Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the goal of Head Start has always been to help young children in low-income families, specifically those below the poverty line, prepare for school. Head Start has focused its resources on the children most in need, and has been successful in narrowing the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. Today, we can correct a problem in Head Start and ensure that it serves all the children it was intended to. The poverty thresholds were developed in the early 1960s and at that time statistics showed that families typically spent one-third of their income on food. The thresholds were designed to take the costs of the Department of Agriculture's economy food plan for families and multiply the costs by a factor of three. Currently, the calculations of the poverty line for Head Start are adjusted by the Consumer Price Index annually to account for the growth in prices. Unfortunately, the current calculation leaves important factors out of the calculation of the poverty line. Adjusting only for changes in price growth ignores the reality that times have changed. It is not 1965. Today, families are much more likely to spend significant portions of their income on housing. It is more likely that both parents will be working full time jobs. Both childcare costs and the likelihood that a family will need it have also increased. Additionally, the failure to adjust the poverty line as wages have grown now means that families in poverty today are worse off relative to the typical family than families in poverty were 40 years ago. For instance, the threshold for a family of four, when the poverty thresholds were first introduced--$18,810 in 2003 dollars--was 42 percent of the median income of a family that size. By 2003, the value of the poverty threshold for a family of four had fallen to 35.7 percent. Adjusting only for changes in price growth for the past 40 years has slowly eroded the group of intended recipients. Now we are left with families in need of assistance whose children are not even eligible for Head Start. This amendment seeks to bridge the gap that has been created and ensure that it will not be created again in the future. Currently, the 2005 poverty line for a family of 3 is $16,090. By tying the poverty line to wage growth, rather than price growth, the poverty line for a family of 3 would become $19,610. The increase in the poverty line produced by this change by no means raises eligibility to include every child who could benefit from Head Start. But this adjustment will significantly help the families who should have been eligible all along. It is a step in the right direction; the direction of ensuring that the working poor are given the help they need to survive. This committee is not only charged with ensuring that Head Start programs are performing well but with ensuring that they are serving all the children they were intended to. This amendment will help to ensure that children do not continue to be left behind. I urge my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Workforce to join me in supporting my amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the administration, through senior Air Force officials, wants the U.S. to achieve military supremacy in outer space. Dominating all earth from outer space will have an out-of-world price tag, perhaps more than $1 trillion. A question: Why reach for the stars with guns in our hands? Are there weapons of mass destruction on Mars? Yesterday 28 Members of Congress signed on to H.R. 2420, a bill to stop the weaponization of space, urging the President to sign an international treaty to ban such weapons. If we work together towards creating peace on earth, we would not bring war to the high heavens. While some fantasize about being ``masters of the universe,'' there are 45 million Americans without health insurance. Corporations are reneging on pension obligations. Social Security is under attack. We are headed towards a $400 billion annual budget deficit, a $600 billion trade deficit, an $8 trillion national debt. The cost of the war in Iraq is over $200 billion. While we build new bases in Iraq, we close them in the United States. Earth to Washington, D.C. Earth to Washington, D.C. D.C., call home.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the administration is considering putting weapons in outerspace to give the United States the power to control the world. This astronomical arrogance pushes not simply aggression to new heights but may well preclude our Nation from spending money for anything other than weapons which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 states that it is ``the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'' Space was envisioned as a place of cooperation, of confirming human unity, a place where we could aspire to build a new platform of peace, fulfilling the prophecy of the poet Browning, who wrote: ``But a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?'' What has happened to our country? Why are we projecting fear and paranoia to such heights? Have we so lost our way and our faith that we are prepared to transform the heavens into hell? If the kingdom and the will of God is to be done on Earth as it is in heaven, what is to happen when the United States takes nuclear fire up to the gates of heaven? Such an offense against humanity could bring the wrath of God upon this Nation.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, when I was traveling the country, I had the opportunity to visit many areas around America. I would stand in front of plant gates that were padlocked. I saw grass growing in parking lots which were once filled with cars, where workers would go into a plant and they would make steel, cars, washing machines, sewing machines, truck bodies. And now their plant gates are padlocked and there is grass growing in the parking lots. All of America is littered with the rusting hulks of huge manufacturing plants. Yet there are many people who remain in those communities who have the ability to do the work. It is not that there is no work to be done. It is not that we are not consuming the very products which were made once in America. But they are being made now elsewhere at a fraction of the price, where workers are underpaid, where they have no rights. When we started years ago challenging these trade agreements, some of us were told, well, you are being an isolationist; we have to have trade. Well, it is true, we do have to have trade; but we have to have fair trade. We have to have trade which respects the undeniable fact that all people are interdependent and interconnected. These trade agreements create a divide, a chasm, between the very wealthy and the increasingly poor. These trade agreements have helped to bring about the destructive undermining of America's middle class. So when you look at that map, I say to the gentleman, and you can see not only various colors of States, depending on how many jobs they have lost, but behind those statistics are individual stories of dreams that were shattered, of families that were broken, of opportunities that were denied, of futures that were totally changed, of the American Dream being dashed, of the American Dream being dashed. That is why we are standing here tonight, challenging CAFTA and, by reference, all of the other trade agreements that have passed.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his ever-present vigilance on issues that affect American workers and the American economy. I rise tonight to join him in objecting to CAFTA and in pointing out to the people why it is so important that CAFTA be defeated. All of these trade agreements have been about one thing and one thing only--cheap labor. Corporations create conditions where they help to pass these agreements so that they can move jobs out of this country and create jobs in other countries but the jobs in the other countries are not benefiting people because they are working, in some cases, far below the poverty level. CAFTA, as it was with NAFTA, creates conditions where workers have no rights. As a matter of fact, the trade agreements are written specifically to preclude workers having the right to collective bargaining, the right to organize, the right to strike, the right to decent wages and benefits, the right to a safe workplace, the right to be compensated if you are injured on the job, the right to a secure retirement, the right to participate in the political process. All of those are swept aside under CAFTA as they were under NAFTA. What happens when jobs are created under these trade agreements? First of all, workers are working for a pittance. Secondly, they have no protections whatsoever. They are just basically human chattel. Third, there is no job security. They can be moved around. Beyond that, these trade agreements have no protections against child labor, prison labor, slave labor. They have no protections for the water or the air.

Mr. KUCINICH. Yes. The agreements are written so that corporations have protections and their patents have protections and people who need drugs in certain countries for their own health often cannot afford them because the patent protections are supplied to corporations under these trade agreements but countries cannot go ahead and make generic equivalents because it would challenge the way the trade laws are structured. So these trade agreements are never written to benefit people. They are written to benefit corporations. We have to remember that even in our own country, corporations often have greater powers than individuals. There was an 1895, I believe it was, Santa Clara County decision by the Supreme Court which basically ceded to corporations a whole range of rights that put them on equal status with people. Yet corporations do not want to recognize the fundamental human rights that workers have, the fundamental responsibility that we all have to protecting the environment, and so they are given privileges in this country to avoid responsibility for protecting our air and water, to avoid responsibility for protecting workers' pensions, to avoid responsibility for providing for a safe workplace. They often can get off on some of their violations. Yet these trade agreements basically create a race to the bottom on standards, on rights, on principles, on the environment. That is why it is absolutely critical that my colleague has been leading the way on this and I am glad to join him in challenging what this does to people. There are moral principles here. These principles go beyond politics. Pope Leo XIII when he wrote Rerum Novarum talked about the rights of workers. Pope Paul VI when he wrote his encyclical Progressive Populorum spoke about how corporations have responsibilities. There are fundamental principles that are engrained in a Judeo-Christian ethic, in a body where we celebrate, we are told, these kind of principles which are a bedrock of our society, yet they are just swept aside in favor of profit. It is not supposed to be that way. That is why so many of us stood with young people in the streets of Seattle to challenge the WTO. That is why people are gathering all over this country challenging the Central American Free Trade Agreement. That is why our brothers and sisters in Central America need us to stand up. Yo creo que es muy importante pelear por los derechos de los trabajadores. It is very important to take a stand for the rights of workers.

Mr. KUCINICH. A member of congress from one of these Central American countries who will be meeting with a group of Congressmen soon so I do not want to release his name just yet, told me that when a bill that would help facilitate CAFTA came before the House in his country, that it was brought in at about 3 in the morning, that members did not have a chance to read it, that they did not know that it would facilitate the privatization of public services, for example, and that they were basically encouraged to vote for it sight unseen. These are the kind of fundamental violations of democratic principles and democratic rights which we see people in Central America already suffering even before this agreement is passed. What happens is these corporations have so much power in these other countries that legislatures are steamrolled. Here in the Congress of the United States, people not only in Central America but in this country are depending on Members to stand up, depending on us to stand up for the basic rights of workers but also depending on us to stand up to stop the continued erosion of manufacturing jobs in this country. As my colleague points out in his chart there on the trade deficit, it is obvious that NAFTA has not resulted in creating jobs in this country. It has resulted in taking good-paying manufacturing jobs out of this country. Those are jobs that supported middle- class existence for many families. Those are jobs that helped sustain communities. Those are jobs that helped protect small business. Those are jobs that had health care benefits. Those are jobs that let people buy homes. Those are jobs that let people send their children to college. And now we are seeing our whole way of life adversely affected by these trade agreements. That is why CAFTA presents us with an opportunity to say, stop, stop, let's start to go back through the whole structure of trade agreements and demand that no agreement can ever exist unless it has fundamental protections for workers' rights, human rights and the environment, because frankly when corporations sweep those aside, that is how they make their profit.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, before we conclude, it appears to me that there is an opening here for this Congress, that at a time when we are challenging these trade agreements, we have an opportunity to present an alternative. That alternative should not just be creating a new architecture for trade with workers' rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles; but that alternative should also include an American manufacturing policy, a new one, a new American manufacturing policy which declares that the maintenance of steel, automotive, and aerospace is vital to our national security; that for that reason, we should be thinking in terms of rebuilding automotive, with cars that are more fuel economical. We should be thinking of rebuilding steel, because we consume so much steel in this country; there are so many mills that we could actually bring back to life. We should be thinking about rebuilding aerospace, not shipping jobs overseas. Right now, our trade deficit with China is approaching about $160 billion, is it not?

Mr. KUCINICH. Right. China at this moment is organizing its economy to be able to excel in steel, automotive, and aerospace because Chinese leaders recognize that it is those very industries that enabled America 50 years ago to achieve preeminence in all the world. So we need a new American manufacturing policy, and we need a new policy which rebuilds our infrastructure. Just as FDR understood that the New Deal was an opportunity to put millions of people back to work, we should create a deal where we rebuild our infrastructure, where we rebuild our bridges, our water systems, our sewer systems; where we rebuild parks and hospitals and schools; where we rebuild America's infrastructure and create millions of new jobs, and then that would be an investment that would enable people to go back and start factories again. Mr. Speaker, we need a new direction in this country. We need a new approach with our economy. We have to do something about this trade deficit, but we have to make sure that our basic infrastructure is strong to help create productivity; and we also have to do something about our tax system, which is incentivizing the movement of jobs out of this country, our tax system where 34 percent of the tax cuts go to the top one percent. Also, we have to recognize, as some of our major industries are recognizing, that if we are going to protect industry in this country, then we have to have a universal, single-payer health care system. Because we know right now that the automotive business is in trouble in part because of the health care costs. We need a system where everyone is covered; that would help American manufacturing as well. And we need to protect people's retirement security. It is absolutely a disgrace that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation right now has over $26 billion in the hole, and that they have over $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities they are facing, and all the corporations in America are looking right now to dump their pension obligations on the government. Right now people over 55 years old have the lowest level of savings; for seven consecutive quarters, it is at $10,400. It is the lowest consecutive quarter since 1934. So people's savings are being undermined, their pensions are being lost, and now there is an attack on Social Security. All of this fits together. We have to have an holistic view and vision of what our country needs. We need to have health care and retirement security. We need to have retirement security. We need to rebuild our infrastructure and have a new manufacturing policy. But we need to first take care of business, which means standing up here, challenging CAFTA and saying we are going to use the defeat of CAFTA as an opportunity for a new beginning in the American economy. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for the leadership that he has shown on this; and I want to tell him what an honor it has been to be on the floor with him this evening.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, Today, I sent this letter in defense of 1,100 Cleveland, Ohio jobs as a result of the BRAC process: May 17, 2005. Chairman Anthony Principi, Base Realignment and Closure Commission, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Principi: Last week's announcement of the 2005 Department of Defense recommended BRAC closure list has inappropriately targeted the Cleveland area with over 1,100 jobs cuts. Cleveland currently suffers from a severe economic recession. Therefore I find the inclusion of these Cleveland facilities to be a substantial deviation from the selection criteria. These job losses are outrageous, unjust, and unfair. Specifically, the BRAC list included the following cuts that directly affect the immediate Cleveland area: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in Cleveland is scheduled to lose 1,028 jobs with approximately 175 jobs being spared, to protect the recent Lockheed Martin A76 privatization of the Military and Retired Annuitant Pay Services contract function. The jobs are being moved to DFAS facilities in Columbus, OH, Denver, CO, and Indianapolis, IN. (BRAC Report: Volume 1, Part 2 H&SA 37-39); The Glenn Research Center is also scheduled to lose 50 civilian military research jobs. The Army Research Laboratory at Glenn is losing the Vehicle Technology Directorate to the Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. (BRAC Report: Volume 1, Part 2 Tech--22); The Navy Reserve Center in Cleveland is scheduled to close and 25 jobs will be lost. (BRAC Report: Volume 1, Part 2 DoN-29). As you know, the BRAC Commission has the authority to change the Department's recommendations, if it determines that the Secretary deviated substantially from the force structure plan and/or selection criteria. (Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005: Title XXVllI-General Provisions: Subtitle C--Base Closure and Realignment: Sec. 2832. Specification of final selection criteria for 2005 base closure round.) I believe the Department of Defense has clearly deviated from the selection criteria. The Secretary is required to consider the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations. (Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005: Title XXVIII-General Provisions: Subtitle C--Base Closure and Realignment: Sec. 2832. Specification of final selection criteria for 2005 base closure round.) The Department of Defense erroneously states that a 0.1% job loss within the Cleveland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has minimal economic impact. However, the Department of Defense failed to take into account the current economic position of the Cleveland area. Cleveland has been labeled as the poorest city in the country today. Its poverty rate of 31.3 percent is the highest in the nation, according to the most recent Census Bureau data from 2003. (Places within United States: Percent of People Below Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months: 2003 American Community Survey Summary Tables: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ GRTTable? bm=y&-geo id=16000US0820000&-_box _head_nbr=R01&- ds_name= ACS_2003_EST_ G00_&-_lang=en&-format=US-32&-_sse=on) Cleveland's #1 ranking in poverty rate results from the significant job losses in the steel and manufacturing industries over the past several decades. These job losses continue. For example, the current 2006 budget recently passed by Congress would slash up to 700 high paying federal jobs at the NASA Glenn Research Center. The economy around Cleveland is stagnating. Clearly, a 0.1 percent job loss for Cleveland is far more damaging than such a loss in another city with a better economic base. For example, the three cities scheduled to gain additional jobs from Cleveland's BRAC losses have poverty rates that are half to a third of Cleveland's. The poverty rates (and rankings) are 16.5 percent (35th), 13.6 percent (49th), and 12.6 percent (55th) for Columbus, Denver, and Indianapolis respectively. (Places within United States: Percent of People Below Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months: 2003 American Community Survey Summary Tables: http:// factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable? bmy&-geo_ id=16000US0820000&-_box_head_nbr=R01&- ds_name=ACS_2003_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-format=US-32&-_sse=on) This BRAC round will secure for the foreseeable future Cleveland's #1 poverty ranking. This is clear evidence that closures of these facilities in the Cleveland area fall outside the criteria of the BRAC process. I therefore request the BRAC Commission to reverse the job losses in the Cleveland area. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich, Member of Congress.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I would like to read to the Members from excerpts from an op-ed that the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and I published in ``USA Today.'' ``The military occupation of Iraq will not turn Iraq into a democratic nation. Longstanding rivalries will do more to shape that country's future. Those forces will not be controlled by American boots on the ground no matter how many we put there or how long they remain. ``In Iraq there are no front lines, no easy way to tell friend from foe, no clear way to measure success. Iraq is a quagmire. It has become a recruiting post for Osama bin Laden. Are we to keep fighting indefinitely, losing more troops every week, spending billions of dollars, and increasing the strain on our Armed Forces, especially the Reserve and the National Guard? ``Iraq has already added $200 billion to our national debt and costs U.S. taxpayers more than $1 billion per month. It jeopardizes the strategic interests of the United States. It alienates allies in the Muslim world, and it is hindering efforts to create a united global front against al Qaeda. ``Unlike World War II, where the enemy surrendered and the troops came home, there is no such prospect in Iraq. We must define an endpoint. We will soon introduce legislation to achieve that goal by bringing the occupation of Iraq to a close. The troops have done their jobs. It is up to Congress and the President to forge a policy worthy of their sacrifices.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this evening, as American families settle in, and many workers have turned in, the American people will go to bed hoping that this Congress has the intention and the fortitude to stand up and to protect the people's right to a secure retirement. There is a great skepticism across this land about the plans to privatize Social Security. Social Security, when it was created in 1934, was created as an insurance program. It was not an investment program; it was an insurance program which would ensure against people being too old to work, an insurance program which would ensure against being injured on the job and not being able to work again, an insurance program which would ensure that if a family lost a bread winner to a tragedy, that the family would still have an ability to survive and that the children would have benefits covered until their late teens. Social Security has been the most successful social program that this country has ever seen. Now, why was it created? We have to go back to the time of the Depression, a time when this country saw the New York Stock Exchange lose over 80 percent of its value in a period of about 4 years. That people lost their homes, they lost their farms, factories were closed, people lost their jobs, they lost their pensions. People were basically stripped bear with the curse of nothingness. One out of four Americans was without a job. There were hundreds of thousands of children who did not have a place. From the ashes of the Great Depression arose a leader who recognized that the function and purpose of a democratic society is to make sure that people have economic security, the security of a job, the security of a home, and the security of a solid retirement. When Franklin Roosevelt brought forward this proposal to create Social Security, it was brought forward not to give to people some kind of a welfare program, and I do not object to welfare, but it was not created as a welfare program. It was always based on what people paid in. And so Social Security became a new hope. It helped lift generations of elderly out of poverty. Do my colleagues know that today, 50 percent of the elderly would be living below the poverty line if it were not for Social Security. Social Security was created as a means to make sure that when people got into their later ages that they would have the ability to support themselves. Mr. Speaker, we heard the mythology when we were growing up of old folks homes, of poor houses, of people who when they became elderly were destitute and had no opportunities. Well, Social Security was what transformed the American economic landscape, helped lift people up out of poverty, helped guarantee that the sense of interdependencies, which is essential to the creation of the United States, was reflected in this social program that had a powerful economic component, retirement security. The very words, the United States, which we celebrate here in this Chamber were not simply about the unity of 13 geographical territories nor are they today simply about the unity of 50 geographical territories, they are about human unity. They are about our responsibility for each other. They are about each of us being our brother and our sister's keeper. Social Security brought that philosophy right into the government of the United States. And in doing that, that elevated the purpose of government of the people. That is the power and the beauty of what Social Security has represented. And so when there is an attempt to try to change Social Security's nature or create a privatization program that will divert Social Security resources to set up private accounts, it is absolutely essential that we look back to history for the reason why Social Security was itself created. Today, workers, 6.2 percent of their income goes to Social Security. Employers put in 6.2 percent, a total of 12.4 percent. Those financial resources which come from workers today, 88 percent of the money that we put into Social Security goes directly to the workers, and 12 percent goes into the trust fund. Social Security is dependent on that financial structure to be able to remain solvent. Now, what happens if you divert 4 percent to create private accounts? Well, if you take 4 percent away from Social Security, you are left with only 8 percent total funding or a little more than 8 percent, and it makes it absolutely impossible to be able to meet the needs of Social Security. So what does that mean? That means that you end up with people experiencing a cut in benefits. So any privatization of Social Security will result in benefit cuts. Now, the administration has talked about a 4 percent cash out. But what they have not told the American people is by carving out 4 percent you are taking money out of Social Security. Now, the administration wants to borrow $2 billion to set up private accounts. That money is going to have to be paid back. Is not our national debt already high enough? Why in the world would we want to add another $2 trillion to it, but yet the plan to privatize Social Security would do just that. We would be borrowing money so people could invest in the stock market. Imagine if any of us went to our neighborhood bank and we said we wanted to take out a loan. And they said why? Because we want to invest in the stock market. Well, that is what our government would have the American people do, to borrow $2 trillion so we could invest in the stock market. If you carve 4 percent out of Social Security, it creates a condition where Social Security will not have enough money to pay benefits. Now, we have all heard this story about Social Security is broke. That is not true; that Social Security is going bankrupt. That is not true. Let me tell you why it is not true. It was just over a month ago that the Social Security Administration's own actuaries issued a report which shows that the Social Security Trust Fund has about $1.7 trillion in assets right now. The Social Security Trust Fund has those resources. Those assets will grow to over $6 trillion by the year 2028. That is hardly a fund that is broke. The Social Security Administration's own actuaries, in their report, indicate that Social Security will be rock solid through the year 2041 without any changes whatever. The Congressional Budget Office, which is a bipartisan budget office, has said that Social Security will be rock solid through the year 2052 without any changes whatsoever. No need to create private accounts. This is not a non solution, it creates a problem. And the difference between the two projections of when Social Security will be able to pay a hundred percent are strictly differences that are due to underlying economic assumptions. The Social Security actuaries are predicting that over a period of 75 years the American economy will only grow by 1.3 percent. Think about that. If it grows only by 1.3 percent, is that consistent with investing in the stock market? Of course not. Everyone understands that Social Security is insurance, but investments are inherently risky. If you want to invest, fine. But people have to remember the market goes up, the market goes down. People must remember that the market is not a sure thing. The market has had periods of advance and decline. Sometimes the benefits that people would get in a high market might be 6 times what they might get when the market is low. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to begin to introduce this discussion tonight about Social Security and speak out about the problems of privatization and why the American people ought to be very concerned that Social Security not be privatized.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Brian Davis, executive director of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH), for his activism and dedication on behalf of the homeless women, men and children of our community. For the past decade, Mr. Davis has fought in the interests of justice and hope for Northeast Ohio's most vulnerable citizens living on the streets. Mr. Davis' unwavering energy, compassion and focus has given a voice to those whose voices have been silenced by poverty and hopelessness. For the past ten years, he has edited The Grapevine, a publication that has provided an income and a communications medium for hundreds of homeless people. Under Mr. Davis' leadership, NEOCH has helped obtain permanent housing for more than 425 people; provided 150 voice mailboxes for homeless individuals; provided legal assistance for nearly 900 people; and provided 5,800 people social services and empowerment through the Homeless Stand Down. Beyond Cleveland's local scene, Mr. Davis has been a powerful voice for the homeless on Capitol Hill and at the State House in Columbus. He testified before the Government Reform Committee at my request to speak of the need for the Passport program for homeless men at a time when its funding was threatened. Mr. Davis was a guiding force and active participant in my Homelessness Summit, an advisory group with more than 200 Cleveland area activists working to end homelessness and advise me on legislative proposals. His energy extended to Columbus, where he worked with a state coalition to secure a revenue source for the Ohio Housing Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Brian Davis, the tireless leader of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless. His advocacy on behalf of the homeless citizens, the formerly homeless, and those at risk in the community continues to offer protection, guidance and empowerment. Because of the dedication and focus of Mr. Davis, the lives of hundreds of homeless people have been lifted into the light of positive change and hope for a brighter tomorrow.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Mr. Miguel Contreras, devoted husband and father; a dedicated labor leader whose exemplary work touched the lives of many Californians. Mr. Contreras was born and raised in Dinuba, California. The son of migrant farm-workers, Mr. Contreras went to work beside his parents and five brothers in the agricultural fields of California's Central Valley at only five years of age. As a young man Mr. Contreras worked with the United Farm Workers of America. It was here that he found his true calling by learning from Cesar Chavez the meaning of dignity and self-worth. Mr. Chavez saw the potential of Mr. Contreras and appointed him a staff member of the United Farm Workers. It was here that Mr. Contreras learned the importance of speaking up and standing up for oneself. With this strong foundation Mr. Contreras fought tirelessly for the rights of immigrants. He was an inspiration to many, bringing a special pride to Latino workers throughout California. In 1993 Mr. Contreras began his work for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO as Political Director. In 1996 he became Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Federation, devotedly serving 345 unions with a collective 800,000 members. He held this position until his unexpected death on May 6, 2005. He will be missed greatly. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Mr. Contreras. I offer my deepest condolences to his mother Esther Contreras; his wife, Maria Elena Durazo; his two sons, Mario Salazar and Michael Contreras, and his five brothers Alex, Antonio, David, Juan and Pablo Contreras.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Michael Foley, the executive director of the Cleveland's Tenants Organization (CTO), for his activism and dedication on behalf of Northeast Ohio's families who pay rent for their housing. Mr. Foley has proudly served the Cleveland community and has focused on meeting the housing needs and protecting the housing rights of Cleveland area tenants. Mr. Foley has dedicated his entire professional career to fighting for social justice on behalf of Cleveland's residents. Mike received his Bachelor of Arts Degree in Philosophy from the University of Dayton and his law degree from Cleveland Marshall College of Law. He has served as a community organizer for the St. Clair-Superior Coalition and was a Field Representative for the City of Cleveland Community Relations Board. From 1990 to 1996, Mike was the court administrator and personal bailiff for Judge William H. Corrigan at Cleveland Municipal Housing Court. In 1996 and 1997 he was an instructor with the Cleveland Marshall College of Law, Housing Law Clinic. In 1997 he began working with the CTO--Cleveland's premiere organization focusing on the rights of tenants--as the Director of the Rental Information Center. He became the assistant director of CTO in 1998 and in late 1999 Mr. Foley became CTO's Executive Director. Mr. Foley has worked collaboratively with me since I began serving in the US. House of Representatives. He was a guiding force and active participant in my Homelessness Summit, an advisory group with more than 200 Cleveland area activists working to end homelessness and advise me on legislative proposals. When out-of-state landlords bought one of the largest 55-and-over communities in Ohio's 10th Congressional District and immediately increased seniors' rent by as much as 25 percent, Mr. Foley worked with me, and the seniors, to organize one of the largest tenant organizations in the State. He went on to work with the seniors to organize the largest rent strike in Ohio's history. Mr. Foley has also facilitated the passage of a local landlord tenant act and extended the services his agency provides to include an eviction diversion program and a lead testing program. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Michael Foley. His long-time advocacy on behalf of rent-payers in the Cleveland area exemplify the Lifetime Commitment to Social Justice Award that he received from the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless at the NEOCH Annual Meeting and Awards Ceremony on May 13. Because of the dedication and focus of Michael Foley, the lives of thousands of people have been lifted.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in moments like yesterday, we are one in support for each other's safety and well-being. Thankfully, it was an error by the pilot of a small plane. The White House's response was telling: ``We have to remember we are a Nation at war.'' We are. But at war against Iraq. Iraq did not attack us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We may well be proving that the best way to avoid a war is not to wage one. Einstein said the significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them. Does the war against Iraq make us safer or less safe? After spending $420 billion annually for the military and an additional $270 billion for the war in Iraq, why are we still running for the exits? Has the so-called war on terror made us less safe? We all want safety and security for ourselves, our loved ones, our Nation, and the world. But there has to be a better way than war. One of our greatest Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, knew this and he knew war. He concluded: ``If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships, the ability of all peoples of all lands to live together and to work together in the same world at peace.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, when you carry this along to its conclusion, what we have is a condition where the people in the poorest countries cannot protect their health. So we are looking at their life expectancy beginning to decline, and one of the reasons is because they cannot afford the cost of the prescription drugs. And just as people here are held hostage by the pharmaceutical companies with the high cost of prescription drugs, imagine what it is like for these poor people in Central America, who are making a tenth, if that, of what we make in this country, and they are paying a high cost for prescription drugs because the pharmaceutical companies want these trade agreements which protect their patents and will not permit generics to get the help to people that need it the most.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I want to say that the people of Ohio are proud of the gentleman and the work that he has done in challenging these unfair trade agreements. For me to have a chance to join the gentleman in this important challenge to CAFTA is a privilege, and I again want to commend the gentleman for the service that he has given to the people. I want to focus for a moment on one particular impact of CAFTA, and that is the impact on the availability of generic drugs, something that is another issue that the gentleman has worked on. While the Bush administration says that they understand the need for lower-cost medicines in developing countries, their actions demonstrate greater concern for protecting the extremely high profitability of leading pharmaceutical companies. In the trade talks that resulted in the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, our government pressed for tighter restrictions on generic drugs in the Central American countries. The result will be higher prices for medicines and higher profits for the pharmaceutical industry paid for by some of the poorest people on earth. CAFTA has been one of the Bush administration's highest priorities in international trade. As we know, it extends the NAFTA agreement to all of the Central American countries that happen to be small and poor. The CAFTA countries include Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic. It was formally signed by the administration, and it awaits congressional votes, which is why we are here to appeal to the Members of Congress to think long and hard before they would even consider supporting CAFTA. The Central American countries that would be affected by CAFTA have significant health problems. AIDS, for instance, is more prevalent in the CAFTA countries taken as a whole than in the United States. According to Dr. Manuel Munoz, the director of Medecins Sans Frontiere's AIDS treatment program in Honduras, ``HIV/AIDS kills one person in Honduras every 2 hours, because the vast majority of people with HIV/AIDS cannot afford lifesaving AIDS medicines.'' Malaria and tuberculosis are also prevalent. As a result, the people of these countries need greater access to essential medicines. Yet, CAFTA will make access more difficult for most residents and impossible for too many of them. CAFTA accomplishes this by imposing new restrictions on the use of pharmaceutical regulatory data that will have the effect of limiting the availability of generic drugs. Pharmaceutical regulatory data is the result of studies of patent medicine's efficacy and safety. These studies are performed by the companies seeking approval and are often expensive to undertake. The data are submitted to the drug regulatory agency in the company's application for approval. When a company seeks to manufacture a generic version of a patent medicine, it must typically show that its product is the chemical equivalent of the patent medicine and that it works in the body in the same way. The generic producer relies upon the drug regulatory agency's prior approval of the patent medicine to make its case of approval of the generic version. What CAFTA does is it gives extra patent protections to the drug regulatory data, thereby excluding any other user from relying upon them. In other words, not only might a particular medicine be protected by a patent, but, additionally, the drug regulatory data for that medicine is protected by a patent. Even if the medicine's patent expires, generic manufacture could be restricted due to the additional patent on the use of regulatory data. According to Robert Weissman, an attorney specializing in international trade and pharmaceuticals, ``if the generics cannot rely on approvals granted based on the brand-name data, in most cases, they simply will not enter the market. This is especially true in small size markets, as in Central America, where prospective revenues are limited.'' Now, CAFTA was formally signed on May 28, 2004. It will only become law if Congress passes it. In 2002, the pharmaceutical industry gave over $29 million in political contributions; three-quarters of that was donated to the Republicans. Recently, I am sure the gentleman is aware, the pharmaceutical companies have been expatriating their profits to avoid paying income taxes here in the United States. They really do not want to pay income taxes there, but they want to control the political process here and, by reference, in Central America with the help of these trade agreements. I am glad to join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in urging the Members of Congress to oppose CAFTA. Not only is it bad for workers, not only is it bad for human rights, not only is it bad for the environment, but it is bad for people's health.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats are so sure that we will win back the Congress in 2006 on the Social Security issue that many have stopped challenging the administration on the war on Iraq: Let us take the war off the table as an issue and focus on other issues. It is not a new strategy. It was pursued by congressional Democrats in 2002 when our leadership supported the war in Iraq. We lost. It was furthered in 2004 when our nominee supported the war. We lost. We lost a chance to regain the Congress and take back the White House, and the American people lost a chance for a new start. Why? Because we did not challenge the central vulnerability of the administration that led this country into war, into a war based on lies and misrepresentations. Democrats' failure to challenge the war represents a failure of the two-party system. For the Democrats to become politically viable in 2006 and 2008, we must take on this administration on the War on Iraq, not giving them more money to keep the war going. We must move to cut off funds, to bring our troops home, to get out of Iraq, to make those who lied to us to get us into war accountable, to hold them accountable in the courts.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Gregory Anthony D'Angelo, beloved husband, father, grandfather, great- grandfather, brother, WW II Veteran, and dear friend and mentor to many. Mr. D'Angelo's life was framed by kindness, tenacity, integrity and heart, and although he will be greatly missed, he deeply touched the lives of everyone he knew. Mr. D'Angelo was a true renaissance man, whose mastery of the carpentry trades, artistry in the boxing ring, and expertise in the field of aeronautical mechanics belied his kind and compassion heart. His main focus was always his family. Together, Mr. D'Angelo and his beloved wife of 54 years, ``Millie,'' raised their five children. A devoted husband and father, Mr. D'Angelo worked diligently to provide for them. Whether driving a truck, climbing into the boxing ring, or creating the Prehistoric World Diorama at Disneyland, Mr. D'Angelo did so with commitment, heart and grace. Though unimpressed by awards and accolades, his work at Disneyland captured the attention, honor and respect of Mr. Walt Disney himself. In addition to Mr. Disney, Mr. D'Angelo captured the honor, respect and love of those who loved and knew him best--his family and friends. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Gregory Anthony D'Angelo. I offer my deepest condolences to his wife and companion of 54 years, Millie; his children, Joseph, Kathleen, Annie, John and Susan; his daughters-in-law, Robyn and Susan; his sons- in-law, Charles, Willie and Curt; his 12 grandchildren and 4 greatgrandchildren; his sister, Stella; and to his extended family and many friends. Mr. D'Angelo left this world with a legacy that shines love and light upon his family, friends and community. His joy of life, caring heart and concern for others defined his life and will live on in the hearts of all who knew and loved well, today, and for all time.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the gentleman from Florida that the American people are worried about many things including health care. And that is why I stand to ask the House for support on H.R. 676, a bill that will establish a U.S. national health insurance. A Kaiser Foundation poll found that 64 percent of Americans favor expanding Medicare to all. The Deans of Harvard and Stanford Medical Schools, 13,000 doctors, including the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and two former Surgeons General now support Medicare for All. By expanding Medicare to all, we will contain costs. Medicare boasts 3 percent overhead. In contrast, the Medicare HMOs, 15 to 30 percent overhead. Medicare also has a much lower rate of spending increase than private health plans. Medicare for All will make the U.S. more competitive. GM and Ford are losing money in competitive advantage because other developed countries have universal health care. Ontario now makes more cars than Detroit. Canadian GM, Ford and other auto manufacturers have sent a letter in support of their single-payer health care system as a result. All over this country, Americans are looking for some help from the Congress of the United States on health care. It is time for us to come together, Democrats and Republicans alike, in defense of universal health care, Medicare for All.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the administration is closing defense bases here at home and building new bases in Iraq. There is no money to maintain some defense installations here, but there is $270 billion and counting for establishing a permanent presence in Iraq. The Armed Forces ranks are depleted. Enlistment is falling off. So the administration is hard at work privatizing the war, having hired about 20,000 so-called contractors, mercenaries, to do work that used to be done by the military. A member of the new private army in Iraq may make as much as 10 times more than what an enlisted soldier makes, and private companies making billions from the Iraq war will no doubt be quick to make political contributions to make sure the war keeps going. Our Reservist and National Guard units are fortifying a mission to which they should have never been called. Iraq has turned into a tragedy. What is even more tragic is the thinking that says, Well, we are there; now we need to stay and finish the job. Mr. Speaker, we need to get out. The sooner the better. And we need to hold accountable those whose lies sent our soldiers there at the cost of many American lives and the lives of innocent Iraqis.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, instead of bringing our troops home from Iraq, today our majority party is advocating sending billions more to Iraq to keep our troops there indefinitely. Instead of winding down operations in Iraq, today the administration will receive money to help build permanent bases in Iraq. At a time when the American people are waking up to the disaster of the war in Iraq, this House is going to sleep. Wake up. The administration manufactured intelligence to take us into war in Iraq. Wake up. The flower of America's youth is being sent to battles, spilling their blood to find weapons of mass destruction which did not exist. Wake up. Mr. Speaker, $270 billion going for a war based on a lie while America's educational systems are crumbling, while 47 million Americans are without health insurance, while our inner cities have high unemployment, while oil companies are gouging Americans for $2 to $3 a gallon for gasoline. Wake up, my friends. Let us get out of Iraq. Mr. Speaker, let us bring our troops home. Let us hold the administration accountable for the lies that took us into Iraq. Redeem the faith our Founders had in this House.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak about this critical public health issue that has affected the entire U.S. The Vioxx case presents us with a valuable opportunity to examine an industry in order to help it improve. The problem is not only that the FDA does not have sufficient regulatory authority to protect the public, though that is certainly true. The problem actually lies with the way pharmaceuticals are priced. I'll explain. In the Vioxx case, Merck displayed a litany of predatory behavior. Vioxx research teams were stacked with people who had financial associations with Merck. Merck manipulated research protocols. They delayed publication of negative findings about Vioxx. They succeeded in getting people to take Vioxx that did not have a medical need by spending $161 million for direct-to-consumer advertising alone. And direct lobbying to doctors is a well-known practice that has the same result. Lastly, 10 members of a 32-member FDA advisory board in charge of determining whether Vioxx should continue to be allowed on the market, had ties to industry. Had those advisers abstained, the committee would have voted that Vioxx should not return to the market. And these are only the things we know about. More concerns are likely to be uncovered as we dig deeper. Would Merck be doing all this if Merck was the only maker of Vioxx? Absolutely not. When there is competition in manufacturing, just like there is in most other sectors, the capability to squeeze so much profit from a single drug is gone. But under a monopoly, which is what Merck has with its patented Vioxx, the sky is the limit on profits. Only the patent holder or licensee can sell it, so they control the market. And when a company controls the market, they have considerable leeway to corrupt the process in ways similar to what we have seen with Merck. The usual justification for patent monopolies is that patents are yielding innovation, which is critical for new pharmaceuticals. But we are not getting that innovation. The number of New Molecular Entities approved by the FDA has been in decline several years running. Copycats or me-too's constitute roughly 70 percent of new FDA approved drugs. In other words, the pipeline is drying up. If we want to avoid another Vioxx down the road, we need to get to the root of the problem. We need to bring innovation back up, control perverse incentives, and drive drug prices back down to a similar level as other developed nations. We do that by changing the financing of pharmaceuticals. Put simply, the NIH, which is currently responsible for much of the innovation in pharmaceutical research, should drastically increase its already successful pharmaceutical research program. The innovations that result should be available for any qualified entity to manufacture, which would introduce competition into the market. It would boost innovation, competition would drive down prices as it does in the generics market, and the incentive to engage in Merck-like behavior would be drastically reduced.