Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of William J. Cambatese, a business representative for Sheet Metal Workers Local 33 for 12 years. William Gambatese was the president of Sheet Metal Workers Local 65 before it merged with the Local 33. In his tenure as recording secretary for the Cleveland Building Trades Council, William Gambatese played an active role in project labor agreements and was also active in local government in Greater Cleveland. Mr. Gambatese's commitment to his fellow citizens came out of a 35- year history as a sheet metal worker. Knowing first hand the metal workers' concerns and needs provided the necessary insight to oversee activism in union affairs, AFL-CIO committees, Labor Day parade activities, and political campaigns. William Gambatese was totally immersed in his job and was a dedicated representative of all of the membership. Championing the rights of workers was only one among numerous other civic activities. Mr. Gambatese also chaired the Dollars Against Diabetes Society. Mr. Gambatese's life-work encompassed providing ``quality'' life to those most in need. Never losing site of what was most important: his family and community. William Gambatese's humanitarianism will endure in his wife of 29 years, Linda; daughters Laurie and Jennifer; son, Michael, stepson Donald, three grandchildren; four brothers, and two sisters. Mr. Gambatese was 55 years old. My fellow colleagues, please join with me in honoring William Gambatese for his lifelong commitment and dedications to workers' rights.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to direct the Department of Treasury to report to Congress on the IMF and World Bank's international advocacy of privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization. Policies such as privatizing government services, reforming bank laws, and reforming labor standards are debated here in the United States, in Congress, and in State legislatures. There is no consensus on whether and in what measure these policies are good for the U.S. economy. Good arguments can be made on both sides. I believe that the evidence shows that rapid privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization when applied to poor countries, have worsened short-term poverty, aggravate economic instability and increased indebtedness. At the appropriate time, I would like to submit for the Record reports by the Development Group for Alternative Policies, Friends of the Earth and the Preamble Center which make this point. Mr. Chairman, but one does not have to agree with me to want the report that I propose. There is no question that the IMF and World Bank are important institutions that have considerable influence, particularly among developing countries. When those countries seek loans or relief from payment on their debts, they enter into agreements with the IMF and the World Bank in which they pledge to make changes in their economies that the IMF and the World Bank desires. Every Member of Congress would appreciate knowing the extent to which the IMF and World Bank use that influence, that leverage, to push debtor countries towards privatization, deregulation and trade liberalization. One way of obtaining this information is through the agreements and documents exchanged between the debtor countries and the IMF and the World Bank. My amendment would direct the Secretary of Treasury to produce a report to Congress on the contents of agreements and documents between the IMF and the debtor countries and the World Bank and the debtor countries. In preparing the report, the Secretary would report all provisions of those agreements and documents that require countries to privatize State-owned enterprises and public services; lower barriers to imports including basic food products; privatize their public pension or Social Security systems; raise bank interest rates; reform regulations on the environment and national resources; and reform their labor laws and regulations, including legal minimum wages, benefits and the right to strike. While the objection could be raised that information sought in this request is available in thousands of pages of documents on the Web and elsewhere, there is no easy, centralized location where this information can be found. The government routinely compiles information so that citizenry and Congress can get a better grasp. All sides of the many debates we have had in this House regarding trade and economic policy would benefit from having an accurate and centralized accounting of such requirements. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to withdraw this amendment and would hope to work with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) to obtain a report from the Secretary of the Treasury.

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

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), and I certainly will, at the appropriate time, withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, is it too much to expect that Congress wants our laws obeyed? Is it too much for citizens to expect that their taxes are protected from law breakers? Our society expects individuals to follow the law. When they do not, there are consequences. When a company applies for a Federal contract to perform work paid for by the taxpayers, existing laws say it should be a law-abiding company. If it is not, regulations recently proposed would deny the law-breaking company eligibility to bid for a contract. But this amendment prevents the Government from expecting that Federal contractors obey the law. This amendment would reward law breakers with taxpayer funds. This amendment would reward companies that break our environmental, labor, and consumer safety laws with lavish Federal contracts. I regretfully must ask for a no vote on the Davis amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, cash balance pension conversion completely reverses the incentive older workers now have. Under cash balance pensions, workers have hypothetical retirement accounts that grow by earning interest. The longer a worker stays with the company the larger effect of this compound interest; therefore, an older worker with only 10 years left before retirement does not have as much time as a younger worker with 25 years before retirement in which to earn interest. So this older worker will retire with a smaller retirement than a younger worker will when he retires. That just is not fair. This amendment would compel compliance with the laws saving many American workers from losing the pensions they work for and halting the illegal and unethical conversion of workers pension to cash balance plans.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I speak about some ethical concerns with the human genome project. The recent announcement of the rough draft of the human genome presents another milestone in the recent human enterprise that we call science. The question before us today is the societal consequences of this new development. The role of government is to promote the public good, and to this end it is necessary to address the public concerns related to the human genome project. These concerns may be divided into the following topics: (1) reverence for life, (2) privacy concerns, (3) intellectual property concerns, (4) modification of the genetic code of individuals, and (5) the public's access to data derived from a publicly funded project. The propensity for people to use science and technology to pursue their ideology is well documented in the eugenics and sterilization movements that occurred in both the United States and in Nazi Germany. Shall the data from the human genome project be used to terminate the birth of individuals who may express genes for childhood diseases? Government laws that address the concern of individual privacy must be modified to include protection of both the individual's genetic code as well as other types of privacy. The President issued an Executive Order to protect an individual's privacy in both hiring and promotion in the civilian federal work force. These actions are to be applauded. Individual protections should be much broader; all countries should agree to an international law on human genetic privacy. The United States Patent and Trademark Office must strike a balance between its Constitutional mandate to promote science and the useful arts, and its role in protecting the general public good. Under the current system, it is possible to patent a gene without a knowledge of the gene's function. This may not be in the public good since it will tend to hinder private sector research to cure diseases. There are great ethical concerns about the use of the technology to modify an individual's genetic code. We are familiar with the abuse of medical intervention, specifically injections of human growth hormone to alter a child's stature. Parents choose this intervention because they perceive that taller children would be at an advantage. Will some parents similarly choose to modify their genetic code in order that their prodigy will be similarly ``advantaged.'' Will we modify the genetic code of parents to produce a new ``master race''? Another important public concern whether or not the public will have access to the data derived from a publicly funded project. It would be consistent with the promotion of the public good that everyone have access to the results of the human genome project. Finally, we recognize that humankind is more than its genetic code. While science can inform us what is, and what can be, the humanities, religion, and ethics informs us how we shall be and what we shall be. Government oversight has an important responsibility to insure and safeguard the public good. While I applaud the human achievement, a truly international enterprise, in the ``reading'' of the human genome, I urge everyone to address with deep thought and human compassion the important societal consequences that I have enumerated.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I speak about the question: should hospitals and medical corporations be held to a higher standard of ethics and social responsibility than other corporations? To answer this important question I refer to the Constitution of the United States. In the Preamble we read that the basis of this great country rests in part in the words ``promote the general Welfare.'' This is the essence of what we are about and what should be considered in all moral and ethical arguments concerning public policy. I will use this premise in my answer to the question: Should hospitals and medical corporations be held to a higher standard of ethics and social responsibility than other corporations? From the earliest written history the role of the ``healer''--or medical doctor in our modern terms had a special role. The Code of Hammurabi, which was practiced in Sumeria and Babylonia, clearly stipulated the physical penalties to be inflicted on the ``healer'' in cases of failed surgery. For example the Code states, ``If a doctor operates on the eye of a gentleman, who loses his eye as a consequence, the hands [of the doctor] shall be cut off.'' This is a clear statement of medical responsibility and its consequences. This is indicative of the value of human life and special responsibility of physicians. The Hippocratic Oath, taken by medical doctors at the end of their medical studies, states existence of a special relationship between the patient and the physician. In previous times, the physician was held in great respect, not because of the economic status, but because of the respect for the learned arts that the physician was trained in. This is the basis of the unique relationship between the patient and the ``healer.'' I am greatly concerned that in recent times this special relationship between the patient and the physician has radically changed. For example, I cite the concept of a distributive ethic which is widely promoted and used by health maintenance organizations. The distributive ethic may be stated as the principle to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of patients within the allotted budget. The problem is that it is not possible to simultaneously provide optimal care for an individual patient and for the entire group of patients at the same time. This is an example of the change in the relationship between the patient and the physician that has occurred with the development of our new business models to deliver health care; i.e. HM0's. An example of the business practices of HMO's that are in conflict with the former respectful, sacred relationship between the patient and the healer is the use of a fixed sum of money for the annual care of a group of patients. If the physician can reduce the referrals to specialists, which would rapidly deplete the fund allocated by the HMO for the patient pool, then the physicians can take the remaining funds for themselves. How can anyone consider that this current business practice is in the interest of the patient? Another area of current medical business practice is the financial involvement of the physician in the pharmaceutical industry. How can a clinical study be considered unbiased when the principle investigator is a share holder in the corporation that is financing the clinical study? Can a corporation that owns a series of clinics and hospitals in a neighborhood decide to close one or more of them on the grounds that this will decrease competition? Is a hospital to be viewed in the same ethical way as any other corporation? As a extension of the patient- physician relationship and it special and sacred relationship that has existed from ancient time, it follows that the corporation that owns a hospital has a moral obligation to promote the general welfare. In summary, current business models and practices are not consistent with the ideal ``to promote the general Welfare.'' Hospitals and HMO's have a unique role in our society, and with that unique role come unique responsibility. I believe that the only conclusion that reasonable people can hold is that hospitals and medical corporations must be held to a higher standard of ethics and social responsibility than other corporations.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California. She has been a champion of justice in the developing world. She had been an advocate of American responsibility in the developing world. I know that she offers her amendment with those noble intentions. While I strongly agree with the intentions, I must oppose the means. Unless debt relief is de-linked from a requirement of countries to follow IMF economic policies, the main beneficiary of Congressional funding for debt relief is the IMF. That is because the IMF will receive control of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, while poor countries will have to follow IMF dictates about government spending, health and education policy, monetary policy, and privatization. The IMF deserves much of the blame for the poverty, environmental degradation, and unemployment of heavily indebted poor countries, since it has been telling them what they could and could not do for decades. If the U.S. gives a real gift to the world's poorest countries, it should be freedom from the IMF's structural adjustment programs. Indeed, that is what civic leaders from developing countries are asking for Lidy B. Nacpil of Jubilee South, a coalition of Jubilee 2000 campaigns from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee. In the letter, Congress was asked to ``oppose authorization of any funding mechanism that would empower the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to condition debt relief on adherence to macroeconomics and related structural adjustment programs. The effective imposition of these policies on our countries by the IMF, the World Bank and the other international financial institutions has had a devastating impact on large segments of our population, on our natural environments, as well as on our productive and reproductive capacities of our societies * * * It is the adjustment policies themselves, as the cause of our social, economic, and financial crises, which must be addressed.'' Appropriations for the IMF and World Bank should be conditional. The IMF and World Bank should no longer be able to impose structural adjustment programs over the economic choices and options of developing world countries. Otherwise, we are deceiving ourselves that our good intentions will lead to good results. Indeed, the only time Congress can promote reform at the IMF and World Bank is when those institutions have a request for funds before us. As multilateral institutions, they are not directly subject to wishes of Congress. Instead, the U.S. has a representative at each institution who works, according to Treasury, at developing consensus among the other nations' representatives. The only moment when the IMF and World Bank are susceptible to the unmediated wishes of Congress is when they come to Congress for funds. Then Congress is able to condition release of such funds on changes in IMF and World Bank practices. Unfortunately, this amendment, however well-intended, places no new conditions on the IMF and World Bank. In fact, there is no requirement that the IMF and World Bank actually give any debt relief. Congress cannot take for granted that the funds we appropriate for debt relief will make a difference for the world's poorest citizens we hope to help. Congress has appropriated or authorized hundreds of millions of dollars to the IMF and World Bank in the past for debt relief, but almost none of it has been passed through to the poor countries as relief. Again, Congress is being asked to give hundreds of millions of dollars to an IMF and World Bank administered account. That is the only certain thing Congress is being asked to do. For the amount, let us set aside the obvious question of the IMF's and World Bank's sincerity. If Congress sends the IMF and World Bank funds for the goal of relieving the foreign debt burden, we should ask what the IMF and World Bank require of poor countries to qualify for the debt relief. According to the IMF and World Bank, it is not simply enough that a country be poor to qualify for debt relief. On the contrary, to qualify, countries must impose all sorts of harsh economic medicine to their countries. They must privatize national businesses. They must deregulate their banking industry; they must impose fees on social services--making the poor residents of poor countries pay for basic education and health services. They must be willing to allow the largest corporations in the world to take over ownership of their economies. They must open up their forests and minerals to large multinational corporations. They even sometimes have to oppose increases in their minimum wages. The IMF and World Bank then evaluate the countries' compliance with these painful prescriptions, and wait several years to see if the countries are repressive enough to make these policies stick. If the IMF and World Bank wanted to relieve the debts of the world's poorest countries, they could do so immediately and without any additional funds from Congress. The General Accounting Office has simply reported to Congress about the adequacy of IMF accounts. The cause of debt cancellation does not require further Congressional funds. The IMF and World Bank clearly do not want to cancel the debt of poor countries. Unlike the IMF and World Bank, I am in favor of immediate, 100 percent debt cancellation for the world's poor countries. If Congress is to make a real difference in the lives of the world's poorest, it must put a stop to IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs when these institutions ask for funds from Congress.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record at this point materials relevant to this debate. I object to the passage of the conference report because it contains billions of dollars for the inception of a failed missile program which has already cost the taxpayers of the United States over $60 billion in its previous presentations. I ask my colleagues to review the record of failures and also to review the anti-democratic lengths to which the Department of Defense is going to try to cover-up the failures of the system. National Missile Defense How it is Supposed to Work The ground-based anti-missile system would track warheads using ground-based radars and satellite-based infrared sensors, and the kill vehicles would use infrared sensors to home in on their targets. An intercontinental missile when it is launched starts out early in its trajectory as a large missile, hot (because the rocket engine is still burning) and slow. This is called the boost phase. It would take approximately 30 minutes for a missile to reach its farthest point of 6,000 miles. The boost phase lasts 5 minutes. When the boost phase ends and there is about 300 miles left before impact, only the warhead is left, leaving a small, cold (and therefor hard for infra-red sensors to see) and fast. This makes the warhead a much more difficult target. At this point the war head is traveling at a few miles per second. So, this small, fast and hard to track warhead must be hit by an anti-missile traveling at a faster speed. This is how the system has received the analogy of trying to hit a ``bullet with a bullet''. It is practically impossible to do now, under controlled conditions. Technological Failure Before the decision is made, three exo-atmospheric intercept tests have been scheduled to determine the system success rate and reliability to deploy the system. The one of two tests failed. And the third test has been put off twice because it was not ready for testing. Three tests can not define the technical readiness of the system and serve the basis for deploying a national missile defense. With only two of 19 tests conducted, it has yet to work under real-world conditions. According to a report by The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers and the Council for a Livable World Education Fund other anti-missile systems have been put through far more rigorous testing. The ``Safeguard'' missile defense system, deployed in 1975 and canceled after one day of operation, was put through 165 missile flight tests. The ``Patriot'' theater missile defense system was tested 114 times. According to testimony taken from Dr. David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1998: ``. . . Since 1982 the US has conducted 16 intercept tests of exo-atmospheric hit-to-kill interceptors, which operate in a similar manner to the planned NMD interceptor. To date, the test record of such interceptors has been abysmal. Only 2 of these 16 intercept tests scored hits, for a 13 percent success rate. And the test record is not getting better with time: the most recent successful high-altitude test occurred in January 1991 and the last 11 such intercept tests have been failures.'' Fraud Deception and Manipulated Tests--NMD is a Technological Failure The Department of Defense recently ``classified'' a public letter and attachments from an MIT scientist, Dr. Ted Postol, containing devastating information about the failure of the national missile defense system, its inherent inability ever to protect the United States, and the fraud used to cover up these facts. Dr. Postol is a missile expert who worked in the Reagan Administration and has done analysis of weapons systems for the government. According to Dr. Postol, the system failed those tests. The New York Times states that, ``The Pentagon hailed the first intercept try as success but later conceded that the interceptor had initially drifted off course and picked out the decoy balloon rather than the warhead.'' That is because, according to the Times, the system cannot tell the difference between warheads and decoys. Experiments with he National Missile Defense system have revealed that the system is``inherently unable to make the distinction [between target warhead and decoys].'' The Times characterized the MIT scientist as saying that the signals ``from the mock warhead and decoys . . . `fluctuated in a varied and totally unpredictable way,' revealing no feature `that could be used to distinguish one object from the other.' '' Indeed, the Times reported, ``the test showed that warheads and decoys are so similar that sensors might never be able to tell them apart.'' In other words, national missile defense does not work and cannot work because it's inherently unable to tell the difference between warheads and decoys. Not only is the national missile defense system incapable of working, but, according to the Times, contractors and the Pentagon have purposely altered data to create a different appearance. The Times reported that the ``Pentagon and its contractors had tried to hide this failure'' and that the MIT professor ``says the Pentagon conspired to cover up this sensor problem.'' The Times, quoting from the classified letter and analysis, goes on to say, ``the analytical team arbitrarily rejected and selected data to create an `elaborate hoax' that was then hidden in reports by the use of `misleading, confusion, and self-contradictory language.' '' According to the Times, ``the coverup, [MIT scientist] said, was `like rolling a pair of dice and throwing away all outcomes that did not give snake eyes.'' TRW, Inc. One of the major contractors for this system has had allegations of fraud made against it by a former senior engineer from TRW, Dr. Nira Schwartz. She has provided information challenging the claims the company made about the weapons ability to distinguishing decoys from actual warheads. I have written to FBI Director, Louis Freeh, to investigate these allegations of fraud and cover-up of this program by Dr. Postol. The American people need an independent investigation of this matter to determine these serious allegations. Moreover, according to Postol, all the data used for his analysis was unclassified when he used it. All his supporting information that he sent to the White House was also designated as unclassified. The DoD has classified allegations and evidence of fraud made from information that was unclassified by the Department. This could be in violation of Executive Order 12958. And I have included this in the letter to Mr. Freeh. The Executive Order prohibits the use of the classification system to hide fraud or other wrongdoing. Subsection 1.8(a) states ``In no case shall information be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.'' Furthermore, the Executive Order states at 1.8(c): ``Information may not be reclassified after it has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority.'' Needless to say, the public deserve to expect that the laws of the nation, including Executive Order 12958, be upheld and enforced. countermeasures The 1999 National Intelligence Estimate on the ballistic missile threat to the United States--a document prepared by the US intelligence community--stated that countermeasures would be available to emerging missile states. According to the Union for Concerned Scientist, countermeasures could be deployed more rapidly and would be available to potential attackers before the United States could deploy even the much less capable first phase of the system. A report by the Union of Concerned Scientist details how easily countermeasures could be used against this system. And it would not have to use new technology or new materials. For example, it states that biological or chemical weapons can be divided into many small warheads called ``submunitions.'' Such submunitions, released shortly after boost phase, would overwhelm the planned defense. Any long- range missile attack with biological or chemical agents would almost certainly be delivered by submunitions, and that the NMD system could not defend against such an attack. Also, you have heard about the past tests have used balloons as decoys, to see whether the missile can discriminate between the real war head and the missile. What could happen is that an attacker can deploy its nuclear weapons inside balloons along with many other empty balloons. So, the real warhead is indistinguishable from the decoys, therefore tricking the infra-red sensors. Nuclear warheads could also be with cooled materials that would prevent the kill vehicles from detecting and hitting the warhead. cost estimates The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the system will cost $60 billion to build and deploy. Congress intends to spend $12 billion in the next 6 years. The SDI/Star Wars system has cost the taxpayer more than $60 billion and it estimated that this system, though less far reaching than Star Wars will cost more. We have spent more than $122 billion dollars on various missile defense systems. We need to reorganize our priorities and look at how we could better use these funds for programs, that benefit the poor, seniors and our nation's children. alternatives We are the ONLY superpower in the world. The deterrent that we currently have is sufficient. We have thousands of missiles on hand that act as a deterrent. Any attack by another state would not be massive and would not be able to completely destroy our country or our nuclear arsenals. So any attack would leave the U.S. and its armed forces intact. Our deterrent is impaired only if another state had enough missiles to knock off ours before they launched. The Star Wars system in the 80's assumed that Russia had enough missiles to destroy our missiles before they could launch, that is why we spent $69 billion dollars searching for way to stop incoming missiles. but that has changed and now we have full diplomatic relations with Russia. We could use much cheaper measures to secure our national security. For example, preventative measures. Why not increase funding for our State Department to boost our diplomatic arms with these so-called rogue states? We know that strengthening diplomatic relations with nations ensures national security. For example, France and Britain both have Submarine- Launched Ballistic missiles (64 and 48 respectively) or sea based missiles. But they have never attacked us or have never indicated that they will attack the United States. Why? Because we are allies. Because we have close economic and diplomatic ties. Israel has long ranged nuclear capabilities, but will they ever attack the United States, no? Why, because we are allies. Diplomacy is key. What makes these countries different than say North Korea or Iran? Our historical diplomatic relationship. who will benefit from the national missile defense system? The national missile defense system will simply line the pockets of major weapons contractors, spending billions of dollars for a system that doesn't work and doesn't protect against real threats, we will undermine legitimate military expenditures, and erode readiness of our forces. So who's benefitting from having a national missile defense system? According to the Washington Post, Boeing in 1998 already obtained a three year contract for $1.6 billion dollars to assemble a basic system, before the President has even decided to deploy the system. The Post states that TRW has contracts for ``virtually every type of missile defense program.'' The military industry has the most to gain from a National Missile Defense system. According to the Washington Post, Lockheed Martin is the major contractor on theater missile defense, ``with its upgraded version of the Patriot missile and the Army's $14 billion Theater High Altitude Area Defense system. According to Common Cause the defense industry as a whole supplied more than $2.3 million dollars in soft money to major campaigns last year. nmd effect on nuclear non-proliferation and international relations Deploying a national missile defense system could politically succeed in setting the stage for a world-wide arms race and dismantle past arms treaties. The NMD violates the central principle of the ABM Treaty, which is a ban on the deployment of strategic missile defenses. It will undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will frustrate SALT II and SALT III. It will lead directly to proliferation by the nuclear nations. It will lead to transitions toward nuclear arms by the non-nuclear nations. It will make the world less safe. It will lead to the impoverishment of the people of many nations as budgets are re-fashioned for nuclear arms expenditures. That the United States would be willing to risk a showdown with Russia or China and the rest of the world over the unlikely possibility that North Korea may one day have a missile which can touch the continental United States--argues for talks with North Korea, not the beginning of a new world- wide arms race. CIA officials realize that deploying a national missile defense system would cause world wide instability and endanger relations with our allies in Europe. The LA Times recently reported that officials are writing a secret report outline their thoughts on the devastating impact that this system will have throughout the world. Russia and the US signed agreements (1) establishing a permanent joint early-warning center in Moscow to prevent miscalculations about missile launches, and (2) to reduce their stockpiles of military-grade plutonium by 34 tons each. This is a great sign. I think that dialogue is the step in the right direction, but nothing was resolved regarding the proposal of the ABM Treaty. I think it is a bad idea and it could upset our relationship with our allies to the east. Even if Russia does agree to changing the ABM Treaty, we will most likely see Russia and China build up their nuclear arsenal risking opportunities to bring them and other nuclear countries into the arms control process. (Note: According to law, any substantive change to a bilateral treaty must be agreed to by the Senate. Therefore, any changes to the ABM Treaty must be ratified by the Senate. The Clinton Administration urged Russia to include a protocol to their ratified ABM Treaty that makes Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan the four ABM Successors. If the Senate wants to move forward with START II it must first agree to make these four states successors to the ABM Treaty.) Russia has consistently made statements that deploying a National Missile Defense system would be interpreted by them as a threat to their national security. So, there is a great likelihood that deploying such a system could spark another arms race. For example, Gregory Berdennikov, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Security and Disarmament Department warned that if the United States deploys a missile defense system, ``Russia will be forced to raise the effectiveness of its strategic nuclear armed forces and carry out several other military and political steps to guarantee its national security under new strategic conditions . . . We see no variants which would allow the United States to set up a national ABM system and still preserve the ABM treaty and strategic stability in the world.'' I would like to quote Col. General Vladimir Yakovlev, commander of Russia's strategic rocket forces. ``Problems have cropped up now with Russian-American 1972 AMB treaty; for this reason, we are forced to build in into our new missiles a capability for penetrating anti-missile defenses.'' 1999 (Isvestia) Deploying National Missile Defense is the wrong approach. The United States needs to be in active engagement with Russia about disarmament and reducing nuclear proliferation. We need to continue a dialogue based not on fear but on cooperation. UN Secretary--General Kofi Annan recently said that deploying a missile defense system would create a large arms race world wide.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the fact that today's vote on annual renewal of MFN with China occurs after the House's previous close vote granting China permanent MFN gives us a chance to re-evaluate the wisdom of our action. Since that vote in May, we have learned that several of our assumptions about the meaning of the vote and of China's role in the world have proven false. Consider this. The Wall Street Journal ran an article that I want to quote from. The headline was, ``House Vote Primes U.S. to Boost Investments in China.'' The article says that the China deal with the U.S. on trade has less to do with U.S. workers making and exporting goods to the Chinese and more about Chinese workers working in U.S.-owned factories in China for import to the U.S. The Journal quotes a Wall Street economist saying, ``This deal is about investments, not exports.'' Indeed, the same article quotes a Washington-based analyst who said: ``U.S. exports will increase, but not at the rate of investment, and the corporate community has been quiet about that. They've been able to avoid telling that story.'' I want to read that quote again. This is a Washington-based analyst: ``U.S. exports will increase, but not at the rate of investment, and the corporate community has been quiet about that. They've been able to avoid telling that story.'' We are going to tell the story here. Since the vote for permanent MFN with China, a company in the Cleveland area which provides jobs for my constituents said it will close in the U.S. in favor of a new factory in China. Mr. Speaker, as a director of the UAW in the Cleveland region wrote to his Senators last week, ``The first casualty of normal trade relations has occurred. . . . It is obvious that Rubbermaid's cancellation of the Nestaway contract is not about world competition, it is about naked greed. Nestaway's story is about only one of the thousands of small American companies which are confronted with an economic squeeze brought about by unfair trade laws. PNTR for China will be the death knell for many small companies.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a great servant of the people of Cleveland and leader of the Arab- American community, former Parma councilman Minor George. His recent death, at the age of 78, is a sorrowful event for the entire Cleveland, Ohio community. Mr. George served as a Navy Lieutenant in World War II and was awarded the Bronze Star. After the war he was elected as the only Republican on the City Council of Parma and served three terms. In that office, his support was crucial to the success of a number of important Parma-area developments, including Parma Community General Hospital and Parma Town Hall. He was later to serve as Vice-Chairman of the Cuyahoga County Republican party. Mr. George founded the Cleveland American Middle East organization with his friend Richard Ganim. Today this organization is the Arab- American community's leading political organization, uniting the voice of this important part of the wider Cleveland community. It is a suitable tribute to the vision of its founder, who became the National Arab-American President. Mr. George also worked tirelessly with entertainer Danny Thomas to raise money to open St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital. Without his efforts, this wonderful institution, which helps hundreds of sick children each year, would never have opened. We all owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. Through this exemplary record of public service, Mr. George rose to national prominence and his opinions were sought in meetings with Presidents Nixon, Ford and Bush as well as Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. He always conducted himself with great dignity and was well respected by all sections of the Cleveland community. He will be sorely missed. I ask the House of Representatives to join me today in honoring the memory of this great community leader and role model.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, what if there were free trade in opinion makers? According to consumer advocate Ralph Nader, the chief purveyors of the inevitability of unfettered global trade themselves would have a lot to lose if free trade were applied to them. I submit this article to my colleagues. (By Ralph Nader) Imagine the following: The New York Times announced today that it was replacing its columnists, Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman with the two leading bilingual writers from the Beijing Daily. A Times spokesman explained that the move was necessary to meet the global competition. The two prize-winning Chinese newspaper columnists--Li Gangsun and Mao Yushi--pledged to work hard, and write 4 columns a week, if desired, for $25 a column. Media analysts estimated that the Times would reduce its costs by over 95%. An accompanying Times editorial urged other companies and think tanks to consider opening up their ranks to free trade in executive talent from Third World countries. ``It is time to practice what we preach and join the globalization movement,'' said the editorial, ``and achieve the long-hidden efficiencies from these markets.'' The Times cited two examples where the CEOs from Boeing and General Electric, at retirement, replaced themselves with highly regarded, experienced executives from Shanghai and Cuernavaca who are taking office with an unheard of pay package for them of $19,000 a year. These two gentlemen had long prior experience with Boeing factory outsourcing in China and GE factories and suppliers moving to Mexico. With today's on-line technology, they are able to remain where they are, with occasional visits to the States. Tom Friedman's last column had a wistful tone--given his past paeans to corporate globalization--but it had a defiant note when he concluded by writing: ``I regret that my editors failed to recognize both my long service to the Times and my double Pulitzer prizes. It seems that the intangibles of quality and place have no value anymore. Apparently, everything now is for sale!'' At a departure ceremony, his editors gave Friedman an award for the reporter who has travelled the most and predicted that he would have a fine prospect for employment with fast expanding global Chinese media. Professor Krugman's good-bye column was totally different. He developed an amended theory of comparative advantage to rebut the very thought of replacing him. ``Totally unique commodities like me,'' wrote the noted economist, ``can only adhere to a doctrine of superior advantage. My eminence cannot be compared to the exchange of early 19th century Portuguese wine for British textiles.'' Krugman declared that he will return to his full-time faculty post at MIT where he will research how the practice of monopolistic competition can be exempted from world trade agreements and the imminence of widespread distance learning. Li Gangsun's first column recommended that the Chinese government bring a number of WTO complaints against the non- tariff trade barriers erected by the upper classes of U.S. corporations and universities. ``Since everything is for sale,'' he wrote, ``then all these positions should be considered `commerce and trade' and opened to vigorous competition worldwide.'' As for those ``tenured economics professors at Harvard and Stanford, who are always testifying for total free trade between nations,'' he wrote, ``they are the essence of impermissible barriers to trade. There are numerous Chinese academics who could do a better job, either in situ or by Internet instruction, at far lower salaries, thus lightening the tuition and debt load for American students.'' Word was leaked out that the upcoming meeting of the BusinessRoundtable, which will be closed to the press, will have on its agenda a debate over the topic--``Globalization: if it's good for our workers, why not our top executives?'' Meanwhile, over at the offices of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce near the White House, CEO Tom Donahue is huddled with his aides. The Chamber was planning a joint press conference with its counterpart Mexican Chamber of Commerce to protest President Clinton's clear violation of NAFTA by banning Mexican truck drivers from access to all 50 states. Already the Teamsters Union and consumer safety groups have been emphasizing the traffic safety hazards of such poorly maintained trucks. Moreover, Teamster drivers are angry over having to compete with $7 a day Mexican drivers. The aides have new information for Mr. Donahue that is furrowing his brow. It seems that the head of the Mexican Chamber, Jorge Zapata, after reading the Times, is preparing an offer to replace Mr. Donahue. Zapata, a hard-driving, Harvard Business School trained economist, is willing to work for one-eighth of Mr. Donahue's executive compensation package and move to Washington before the year's end. This could lead to reductions in management salaries at the Chamber below Mr. Donahue's level and result in an overall reduction in membership dues. Mr. Donahue heaved a sigh and, deferring comment, suggested that they all go out for a three-martini lunch.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor retired Judge Jean Murrell Capers with The Black Professionals Association Charitable Foundation Life Achievement Award. She has led a life of dynamic public service in the city of Cleveland for 87 years, and we are blessed that she continues to do so. Judge Capers was born and raised in the same Cleveland neighborhood. From her early years, her remarkable talent and dedication shone. At Central High School, she was an exceptional athlete in basketball, swimming and tennis. She graduated with honors and started college at age 16. After earning her degree from Western Reserve University's School of Education, she returned to the Cleveland public school system to teach elementary students for several years. Her starting salary in 1932 and $79.32 per month. In order to serve her community in a leadership role, she ran for Cleveland City Council and won a seat. Her dedication to public service then led her to earn her juris doctorate from John Marshall School of Law by going to school at night. This education helped her to be a more effective city council member. Not only on council, but in her daily workday, she persevered to help individuals in Cleveland. Her long list of clients kept her much busier than most of colleagues. Judge Capers came to the aid of many people who needed her help, especially those who could not afford to pay her much. In 1960, she became an assistant Attorney General. After that term, she became special counsel to the Ohio Attorney General from 1964 to 1966. Judge Capers was one of the original members of the Women's Advisory Council of the Women's Division at the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services. For this exceptional record, Governor James Rhodes appointed her to Municipal Court Judge in 1977. She then served an additional six year term when she was elected to the position in 1979. In addition to her outstanding career of public service, she worked to help others through other activities. Judge Capers founded and helped organize political groups whose purpose was to increase the status of women regardless of race or political persuasion. She provided encouragement and guidance as a mentor to many public servants in Ohio, other states and in other nations. In 1995, Judge Capers was recognized in the John Marshall School of Law's Centennial in the film: Four Decades of African American Leadership. She is also featured in the book Rebels in Law: Voices in History of Black Women Lawyers, by J. Clay Smith Jr. She is highlighted as a lawyer who is a leader in her community. Judge Capers was inducted into the Ohio Women's Hall of Fame in 1998. Today, at age 87, retired Judge Capers continues to help young people, especially women, and mentor them in their career choices. We thank her for being an inspiration to numerous people in their formative years and in public service. As only the fifth person to receive this prestigious Life Achievement Award, we humbly honor Judge Capers for her extraordinary dedication to our community.

Mr. KUCINICH

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The unreleased internal United Nations report on the Kosovo Protection Corps using violence, extortion, murder, and torture has been widely reported. I am asking all of my colleagues today to take a stand for the protection of human rights of all citizens in Kosovo. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. The KPC has become a brutal paramilitary organization, a fact that has been confirmed by the U.N. itself, the GAO, and many nongovernmental organizations. According to this internal U.N. report, the KPC has prevented the U.N. from establishing peace and maintaining order in Kosovo. The United States cannot continue to fund such activities.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that both myself and the opponent be given 1 extra minute.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment. It would prohibit any funds in this bill from going to the Kosovo Protection Corps, an organization that has always been and continues to be a rogue force in Kosovo. In September 1999, the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, was transformed into a 5,000 member demilitarized civilian organization known as the Kosovo Protection Corps, KPC. According to U.N. regulations on the establishment of the KPC, and this is a quote, ``the Kosovo Corps shall not have any role in law enforcement or the maintenance of law and order.'' However, according to an unreleased internal United Nations report, the Kosovo Protection Corps has been using violence, extortion, murder, and torture. Because this report has not been made public, lawmakers in the United States who actually set the United States budget for this mission in Kosovo must rely on the media to provide such crucial information. According to press accounts, the report states that the KPC has been involved in ``criminal activities, killings, torture, illegal policing, abuse of authority, intimidation, breaches of political neutrality and hate speech.'' The Washington Post reported that the U.N. report states that several members of the KPC ``allegedly tortured or killed local citizens and illegally detained others, illegally attempted to conduct law enforcement activities, illegally forced local businesses to pay taxes, and threatened U.N. police who attempted to intervene and stop wrongdoing.'' An article in the British Guardian newspaper indicates that in Dragash, two members of the KPC and three others were arrested by U.N. police in connection with the killing of an ethnic Gorani. It goes on to say the U.N. report cited ``three charges of ill-treatment and torture: in Pec, a man was beaten senseless in the KPC's headquarters, suffering head injuries and severe bruising from a rifle butt. . . . In Prizren, a man from the Torbesh minority . . . was kidnapped and beaten up by a KPC member and three other men. And in Prizren KFOR suspended alleged torturers from the KPC.'' A GAO report on security in the Balkans indicates that the Kosovo Protection Corps may be adding to unrest and regional instability in the region. It states that KFOR and the U.N. have detained members from the KPC ``for carrying unauthorized weapons and engaging in violence and intimidation against ethnic minorities.'' So the goals of the U.N., as stated in U.N. Resolution 1244 are actually being impeded by the KPC. These goals include: deterring renewed hostilities, demilitarizing armed groups, ensuring public safety and order, and protecting and promoting human rights. The U.N. itself cited the KPC for threatening U.N. personnel in efforts to intervene in wrongdoing. So, not only is the KPC responsible for human rights violations, but the KPC is making it harder for the U.N. to accomplish peace in Kosovo. An Amnesty International report issued in February concluded that after 6 months of peacekeeping efforts in the region, ``human rights abuses and crimes continue to be committed at an alarming rate, particularly against members of minority communities.'' According to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2000, ``Ethnic Albanian refugees returned to a devastated Kosovo almost immediately after the withdrawal of Serbian and Yugoslav forces, and soon began a series of revenge attacks against the region's minority populations. A wave of arson and looting of Serb and Roma homes quickly deteriorated into harassment and beating of individuals. Most serious was a spate of abductions and murders of Serbs.'' Finally, International Crisis Group, an internationally renowned conflict prevention and conflict resolution group based in Washington, D.C. and Brussels, recently issued a report on the KPC. It states that ``Even the UNMIK's own officials and some KFOR officers admit (though never in public) that the KPC is, and will probably remain, a military- style organization.'' These are credible reports from many credible sources that reveal that the KPC is causing unrest and instability as it continues to engage in violent and brutal practices. These human rights abuses of extortion, murder, kidnapping, torture, and intimidation must not continue. So why should American tax dollars support an organization which is actually worsening the situation of ethnic hatred and violence in war- torn Kosovo? There has been enough violence in the Balkans. Why sustain this volatile atmosphere by continuing to allow the KPC to run rampant in Kosovo? Most of Europe already knows this. That is why almost all NATO countries do not fund the KPC. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, most of Europe already knows about the KPC. According to a May 10, 2000 United Nations Status Report, the United States has pledged about $5 million and Germany has pledged about $1.5 million. So the United States foots the majority of the bill for an organization which has failed to benefit society in Kosovo. I am asking for a yes vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to spread the word. I spread the word of the many thousands of successful people with disabilities who have benefitted from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the tenth anniversary of this historic legislation. On July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law. The nation's handicapped community was presented with perhaps their most important legislation in the history of the United States. With the signing of this bill, handicapped individuals were given the opportunity and the access to have their incredible potential recognized. For ten years now, the ADA has extended the American dream to millions of Americans with disabilities. With this act, America has become a better nation. Paying tribute to this momentous event, I commemorate the Disability Coalition Movement of Cleveland in creating ``ADA Day--A Celebration''. In sponsoring this event, the communities of Northeast Ohio are recognizing the previous accomplishments of the ADA, and envisioning the future success that will inevitably come. By bringing together area disabled and non-disabled for a celebration, ADA Day will further encourage a dialogue of anti-discrimination. ADA Day will continue to spread the word for all to hear. Throughout my district and throughout our nation, handicapped individuals have impacted their neighborhoods. A message of awareness and understanding has been spread, and this message must only get louder. The tenth anniversary of the Americans with Disability Act is a time commemorating handicapped people and applauding events like ADA Day--A Celebration. My fellow colleagues, please join me in spreading this important word.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 29, 2000, a day when the U.S. Congress was in session, I was present on behalf of the people of my district at a federal bankruptcy court in Wilmington, Delaware before federal Judge Mary F. Walrath, to request the Judge's consideration of my constituents' heartfelt plea to help us save our community hospital. What follows is my testimony in open court--a tribute to St. Michael's Hospital. Your Honor, I thank your Honor for granting me the privilege to humbly approach this court on behalf of the community interests of the 570,000 people of the 10th Congressional district in Cleveland, Ohio, a city which I served as Mayor and now I represent Cleveland in the U.S. Congress. For this matter is literally one of life and death for my constituents because their access to full service health care, emergency care (13,000 cases a year) surgical care and acute medical care is at stake. St. Michael's Hospital, which was known as St. Alexis Hospital, has been the heart and soul of an old Cleveland neighborhood on the edge of the steel mills for 116 years. I know the hospital well. I lived in the neighborhood. I worked there 36 years ago as an orderly, then as a surgical technician. I learned long ago about the spirit of this hospital--about its spiritual connection to the community, about how it provides over 400 jobs, and protects neighborhood health and neighborhood commerce. Our community has a lot at stake here. St. Michael's has provided care, outstanding care for the sick and the elderly, including my own mother and father, and brothers and sisters, and myself. It provides care for the poor, the indigent, for people who do not own cars, for people who are dependent on mass transit, for a large elderly population who wait patiently each month for their social security checks. St. Michael's staff is totally dedicated. Some of its doctors still do house calls. St. Michael's has saved the lives, and prolonged the quality of life of so many people who I know and love and the lives of loved ones of many people here in this courtroom. St. Michael's gives people hope. It has demonstrated true charity. The people from my district who have traveled here by bus including City Council representatives, are now obligated by the Today, when I walk the streets of St. Michael's neighborhoods, I see poverty reflected on people's faces, in the walk, in their clothes. I know the people well, because this is where I come from. This is my home. This is my heart. I know that for many people in the community this hospital is the only institution in the neighborhood which enables the people to rescue some quality from a hard life. And that is why I am here on a day when the U.S. House of Representatives is in session--because I can and do speak on behalf of 570,000 people and say that we plead for the wisdom and mercy of this honorable court, in considering the interests of the community. We respect that this honorable court cannot solve all the problems which beset the American health care system--indeed that is work for the institution I am honored to serve, but the court can help give the hospitals a fighting chance to survive, and in the process give the humble people of our community one last chance for the hospital to be saved. I ask your honor to please take notice of the fact that: On the same day that PHS and Cleveland Clinic privately applied to the Federal Trade Commission for Hart-Scott-Rodino (antitrust) approval for the asset purchase agreement to close St. Michael's and Mt. Sinai East--on that same day, PHS publicly announced its intention to keep St. Michael's and Mt. Sinai East open, not withstanding the closure of Mt. Sinai University Circle. Your honor, the people who I represent are humble people, many minorities, many from immigrant families. They take things at face value. They have trouble understanding people who say one thing and do another. They have faith in people, in one another, and in this court. The truth is that notwithstanding the three year agreement which PHS and Cleveland Clinic made with the Mayor of Cleveland at St. Michael's: The adolescent ward was closed in the past three weeks; The detox unit was closed; The ambulance service has been stopped; The elective services have been stopped; That today the cardiac rehab unit is being closed; That women's center patients have to find other physicians. PHS did this without the physicians' knowing; That one physician's patients received letters ``to get another physician''--even though PHS never notified the physician; All this has hurt our community. But St. Michael's Hospital lives. It lives despite PHS billing hospitals for a computer system which still does not work and PHS paying multi-million dollar consultant fees that in and of themselves would cover any deficits which may exist at St. We cannot expect this honorable court to solve the health care problems of America--but it is a fact that on the entire east side of Cleveland, as a result of the closing of Mt. Sinai, University Circle; no level-one trauma center is available. And throughout this process of closing hospitals the community; doctors, nurses and Cleveland City Council were not included in any talks. It is no wonder that the Council voted 18-0 to formally oppose the sale and closure of St. Michael's. Your honor, I want the court to know that I am sensitive to PHS's position as a debtor in Bankruptcy proceedings and understand that PHS must sell these hospitals. But it seems, that to PHS, St. Michael's and Mt. Sinai are simply assets to be unloaded, worth more to them closed than open. But to the people in my district and in neighboring districts, these represent community resources and access to health care. To Cleveland Clinic, St. Michael's and Mt. Sinai East represent competition to be snuffed out. That is why Cleveland clinic agreed to purchase these hospitals only under the condition that PHS close them prior to purchase. That's a cold and heartless decision to we who are committed to providing access to health care for Cleveland area residents. It is cruel and it is inexplicable that St. Michael's, which provides 20 percent of its care to indigent and Medicaid patients must close to make way for the sprawling Cleveland Clinic which provides only 2.3 percent of its care to charity patients. What makes it even harder to comprehend is that the asset purchase agreement freezes out willing bidders, those who would keep the hospitals open. Those who would keep St. Michael's doing what it has always done for 116 years, protecting the people's health care needs. That's all the people I represent want--to keep hospitals open, to keep access to health care. I join with the objectors to the Asset Purchase Agreement in the request that this honorable court set aside the agreement for a closed sale and open the bidding to provide a clear, honest opportunity for our community hospitals to stay open. Thank you, your honor.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, last year 100 million acres of genetically engineered crops were planted in the United States. Last year the American people consumed dozens of products made of genetically engineered materials without any knowledge or understanding of some of the issues which are sweeping this world concerning genetically engineered food. The countries of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Japan are now discussing labeling regimes which would give people the right to know what they are eating, which would give people the right to know if food they are eating is genetically engineered, because concerns have been expressed all over the world about the possible allergenicity of genetically engineered food, possible toxicity, transfer of antibiotic resistance, and unintended side effects that come with this technology. When the Food and Drug Administration approved genetically engineered food, they said that such food was substantially equivalent to conventional foods. But the fact of the matter is that when you are using a gene gun to shoot a gene from a different species into a target to be genetically engineered, you are hardly relying on nature. You are relying on a process, the safety of which has not been proven and the safety of which should have been checked out 10 years before these products were introduced into our food supply. We know some of the stories, what happened with the monarch butterfly in one study where pollen which migrated from genetically engineered corn went to the milkweed plants on which monarch butterflies fed and in this study of Cornell University half of the monarch butterflies in this population were killed. Now, there are some serious questions raised about what happens when genetic material moves across a distance, settles on other crops and can create unintended side effects. People have a right to know if their food has been altered in any way. That is one of the reasons why and it is almost a fundamental thing that is so uniquely American because years ago this Congress fought successfully for bills which forced the FDA to have manufacturers disclose all the contents of the food that we eat. Imagine if you had a problem with your diet where you had to be concerned about the fat content of your food, but you did not have fat content listed on a product that you consumed. Or if you had a problem with too much sugar, and you could not have any labeling of what the sugar content was. Americans know how important these issues are with their diet. Today, the issues have changed with technology. Genetically engineered food poses new risks that have not yet been adequately researched, and the FDA has a responsibility to tell this to the American people. The least we can do is to label genetically engineered food. The least we can do is to give people the right to know what is in the food they eat. The least we can do is follow the example that is set by all of the nations of the European Union in saying that genetically engineered foods have to be labeled. Why are the people of the United States, who in polls that have been taken, have been demonstrated to favor labeling by close to 90 percent, being denied this chance to have their food labeled if it is genetically modified? Think about it. People have a right to know. That is what this bill is about, giving people the opportunity to know what is in the food they eat. There is one product which has been talked about, a flavor saver tomato which takes a gene from a flounder and shoots it into a tomato to make the tomato more weather resistant. Now, in God's green acres, tomatoes and flounders do not mate. Nature has certain separations which makes it possible for species to grow without trying to have transspecies communication. What is happening is that genetic engineering is creating new possibilities which defy the laws of nature and God. And so we need to take a stand and to say we ought to be testing this food, we ought to test it for toxicity, we ought to test it for allergenicity, we ought to test it for all kinds of safety problems, but before we get to that we certainly must label it. That is why I brought this bill to the Congress. I am not going to ask for a vote on it today, but this issue is going to be brought back over and over until we have a labeling bill.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman; and we will be back with this another time. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.