Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Carroll O'Connor, a truly remarkable man, who has influenced the lives of many people throughout his acting career, most notably known for his character of Archie Bunker in ``All in the Family''. Mr. O'Connor was very enthusiastic about ``All in the Family'' which began in 1971 and lasted eight seasons. Mr. O'Connor portrayed a cranky, ignorant, and even caustic man whose wholesomeness and honesty won over the sympathy of audiences. He stated about the show, ``Right from the start I loved the idea of this show. It was frank and refreshing, a lot more true to life than anything on the air. Everybody was talking about creating shows that were relevant, but nobody wanted to touch the real thing.'' As the television show grew, Mr. O'Connor's popularity soared to unbelievable heights. He was not just the character that he was known for, but he was a lovable man who truly cared for all. The show's other cast members spoke of the cast as a family. After the death of his son he spent a significant amount of his time working against drug abuse. Mr. O'Connor was dedicated to the cause and traveled the country promoting laws in the state legislatures that would allow victims of drug abuse to sue drug dealers for monetary damages. Let us honor the memory of Carroll O'Connor for his remarkable contributions to the people through his life of service, most notably playing the role of ``Archie Bunker.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor St. John West Shore Hospital in commemoration of its 20th anniversary. Since its establishment in 1981, the hospital has been faithfully serving the needs of western Cuyahoga and eastern Lorian county residents. Since its induction as a fledgling medical facility on March 1, 1981, St. John West Shore Hospital has subsequently expanded and broadened its services, making it a bastion of service and charity for the Westlake community. The hospital's initial years were filled with uncertainty, but its current success renders the institution an emblem of triumph and progress for us all to admire. The Westlake community welcomed and supported the hospital since its induction as a medical facility, forging the reciprocal relationship that has been so integral to the hospital's survival and growth. A testament to this mutual support and rapport was the monumental opening of Medical Buildings 2 and 3. In 1989, the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine became the sole sponsors of the hospital, setting the framework for the hospital's establishment as an institution dedicated to the well-being of the community. However, the hospital does not qualify it services to solely the physical needs of the Westlake residents, but also nurtures their spiritual needs as witnessed by its induction of the annual Festival of the Arts in 1992. In line with its commitment to serving the public, the facility pays arduous attention to the needs of each individual. To expedite the fulfillment of each patient's particular and unique needs, the hospital became part of a not-for-profit juncture in 1999, under the auspices of University Hospitals Health System and the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine Health System. This Joint effort further compounded the hospitals' steadfast dedication and mission as a health care advocate at the service of its people. I laud St. John West Shore Hospital on its 20th anniversary in sincere awe and reverence for its magnanimous and unrelenting efforts in the service of the residents of Westlake.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the purpose of this amendment. It is not a ban, it is a 1-year moratorium to begin to study the effects on the environment, on consumers. I also want to point out that something the Washington Post cited on May 19, 2001, basically supporting the approach of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). Mr. Chairman, the Post points out that the FDA has classified what they call genetic enhancement, these bigger fish, as a drug for animals. Now, follow this. The FDA says it is a drug for animals. That technically means, according to the Post, the main task of its review will not be to look at the effects of the fish on the environment or fish on the consumer, but to study the effect of the growth hormone on the fish. That is all the FDA does. So here we have people advocating the right of fish to have growth hormones, and saying that that is more important than the right of people to be defended against possible adverse human health consequences, or the right that we have and the responsibility we have to protect our environment. Protecting the right of fish to have growth hormones, indeed. Something smells fishy about the opposition, which would want to protect the right of fish to have growth hormones. That is all the FDA does here. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment puts the scientific decision-making process into the hands of the best scientists for the job. I oppose the FDA making environmental decisions on GE fish. The FDA does not staff fish scientists, does not staff fish scientists, and has not consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service. The following passage is from an article in The Washington Post. Edwin Rhodes, aquaculture coordinator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said he was surprised to hear that the Food and Drug Administration was overseeing the environmental review regarding new salmon and making decisions on such things as whether fish would be grown in net pans. Mr. Rhodes said the National Marine Fisheries Service, not the Food and Drug Administration, had the expertise to make such decisions and would need to be involved. So I think we have to look at the scientific issues here. And does this sound like the FDA is adequately addressing the environmental concerns that are raised? It does not. But a 1-year delay would give Congress the opportunity to make sure that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are included in the process. I want to make sure that Congress will include the appropriate scientists in the approval process. This amendment is about a 1-year moratorium to give us the chance to make sure that the right decisions are being made, or else, my colleagues, we may soon see a version of Frankenfish which will exterminate whole species of fish. We have an obligation to consumers to look at this and not to jump to a hasty decision which would involve the FDA giving approval for fish when in fact the FDA is not involved with health issues and environmental issues relating to consumers. This amendment is strongly supported by commercial fishermen, including the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, the Alaska Trawlers Association, and the Washington Trawlers Association because their struggling industry, industries important to this country, cannot afford a negative ecological impact on the wild fish species that they depend on for their livelihood. Vote for this amendment. It is to protect our people's health, our environmental health, and it is only for a 1-year moratorium.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it is a shame we have not had more time for this debate because our constituents do not have time to survive when they cannot afford prescription drugs because the drug companies are gouging consumers. Everyone in America knows this. It is time that this House takes a stand, as it did a year ago, to make sure that prescription drug prices are kept low. We have the ability to do that with the Sanders amendment, and we ought to vote to make sure that we hold the pharmaceutical companies accountable. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we did that instead of the pharmaceutical companies reaching in and trying to control votes in this Congress. It is time we took a stand on behalf of senior citizens who are suffering because of the high cost of prescription drugs.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer this amendment today to ensure the livelihood of commercial fishermen and protect our oceans, lakes and streams. This amendment is a reasonable and moderate safeguard. It will delay FDA approval of genetically engineered fish for 1 year. This amendment is necessary because commercial fishermen and environmentalists have raised concerns that GE fish may pose ecological risks that have not been carefully considered by Federal marine agencies. This amendment corrects this situation by providing a 1-year moratorium, giving Congress the opportunity to investigate and authorize an agency with environmental expertise clear authority to regulate the environmental impacts of genetically engineered fish. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to say in response that what we are proposing here is not to block research, but to block FDA final approval. Our approach would mean that the FDA would have to actually do more research. Scientists from Purdue University and the University of Minnesota have raised a number of serious questions about the ecological impacts of genetically engineered fish. These risks include genetically engineered fish escaping from ocean pens into the environment, which would impact wild populations of fish. Studies show that genetically engineered fish are more aggressive, consume more food, and attract more mates than wild fish. These studies also show that although genetically engineered fish will attract more mates, their offspring will be less fit and less likely to survive. As a result, some scientists predict that genetically engineered fish will cause some species to become extinct within only a few generations. As a result of genetically engineered fish producing unfit offspring that are more successful in mating, the Purdue scientists predict that if 60, 60 genetically engineered fish were introduced into a population of 60,000 wild fish, the species would become extinct within only 40 fish generations. They refer to these disturbing results as the trojan gene effect. Here we can see why a genetically engineered fish, this would be represented as a genetically engineered fish and is, in fact, what we are speaking about, as opposed to two conventionally developed fish, and we see the difference in size. What happens is, if they are released into the wild, they become much more attractive for mating; but they are not as fit. Their offspring are not as fit to survive, and eventually we end up with an extinct species. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the record, this amendment does not restrict any research funding. I will say it again. This amendment does not restrict any research funding. Now, in case my colleagues did not hear that, this amendment does not restrict any research funding. It only restricts FDA funding related to their approval of the fish, but they do not do research. Any research funding comes from other USDA research accounts, and that is not impacted by this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), whose work on this amendment I appreciate.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Rev. Kurt W. Katzmar for his many years of dedicated service to the First Congregational United Church of Christ. Rev. Katzmar has been the pastor of the First Congregational United Church of Christ since May 1991. As a young boy raised in Strongsville, Rev. Katzmar attended the church he now pastors. He, along with then- pastor of Heritage Congregational Church Rev. David Hawk, founded the Berea Minister's Emergency Relief fund, a precursor to Church Street Ministries. This was one of many examples of his tireless support to the City of Berea, the people of Berea, and the ministry among the people of Berea. Rev. Katzmar, along with others in the community area was a founder of the First Church's Church Street Ministries program. Together with Bob Dreese, Rev. Katzmar joined the church's Youth-at Risk program and the Second Mile Thrift Shop together as one ministry. When the businesses in the 17-19 Church Street building decided to move, they designed a combined program that could move into the building, enabling an expansion of the program to include the refugee-resettlement and crisis-response ministries. Rev. Katzmar made presentations to the boards, committees, and congregation, and after the grant was made, the Church Street Ministries was formed and dedicated on May 14, 1994 in a ceremony led by Rev. Katzmar. My fellow colleagues, please join me in congratulating Rev. Katzmar on all his achievements in helping to create a welcoming atmosphere in the First Congregational United Church of Christ. His love and dedication to serving the Church has touched the hearts of all in the community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a great man who has dedicated his entire life to spreading Christian values and beliefs, Brother Nivard, for his lifetime of dedicated service. Born Joseph Martin Stanton in 1945, Brother Nivard has served his community in countless capacities from a very young age. At age 17 he boarded a train in the Old Union Terminal of Cleveland bound for Kentucky to commit his life to Christianity. His quest for true happiness eventually led him to the Abbey of Gethsemani in Trappist, Kentucky, where he became a monk. His love and devotion to Christian values and beliefs earned him the respect and admiration of all his peers. His friends and family describe him as a man that has inspired many. Brother Nivard is truly a man that has given back to his community in numerous ways and that has touched an incredible number of people. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the memory of a man that has reached out into his community to improve mankind, Brother Nivard. His kind spirit, gentle demeanor, and warm smile will be greatly missed.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct on that. As a matter of fact, American farmers are quite concerned about the impact of genetically engineered products on their markets, because if their markets begin to dry up, as they have in some countries, then American farmers are not able to sell what we know is the best agriculture in the world, here from America. But if the products are genetically engineered, if there has not been much study and there is concern about quality, safety and other things, then our farmers can endure economic loss. So I want to again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for raising this issue, and I hope that the gentleman would respectfully consider his amendment as being in order.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts raises an excellent point about the need for further study. The truth is that in 1999, over 100 million acres of genetically engineered crops were planted in this country, and the consumption of genetically engineered crops is happening. Yet we really do not have much information about the effects; we really do not know much about how this might have some implications for public health. That is why many States are starting to look at this quite critically, and the issues that are raised here certainly merit more study. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) should be congratulated for raising this issue and for asking for a more thorough review of this. I can say that I think most people in this country would support such a call. People are concerned about the food they eat, and they are certainly concerned about any new technology which may, in one way or another, change the functional characteristics of the food, as well as the properties of the food and the way in which the food interacts in the human medium. So I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for his work.

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, how many times have Americans gone to a doctor, been prescribed an antibiotic only to find out it did not work, that it was not effective for them? This vignette of a patient taking medication, hoping it is going to be of value to fight infection is something that is repeated many times around the world. Yet we know for some reason antibiotics are not effective because of certain resistance. What the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is doing is trying to get an additional $5 million to fund components of the action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. Mr. Chairman, this money will be money well spent because this is not only a health problem in this country, this is a world health problem. I thank the gentleman for his dedication.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the National Ignition Facility is a multibillion-dollar giant laser designed to blast a radioactive fuel pellet in an attempt to create a nuclear fusion explosion. The Department of Energy considers the National Ignition Facility important to its Stockpile Stewardship program, but according to experts, the project is overbudget, may not be technically feasible, and is not necessary to maintain our nuclear arsenal. According to Dr. Robert Civiak, physicist and former OMB Program Examiner for Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs, the NIF will cost nearly $5 billion to build, $4 billion more than the Department of Energy's original estimate. Including operating costs, the NIF will consume more than $32 billion, six times the Department of Energy's original estimate. Dr. Civiak also reports that the Department of Energy has yet to solve numerous technical problems that prevent NIF from successfully creating the fusion explosion. Full operation of NIF is already 6 years behind its original schedule. In fact, according to former Los Alamos physicist Leo Mascheroni, The chance of the NIF reaching ignition is zero. Not 1 percent. Those who say 5 percent are just being . . . polite. What is all that money being spent for? Department of Energy says the NIF helps us maintain our nuclear weapons, but experts disagree. When asked about NIF's utility for weapons maintenance, Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb and cofounder of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, replied that it had ``none whatsoever.'' Sandia National Laboratory's former vice president called NIF ``worthless'' for maintaining nuclear weapons safety and reliability. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory weapons designer Seymour Sack called NIF ``worse than worthless'' for the task. Ray Kidder, another Livermore physicist, has stated, ``As far as maintaining the stockpile is concerned, NIF is not necessary.'' In fact, NIF is an instrument for developing new nuclear weapons. Department of Energy itself touts NIF as playing an essential role in understanding the physics of nuclear weapons design and nuclear weapons effects. This type of nuclear weapons design activity violates the spirit of both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Nor is there a consensus with the Department of Energy on NIF's importance. Officials at Sandia National Laboratory, another DOE facility, have challenged Department leaders on NIF, calling for a scaled-down version in order to make sure it works and that it can be built affordably. Now, at the same time that Congress is covering the spiralling cost of NIF, an instrument of proliferation, we have cut funding for the DOE's nonproliferation activities. The bill we have before us cuts nearly $27 million from the 2001 nonproliferation budget. This should be a cause for concern for all of us, because even funding at fiscal year 2001 levels would not be enough to address the problem. Currently, for instance, there are enough quantities of fissile material in Russia to make more than 40,000 nuclear weapons, and the resource-starved Russian Government cannot secure all of this material on its own. The bipartisan Cutler-Baker panel that recently studied these issues called the risk of theft of Russian nuclear materials the United States' most urgent unmet national security threat. Their report urged sharp increases in spending on nonproliferation, not cuts. Our amendment attempts to address these skewed priorities by taking money being used for proliferation-type activities and setting it aside for critical nonproliferation programs should be considered by this House and approved by this House. The amendment reduces NIF funding by one-half. This still represents a $42.5 million increase in funding over the last year. At the same time that we slow down the dubious National Ignition Facility, we add $24 million to the Immobilization Program, which disposes of surplus plutonium; $19 million to the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting Program, which seeks to secure 603 metric tons of at-risk weapons-usable nuclear material in Russia; $23 million to the Nuclear Cities Initiative, which helps find employment for nuclear scientists in Russia's 10 closed nuclear cities so that they are not tempted to sell sensitive information to groups developing weapons of mass destruction. I urge a yes vote on this amendment. Let us demonstrate our Nation's commitment to smart government and take the leadership role in the fight to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a very fine man, Mr. James V. Psenicka, for his dedicated years of service and countless contributions to the community. Mr. Psenicka was born in Maple Heights to Czech immigrants who met and married in the United States. The family then moved to Streetsboro to purchase land. Mr. Psenicka graduated from Kent State High School in 1950 and immediately joined the staff of ``The Neighborhood News'' where he served as a reporter and advertising salesman. He soon earned his bachelors degree in journalism from Kent State University in 1955. Mr. Psenicka assumed the role of owner and publisher of ``The Neighborhood News'' in 1961 after serving in the U.S. Navy Air force in Guam. As publisher, Mr. Psenicka campaigned for cleaner air and strict anti-pollution regulation. He fought for countless causes to make life better for hard-working Czech and Polish-American readers. Under his leadership, the newspaper was named Best Weekly Newspaper by the Neighborhood and Community Press Association of Greater Cleveland in 1999. Although his commitment to ``The Neighborhood News'' earned the newspaper countless awards and honors, Mr. Psenicka kept family and friends first. He enjoyed traveling with his wife and three sons to Canada, Greece, Europe, and many other places. He relished boating and gardening. You would often see Mr. Psenicka off the coast of Lake Erie fishing. Mr. Psensicka also had an incredible dedication to his local community. He served as a member of Karlin Hall on Fleet Avenue and the Small Business Advisory Council to the U.S. Congress. In addition, Mr. Psenicka served as a dedicated member to the Kiwanis Club of South East Cleveland, the world's largest service organization. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the memory of Mr. James V. Psenicka, a man that has touched the Cleveland and world community in many ways. His love, dedication, and honor will be greatly missed.