Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and ask to be heard on the appeal.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer a privileged resolution that I noticed pursuant to rule IX and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to present a question of privilege of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Calling on the President to abstain from renegotiating international agreements governing antidumping and countervailing measures. Whereas under Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress has power and responsibility with regard to foreign commerce and the conduct of international trade negotiations; Whereas the House of Representatives is deeply concerned, that in connection with the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') Ministerial meeting to be held in Seattle, Washington, and the multilateral trade negotiations expected to follow, few countries are seeking to circumvent the agreed list of negotiations topics and reopen debate over the WTO's antidumping and antisubsidy rules; Whereas the built-in agenda for future WTO negotiations, which was set out in the Uruguay Round package ratified by Congress in 1994, includes agriculture trade, services trade, and intellectual property protection but does not include antidumping or antisubsidy rules; Whereas the Congress has not approved new negotiations on antidumping or antisubsidy rules and has clearly, but so far informally, signaled its opposition to such negotiations; Whereas strong antidumping and antisubsidy rules are a cornerstone of the liberal trade policy of the United States and are essential to the health of the manufacturing and farm sectors in the United States; Whereas it has long been and remains the policy of the United States to support its antidumping and antisubsidy laws and to defend those laws in international negotiations; Whereas an important part of Congress' participation in the formulation of trade policy is the enactment of official negotiating objectives against which completed agreements can be measured when presented for ratification; Whereas the current absence of official negotiating objectives on the statute books must not be allowed to undermine the Congress' constitutional role in charting the direction of United State trade policy; Whereas the WTO antidumping and antisubsidy rules concluded in the Uruguay Round have scarcely been tested since they entered into effect and certainly have not proved defective: Whereas opening these rules to renegotiation could only lead to weakening them, which would in turn lead to even greater abuse of the world's open markets, particularly that of the United States; Whereas conversely, avoiding another divisive fight over these rules is the best way to promote progress on the other, far more important, issues facing WTO members; and Whereas it is therefore essential that negotiations on these antidumping and antisubsidy matters not be reopened under the auspices of the WTO or otherwise: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls upon the President-- (1) not to participate in any international negotiation in which antidumping or antisubsidy rules are part of the negotiating agenda; (2) to refrain from submitting for congressional approval agreements that require changes to the current antidumping and countervailing duty laws and enforcement policies of the United States; and (3) to enforce the antidumping and countervailing duty law vigorously in all pending and future cases.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, NATO was originally formed in 1949 as a defensive alliance. It was formed to protect against attacks, not to initiate attacks. Moreover, NATO's charter, Article 5 defines the alliance as ``collective defense against armed attack and limits NATO to attacking only in self-defense.'' Article 5 of the NATO treaty states, ``the parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.'' I believe that nations should have that security and have the ability to defend themselves against unprovoked aggression. NATO provided this blanket of security for the North Atlantic countries for the past 50 years. That is why Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, wanted to join. This is why Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Croatia, Romania and others want to join NATO, for increased protection, for increased security; and so NATO has changed. The recent attack on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the first action ever taken by NATO against a sovereign nation. This action did not satisfy Article 5 of the NATO charter, which limits NATO to defensive attacks. No country attacked a NATO country prior to the NATO attack in the Kosovo province and Yugoslavia. So while today this resolution would recommit the United States to NATO and European security, we must honestly ask if the mission of NATO and the NATO treaty was violated by the Kosovo bombing. In mid-April as the war continued over Yugoslavia, NATO modified its charter combining both defensive and offensive actions. The strategic concept, which Congress will endorse with this resolution, now states in part 4, section 41, that NATO ``must be prepared to contribute to conflict prevention and to conduct non-Article 5 crisis response operations,'' end of quote, which means NATO can conduct unilateral bombing against any nation. This is a blank check to wage war. The implications of this change will be serious, and this Congress must take note of it so that NATO does not become a law unto itself, a blind, unconscious force which usurps democrat process and values and becomes an impersonal force, and it is more powerful than individual nations. If NATO is endorsed as an offensive force, what does this mean? Does it mean an end to the United Nations security role? Will it mean that NATO may act unilaterally anywhere in the world according to what it deems is a threat? Does it mean that there are no limits to NATO's potential military actions, since all NATO has to do is to change its charter to justify mission creep? Now, I support the defensive security which NATO has to offer. NATO was formed to protect against attacks, not to initiate attacks. I believe that this Congress must retake its role as described in the constitution, article 1, Section 8, that this Congress has the power and the authority alone to put this country into war. We should not cede it to a President, and we should not cede it to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Greater Cleveland chapter of PLAST, Ukrainian American Youth Organization on their fiftieth anniversary. I am honored to attend the commemorative event celebrating this momentous occasion on December 5, 1999. PLAST was founded in Ukraine in 1911. Because of the Soviet Union's rule over Ukraine after World War II, PLAST was eradicated from its native land. Post-World War II immigrants brought their Ukrainian ancestry with them to the free world and build up PLAST wherever they settled. The city of Cleveland was fortunate to have a chapter of PLAST develop and flourish in the area. Now, three generations later, PLAST is still nurturing its youth in the Greater Cleveland area. The organization is dedicated to developing character, citizenship, and ethnic pride. They also share a profound love of nature and express this through their many services around the community. As important as anything, PLAST also values and teaches leadership qualities among American youth of Ukrainian ancestry. The honor and integrity the youth are developing through PLAST will stay with them throughout their life as they become the leaders of our community. I urge my fellow colleagues to please join me in recognizing the fiftieth anniversary of such an honorable organization as the Cleveland chapter of PLAST, Ukrainian American Youth Organization and wish them many more years of growth and success.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim W. Cravens as he is honored as Veteran of the Year by the Lincoln Post No. 13 Polish Legion of American Veterans for his outstanding service and dedication. Jim Cravens began his career of service in the Air Force in February of 1959 as a draftsman and served until 1961. During his retirement he joined the Local Junior Chamber of Commerce and pursued his lifelong hobby of derby racing by working with the local youth in building racers. His youthful enthusiasm has truly been inspiring to everyone he has encountered. In 1963, Jim Cravens began his work with the Cleveland Board of Education in the Architectural Department. Later, because of his community and political involvement, he was elected president of his neighborhood group and the Local War Democratic Club. In 1979 he was elected to the Cleveland City Council and in 1982 Jim Cravens started his work with the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. Jim Craven's participation with the Polish Legion of American Veterans began in 1992 when he was a social member, then was later asked to take the position of 2nd and 1st Commander and now he holds the position of commander. As commander, Jim Cravens has worked hard to pay off old death benefits, improve the post both inside and out, and put it back on sound financial ground while taking care of other duties. In addition to his service to the Polish-American veterans, Jim was a member of the Polish Americans Inc, the Polish American Congress, the Amateur Athletic Union USA, and is still serving as ward leader of Cleveland Ward 12 as well as vice president of the Merchant Guild of the Slavic Village. My fellow distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Jim W. Cravens as he is honored by the Polish Legion of American Veterans as Veteran of the Year.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rev. Ralph A. Bodziony for his contributions to Saint John Cantius of Cleveland, Ohio. Father Ralph has spent thirty years at St. John Cantius and is retiring after forty years of priesthood. His family and friends will honor his years of service with a celebration on November 28, 1999. In his thirty years of service to St. John Cantius, Father Ralph has gone to great lengths to help the parish grow and revitalize. Years ago, when it was not economically feasible to maintain the parish's old convent, Father Ralph helped turn it into The Malt Talbot Inn, an alcoholic rehabilitation center and halfway house. He also was heavily involved in the old elementary school being used for the Positive Education Program. In 1984, under Father Ralph, the parish held its first Polish Heritage Festival. It proved to be a very popular event and is now an annual celebration for parishioners and friends from all over to come and enjoy themselves. Father Ralph has also led the church to a major facelift recently. In 1992, a beautiful Gothic altar was installed in the sanctuary; in 1994, the church organ was refurbished; and in 1997, the church was painted in anticipation of the one hundredth anniversary. St. John Cantius has come a long way in its one hundred years and, through projects like these, Father Ralph has been able to revitalize the parish alongside the redevelopment of the Tremont area. St. John Cantius, through the leadership of pastors such as Father Ralph, has served the community for one hundred years. The parishioners, who value their ethnicity and beliefs, have developed new traditions while passing on their Polish ancestry to each new generation in the parish. Father Ralph's leadership and commitment to the parish has helped contribute to its rich and colorful history. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the beloved Rev. Ralph Bodziony for his dedication to the church and his extraordinary works in the Tremont area. His life and efforts towards a better community have inspired us all.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time and want to say what a privilege it is to be in this Congress with him, he being one of the foremost champions of human rights not only in this Congress but throughout the world. I am very grateful for the commitment that he has made because if there are Members who exemplify what the Geneva Convention stands for in its unfolding of principles of humanity, it is the gentleman from California. I think we could also say that the esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations also is someone who celebrates these high principles. I am certainly here in support of this resolution which celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. It is important that we understand that the Geneva Conventions embody an agreement to try to bring principles of humanity into one of the most inhumane of circumstances in human conduct, the conduct of war, and Geneva Conventions brought together leaders from around the world 50 years ago with the express purpose of trying to find a way where, as we see a world slip into war, we could still say that there are some things that even in war are not going to be tolerated. I have to say that in reflecting back in the last year in events which have been well publicized around the world I think it is important, when we speak of the Geneva Conventions, to also review the military objectives of NATO and Kosovo just 5 months ago which would seem to violate the very prohibition which the Geneva Convention has for deliberate attacks on civilians, and I cite from the Geneva Conventions here, Schedule 5, Article 52.1, which states that civilians shall not be the subject of an attack, while Schedule 6, Article 13.3, states, and I quote, civilians shall enjoy protection unless they take direct part in hostilities, end of quote. Now the Conventions, in order for them to be effective must be applied to everyone whether we happen to like a given nation or not, and they would seem, if my colleagues read them, to apply to everyone in the world, including those Serbian civilians in Yugoslavia. For instance, Convention 4, Part 2, Article 13, states the provision of Part 2 covers the whole population of the countries in conflict without any adverse distinction based in particular on race, nationality, religion or political opinion and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war, end of quote. Well, we know for a fact that NATO targeted Serb civilians and civilian infrastructures. There is no one who would contest this now. For instance, the attack on the Serbian TV station caused the death of 20 civilians. NATO planes and missiles deliberately targeted the electric power infrastructure of Serbia. One State Department official has been quoted as saying that the attack on a TV station was intended to send a message to the Serbian populace, and this is a quote, to put pressure on the leadership to end this, unquote. Now did NATO's aerial bombardment violate international humanitarian law as set forth in the Geneva Conventions of 1949? Did the bombing also violate the first additional protocol of 1977, which many of the NATO countries have ratified? The basic rule in Article 48 of Protocol 1 is that civilian populations and objects are to be distinguished from military objectives and that only military objectives are to be bombed. In addition, bombings which are intended to spread terror, and I will read that again, bombings which are intended to spread terror or attack civilian morale are expressly prohibited by Article 51. When NATO admittedly targeted the infrastructure of Yugoslavia, including water works, electricity plants, bridges, factories, television and radio locations in efforts to harm the morale of the people and to get them to overthrow their leadership, I wonder if NATO considered Article 51 which prohibited such actions. NATO also targeted civilians when it attacked the Serbian TV station killing 20 civilians. Rules 51 and 57 also prohibit attacks on military targets that will cause excessive civilian deaths and prohibit disproportionate indiscriminate attacks. NATO bombing caused excessive loss of life and injury to civilians and possibly killed thousands. Now we should celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions and pass this legislation, but our words will ring hollow when our actions contradict them. Let us follow up this resolution with a study that honestly and independently determines how, if at all, recent military action in Kosovo contravened the Geneva Conventions. I urge passage of the resolution.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that one of the great celebrations that NATO had in this conflict was its ability to precisely target certain facilities, notwithstanding the unfortunate episode at the Chinese embassy, and that being the case, NATO together with the intelligence it was receiving absolutely understood that there were civilians in that TV station. Now I respectfully submit that Rules 51 and 57 in this Convention, which the gentleman and I both agree ought to be honored, prohibits attacks on military targets which would cause excessive civilian deaths, and while we could engage in a debate on, I suppose, what would constitute excessive civilian deaths, I humbly submit the possibility that NATO may have gone along the line of challenging this very provision which is in the Geneva Convention, and I think that the gentleman and I both agree in our service in this Congress that we want to see the highest principles of humanity upheld, and we both understand how terribly difficult it is for all of us to have to grapple with the decisions that are made during a war because I think we would both agree that war is something that needs to be avoided at all cost, and when it is finally something that is enacted, that we observe the Geneva Conventions. My statement here on this floor is to point out that while we can all admire the ideals that are expressed in the Geneva Conventions that it is important, I think, to review a recent history which may suggest that the Geneva Conventions could be fully exemplified in the conduct of combatants. I would agree with the gentleman from California that Mr. Milosevic is not someone who at any point ought to be regarded for his role in this. He has certainly done everything he can to undermine democracy and freedom and Serbia, and I think we would all agree that he ought to be ousted. But the people who are Serbian civilians who had no role in supporting the Milosevic regime and in some cases tried to overturn him ought to be accorded the full privileges of that same Convention which we would accord to all other nations in the world, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his indulgence and his kindness.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. It is certainly true that Americans are depending on us to guarantee Social Security. There is no question about it, and they are looking for help from both sides of the aisle. I know that in this big debate that has developed over the last few years the role that I have played in it is to suggest that while we want to guarantee Social Security, we need to avoid any effort towards privatization of Social Security. As you remember, there has been a big hue and cry in Washington over the past few years saying that we can only turn to the private sector to guarantee this tremendous social and economic benefit known as Social Security, and it is lucky that Congress did not privatize Social Security this year. You remember on October 15 the headlines nationally? Stocks Tumble After Warning By Greenspan, The Dow's Big Drop. An unexpectedly sharp rise in consumer price index fed inflation fears contributing to the Dow's worst drop in a year. The Dow Industrial Average today suffered its worst loss in a year, dipping briefly below the symbolic 10,000 mark it bridged in March as investors recoiled from most of the high- flying stocks that have driven this stage of the bull market. Now, the falling stock market, and you see this graph right here, what goes up must come down, the falling stock market illustrates the danger we place the American people in if Congress ever agreed to bet Social Security money on the stock market. While my good friend the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) does this country a service by calling a special order on this topic where we have to say we are going to guarantee Social Security, we also know that investing Social Security in the stock market is a risky proposition that may be fine for people with extra income to gamble, but Americans need a guaranteed income when they are old or disabled. So long as Congress and the President keep Social Security out of the stock market, Social Security has a chance to be sound. Even as the stock market has been falling, and you might find this interesting, even as the stock market has been falling, Social Security has been getting stronger. The trustees released an analysis that asserted that the Social Security trust fund is now projected to be solvent through the year 2034, without any Congressional action. The previous trustees report set the date of projected insolvency to 2032. Now, think about this. The Social Security trust fund has gained 2 complete years of solvency without privatizing Social Security or investing it in the stock market. While it is true that Americans are depending on us to guarantee Social Security, I think that Americans also want us to take note of the fact that Social Security got stronger without any Congressional action because the economy is stronger and wages are rising. This should be a lesson for everyone. We do not need the stock market to solve Social Security's projected financial shortfalls. We need to strengthen the economy, we need to raise wages, and Social Security will strengthen itself. As the stock market falls there is even more good news for Social Security. The President wants to credit the Social Security trust fund with an additional $2.3 trillion to guarantee surpluses for the trust fund over the next 50 years. No other organization, public or private, has a plan for operation 50 years into the future. Social Security is secure. What policymakers need to know is that Social Security is secure as long as the Congress and the President back Social Security with a guarantee of the full faith and credit of the United States. Congress can say that the United States of America will pay all promised benefits, just as America stands 100 percent behind its bonds. All Americans win if Congress guarantees Social Security. But if Social Security is invested in the stock market, all Americans will lose guaranteed old age income. Turning Social Security over to Wall Street will mean that senior citizens, the retirees, would have to check the Dow Jones before they check their mailboxes to see if they have money for shelter, food and medicine. The falling stock market should remind us that it is better to have a guaranteed monthly check from the U.S. Treasury. The American people received a big break this year when Congress did not privatize Social Security. We should leave Wall Street gambling to those who can afford to lose. Americans are depending on us to guarantee Social Security. They need help from people on both sides of the aisle, and I am proud to be here with my colleagues who have a commitment to Social Security and the security of our elderly today and to future Americans. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his commitment, for his dedication to Social Security, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on those solutions which we know the American people will find their best interests served. So I thank the gentleman. I see our friend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is here. I am glad we are all working on this issue.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the thirtieth anniversary of the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland's Commission on Catholic Community Action. The Commission on Catholic Community Action was established in 1969 with a mission to protect and promote human dignity and advance justice for all. Successful in their mission, the CCCA has played a pivotal role in the rebirth of Cleveland. Focusing on urban redevelopment, the CCCA has organized, promoted, and made a difference in neighborhood issues such as job training, economic empowerment, environmental justice, and peacemaking. With an outlook to reduce poverty and discrimination, the CCCA has sponsored and cosponsored numerous seminars, speeches, and awards banquets. Keynote speakers at these events have educated the public on issues such as the Holocaust and prejudice reduction. Generating community awareness throughout Cleveland, the CCCA has provided participants with a new appreciation for celebrating multicultural diversity within the city. Through hard work and determination, the CCCA has truly improved life opportunities for urban residents of Cleveland. Upholding this tradition of giving and caring, the CCCA has made Cleveland's urban residents culturally and economically stronger. Congratulations to the Commission on Catholic Community Action for thirty years of service and on continuing their mission into the new millennium. My fellow colleagues, join me in honoring the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland's Commission on Catholic Community Action as they celebrate their thirtieth anniversary.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, recently the Commerce Department announced a record trade deficit of $25.2 billion for the month of July. That means that foreign-made goods are displacing American-made goods. When foreign goods replace American-made goods, Americans are put out of work, pressure increases to lower wages, and the tax base for schools and cities shrinks. When those foreign-made goods are illegally subsidized or sold in the United States below price, the trade deficit worsens and it is even harder for American producers to compete. The U.S. has laws to protect American producers and workers from the illegal dumping of foreign-made goods into the U.S., but we are here because there is a real danger that the administration would give away those laws in trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization. How do we know that? Let me share something that recently came across my desk. I have here a list of American laws that the European Union wants the administration to trade away. Here on page 9 of this summary on the report on the United States barriers to trade and investment by the European Commission, the EU, the European Union, has identified America's antidumping laws. Mr. Speaker, when the EU identifies our antidumping laws as a problem, they are advocating on behalf of European-based multinational corporations. They want to make it easier for those companies to sell their products in the United States. Who will lose out if those European companies are allowed to export to the U.S. without regard to America's antidumping laws? American producers and American workers. House Resolution 298 says that giving up our trade law system is a bad deal for American producers and workers. Do not trade away our trade laws. This is particularly important for people I represent in the Greater Cleveland area who work in the steel industry. Because American steel is the best-made steel in the world made with the best equipment, with the best workers. And yet for all the investment in steel, for all the efforts by the workers there, for all the commitments made by organized labor by the unions who represent those workers, American steel is in trouble. American steel manufacturers are losing money because we are having and have had steel dumped in our markets, and that is not fair. So, Mr. Speaker, it is time to maintain U.S. trade laws. It is time to take a stand against dumping and it is time to make sure that U.S. laws that are made to protect American producers and workers from the illegal dumping of foreign-made goods into the U.S. are not just protected but are held inviolate. So I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion this morning with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and all the other colleagues who are here who have constituencies that are similar to mine and who want to make sure that we protect American jobs from the antidumping.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin. The members of the Central Ohio chapter will be holding their annual meeting of the Ohio AAPI on the weekend of October 23, 1999. The American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin represents 32,000 physicians of Indian origin practicing all over the United States. The AAPI is concerned with the treatment of International Medical Graduates as they embark on their journey of medical education and practices here in the United States. They also concentrate their efforts on the health status of the Indian American community in the United States. There are more than 2,000 medical doctors from India who have settled in Ohio. These men and women have moved across the world from their home towns in order to provide the best medical care to the citizens of the state of Ohio. They are bringing their heritage to our great state to add to the cultural diversity. They have dedicated their lives to selfless acts of giving and deserve the utmost respect. I urge my fellow colleagues to please join me in recognizing these men and women of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin for their dedication to medical care in the state of Ohio.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ronald Tober for his many years of service to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. He plans to celebrate with friends and family at a farewell dinner on October 22, 1999. Robert Tober has had a very successful career in the public transit industry. Mr. Tober has served as the General Manager and Secretary- Treasurer for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority since May, 1988. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Tober served as Director of Transit for the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle for six years. For two years he was Deputy Transportation Coordinator for Metropolitan Dade County in Miami. He also served as Assistant Director of Operations and Chief Operations Planning Officer for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston. Robert Tober is recognized nationally as one of the top transit managers in the country, having served over twenty-eight years in the public transit industry. Mr. Tober has carried his dedication to transportation into leadership positions for several transit organizations. While serving as President of the Ohio Public Transit Association, he helped develop better transportation for the citizens of the state of Ohio. He also has been noted for promoting and hiring women and minorities in the industry. Mr. Tober has been a great asset to the state of Ohio and city of Cleveland. His innovating ideas and leadership have guided the development of the public transit industry. His wife, Terry and four children are so proud of him. I urge my fellow colleagues to please join me in congratulating Mr. Tober on his many accomplishments and commemorate him for his dedication to the public transit industry.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Ms. Olive Whitmore as she celebrates her 99th birthday on October 14, 1999. Ms. Whitmore is a native Clevelander, where she has lived and prospered. A member of the West Boulevard Church since she was three years old, she is now the oldest living member. Her faith in God and her belief in the everlasting have carried her through an amazing life. Her religious values are remarkable. Olive Whitmore was a charter member of the Order of Eastern Star and a charter member of the Electra Club. While a member of the Electra Club she sang with the choir under the direction of Charles Dawes of the ``Cleveland Orchestra''. They sang at the first 4th of July festival at the Cleveland Municipal Standium. It was said that the gathering was so large that the following year it was moved to Edgewater Park where it is still celebrated. Ms. Whitmore worked at Halle's Department Store, downtown from 1957 to 1970. During her work at Halle's, she managed to help thousands of Clevelanders, always with a smile on her face, a twinkle in her eye, and a bounce in her step. After her retirement she became a noted traveler, visiting places from Nova Scotia to the United States. While a noted visitor to other places, her heart always remained grounded in her hometown. Ms. Whitmore is the oldest of three children. She has a contagious joy for life and is a delightful women. My distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Ms. Olive Whitmore on her 99th Milestone Birthday.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment to require the public disclosure of environmental impact statements for all OPIC projects designated ``Category A''. It requires information disclosure for environmentally sensitive OPIC Investment Fund projects such as oil refineries, chemical plants, oil and gas pipelines, large- scale logging projects and projects near wetlands or other protected areas. Current OPIC Investment Funds are not subject to any transparency requirements. Furthermore, no specific information on these projects is contained in OPIC's annual reports. As a consequence, Congress, the public and the residents living near OPIC have no knowledge of the potential environmental and related financial and political risks. What is the taxpayer's interest in these projects? Taxpayers are liable for OPIC investments overseas if they fail. Private corporations and investors make investments in OPIC Investment Funds. OPIC-supported funds, in turn, make direct equity and equity- related investments in new, expanding and privatizing companies in ``emerging market'' economies. While taxpayer money is not actually invested in these funds, taxpayers are liable for the investments should they fail. These funds have invested in more than 240 business projects in over 40 countries. Recent estimates show that the total amount in Investment Fund programs will soon reach $4 billion. Since taxpayers are exposed to millions of dollars of potential liabilities, I believe OPIC has a responsibility to Congress and the public to operate in an open and transparent manner. The lack of environmental transparency conceals environmentally destructive investments of these funds not only from Congress and the American public, but also to locally-affected people in the countries where OPIC projects are run. For example, a 1996 FOIA lawsuit focusing on OPIC activity in Russia revealed that an Investment Fund project was involved in clear cutting of primary ancient forests in Northwest Russia. Russian citizens, expecting democracy building assistance from the U.S. Government, had not been provided with any environmental documentation. In fact, according to documents obtained in the lawsuit, an OPIC consultant had falsely documented the Russian citizens' support for the harmful, irreversible logging of pristine forests. OPIC Investment Funds have also been involved in a gold mine in the Cote d'Ivoire in the area of a primary tropical forest which is opposed by local citizens. Reports of other troubling projects are also being circulated. Conservation groups have filed FOIA requests to obtain the names, nature, location and environmental impact assessments for all OPIC investment fund projects. OPIC, however, continues to conceal the environmental consequences of these questionable investments from the public. What little information that has been uncovered about these funds reveals a checkered environmental record. With environmentally and socially sensitive projects being a main focus of the funds, public disclosure of environmental impact assessments is even more crucial. Organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Policy Studies, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Center for International Environmental Law and Pacific Environment and Resources Center have long advocated for increased transparency in OPIC Investment Fund projects. Representatives of these organizations met with the new OPIC President in February where he agreed with their assertion that these funds should be transparent when it comes to the environment. OPIC recently launched a $350 million equity fund for investment in Sub- Saharan Africa which will include transparency and public disclosure provisions. But there are still 26 other funds which remain shrouded in secrecy. With almost $4 billion dollars invested in these programs, and OPIC's sketchy environmental record, it is ever more important that OPIC be held accountable to the public regarding its investments in environmentally sensitive projects. The ideal legislation to correct the lack of transparency in Investment Fund projects would require the public disclosure of Environmental Impact Assessments conducted on all new investment projects. It would also allow for a public comment period where citizens, especially those living in the affected area of the project, could voice their opinions of the project. In the case of projects already underway, a renegotiation of contracts to allow for public disclosure would be required to avoid breech of contract concerns. If we can't have full transparency in all Investment fund projects, then OPIC should not be involved in projects that are environmentally sensitive. While projects like oil refineries, gas and oil pipelines, chemical plants that produce hazardous or toxic materials, and large-scale logging projects may be necessary for the industrial development of developing countries, holding the US taxpayers liable for investments in projects that could pose serious environmental or health risks to local populations with no public oversight or disclosure is unacceptable. It is OPIC's policy, as outlined in the Environmental Handbook to conduct rigorous internal Environmental Impact Assessments on all environmentally sensitive projects. Environmental impact assessments are also required by law as found in Executive Order 12114 and Public Law 99-204. However, while the assessments for insurance and finance projects are publicly disclosed, assessments on Investment Fund projects are not. Accountable government demands that these assessments be disclosed. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and shed some light on OPIC's environmentally sensitive Investment Fund projects.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 90th anniversary of the Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Cleveland, OH. The festivities will be held on the weekend of October 23, 1999 to commemorate this great milestone in their history. In the past 90 years the Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral has been a cornerstone of the Serbian community in Cleveland. Now, almost a century later, the cathedral has developed into a cherished place for learning, teaching, and growing. Through the leadership of its members and clergy, the cathedral has succeeded in passing on many beliefs and values. The cathedral has helped young children develop their heritage and learn about their culture. It is here that the members come together as a community and a family to share in their beliefs and traditions. Organizations like the Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral must be applauded and recognized for their years of dedication to so many generations of Clevelanders. I urge my fellow colleagues to please join me in recognizing the dedication and faith of the families of the Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral as they celebrate 90 years of service in the Greater Cleveland area.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. Address by H.E. Lennart Meri, President of Estonia, at the Breakfast of the Joint Baltic American National Committee Honoring the Members of the Baltic Caucus of the Senate and the House of Representatives October 13, 1999--Washington, DC Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, Ladies and Gentlemen: I appreciate being here in this very distinguished company. I appreciate the opportunity to address this distinguished audience here today and I will do so in a triple capacity: as an Estonian, as a representative of the Baltic states, and as European. I will focus on the challenge of NATO enlargement to the Baltic states, but I will do so in the context of the evolving European-U.S. relationship and of the situation in and the relationship with the Russian Federation. The world today is changing, and it should be our joint endeavor to change it in a way, which promotes our common interests. These interests include, both as far as Estonia and the U.S. are concerned, a stable and secure Europe and a stable, secure, democratic and cooperative Russia. The question is how to achieve these two aims. I will present to you my case that, including the Baltic States in NATO can actually contribute to both. Ladies and Gentlemen, the security relationship between the US and Europe is changing and evolving. What is not and what should not change is the American commitment to European security. After all, for forty years it was the United States presence in Europe that guaranteed safety and freedom to the non-communist part of the continent. Even in countries that were not and are not members of NATO it is generally acknowledged today that their safety was a consequence of the United States military presence in Europe. For all the manpower and military hardware that the European NATO members themselves put up it was essential for America to be ever- present and ready to support and lead the defense of western Europe, should it come to that. Today, the security situation has altered drastically. In this situation it is clear that we Europeans have to do more and that we have to be better prepared to manage crises on our own doorstep to be a more partner to the United States. The contrary, the US presence in Europe is today as vital as it has ever been. History has shown that the United States will be involved, sooner or later, in a European conflict. This is a sign of our close economic ties, but it is more importantly, and I believe above all, a sign of the convictions and values we share on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore we must continue to work together to strengthen and expand the still all too narrow area where democracy rules and human rights are respected. It is right of the United States to want its European partners to contribute more and it is right of the Europeans to strengthen common defense capacities. Yet all this means is that we are restructuring a successful and vital relationship. We are not--and we must not--alter the fundamental principles on which this co-operation is based, and these principles are caught up in one word: NATO. NATO is today and will remain for the foreseeable future the only organisation capable of ensuring a safe and secure Euro-Atlantic region. Estonia and our two Baltic neighbours, Latvia and Lithuania, wish to be part of this co-operation. Or rather I should say that we are already part of it. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been working together with NATO forces in Bosnia and now in Kosovo. We are exercising with US and European forces on a regular basis. In the very near future Estonian radar stations and those of our neighbours will be hooked up to NATO systems and we will start exchanging vital information. Thus the co-operation between Estonia and NATO, between our neighbours and NATO is already happening. We have demonstrated clearly our willingness and readiness to contribute to European and Trans-Atlantic security and stability because we believe that this also affects our security. Kosovo and Bosnia were not far away events in far away places but were of direct relevance to our own national security. If one nation in Europe is not secure then no one is secure. We may be able to avoid direct conflict, but we cannot avoid refugees and disruptions in trade that result from these wars. Therefore it is in our direct national interest to contribute to European and Trans-Atlantic security, just as I am convinced that it is in the United States interest to remain engaged in Europe. This is the reason why we wish to join NATO and this is why I believe it is also in the national interest of the United States to have the Baltic states become members of the Alliance. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is fashionable for some nowadays to speak of a realist, or neo-realist policy agenda. The argument is that what worked well until the end of the Cold War will work well today. I would be the last one to dispute that the US policies, which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, were wrong or ineffective. On the contrary; they were right and effective. But the world of 1999 is different from the world of 1989, or 1979, 69 or 59. We no longer have the Cold War; we no longer have the Soviet Union. Instead we have a Central Europe stretching from the Gulf of Finland to the Adriatic and Black Seas that is free once more and we have a Russia which is struggling to find a democratic path. We also have an independent Ukraine, and Georgia and Azerbaijan and Armenia . . . The list goes on! And we are faced with the fact that the United States truly is the one remaining superpower. Thus, our policy agenda today should also proceed from the fact that we face a new world, which requires new solutions. The world of tomorrow is in the process of being shaped. In shaping this world we must act with great agility and great speed. Whether we term the policies realistic or idealistic or something in between has in this case no relevance. What is required is determined action. Any other approach is, I believe, simply unrealistic. I am convinced that the United States has a profound interest in leading this endeavour. An expanded area of democracy and freedom is in the US interest, because it increases stability. And stability in turn is a catalyst for economic development, which increases trade, and so on. And one major way of increasing stability is to continue the enlargement of NATO. There will be those--perhaps even here, in this room--who will say that I am wrong, that continuing the enlargement of NATO will only irritate Russia, make it even harder to deal with and that for that reason NATO should not expand. Certainly not to the Baltic states. Ladies and Gentlemen, Dreams of the instant birth of a free and democratic Russia, where human rights would be respected were very popular in the West at the beginning of this decade. We in Estonia never shared this enthusiasm. But neither do we share the gloom of many Western observers today who seem to write off Russia and to say that nothing good will ever come out of there. I believe that Russia can indeed become a truly democratic country. But it will simply take a lot of time. What Russia needs during this time of growing up is firm guidance on what is and what is not permitted in our new world. Today we see once again the bombing of villages and the killing of civilians in Chechnya. We see the deportation of tens of thousands of persons from Moscow--simply because of the different colour of their skin. And we see worrying calls for a strong man to lead Russia. All of these symptoms give cause for concern. We must in no way nurture these trends, we must in no way give people who advocate such policies a reason to believe that they are accepted or tolerated by the West. Rather we have to support those politicians in Russia who even today are expressing reservations about the war in Chechnya and the deportation of persons because of the colour of their skin. We must nurture the democratic forces in Russia, however weak, so that Russia may one day find the political will to abandon her post-feudal way of thinking and start to build a civil society. This means supporting the Russian democrats and providing assistance, but precisely targeted assistance. It means staying engaged with Russia. It means stability around Russia will be the best way to assist her democratic forces. It also means enlarging NATO to include those countries of central Europe that wish to join, including the Baltic states. Ladies and Gentlemen, One of the fundamental tenets of our common heritage is the promotion of the free right of men and nations to choose their destiny. It is a tenet, which underpins the international society in which we live and where we wish to live. This is the principle, which should guide us when discussing the future NATO membership of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Any word--any hint--that Russia has a say in this matter will only strengthen those in Moscow who aim to do things the old feudal way. It will strengthen those who do not wish to have Russia become a member of the democratic society of nations. It will bring us all further from the goal of enhancing the sphere of stability and security in Europe. In short, Baltic NATO membership is in the interest of those who wish to strengthen democracy in Russia. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have approached Baltic membership in NATO from two angles: from a European and from a Russian one. Europe's role within NATO is growing and the Baltic states are committed to being part of this development. We are willing to carry our share of the burden. On the other hand, Russia's future is only now taking shape and Baltic membership of NATO will help steer this development in the right direction. The Baltic Caucus in the Senate and in the House and Baltic Americans are a crucial element in our strategy for gaining membership of the Alliance. It is you who are our advocates both here in Washington and across the United States. I hope that my presentation here today has further served to strengthen your resolve and has provided you with some additional ideas on this issue. I am convinced that by working together we can achieve our common goal so that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania may in the near future join the United States as full members of NATO. By working together, Estonia and the US, the Baltic states and the US, Europe and the US, we can ensure that our world of tomorrow will be somewhat safer, somewhat more democratic, somewhat more prosperous than the world of today. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to just say that it is a great debate, but the thing that we have to be concerned about is the impact of OPIC on our heavy manufacturing, the export of U.S. jobs, and a widening of the trade deficit.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) because I think this debate is healthy for the House.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the American people recently learned that more of the goods sold here are manufactured in foreign countries than in the U.S. That trend is getting worse. The trade deficit is at a record high. For that reason, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). It is well known that global trade agreements like NAFTA have worsened the trade deficit by making it easier for companies to close their American plants and re-open them in developing countries where they do not have to pay a decent wage, where they do not have to prevent work place injuries, where they do not have to curb pollution. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation does the same thing and adds to the same problem when it subsidized companies to open factories in foreign countries. Now, the example was given of an auto company. Let us say an American manufacturer would want to open up an auto company in another country. Well, I am opposed to using U.S. taxpayers' money to help do that because that takes away jobs of auto workers in this country, pure and simple. It does not get much more complicated. So if we use that example, it totally validates the reason why the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) ought to pass this House. U.S. tax dollars should not be used to undermine markets here in the United States and to cost the people who pay our salaries their jobs. Why should any agency of the United States Government subsidize the trade deficit and the loss of U.S. jobs? Congress should not tolerate it. The Rohrabacher amendment simply prohibits any OPIC support for worsening the trade deficit, worsening the trend of plant closings in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who I think could help elucidate this subject.