Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise, as a Croatian-American, to join my fellow brothers and sisters in honor of the ninth anniversary of Croatian Statehood Day. Nine years ago Croatia took a monumental step towards democracy and independence, fulfilling the life-long dream of many, by declaring statehood. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Communism's grip over Eastern Europe began to crumble, and by the late 1980's democratic movements developed in many countries. In Croatia, a progressive movement was started with the goal to form an alternative to the Communist Party which had been in power since 1945. In April of 1990 elections were held in which the Communist Party was defeated in a landslide, and representatives from many new political parties were elected to the Parliament. The first meeting of this new democratically elected Parliament was on May 30, 1990. This occasion is a reason for Croatians all over the world to celebrate their country's historic movement towards independence and democracy. I ask my fellow colleagues to join me, and my Croatian brothers and sisters, in celebrating Croatia's Statehood and congratulating them on nine years of independence.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Whit Clark the principal of Col. John Glenn School. Whit Clark has been a very successful educator for 33 years and an effective principal at Col. John Glenn for the last 13 years. Whit Clark has done an outstanding job as an educator for the last 33 years. For his exceptional efforts, he received a commendation from Mayor Gerald Trafis. He has been a wonderful example in his community for truly being a man for others. His dedication to his profession is something that sticks out and should be recognized. He has a love for his position unlike anyone I have ever seen. He will be greatly missed when he retires on June 6th of this year. My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring one of Cleveland's great educators Mr. Whit Clark.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, we are told tonight that we are at the beginning of the end of the war in the Balkans. But before the ink has dried on the agreement there are a few reflections that I think are in order, because we cannot just sign this piece of paper and pretend that we can move on, pretend that we have peace, because the truth is that problems could arise and we could end up in a multi-party land war right in the middle of the Balkans, with our young men and women put in grave danger. I would like to take this discussion tonight to another level which goes beyond the fine print of agreements, which inevitably are lost, and goes to higher principles. This is an appropriate time to reflect on the lessons that we have learned in the Balkan war, and to take those lessons and transform them, and to transform these thoughts of war into thoughts of peace, and turn the thought of peace into the reality of peace, and to speak to higher principles, which this country has the ability to create so that we can continue in our historic quest to be the light of the world, to be what the prophet spoke of as the shining city on a hill, resplendent in our commitment to all human values, to evolve into a country which can win the peace without finding it necessary to take up arms to win a war. The values which are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence animate our concern for each other and for people around the world. These words ring in the hearts of Americans: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These values, these ideas, these ideals, are so powerful that they cause others to rise up in defense of their own rights all over the world. We Americans love democracy, and it hurts us when we see tyrants imposing death or death of hope on people anywhere in the world. Recent humanitarian catastrophes have occurred and the United States did not intervene: 80,000 dead in Algeria; 10,000 dead in the Ethiopian-Eritrean war in a recent month; 820,000 dead in Rwanda over 5 years; 1.5 million dead in Sudan in the first 15 years; 40,000 Kurds dead at the hands of Turkish forces; 200,000 people killed in East Timor by Indonesian forces. These tragedies have befallen our brothers and sisters around the world, people we surely care about but people we did not help, people who died while the world watched. We have the strongest Nation in the world, yet with that strength through great difficulty we learned to exercise the greatest discretion in the use of force, because once that force is used the consequences cannot be predicted. Sometimes the very people we intend to help may end up being hurt. Such a dilemma has faced us in the Balkans. We have advanced here a doctrine of humanitarian intervention. By all fair accounts, that intervention has produced conditions which are worse than they were before we began our involvement. Ethnic cleansing was being undertaken against the Kosovar Albanians. NATO's bombing accelerated it. Serbian paramilitary attacks cause masses of Kosovar Albanians to flee the province. NATO's bombing turned masses into a great human tide seeking to flee the war. Serbian paramilitary forces destroyed the homes and villages of Kosovar Albanians. NATO's bombing widened the area of destruction. Today there will be a semblance of peace or a chance for peace in Kosovo, but what kind of a peace? It will be a peace which will have been gained at the cost of thousands of lives of innocent civilians of both sides? It will be a peace where the province has been decimated by both sides by cluster bombs, by booby traps, by landmines. It will harken to the comment that was made in another war: We have created a desert, and have called it peace. Certainly in a democracy our history has shown us that there are some things worth standing up for. I think the most important thing that any one of us can do in life is to stand up and to fight for those things we believe in. In this country, we believe in freedom of religion. We hate to see that freedom denied to anyone anywhere else in the world. Yet that freedom is being denied today in China, in East Timor, in Burma, in North Korea, and in other nations; and that bothers us as Americans. In the United States, freedom of religion is essential to our democracy. It is first in our amendments. It is first in our hearts. People come from all over the world here to find freedom of religion to follow that truth that resonates with their own hearts. Americans fought for that right. Indeed, it is a human right. This freedom of religion means that all may pray and worship; that no one is forced to worship any faith except that which they believe; that the State sponsors no religion, but respects all religion. This is a powerful principle of freedom of religion. We separate church and State in America, but separation and such separation by our Founders was never meant to imply that we should separate the practice of government from high principles or the actions of government from spiritual principles. Our motto in the United States, as we all know, is ``In God We Trust.'' That motto is not simply the recognition of an external transcended reality. It is a communion of the Nation with the angels. It has become a clarion call for moral leadership. If we truly trust in God, then each of us must become as moral leaders. If we trust in God, each of us can summon a transcendent morality. Spiritual awareness enkindles the power of the human heart, which brings to each of us love which transcends all, love which heals all, love which comforts all, love which sees all, love which forgives all, love which conquers all, love which speaks to all, love which you hear, love which you can feel, love you can touch, love you can see; and then we comprehend understanding, and we are able to touch the wings of angels. That appeal to sense in essence transcends language when we communicate with each other through the heart. Love speaks to all languages. The language of the human heart speaks through all languages. Now in Christianity, the highest commandment is to love one another. Love yourself. Love your neighbor as yourself. As we affirm love in our hearts, we affirm the future; and the future is in turn revealed to us, because a heart filled with love is like a magnet that draws to it the love that it desires. What the heart seeks, the heart finds. What the heart asks for, the heart receives. If the heart asks for peace, its prayer will be answered. So will be the prayer be answered if it asks for war. The doors at which the heart knocks on are open. As we affirm love in our hearts, we affirm truth, and eternity is revealed to us. When this war in the Balkans first began, Mr. Speaker, I felt this illogic of war grip this Capitol. It was as a physical force, whirling like a vortex, the start of war. Words of war, actions of war produce war. We can be co-creators of our own world. So as we are near the end of what we can only hope be the last war of this century, it is time to ask what kind of a world do we want in the next century and how can we avoid the wars of the next century. How can we build the peace of the next century. We want a world of love, a world of hope, a world of joy, a world of prosperity, a world where all may worship, a world where all may live, a world where all may strive, a world where all may grow, a world of peace. Many of us have come to America, indeed many of my constituents have come to America from different nations. That is one of our strengths in this country, our diversity. The motto which soars above this majestic chamber speaks to the unity of one people, e pluribus unum: out of many, one. That is why it is so painful for we Americans to watch people suffering anywhere in the world, because they happen to have a different religion, a different race, a different ethnic group, a different political philosophy. We come here from many Nations. We share a common destiny as brothers and sisters of a common planet. What kind of a world do we want? Only through the application of higher principles can we hope to have our systems of government forsake war and destruction and to make the survival of each person a sacred commitment. In this world of strife and war, we are called upon to be channels of peace. In this world of darkness, we are called upon to bring light. In this world of fear, we are called upon to bring courage. In this world of despair, we are called upon to bring hope. In this world of poverty, much poverty, let us bring forth plenty. In this world of ignorance, let the light of knowledge light the world. In this world of sorrow, let us use our spiritual principles to bring forth joy. In this world of judgment, certainly we are asked to bring forth mercy. It is through the heart that we connect with all humanity. It is through the heart that we connect with the infinite. These are principles that transcend governments. Governments kneel before these principles. The Congress of the United States, even this Congress, is nothing next to these principles. The government of any country is humbled before these principles. It is through the human heart that we meet injustice and we transform it and through the application of spiritual principles we change the world. We have throughout the last few months employed doctrines which are decidedly not spiritual in an attempt to solve our international problems in the Balkans. These doctrines speak to our limitations as a Nation, limitations which may burden us today, but limitations which we can jettison and which can fall away from our conscience, actions like the separation of a stage of a rocket falling back into the atmosphere as the capsule of destiny rockets higher and higher towards the stars. But back on earth, we ought to inspect those doctrines which keep us earthbound which will make it impossible for us to have real peace. The doctrine of the end justifying the means. NATO has bombed civilians. NATO has bombed a civilian structure. NATO has helped to destroy a civil society with its bombs. Now the ends which NATO has sought to achieve, the end of ethnic cleansing, the dislodging of a powerful dictator, we have to ask if the ends have justified the means. As one Russian leader asked us when we were in Vienna, would in fact it be a proper pursuit of peace if their government had decided to drop a nuclear bomb on a U.S. city? So we need to inspect this doctrine of the end justifying the means. We need also to inspect the doctrine of might makes right. Now, I happen to believe that in America the law is what makes right. Yet, in this conflict, we have seen the United Nations charter, which this Nation was proud to lead the world in organizing, violated by an organization which saw fit to take the law into their own hands because they did not want to go through the United Nations, a United Nations which we recognize at this moment had to have been instrumental in finally bringing about an agreement in the Balkans. The United Nations charter states that its primary purpose was to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. It States in its article IV that ``all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.'' If might makes right, the U.N. charter does not mean anything. If might make rights, the North Atlantic Treaty signed in 1949, article I, may mean nothing. Article I states, ``The parties undertake, as set forth in the charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.'' So from the United Nations, that principle flowed into the North Atlantic Treaty. But if might makes right, the North Atlantic Treaty means nothing. If might makes right, the Hague Conventions of 1907, which prohibit penalizing a population for someone's acts, means nothing. If might makes right, the Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits attacks on objects indispensable for the survival of a civilian population, such as an electric system, water system, sewer system, if might makes right, the Geneva Convention means nothing. If might makes right, the 1980 Vienna Convention, which bars coercion to make nations sign agreements, means nothing because the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was told at Rambouillet that they would either sign that agreement or be bombed. So we need to inspect this doctrine of might making right and we need to also, as we inspect it, determine whether the Constitution of the United States itself has the meaning which its founders imbued in it when it said in Article I, Section 8 that the Congress shall have the power to declare war. And notwithstanding my affection for the person who holds that office right now, I have to ask whether or not the War Powers Act was violated and whether or not the Constitution of the United States itself was violated in this pursuit of an exercise of power. If might makes right, perhaps even the Constitution is without meaning. We have to also, as we review this war, determine whether or not the doctrine of retributive justice, an eye for an eye, is to stand; that by killing people we teach people that it is wrong to kill people. When we advance such a doctrine, we end up in a moral cul-de-sac. We find ourselves chasing into a darkness and unable to extract ourselves from it. The idea of vengeance is something that is a very old idea. In the literature of Beowulf from many, many years ago the concept of Wergild was that if you did something to somebody's relative that other family had the obligation to come back and kill one of yours. Yet we were told that in this wonderful book we know as the New Testament that there was a new law brought forward; that the law of an eye for an eye was no more. Vengeance is mine, said the Lord. I will repay. And if we have confidence in that doctrine, in the belief that there is a higher power who judges all and dispenses justice, then we have to ask about our feeble efforts to render justice through retribution and look at this doctrine of retributive justice. In this war we get the opportunity to inspect the doctrine of collective guilt; that just because people happen to live in a country which is governed by a tyrant, which is governed by an individual who does not support basic human rights of an important minority group in his country; that because of that everyone in that country is guilty. We need to look at that doctrine. Because behind that doctrine is a sense of punishment which NATO apparently felt it had to mete out to the people of Serbia, taking over 2,000 lives of innocent civilians. We must look at that doctrine of collective guilt. We must look at the doctrine of collateral damage. I have been in meetings in this Congress where the idea of collateral damage was brought forth, and if one did not listen carefully enough, one would not be aware that it meant killing innocent civilians. That phrase means the death of innocent civilians. And so in this war we have developed an acceptance of the idea of collateral damage. But these are people. These are innocent civilians who were killed; people going to visit their relatives while riding on a passenger train; people riding a bus to work or to go to the market; refugees in a convoy trying to get out of a war-torn country; people sitting in their homes eating dinner; people in factories just trying to do their work; people like us who were just trying to live. And yet they become collateral damage. They do not even have names. They do not even have descriptions. They are deprived of their humanity. And when they are deprived of their humanity, we deprive ourselves of our own humanity. So we need to look at this doctrine of collateral damage. We need to look at the doctrine of accidental bombing. How many times could we hear over and over and over again it was an accident; that we blew up these innocent civilians? An accident. I mean if any one of us driving a car found ourselves over and over and over again getting into accidents, two things would happen. We would not be insured any more and a court would take our license away. And so should NATO's license to prosecute a war against a civilian population be taken away, because there are no accidents when the accidents keep repeating themselves. The doctrine of necessary distortion of meaning. George Orwell knew well this conflict. The idea of peace bombs. A peace war. Bombing for peace does violence to cognition and does violence to the commitment that this Nation has, as a people, to speak plainly to those we represent, to tell them the truth of what is going on, to do it in language which is clear and sparkling so that no one can mistake what our intentions are and to not distort meaning. Indeed, in listening to an earlier discussion about the culture of violence in our society, is it any wonder when we send out so many conflicting messages about the violence which is wreaked by international organizations that the children of any nation would be confused about violence being visited in their own midst? And one other doctrine we need to inspect is the doctrine of creation of enemies. I remember years ago when I was a student at Saint Aloysius, an elementary school in the City of Cleveland, the United States was in a conflict with Russia. It was called the Cold War, and we used to do drills in school in the fifth grade. Some of my colleagues will remember those drills. They were called duck and cover. We were told that we should expect that at some time there was this possibility that a nuclear attack could be launched by Russia at the United States. And we were told that if only we would put our arms around our head and protect it and tuck our head deep into our lap and closed our eyes and prayed, that when the flash came, we would not be blinded and perhaps we could go back home after school. President Eisenhower himself knew in that era that such drills were folly because a nuclear strike would mean the annihilation of a major population. So those drills were merely to try to assuage the fears of the American people about the cataclysm of a nuclear war. But we felt throughout that time in the Cold War that the possibility for destruction was there because enemies were being created and in that dialectic of conflict that went back and forth across the oceans, we found ourselves fearing each other, preparing to destroy each other. And last month, in the middle of this Balkan conflict, the leader of the Yablako faction in Russia said that the effort to blockade the port in Montenegro was putting us on a direct path to nuclear escalation. Last week, Premier Chernomyrdin of Russia, in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, stated that the world was closer to a nuclear conflict than at any time in this decade because of the Balkan conflict. Russians were our enemies. They became our friends. And again we have tested that friendship and we began a repolarization, trying to exclude them right from the beginning from this process of peacemaking which could have been made possible through the U.N. Security Council so many months ago. As we create enemies, we may fulfill the prophecy of destruction; and we will bring ourselves to a nuclear confrontation, we fear, if we stay on that path of the creation of enemies. We create enemies, and then we are ourselves our own enemies. ``We have met the enemy,'' in the words of Pogo, ``and he is us.'' Mr. Speaker, because of this great concern which Members of Congress had, 11 of us went on a mission of peace to Vienna on April 30 to meet with leaders of the Russian Duma, including Vladimir Luhkin, a leader of the Yablako faction, who only weeks earlier had made this powerful statement about the nations being on a direct path to nuclear escalation. And in Vienna, under the leadership of my good friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt Weldon) 11 of us sat down with leaders of the Russian Duma and began to work out a framework for peace, to reestablish this amity which we have worked so hard for, where only a year ago Russian and American astronauts could work together in the same space program, where a short few years ago Russian and American astronauts could fly around the world together in the same space capsule. We went to Vienna at a time where some were challenging whether or not Russian leaders and U.S. leaders ought to be together in the same room. And yet we took that step forward to apparently and quietly over a period of 2 days put together not an agreement between nations, but a framework that could be used to take steps towards peace and unravel what looked like a concentration of war energy that was moving like a juggernaut across this world. That was many, many, many weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. And in that time since then, many opportunities toward peace were lost and many lives were lost and much damage was done to property and to people's hopes and dreams. There are times that people around the world depend on the United States as being a protector of human rights to rise and to defend the principles that are enshrined in our own statue of liberty in the harbor in New York City, that that lady who holds the lamp in the harbor, the encryption at the base, which reads, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the tempests, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.'' So I speak of Bosnia. Now, I had the opportunity to witness firsthand, as a Member of the United States congressional delegation, the effects in Bosnia of hatred and tolerance where Muslim people were driven from their homes, where there was an attempt to destroy people for what they believed in, an attempt to destroy the homeland of Muslim people. I saw graves ringed with fresh marble. I saw homes that had been blown up everywhere and everything riddled with bullets. I met with people that had been driven from their villages by fear and terror. And I met people that wanted to go home because home called them, as home calls us all. But fear put up a roadblock and governments put up a roadblock. I met with the Muslim women of Srebrenica who lost their husbands, who lost their fathers, who lost their brothers, who lost their children when 5,000 Muslims were lined up and murdered only because they were Muslims. I met with Dr. Sarich in Sarajevo and learned of the difficulty placed in the path of Muslims who simply wanted to return home in keeping with the Dayton Agreement. I appealed to the State Department and the Justice Department for the women of Srebrenica. I spoke on the floor of the Congress for an appeal to the Government of the United States to remember what happened in Srebrenica and to maintain their commitment to the people of Bosnia as they try to resettle and restore their country and to help bring those who are responsible for the atrocities in Bosnia to justice. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it could be said that the seeds of the current war in the Balkans could have been sown because the world community failed to bring to justice those who committed war crimes. Because until they are brought to justice, can there really be justice with respect to Bosnia and to help find the missing and to help heal the broken families and broken hearts and to work with the assembled nations to help protect the peace and to help rebuild the civil society? Can that really be done if those who were responsible for creating that moment are not brought to justice? The Dayton Agreement was merely a promise. It is not a reality. We must continue to work to make it a reality. And it is the responsibility of the Government of the United States to show leadership in the world and to make sure the promise of Dayton becomes a reality. I am not a stranger to the Balkans. I was in Sarajevo. I was in Brzko. I was in Tuzla. And I was also in Croatia last year to visit family, to hope to have a chance to see the place where my own grandfather was born, a little town in eastern Slovenia called Botnoga, where John Kucinich was born many, many years ago. And I so much wanted to see the place where he was born. And when I went to Zagreb to visit with friends and relatives, I learned that in Botnoga, there was no ``there'' there. In fact, the town had been leveled in the previous war with Serbia. And yet when I learned in that moment the feelings that I had felt, strong feelings, it occurred to me again, do we move forward in this world, hoping for peace if we believe that there must be vengeance, if we believe in an eye for an eye, if we believe that every injustice which is done to us must be returned in full measure by us? And so in my own way I was confronted with those feelings. I do not think that any of us could say that we have suffered the kind of tragedy which the Kosovar Albanians have suffered. And it is true that the world community has a responsibility to do everything it can to try to repair their shattered lives. We had a moral responsibility to take steps that stopped the destruction of Kosovo. We have a moral responsibility to bring about a peaceful resolution there. But I believe that right at the beginning, our responsibility rested on understanding the primacy of international law as expressed through the United Nations and through the U.N. Security Council and through the Geneva Convention, and through the Hague and through the United States Constitution, Article 1, section 8. Now, ultimately military solutions are not adequate. Ultimately truly peaceful structures, we can call them democratic structures, must be in place. We had that opportunity more than a year ago. We remember when 100,000 people marched through the streets of Belgrade protesting the regime, asking for support, asking for an opportunity to uphold democratic values, asking for a chance to keep their media free, to keep their exercise of basic rights as part of their ongoing civic life. And yet that movement did not receive the support which the world community owed it. But peaceful structures must be put in place, notwithstanding the massive destruction, and the international community has agreed to participate in the rebuilding of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But with that rebuilding must come democratic structures so people can live, people can worship, people can work, people can play and people can live out their lives. And so it is appropriate for the State Department, working with the United Nations, to begin to work to negotiate transitional government structures. To do less while simply giving lip service to humanitarian efforts is a cruel hoax. It has been said before and it should be said again, until the leadership in Belgrade is replaced through a democratic process, it will be very difficult to be able to have a lasting peace. Now, the Bible says, ``You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'' We have to be seekers of the truth about what happened in the Balkans, so we do not repeat the same mistakes. And so that we can create new possibilities for peace. Let our country be seekers of the truth in our own land and in our own foreign policy, so that we can all see the light, when the light of truth shines through the darkness and the darkness will not overcome truth. Such is always the promise of America when we live by the ideals upon which this country was founded, the ideals of truth, the ideals of justice, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. As we strive to become one Nation with liberty for all, one Nation with justice for all, one Nation with freedom of speech for all, one Nation with freedom of religion for all, let us remember that unity is something that all of us seek after, a transcendent unity of higher purpose. So let us strive for a government which strives for peace. And let us have a government which protects the freedom of all to worship, let us have a government which practices toleration, let us have a government which stands against discrimination, let us have a government which makes us always proud of our Nation, let us have a government which fulfills the promise of one of America's greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who spoke of a government of the people, by the people and for the people. In America, the beauty of this country is that we are always creating a new Nation. Years ago we spoke of creating a Nation conceived in liberty. Today we create a new Nation again. And in this new millennium, which we are advancing towards, we can create a new millennium where peace, not war, is the imperative, begun in unity, where those who seek truth, where those who know truth and have found truth unite their thoughts across religions and cultures, drawing from the universality of the human condition and the higher consciousness which is the impulse of a universe that calls us forward. Now, there is real power in that kind of America, power that transcends a $270 billion military budget. There is real power in a kind of America where we live by our ideals, where we stand by the spiritual principles which our founders held dear. This recognition would lead us to create a harmony that would dissipate the inevitability of war and consecrate the inevitability of peace. As we move towards a new millennium, we can summon a new creativity and thought, a new vibration and feeling, a new consciousness which will help us create new worlds. It is time for us to think in terms of studying peace as we would study war. We have a war college. There ought to be a college for peace. We ought to spend more time in this country studying conflict resolution and mediation, at local, State and at the Federal level, so we can teach people, even in the schools, how to deal with their feelings, teach people how to respect each other's rights, make ours a quest for something that we have not even been able to grasp, a new condition for peace. Perhaps it is time for a Department of Peace, as we have a Department of Defense, where the impact of every government decision, particularly with respect to the work of the Department of Defense, is studied finely as to what its effect would be on peace. I mean, if 1 percent of the Federal budget would be used for such a department, 1 percent of the Federal budget used for the military, that is, 1 percent of $270 billion, we would have enough to make a major beginning in a new millennium towards promoting tolerance which comes from understanding. Because once people understand, there will be more tolerance. Once people understand, there will be more acceptance, because acceptance follows knowledge and leads to the brotherhood and sisterhood of all. We could move together to create peace, not the peace of the grave which we are all too familiar with in the tragedies we have witnessed, but the peace of a joyful life, not just peace which is a cessation of war but peace which is something more innate, peace which is inside each one of us, peace inside which no one can take away, an inner peace which we in turn give to the world. Peace on earth truly begins within each of us, and that inner peace which makes each of us is a source of peace in the world which we extend to those who are persecuted, which we extend to those who hate us, which we extend to those who misunderstand us, which we extend to those, until their hearts open up and their eyes open up, my fellow Americans, our arms open up and we embrace each other as brothers and sisters, and we hold each other in a triumph of love, in a triumph of universal peace; Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, black, white, yellow, red, brown, brothers and sisters. Mr. Speaker, peace.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, bombing for peace. This is the new strategy from NATO. While engaging in peace negotiations, NATO has intensified the bombing. Bombing for peace. During peace talks, B-52s dropped cluster bombs along the Kosovo- Albania borders. NATO says that as a result about 600 Serb troops in the field were pulverized by the cluster bombs during peace talks. Besides those troops killed, there will be countless Kosovars and Serbs injured by thousands of cluster bombs which will remain unexploded until discovered by accident, by children playing, by people walking home to Kosovo. Peace bombs. There is no such thing as bombing for peace. We bomb for war; we negotiate for peace. We cannot do both at once and keep credibility. Let us hope we can finally get a peace agreement and let us demand an end to the bombing.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, about 40 days ago an 11-member bipartisan congressional delegation, led by my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), went to Vienna in search of a structure of peace which could be put together with leaders of the Russian Duma, a peace plan which, hopefully, would lead to an end to the war in the Balkans. That was 40 days ago. One of the principles in this plan was the following: Article 4. The humanitarian crisis will not be solved by bombing. A diplomatic solution to the problem is preferable to the alternative of military escalation. Unfortunately, in the ensuing 40 days we saw an intense military escalation which resulted in the deaths of countless innocent civilians. One of the articles in this plan that was put together called on the interested parties to find practical measures for a parallel solution to three tasks, without regard to sequence: the stopping of the bombing, the withdrawal of Serbian armed forces from Kosovo, and the cessation of the military activities of the KLA. That is where the G-8 is headed now. But they should have stopped the bombing, and they should not today be threatening Belgrade with further bombing if there is not a signature on the dotted line today.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, NATO is risking reigniting a wider war by simultaneously insisting on troop withdrawals and continuing bombing attacks on the troops. If acceptance of the Russian-Finnish peace plan by the Serb Government means anything, then the bombing should have stopped. If it means nothing, then why did NATO officials declare victory because such a plan had been accepted? Either NATO has a peace plan in its hand or it does not. If it does, then it should stop the bombing instead of this approach of putting one foot on the accelerator of war and the other on the brake of peace. When Japan sued for peace after the atomic bombs were dropped, the U.S. did not keep bombing. The L.A. Times quoted an unnamed NATO diplomat as describing the agreed-upon exit of troops in these terms: ``Take these routes, don't get off them, move quickly, do not stop to collect $200,'' in an apparent reference to the Monopoly game. The same diplomat was saying, ``Anybody off the yellow brick road is subject to being bombed,'' a reference to the Wizard of Oz. The undisguised attempts to trivialize the importance of troop withdrawals and the further threats to bomb military targets in retreat reveals an arrogance of power which is neither conducive to concluding a peaceful agreement, nor keeping a condition of peace. If NATO wants peace, it ought to show it by stopping the bombing.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Michio Kushi, the 20th century developer of macrobiotics. This diet is the catalyst for many of the mainstream dietary and lifestyle changes currently taking place. The Standard Macrobiotic diet has been practiced widely throughout history by all major civilizations and cultures. The Diet centers on whole cereal grains and their products and other plant quality. Twenty- five to thirty percent of daily food consists of vegetables and the remaining intake is comprised of soups, beans and sea vegetables. Consumption of products such as meat and dairy products are typically avoided. Michio Kushi, the founder of macrobiotics, was born in Japan and graduated from Tokyo University, the Faculty of Law, Department of Political Science. Influenced by the devastation of World War II, he decided to dedicate his life to the achievement of world peace and the development of humanity. Kushi and his wife Aveline introduced macrobiotics to North America in the 1950s by establishing the first macrobiotic restaurant in New York. In the 1960s, the Kushis moved to Boston and founded Erewhon, the nation's pioneer natural foods distributor and manufacturer. Over the last thirty years Michio Kushi has taught throughout the United States and abroad, giving lectures and seminars on diet, health, consciousness and the peaceful meeting of East and West. In 1978, the Kushis founded the Kushi Institute, an educational organization for the training of future leaders of society, including macrobiotic teachers, counselors, cooks and lifestyle advisers. In 1986, Michio Kushi founded One Peaceful World, an international information network and friendship society of macrobiotic friends, families, business, educational center, and other associations to help guide society and contribute to world health and world peace. In the 1980s, Kushi began meeting with government and social leaders at the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the White House. The health benefits of a macrobiotic diet have attracted the attention of leading medical professionals. The American Cancer Society reports that a macrobiotic diet may lower the risk of cancer. The Smithsonian Institution will announce the acquisition of the Michio Kushi Family Collection on Macrobiotics and Alternative and Complementary Health Care during a special day-long event at the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, June 9. The events include a symposium featuring Michio Kushi and his wife Aveline Kushi, an exhibit of macrobiotic food and books, and an awards presentation to Mr. and Mrs. Kushi for their significant role in the development of alternative and complementary health care and to the formation of the natural and whole foods movement. I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in applauding the dedication and hard work of the Kushis in helping to educate the world's population on the benefits of the macrobiotic diet.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 1999, I joined with Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Pete Stark, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney to host the third in a series of Congressional Teach-In sessions on the Crisis in Kosovo. If a peaceful resolution to this conflict is to be found in the coming weeks, it is essential that we cultivate a consciousness of peace and actively search for creative solutions. We must construct a foundation for peace through negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy. Part of the dynamic of peace is a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, to listen to one another openly and to share our views in a constructive manner. I hope that these Teach-In sessions will contribute to this process by providing a forum for Members of Congress and the public to explore alternatives to the bombing and options for a peaceful resolution. We will hear from a variety of speakers on different sides of the Kosovo situation. I will be introducing into the Congressional Record transcripts of their remarks and essays that shed light on the many dimensions of the crisis. This presentation is by Landrum Bolling, a member of Harvard University's Conflict Management Group and a visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy. He was part of Rev. Jesse Jackson's delegation that freed the three American soldiers who were captured and imprisoned by the Serbs. Mr. Bolling addresses an important question: ``Where do we go from here?'' Based upon discussions that he and other members of the Jackson delegation had in Belgrade, Mr. Bolling predicts that Slobodan Milosevic will be prepared to accept a peace settlement that is quite close to NATO's central demands. He also emphasizes the critical importance of the refugees being able to return to their homes. Presentation by Landrum Bolling of Harvard University's Conflict Management Group Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Friends, I'm very pleased to be invited to be here with you and to share some thoughts about our present situation in Kosovo and the outcomes of it. Most of the provocative comments that have just been made by Ambassador Swartz are things that I very much agree with. We'd quarrel a bit about whether a Bosnian nation does, can or could ever exist. But I think that he is absolutely right. We've got to make up our minds whether we're going to win this war. If so, it has to be done quickly, or it will be an absolute disaster, not only for the Serb people and for the state of Yugoslavia, which will be destroyed, but we've also had a great many losses ourselves, and we will be made a kind of moral pariah country in the world. We cannot sustain this level of violence against people, many of whom are totally opposed to Milosevic, many of whom have no support whatsoever for the things the Milosevic government had done. But they're paying the price and we are not protecting any of the Kosovars who we said we were launching this campaign to protect. Now, I think the central issue is this one, that the Ambassador has put forth very clearly: Where do we go from here? What next? I think from the general feel of things, the atmosphere that I found in Belgrade, the sort of sotto voce conversations I had with various people there and from what we read in the New York Times and the Washington Post this morning, something is happening, something is about to happen. You won't have all of this flurry of activity without something coming out of it. What it will be is yet to be seen. Our talks in Belgrade, beyond those of just getting the soldiers released, were a worthy mission in itself, though some people criticized us very severely for trying and told us quite confidently that we'd never succeed. Well, we did succeed. They told us it was risky and our lives would be in danger, the U.S. government could do nothing to protect us. OK, we said ``fine.'' We went there, we came back. But we had the opportunity to explore ideas among people within the leadership of this Milosevic government. We sampled public opinion from talking to a variety of people there, and I simply want to share with you a few of those impressions. Trying to read Mr. Milosevic's mind is an arcane kind of skill that I think none of us have or are likely to acquire. But he's not a stupid man. He's a highly intelligent man, he's a highly manipulative man, and he's done terrible things and is capable of doing more terrible things. But it is perfectly clear that there is going to be a willingness on his part to move towards something very close to what NATO is demanding of him, specifically, he is prepared to agree to the return of all the refugees whom he's driven out. That's going to be a difficult, costly task to carry out. He's going to agree to the return of the relief and development agencies who also were withdrawn from Kosovo, and he'll agree to free access for them to do their job. He wants very much and will certainly agree to a resumption of negotiations on an autonomy agreement. The nature of autonomy he would agree to is of course not totally clear; he does want to make sure that Kosovo would remain within Serbia. That's one of his central demands. Whether he would settle for it simply being a republic within Yugoslavia, I don't know, but that's one of the other options. He will resist tenaciously the idea of an independent Kosovo, and quite honestly, I think we should too. I think that would be a terribly disturbing, destabilizing outcome of this conflict. The big sticking points are these: the withdrawal of Serb troops, police forces and special groups from this terrible activities in Kosovo. He knows he will have to withdraw. He will try tenaciously to keep some presense there. He will insist that we've got to have some Serb police as part of this peacekeeping force. And he will have a certain logic to that. But how do you constrain them, control them, I don't know. That's one of the issues. He's going to be very tough in bargaining about total or substantial withdrawal. He's going to fight for some presence to be maintained there. The other thing is, of course, the composition of the international peace keeping police service (whatever you call it, semantics do have some place) he wants some kind of fig leaf to cover him. So, that will be one of the things that will be a stumbling block. But I think in the end he will agree to a multinational, armed policing service. Probably he would like, of course, it not to carry the NATO flag and label, but he knows it will have to have a substantial NATO component within it. He will be of course very cagey in how he finalizes his commitments, and he will hope that he will be able to remain in power and be a party to the signing of whatever agreement is finally made. I think that we need to step up our negotiating efforts and indeed I think they are in fact taking place. One of the things that bothers me is the fear that a lot of the American public, the American media, some members of the Congress in both parties, will be amused with this need to show how tough and strong we are, and how we must not weaken and we must not give in. We must be careful that we don't be made to seem like fools manipulated by this evil man. We are in danger of taking counsel of our fears instead of mounting courage of our convictions and our hopes for a better world and for a solution. I think that a solution that we could accept is possible. It will take hard bargaining, it will take tenacious attention to details, and here's one thing I want to say finally, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to give much more attention to the issue of the process by which we accomplish these things. We have an illusion that somehow if you could get the top leaders together around the table facing each other, they can produce the document which they will then sign that will solve the problem. That's one of the troubles with the Dayton agreement. We got the people together, we locked them up for two weeks, we browbeat them into so-called negotiating and gave them a document to sign. The document was enormously complicated and lengthy which outlined a constitution for a state and all the rest of it. We gave it to them and said: ``Now you sign here and we're going out and implementing it.'' The Dayton agreement has flaws but it really isn't as bad as its application has turned out to be. We didn't really enforce it and we didn't carry it out in all kinds of ways. I think we need to have a step by step process set in motion in which specialists can come forth with proposals of how these issues can be dealt with and how to involve all of the parties who must be a part of the final framing of that agreement and signing it. The idea that you can make peace by a dicta is not a viable concept of international diplomacy, it simply won't work. That is not real diplomacy nor will it produce peace and stability in the region. The final thing is that we've got to ingrain in our policy and in our actions the return of the refugees to their homes. This is the heart of the problem also in Bosnia. It is the heart of the problem if we cannot deliver on this obligation to enable people to go back to where they came from. That above everything else is what they want. Don't let anybody tell you, Henry Kissinger or anyone else, that the refugees don't want to go home, that's nonsense. And if we can't deliver that, we are bankrupt in terms of creative diplomatic ideas, and we expose our posturing of power as a hollow, hollow thing.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 25th Anniversary of the Ohio Boychoir, a community choir rich with talent, passion for music and community pride. Established in 1974, the Ohio Boychoir is a very distinguished non- profit organization open for all boys from third grade to voice change regardless of race, creed or economic status. The major goals of the Ohio Boychoir are to develop appreciation for music and vocal quality. One of Ohio's most prized cultural assets, the Ohio Boychoir is supported by contributions and grants from individuals, corporations foundations and other organizations. Over the past 25 years the Boychoir has been invited to give concerts at many prestigious venues. In 1982, the choir sang at National Christmas Tree Lighting at the White House and at the Bach Festival at the Kennedy Center. Based on their incredible performance in the past, the choir was invited to sing at a High Mass at Notre Dame Cathedra in Paris, France and at the Franciscan Church in Salzburg, Austria in 1984. They have also sung at the Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel in Colorado Springs. In addition to the many tours and concerts, the Ohio Boychoir has been recognized with a very unique international award. The Ohio Boychoir was selected to be presented with the Gold Award at the Munich International Music Festival. The Boychoir of Ohio has brought countless hours of entertainment across the world. They have filled the hearts of thousands with joy and excitement through their music. My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring the Ohio Boychoir on the 25th Anniversary and wish them luck on future performances.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend James M. Lynch for 25 years of Ordination. Reverend Lynch was born in Cleveland, Ohio and attended St. Edward High School. He went on to study at Borromeo College and St. Mary's Seminary. Throughout his career Reverend Lynch has worked hard to serve his community. By going on many international missions he has also helped less fortunate people throughout the world. Recently, he took a permanent oath in the Maryknoll Missionaries and is unfortunately no longer a priest of the diocese of Cleveland. Since 1911, thousands of concerned Catholics across the United States have responded to the worldwide cry of the poor by becoming Maryknoll Missionaries. Today, world renowned Maryknollers help many people overseas build communities of faith. Some work in war zones with refugees, others minister to the sick, the elderly, orphans or people with AIDS. Through lives of dedicated service, Maryknollers translate the gospel of love into different languages and in different cultures. Reverend Lynch is currently helping people in need as a Maryknoll Missionary in Puno, Peru. Reverend Lynch is a wonderful example of being a man for others. Through his dedication and work Reverend Lynch has changed hundreds of lives for the better. His example is truly something to be recognized and praised. My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring this man for twenty- five years of dedicated service.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an outstanding young woman, Miss Alicia Denihan, on her graduation from Valley Forge High School in Parma, Ohio. Her graduation is an achievement that took tremendous strength and determination. In December 1995, while walking home from a friend's house, Alicia was struck by a drunk driver, leaving her with multiple and critical injuries. She was in critical condition for days and suffered severe head trauma and injuries which included a broken hip, cheekbone and lacerated liver. Once involved in numerous athletic activities such as ballet, karate, ice skating, gymnastics and volleyball, Alicia lay comatose for two months. Initially her prognosis was not promising. Doctors did not expect she would ever wake up, walk, talk, read or write. However, Miss Denihan far exceeded those expectations. After months of hard work in speech and physical therapy Alicia was able to return to school by April of 1996. This miracle young person used only a walker as an aid. As a result of Alicia's courage and the support of her family members, teachers, doctors, and therapists, Alicia will attend her high school graduation ceremony on June 8. She plans to attend Cuyahoga Community college where she will major in creative marketing. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my fellow colleagues join me in congratulating this remarkable young woman on her accomplishments. I wish her continued success in her recovery and future endeavors.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Fen Lewis of Strongville High School and Lois Klamar of Jamison CompuTech Center for receiving presidential teaching awards. Ms. Lewis and Ms. Klamar will receive their awards at a White House ceremony the week of June 7, 1999. The Presidential Teaching Awards program recognizes a special group of elementary and secondary teachers for their commitment and dedication to nurturing student interest in science and mathematics. Ms. Lewis and Ms. Klamar are indeed very devoted teachers and are well deserving of these prestigious awards. They have set an example for all teachers across the nation to follow. We need more teachers like Ms. Lewis and Ms. Klamar to help our kids strive for excellence in the classroom. The students of these two schools should be honored and proud to have these people as their teachers and role models. Both teachers are excellent representatives of their schools because of their considerable accomplishments with their students. These teachers have been presented with one of the highest honors in their field and should be given their rightful recognition. My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring both of these outstanding teachers on receiving presidential awards.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my concern and my disappointment that this rule eliminates a portion of the bill that would have blocked funding for the further prosecution of the war in Kosovo and Serbia beyond October 1, 1999. As such, it has canceled debate over U.S. and NATO policy at a critical moment. The war is proceeding without the requisite permission of Congress prescribed by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. We are correctly concerned about the plight of the Kosovar Albanians, but we should be no less concerned about our own constitutional process. An air war has continued despite Congress' disapproval. This war has imposed death and destruction on innocent civilians. A ground war is being planned. As we speak, 50,000 NATO troops are massing at the Kosovo border. British Defense Secretary George Robertson yesterday told NBC news that said troops would go into the southern Serbian province at the earliest opportunity and may well face a hostile environment. The United States is about to send its sons and daughters into a death trap in Kosovo, and this Congress will not have, with this rule, a moment to debate this awful prospect. This, even as we proceed with an authorization of the budget of the Department of Defense. Today's reports of the war crime indictment of Slobodan Milosevic are fueling the fiery coals of war glowing in the eyes of NATO hawks. This means a ground war they call down. Congress must speak out clearly and convincingly against a ground war. Congress should pass Mr. Weldon's House Resolution 99 which calls for a peaceful resolution of this war through negotiations to stop the bombing, remove Serb troops from Kosovo, cease the military activities of the KLA, repatriate the Kosovar Albanians under the watchful eyes of armed international peacekeepers. Even at this moment peace is still possible without further war, but peace becomes increasingly difficult without further debate, and peace becomes increasingly distant without imposing limitations on this administration.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's response. And it is an honor to serve with the gentlewoman in this Congress, serving the people of Ohio. She raised an interesting point, and that is, what effect do these genetically engineered products have on our natural environment? I mean, sometime in the 20th century there was kind of a disconnection between humanity and the natural environment; and we will spend, I suppose, a good part of the next century trying to reconnect. The disassociation from the land which the gentlewoman speaks about is a profound disconnection from nature. I think that is why schoolchildren, for example, find it so fascinating to study butterflies. Because in some ways, that primal human sympathy which Wordsworth talked about in his poetry flutters in the heart when we see something so beautiful. And I think that as the schoolchildren, who spend time with their parents and their grandparents going to parks and zoos and arboretums, have the knowledge that this very beautiful butterfly could be impacted by this bioengineering, I think that we are going to see a response nationally. And it would be healthy because this country needs to look for opportunities to reconnect with our natural state. So I thank the gentlewoman. I would hope that the esteemed chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) would be able to respond.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, I would be more than happy to work with the chair. I need the help of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and I need the help of the Chair. We can work together to address this issue, bring it to the committee. With that kind of assurance, I say to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), I will withdraw the amendment, but look forward to working with both of my colleagues to find the appropriate venue within the committee so that we can start to get these agencies to be aware of this major concern of public policy. I thank the gentleman again for his work on this matter and for his work on the agricultural bill. And again, my gratitude to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). It is an honor to be with her in this House.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I visited an elementary school in Cleveland at the start of the school year. The children celebrating the beginning of their school year had released hundreds and hundreds of butterflies into the air. Now, a butterfly is a powerful symbol in our society. It is a symbol of transformation, transformation from a caterpillar into this beautiful winged being. Butterflies excite the imagination, they enthrall us with their possibilities. Yet, the butterfly may become the next casualty of our brave new world. We are all familiar with the genetically altered crops where pesticides are engineered right into the crop. A recent study indicates that pollen from such crops may have the potential to kill off butterflies, including the majestic and beautiful Monarch butterfly. Mr. Chairman, my intention with this amendment is to provide the Agricultural Research Service with $100,000 to study the effects of pollen from genetically modified crops on harmless insects, and to study the effect on other species, including animals and humans, that may come in contact with the pollen. Corn that has been genetically engineered with the pesticide Bt has been approved and was introduced to farmers' fields in 1996. It now accounts for one-fourth of the Nation's corn crop. Bt is toxic to European and Southwestern corn borers, caterpillars that mine into corn stalks and destroy developing ears of corn. According to a recent study conducted at Cornell University, it is also deadly to Monarch butterflies. The Cornell study found that after feeding a group of larvae, milkweed leaves dusted with Bt pollen, almost half died. The larvae that did survive were small and lethargic. The implications of this are very clear. Pollen from Bt-exuding corn spreads to milkweed plants, which grow around the edges of cornfields. Monarch larvae feed exclusively on milkweed. Every year, Monarchs migrate from Mexico and southern States, and many of them grow from caterpillars into beautiful black, orange, and white butterflies in the United States corn belt during the time the corn pollination occurs. I am sure that millions of Americans have had the experience of taking their children in hand and going into a pasture and watching for beautiful butterflies to come by and visiting an arboretum, a zoo, a park and watching the butterflies. Well, now, if we read the Washington Post, it says that pollen from plants can blow onto nearby milkweed plants, the exclusive food upon which the Monarch larvae feed, and get eaten by the tiger-striped caterpillars. At laboratory studies at Cornell, the engineered pollen killed nearly half of those young before they transformed into the brilliant orange, black, and white butterflies so well-known throughout North America. Several scientists expressed concern that if the new study results are correct, then monarchs, which already face ecological pressures, but so far have managed to hold their own, may soon find themselves on the Endangered Species list. Other butterflies may soon be at risk. From the Friends of the Earth we hear, ``The failure of Congress and the administration to ensure more careful control over genetically modified organisms has unleashed a frightening experiment on the people and environment of the United States. It is time to look more closely at the flawed review process of the three Federal agencies that regulate genetically modified products: EPA, FDA, and USDA. ``The implications of the Cornell University study go far beyond Monarch butterflies and point to the need for a revamping of our regulatory framework on biotechnology.'' Monarchs have already lost much of their habitat when tall-grass prairies were converted to farmland. We now need to protect them and other species that are harmless to farmers' crops, that may be adversely affected by Bt pollen. It is shocking that more extensive studies like the one performed at Cornell were not done before the crop was approved. It also makes one wonder what effects other genetically altered crops may have on other species, such as birds, bees, and even humans, and if adequate risk assessments are being done on bioengineered products before they are approved and released into the environment. My fellow colleagues, more research obviously needs to be done on these transgenic crops. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to protect Monarch butterflies from the harmful effects of genetically modified crops. Finally, Mr. Chairman, last year I had the opportunity to visit Pelee Island in Canada, which is a migration point for the Monarch butterflies. There is nothing more beautiful than to see hundreds of thousands of these beautiful creatures moving in a migratory pattern. It is an awesome sight. And yet, because of a lack of foresight on the part of our government, there is the possibility that these beautiful creatures may in fact be doomed. That is why this amendment is important.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the Los Angeles Times headline points out that the United States or NATO is preparing to send 50,000 troops to Kosovo, to the Kosovo border. They call them peacekeepers. Sure. And the White House says we are not at war. Mr. Speaker, 50,000 heavily armed troops to the Kosovo border. The Rambouillet Peace Agreement called for 28,000 troops, but we are sending 50,000 armed troops to the Kosovo border. The air strikes have not worked. Twenty thousand sorties, and the White House says we are not at war. There has been no resistance from the air, but Milosevic's troops are preparing for a ground war. There has been no progress in peace talks because the U.S. is not letting the Russians help, and there is no real effort to find an agreement. There is an insistence on total NATO occupation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. America, we are headed towards a ground war in Kosovo. Congress voted against declaring war, and we are at war. Congress voted against an air war, and we are at war. We have an air war. Congress voted against a ground war, and we are headed towards a ground war. This war violates the U.S. Constitution, a violation of the War Powers Act. We need to respect the Constitution. Pursue peace, not war. Pursue peace through negotiation and mediation. Do not escalate this war.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 1999, I joined with Representative John Conyers, Representative Pete Stark, and Representative Cynthia McKinney to host the third in a series of Congressional Teach-In sessions on the Crisis in Kosovo. If a peaceful resolution to this conflict is to be found in the coming weeks, it is essential that we cultivate a consciousness of peace and actively search for creative solutions. We must construct a foundation for peace through negotiation, medication, and diplomacy. Part of the dynamic of peace is a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, to listen to one another openly and to share our views in a constructive manner. I hope that these Teach-In sessions will contribute to this process by providing a forum for Members of Congress and the public to explore alternatives so the bombing and options for a peaceful resolution. We will hear from a variety of speakers on different sides of the Kosovo situation. I will be introducing into the Congressional Record transcripts of their remarks and essays that shed light on the many dimensions of the crisis. This presentation is by Ambassador Jonathan Dean, who joined the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1984 as advisor on international security issues. He was United States Representative to the NATO-Warsaw Pact force reduction negotiations in Vienna between 1978 and 1981. Before that, he was deputy U.S. negotiator for the 1971 Four Power Berlin Agreement with the Soviet Union. Ambassador Dean discusses the need to negotiate a peace with Russia as the leading mediator. With regards to the peace keeping force to be in place after the conflict, Mr. Dean reiterated the necessity to have a UN peace keeping force in place rather than a NATO led force. He also addresses the importance of having more preventative measures in place to help avert such conflicts in the future. Presentation by Ambassador Jonathan Dean to Congressional Teach-In on Kosovo I want to thank the Chairman for conducting these hearings, both as regards the subject matter, which is acutely important for our country, and for the format in which you are doing this. I find this mixture of views to be very useful. I am much more used to the atmosphere in the UN where the NGOs are permitted to come in for 5 minutes to address the delegates from a distance. This is a great device for encouraging dialogue, particularly on this important subject. I've learned a great deal from the two insightful statements we have heard today. As we think of a negotiated outcome for the Kosovo crisis, which is what we should be working for hard, we can't forget that Milosevic is responsible for the ongoing, widespread brutal killing of Kosovo Albanians. And it is justified to negotiate with him only in the interest of stopping the killing in Yugoslavia. It's still possible to reach a negotiated settlement on the Kosovo issue, quite rapidly, even within a few days. This is because many issues are close to solution. The removal of Serbian forces, the return of the Kosovars, continuation of Kosovo as an autonomous part of Serbia (at least for the time being), and the presence of an international force. As the Bonn group meeting earlier today showed, the main issue in what is now a three-cornered dialogue--between Milosevic, Chernomyrdin, and the Western NATO countries--is the nature of that force, its armament and its composition. All three parties agree that the force should be legitimatized by a mandate from the Security Council and that is important. Milosevic has been holding out for a lightly armed UN force. The NATO countries for a heavily armed NATO force. But this question of the level of armaments is secondary to the issue of the nature of the force itself. President Clinton and other NATO leaders have been insisting that the core of the force be a NATO force, directed by NATO in effect with some Russians and others added. It's very clear that the Administration has in mind the poor performance of the UNPERFOR force in Bosnia, and the more successful model of the successor IFOR force with NATO plus forces from Russia and other partners for peace. Moreover, the Administration is clearly worried that good Security Council guidance on a UN force may not be forthcoming. The position of Russia, China and France in the Security Council is uncertain. Beyond that, a UN force may not be capable militarily of handling possible Serbian resistance. There are other factors here that we have to bear in mind. The resistance of the Clinton Administration to acceptance of a UN-directed force in Kosovo. The United States would by implication face a certain implied humiliation if it has to accept a UN force for Kosovo and drop NATO. There is no doubt that the Congressional majority would make life hard for the Administration. And beyond that, the United States would end up having to pay its peacekeeping dues to the UN. For his part, Milosevic wants a UN force over a NATO force. Accepting outright NATO occupation of Kosovo would be a very severe domestic defeat for him, possibly his political end. NATO is his enemy. A NATO force in Kosovo could enter and at some point conquer the rest of Serbia. And it could accelerate the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. Both sides are being obstinate on this point and that's the closing point in negotiation over the future of Kosovo. I believe that the Clinton Administration should accept a UN force because a refusal to do so confronts NATO with the grim prospect of bombing Serbia to its knees and then going in with ground forces, a long and even more bloody and expensive process. We can improve the past performance of UN peace-keeping forces and the composition of that force for Kosovo. But we will have to work with the Security Council more carefully and that is the big crime of omission if there is one in this picture for the Clinton Administration. As regards the Security Council, the warning came last August on Iraq when France, Russia and China voted against the United States in the Security Council on the issue of continuing UNSCOM, the special commission for Iraq. Although it was ready engaged in negotiation with Serbia, the Administration failed to use the time between then and the Holbrooke mission to Milosevic in October, to improve the situation of the Security Council. That was a great omission, in my opinion, because we could have gotten a Security Council legitimation for the actions undertaken by NATO, or possibly even a wider UN military action. For the future we must act to prevent the Security Council from degenerating into cold war paralysis because this would definitely not be in the national interest of the US. I am arguing this point because it is very relevant to whether or not we should have a UN force in Kosovo. Among the methods: better diplomacy. One can think of an informal agreement among the five permanent members of the Security Council to limit the veto on certain specified occasions. This is not something that is often proposed, i.e., an amendment of the charter, but an informal understanding. In particular Russia, Britain and Frances would be interested in preventing a degeneration, a deterioration, of the Security Council, which is one of their major claims to international status. They would be interested in talking about some kind of understanding. There is, and has long existed, an informal coordinating committee, of the permanent member of the Security Council. Another possibility, that could be done very rapidly, is to establish a General Assembly conflict prevention panel or committee which could act to head off matters of this kind, and could be sued to give legitimation. There is the Uniting For Peace procedure, which could have given General Assembly authority for the present action in Kosovo even in the face of Russian veto in the Security Council We all know there is going to be a very intense and quite painful review of humanitarian intervention by bombing, an experiment that it not likely to be repeated. There will also be a review, certainly by NATO, of how it should conduct humanitarian intervention. I personally consider NATO intervention justified, and does represent the implementation of a national interest of the United States in two senses. (1) Stewardship of human rights, or accountability of governments for their performance in this field, is very clearly emerging as an international norm justifying humanitarian intervention of various kinds, not solely of military intervention. (2) As the very example of Bosnia showed, it is not politically possible for a country of eminence of the US to stay outside a long-standing blood-letting and stay on the sidelines. The Clinton Administration, from a position on the sidelines, was forced step by step into intervention is Bosnia and with less delay, but nonetheless with considerable delay, to the intervention in Kosovo. I think the big lesson of this entire experience should be that we do have to start with conflict prevention, in the whole meaning of that term, very clearly as a necessary assurance against a very probably degeneration of this kind of armed conflict. The better off we will be as a nation to accept that as part of our national interest, and part of our activities and to do so early. I am saying this with a certain ax to grind, Mr. Chairman, I and my colleagues have a program called Global Action to Prevent War which is also directed at preventing future Kosovos. You can find it on the World Wide Web.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor S. Columbkille Parish School, which has been named a 1999 Blue Ribbon School of Excellence by the U.S. Department of Education. Only 266 schools in the country earned this prestigious award this year. Blue Ribbon Schools are considered to be models of both excellence and equity where educational excellence for all students is a high priority. St. Columbkille Parish School had to demonstrate its effectiveness in meeting local, state and national educational goals and had to successfully complete a rigorous application process. Blue Ribbon Schools must offer instructional programs that meet the highest academic standards, have supportive and learning-centered school environments, and demonstrate student outcome results that are significantly above average. This is a great achievement for the students, parents, teachers and staff. The hard work of the teaching and administrative staff at St. Columbkille Parish School, combined with the outstanding involvement of parents, has created an excellent climate for learning. The entire St. Columbkille Parish School community should be very proud of this national recognition. Its academic programs and environment will serve as a model for schools across the country. My fellow colleagues, please join me in congratulating the students, teachers and administration of St. Columbkille Parish School for their commitment to excellence.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 1999, I joined with Representative John Conyers, Representative Pete Stark, and Representative Cynthia McKinney to host the third in a series of Congressional Teach-In sessions on the Crisis in Kosovo. If a peaceful resolution to this conflict is to be found in the coming weeks, it is essential that we cultivate a consciousness of peace and actively search for creative solutions. We must construct a foundation for peace through negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy. Part of the dynamic of peace is a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, to listen to one another openly and to share our views in a constructive manner. I hope that these Teach-In sessions will contribute to this process by providing a forum for Members of Congress and the public to explore alternatives to the bombing and options for a peaceful resolution. We will hear from a variety of speakers of different sides of the Kosovo situation. I will be introducing into the Congressional Record transcripts of their remarks and essays that shed light on the many dimensions of the crisis. This presentation is by David Swartz, former Ambassador to Belarus. He is a retired foreign service officer and Director of the International Institute of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate School. His other foreign-service posts included Rotterdam, London, Moscow, Kiev, Zurich, Calgary and Warsaw. He is the author of ``Redirecting the CIA: Keep Agency Out of Policymaking, Make Ambassador Boss Overseas'' (Foreign Service Journal, February 1996). Ambassador Swartz explains how United States policy in Bosnia contributed to NATO's current dilemma in Kosovo. He also states a clear position on a central question: Does the United States have an overriding national interest in the resolution of strife in the Balkans? Ambassador Swartz's comments may be controversial to some, but they represent a valuable contribution to our ongoing debate.***HD***Presentation by David Swartz to Congressional Teach-In On Kosovo I think my role today is going to be controversial. And if ever there was a conflict that was controversial this one certainly is. So I'm pleased to be here. Some of what I'm going to say is going to offend some people and possibly some of it will offend everybody, I don't know. But at least is may serve as a catalyst to help get the discussion going as we move along. But I am being deliberately provocative in some places so I warn you in advance and ask your indulgence. I do wish to express my thanks for the opportunity to present may statement this afternoon on U.S.-Kosovo policy. My statement, while critical, is non-partisan. It reflects the general reality , in my view at least, that U.S. polices in the Balkans over the past eight years have reflected bipartisanship, just as criticisms of Administration policy, particularly with regard to the Yugoslavia war, have also tended to be bipartisan. The two key desiderata driving my views on U.S. actions in that region and in the Kosovo region are these: First, human suffering must be minimized. And that's way ahead of any other. But the second one is: clear U.S. national interests justifying involvement must be present. Our policies in my view reflect deficiencies on both counts. I will very briefly touch on three aspects of that problem. One, how we got to where we are. Two, why current policy is wrong. And three, what next. Three is perhaps being developed as well speak. First, how we got where we are. American involvement in the post- communist Balkan turmoil stems in large part in my view from a questionable policy of premature diplomatic recognition of groups asserting sovereignty, particularly Bosnia, in the early 1990's. Some groupings in the then-Yugoslavia could genuinely be considered ripe for independence, most especially Croatia, and Slovenia, possibly to a lesser extent Macedonia. Bosnia, however, could by no reasonable standard be considered a nation-state. What is Bosnia? Who are Bosnians? What is their history, language, literature, religion? What can we point to that is uniquely Bosnian? It seems to me that creation of a multi-ethnic state is complicated under the best of circumstances, and Bosnia in the early 90's was not the best of circumstances. At a minimum, a la Switzerland, the disparate groups must have a common desire to join together in some higher level of governance than just the individual groupings they find themselves in. So in Bosnia a so-called country was cobbled together and we know the result: ethnic cleansing, massacres, artificiality imposed at Dayton, and peace maintained solely through the possibly permanent presence of armed forces of external powers. Far from fostering stability in the former Yugoslavia, I would argue that the Bosnia so- called settlement has served to institutionalize instability. If U.S. involvement in Bosnia was the proximate cause of our current troubles, highly superficial understanding by our policy makers of the centuries of passions, hatreds, vendettas, indeed genocide throughout the Balkans was a more deep-seeded problem. If we knew nothing else, we should have known that there are no good guys in the region, and that therefore aligning ourselves in one or another direction was fraught with danger. This truism applies equally to our current dilemma in Kosovo. With specific regard to Mr. Milosevic in Kosovo, the United States' misreading of his intentions is nothing short of shocking. If intelligence and diplomatic analysis are good for anything at all, they must serve the critical function of providing policy makers with accurate prognoses of the intentions of adversaries. We can forgive White House ignorance about Milosevic's likely response to a forced dictate over Kosovo, and perhaps even that of our Secretary of State. However, certainly at a minimum, emissary Richard Holbrooke and his well-meaning but judgment-impaired staff, with the hundreds of hours they spent in direct contact with Milosevic, should have been able to discern his intentions, once it became clear to him that the United States' intentions were to carve away his authority in Kosovo. At that point, the nonsensical idea that Milosevic would cave under the threat of bombing should have been discarded once and for all. Tragically, it wasn't. My second point: Why our policy is wrong. And this brings me back to my two basic desiderata: Minimizing human suffering, and advancing clearly identified U.S. interests. A powerful argument has been made in some circles, an argument that I find somewhat persuasive, perhaps not completely, that the least human suffering in the former Yugoslavia would have resulted from the outside world not involving itself at all in the internal civil strife. Yes, there would have been oppression, yes there would have been killing, but in the end, the argument goes, a level of coexistence would eventually have been reached, no doubt for the moment at least with Serbia in full charge, in which life would have gone on for the masses. Not freedom, perhaps, not automony, certainly, but at least basic life. With outside support first for Bosnian independence, a wholly unsustainable proposition over the long run, and then for an imposed Kosovo settlement, even more implausible, great violence resulted, and continues. What are U.S. interests? I am not persuaded that we have any overriding interests in the Balkan strife and certainly none that would justify the course of action on which we are embarked. The NATO credibility argument is not persuasive. Had the alliance led by the U.S. not constantly threatened Milosevic with military action if he did not submit himself to NATO's demands, we would not have found ourselves in the put-up-or- shut-up corner. Expansion of the conflict to say, Turkey or Greece, or Turkey and Greece, is equally implausible. Clearly the conflicts are limits to the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and Milosevic' desire to reassert his and Serbia's domination. Support for human rights is indeed a laudable national interest, but as suggested above, our intervention in the region has had the opposite of the desired effect. Where we do have strong national interests are vis a vis Russia, and there the Kosovo is quite possibly going to result in, if not permanent, at least long-lasting damage to reformist elements in Russian politics on whom we count for achieving societal transformations there. Or alternatively, as now seems quite likely, if Russian involvement in the settlement takes place, that might well lead to a diluted result bearing little resemblance to our stated conditions when we began this war. Or both of those might happen. My third point: What next? Having embarked on what in my judgment is a foolish and ill-considered air war, it seems to me that the U.S. now has only two options: Stop the bombing, cutting whatever deal the Russians can broker for us, that now seems to be underway, perhaps, or immediately and massively escalate, with the specific twin goals of removing Milosevic and eliminating all Serbian fighting units in Kosovo. The first option is the one I prefer, because as I said at the outset I believe minimizing human suffering must be the goal. Each day of bombing is accompanied by more ethnic cleansing, raping and summary executions of Kosovars. It of course also leads to casualties among Serbia's civilian population. Forty-plus days of bombing have seemingly not stopped Milosevic's evil in Kosovo one whit, indeed, have accelerated it. The cessation of bombing is of course fraught with danger, since it will mean an outcome, no doubt far short of our stated objectives when we began this war, it will mean a resurgent Russia on the world scene, which might not be a bad thing, but that Russia could well be far different from the one we had hoped for, and now a truly credibility-deficient NATO. But we should have thought of those matters earlier, and in the meantime, each day brings more casualties. I for one have reached my tolerance level of the daily dosage of atrocity stories juxtaposed with confident NATO spokespersons detailing the quote-unquote in the air war the previous night's 600 sorties have resulted in, where clearly the latter has not diminished the former. The other option is massive force now. I do not advocate this course, but it seems to me the only other viable option. Paratroopers dropped in throughout Kosovo, going after Milosevic himself on the grounds of his long-overdue designation as a wanted war criminal. The other NATO partners will balk, and the U.S. should be ready to act alone, wasting no more time. Yes, this approach will result in still more deaths, and other atrocities among the suffering Kosovars, but at least the end of the agony will be sooner than with our present incomprehensible approach. In sum, the U.S. should not be engaged in this war in the first place, but since it is, we must either win it quickly, or get our quickly. Otherwise the lives of many, many more innocent people will be on our American conscience.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the Master said, ``Feed my sheep.'' This is our challenge.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. I think that a $10 million increase for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is warranted. I represent a district in Cleveland, Ohio, and in my district there are many seniors who depend on programs like this for their sustenance. There are those of us who have a prayer that we say that includes the words, ``Give us this day our daily bread.'' This is a very humble and simple request that people have. In America, where there are so many people hungry, where there are so many people who hunger amidst so much plenty, what would it matter to give a mere $10 million to help our senior citizens have improved nutrition, to reduce the waiting lists for Meals on Wheels, to make it possible for those millions of Americans who rely on emergency food assistance to be able to get some help. We in this country have a moral obligation to provide for those who are without. It is a work of mercy to feed the hungry, and we should with regard to the great power of this government, with the billions of dollars that are spent on so many things that are questionable, that we have an opportunity here to take $10 million and feed some people, give them an opportunity to be better fed so that they do not end up in the hospital from malnutrition. I think the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has come up with a wonderful amendment, and while I have the greatest respect for the committee which has created this bill, I have to say that the bill can be improved and it can be improved with the help of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, so that he can have a few more minutes to explain the importance of this amendment.