Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, NATO's deliberate bombing and knocking out of electric systems and water systems throughout Serbia takes the war to a new low. NATO is assigning collective guilt to the entire population of Serbia. NATO is then exacting retribution against that civilian population. Violence cannot be redemptive. NATO, whoever NATO is, does not represent this Congress, which voted against the bombing. The American people are opposed to this bombing. People want to know what they can do. On Sunday night in Cleveland, 400 people marched in a driving rain along the city's largest bridge, a mile and a half procession for peace, to protest the bombing, to protest the ethnic cleansing, and to make a strong statement that we believe that the only way to resolve this is through peaceful negotiations. I say it is time to continue to insist that that is the way that we resolve this war.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedication of the St. Joseph Worship Space. The Worship Space is an environment where, through private devotion and liturgical celebration, the sisters of St. Joseph may be united with God and with one another. The Worship Space provides the congregation with a much-needed facility where the sisters of St. Joseph and the community can gather to worship. A Reservation Chapel has been set up for the use of private devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. The Reconciliation Chapel has been built and is dedicated for the reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Also, seating for 250 people is available for liturgy, meetings, jubilees, Chapter assemblies, and, a gathering room has been established where the sisters can meet as well as extend their hospitality to the congregation. My fellow colleagues, please join me honoring the dedication of the Sisters of St. Joseph Worship Space.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, last night three innocent people died and scores were injured in the bombing of a Belgrade hospital by NATO air forces. This tragedy, taken with the NATO bombing of the Swedish Ambassador's residence, the recent NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, the NATO bombing of refugee convoys, the NATO bombing of passenger buses and trains and other civilian infrastructure, raises grave questions about the strategy and the morality of NATO's actions. It is no longer acceptable for NATO to blithely declare that the mass of civilian casualties resulting from the bombings are unintentional and therefore simply accidental. When such accidents keep repeating themselves and result in the countless deaths of innocent people, it is time to say this must stop. The continued bombing and the consequent catastrophic parade of innocent human carnage, and NATO's arrogant willingness to endanger innocent civilians, even to mothers giving birth in hospitals, forfeits NATO's claim to the moral high ground. The bombing must stop, and diplomatic measures towards peace must be accelerated.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Salvation Army's Harbor Light Complex in the Greater Cleveland area on their 50th Anniversary. The Harbor Light Complex has a strong commitment to helping those in the greater Cleveland area who are less fortunate. Through this institution, programs of Correction, Emergency Sheltering Services, Food Services, New Hope Citadel Corp., Residential Services, as well as Detox & Substance Abuse Programs help people deal with difficulties they face and gives them the courage and the tools to fight through them. The Harbor Light Complex continues to provide in its historically established tradition the caring services needed to offer comfort, shelter sustenance, education and hope to the Greater Cleveland Community. The Salvation Army's continuing commitment to serving a diverse group of people in need in the Greater Cleveland area, sets an example of how caring individuals can change the world one life at a time. I would like to recognize the Salvation Army's Harbor Light Complex for 50 years of quality service. They have truly met the needs of those who do not have a voice in our community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 65th Anniversary of Chapter No. 30, The Ladies Auxiliary of the Polish Legion of American Veterans. Organized on May 23, 1934, The Ladies Auxiliary of the Polish Legion of American Veterans was formed to work with the Post, visit the hospitalized veterans and to participate in all patriotic, civil and religious functions. Throughout the past 65 years, the Ladies Auxiliary has worked hard for the veterans of Chapter 30 of the Polish Legion by participating in many activities, such as, parades, Memorial Masses, Civil functions, and ward treats at Wade Park and Brecksville V.A. Hospitals. This Chapter has also been involved with State and National Conversions, Veterans and Women of the Year, Evening in Warsaw, State Picnic, Night at the Races and Bowling Tournaments. The Ladies Auxiliary is dedicated to raising money to support veterans by holding fund raisers such as, Card Parties, Bingo's, Dinners, Picnics, Bake Sales, and Poppy sales. Throughout their years of service of helping veterans, Chapter No. 30 has accumulated over 35,000 registered volunteer hours. The members of the Chapter are proud of their Polish Heritage and culture and proud to have accomplished so much in the past 65 years. I am confident that the Polish Legion of American Veterans Ladies Auxiliary will continue their commitment to work for the veterans well in to the next millennium. My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring the work and dedication of The Ladies Auxiliary of the Polish Legion of American Veterans.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the last time the Congress sent a NASA Authorization Bill to the President was in 1992. Since then the appropriators have worked, year after year, to analyze the needs of NASA and allocate those funds necessary to maintain our nation's aeronautics and space priorities. 1999 looked like the year that the authorizers in the House Science Committee would step up to the plate. In this regard I would like to commend Chairman James Sensenbrenner and Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher for putting together H.R. 1654 and presenting it to this body. This original bill eliminated funding for the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program, a focused program by NASA that will set the stage for the development of revolutionary new aircraft engines. The UEET continues the aeronautics research that NASA has pursued for many years, and it deserves widespread support. First, the UEET is important to the environment. The advanced engines being developed will produce less emissions that are harmful to the environment, and this goal is essential to allow US aircraft to compete with those manufactured in Europe. The next generation of engines will also be quieter, a big step forward for neighborhoods located around airports. The UEET is also important to consumers and the flying public. Advanced engines will use fuel more efficiently, helping to keep down ticket prices. The UEET is also important to the competitive position of major American firms. The aerospace and aeronautics industry is one of the few American industries still dominated by US firms in the global marketplace. But that leadership is threatened by foreign manufacturers, working hand-in-glove with foreign governments that provide huge subsidies. We must compete and survive on the basis of high technology and the most sophisticated research available. We must develop the aircraft engines that will allow US airplanes to fly into European airports. This is a major sector of our economy, and hundreds of thousands of high skill jobs hang in the balance. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the UEET is closely related to our national security and the future of military aircraft. Since its development several years ago, the UEET has been coordinated with the Department of Defense and its High Performance Turbine Engine Program. By supporting the UEET, this Congress is supporting the sort of advanced aircraft that foster our national defense. I join with Representative James Traficant and Representative Steven C. LaTourette in supporting an amendment to remove the language from the bill that cut funding for this program. Originally, the bill also cut funding for NASA's Aircraft Noise Research Program. The results of this research are essential to protecting people who live near airports nationwide. Continued funding of the UEET and the Aircraft Noise Reduction programs will ensure that new aircraft will be quieter and less disruptive for people who live near airports. Air travel is increasing at a dramatic rate across the country. The economy is good; airline ticket prices are affordable; airlines are serving more and more airports. Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, which is in my congressional district, is expected to experience an increase of 200 daily flights this summer. 200 more flights means that the residents and schools surrounding the airport will experience 200 times the aircraft noise. The current level of aircraft noise is already very disruptive to these people's lives, and an increase will cause them even more suffering. I joined with Representative Anthony Weiner in supporting an amendment to restore NASA's Aircraft Noise Research program to last year's funding level by adding $11 million in FY 2000, $10 million in 2001 and $8.5 million in 2002. NASA has set a goal of reducing aircraft noise by one-half over the next ten years. Without full funding, this goal will not be attained. Great strides have already been made in making aircraft engines quieter and more efficient. By maintaining funding for the Noise Research program, we can ensure that the next phase of engines, State IV, will soon be able to provide relief to neighborhoods and schools surrounding airports.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I believe the Space Station offers numerous benefits, spin-off technologies in medicine, in engineering, in transportation, in energy, in environment. Every year this Congress goes through this debate, it gives us an opportunity to affirm the benefits that station has. The station also has another benefit. That is the intangible but real benefit of international cooperation. It has given us an opportunity to create a platform for participation and cooperation with the Russians. At this very moment, while the entire world teeters at the edge of a larger war in the Balkans, we are reaching out to the Russians to ask them for help. Let it not be forgotten that this very moment, when the Russian leadership has changed, at this very moment Russia is looking for the hand of cooperation to bring about peace. This is not the time to kill this project which serves as a basis for cooperation with the Russians and other countries. This is a time to say that we need more projects which enable international cooperation and we need more projects that can put us in a peaceful, productive, cooperative relationship with Russia. We need Russia's help in building peace in this world. We do not need to slap Russia's hand on the Space Station. We need Russia to work with us in making this project work. We also need to work with them in making this project work and in building a framework for peace around the world. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate my strong support for the Space Station and my strong support for the benefits of the Space Station, and my strong support for continuing the relationship with Russia on this project and continuing this project as a basis for pursuing peace throughout the world.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, there is a drumbeat in Washington this morning, as there has been a drumbeat in London, where troops are being advocated to be sent to Kosovo and into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for purposes of winding up this war. I think it is an important moment to reflect, as British officials are visiting this country today, as to whether or not it is in the best interest of our country to not just be talking about ground troops but to even have the thought of an expanded war in which the lives of our young people, of our sons and daughters, would be put at risk. I say that instead of talking about the possibility of an expanded war, we should begin aggressively to pursue peace. We should look for every diplomatic opportunity to bring an end to this war, to stop the conflict, to stop the bombing, to begin the withdrawal of the Serbian troops, to stop the military activities of the KLA, to begin the repatriation of the refugees, to give them a chance to go home. This has to be done diplomatically with international armed peacekeeping troops. We cannot win this war militarily. We have to bring an end to it diplomatically.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this rule would authorize a resolution that asks for money to support an undeclared war. It would appropriate money for bombs, yet Congress has voted against the bombing. It appropriates money for ground troops, yet Congress opposes the use of troops in Kosovo. It contains provisions that will enable the prosecution of a wide war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, even though Congress has expressly voted not to declare war. This war is without constitutional authorization, and it is losing its moral authority as well. In the name of helping the refugees, NATO has bombed refugee convoys. From the Los Angeles Times a few days ago, I quote: ``Many of the refugees in Korisa were asleep when explosions sprayed shrapnel and flames everywhere, survivors said. Mattresses left behind in covered wagons and in the dirt underneath were soaked with blood. ``At least a dozen children were among the dead. An infant buttoned up in terry cloth sleepers lay among the corpses that filled the local morgue. ``Another child was incinerated in a fire that swept through the camp. The child's carbonized body was still lying on the ground Friday morning beside that of an adult, in the middle of a tangle of farmers' tractors and wagons that were still burning 12 hours after the attack.'' NATO and the United States have been bombing villages to save villages. NATO and this country have bombed passenger trains, buses, an embassy, factories, office buildings. Cluster bombs are raining down and maiming and killing countless children. Today we are being asked to pay for the bills for this war. We ought to put a stop payment on the checks which will be used to kill innocent civilians and to wage an undeclared war. We ought to stop the bombing and negotiate a withdrawal of Serbian troops and stop the KLA's military activities. We need an international peacekeeping force in Kosovo as a product of a peace agreement. We need to rebuild the province. Our government should work as vigorously for peace as it does to prosecute a war. This war is rapidly becoming a debacle that rivals Vietnam itself. We need to stand up and speak out against this war and ask good thinking people everywhere to keep the consciousness of peace alive and keep working for peace. The people in the State Department ought to hear that message first.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on May 11, 1999, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 209, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act, by a voice vote after it was placed on the Suspension Calendar. Further analysis of this measure indicates that its fundamental thrust is to water down or eliminate a range of public interest protections that currently are in effect. If enacted in its current form, H.R. 209--and its companion bill, S. 804, currently being considered by the other body--would allow the government to act behind the scenes, with little public oversight, to grant exclusive licenses to firms that wish to commercialize products that have been developed through taxpayer-funded research. These provisions do not serve the public interest. Congress needs to take a closer look at the implications of H.R. 209 and S. 804. The following analysis explains the problems with the bill in detail. Analysis of Technology Transfer Commercialization Act (H.R. 209) by consumer project on Technology (By James Love) 1. The legislation reduces competition. Both H.R. 209 and S. 804 eliminate the statutory requirements in 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1)(b) that before using an exclusive license, an agency make a finding that: ``the desired practical application has not been achieved, or is not likely expeditiously to be achieved, under any nonexclusive license which has been granted, or which may be granted, on the invention;'' This is an important change in existing law. It is currently illegal to use an exclusive license if development is likely to be expeditiously achieved with a non- exclusive license. However, under the new bills, this will change, and it will be possible to use an exclusive license merely by meeting the much lesser requirement that ``granting the license is a reasonable and necessary incentive to . . . promote the invention's utilization by the public.'' The consequence of this change will be fewer non-exclusive licenses, less competition, and more monopolies on taxpayer owned inventions. 2. The Public's rights to notice and comment on exclusive licensing of government inventions is vastly reduced H.R. 209 and S. 804 both gut public notice provisions for exclusive license agreements from government owned inventions. Under existing law, agencies are normally expected to provide 90 days notice that the invention is available to the public for licensing, followed by 60 days notice with an opportunity to file objections for proposals to provide an exclusive license to a particular party. [See: 37CFR404.7(a)(1)] S. 804 and H.R. 209 reduce notice requirements to ``in an appropriate manner at least 15 days before the license is granted.'' According to the House Report on H.R. 209, this eliminates also the need to provide notice in the Federal Register. S. 804 and H.R. 209 exempt even this modest requirement for ``licensing of inventions made under a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) entered into under section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a).'' The change virtually eliminates the practical rights of the public to raise objections to the use of an exclusive license or to even question the terms of the license (including the scope of the exclusivity). 3. The increased secrecy on licenses undermines the public's rights and reduces accountability There are a number of current cases where the public is seeking information about government licenses, including such items as the royalties or other considerations paid for the license, the revenues from the invention, information about the availability of the invention to the public, or justification for prices charged consumers. H.R. 209 modifies existing statutory language to require that such information be secret from the public. Language in 35 U.S.C. section 209 that says that information ``may be treated by a federal agency as . . . privileged and confidential and not subject to disclosure under'' the freedom of information act, is changed to say that such information ``shall be treated as privileged and confidential. . . .'' NIH licensing officials claim the change from ``may'' to ``shall'' will make a much broader amount of information secret, including even basic information such as the amount of money received by the government as payment for use of a patent. Indeed, in section 10 of H.R. 209, federal agencies are not even permitted to report statistical information on royalties received for licenses, if ``such information would reveal the amount of royalty income associated with an individual license or licensee.'' This is truly adding insult to injury. Not only will the public be denied a practical opportunity to stop an agency from giving an exclusive license on a government owned patent or to effectively challenge the terms of the patent-- taxpayers will not even be permitted to know what the terms are! 4. Problems in licensing of federally funded inventions. There are currently significant disputes regarding the use of exclusive licenses for a wide range of government funded inventions, including inventions in the areas of software, computing equipment, biotechnology and medicines. Regarding the areas of licensing of government funded medical inventions. The existence of public notice permits consumers or potential competitors to object to the use or scope of exclusive licensing. For example, when Bristol-Myers (Squibb) sought an extension of its exclusive license to cis- platin, a cancer drug developed at taxpayer expense, Adria Laboratories, Stuart Pharmaceuticals, American Cyanamide, Elkins-Sinn and Andrulis Research objected to the proposed extension, arguing that the public interest would be served by non-exclusive licensing. Andrulis suggested non-exclusive licensing be coupled with higher royalties to fund cancer research. As a result of the public comments, Bristol-Myers offered to lower the price of cis-platin by 30 percent and fund $35 million in extramural cancer research, in return for the extension of the license. More recently there has been considerable controversy over Bristol-Myers Squibb's licensing of government data and patents relating to the cancer drug Taxol and the HIV drug ddI, as well as Bristol-Myers policies regarding pricing of d4T, another government funded HIV drug. Also, public health groups who are interested in malaria are concerned about efforts by SmithKline Beecham to obtain exclusive rights to new malaria drugs invented by the US Army and Navy. In many of these controversies, public health groups are seeking to obtain basic economic information, such as the royalty rates paid on the licenses, the amount of sales of the products, or the amount of money the company will spend on subsequent development of the government invention. These are not trivial disputes. Bristol-Myers Squibb claimed to have spent $114 million to develop Taxol, but subsequent data placed the BMS contributions at less than $10 million prior to FDA approval of the drug. The decision by the NIH to grant BMS exclusive rights to two ``treatment regime'' patents on doses of Taxol extended the Taxol monopoly at least 30 months, costing consumers and taxpayers $1.27 billion, according to one study (Richard P. Rozek, Costs to the U.S. Health Care System of Extending Marketing Exclusivity for Taxol, N.E.R.A., Washington, DC, March 1997). The current controversy with ddI, a US government patented AIDS drug, illustrates some of these problems. The Bush Administration granted Bristol-Myers 10 years of exclusivity on ddI, beginning 1989. Patient groups are trying to determine when or if Bristol-Myers will seek to extend the exclusivity on the patent. The pricing of ddI is considered highly suspect by AIDS patients. Patient advocates would like to find out when such a patent extension is proposed, and to insist on public disclosures of revenues and development costs, to determine if the exclusivity should be continued. Like all AIDS drugs, ddI is expensive, both for consumers and for taxpayers who fund care for many AIDS patients. Competition is expected to lead to significant decreases in prices. Under HR 209, the extension of the patent exclusivity could easily be done before patients could even find out about the proposed extension. Indeed, this may have already happened, due to the difficulty in monitoring such license extensions, and the unwillingness of the NIH to make it easier to monitor these issues or even answer questions about the licenses. But by reducing the notice requirements to 15 days, the public will have no rights. In some cases, NIH funded inventions are priced at more than $100,000 per year. It won't be long before we see prices higher than $1 million per year per patient for some drugs. How can the US government justify issuing exclusive licenses for life and death therapies, without giving the public the right to speak, or to even find out what the terms of the license are? And why do policy makers permit drug companies to make ludicrous and clearly false public statements regarding the costs of bringing US government pharmaceutical inventions to market, and then make all data on the real costs a state secret? If the purpose of HR 209 or S. 804 is to make it easier to get exclusive rights on government property, the legislation succeeds. If the purpose is to protect the public's rights in taxpayer property, the legislation fails. We think the second issue is the one that needs greater attention by our elected members of Congress.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 1999, I joined with Representative Cynthia A. McKinney and Representative Michael E. Capuano to host the second 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 Tony Elgindy, Director of Research & Trading for Pacific Equity Investigations. Mr. Elgindy is not a professional aid worker. He is a dedicated and committed individual who has adopted a personal role in helping his fellow human beings who have been brutalized by this ongoing tragedy. Mr. Elgindy shares his observations and experiences with us, speaking in graphic and moving detail. He was instrumental in bringing 30 refugees out of the Kosovo area to the United States, the first group of refugees to arrive in our country. Among these displaced families were Skefkije Ferataj and her 2 year old daughter, Besarta. Both of them appeared at this second Congressional Teach-In. Following his presentation in a May 1, 1999, article from the Chicago Tribune that describes what the Ferataj family encountered when they reached Chicago. These documents give a very real, human face to the Crisis in Kosovo. Presentation by Tony Elgindy to Congressional Teach-In on Kosovo I'd like to first apologize, having just gotten here in the States from Macedonia. I don't have prior prepared remarks. I would like to thank everyone for having this opportunity to share what I've seen, and to assist me in trying to define some sort of forward momentum here. Upon my arrival in Skopje, Macedonia which is approximately 23 km. south of the border, I saw my first camps. We went to the border, saw Serb activity on the border, and talked to refugees. It's difficult to know from my standpoint exactly where to start. I don't know if it's with the random torture, the beatings, the sadistic mutilation of women, their unsafe enslavement, the taking of eyes of women and children, the cutting off of ears, the burning alive of males, castration of young boys, I just don't know where to start. What's happening in Kosovo is a tragedy beyond anything you could ever watch on TV. There is no way for any of us to sit here today and understand what they are feeling, what they are seeing, or what they've endured. You cannot smell it here, you cannot here it here. The Serbs are systematically burning evidence, destroying all traces of the atrocities, pulverizing ashes. There were flashes in the sky at night when we were trying to sleep from the NATO bombing. All of the relief workers that I met would be there during the day and leave there in the evening, leaving the camps to the Macedonian police. The crying and the grief intensified at night. And I don't know how anyone could tolerate it. This is a Holocaust, undoubtedly. Holocaust Number Two. I'm not a politician; I'm a trader. I work on Wall Street, been doing it for 11 years. I deal with numbers. I've been fortunate enough to be able to help various relief organizations in the United States with money donations, connections, support, one of which is the Mother Teresa Foundation in Skopje. So I can't sit here and tell you what the results will be and what it will be like if we didn't bomb, or we stopped military action or we sent in ground troops or we never sent in ground troops. All I can testify is what I saw in my two weeks at the border of Kosovo. Right now in America our markets are at an all-time high. We are swimming in money. The Internet, Dow Jones, and NASDAQ markets capture our focus, our imagination. And--I say this without trying to offend anyone--our greed has blinded us to what's happening elsewhere. And it became apparent to me that somewhere down the line their lives don't meet our standards for valuable commodities to protect. We are remote control-happy. We click through our channels one after another, and we all say yes, that's terrible and we go on to the next channel and we find a sitcom that we can sit down and watch for the rest of the evening. These people don't have that luxury. The cannot turn it off. They cannot switch channels. Of the 30 refugees [he is helping to evacuate to the U.S.], six of them are family members--two close family members and four distant family members--of another U.S. citizen who accompanied me on the trip to find her family. The other 24 have no connections here in the U.S. It's a very difficult ordeal to obtain their visas, since the U.S. Embassy when we arrived wasn't allowing any refugees to come. And I used whatever resources I had in the financial markets to contact the people--whatever little bit of influence I had--to have them appeal to the Embassy. Well, we ended up using up all the fax paper and jammed the phone lines and we prevailed in getting the very first 30 refugees' visas approved. And a few of them are with us today. I don't know if America could have learned anything in Bosnia why it wasn't applied here. We knew what the man was capable of doing; we knew how brutal he was; we didn't take into account the retribution he would show the people of Kosovo. I don't know if we should have evacuated the country or been better prepared before we took aggressive steps. For us to allow him to stay in power, for us to idly sit by and let him continue, is also another matter for debate up here on Capitol Hill, which is something that I have little control over. However, I don't know that we can idly sit by and let a madman run around doing the things that I saw. Out of the 24 refugees that will be coming to the States in the next several days, there are 20 children who are all children of three brothers. These three brothers are all gone, and presumed either dead or missing in Kosovo. All three mothers are missing and presumed dead in Kosovo. The adults accompanying the children are the sister of the brothers who is in her late 60s, and the grandmother who was born in 1908, who is currently sleeping on a wooden pallet in the camps. So, for her to have lived through World War I and World War II, Vietnam, Korea, and to be now facing the final years in a camp, are beyond anything I've ever seen or expected to encounter. While we were there we did meet up with several refugees-- medical students, doctors, lawyers. It's interesting when you meet a lawyer who talks about his practice and he's wearing a suit and tie and he lives in a tent and he's in bare feet. He's walking around in the mud without shoes because the Serb police took his shoes. These people, aside from living in denial and shock, need help ever so desperately. If everyone is captured today by the top story, which is the Columbine High School tragedy, imagine that happening five times a day, every day, for five years. That's what's happening in Kosovo. It's that multiplied 10,000 times. And for some reason we as Americans have placed a value on an American life higher than that of any other. It could be because Americans are more photogenic, better groomed, live in nicer homes. Whatever it is, it's not right. These people are as valuable as we are. And to discount them, or to shrug them off--as I read in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, that markets are up and doing well and apparently have shrugged off the Kosovo crisis--enrages me. While we were there I met a medical student, a female, 23 years old, who was in the camp right next door to another camp. She knew where her family was: in the other camp. Yet she was forced to stay in that camp for 16 days. I gave her my video camera, my jacket, my backpack, and we smuggled her out of the camp. All we did was drive a few short miles to the next camp to reunite her with her family which she hadn't seen in over two months. But she'd been in this camp for 16 days after finding out where her family was. The Macedonian police are in my opinion not helping the situation. They are pro-Serb for the most part. And the U.S. needs to take as big a role in the humanitarian side of things as they have in the military.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 1999, I joined with Representative Cynthia A. McKinney and Representative Michael E. Capuano to host the second 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 Dan Plesch, Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC). Mr. Plesch discusses a number of options for resolving the crisis, and emphasizes the importance of non- military solutions and looking ahead to the need for massive reconstruction aid for the Balkans. Following his presentation is a Washington Post column by Mr. Plesch and Julianne Smith describing their concept of ``Civilian Intervention Units'' to help avoid tense situations deteriorating into war. I commend these documents to my colleagues. Presentation by Dan Plesch to Congressional Teach-In on Kosovo My organization has been involved in advocating, lobbying, coaxing, and cajoling political leaders and the alliance itself for the best part of a decade now in how to avoid and prevent situations like the one we are in now. These horrors are tragically not the last in this part of the world and certainly we know that these issues are presented to us as immensely complicated problems. I will sketch out a rather simple description, which will lead from that into how NATO leaders were handling these issues at last week's summit. If you can take leave of imagination with me, and think of the Balkans as some of our own troubled inner cities, and if you think of trying to manage law and order in Washington, DC, or somewhere else, the only tool available to you is the SWAT team of a private security force, which is about equivalent of the NATO military. Not under the town council, if you will, the United Nations, but a private security force that does not come when you call 911 unless you've got a credit card to go with it. In this case, neighborhoods would be burning and all over DC, without neighborhood programs, without community policing, without the whole infrastructure. We have learned in our cities that relying on the SWAT teams and police cruisers is not the way forward. If you look at models in Boston or other places in this country we can see that it is the complex, much derided social work model that provides security. That helps to dispense with the SWAT team approach and permits other tools in the tool box. The political actions of our leaders in this country in particular speak to the current situation at hand. What this country does, many others follow. My own country, the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe, has so far followed the U.S. in ensuring that when policy makers, politicians, parliamentarians wish to take action to prevent and manage conflict, virtually the only tool available to us is military force. In Kosovo today we are using air power, which is largely ineffective. We are told that Serbian military forces are arriving in Kosovo in larger quantities than we are destroying, even with the best efforts of Allied aircraft. The other possibility on the table are ground forces, which are virtually unusable as a political tool. So we have limited our options in the first place to the NATO alliance, a private security organization involved in the international community and then limited our military force options. That was the position we put ourselves in the Rambouillet talks. And the position that the administration led the Alliance and European security to with all deliberate speed. Kosovo, if you recall, was to be, as Richard Holbrook put it, the prototype within NATO, for military actions outside of NATO's borders without U.N. authority. There was great pride that Russian participation could be dispensed with, and nobody even mentioned the two words, United Nations, for almost six months in public. Ground war as proposed is a fantasy akin to the air war-- the fantasy being that we might be able to be involved without the war spreading. Proponents of a ground war need to answer the question of how we could contain the ground war, how they would limit Milosovic's options to broaden it. Those people who want to drive tanks through Hungary should explain how they would intend to do it without creating a similar situation we have here for the 300,000 Hungarians living in northern Serbia. If, as in Bosnia, we decide to unleash the Croat army against the Serbs, which is one of the main options, and indeed an arms program for Croatia was one of the less publicized decisions of the summit. If we decide to allow the Croats do our fighting for us, then we risk massive, long- term escalation of the conflict. Privately NATO officials believe that either we take the opportunity over the next few weeks to negotiate our way out of this, and those options have been discussed here in the media and the congressmen who are to take part in some of these peace discussions in Vienna, or the race is on between a peace deal and a ground war driven by pride and machismo. That is why of course we still continue the air war. Nobody wants to fail. That same logic will lead us to start using a wider range of artillery in our actions in a week or so and from that into a ground war, which [I learned from] talking to officials at the margins of the NATO summit meetings. Despite the possible escalation, there has been a deafening silence from NATO about the fate of the remaining Kosovars in Kosovo right now. Nothing has been said by the Alliance for one or two weeks now about the hundreds of thousands of displaced people. That will change. When that changes, on the propaganda front, I will regard it as a signal for a major escalation of the conflict, because it will be used to escalate the public mood to support an escalation of the conflict. The strategic shift in policy that could have been made at any time in the last eight years away from the SWAT team, heavily armed only approach to international security towards resourcing other aspects of security, is beginning to be supported more strongly from the Europeans. At the summit there was a welcome endorsement by the United States of the European plan for long-term economic stabilization of the region. (Some of this analysis is on our web site (http://www.basicint.org/). Very broadly we advocate a long overdue economic and security plan. Such a plan was used very successfully in Eastern Europe after the Cold War. States must put aside their longstanding political differences and take the necessary human rights, election law, and other legal measures between themselves. Then the European Union should put a lot of money into subsidizing the building of a modern infrastructure in the countries of the Balkans, including Yugoslavia, including Serbia. This proposal is very seriously put forward by the German government and others and has full European Union backing. And there is enlightened self-interest in this very clearly. Now those plans of the Europeans got lukewarm support here. But as the legislation that comes before you to support this war, I would urge you to look very seriously at supporting non-military strategies, which are beginning to come out of the Alliance and the Europeans. I could spend my time talking more negatively about the summit, but let me outline the strategy and some views on the immediate future. I would just like to close with a number of elements that need close attention and support. The first is that we should support anti-fascist dissidents, as we supported anticommunist dissidents during the Cold War. Secondly, we should indict Milosovic as a war criminal, and the United States must join the international criminal court. Thirdly, the moment the United States puts in $10 million into support of all operations on regular basis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, move the decimal point to $100 million or $1 billion. Believe me, the OSCE could use that money incredibly usefully in the region in a minute to professionalize the sort of functions that we saw in verifying in Kosovo. Very few people realized that the mission that drove around in orange jeeps was temporary help. The reason that monitoring in a permanent capacity in Europe and elsewhere was because policy makers and geostrategists dismiss it as social work that should not be funded. That was inexcusable in 1990 and a tragedy today. Finally, to ensure that the ideas contained in the concept to open up a whole new range of arms control and reduction measures in Europe are fully fleshed out and the administration is made to bring detailed proposals to the table, we must make sure that the rhetoric of war is not simply used to rearm former communist militaries in countries from Eastern Europe to the Caucuses to the Chinese border and to train militaries underneath the rubric of arming them with the cause of democracy. Programs such as these are carried out with no congressional supervision under the provision that military training programs don't have to be authorized by the Congress. This strategy will bring about a series of problems akin to those we've already seen across the region.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the impersonality of the Balkan War and of the NATO bombing deprives all of us of a necessary deeper understanding of the powerful human dimension of the conflict of people on both sides whose fragile lives are ripped apart. A month ago I wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times editorial pages challenging the logic of the bombing, its impact on civilians, their lives, their communities. Tonight I have two reports to submit to this House. The first report comes from a pro-democracy group in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and it is an appeal in the form of a letter to Albanian friends from nongovernmental organizations, and I would like to read from it: ``Dear Friends: We are writing to you in these difficult moments of our shared suffering. Convoys of Albanians and other citizens of Kosovo, among whom many of you were forced to leave their homes, the killings and expulsions, homes destroyed and burnt, bridges, roads and industrial buildings demolished paint a somber and painful picture of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro as indicating that life together is no longer possible. We, however, believe it is necessary and possible. The better future of citizens of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro, of Serbs and Albanians, as citizens of one state or closest neighbors will not arrive by itself or over night, but it is something we can and must work on together as we have many times in the past not so long ago. We know that it will now be very difficult and sometimes very painful. The example of the German-French post-war reconciliation and cooperation could serve as a model and stimulus. In the sake of future life together the pain of crime has to be revealed so that it is with forgiveness remembered. This tragedy, yours and ours, personal and collective, is a result of a long series of erroneous policies of the most radical forces among us and in the international community. The continuation of these policies will take both Serbs and Albanians into abyss. Also, the road of collective guilt is a road of frustration, continuation of hatred and endless vengeance. That is why this road has to be abandoned. Our first step of distancing from hatred, ethnic conflict and bloody retaliations is a public expression of our deepest compassion and sincere condemnation of everything that you and your fellow citizens are experiencing,'' and keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, this is a letter from members of a Serbian nongovernmental organization pro- democracy group. They go on to say, and this is a letter to their Albanian brothers and sisters, ``As citizens of Serbia we today suffer destruction and casualties as a result of NATO bombing, armed conflict in Kosovo and long-lasting economic and social tumbles under the burden of the dictatorship's deadly policies. Ethnic cleansing, NATO bombing and armed conflict should stop because they are not contributing to the solution of the Kosovo crisis but only making it deepen. There should be no more casualties. All refugees should be allowed to return safely to their homes and live in the manner appropriate for free and proud people. We are convinced that together we will find strength and courage to step on the road of peace, democracy, respect of human rights, mutual reconciliation and respect. Dialogue, political negotiations and peace process have no alternative. For all of us, it is the only way out of the war conflict. It is the safest way to secure the return of refugees to their homes, to renew normal life and activities and find a solution to the status of Kosovo. In order to make this happen, we have to join our efforts to end the war conflict, revitalize the peace process and reconstruct, economically and democratically, the development of Kosovo, Serbia and the entire Balkan region. We are convinced that by joining forces we can contribute to the reaching of a just and rational political solution to the status of Kosovo and build confidence and cooperation between Serbs and Albanians.'' This heartfelt letter comes from the Alternative Academic Education Network; the Association of Citizens for Democracy, Social Justice and Support for Trade Unions; the Belgrade Circle; the Belgrade Women Studies Center; the Center for Policy Studies Center; Center for Policy Studies NEZAVISNOST; Center for Transition to Democracy; Civic Initiatives; District 0230 Kikinda; EKO Center; European Movement in Serbia; Forum for Ethnic Relations and Foundation for Peace and Crisis Management; Foundation for Peace and Crisis Management; Group 484; the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia; Society for Peace and Tolerance (Backa Palanka); Sombor's Peace Group (Sombor); the Student Union of Yugoslavia; the Trade Union Confederation; the Union for Truth about Anti-Fascist Resistance; the Urban Inn (Novi Pazar); VIN Weekly Video News; Women in Black; YU Lawyersi Committee for Human Rights. This comes from Belgrade, dated April 30, 1999.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for those remarks.

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for yielding his time. Mr. Speaker, I read that letter from the pro democracy groups in Serbia because they are relating to the suffering of their Kosovo brothers and sisters. At the same time, as this bombing continues, I just want to read briefly from a list of the damages that have been done already by NATO bombing. Over 190 schools, faculties and facilities for students and children have been damaged in the NATO bombing up to April 19, according to this report. Over 20 faculties, 6 colleges, 40 secondary and 80 elementary schools; 6 student dormitories, including elementary schools; 16 oktobar and Vladimir Rolovic in Belgrade; the day care center in the settlement of Petlovo Brdo in Belgrade; 2 secondary schools in the territory Nis; elementary schools Toza Markovic, Djordje Natosevic, Veljko Vlahovic, Sangaj, and Djuro Danicic and a day care center Duga. Mr. Speaker, I have a list I would like to submit to the House of Representatives of all of the public facilities, the hospitals, the schools, the housing facilities, the infrastructure, telecommunications, cultural, religious shrines and cultural and historical monuments and museums that have been damaged in the NATO bombing. 4. HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CARE CENTRES (16): Hospitals and health-care institutions, which have been damaged in bombing include: Hospital and Medical Centre in the territory in Leskovac; Hospital and Poly-clinic in Nis; Geronotological Centre in Leskovac; General Hospital in Djakovica; City Hospital in Novi Sad; Gynaecological Hospital and Maternity Ward of the Clinical Centre in Belgrade; Neuropsychiatric Ward ``Dr. Laza Lazarevic'' and Central Pharmacy of the Emergency Centre in Belgrade; Army Medical Academy in Belgrade; Medical Centre and Ambulance Centre in Aleksinac; ``Sveti Sava'' hospital in Belgrade; Medical Centre in Kraljevo; Dispensary on Mount Zlatibor; Health Care Centre in Rakovica. 5. SCHOOLS (MORE THAN 190 FACILITIES) Over 190 schools, faculties and facilities for students and children were damaged in NATO bombing (over 20 faculties, 6 collages, 40 secondary and 80 elementary schools, 6 student dormitories), including: Elementary schools ``16. oktobar'' and ``Vladimir Rolovic'' in Belgrade; Day-care centre in settlement Petlovo Brdo in Belgrade; Two secondary schools in the territory of Nis; Elementary schools ``Toza Markovic'', ``Djordje Natosevic'', ``Veljko Vlahovic'', ``Sangaj'' and ``Djuro Danicic'' and a day-care centre ``Duga'' in Novi Sad and creches in Visarionova Street and in the neighborhood of Sangaj; Traffic School Centre, Faculty of Philosophy; Four elementary schools and a Medical high school in the territory of Leskovac. Elementary school in Lucane, as well as a larger number of education facilities in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija; Faculties of Law and Economics and elementary school ``Radoje Domanovic'' in Nis; Elementary schools in Kraljevo and the villages of Cvetka, Aketa and Ladjevci; In Sombor: elementary schools ``Ivo Lola Ribar'', ``A Mrazovic'', ``N. Vukicevic'' and ``Nikola Tesla'' in Kljajicevo; School centre in Kula; Elementary school and Engineering secondary school centre in Rakovica. 6. PUBLIC AND HOUSING FACILITIES (TENS OF THOUSANDS) Severe damage to the facilities of the Republican and Federal Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade (3 April 1999). Damage to the building of the Institute for Security of the Ministry of the Interior in Banjica (3 April 1999); Severe damage to the TV RTS studio in Pristina; Heavy damage to Hydro-Meteorological Station (Bukulja, near Arandjelovac); Post Office in Pristina destroyed (7 April 1999); Refugee centre in Pristina destroyed (7 April 1999); ``Tornik'' ski resort on Mount Zlatibor (on 8 April 1999); ``Divcibare'' mountain resort (on 11 April 1999); ``Baciste'' Hotel on Mount Kopaonik (on 12 April 1999); City power plant in the town of Krusevac (12-13 April 1999); Meteorolocial Station on Mount Kopaonik damaged (on 13 April 1999). Four libraries in Rakovica sustained heavy damage: ``Radoje Dakic'', ``Isidora Sekulic'', ``Milos Crnjanski'' and ``Dusan Matic''; Refugee camp ``7 juli'' in Paracin has sustained heavy damage; Office building of the Provincial Executive Council of Vojvodina, Novi Sad; Several thousand housing facilities damaged or destroyed, privately or State owned, across Yugoslavia--most striking examples being housing blocks in downtown Aleksinac and those near Post Office in Pristina. 7. INFRASTRUCTURE Electrical Power Supply in Batajnica (26 March 1999); Damage to water supply system in Zemun (5 April 1999); Damage to a power station in Bogutovac (10 April 1999); Telephone lines cut off in Bogutovac (10 April 1999); Damage to a power station in Pristina (12 April 1999); Damage to Bistrica hydroelectric power station in Polinje (13 April 1999);

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 1999, I joined with Representative Cynthia A McKinney and Representative Michael E. Capuano to host the second 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 Michael Klare, a professor of world security studies at Hampshire College. A noted expert on foreign policy, Professor Klare discusses the content of the Rambouillet plan, and speculated that the decision to bomb Serbia was closely related to the inauguration of a ``new strategic blueprint'' by NATO. He also presents a 5-point plan for peace in the Balkans. Following his presentation is his opinion piece from Newsday, April 4, 1999, entitled ``Kosovo Failures Show Path to Real Peace.'' I commend these well-reasoned documents to my colleagues. Presentation by Professor Michael Klare to Congressional Teach-In on Kosovo First, I want to thank Representatives Kucinich, McKinney, and Capuano for affording me this opportunity to address the issues raised by the current conflict in the Balkans. I believe that public discussion of these issues is essential if Congress and the American people are to make informed decisions about vital national security matters. As for my own views, I want to make it clear from the start that I am very troubled by the strategy adopted by the United States and NATO to deal with the crisis in Kosovo. Now, I agree that we all share an obligation to resist genocide and ethnic cleansing whenever such hideous behavior occurs. And I think that we all agree that Serbian military and police authorities have engaged in such behavior in Kosovo. The killings and other atrocities that have occurred there represent an assault on the human community as a whole, and must be vigorously opposed. But this does not mean that we cannot be critical of the means adopted by the United States and NATO to counter this behavior, if we find them lacking. Indeed, our very concern for the lives of the Albanian Kosovars requires that we agonize over every strategic decision and reject any move that could conceivably jeopardize the safety of the people most at risk. Unfortunately, I do not believe that U.S. and NATO leaders adequately subjected their proposed strategies to this demanding standard. In saying this, I do not mean to question the sincerity of their concern for the people of Kosovo. But I do believe that they rushed to adopt a strategy that was not optimally designed to protect the lives of those at risk. The haste of which I speak was most evident at the so- called peace negotiations at Rambouillet in France. I say ``so-called,'' because it is now apparent that the United States and NATO did not really engage in the give and take of true negotiations, but rather presented the Serbian leadership with an ultimatum that they were almost certain to reject. This ultimatum called for the virtual separation of Kosovo from Serbia (if not right away, then in three years' time), the occupation of Kosovo by an armed NATO force, and the use of Serbian territory as a staging area for NATO forces in Kosovo--a drastic infringement on Serbian sovereignty that no Serbian leader could agree to, and still expect to remain in office. Moreover, NATO representatives in Rambouillet evidently did not consider any other scenarios for settlement of the crisis, for example a compromise solution that might have averted the tragedy of the past few weeks. Such a compromise would have entailed a high degree of autonomy for Kosovo within Serbia (as was the case during the Tito period), with U.N. rather than NATO forces providing the necessary security for returning Albanian Kosovars. Perhaps such a compromise was not really possible at Rambouillet, but we will never know, because NATO representatives gave Milosevic a take-it-or-leave-it package, and he predictably said no. As soon as the OSCE observers were pulled out of Kosovo, the Serbians began their attacks on the Albanian Kosovars. And the NATO air war, when it began a few days later, has proved to have little practical effect on the situation on the ground. Now, some analysts may argue that haste was necessary at that point, to forestall the actions long planned by the Milosevic regime. But this does not make sense. If Milosevic had initiated full-scale ethnic cleansing while negotiations were under way in Rambouillet and the OSCE observers were still in Kosovo, he would have been exposed to the world as a vicious tyrant and could not have prevented a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against him under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. It is very unlikely that he would have chosen this outcome, as it probably would have forced Russia to side with NATO against him. As it happened, NATO began the air war without a supporting U.N. resolution, and Milosevic was able to conceal the atrocities in Kosovo from international observation. Why, then, did NATO rush to begin military operations against Serbia? I believe that the decision to terminate the negotiations at Rambouillet and commence the air war was driven in part by extraneous factors that were not directly connected to developments in Kosovo proper. In particular, I believe that President Clinton was influenced in part by the timing of NATO's 50th Anniversary Summit meeting in Washington. As we know, the crisis in Kosovo was reaching the boiling point only two months before the NATO Summit, which of course was scheduled for April 23-25. The White House had been planning since 1998 to use this occasion to unveil a new strategic blueprint for NATO--one that called for Alliance to transform itself from a collective defense organization into a regional police force with jurisdiction extending far beyond the organization's traditional defense lines. Under this new strategy, NATO would be primed to engage in ``crisis response'' operations whenever stability was threatened on the periphery of NATO territory. (Such operations are also referred to in NATO documents as ``non-Article 5 operations,'' meaning military actions not prompted by an attack on one of NATO's members, such as those envisioned in the collective defense provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.) I believe that Mr. Clinton must have concluded that a failure to take vigorous action against Milosevic in March would have cast doubt on the credibility of the new NATO strategy (on which the air campaign against Serbia is based), while a quick success would no doubt have helped build support for its ratification. In arriving at this conclusion, Mr. Clinton was also influenced (according to a report in The New York Times of April 18, 1999) by intelligence reports suggesting that Milosevic would give in to NATO demands after a relatively short period of bombing. And so the United States and NATO rushed into an air campaign against Serbia before it had exhausted all of the potential for a negotiated settlement with Belgrade. And I would argue that this very haste has damaged the effectiveness of NATO action. For one thing, it did not allow NATO officials sufficient time to prepare for the refugee crisis provoked by Serbian action in Kosovo, resulting in the massive chaos witnessed at border regions in Albania and Macedonia. In addition, precipitous NATO action has allowed Milosevic to conceal the atrocities in Kosovo from his own people, and to blame the suffering there on NATO bombs rather than Serbian violence. As well, such haste gives the appearance that NATO is acting without proper U.N. Security Council authorization, and thus is in violation of international law. Finally, it has alienated Russia, which sees the air war as a one-sided attack on a friendly Slavic state. NATO itself has also suffered from this haste, in that the parliaments and publics of the NATO member states were not given an adequate opportunity to debate the merits of the air war and the new strategic blueprint upon which it is based. Given the fact that NATO is an alliance of democracies, in which key decisions are supposedly arrived at only after full consultation with the people and their elected representatives, this lack of consultation runs the risk of discrediting NATO over the long run. Given the magnitude and significance of the strategic transportation now under way, entailing the possible initiation of NATO military operations in areas outside of NATO's traditional defense lines, it is essential that the U.S. Congress and the parliaments of the NATO member states now open up debate on the new strategy, as articulated in paragraphs 31, 41, 48, and 49 of the Alliance's ``New Strategic Concept,'' adopted on April 24, 1999. This having been said, it is necessary to return to the problem at hand: the evident failure of the existing NATO strategy to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and to force Milosevic into submission to NATO's demands. As indicated, I believe that this strategy was adopted in haste, and that the consequences of haste was an imperfect strategy. It is now time to reconsider NATO's strategy, and devise a more realistic and effective alternative. Our goal must be to convince Serbian authorities to accept a less harsh version of the Rambouillet proposal--one that gives Albanian Kosovars local self-government and effective protection against Serbian aggression (guaranteed by an armed international presence), but without separating Kosovo from Serbia altogether. To get to this point, I propose a five-point strategy composed of the following: (1) An unconditional halt in the bombing of Serbia proper. This would deprive Milosevic use of the air war as a tool for mobilizing Serbian nationalism on his behalf. (2) The establishment of a no-fly, no-tank, no-troop-movement zone covering all Serbian forces in Kosovo, and enforced by NATO aircraft. Serbian forces would be told that they will not be attacked if they remain in their barracks, but will come under attack if they engage in military action against Kosovar civilians. Such attacks, when initiated, would be directed solely against those forces directly involved in armed violence against civilians. (3) The imposition and enforcement by NATO of a total economic blockade against Serbia, excluding only food and medical supplies. (4) The restarting of NATO-Serbia negotiations over the future of Kosovo, with assistance provided by Russia and other third parties. No preconditions should be set regarding the identity of any armed international force deployed in Kosovo to protect the Kosovars, but it should be made clear that Serbia will have to accept some armed international presence. (5) A promise that economic sanctions will be lifted as soon as Serbia agrees to a just and enforceable settlement in Kosovo, allowing the Albanian Kosovars to return under armed international protection. Also, a promise that Serbia would be able to benefit from future regional reconstruction and redevelopment programs supported by the EU and other such bodies. Such a strategy, I believe, would deprive Milosevic of any further propaganda victories while affording full protection to the remaining Albanian civilians in Kosovo. It is also likely to receive strong international support and increase the pressures (and incentives) for Serbia to agree to a just and peaceful resolution of the crisis in Kosovo.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have heard this debate. I have sat here for a few hours, and I can say that I understand the passion that has been expressed because I have a passion about this as well. The Constitution of the United States says that only Congress has the war power. I think all of us have read the Founders. We have read Washington, who talks about that; we have read Madison, who talks about the power to declare war being vested in the legislature; we are familiar with Thomas Jefferson, who has spoke often about that in messages to Congress and in various letters. This Congress has actually voted against the declaration of war. That has been stated today. Yet today Congress will pay for the continuation of an undeclared war. Congress voted against bombing, yet this vote will pay for future bombs. Congress has voted against sending ground troops. We have had the assurance of the White House that ground troops would not be sent without the President asking for it. Yet this vote would, in effect, pay for ground troops. Now, I believe that we can best support our young men and women in uniform by not sending them off to advance a speculative ground war which cannot be imposed without massive loss of life. Perhaps this vote would support troops we have not sent, perhaps this vote would support bombs we have not dropped, perhaps this vote will support a war we have not declared, but I cannot support any of this because this Balkan war has become a rough beast of a catastrophe slouching towards Washington to be born. We are being drawn along in the name of NATO, which is not accountable to this Congress and which has its own momentum. Mr. Chairman, I offer for the Record this quote: By the ``self-momentum'' of a power or a system I mean the blind, unconscious, irresponsible, uncontrollable, and unchecked momentum that is no longer the work of people, but which drags people along with it and therefore manipulates them. I want to thank Vaclav Havel for that quote in his book ``Disturbing the Peace''. We cannot settle the conflict by military means, so why provide funds for further war? It is time to turn to diplomatic means of ending the war. We need to remember the message which comes from the meeting in Vienna with Members of Congress and leaders of the Russian Duma, that peace is at hand if we are willing to pursue it with the same vigor which we would pursue war. We have a plan to extricate ourselves, the Kosovar Albanians, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, all of Europe and the world. That plan involves the stopping of bombing, the withdrawal of the Serbian armed forces from Kosovo, the return of refugees to their homes under the protection of international peacekeeping troops, and the rebuilding of the homes of the people. All this can be accomplished and all of it must be accomplished without further escalation. Let us keep thinking peace and talking peace and working for peace instead of spending our resources for the escalation of an undeclared war.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on April 21, 1999, I convened the first 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 and mediation, and through honest 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. First is a presentation by Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret) who now serves as the Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information (CDI). Adm. Carroll analyzes the stated objectives of the bombing of Serbia and whether the exercise of military power is capable of realizing those objectives. He also discusses the fundamental character of the Rombouillet plan that was presented to Mr. Milosevic, and the importance of Russian intervention in achieving a durable resolution to the crisis. I commend this excellent presentation to my colleagues. Presentation by Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret) To Congressional Teach-In on Kosovo--April 21, 1999 The conventional wisdom is that war is much too important to be left to generals and admirals. As a result, in a democratic society, the question of going to war and the objectives to be sought in a war are political responsibilities. The objectives are defined in political terms. It is very important at this point that the objectives be attainable by military force. The two must match. And the objective must merit the use of this blunt, destructive, indiscriminate process we call war. The outcome, the achievements, must outweight the damage and destruction and loss occasioned by the war. Looking at Kosovo we find that the objectives have been a little hard to nail down. But two of them stand out. Deter and degrade the ability of Serian forces to effect ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. And, to compel Serbian compliance with the Rambouillet plan. The first objective, the protection of the Kosovars, was never obtainable by the means employed. The air war cannot protect these abused people. It is impossible to control military and political conditions on the ground with air power alone. The power, the authority, on the ground will control the situation. There is so much evidence of this that it is simply undeniable. We have the ability to punish, we can destroy, we can kill. But to control the situation, and protect the Kosovars? No. The means of air warfare alone did not match the objective. What does the destruction of the Socialist Party headquarters in Belgrade do to mitigate the conditions of Kosovars in Kosovo? The second objective, namely compelling compliance with the Rambouillet plans, was also unattainable by air power. Rambouillet was a demand for total capitulation by the Milosevic government. The capitulation did not just apply in Kosovo. I don't think this is entirely understood. It was far broader than that. Appendix B of the Rambouillet plan spelled out the problem this way. ``NATO personel shall enjoy together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft and equipment free and unrestricted passage, and unimpeded access, throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including associated air space and territorial waters.'' So NATO is to have access to and control of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment of fees. This goes on and on. NATO will exercise police power. It will have full use of the electronic spectrum in the region. It will have immunity from all FRY jurisdiction related to criminal offenses. The plan required total surrender of sovereignty by the

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an active, strong, and vigorous group of senior citizens, the Flyers, in Lakewood, Ohio. This group of 15 senior citizens plays in local and national softball, basketball and volleyball leagues and tournaments. The group is a frequent participant in games at Elmwood Park in Rocky River and also plays in the Lakewood League. On a national scale, the Flyers have played in tournaments sponsored by Amateur Softball Association and other Senior organizations in St. Louis, Dallas and Mississippi. The group often holds fundraising events to raise the money to travel to different games across the country. The members of the group have paid their dues and worked hard lives, and they now are enjoying their retirement and doing exactly what they love to do. One of the group's members. Mr. Vern Carr, would even like to see the Flyers compete against teams in Europe someday. My fellow colleagues, please join me in saluting the Flyers and wishing them continued success, and most importantly a lot of fun, in their upcoming tournaments.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewomen for giving me the opportunity to go forward. Mr. Speaker, I, too, had the opportunity to join my colleagues in the trip to Vienna to meet with leaders of the Russian Duma. Mr. Speaker, in this audience tonight we have some young people who are visiting our Nation's Capitol, and as I was looking up there getting ready to speak, I was reminded of the time when I was in school at that age, and we had in this country a different type of relationship with Russia. It was the height of the Cold War, and at school they used to do drills. Some people will remember the drills. They were called duck and cover drills. We would have to, anticipating there would be a nuclear attack, we would actually have to get down under our desks, cover our heads, and close our eyes so we would not see the flash that was supposed to be a nuclear attack. Mr. Speaker, that was an era of terror. It was an era when the United States and Russia were at odds over the great global consequences of whether capitalism or communism would rule the earth. Have we come a long way from those days? Yes. We worked throughout the seventies to build down nuclear arms, we worked throughout the eighties to reestablish a relationship with Russia, and in the nineties we have in the United States been responsible for helping Russia rebuild itself economically, and assisted in so many ways as partners in peace. But yet, Mr. Speaker, that very peace and that partnership has been threatened by the Balkan conflict, because Russia has seen this conflict in other terms, and only a week ago the leader of the Yablako faction in Russia, Vladimir Luhkin, was quoted in worldwide news reports as saying a blockade of the port in Montenegro would be a direct path to nuclear escalation, setting aside years and years of progress that we made and launching us right back into the Cold War. How important it was to have Members of this Congress go to Vienna, Austria, to sit down with that very same leader and other leaders of the Duma, the leader of Mr. Chernomyrdin's party, one of the leaders of the Communist party, to sit down with those individuals face-to-face, sharing our common human interest in protecting the life of this planet and sharing our interest in relieving the suffering of the Kosovar Albanians and of the people who are being bombed throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So we came together as brothers and sisters in search of peace. We came together hoping to create a framework for peace which we could bring back to our Nation and give our nations an opportunity to reconstruct, in this fragile and even grim climate, an opportunity to set the world on the path of light instead of the path of might, on the path to negotiation instead of the path of annihilation; to create for the world a new opportunity towards peace. We came in peace, and we departed as brothers and sisters in search of peace, with a framework which I am pleased to have a copy of here. Mr. Speaker, I include this framework for the Record.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon the other body to pass H.R. 975, the steel import limitation bill. The House passed this bill by an overwhelming margin because the policy of this Administration has failed to protect the American steel industry and its workers from unfair competition. But a bill does not become a law without votes from both Houses of Congress. While America waits for the other side to vote on H.R. 975, steel imports have begun to climb again. This should be an important reminder that nothing the Administration is pursuing adequately limits unfairly low priced steel imports. Though the Administration is ineffective in preserving the American steel industry, the Administration is actively defending the American banana industry in a trade dispute with Europe. But does the banana industry employ 160,000 American workers? No. Does nearly every state in the Northeast and Southeast and Southwest have a banana industry? No. Are foreign bananas crowding out the American banana business in the U.S.? No. Those facts have not stopped the Administration from pulling out every stop to protect a banana industry that does not exist in America. Bananas did not build America. Steel did. The only practical solution to the steel import crisis is to make H.R. 975 into law.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the 75th Anniversary of the Fairview Community Church for their outstanding service to the Cleveland area for the past 75 years. Starting as just a Sunday School, with an enrollment of 129 people, the church grew to accommodate the growing community. On January 27, 1924, the Fairview Christian Union Church was founded with 52 members from 28 families. As the community continued to grow many in the community were unchurched. In addition to expanding to bring more people in to the church the congregation supported Christian missions. Mission giving continues to be an important part of the church's tradition today, over seventy years later. Membership doubled and in April of 1936, even through hard financial times, the need for a building became apparent. With the support of the Cleveland Baptist Association a new Baptist chapter was formed. On May 2, 1943, even through the financial challenges, the new church building was dedicated. In its effort to better serve the citizens of Cleveland on October 13, 1968, The Fairview Church merged with the West Shore Baptist Church and became known as the Fairview Community Church. Over the years the church has become an active member in many programs such as FISH, Food For Our Brothers, and the building of Willowood Manor. To help the needy in the area the church is also involved at the Jones Home, St. Paul's Community Church, The City Mission and with the families at Garnett School. My fellow colleagues join me in honoring The Fairview Community Church for its outstanding commitment to the whole community, and especially the needy in the Cleveland area.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the labor career of Ms. Dorothy ``Dottie'' Ellisworth-Gannon. Since 1977 Ms. Ellsworth- Gannon, Assistant Director of the Legislative Department, has served the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers with distinction (IAM). Dottie has announced her retirement efffective June 1, 1999. This announcement culminates a career dedicated to advancing the interests of working men and women. She is currently a senior member of the AFL- CIO Administrative Committee, where she worked with affiliated union lobbyists to advance and protect common interests in the legislative arena. Dottie, considered one of Washington's premier lobbyists, has demonstrated great effectiveness and sensitivity in dealing with the needs and issues that particularly affect IAM members. She has also commanded the respect of Members of Congress from both parties who had the opportunity to work with her. On April 28, 1999, a retirement dinner will be held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for her dedication and outstanding performance for the past twenty-two years. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in honoring Ms. Ellsworth-Gannon for her distinguished labor career and offer her my best wishes for the future.