Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler amendment to prohibit the release of medical records under section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act was drafted in a rush to respond to a perceived need of new law enforcement powers immediately after 9/11. As such, the law must be considered a work in progress at best. Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes FBI field office directors to collect in secret almost limitless sensitive personal information, including medical records from health insurance companies. This is done without court review or approval. This is a major invasion into the right to privacy. We must draw the line at this invasion into our personal lives. This critical Nadler amendment provides crucial checks and safeguards. Records held by health insurance companies may include laboratory tests, medications prescribed, the results of operations and other medical procedures. The FBI has no business examining America's health records without a court order. I believe it is a rare occurrence that the FBI would truly need access to health insurance records. For the most part, such information is not pertinent to a terrorist investigation. There is a better way. If the FBI did have a real need for such records, the FBI could simply use other legal mechanisms to gain access, and those options include judicial review and thus protection of privacy. Protection of our personal privacy is a basic and fundamental responsibility of this Congress, and that is why the Nadler amendment elevates the condition of this Congress to where we can be in the defense of the right to privacy. Support the Nadler amendment. Support the right to privacy.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesdy, June 15, 2005, I issued the following statement during a press conference on how the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) will be harmful to minorities and would like to submit it for the Congressional Record. Today I am here to join my colleagues to reject the current text of DR-CAFTA and insist on the renegotiation of DR-CAFTA. Many sectors of society in some form or another will be negatively impacted by DR-CAFTA, but today I'd like to highlight how DR-CAFTA will be harmful to unions, and especially minority unionists. We have seen the detrimental effects of the NAFTA-model on unions. After NAFTA's signing, the rate of union-busting factory owners following through on threats to close plants tripled. Union busting will only increase with DR-CAFTA, which will affect all unionists, but particularly minorities, who are more likely to be in unions than the population at large. Minority communities have lower median wages and higher unemployment rates, and the benefits of union membership are greater than for non-minority workers. Unionized African-American, Asian-American and Latino workers all make substantially higher wages than their non-union counterparts. Furthermore, the difference in wages between union and non-union workers is much greater for minorities than for average union workers. For example, while average union workers make 28 percent more than their non- union counterparts, unionized Latino workers, for example, make 59 percent more than their nonunion counterparts. Unions have played a significant role in making America a more just and equitable place for all. They helped to establish the middle class, making the ``American dream'' a reality for many workers and their families. Before the successes of the civil rights movement were marked by law, unions helped to provide freedom from discrimination in the workplace for minority workers and to integrate minority populations into the greater population. Sadly, trade agreements following the NAFTA model will weaken unions, and the benefits of unions guaranteed to minority workers. When DR-CAFTA comes before Congress for a vote, I will urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair agreement, and send it back for renegotiation. Trade between nations does not and should not have to lead to such negative consequences.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia. I would like to thank the gentleman because he has done the Nation a great service by authoring the section of this bill's committee report that deals with aeronautics at NASA. I also note that the report singles out the important role of the individual NASA centers. Again, I applaud the gentleman for his insight and action because I, too, am an advocate of the centers. I am fortunate to have NASA Glenn in my district, which is one of the most decorated centers in the Agency. I would like to ask the gentleman for a point of clarification. In the committee report for this bill, there is a requirement that NASA provides a plan for how it will allocate aeronautics funds for fiscal year 2006. Would the gentleman agree that the plan should include a definition of work that leads to additional breakthroughs, including rotorcraft, hypersonics, propulsion and vehicle systems?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman for his staunch advocacy of such a worthy issue. I know thousands of constituents in Cleveland are equally grateful for his work and his vision.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this report today from National Public Radio: a poll released Monday by the Gallup organizations shows that six in 10 Americans think the U.S. should withdraw some or all troops from Iraq. Support for withdrawal from Iraq is building across the country. And it is building in the Congress. This week, a bipartisan coalition of Members will come forward with a new plan for withdrawal from Iraq. The American people want us to withdraw from Iraq. It is time for us to come together, whether we supported the war or not, Democratic and Republicans alike, to acknowledge it is time for a new direction in Iraq, and that direction is out. The time has come to begin withdrawal from Iraq. That is what the American people want.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the distinguished life and career of actress and friend Anne Bancroft. Anne's legendary career spanned more than 50 years and included honors and awards for roles performed in film, television, and on the stage. Most notable among these were her Oscar, Emmy, and Tony awards, an accomplishment achieved by only a select few. Born to a family of Italian immigrants on September 17, 1931, in the Bronx, New York, Anne quickly developed a love for performance. By the time she was 4-years-old, Anne was already taking dance and acting lessons. When she was 9, she famously wrote on a fence behind her childhood home, ``I want to be an actress.'' Little could she have known then what a splendid acting career lie in front of her. After studying at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York, she moved to Hollywood in 1950 to pursue her dream. Her first film, ``Don't Bother to Knock'' in 1952 starred Marilyn Monroe and Richard Widmark. It was her role in 1962 's ``The Miracle Worker,'' however, that really launched Anne on the path to becoming an acting legend. She famously portrayed Annie Sullivan, Helen Keller's dedicated and truly determined teacher. For her effort, she was rewarded with the Academy Award for Best Actress. 1967's ``The Graduate'' is the film that sealed Anne Bancroft's place in American popular culture. Co-starring with Dustin Hoffman, she became the very embodiment of the character of Mrs. Robinson. Mike Nichols, the film's director, recently remarked that Anne's ``beauty was constantly shifting with her roles, and because she was a consummate actress, she changed radically for every part.'' Additionally, Arthur Penn, who directed her in both the stage and film versions of ``The Miracle Worker,'' said that she was an actress who ``can play anything.'' I can think of no higher complement that can be said of an actor. Anne's death is truly a loss to American culture. Fortunately, her wonderfully-talented performances will live on for future generations to watch and enjoy. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in remembrance of Anne Bancroft whose life and legacy has been a source of enjoyment for so many. My thoughts and prayers are with Anne's beloved husband, director Mel Brooks, and son, Maximillian.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of United States Navy Commander Jeffrey Thomas Bernardi, on the occasion of his retirement following 20 years of dedicated service to our country. Following graduation from Strongsville Senior High School, Commander Bernardi attended the United States Naval Academy, earning his degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1985. Commander Bernardi began his distinguished career as a Naval Flight Officer in 1986. His years of service have taken him to locations around the world. From Bermuda to Sicily and a wide variety of other locations, Commander Bernardi's career exemplifies the very best of our armed services. In February of 1994, for example, he directed tactical support for the first ever P-3C Electro-Optic reconnaissance missions overland Bosnia- Herzegovina in support of Operation DENY FLIGHT. Commander Bernardi received his Master of Arts Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College in 1996. In March of 1999, Commander Bernardi reported to the Bureau of Naval Personnel Sea Duty Component in Arlington, Virginia. He was handpicked to support the execution of a CNO Special Project of national significance. Most recently, in April of 2003, Commander Bernardi reported to Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Assessments Division at the Pentagon. His ditties there included shaping the Navy of the future through independent analytical assessment of warfighting capabilities and Department of the Navy programs. He has received numerous awards over his career for his dedication and commitment to this country. They include the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for heroism, Air Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, four Navy Commendation Medals, and four Navy Achievement Medals. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Commander Jeffrey Thomas Bernardi. As Commander Bernardi marks his retirement from 20 years of dedicated service to our country, I extend my congratulations and deepest thanks to him, as well as his wife, Stephanie, son, Zachary, and daughter, Jennifer.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I could hardly believe my ears to hear one of my colleagues say that America does not need protection from the WTO. We have lost almost 3 million manufacturing jobs. Tell that to those millions of families who have seen their lives destroyed by this trade structure which is based, inherently based, on inequality. We have a $617 billion trade deficit. America does not need protection? We have workers who are struggling to save their homes; but these trade agreements are causing jobs to be moved out and people do not have the opportunity to save their homes. I have been all over this country, and I have seen padlocks on gates and grass growing in parking lots where they used to make steel, where they used to make cars, where they used to washing machines, where they used to make bicycles. America does not need protection? Yes, it is time for us to get out of the WTO because the WTO has set the stage for a driving down of the quality of life in this country. Everyone in this House knows that we cannot write into our laws that workers' rights must be regarded, let us say, in China. I want someone here to contradict that because if we put that China must have the right to organize in any of their conduct of commerce in their country, that would be ruled WTO illegal and the United States would be subject to a fine or sanctions by the WTO just for standing up for workers' rights. There is a moral imperative here, and that imperative is as old as this country. But it is also consistent with basic Christian morality, and may I quote from a Papal Encyclical, Leo XIII, 1891 in Rerum Novarum said, ``Let the working man and the employer make free agreement and in particular let them agree freely as to wages. Nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not be insufficient to support a frugal and well- behaved wage earner if through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better. He is made a victim of force and injustice.'' I maintain that the WTO helps to keep in place a structure of force and injustice against workers because we in this country cannot pass laws that would lift the yoke of this force and injustice off workers anywhere in the world because the WTO does not permit, does not permit any type of workers' rights to be included or to be regarded. They are WTO illegal. We cannot pass workers' rights and put them in our trade agreements. Another Papal Encyclical from Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio: ``But it is unfortunate that on these new conditions of society, a system has been constructed which considers profit as the key motive for economic progress, competition as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership with the means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and carries no corresponding social obligation.'' He goes on to say that ``this leads to a dictatorship rightly denounced by Pious XI by producing the international imperialism of money.'' There is a moral imperative here that we have to recognize that we need trade agreements that have workers' rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles; and we cannot have that with the WTO. It is time to get out of the WTO and set up a trade structure based on those principles.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, as so many American families struggle with the rising costs of health care and with the unavailability of health care, I think it is important to keep in mind that roughly one-third of every health care dollar goes to wasteful administration and profit. The result is that we pay more for our health care than any other industrialized country by a wide margin. Since American businesses are the main provider of health care in the United States, they bear the burden and it is hurting their competitiveness. How do we know? Our competition tells us so. The CEO of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, the president and CEO of GM Canada, and the CEO of DaimlerChrysler Canada had this to say in a 2002 letter: ``Publicly funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada's overall labor cost advantage in auto assembly, versus the U.S. which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada.'' The time has come for national health insurance.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute of Sheriff Gerald T. McFaul for the exemplary service he has shown to our community during his 38 years in public office. As the longest serving sheriff in Cuyahoga County history, Gerald has been a vital asset to our community. In 1957, only two weeks out of high school, Gerald started an apprenticeship at the Pipefitters Local 120 and has been a proud member for 53 years. At the same time he ran for Cleveland City council--and lost. But Gerald was committed to helping his community and on his third try won a seat, which he kept for five consecutive terms. At 31, he became the youngest Majority Leader in Cleveland City Council history. I too at age 31 was elected to a public office in Cleveland, when I was voted the youngest mayor ever of a major American city. So I can tell you personally that this speaks volumes to his character. Because Gerald is interested in justice issues and having a desire to stop racist practices in the police department he decided to run for sheriff. He was elected in 1976 and has been in office for more than 28 years. Sheriff McFaul is a pillar of our community and has worked to keep the streets of Cuyahoga County safe with the utmost respect for the rule of law and the people of this fine county. Mr. Speaker, I am truly pleased that the people of Cuyahoga County turned to Gerald T. McFaul, to serve as sheriff for more than 28 years. Please join me today in honor and recognition of a person who has willingly assisted the residents of Cuyahoga County for nearly four decades.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman is right. There is a point of order, because we need to legislate to fix this problem. I hope that when the authorizing and appropriating committees meet next year that they will consider this approach, giving it the consideration it deserves. It is for both American cattlemen and consumers. The gentleman is correct. I will concede the point of order, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would permit anyone to test for Mad Cow if they so desired. It would require the USDA to perform the test and require the requestor to pay for it. This amendment may strike my colleagues as unnecessary. After all, any food manufacturer should be able to test their own product for safety. Let me explain. Mad Cow disease has been detected in 187,000 cows all over the world. Its early symptoms include weight loss, loss of balance, and acting skittish. The cow later descends into drooling, arching its back, waving its head, and exhibiting unusually aggressive behavior. It is inevitably fatal. Variant CJD, as it is called, which is the disease humans can get from eating infected cattle, has resulted in over 150 deaths in Europe. Most of those occurred in the U.K., the epicenter of the human and bovine outbreaks. The U.S. was spared until 2003 when the first case of Mad Cow was detected in Washington State. Immediately, countries that had invested heavily in their own testing and processing infrastructure in order to assure a safe beef supply closed their borders to American beef exports. Countries like Japan, which now tests every cattle slaughtered, demanded similar testing rates and practices of their own of any importer, including the United States. In the case of Japan, the U.S. refused to meet their demands. As a result, an industry trade group claimed losses of $4.7 billion for cattle producers. Small businesses like Gateway Beef Cooperative, which processes 200 cattle per week, were losing $50,000 per week. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef was losing about $40,000 per day. Some businesses responded with a logical plan. They wanted to test all of their cattle, just like Japan. Not only would it restore access to a crucial overseas market, but it would give them a competitive advantage in parts of the world where consumers demanded the highest safety standards. It was a solution that let the free market work its purported magic by allowing consumers to choose how safe they wanted their beef. But, Mr. Chairman, the USDA stopped them. They invoked a 1913 law, originally intended to ``protect the farmer and stock raiser from improperly made and prepared serums, toxins, and viruses.'' The law gives them control over ``veterinary biologics'' like diagnostic tests. In this case, the USDA took control over who could test their cattle and when by using this law to license use of the diagnostic test only to themselves. An American company was forbidden from testing their own product for safety. Their reasoning? Allowing companies to test all of their cattle, FDA says, ``would have implied a consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically warranted.'' In other words, the FDA worried that consumers will see a label indicating that their meat has been tested for Mad Cow disease and assume it is safer than meat that has not been tested. Why would they worry about that? Is this not the way it is supposed to be? If your food has been tested, you can be assured it is safer. It is not a reason to prevent testing. In fact, it is a strong argument in favor of allowing testing. The real reason the USDA will not let a business owner test their own product is that the beef industry is afraid that a new standard of safety will be set and the marginal cost of adequate testing will cut into their shareholder profits. They also stand to lose if a sufficient number of tests are conducted and another Mad Cow case surfaces. In the meantime, Japan and South Korea are under enormous pressure to lower their beef testing standards and reopen their borders to American beef. They look at all their options. Option number one is to require the U.S. to bring their testing rates up to speed with other industrialized nations. France and Germany test over half their cattle. The U.K. tests all cattle over 24 months old. Japan tests every single one. Meanwhile, the United States boasts about their ramped-up testing rate. In 2004, the year after we found our first case of Mad Cow, the USDA tested 176,468 out of roughly 35 million cattle. That is about a rate of one-half of 1 percent. In other words, about one out of every 200 cattle was tested. On top of that, the administration proposed to reduce funding for surveillance by two-thirds this year, from $69 million to $29 million. The second option for Japan and South Korea is to give in to U.S. demands, drastically lower their safety standards, and allow beef that is held to a safety benchmark that is orders of magnitude lower than their own. In so doing, they would risk undermining fragile public confidence in meat safety. It is not right that the administration would play politics with global food supply. Now, my amendment would allow voluntary testing to occur by requiring the USDA to perform the test on demand. That way the integrity of the testing procedures is maintained under close supervision, and there is accountability and transparency. In the future, there must be a provision to ensure that Congress does not reduce the amount of USDA funding with funds paid by industry for the testing program. In trying to rescue their business by giving consumers what they want, some American beef producers could help fill the leadership vacuum left by the USDA. They should be allowed to. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment today to begin a discussion in this House which is aimed at ensuring the livelihood of commercial fishermen and protecting our oceans, lakes, and streams. This amendment is a reasonable and moderate safeguard. It will delay FDA approval of genetically engineered fish for a year. This amendment is necessary because commercial fishermen and environmentalists have raised concerns that GE fish may pose ecological risks. Scientists from Purdue University and the University of Minnesota have raised a number of serious questions about the ecological impacts of GE fish. These risks include GE fish escape from ocean pens into the environment, which could impact wild populations of fish. In this first chart, Mr. Chairman, GE fish are being engineered to grow faster and bigger. However, several fish ecologists from the University of Minnesota and Purdue University have expressed concerns with these salmon, as their accidental release may create environmentally disastrous extinctions of natural wild salmon species. In the second chart, the bottom fish is the same age as the two smaller fish on top. But, of course, what we have here is a genetically engineered fish on the bottom. The third chart, scientists have determined that a larger fish has an advantage in mating. Thus, larger GE fish, which are more aggressive and consume more food, attract more mates than wild fish. In essence, one could call this one the ``handsomely big GE fish'' is more successful than the ``lonely natural fish.'' Scientists have also determined that these GE fish may survive for only a limited number of generations in the wild. Their offspring will be less fit and less likely to survive. So we are talking about the survival of species here. On the fourth chart, mutant fish are created as GE fish escape into the wild and mate with natural fish. The mutant's fish larger size gives an advantage in mating, forcing new genetic traits to be integrated into the wild. But these mutant fish may only survive for a limited number of generations in the wild. The implications are serious. After several generations, natural fish may go extinct because larger GE fish are more successful than natural fish in mating. Mutant fish also go extinct because their mutant genes decrease the survivability of the species. As a result of GE fish producing unfit offspring that are more successful in mating, the Purdue scientists predict that if 60 genetically engineered fish were introduced into a population of 60,000 wild fish, the species would become extinct within only 40 fish generations. Scientists call this outcome the Trojan Gene Effect. The end result is a possible extinction of important commercial fish species like salmon. The National Academy of Sciences has examined this issue in their report ``Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns, 2002,'' and found ``considerable risk'' and a need for more research. ``Transgenic Atlantic salmon pose a near-term regulatory issue. A brief review of the hazards they pose provides a useful illustration of the environmental hazards posed by GE aquatic species more generally. ``The committee's review,'' continuing on of the quote, ``of ecologic principles and empirical data suggests a considerable risk of ecologic hazards being realized should transgenic fish or shellfish enter the natural ecosystems. In particular, greater empirical knowledge is needed to predict the outcome should transgenes become introgressed into natural populations of aquatic organisms.'' The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the science society of experts on fish, amphibians, and reptiles, has joined the call for a 1-year moratorium. This amendment is strongly supported by commercial fishermen because their struggling industry cannot afford a negative ecological impact on the wild fish species that they depend on for their livelihood. Several States have passed legislation regulating GE fish, including prohibitions, labeling requirements, and permit requirements. The States include Alaska, California, Maryland, Oregon, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington. Mr. Chairman, I brought this discussion to this House for the purposes of alerting the Members of Congress that we need to have a deep debate about this, that we need to do more research, we need to get into this; and for that reason I would have the debate continue. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the following article to the attention of my colleagues. This article discusses how the savings from creating a truly competitive market for prescription drugs, as is proposed by the Free Market Drug Act, could be used to eliminate any projected shortfall in Social Security. The American people demand that we focus our attention on the very real crisis that the soaring price of prescription drugs presents to their daily lives. [From the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Apr., 2005] Bigger Than the Social Security Crisis: Wasteful Spending on Prescription Drugs (By Dean Baker) Executive Summary President Bush started a national debate on the future of Social Security when he announced his plan for private accounts shortly after the November election. In order to promote his plan, he has argued that Social Security faces a serious long-term funding gap. It is easy to show that the projected funding gap for Social Security is relatively minor. The Social Security trustees estimate that the gap over the program's 75-year planning period is equal to 0.6 percent of GDP over this period. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this gap at 0.4 percent of GDP. By comparison, the increase in annual defense spending since 2000 has been equal to 1.0 percent of GDP, more than 1.5 times the size of the shortfall projected by the Social Security trustees and 2.5 times as large as the shortfall projected by CBO. Given the size of the projected Social Security shortfall it is reasonable to argue that attention should be focused on bigger problems. One glaring example is the soaring price of prescription drugs, which is imposing huge costs on both the private and public sectors. This paper examines the relationship between the potential savings from creating a free market in prescription drugs and the size of the Social Security shortfall. Specifically, it calculates the savings that the federal government could accrue in Medicare if drug research was publicly financed and then the resulting patents were placed in the public domain, as proposed in the Free Market Drug Act (FMDA). This would allow prescription drugs to be sold in a competitive market, like other products. By eliminating government imposed patent monopolies, drug prices would decline by approximately 70 percent. This paper calculates that the savings to the federal government from having drugs sold in a competitive market could reach $110 billion annually by 2014. By the end of the period (in 2080) the annual savings would be equal to 1.2 percent of GDP. The cumulative savings over the 75-year planning horizon would be $3.3 trillion (in discounted 2005 dollars); this is slightly larger than the $3.2 trillion Social Security shortfall projected by the CBO. In other words, if the federal government's savings on prescription drugs from the FMDA were attributed to the Social Security trust fund, it would be more than enough to make Social Security fully solvent over its 75-year planning period. The enormous potential savings from developing a free market in prescription drugs should be a powerful argument for moving in this direction in any case, but the possibility of using the savings to eliminate the projected Social Security shortfall could make the policy even more attractive. Of course, the savings to the private sector from having drugs sold in a free market would be even larger than the savings to the federal government. However, the most important benefit is that the FMDA would eliminate the incentives that government patent monopolies create to conceal or misrepresent research findings, as was recently exposed with drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex. If research is no longer financed by government patent monopolies, the perverse incentives they create will be eliminated. This will lead to better health care, in addition to much lower drug prices.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, in the last few weeks I have had the honor of addressing Chambers of Commerce from districts which have included the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). In both cases, we ended up having a deep discussion about the rising cost of health care, about how health care is becoming increasingly costly for many American businesses, a threat to their profitability. Today's news is that General Motors is talking about cutting 25,000 jobs and closing plants. Here is what GM's CEO says in today's news, ``A big challenge for General Motors is to cut its soaring health care expenses, $5.6 billion this year for its 1.1 million current and former workers and their families. Health care bills add about $1,500 to the cost of each GM vehicle, a significant disadvantage versus our foreign- based competition.'' Madam Speaker, it is time for a universal, single-payer, not-for- profit health care system which will enable businesses to survive and the health care needs of the American people to be provided for.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 21, I had the honor of chairing a citizens hearing on the need for national health care which took place in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. I heard testimony from citizens from a wide variety of backgrounds including labor, elected officials, seniors, youth, and physicians and health care workers. What I heard powerfully demonstrates the need for fundamental changes in how America takes care of its people. The hearing clearly showed that the time is long overdue to bring our health care system up to the same standards that other industrialized countries have enjoyed for years. I wish to share some of the testimony I received with my colleagues. Carol McMann, a retiree and an active member of the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees (SOAR) Chapter 2020: ``I am disappointed and frustrated about the way our health care system is going in the United States. A lot of people do not want national health care, but when you get in my situation it would be appreciated!'' ``When LTV Steel liquidated and took my health insurance in the year 2002, it totally left me out in the cold.'' ``I had two choices for health care and the expensive one was the one that I had to take because I needed a prescription drug program. I had to purchase individual health care from Highmark Blue Shield/Blue Cross. If I chose an HMO and was accepted, then I had a year that I would not be covered for pre-existing conditions.'' ``This individual policy costs me $411.95 a month with a $1,000 deductible. It increases each year in September. Who knows what the total will be in two more years! My husband and I figured out our total cost for health care each year, including prescription drugs, and it came out to more than $10,000. It takes all of my social security just to pay the premium alone. I am a homemaker!'' ``At the end of the month, we have to watch because if our fixed income is gone, we must use our savings again and again. We fear it may be gone in the future. To wind this down, we no longer vacation, go on shopping sprees, buy our sons much, or enjoy life as before. It has depressed us at times and causes us to feel as though my husband worked for absolutely no reason! He served in the Army and also the Reserves. Our health care just meant everything to us in our retirement. Just everything! ``We feel this administration and other elected leaders will not fix this problem. Everyone in this country now is just expected to take care of themselves.'' Mike Sabat, an unemployed Anchor Hocking worker whose son Mikey suffers from autism: ``Whatever happened to the American dream of hard work at a good job with medical benefits? Now we have to ask employers what kind of medical insurance they offer, how much it costs, and then deal with an endless assortment of HMOs, PPOs, and managed care and third-party administrators. And don't forget the eye care, dental, orthotics, and mental health coverage. It seems like we have been working all our lives just for our medical benefits!'' ``I am laid-off again at the present time, however, a union contract saved my medical insurance for four months.'' ``In a country so rich, no one should have to go without food, water, clothing, shelter, quality education, and especially health care!'' ``People should not be in debt, as I am, over their medical insurance or bills!'' ``Those commercials about insurance fraud kill me. I think when you have insurance and you go to the doctor or hospital thinking you are covered then you get a large bill, that's the real insurance fraud!'' Ian Thompson, a recent graduate of Penn State University who will soon be losing his health coverage: ``Simply put, to say that the current health care system is failing to meet the needs of America's young adults is at best a gross understatement. While young people between the ages of 19 to 29 account for a mere 15 percent of the U.S. population, they are disproportionately represented among the roughly 45 million Americans who currently lack health insurance, accounting for roughly 30 percent according to recent census figures. These findings have shown that young people account for the highest percentage of uninsured Americans.'' ``Nineteen to 29 year olds represent one of the biggest and fastest growing segments of the population living day to day without health insurance, yet individuals in this age group rarely appear in the national debate on health insurance.'' ``It probably comes as no surprise that one of the largest barriers for young adults in seeking health insurance coverage is cost. In many instances, the price of coverage simply rises faster than incomes, making it especially difficult for younger people to obtain coverage. ``For many younger people, the consequences of going without health insurance don't seem as immediate as cutting back on grocery bills, losing car insurance, or missing a rent or mortgage payment. So they decide to take a chance--a calculated risk that they won't face a serious and costly health crisis--and forgo health coverage for months and often years at a time. Sadly, for many this proves to be a devastating gamble. When catastrophes hit the uninsured, as they can and do to individuals in every age group, many are left completely buried in massive amounts of debt, unable to afford even basic medical necessities. ``With the numbers of uninsured Americans steadily increasing, today's young people face the sad prospect of being sicker and less econeconomicallyductive over the course of their lives. Amid a soft job market and ever increasing insurance costs, many experts fear that more and more young adults will forgo medical care altogether. Research has in fact shown that it is a common practice among uninsured young people to go to a doctor less often and later into an illness, often ending up with so many other countless uninsured Americans in hospital emergency rooms for conditions that easily could have been treated at an earlier time. Those who argue that younger adults are an age group that does not have the same health needs as other segments of the population simply have not been paying attention to the facts. Younger adults have the highest number of annual visits to emergency rooms each year (usually from injuries). They account for a third of new HIV diagnoses. And nearly four million pregnancies occur in women in their 20s every year. The results of a lack of insurance for young people are truly shocking and should act as a wake-up call to the consciences of Americans from across the political spectrum. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 young adults die each year because they lack health insurance to cover their problems. Additionally, uninsured adults are 25 percent more likely to die prematurely than those with private health insurance coverage. ``There is something inherently perverted and fundamentally flawed with a health care system that prides itself as being the best and most advanced in the world while at the same time allowing 18,000 young people to die each and every year from illnesses and diseases that in many cases could be avoided with simple preventive treatment. ``The time is long overdue to change our outrageously costly and grossly inefficient health care system to one that meets the basic needs of the American public in terms of gaining universal, efficient, available, and affordable access to the highest quality health care. H.R. 676, the U.S. National Health Insurance Act goes a long way towards accomplishing this very goal. This legislation would improve and expand upon what older Americans already receive through the very successful Medicare program to include all U.S. residents. To say it is needed is an understatement. The current for-profit system of health care must be replaced with one that puts the interests of people first.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the following article on associated health plans to the attention of my colleagues. We must continue to work to bring health care coverage to the more than 45 million Americans who are uninsured. This article clearly shows that associated health plans are not the solution. I will continue to push for the adoption of a truly comprehensive and universal, single-payer health care program. [From the Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2005] Insurance Option Has Workers Pay More (By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar) For years, they were the kinds of health insurance plans one found at small businesses or among the self-employed, plans that had huge deductibles and required workers to pay a lot of medical bills themselves--such as allergy shots, chest X-rays and the cost of a new baby. They weren't the policies most people preferred, but they were the best some people could afford, better than no insurance at all. Now, as medical costs keep climbing, those high-deductible plans are spreading to the giant corporations that have long been the backbone of traditional job-related, low deductible health insurance. And if the trend continues, it could reshape the medical insurance landscape and sharply redistribute costs, risks and responsibilities for many of the 160 million Americans with private coverage. A number of large employers, including defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp., the Wendy's hamburger chain, high-tech conglomerate Fujitsu and office supply retailer Staples Inc., are adding what they call consumer-directed health plans to their menus of insurance options. In a recent survey, 26 percent of large employers said they would offer such plans in 2006, up from 14 percent this year. Another survey found that about half of large companies were considering adding them. A few companies are pursuing a ``full replacement'' strategy that leaves workers with no other choice. But even where such plans are optional, they are proving popular with workers who might once have scorned a plan that could leave them with several thousand dollars in medical bills each year. At Fujitsu, about half of 5,000 eligible U.S. employees have signed up for the option. What suddenly makes such plans attractive to workers is that many are caught in a painful bind: In recent years, pay increases have been small at best. At the same time, employers have been requiring workers to pay a larger and larger share of their health insurance premiums. It's not uncommon for higher payroll deductions for health care to more than offset any pay raises. With the high-deductible plan, workers pay lower monthly premiums and their employers commonly help them build up a special savings account to cushion the impact of a larger annual deductible. The accounts are controlled by the employees, which has led insurers and employers to label the plans ``consumer-directed.'' Even if high-deductible plans offer immediate relief for many workers, and big cost savings to employers, the allure may not last. And the plans may do little or nothing to solve the basic problem of soaring health costs. ``You're beginning to see a lot of growth in these plans, not because they're going to solve America's health care challenge, but because it's a way for employers to cut their out-of-control benefit costs,'' said Robert Laszewski, a consultant to health insurance companies. ``Any time an employer can raise deductibles from $200 to $1,000, it is going to reduce their costs. But will it reduce U.S. health costs generally? The jury is still really out on that. `` The reason, he said, is that 10 percent of the people--the sickest Americans--account for 70 percent of total health care costs. ``Once the sick people have gone through their deductible, they're back to regular health plan--the incentives for them don't really change,'' Laszewski said. ``This is a cost shift device, and not a means to fundamentally control health care costs.'' Moreover, the willingness of workers to sign up for less generous plans may change over time, as workers and their families get older and more likely to encounter serious medical costs. ``To make these plans truly work, they have to work for the sickest population--it can't be a plan that only works for the healthy,'' said Joe Walshe, a principal with the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. ``It's very difficult, but that's where the challenge is.'' In the meantime, the short-term appeal of high-deductible plans is easy to see. Employees get a bit more take-home pay. Employers get some relief from higher health care costs. For big companies, the new plans represent an upfront savings of about 10 percent and the expectation of more gradual cost increases over time. Last year, large employers spent an average of $5,584 per worker for coverage through a high-deductible plan, compared with $6,181 for a worker in the typical preferred provider network, according to a Mercer Human Resource Consulting survey. Employers say the new plans are not designed primarily to shift costs to workers. The ultimate goal, they say, is to cut health care costs by changing consumers' behavior-- teaching them to be more cost-conscious about things such as generic drugs. ``In three to five years, every company is going to offer them,'' predicted Alexander Domaszewicz, a Mercer senior consultant based in Newport Beach. ``People are going to be coming over from companies that have them, and they are going to want them.'' When the city of Las Vegas began offering a consumer- directed plan to 2,200 eligible employees last year, 60 percent signed up. ``When I was growing up in the 1950s, no one had insurance for day-to-day going to the doctor,'' said Victoria Robinson, the city's insurance manager. ``You covered those expenses yourself and had major medical if you had to have your appendix out or something like that. ``It's almost like going back to the future,'' she said. Yes and no, analysts say. When employers began offering health insurance, it was a way to attract workers by offering them something of value without directly raising their pay. Today, in purely economic terms, shifting insurance costs to workers amounts to reducing compensation. Although workers may think they will only face the high deductible if serious illness strikes, those receiving routine medical care can also face fairly hefty medical bills. Many of the new plans ``confront people with a lot more cost sharing than they are currently experiencing,'' said Sherry Glied, a health policy professor at Columbia University. ``If you are the kind of person who can't keep $2,000 in an account, it could be a really bad idea for you.'' The experience of Mark Pung, a general contractor in Grand Rapids, Mich., shows why such plans can be enticing. The father of four children, Pung says he would never dream of going without health insurance. Yet he and his wife, Dana, paid for the births of their two youngest children out their own pockets--$3,600 for each healthy baby girl. That's because their medical insurance carries a $5,000 deductible for the family. Since their premiums are $180 a month, or $2,160 a year, they could find themselves with as much as $7,160 in out-of- pocket health care costs in a single year. On the other hand, the Pungs face much lower monthly premiums than they would have to pay for a traditional plan: between $800 and $1,400 a month for family coverage--at least $9,600 a year in premiums alone. Initially, Pung said, ``I felt more exposure. But it wasn't enough to stop me from doing it, because I could run the numbers and see how much sense it made.'' The numbers would not be so dramatic for workers in company plans. Employers help pay premiums and the deductibles are lower. In 2004, the median deductible for a family in a company-provided plan was $3,000. The employer contributed $1,200 toward that through a special account, according to Mercer, leaving the employee responsible for $1,800. Proponents of consumer-directed health care say another advantage of the plans is that higher deductibles encourage consumers to shop smarter. The two major firms that administer the plans for large employers--Lumenos Inc. in Alexandria, Va., and Definity Health Corp. in Minneapolis--also supply employees with ideas for saving money, online health care information and related services. ``The key thing is the whole concept of getting the consumer engaged,'' said Doug Kronenberg, chief strategy officer for Lumenos. ``We've got to see behavior change for us as a country to be able to address the escalating health care costs we've got.'' When patients have no ``skin in the game,'' he said, they don't think about how to save. In Washington, Republican policy-makers have encouraged the trend toward high deductible insurance plans. Congress expanded tax-sheltered medical accounts and renamed them health savings accounts, or HSAs, in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. A year earlier, the Treasury Department had quietly issued a ruling that enabled employers to offer a plan known as a health reimbursement arrangement. The savings accounts are available to people who buy health coverage with deductibles of at least $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for families. Employees and employers can make pretax contributions to cover the deductible. The accounts belong to employees, who can take them along when they switch jobs. With reimbursement accounts, employees don't own the health care accounts. They can roll over unused balances at the end of the year, but they cannot take their accounts with them if they switch jobs. In a typical reimbursement account, an employer would create an account for an employee and family, and commit to cover the first $2,000 of their health care costs. The employee would then be responsible for the next $1,000. After that, traditional health coverage would kick in, with the policy paying 90 percent of the costs and the employee 10 percent. Both the reimbursement and savings accounts have caps on how much an individual can be required to pay in a year. Still, financial incentives can change--especially as individuals realize they need greater levels of health care. ``The real concern is that people will want to switch out of these plans when they get sick,'' said Glied, the Columbia professor. ``Then it will be very expensive for employers.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the following article to the attention of my colleagues. The article details the reasons that the U.S. pays excessively high prices for prescription drugs. The Free Market Drug Act gets at the heart of the problem outlined below. [From the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Sept. 21, 2004. Financing Drug Research: What Are the Issues? (By Dean Baker) Executive Summary Rising drug prices are placing an ever larger burden on family budgets and the economy. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates 2004 expenditures at $207 billion (more than $700 per person), and projects that annual spending will grow to more than $500 billion by 2013 (more than $1,600 per person). The immediate cause of high drug prices is government granted patent monopolies, which allow drug companies to charge prices that are often 400 percent, or more, above competitive market prices. Patent monopolies are one possible mechanism for financing prescription drug research. Rapidly increasing drug costs, and the economic distortions they imply, have led researchers to consider alternative mechanisms for financing drug research. This paper outlines some of the key issues in evaluating patents and other mechanisms for financing prescription drug research. It then assesses how four proposed alternatives to the patent system perform by these criteria. The most obvious problem stemming from patent protection for prescription drugs is the huge gap it creates between the cost of producing drugs and the price. In addition, to making drugs unaffordable in many cases, high drug prices also lead to enormous economic inefficiency. Patent monopolies cause economic distortions in the same way that trade tariffs or quotas lead to economic distortions, but the size of the distortions are far greater. While trade barriers rarely increase prices by more than 10 to 20 percent, drug patents increase prices by an average of 300-400 percent above the competitive market price, and in some cases the increase is more than 1000 percent. Simple calculations suggest that the deadweight efficiency losses from patent protection are roughly comparable in size to the amount of research currently supported by the patent system-- approximately $25 billion in 2004. Projections of rapidly rising research costs, and therefore a growing gap between price and marginal cost, imply that the deadweight loss due to drug patents will exceed $100 billion a year by 2013. As economic theory predicts, government granted patent monopolies lead not only to deadweight efficiency losses due to the gap between the patent protected price and the competitive market price, but also to a variety of other distortions. Among these distortions are: (1) Excessive marketing expenses, as firms seek to pursue the monopoly profits associated with patent protection--data from the industry suggests that marketing costs are currently comparable to the amount of money spent on research; (2) wasted research spending into duplicative drugs--industry data indicates that roughly two thirds of research spending goes to developing duplicative drugs rather than drugs that represent qualitative breakthroughs over existing drugs; (3) the neglect of research that is not likely to lead to patentable drugs; (4) concealing research findings in ways that impede the progress of research, and prevent the medical profession and the public from becoming aware of evidence that some drugs may not be effective, or could even be harmful. In addition, the patent system for financing prescription drug research poses large and growing problems in an international context. Disputes over patent rules have increasingly dominated trade negotiations. Furthermore, problems of enforcement have persisted even after agreements have been reached. These problems are likely to worsen through time, as the pharmaceutical industry seeks to increase the amount of money it extracts from other countries through patent rents. This paper examines four alternatives to the patent system: (1) A proposal by Tim Hubbard and James Love for a mandatory employer-based research fee to be distributed through intermediaries to researchers (Love 2003); (2) A proposal by Aidan Hollis for zero-cost compulsory licensing patents, in which the patent holder is compensated based on the rated quality of life improvement generated by the drug, and the extent of its use (Hollis 2004); (3) A proposal by Michael Kremer for an auction system in which the government purchases most drug patents and places them in the public domain (Kremer 1998); and (4) A proposal by Representative Dennis Kucinich to finance pharmaceutical research through a set of competing publicly supported research centers (Kucinich 2004). All four of these proposals finance prescription drugs in ways that allow most drugs to be sold in a competitive market, without patent monopolies. These proposals also would eliminate many of the economic distortions created by the patent system. These proposals, along with other plausible alternatives to the patent system, deserve serious consideration. Current projections for drug spending imply that patent supported prescription drug research will lead to ever larger distortions through time. For this reason, it is important to consciously select the best system for financing prescription drug research, not to just accept the patent system due to inertia.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on May 26, 2005, I sent the following letter to Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): House of Representatives, May 26, 2005. Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC. Dear Dr. Griffin: NASA is able to develop long term, high- risk enabling aeronautics technologies that the private sector is unwilling to develop because they are too risky or too expensive. In fact, government funding of basic science has historically been the major role of government-sponsored research in aeronautics as well as the pharmaceutical, defense, and energy industries. When that basic research yields information that could lead to a service or product with profit potential, the private sector transitions the technology from research to development in order to bring it to market. It is clear that where there is no basic research, there can be no development. Where there is no research and development, there can be no competitive industry. Without a thriving competitive aeronautics industry, we undermine our economy, national security, and airline safety. Any management decisions that significantly erode NASA's aeronautics programs will require decades and billions of dollars to replace. We urge you to take all possible steps to preserve a robust aeronautics program at NASA. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich, Member of Congress.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of all veterans of the 10th Congressional District of Ohio for their service, bravery, and dedication on behalf of our country. Most significantly, we stand in tribute and remembrance of those veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice when they answered the call to duty. The lives of many veterans and their families have been uplifted by the outreach efforts of the Parma Veterans Center--a haven of services and assistance focused on the emotional, psychological, medical, financial, and employment needs of thousands of veterans and their families. The services and support provided by the Parma Veterans Center is the least we can do on behalf of our veteran--our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, mothers, fathers and grandfathers--thousands of whom have made significant sacrifices and suffered great losses during and after their unwavering service to our country. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, tribute and gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces--let us forever remember their service, sacrifice and sense of duty--yesterday, today, and for generations to come.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, health care in this country is a crisis of major proportions. Seniors are still splitting pills to make their medications last. People will not go to a doctor because they cannot afford it. Only if some are near death will they rush to the hospital. It is clearly time for a universal, single payer, not-for-profit health care system called Medicare For All, and that is exactly what H.R. 676, sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and by myself would achieve. Medicare For All will cost the same amount the Nation currently spends for health care overall, but funds will be reallocated to cover everyone, to improve care and eliminate cost for individuals. And here is what would be covered: all medically necessary procedures, primary care and prevention, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, long-term care, mental health, dental health, and vision care, as well as chiropractic services. It is time for us to realize a primary purpose of our government is to make sure our people are healthy. Health care is a basic right in a democratic society. I am urging support for H.R. 676.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and welcome Ron Ellington Shy, the musician and actor, back home to Cleveland. Ron will be at the Joseph Gallagher Middle School in Ohio's 10th Congressional District on May 27, 2005, to participate in the ``Stars for Peace'' rally for peace and violence prevention. A musician, actor, and dynamic entertainer with incredible vocal ability, Ron Ellington Shy was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame as a former member of such legendary groups as ``The Coasters,'' ``The Drifters,'' and ``Don & Dewey.'' Ron was born and raised in Cleveland. He moved to California where he attended Fullerton Junior College and continued his education at the University of Southern California, majoring in psychology and minoring in music. His early career included playing professional football and achieving many accolades for his athletic abilities. He was a Golden Gloves boxing champion and holds a black belt in Karate. As a recording artist, Ron Ellington Shy performed such memorable hits of the 1950s and 1960s as ``Leavin' It All Up To You,'' ``Jungle Hop,'' ``Justine,'' ``The Letter,'' ``Farmer John,'' and my late colleague Sonny Bono's ``Koko Joe.'' A gifted vocalist, Ron is also a versatile musician who plays guitar, piano, organ, saxophone, valve trombone, and harmonica. He is known for his charismatic showmanship, involving his audience as they sing along to the many classic oldies he performs in his shows. As an actor, Ron has appeared on television in such notable programs as ``Dallas,'' ``Knotts Landing,'' and ``Falcon Crest,'' as well as TV commercials for Right Guard deodorant, Church's Chicken, and the California Lottery. Currently, Ron is on a national tour acting the role, and performing the music, of the late Ray Charles. Ron graciously accepted the invitation of the Joseph Gallagher Middle School, the East Cleveland Neighborhood Center, and local Hip-Hop impresario Bill ``Silver B'' Richards, to participate in the ``Stars for Peace'' rally for peace and violence prevention. Ron and the sponsors and organizers of this event understand the importance of international peace and that peace begins with each of us as individuals and in our homes. Mr. Speaker, and Colleagues, it is my pleasure to welcome Ron Ellington Shy to Ohio's 10th District, to congratulate him on his many accomplishments, and to commend him on taking a stand in using his fame and international recognition to promote world peace and violence prevention.