in this debate than the integrity of our Constitution and meeting our constitutional responsibilities in this body. We have never had a chance to vote on the merits of this issue. The economic stabilization fund has never been used for this purpose. I say to my colleagues, You can try to slide around it, but the point is $20 billion is at risk, and we have not been able to vote on it, 20 times more than that fund has ever been used for in the past only to defend the dollar, and now to prop up the currency of another government. A few years ago in the Committee on International Relations, and I commend my colleagues to read it, there was a magnificent hearing in which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] talked about the dangers of this economic stabilization fund and the fact that we should not be permitting the kind of intended interventions that were being contemplated even back then but were not permitted in the case of Poland, and they said the money should be put on budget, we should not be doing back-door foreign aid through the economic stabilization fund. So Poland could not get help. It was discriminated against through that fund, but in this instance the policy was executed against the best wisdom of the highest ranking people at the U.S. Treasury Department. They advised against that years ago. So let me say to the gentleman from Vermont, I commend you on your amendment. No Member of Congress can hide under a rock on this one. Stand up for the Constitution. Stand up for our responsibilities. Support the Sanders amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman used the term ``arrangement'' to describe what has occurred in our country on this particular issue. He said the reason a bill could not be brought up on the floor here is perhaps there would not have been a majority of votes. Would the gentleman agree this is not a parliamentary system, this is not a monarchy, this is a Democratic republic? Each of us does have a right to express our views and in this instance, yes, an arrangement was made by a handful of individuals in this Government, and we have not met our constitutional responsibilities. Would the gentleman agree this is not a parliamentary system or a monarchy?

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Let us do it under the law.

Ms. KAPTUR. I will just say, that is exactly what we want. We want a debate on the merits of the policy and the precedent being established.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that historically the fund was never used either for this magnitude, this duration, or this purpose. What has happened during the 1980's, and this is why I call this a backdoor form of foreign aid, if this was necessary to prop up the political environment of this continent and of this hemisphere, then that is what the debate ought to be about, but the fact is we took over $20 billion of our taxpayers' money and put it at risk. It is still at risk. The long-term debt of Mexico, and if we look at what is happening with the internal dynamics of that country, with its private banks, with the loans that are owned by the private sector, this is not over, as my good friend knows, probably as well as anyone in this institution. This is not the way to do it. This is not the way to do it. I think the gentleman is creating a real paradox inside for Members who may wish to have an open debate on the merits of how we relate to Mexico, but I think this completely erodes that confidence.

Ms. KAPTUR. If I might reclaim my time from the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, this is where the nub of the argument really lies, in terms of the Constitution. When this fund was established, the purpose was to prop up the dollar, not the peso, but the purpose of the fund was for short-term currency exchanges, not medium-term loans, not long-term loans, for another government, for another government to refinance its investors, those people that had speculated in that market. I think that the gentleman, being a party to the agreement, obviously would want to defend it, but I think that when we have a backdoor form of foreign aid, this is not healthy. This is not healthy for our country, it is not healthy for the confidence of Members here, nor of the America people. We should have a debate. Mr. Chairman, what is so troubling about this particular matter is we have never been allowed to have a full debate on the floor of this Congress. It has been bottled up by the committees of jurisdiction. Our efforts to get discharge petitions signed have been very interesting to watch, to move this bill to the floor in other forms, but I think the gentleman's point is incorrect. In fact, this fund was established to prop up the dollar, not any foreign currency.

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

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I wish to rise in support of our agriculture appropriations bill this year, to commend our very distinguished chairman in his maiden voyage as chair of this subcommittee and also to thank our ranking member for his terrific service. This will be the last bill that, second to the last bill, that he will be handling [[Page H 7242]] on this floor. We thank him for the tremendous contribution that he has made over the years both as chair and now as ranking member of this committee. I wanted to insert my full remarks in the Record tonight, because the subject of agriculture is so important to not just rural America but to urban America, to the nutrition needs of our people. But I wanted to say beyond that, as a member of this committee, I cannot think of a better committee in this Congress to serve on. In listening to some of the debate that occurred here this afternoon, frankly, I was embarrassed at the level of dialog on both sides of the aisle. At one point I had teenage students here with me from my district, and I had to usher them out of the gallery because I was so embarrassed at some of the language being used here on the floor. If I had to pick one committee in this Congress to say how the whole place should function, it would be this particular subcommittee, with the comity, the good will, with the gentlemanly and ladylike behavior that members of this committee display toward one another; frankly, the good humor as well. I think a lot of that is due to the leadership of our chair, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] who is truly a man for all seasons. We appreciate what he is as a person as much as what he does as chair of this committee. Frankly, I think if we had more Members like him, with his spirit on both sides of the aisle in this institution, I think the Nation would be much better off. I rise in support this evening of this measure. I know with its passage, the Nation will have been bettered. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Agriculture appropriations bill and commend our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico, and our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, for their outstanding leadership in putting together a responsible bill. This bill continues our support for American farmers which are the most productive in the world as well as fulfills an important commitment for advancing agriculture and nutrition to rural and urban America. The bill is fiscally prudent and includes a total of $13.3 billion for discretionary programs which is $135,571,000 less than the amount appropriated in Fiscal Year 1995 and $1.6 billion less than the budget request. For mandatory programs, which are 80% of the funding in this bill, the committee provides $49.2 billion a decrease of $5.5 billion below the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and $4.4 billion below the budget request. The committee faced difficult decisions in meeting the needs of U.S. agriculture and related programs in this bill. Only three programs, meat and poultry inspection, conservation and the Women, Infants, and Children's Feeding Program received increases in funds. Those who serve farmers and work with Agriculture are taught over and over again that there is a big difference between money and wealth. Our job on this Committee on Agriculture is to help create the wealth of America through the investments that we make through this department. To call this an agriculture bill is a bit misleading. Nearly 60 percent of the programs funded by our subcommittee are nutrition programs, primarily foodstamps. The bill also funds rural development, food assistance, and export programs as well as the Food and Drug Administration. Mandatory spending not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee accounts for a majority of the appropriations in this bill. Discretionary spending in this bill amounts to $13.4 billion in budget authority. I would like to commend the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for putting together a bill that meets the budget mandate bill. We were faced with tight budget constraints that forced us to eliminate a number of programs including the Great Plains Conservation Program as well as 80 special research and extension projects. The bill also places a moratorium on funding for all university research buildings and facilities. Tough choices had to be made. Yet while faced with tight budget constraints we were still able to shift resources to priority programs. We continued funding for TEFAP, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, which provides vital support to our community food pantries and senior centers. The Women, Infants, and Children Feeding Program is provided with a $290 million increase to cover inflation and food cost increases to maintain 1995 participation levels. WIC decreases infant mortality rates and investments in WIC are offset by decreases in long term Federal Medicaid expenditures. Traditional farm programs however continue to receive a decreasing portion of our spending. With the upcoming debate on the 1995 farm bill, it is my hope to begin targeting our scarce agricultural dollars to small family farmers. In the decade of the 1980's we have slowly eroded the basis of American agriculture--the family farmer--and are moving in the direction of large corporate farms. We must ensure that to ensure that prices are maintained at a level high enough to compensate for costs or production and to maintain standards of living in order to attract and retain individuals in farm production. We must also negotiate trade agreements which encourage and enhance the ability of family farmers to compete in world markets. In agriculture trade, we must also work to recapture lost markets and increase exports. As American agricultural exports grow, foreign agriculture exports are being shipped to the United States in greater magnitude. Since 1981, our agricultural exports have declined from $43.8 billion to a low of $26.2 billion in 1986 and back to $42.2 billion for 1992. Under the USDA programs, the profit has gone to the exporter but the cost is charged to the farmer. Since 1981 agricultural imports have increased from $10.8 billion to $24.3 billion in 1992. In many cases these are products our own farmers could be selling. In closing, I want to again commend the chairman and the ranking member for putting together a solid bill under difficult budget constraints. I urge the Members to support this fiscally responsible measure.