Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be about trade, but I also think it might be about a form of genetic engineering. We are taking a gene of the global multinational corporation with its campaign to drive down wages and lower working conditions and knock out workers rights and we are genetically combining it with a totalitarian Communist government which uses slave labor, violates human rights, attacks religious liberties, tortures children, forces abortions and attacks people who simply want to survive, and the same government is involved in the manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction. Now, this is genetic engineering and we are combining this and we call it normal trade relations. There is nothing normal about this combination. We are talking about creating a Frankenstein. We should go back to the laboratory and work with the living.

Mr. KUCINICH

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if somebody is getting billions of dollars in subsidies from the Federal taxpayers, I personally do not believe they should be entitled to any commitment of privacy. The American people want to know where their money is going. However, I respect the import of the gentleman's question.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoeffel-Kucinich-Visclosky amendment, and this is called the Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Welfare Disclosure Amendment to H.R. 1074. Now, this amendment would protect the American taxpayer and streamline government by disclosing the cost and benefits of corporate welfare and placing common sense limits on the cost of this legislation to $1 million a year. It would also sunset the reporting requirements after 4 years, thus assuring that we do not continue to require this if it is not achieving its goals. H.R. 1074 ignores the fact that each year the Federal Government provides billions of dollars in corporate welfare to regulated businesses. In fact, the conservative Cato Institute recently estimated that corporations receive over $75 billion annually from the Federal Government. Time Magazine puts this total at $125 billion. This amendment would require corporate welfare to be disclosed to the American public so that they can have a complete accounting of the costs and benefits imposed by the Federal Government. For example, as currently worded, H.R. 1074 would require OMB to report on the cost to industry of clean air regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act, but it would not include any of the $2 billion in Federal subsidies allocated to the coal industries through the Clean Coal Technology Program, which assists private companies in developing technologies which helps them comply with these regulations. This amendment, on which I am pleased to have had the participation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who has shown real leadership on this issue of challenging corporate welfare, this amendment would not only ensure that the public gets a more complete understanding of the actual cost of Federal regulations, it would also help the American public decide whether such subsidies to large profitable corporations are worthwhile. As Ralph Nader recently testified at the House Committee on the Budget hearing, ``There is only one change that will counteract the entrenched interest which create, shield, and rationalize corporate welfare programs: an informed and mobilized citizenry.'' The amendment would also protect taxpayers by limiting the funds that could be spent on these analyses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 1074 would cost less than $500,000 a year. According to the letter, this estimate ``assumes that the statement submitted under H.R. 1074 would be similar to those previously submitted by OMB, which have relied on existing information, such as the agency's analysis of new rules to estimate the aggregate costs and benefits of Federal regulations.'' Similar information also exists on corporate welfare, so we believe that doubling the estimate should provide plenty of funds for OMB to produce this report on both the costs and benefits of regulations and the costs of benefits of corporate welfare. Finally, this amendment would sunset the bill after a reasonable time so Congress can evaluate if it makes sense to continue these analyses. Mr. Chairman, this is a common sense amendment. It provides the American taxpayers with additional information about the costs and benefits of regulatory programs. It prevents us from spending unlimited amounts of money analyzing minor and noncontroversial regulations and does this without limiting cost-benefit analyses that are already required under other laws and executive orders. It is an amendment that I would hope all budget conscious Members of Congress would support. Furthermore, I think that as this issue comes up in the future, we should be able to see a growing bipartisan support for measures which challenge corporate welfare. At a time when the American people are struggling to make ends meet, when many households are worried about Social Security, are worried about Medicare, we certainly should make sure that those who have the most benefits in this society also have to disclose to the American public just how much money is getting to them. So I have been pleased to work with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) on the other side of the aisle in trying to craft the overall bill, though I am sorry we do not agree on the details; but I think this is one amendment that I hope we can find a way to come to some concurrence on.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, if I may make this point for a moment, and I know we have other colleagues waiting to speak here, and I certainly want to yield to them, but the point that arises here is that China has an industrial policy, and its industrial policy is providing China with a kind of national cohesion, so that they can have sustained economic growth. Now, a lesser concern of China is political freedom. Think about that. Think about what that means. So as multinational global corporations make China a place to do business, China cares less about political freedom, they flood the United States with all of these imports, creating this huge deficit, so we are exporting jobs from a free Nation to a nation that does not have a democracy, and they are sending back imports here, displacing jobs of people who work in a democracy, thereby helping to create a condition where we are actually paying for the destruction of our own democracy. They are targeting what are our central industries in this country: electronics, machinery, petrochemicals, automobile manufacturing, steel, aerospace, construction. So I say to the gentleman his point is well taken. We have a joint concern here when it comes to looking at what this trade policy does. But we have two points here, and one is that the United States trade policy is wrong, but we need an industrial policy which will help to focus a trade policy which is fair; and right now, it is unfair and Most Favored Nation status for China would compound the unfairness. I yield back, and I am grateful for this chance to join my colleagues.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a pleasure to serve with the gentleman in this Congress and to call him neighbor. These economic issues which the gentleman speaks of are issues which affect both of our constituencies, constituencies which in many cases share the same economic concern, the same jobs, the same factories, the same concerns about their family survival. I think it is fair at this moment to ask, why are we renewing Most Favored Nation trading status to China when our trade deficit is so large that it is costing jobs in the United States? Why would we continue to allow Chinese exports to flood the American market when American exports to China are puny in comparison? Why does this Congress vote on bills to make trade free when, by far, the most important part of the economy does not even involve foreign trade at all, but domestic product and consumption? A great disservice is done to the American people when so much time and effort is spent by the Congress making trade free for the corporations because it is at the expense of American residents, American workers, and American consumers. Now, contrary to what one might think by listening to those who support MFN for China, a global free trade agreement, international trade is a drag on the American economy. Most Favored Nation status or ``normal trade relations,'' as it is being called today, means that the U.S. gives to China the same exact trade status that it would give to a tiny country or ally. But MFN with China costs more jobs than it creates. Moreover, foreign trade is such a small part of the economy, that to make policy on the basis of what promotes foreign trade is to make the tail wag the dog. Now, how many of my colleagues know that U.S. exports to foreign countries in 1998 accounted for only 11 percent of the gross domestic product? Imports account for slightly more than that. What that means is that 76 percent of the gross domestic product is made in the United States and consumed in the United States. To make our economy healthy, we have to promote the health of the domestic economy. We have to promote higher wages and a monetary policy that promotes full employment. But MFN for China undermines the domestic economy. By far, the largest component in our trade with China is imports. By 1998 we imported $71 billion of goods from China. That was $57 billion more than the exports we sent to China. The U.S. pays China $6, Mr. Speaker, for every $1 it earns in exports to China. Trade with China puts a drag on the U.S. economy, and that leads to lower employment and lower wages for Americans. Indeed, American exports to China represent only a tiny fraction of all American exports to the rest of the world, about 3.6 percent. But imports from China represent a much larger proportion of everything America imports from the world, around 13 percent. Imports from China do about 4 times more harm to the U.S. economy than exports to China do good for the U.S. economy. Furthermore, America imports more from China than any other single country. We consume about one-third of their exports. That should give the U.S. powerful leverage over China. That is because China would know that when the U.S. demands more democracy in China, more respect for human rights, better environmental protections, that the biggest customers continued business rise in achieving those goals. Is that what the U.S. does? No. The policy of this administration and the Congress has been to give up the economic leverage the U.S. has. The imbalance is so obvious we should ask the obvious question: If MFN for China by far benefits China at the expense of the United States of America, why are we giving MFN to China at all? Because large multinational global corporations lobby for it. Those corporations are seeking to promote their own business and profits. They see China as a good place to do business. When multinational corporations talk, many in Congress listen. When they talk about MFN for China, they are lobbying for the Chinese Government. The Chinese have not given up their leverage, and they use access to the Chinese market to influence the corporations to lobby the Congress for MFN for China, and here we are. Soon Congress will debate on this floor disallowing Most Favored Nation trade status for China. Giving the status is bad for the U.S. economy. It is bad for American workers. It is bad for American consumers. But it is good for Chinese manufacturers and a handful of U.S.-based multinational corporations. Mr. Speaker, I will be here when that debate comes to the floor to urge my colleagues to vote for the American economy and not for essential interests. Our steel, our automotive, our aerospace industries which form the pillars of our strategic industrial base are being threatened by this avalanche of imports from China. How are we going to protect the America of the future if we do not take a stand and demand once and for all that this country insists on having a strong trading policy which protects American jobs and protects the American economy? Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for this opportunity to address the Congress, and it is an honor to work with him on this issue, to work with such fine representatives as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and others who are so dedicated to protecting the future of the American economy. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I am interested in doing that. Could we also ask the GAO to perform this study quickly so that important evidence would not be lost?

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

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today should not be controversial. The purpose of the amendment is to direct the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the General Accounting Office to coordinate a study that would evaluate the effectiveness of the air campaign in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and in Kosovo. Astonishingly, no one is now conducting a study of such depth. Indeed, the Department of Defense is undertaking its own study of its performance in Yugoslavia. I commend them for doing that. But in my opinion their review will not go far enough. It will not completely answer an important question that many of us are asking: Was the bombing campaign effective in achieving our strategic and tactical goals in the Balkans? Many lessons will be learned from the Kosovo war. But will they be the right lessons? Will they be correct or will they be clouded in bias by various interests? The study I propose would allow for a truly independent study conducted by various independent organizations. After 1 year, the report would be given to Congress and the data would be published on the Internet so that the public could have free and open access to it.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the things that called this to my attention is there was a dropping of cluster bombs at a downtown area of Nice, killing and injuring scores of shoppers and destroying about 20 homes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Then I would gratefully express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I look forward to writing that letter with him. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would prohibit any funds for the procurement of cluster bombs. Cluster bombs come in all types, sizes, colors and labels. But they all do two things. They often fail to explode when dropped in wartime, and they kill innocent civilians long after the war is over. These weapons are dropped either by aircraft or rocket launchers. They break open in midair and disperse hundreds of bomblets that saturate an area with flying shards of steel. Cluster bombs turn into land mines when some of the bomblets fail to explode right away. The failure rate in cluster weapons is extremely high, between 5 percent to 30 percent. A GAO report on Desert Storm states that during the Gulf War, the Army's MLRS, the military launch rocket system, failed to explode when dropped more than 5 percent of the time, with some reaching a failure rate as high as 23 percent. These unexploded bombs essentially become land mines and wreak havoc and kill civilians long after the war is over. About 1,100 cluster bombs containing more than 200,000 bomblets rained down on Yugoslavia and the Kosovo province. More than 1,100 unexploded bomblets are lying in fields in Kosovo. Usually these weapons come in various colors and toy-sized shapes to designate their type. They are very attractive to young children. Many of these children that play or are curious about these bombs are either killed or maimed. A recent example of this took place Saturday, April 24, when five ethnic Albanian children ages 3 to 15 were killed by unexploded cluster bombs trying to pry one open with a knife. According to the World Health Organization, in the past month over 170 people, that is over 170 people, have been killed or maimed by unexploded cluster bombs. Only last month, two British soldiers were killed trying to defuse an unexploded cluster bomb. During the Gulf War, more than one-quarter of the total number of weapons dropped by aircraft in Iraq and Kuwait were cluster bombs. This means that 24 million to 30 million bomblets were dropped during the Gulf War. More than 1.2 million of these bombs failed to explode during the Gulf War and are now killing people, even though the war is over. More than 1,600 civilians were killed and over 2,500 injured in the first 2 years after the end of the Gulf War from cluster bombs. A Kuwaiti doctor said that 60 percent of those killed were children. During the Vietnam War, more than 2.3 million tons of bombs fell on Laos. Many of them were cluster bombs. With a failure rate of 30 percent, an estimated 4 million cluster bomblets are still lying in rice fields, villages and on roadsides in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. I want to bring my colleagues' attention to a young boy who fell victim to a cluster bomb explosion just 2 years ago, in 1996, 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War. While tilling the family rice paddy behind a water buffalo Ton Kemla's plow hit a long-hidden cluster bomblet that exploded and ripped him apart. My colleagues, because of cluster bombs, a young man in Laos became a victim of the war 20 years after the conclusion of the war. He had not even been born when the war officially ended. No difference, cluster bombs destroyed him even after the troops stopped fighting. He is not alone. There are many like him. I ask why do we buy weapons and use weapons that have such a high incidence of failure and a high likelihood of killing after the war is over? We have much more sophisticated weaponry that is smarter and more effective in fighting a war. We will have spent more than $4.8 billion between 1995 and 1999 buying cluster bombs. We should not spend another penny on weapons that fail and that kill children after a war is over. In addition to that, we have incidents where cluster bombs were dropped on populated areas during the war. What is NATO doing letting cluster bombs fall on populated areas?

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

Mr. KUCINICH. I respect the gentleman. I would ask the gentleman, finally, if the gentleman would be interested in at least reviewing this policy related to cluster bombs being dropped near populated areas.

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the fortieth anniversary of the first mass of the Saint Anthony of Padua Parish, first formed by the Archbishop Edward H. Hoban on March 6, 1959. The parish has come a long way from the first mass held in the Parmadale Orphanage on July 12, 1959 by the parish's founding pastor, Fr. Jeremy Fischer. It quickly became an integral part of the community and within a few months it had more than a thousand families registered and a very successful campaign to begin construction on its own building. On January 29, 1961 the new building, including a gym and school, was dedicated and served as the parish's home for twenty years until the continuously growing parish of over 3400 families required a new home. Under the guidance of the first principal, Mr. Frank Kuhar, the parish has dedicated itself to the education of our youth and to providing them a solid foundation from which they can progress to become God-fearing leaders of the community and a source of guidance and inspiration to the next generation. On Sunday, July 11, 1999, at noon, Most Reverend A. Edward Pevec, Archbishop of Cleveland, will preside over mass at the parish which his predecessor had founded almost exactly forty years earlier. It will be followed by a reception in the school hall and a banquet and dance later in the evening. My fellow colleagues, please join me in recognizing the St. Anthony of Padua Parish's forty years of service and the dedication of its priests and parishioners to fostering the spiritual health and community life of its congregation.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member, as well as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for their work on this rule for H.R. 1074, the so-called Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999. I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), the committee on which I serve as the ranking member. The gentleman from Indiana and I have developed a good working relationship. We do not always agree on the substance of some of the bills, but I think we have been able to at least have an exchange of ideas, which I hope has resulted in a better bill. We are pleased on this side of the aisle that we will have the opportunity to offer our amendment, which we believe significantly improves the bill. While I support the underlying goal of the bill to give taxpayers information on the costs and benefits of government regulations, with the hope of improving government accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness, I am concerned that the bill, as offered, fails to adequately protect the taxpayers. That is why, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and myself will be offering the Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Welfare Disclosure Amendment. This amendment will improve the bill in three ways. First, it will require the Office of Management and Budget to identify and analyze the costs and benefits of corporate subsidies given out by the Federal Government. H.R. 1074 is supposed to provide the American people with better information about how much money Federal laws and regulations cost American businesses and what benefits are derived from those programs. But this misses the fact that each year the Federal Government provides billions of dollars in corporate welfare to regulated businesses. This amendment would require corporate welfare to be disclosed to the American public so that they can have a complete accounting of the cost and benefits imposed on businesses by the Federal Government, not just the cost and benefits of regulations. Second, this amendment would cap reporting expenditures by the Office of Management and Budget and Federal agencies required by H.R. 1074 to $1 million a year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 1074 should only cost $500,000 a year to implement. So limiting these expenditures to double that amount, or $1 million, should provide plenty of funds for both the regulatory and the corporate welfare components of the bill, while making sure the taxpayers do not pay the price if programs end up costing much more than anticipated by Congress. Third, the Hoeffel amendment, the amendment that I am pleased to sponsor with that gentleman and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), would sunset the bill after 4 years. Let us make sure that the information we are asking for is actually useful before we make this an open-ended requirement. If we find that the accounting required under H.R. 1074 is worthwhile, Congress can reauthorize the report at that time and make changes to it to make it better. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank those on the other side of the aisle who have worked on this, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and all the others who have worked on it, and we look forward to the debate on Monday.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Strongsville Savings Bank for their 38 years of service to Northeastern Ohio. Strongsville Savings Bank was established by a group of local community businesses in May of 1960. In April 1961 it initiated its service to the Strongsville community, as an Ohio chartered, federally insured savings association. Since then, Strongsville Savings Bank has grown and expanded to 16 offices in Cuyahoga, Lorain, and Medina counties. Nevertheless, the Bank has remained community-oriented, with an emphasis on customer service. Its services include consumer and commercial checking accounts savings accounts, certificates of deposit, residential and commercial real estate loans, home equity line of credit, use of proprietary ATMs, electronic fund transfer services, access to a network of ATM and many other services. The Strongsville Savings Bank is very active in its support of developers and builders of residential housing in their market area by providing a wide array of loans and retail financial services. Recently, in 1996, Emerald Financial Corporation became the Bank's parent company and unitary thrift holding company. Mike Kalinich, one of the Bank's original shareholders, is chairman of both Emerald Financial Corp. and Strongsville Savings Bank. Of the original 128 shareholders, 38 years ago, 21 continue to be owners of Emerald Financial Corp. stock, and many others are the children and grandchildren of the original shareholders. Historically, Strongsville has had such success, with strong community involvement and investment in local interests. I would like to congratulate Strongsville Savings Bank for their 38 years of success and service, as well as wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Brent Bauknecht for his attainment of the rank of Eagle Scout. Eagle Scout is the highest honor that a Boy Scout can earn. This high honor requires years of dedication and hard work both to himself and most importantly, the community. Each Eagle Scout must earn 21 merit badges including First Aid; Camping; Citizenship of the Community; Citizenship of the Nation; Citizenship of the World; Family Life; and Personal Management. In addition, each Eagle Scout must plan, finance, and execute a service project that benefits the community. Furthermore, each Eagle Scout must hold a variety of leadership positions in which he gains important life skills that will always remain with him. Brent has accomplished this and more. He has proven himself to be an exceptional young man by living by the Scout Law; Scout Oath; Scout Motto; and Scout Promise. Only two percent of all boys entering scouting achieve the Eagle Badge, and this accomplishment is a true testament to Brent's abilities, dedication, and commitment. I ask you to please join me in congratulating Brent for his achievement and outstanding work.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas Makar of Cleveland, Ohio, who will be honored August 21, 1999 for his attainment of Eagle Scout. The rank of Eagle Scout is the highest honor in which a Scout can earn. Each Eagle Scout must earn 21 merit badges, twelve of which are required. The merit badges an Eagle Scout must earn range from First Aid to Camping to Citizenship of the Community, Nation, and the World. Additionally, each Eagle Scout must complete an Eagle Project that benefits the community in which he must plan, finance, and execute. Furthermore, an Eagle Scout must hold a variety of leadership positions in which he learns important life skills. Thomas has accomplished this and more. Thomas has proved himself as an exceptional young man who lives by the Scout Law; Scout Oath; Scout Promise; and Scout Motto. Thomas is also the first second-generation Eagle Scout in his troop history, and this is a tribute to the entire Makar family. I ask you to please join me in recognizing and congratulating Thomas for his achievement.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, in brief response to my colleague from New York, who invoked the name of Al Capone and Geraldo Rivera's opening of the safe, I think it is fair to say that Al Capone was never said to have been involved in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and that Al Capone was eventually put away when someone checked his books. What we are saying here is, we ought to check their books in North Korea. If we verify, then maybe the world can be a peaceful place. Now, in the agreed framework, North Korea agreed to take steps to implement, and that is, quote, the denuclearization agreement, and agreed to, quote, remain a party to, unquote, and, quote, allow implementation of its safeguards agreement, unquote, under the nonproliferation treaty, and agreed to allow the IAEA inspections and account for any current plutonium stockpile before nuclear plant components are delivered. Now, if North Korea follows through on these promises, meeting the requirements in this amendment, there should be no problem. This amendment is not meant to renegotiate the agreed framework but to ensure that it is implemented, to ensure that we help build nuclear power plants in North Korea only if North Korea keeps to its commitments to end its nuclear arms program. I have a great deal of concern, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and others have spoke, that we not exclude North Korea from the world community; but as we seek to embrace them, we need to share with them our principles about truth and about verification. Support the amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I believe this amendment is a good amendment. This amendment will prevent the State Department from punishing countries that use legal means to procure low-cost lifesaving drugs for their citizens. This practice, called parallel importing, is allowed by the World Trade Organization. Many of the poorest nations on earth are experiencing some of the highest death rates because there is not enough money to pay for the high cost of lifesaving drugs. Some countries are even experiencing a return of age-old illnesses such as tuberculosis. The AIDS epidemic is causing a health care crisis worldwide. What good are lifesaving drugs if they are not affordable for people who need them? We should not punish countries for trying to save their citizens' lives. We should not punish countries for being concerned about their own citizens. We should not punish countries for using perfectly legal means to procure low-cost pharmaceuticals. Help to save millions of lives by ending a counterproductive State Department practice. Put human life above profit. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. The Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor has claimed over 200,000 lives. One-third of the total population has perished as Indonesia continues to violate international law and act in defiance of the U.N. Security Council. We must not turn our backs. This amendment makes it the sense of Congress to seek democracy and peace in East Timor. The amendment calls for the disarmament of anti- independence militias, full access for human rights monitors, and the right of Timorese who have lived in exile to return to their homes to vote. The provisions set out in this amendment are necessary if we are to set this region down a road towards peace and justice. This amendment lays the groundwork for ending the human rights atrocities that are committed daily in East Timor. We cannot turn our backs on this region. The time to act is now and the killing must stop, the injustice must end and peace must come to the people of East Timor. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Bereuter amendment. Promote democracy, and let us start down that road to lasting peace and justice.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his assistance on this. I also want to thank especially our leader on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). As my colleagues know, he was the one who encouraged me to join the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I am very grateful for that because it gave me a chance to work with some of the finest Members of this Congress, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for the opportunity to come forward with an amendment like this which has the support of both sides of the aisle. I really appreciate the help that he has given me to be able to take this the distance. So I want to again thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.