Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, under rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), points out that in article VI it says, ``This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,'' and all treaties made, ``or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.'' It is a law and the President cannot unilaterally break a law. It is not his right under the Constitution.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker for his indulgence in this extremely important debate. If my colleagues' arguments are correct, then the House of Representatives in 1835 acted unconstitutionally when it passed the resolution stating that the Treaty of France ``should be maintained.'' But, Mr. Speaker, in fact, no court has ever found that, in 167 years, that the House acted unconstitutionally in 1835. It is, therefore, not for opponents to say that the House has no role in treaty termination today. My motion is therefore both constitutional, Mr. Speaker, and within the rules of the House. A party to a treaty is the country, not a specific President. In a democracy, a President is not sovereign. In America, the people are sovereign.

Mr. KUCINICH. Ratify treaties. But it does not speak to the President's authority to break treaties which he has no authority to do, as the treaty is a law.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Illinois would be interested to hear the words of a constitutional law scholar who wrote in the New York Times on August 29, 2001, and this is from Professor Bruce Ackerman, he said, ``Presidents can't terminate statutes they don't like. They must persuade both houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the termination of treaties operate any differently? The question first came up in 1798. As war intensified in Europe, America found itself in an entangling alliance with the French under treaties made during our own revolution. But President John Adams did not terminate these treaties unilaterally. He signed an act of Congress to declare the treaties heretofore concluded with France no longer obligatory on the United States. The next case was in 1846. As the country struggled to define its northern boundary with Canada, President James Polk specifically asked Congress for authority to withdraw from the Oregon Territory Treaty with Great Britain and Congress obliged with a joint resolution. Cooperation of the legislative and executive branches remained the norm, despite some exceptions, during the next 125 years.'' That is from constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman. Furthermore, citing my good friend from Illinois who spoke of Goldwater versus Carter, another constitutional scholar, Peter Weiss, said in a work called The President, the Constitution and the ABM Treaty, ``It is generally believed that Congress lost this case, Goldwater versus Carter, precluding further challenges to unilateral presidential termination. But as a vast number of commentators have pointed out and as the following analysis will show, this is a vast oversimplification of the extraordinary complex set of judicial rulings. In fact, Congress' role in treaty termination is very much alive. As Chief Judge Wright of the D.C. Circuit, quoted with approval by Justice Rehnquist of the Supreme Court, said in the Goldwater case, Congress has a variety of powerful tools for influencing foreign policy decisions that bear on treaty matters. In the first stage of the constitutional debate between 24 members of Congress and President Carter, Judge Oliver Gasch of the District Court of the District of Columbia District found that the plaintiffs had standing to invoke the aid of his court and their suit was not barred by the political question doctrine. In approaching the substantive question of treaty termination authority, on which the Constitution is silent, Judge Gasch first reviewed the history of two centuries of treaty termination. He found that, while there have been some apparently unchallenged instances of unilateral termination by the President, most of these involved `commercial situations where the need for the treaty or the efficacy of it was no longer apparent.' '' More significantly, Mr. Speaker, he found out that ``The great majority of the historical precedents involved some form of mutual action whereby the President's notice of termination received the affirmative approval of the Senate or of the entire Congress.'' I want to conclude by stating this. He says, ``The President invoked his foreign affairs power in support of his position,'' citing the famous, or infamous, depending on one's views, dictum in Curtiss- Wright, that he is ``the sole organ of the Federal Government in the field of international relations.'' But that case involved an executive agreement, not a treaty, and Judge Gasch dismissed the argument in the following terms: ``While the President may be the sole organ of communication with foreign government, he is clearly not the sole maker of foreign policy. In short, the conduct of foreign relations is not a plenary executive power.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks with respect to the debate on the point of order just concluded.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am here to stand for our elderly, our sick, our poor, our workers, America's middle class, who do not benefit from a regressive tax system. The purpose of the estate tax is to mitigate the accumulation of wealth by family lineage. That makes for a fairer society in which future generations all start with more or less the same opportunities. Democracy needs an estate tax. By contrast, monarchies are characterized by not having estate taxes. The estate tax is the most progressive of any of the Federal taxes. According to the Internal Revenue Service, out of the approximately 2.3 million deaths in 2000, only 1.9 percent of estates pay the estate tax. These numbers can be contrasted with the income tax, where about 70 percent of families and single individuals owe tax. The concept of an estate tax goes far back into history. There is evidence of a 10 percent tax on transfers of property at death in ancient Egypt, as early as 700 B.C. Later the Greeks and Romans adopted estate death taxes. My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), will be glad to know that the perpetuation of large estates within the new monied royalty during the Industrial Revolution led, not Karl Marx, but a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, to call for a progressive tax on all beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequested upon death, to any individual, a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual. Without the estate tax, the tax burden is more squarely placed on middle and low income workers and their wages. The estate tax ensures that inherited wealth bears more tax burden than earned wages that are the result of work and effort. Estate taxes reduce the concentration of wealth and foster our democracy. Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to preserve the progressive tax system and to repeal all estate tax provisions in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 so the money would go for a prescription drug benefit.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX of the rules of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas the President's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, and Whereas, under the Constitution, treaties have the status of ``supreme law of the land,'' equally with other laws, and Whereas, the President does not have the authority to repeal laws, and Whereas, the President is not authorized to withdraw unilaterally from treaties in general, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in particular, without the consent of Congress, and Whereas, the President unilaterally withdrew the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 without seeking or obtaining the consent of either house of Congress; Therefore be it resolved, That the President should respect the Constitutional role of Congress and seek the approval of Congress for the withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the conference report. Madam Speaker, when the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act was considered on the House floor on May 1, I offered an amendment that requires this bank to have applicants for financing disclose whether they have been found to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Critically, the amendment also requires Ex-Im to maintain its own list of entities that have violated this act. Under my amendment, I stated on the floor of the House that Ex-Im would request that applicants report whether or not they have been found guilty by a U.S. court to have been in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Ex-Im would also independently keep a list of companies that have violated the act. This independent list is crucial in order to deter applicants from withholding information about prior violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Now, upon offering this amendment, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade of the Committee on Financial Services expressed his support for the measure. From the Congressional Record of May 1, 2002, his words were, and I quote, ``The gentleman's amendment, I think, is highly appropriate. This kind of information should be made available and, in fact, generated, if necessary, within the Export-Import Bank.'' Clearly, then, the distinguished chairman understood the intent of my amendment, information on Foreign Corrupt Practice Act violators would be gathered both by requiring applicants to disclose prior violations and by requiring the Export-Import Bank itself to independently and internally compile a list of violators. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the report has come out of the House- Senate conference on this bill, and it thoroughly guts this critical provision. Rather than require the Ex-Im Bank to independently search court records and compile a list of FCPA violators, the report only requires the bank to maintain a record of all applicants that have volunteered information on their Foreign Corrupt Practices Act history. Moreover, an applicant for Ex-Im financing only need disclose the violations that have occurred in the prior 12 months. Consider what this means. The only way the Export- Import Bank can find out whether an applicant has violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is if the company volunteers this information. And if the violation occurred more than a year before a company seeks Ex-Im funding, the company does not even have to mention it. So if a company lies about prior violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, if they lie about it, the Export-Import Bank would never know it. Madam Speaker, the Enron debacle should make it clear to all of us that certain corporations will do absolutely anything to increase their profits. So what is the net result of the amendment that I offered and that the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade supported on May 1? Nothing. I urge my colleagues to take a stand against allowing the Enrons of the world to continue to bilk the American taxpayer for enormous sums of money; and perhaps more importantly, I urge my colleagues to take a stand in favor of the rules of this hallowed House. I offered an amendment, the intent of which was made perfectly clear in my floor statement, was clearly understood and supported by the chairman of the relevant committee, and approved by the Members of this body. And the result, after conference, is the wholesale gutting of the provision's intent. Conferees do not have the authority to read duly passed legislative provisions any which way they please, in gross contradiction of the duly established legislative history of the measure. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the bioterrorism conference report, House leadership managed to put in a new provision that would allow Medicare HMOs more time to decide whether or not to continue offering health plans. This would allow HMOs to delay for 2\1/2\ months telling senior citizens if they will continue to offer health insurance to them. Is this not a bit out of place? We are going to have a Medicare provision in legislation that helps the country prepare for a bioterrorism attack. This is what causes the American people to wonder what in the world we do here. We have a bill on the floor dealing with bioterrorism and suddenly it is also a bill that deals with Medicare HMOs. Here is a Medicare provision in legislation that helps prepare the country for a bioterrorist attack. Strange, because the Medicare+Choice program is wholly unrelated to bioterrorism. This provision was not considered by a committee. This provision was not considered in the underlying bill in the House or the Senate. It was added to the conference report at the very last minute. This is just another example of how the leadership is able to circumvent the established process and of the way business is done in this House. The only purpose, repeat, the only purpose of this provision is to help the insurance industry by giving HMOs more time to calculate revenue and estimate profits for next year. Every year, the Medicare+Choice program drops seniors to the tune of about a half a million seniors in the last year. Not only do senior citizens lose their coverage, but HMOs in the program have increased premiums, hiked up copayments, decreased benefits, and eliminated coverage year after year. Now, under this provision, seniors will have even less time to review their options for getting the health care that they will need. Allowing Medicare HMOs a 2\1/2\-month delay is not good for seniors. It certainly should not be added to the program. And most of all, Mr. Speaker, it should not be in a conference report for the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. I call upon all Members to take note of exactly what happened in slipping this provision into a conference report on bioterrorism, and I call upon all Members to remember the senior citizens in our districts who are being thrown out of health care coverage by Medicare HMOs and an insurance industry which does not give a darn about the senior citizens.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, as a Representative of Cleveland, Ohio, I am proud to join with my colleagues from across the country in this well-deserved tribute to Bob Hope for his service to the veterans of our country, to the servicepersons who for generations put themselves on the line to protect America and Bob Hope was there time after time whenever his country called him. And so now his country is prepared to honor him in a very special way by showing its appreciation for the years of work, the years of his own life he put into celebrating the work of our servicemen and women. As a Representative from Cleveland, Ohio, I take great pride in the fact that the first city that Bob Hope moved to, his family moved to, when he came to the United States was the city of Cleveland. The city of Cleveland claims him as one of their favorite sons and has named a major bridge after him and celebrated his whole career during our bicentennial. We recognize that his contribution, though, belongs to the Nation as well as to our community. It is that way, I think, with Bob Hope's life in that so many parts of our Nation are grateful to the service that he has given to, to the joy he has brought into people's lives, through his unselfish approach, through his dedication to our country, and to the men and women who have served. Mr. Speaker, when I was mayor of Cleveland, I had the privilege of meeting Bob Hope on many occasions, having had the opportunity to share very special moments with him and to see that this person whom we honor here this evening was warm, and is warm, and funny and is someone who had a view of life, and has a view of life, which really appreciates the beauty of life and the humor in life. To Bob and Delores Hope, this is an important moment for both of you, because you have shared your marriage with this country and with the servicemen and women who have served America. In this moment when through the work of our colleagues your name is going to be on this special veterans memorial chapel, through this moment we show that we have not forgotten what you have done for our country and that you will always be remembered and that we join, each Member of this Congress, in celebrating your life as you look towards your 99th year. In the Polish community in Cleveland, there is a phrase called stolot which, translated, is ``May you live a hundred years and more.'' Bob, keep going strong. We love you. Thanks to you and Delores. Cleveland is glad to join in this special honor.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 405, an act which congratulates the people of East Timor on the occasion of their national independence and establishes official U.S. relations with the new country. We, in the United States, should take proper account of the enormous accomplishment East Timor independence represents, and with great humility, honestly recognize America's role in the suppression of East Timor. The United States government was not a reliable ally of the Timorese independence cause. Quite the opposite, in fact. The United States government consistently sided against the East Timorese people. Recently declassified documents reveal that Secretary of State Kissinger gave the go ahead to Indonesia's then-President Suharto to invade East Timor in 1975. The United States furnished Indonesia with about 90 percent of its military hardware. Over the course of the next 23 years, Indonesia occupied East Timor, and the United States continued to furnish arms and provide training to Indonesia. In all, more than 200,000 East Timorese were murdered by the Indonesian military during the occupation. The proportional scale of the killing was without rival in the 20th century. One-third of the East Timorese population was murdered. Unfortunately, in the name of anti-communism, then later global stability, the United States abetted mass murder. Apart from official Washington, the American people have been a reliable friend of the East Timorese. Americans established the East Timor Action Network, participated in Peace Brigades International, dedicated their personal savings through individual foundations and trusts--all with the goal of helping the East Timorese people overcome great odds. Americans gathered in living rooms and lecture halls throughout the country to learn the truths about the oppression of East Timor; they demonstrated on sidewalks and lobbied their Congress, they met with newspaper editors and other journalists in order to bring out the truth; and a few brave Americans sacrificed their personal safety in East Timor to shed light on the reality of Indonesian government oppression. Constructive change in U.S. policy came in late 1999, after the East Timorese had voted for independence, and after the Indonesian military invaded again to punish the people for daring to choose independence. Over 2,000 East Timorese were killed, and a large share of the population was forcibly relocated to refugee camps in Indonesia. But the impact of the American people and the confluence of world events finally forced a change in U.S. policy. The effect was dramatic. The U.S. barred Indonesia from further purchases of weapons and training, and immediately the Indonesian Government withdrew from East Timor and permitted international peacekeepers to enter. This demonstrates the importance and effectiveness of withholding U.S. military support from anti-democratic governments that oppress their people. The United States government has a moral debt to repay the East Timorese people. I consider today's Concurrent Resolution as a very modest down payment on that debt. We should faithfully make the next installations. We should start with generous, unconditional financial grants to the newly independent government of East Timor for healthcare, education, rural reconstruction, refugee resettlement, reconciliation and conflict resolution, environmental protection and the judicial system. The United States should further use its influence with international financial institutions to guarantee Timorese sovereignty and, in a departure from IFI practice, permit the Timorese to design and implement their own economic policies as they see fit. This is the least the United States can do. Let us repay our moral debt to the East Timorese people fully and expeditiously.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, while welfare caseloads have dropped dramatically, the decrease in poverty is marginally less. After 5 years, welfare cash assistance caseloads have decreased by nearly 50 percent, but overall poverty has declined by less than 2 percent. Today we are going to be visiting this issue of what to do about welfare in America. Work is at the center of the welfare debate, and it was at the center of the debate in 1996. The work requirements are the most significant part of the debate. If States choose or are mandated a 40 hour a week work requirement, that will mean workfare programs. Workfare is overwhelmingly bad for recipients. It will mean the need for even more child care, on top of the $11 billion that is in the bill now, and it will undermine efforts to place people in good jobs. We need to be very careful in any vote that we take today to make sure that we are not making it impossible for families who are trying to get off of welfare to be able to have the resources that they will need to be able to care for their children.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted my good friend from Georgia to know that the unfunded mandate in this bill would cost the State of Georgia about $266 million, and Georgia has 16,000 children on the child care waiting list. The question before us is, Do we stand for the dignity of the poor, or do we believe in tough treatment for the poor? Does Congress want to help poor and low-income families, or does Congress want to push them further into poverty? Today we are considering the majority's bill, which would push people further into poverty. This bill proposes to reduce poverty while reducing welfare rolls. After 5 years, welfare cash assistance caseloads have decreased by nearly 50 percent; but overall, poverty has declined by less than 2 percent. Do we stand for a welfare system that gives people a chance to pursue education and training without additional make-work mandates? Work is at the center of the debate, but the majority bill will not help people obtain and keep jobs with decent wages. The bill imposes new requirements and decreases State flexibility. The majority's bill is not what the States support; 41 of 47 States indicate that the administration's proposal, the blueprint for this bill, would cause them to make fundamental changes. The NGA survey found that most States would not be able to meet the new requirements, so we do not stand with the States. Mr. Speaker, this bill encourages work-fare programs that fail to increase earnings and fail to increase employment. Recipients want real jobs not workfare. So it is clear that the bill does not stand with low income families. So it does not seem that the majority bill has been crafted with any key group of people in mind that implement the law or are affected by it. The bill shows it is crafted by those who are posturing to look tougher on the poor. If States are forced to implement the majority bill that will be workfare programs. Workfare is so overwhelmingly bad. It overshadows nearly everything else in the bill. Workfare meets the need for a 25 percent increase in child care, at the very least. This bill before us does not even increase child care to meet the current need, let alone a one-quarter increase. Workfare undermines efforts to place people in good jobs. It undermines efforts to increase education and job skills. Vote against this bill.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one more minute. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as my unanimous consent request was objected to, it is very clear that there are Members of this House, certainly not the gentleman from Michigan, but there are members of this House who are looking to give the biotech firms a handout under the guise of helping to feed the poor. Most genetically engineered food products and almost all research funding for the development of genetically engineered food target developing nation agriculture and consumers. Developing countries cannot afford this technology and therefore are vastly ignored. If the biotechnology industry believes they could help mitigate hunger concerns, domestic or foreign, then requiring biotechnology companies to make available the necessary resources for this purpose is appropriate.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed, and I seek to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the agriculture and biotechnology industries are driving the research; and as such, they have ignored a tremendous amount of work that has been done by independent scientists that challenges the rationale of the industry itself. There are serious issues that need to be addressed, that relate to food security as a fundamental human right. The philosopher and human rights activist of India, Vandana Shiva, has said that globalization of agriculture is violating all components of food-related human rights. She says that everywhere across the world, less food is being produced and less diverse food is being grown and less is reaching the poor and hungry. She quotes Senator McGovern as stating: ``Food security in private hands is no food security at all,'' because corporations are in the business of making money, not feeding people. Vandana Shiva goes on to say, ``The centralized and chemical- intensive production and distribution system, linked with the green revolution model, proved itself to be undemocratic, wasteful and non- sustainable. The imperative now is to shift to a democratic food system based on sustainable production, conservation and equitable access to resources and food security for all.'' I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this bill, which authorizes certain research, if it is in any way connected, as this bill is, with the ag-biotech industry, there is no possibility that the human rights of people around the world are in any way going to be regarded. Please defeat the bill.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, my legislation which I will be bringing to this House hopefully sometime soon, called the Real Solutions to World Hunger Act of 2002, offers new initiatives and protections to help developing nations resolve their hunger concerns. First, to protect developing nations, genetically engineered exports are restricted to those already approved in the U.S. and approved by the importing nation. Second, creation of an international research fund for sustainable agricultural research. Third, U.S. prohibition on any intervention in a developing nation's effort to mandatorily license a genetically engineered crop. Fourth, establishing the Sustainable Agriculture Trust Fund with a small tax on a biotechnology company's profits. This trust fund will fund the activities in this bill. To understand how this bill before us, the one we are going to be voting on today, will fail to help anyone except for the biotechnology companies, I think we should examine our own Nation, our own farming practices and our domestic hunger challenges. The United States of America, the wealthiest Nation in the world, grows substantial amounts of genetically engineered foods. Our farmers plant approximately 100 million acres a year in genetically engineered crops. However, in this great wealthy Nation of ours, plenty of families go hungry every day. Approximately 4 million low-income children under the age of 12 experience hunger each year, and an additional 9.6 million children are at risk of hunger. The proponents of this legislation before us believe that genetically engineered foods will solve world hunger. But I question this rationale when we have so much hunger in our own Nation. This technology has not helped a single hungry family in our Nation. These hungry families need a better economy, better paying jobs, access to child care, and a decent education to solve the economic trap that leads to hunger. It is clear that hunger is something that we must eradicate, but promoting false solutions to provide great public relations for a troubled industry does a great disservice to those who need our help the most. We all want to help resolve the hunger crisis in other nations, but only the legislation I will introduce soon will begin to deal with the real problems of world hunger.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to strike the language.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, may I ask the gentleman to make sure that he and I have the same copies of these bills, because often there are reprints and newer iterations. I have here under section 4: ``Partnerships for Plant Biotechnology in the Developing World,'' under number (2), which is line 8. I am going to read it to the gentleman: ``In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an institution of higher education or eligible nonprofit organization (or consortium thereof) shall enter into a partnership with one or more developing nations and may also include for-profit companies involved in plant biotechnology.'' I will ask the gentleman again, I would certainly entertain the gentleman's willingness to strike that language there so that we can certainly keep the for-profit companies out of this, because, Mr. Speaker, the for-profit companies had a $50 million advertising campaign to try to promote biotechnology, glossing over all the concerns that scientists around the world have, and they get $36 million out of this bill if left to the language of this bill. They could get if that much. I would be happy to have my good friend respond.

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