Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I call up the question of the privileged resolution noticed earlier today.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, if this motion to refer fails, does my privileged resolution remain on the floor for an hour of debate and a final vote?

Mr. KUCINICH. Would it be subject to a vote, then, on the floor?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote on the motion to refer to committee.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)1 of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privilege of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit: (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction: (A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace. (B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. (C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention. (F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States. (A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts. (B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence. (3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies. (A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'. (B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'. (C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'. The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. Article II In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit: (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda: (A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference. (B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia. (C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa. (F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation. (G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney. (H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney. (I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney. (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including: (A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'. (B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'. (C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'. The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. Article III In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit: (1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following: (A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference. (B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney. (C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently-- deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia. (2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following: (A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007. (B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007. (C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007. (3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following: (A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue. (B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region. (C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran. (D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization. (E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups. (4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force. (A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States. (B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `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 other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal. (C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal. The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of my dear friend and mentor, Javier Lopez, M.D., upon his induction into St. Vincent Charity Hospital's Society of Saint Luke, an honor that reflects his immeasurable contribution to the health and well-being of countless individuals and families, from Cleveland, Ohio to Colombia, South America. His compassion and expertise continues to have the greatest impact on the poor of our community, whose lives are uplifted, inspired and made whole again by the healing compassion that defines the life and work of Dr. Javier Lopez. A highly skilled surgeon and general family practitioner in the Cleveland area for more than 40 years, Dr. Lopez's brilliant medical expertise is equaled by his patience, caring, compassion, and dedication to every patient, regardless of their ability to pay. More than forty years ago, Dr. Lopez journeyed from his beautiful homeland of Medellin, Colombia, to Cleveland, Ohio, to complete his residency at St. Alexis Hospital. The people of North and South Broadway, including myself and my family, were immediately taken by his kind, gentle and humble nature. Dr. Lopez's talent as a gifted doctor could have landed him a successful medical practice in any wealthy suburb, yet he chose to stay in the inner city, on Broadway Avenue, wholly dedicated to treating those who embraced him as a young man so many years ago. I have been fortunate to have known Dr. Lopez since I was a young man, and even more fortunate to have cultivated a close friendship with him. The positive impact that he has had on my life and the lives of so many others is truly indescribable in mere words. His excellence as a physician is surpassed by none, yet it is his deep sense of humanity that sets him apart from most others. Dr. Lopez continues to be a guiding beacon of hope along Broadway Avenue, uplifting the spirits, hearts and lives of countless individuals, including my own. Dr. Lopez lives his life dedicated to his faith, his family, and the communities of North and South Broadway and St. Vincent's. His vocation in medicine reflects his unwavering faith and is captured in the biblical reference: ``Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.'' Dr. Lopez offers the same compassion, concern and medical expertise to the forgotten homeless man as he does to the successful attorney. Despite his great achievements in the field of medicine, Dr. Lopez's sense of humanity has always been blind to social or economic status. Although Dr. Lopez has wholly embraced his Cleveland community, he never forgets the struggles of the people of his Colombian birthplace. An international ambassador of healing, Dr. Lopez continues to lead regular medical missions to Colombia and Honduras, where he donates his time, expertise, medicine and medical supplies to war-torn and impoverished communities, forging healing, peace and hope for a better day. In Cleveland, Ohio, Dr. Lopez's lifelong commitment to healing is reflected every day within his modest medical office on Broadway Avenue. His office still remains across the street from where St. Alexis Hospital once stood, and in 2003, Dr. Lopez became an integral member of the medical staff of St. Vincent Charity Hospital. He immediately garnered the respect, admiration and adoration of St. Vincent Hospital staff members and patients--everyone from the front desk receptionists to the nurses and surgical specialists. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. Javier Lopez, upon his induction into the Society of Saint Luke. Dr. Lopez' medical insight, intellect, grace, wisdom, leadership and friendship--and above all else, his compassion, kindness and heart, continues to raise the lives of so many of us onto a platform of hope, survival, peace and healing. Dr. Lopez strengthens our entire community by caring for us, and by caring, especially--``for the least of us.'' I am grateful and honored to call Dr. Lopez my friend, and I thank him for enriching my life by his close and consistent presence in it.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of George Solomonoff. For 50 years, he was an admirable spokesman for peace and justice. As a young man growing up in Cleveland, George was fascinated by the world around him and learned all he could, with a particular interest in Eastern philosophies. This interest would be a great influence in how he led his life, including his views on social justice. Shortly after graduating high school, he joined the Army as a radio operator in Europe, participating in various U.S. campaigns during World War II. These experiences would greatly contribute to his decision to work toward peace. Most recently, George was an active member in many peace and justice groups, including the InterReligious Task Force, Cleveland Peace Action, Veterans for Peace, and Women Speak Out for Peace and Justice. As a member of the InterReligious Task Force, he organized the annual Cleveland protest against the School of the Americas. He was a constant presence on issues of peace and social justice in the greater Cleveland community, and was an ardent supporter of my legislation to create a Cabinet-level Department of Peace. He is survived by his sons, Dave and Alex; his daughter Nicole; and his brother Raymond. He will be greatly missed by all who had the pleasure and privilege of knowing him. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering the life of George Solomonoff. May he rest in peace, and may his desire for a better world and a better future for humanity live on in all of us.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Joseph A. Sopko, M.D., upon his induction into St. Vincent Charity Hospital's St. Luke Society, for his contributions to pulmonary health education, residency program leadership, and for his community involvement, including his leadership and activism regarding tobacco use prevention. Dr. Sopko has been a member of the medical staff at St. Vincent Charity Hospital for nearly 20 years. He earned his medical degree at Tufts University and completed his residency and fellowship training at the University of Iowa Hospitals. Dr. Sopko has held several significant roles at St. Vincent Charity Hospital, including: Medical Director of Pulmonary Services; Director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit; and educator within the Hospital's medical residency program. Moreover, Dr. Sopko played a critical role in establishing one of the first hospital-wide blood conservation programs in the nation--the Regional Center for Blood Conservation. For his service to students in the residency program, he was awarded the 2007 Teacher of the Year Award, given by the St. Vincent Charity Hospital Internal Medicine Program. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. Joseph A. Sopko, upon his induction into the Saint Luke Society. Dr. Sopko's medical expertise, caring demeanor and strong sense of volunteerism brings strength to St. Vincent's Hospital and superior health care for countless individuals throughout our community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Charity A. Kankam, M.D., upon her induction into St. Vincent Charity Hospital's St. Luke Society, an honor that reflects not only her superior clinical skills, but most significantly, highlights her daily outreach, care and compassion for the most vulnerable citizens of our community. Dr. Kankam has been an integral member of the St. Vincent staff for the past seventeen years. She was awarded a medical degree from the University of Toronto, where she completed her residency and fellowship training as well. Dr. Kankam specializes in nephrology and has served as the Director of Nephrology since 1994. She also dedicates her time as a teacher to medical residents and staff. Dr. Kankam's limitless compassion and her dedication to improving the well-being of others reaches from the St. Vincent community to her birthplace, Ghana. When Dr. Kankam learned that Ghana lacked a desperately needed dialysis center, she became the leading organizer in raising funds to build one. Last year, due to Dr. Kankam's determination and focus, a dialysis center was established in Ghana--one of only two in the country. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. Charity A. Kankam, upon her induction into the Saint Luke Society. Dr. Kankam's expertise in the area of nephrology is outshone only by her compassion and kindness, raising the spirits and lives of every patient into the realm of healing, strength and hope.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Helmut Schreiber, M.D., F.A.C.S., upon his induction into St. Vincent Charity Hospital's St. Luke Society, for his pioneering achievements in the area of bariatric medicine, his innovative techniques in the surgical treatment of morbid obesity, and for his natural talents as teacher and mentor. Dr. Schreiber has been a member of the medical staff at St. Vincent Charity Hospital for the past nineteen years. He earned his medical degree from Ohio State University, and completed his residency and internship at University Hospitals of Cleveland. In 1999, after working for several years as Director of Surgery at Saint Luke's Hospital, Dr. Schreiber accepted the position of Director of Surgery at Saint Vincent Charity Hospital. Motivated by his deep compassion for patients struggling with obesity, Dr. Schreiber founded the Cleveland Center for Bariatric Surgery. Dr. Schreiber has also served as teacher for residency students and, most significantly, he has provided surgical care to countless individuals in need, regardless of their ability to pay. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. Helmut Schreiber, upon his induction into the Saint Luke Society. Dr. Schreiber's medical excellence, pioneering achievements, and caring and compassionate nature, serves to bring light and hope into the lives of patients, colleagues, family and friends, uplifting our entire community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, today, I voted for H.R. 3963, which authorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. The provisions in the bill would make substantial progress in providing health care for children. It would provide coverage for 3.8 million more children than are covered now and preserve coverage for 6.6 million more. It would help ensure Ohio can expand its program to include an additional 20,000 children. It targets the lowest-income uninsured children for outreach and enrollment, ensures dental coverage and mental health parity. I voted against a previous version of this bill because it excluded about 600,000 legal immigrants. I voted to raise the issue and show Congress they were wrong to do so. I voted for the veto override to show the President that his objections to government health insurance for low income children were outrageous. Today I voted to make the same statement. I urge him to do the right thing and sign this bill. I believe all children deserve health care. Unfortunately, today's bill does not do that. It does not even come close. It continues to shun immigrant children in the U.S. who are in full compliance with the law by denying States the option to cover them. It also drastically reduces support for coverage of parents, even though decades of evidence have shown that kids are far more likely to get the care they need if their parents are covered. It bars coverage of illegal immigrants, even if a State determines that it is cheaper and more humane for them to provide routine care than emergency care, which is frequently the case. In short, it sacrifices each of these groups of people as a bargaining chip. This Congress is spending time and energy arguing over narrowly defined bills that treat a few of the symptoms but fail to address the problems that plague our health care system. Instead, this Congress should deliver the reform America is calling for. We should be moving ahead with H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, which would lower health care costs, provide coverage for everyone for all medically necessary services, and create a single best standard quality of care. America deserves--and wants--nothing less.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Boy Scouts of America Troop 515 in Cleveland, Ohio, on the occasion of their 50th anniversary. In the time Troop 515 has been in existence, it has served to teach young men the value of hard work, citizenship and leadership. Troop 515 has had over 1,000 scouts in its ranks, with 35 of those scouts rising to the rank of Eagle Scout. Many of these scouts have gone on to serve their communities, influencing social policy and businesses alike. This troop has served the greater Cleveland community as an organization where young men can learn essential skills to serve them in their adult lives. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the Boy Scouts of America Troop 515. For 50 years, Troop 515 has been committed to serving Cleveland and our citizens. I thank them for their service and I wish them another 50 years of vibrant leadership and civic engagement.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Lynda Sackett as she retires from her position as Director of Dance at the Beck Center for the Arts in Lakewood, Ohio. For the last 40 years, she has touched the lives of thousands of young dance artists as she has worked to establish the Beck Center as a great arts resource for Northeast Ohio. Lynda began her career in the 1960s in Beck Center's Theatre Education Program. During the 1970s, she helped to create the Dance Education Program and has led that program ever since. Her passion for dance and for the arts led her to get even more involved with the Beck Center, serving as both director of Outreach Education and program director for Visual Arts Education while continuing to lead the dance program. In her honor, the Beck Center has recently announced the establishment of the Lynda Sackett Endowment Fund for Dance Education. This money will serve to honor Lynda's spirit and dedication to dance by continuing her efforts to reach out to the community and encourage more young people to learn about the art of dance. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Lynda Sackett for her service to her community and to arts education.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Julius Ciaccia, Jr., who recently retired after dedicating over 30 years of service to the city of Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Ciaccia began his career in city government in 1976, and served the city with distinction until his retirement. I am particularly proud to be honoring Mr. Ciaccia today due to the fact that I have known him personally for quite some time. As mayor of Cleveland, in the year 1979, I appointed Mr. Ciaccia as the Commissioner of the Cleveland Division of Water. He was able to invest over $1 billion in improvements that led to improved drinking water delivery and helped make Cleveland a healthier and more vibrant city during his time in this position. In addition to his leadership in city government, Mr. Ciaccia has worked on a federal level as well, serving on the board of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) from 1988 to present day; he was president of AMWA between 1996 to 1998. In honor of his exceptional contributions to the improvement of drinking water supply management, he was awarded the prominent President's Award in 1999. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in thanking Julius Ciaccia for all of the hard work, dedication, and pride that he has given the city of Cleveland during his admirable career. He has served the citizens with a zeal for his work that is rarely seen, and for that, he is applauded. I hope you will join me in wishing Mr. Ciaccia the best of luck in his future venture towards becoming the executive director of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of one of our former colleagues, Congressman Charlie Vanik. For 26 years, he was an admirable spokesman not only for the people of his district, but for the nation. During his time in office, Congressman Vanik was one of Congress's most vocal advocates for human rights. In 1974, he co-authored an amendment to a trade law that required the United States to assess the human rights records of foreign countries before granting them special privileges. This law put pressure on the Soviet Union to allow freer emigration, and as a result, more than 2 million people were able to leave the Soviet Union in search of a better life. While he was a member of Congress, he never forgot where he came from or the people he represented. During his time in office he helped to pass several federal programs, including the federal school lunch program, that would help the people in his district and throughout the country improve their livelihoods. In addition, he is remembered by his former colleagues as a savvy, gifted speaker who had the ability to make every person in a room smile. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering the life of Congressman Charlie Vanik. May he rest in peace, and may his service to his country and to this body always be remembered honorably. He is survived by his wife, Betty; his son, Jon; his daughter, Phyllis; and two grandchildren.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this act. Having great familiarity with the peoples of the Hawaiian Islands and with Native Hawaiians, I understand their concerns that we should have codified a stronger statement of what their rights are as indigenous peoples. This is really about making sure that language and culture and history are preserved. It also is consistent with the law which created the admission of Hawaii to this Union. I think the date, Mr. Abercrombie could correct me if I am wrong, it was August 21, 1959. That was an important date for this Nation, because it is a day that we embraced not only Hawaii but Alaska. It was a day that we embraced the potential of this country to extend its reach and embrace peoples of many different cultures. This act is an act that needs to be passed so that we can keep unfolding the real purpose and quality of America.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of my speech delivered at the summit on the future of Medicare on October 19, 2007. Good afternoon. I want to thank each of you for coming to discuss one of the issues that reflects the values of this country--health insurance for retirees and the disabled. I want to especially thank the Senior Voice Coalition, a group of organizations and passionate individuals who are truly the grassroots leaders in organizing around issues affecting seniors in our community. Before I begin, please know that while there are many issues of importance, we will only be talking about Medicare at this summit today. If there are other issues on your mind, I would be happy to discuss them with you if there is time after. Many of you recall that I held 13 town hall meetings in 2005 during the Social Security privatization debate. At these town halls, I presented detailed information on the reasons why I rejected the notion advocated by the President and some in Congress that there was a ``crisis'' in the solvency of the combined Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Fund. We were told that to correct this manufactured crisis, the best solution was to privatize Social Security. Even if there was a ``crisis,'' which did not actually exist, according to both the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office, the worst solution would be to drain the trust fund more quickly and therefore undermine the entire program. Folks, we are on the verge of a very similar debate today with Medicare, our nation's other social insurance program. There is a symbiotic relationship between Social Security and Medicare. But unlike with Social Security, much of Medicare has already been privatized. Today I want to explore that with you by looking at two different Medicare programs that have been the cornerstones of efforts to privatize Medicare to see how they have performed. First, we'll look at the Medicare prescription drug plan, also known as ``Part D,'' which leaves enrollees no choice but to go through the extraneous insurance companies. Second, Medicare Advantage shoehorns in the option to have private insurance industry middlemen to dole out health care according to what is profitable. Part D In 2003 came the single biggest Medicare privatization effort to date, the Medicare Modernization Act. It passed the House of Representatives only because the then-Majority party held open a 15 minute vote for over three hours in the middle of the night so they could strong-arm their way to a passing vote. Not only did it create an entirely private, chaotic prescription drug program, but it also dramatically increased subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans. Several of us in Congress warned of what we were buying into with Part D. We warned against the forced inclusion of the unnecessary middleman--the insurance industry--and its likely effects on cost and access to meds. We warned about CMS' inability to negotiate drug prices like the VA does. We warned of a benefit that was far too complex. We warned of the now famous doughnut hole that left people without coverage for a period of time even though they were still paying premiums. We supported a bill that created a new prescription drug benefit that did away with all those problems by keeping the insurance industry out of the benefit and letting Medicare administer it. As you know, we were not alone in our fight. At the time, the Center for Economic and Policy Research released a study showing that even if we took the modest step of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, we would save so much money that we would be able to cover every single beneficiary with no co-payments, no deductibles, and no premiums . . . and still have $40 billion dollars left. Oversight and Government Reform Committee report on Part D.--I am sad to say that we were right. Just this Monday, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a study, which was requested by a handful of my colleagues and me, on the performance of Part D so far. It found three things. First, it confirmed the most obvious concern; that administrative costs are far higher than they should be. This was expected because of the forced inclusion of the insurance industry in the benefit. The insurers reported administrative expenses, sales costs, and profits of almost $5 billion in 2007--including $1 billion in profits alone. The administrative costs of the privatized Part D program are almost six times higher than the administrative costs of the traditional Medicare program. The second finding was that the insurance industries were not doing a good job of negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies to lower prices. One of the main rallying cries of the Part D privatization effort was that the private insurers could be more effective negotiators than Medicare. Turns out to not be true. Now, instead of negotiating for lower prices, the insurers negotiate for rebates from the drug companies, which is what the Part D law calls for. The committee investigation found that drug price rebates negotiated by the insurers reduce Medicare drug spending by just 8.1 percent. In contrast, rebates in the Medicaid program reduce drug spending by 26 percent, over three times as much. Because of the difference in the size of the rebates, the transfer of low-income seniors from Medicaid drug coverage to Medicare drug coverage will result in a $2.8 billion windfall for drug manufacturers in 2007. Furthermore, the insurers receive no rebates or other manufacturer discounts for three-quarters of the drugs used by seniors. And the third finding was that when insurers do actually get a rebate from the drug companies, rather than passing the savings on to seniors in the form of lower prices, they keep the money for themselves! This year alone, the private insurers will receive $1 billion in rebates on purchases that seniors pay for out of their own pockets, thanks to the doughnut hole. But beneficiaries continue to pay premiums. Unpredictability in Part D.--Another problem with Part D as it has been implemented is that stability is lost. Much like with corporate pension scandals, instead of receiving a guaranteed benefit, those enrolled in Medicare Part D only receive a guaranteed bill to pay. Instead of being able to have peace of mind when it comes to whether or not drugs prescribed by a doctor will actually be covered, a state of financial nervousness and uncertainty is par for the course with Medicare Part D. A consumer's Union study found that most insurers raise the cost of their drugs during the year-- in one case by 28 percent. The same uncertainty is present in predicting which month beneficiaries will hit the doughnut hole and be forced to pay all your drug costs as if you had no benefit at all. Clearly, Part D is more of a benefit for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries than retirees and the disabled. The Part D provisions of the Medicare bill alone guaranteed $139 billion in guaranteed profits for the pharmaceutical industry, which amounts to 61 percent of the total spending in the bill for prescription drugs, according to Boston University School of Public Health. Even so, Part D is not where the real money is. The real money is in the Medicare Advantage, the HMOs, PPOs, PFFSs and other alphabet soup of private plans offered through Medicare as an alternative to traditional Medicare. I'd like to talk a bit about these plans now. Medicare Advantage Medicare Advantage plans have been in existence for several years now, but the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act has drastically accelerated privatization. Lets take a look at how the plans have done, starting with how they deal with customers. I'll start with their efforts to sign you up and then we'll see how they treat you after you're already on the plan and are requesting coverage. Marketing.--An October 7 article in the New York Times conducted their own review of 91 federal audits of privately run Medicare plans--both Medicare Advantage Plans as well as Part D plans. They found that ``tens of thousands of Medicare recipients have been victims of deceptive sales tactics.'' They also found that ``since March, Medicare has imposed fines of more than $770,000 on 11 companies for marketing violations and failure to provide timely notice to beneficiaries about changes in costs and benefits.'' I want to read you two other quotes from that article to round out the picture. ``In July, Medicare terminated its contract with a private plan in Florida after finding that it posed an `imminent and serious threat' to its 11,000 members.'' ``Medicare officials said that compliance problems occurred most often in two areas: marketing, and the handling of appeals and grievances related to the quality of care.'' That stands to reason since that is where the profit is made. Humana is a good case study. Humana, which is the second- largest provider of Medicare Advantage plans, was required to fulfill corrective action plans for 300 different violations. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS administers Medicare. Their audit results for Humana included findings that marketing agents were not trained or supervised, enrollees were not informed of changes to plan formularies (list of covered drugs), and enrollees were not provided with explanations for claims denials or appeal rights when their claims had been denied. This is the same company that gained 4 million new policy holders and reported to stockholders in April that it had amassed ``record- breaking revenues,'' according to an article in ``The Nation.'' Keep in mind that this company pays its agents a commission five times greater for enrolling individuals into their Medicare Advantage plan than the commission they receive for enrolling them into a stand-alone prescription drug plan. Similar arrangements are true for other leading insurers like United Health Care, Aetna, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield. But why would they do that? Big insurance companies are quite eager to sign up people for Part D plans. But Part D plans are nothing compared to the profit to be made in Medicare Advantage. So insurers offer low price Part D plans in order to get their foot in the door with those who were on traditional Medicare. Then they aggressively marketed their Medicare Advantage plans, too often using the unscrupulous tactics I just described. Such marketing tactics are especially effective when the plans are so complex, the customer is easily fooled. In Humana's case, the tactics worked. They were a relatively small company before the prescription drug plan and the Medicare Advantage push. But they were able to get 100,000 people to move to Medicare Advantage plans. An insurance consultant said ``an additional 100,000 people contributing to top line revenue is not insignificant--it's an extra billion dollars.'' Customer Service.--Now that's just the marketing. What do they do when they have you? The New York Times article found that both Medicare Advantage and Part D enrollees ``had claims improperly denied by private insurers.'' Some examples of other problems found include ``the improper termination of coverage for people with H.I.V. and AIDS, huge backlogs of claims and complaints, and a failure to answer telephone calls from consumers, doctors and drugstores.'' WellPoint, an Indianapolis-based company that covers 360,000 members under Medicare, had a backlog of 354,000 claims under its Medicare plans. Auditors logged an average wait time of 27 minutes to answer enrollee phone calls and a 16-minute wait time to respond to provider calls. Of the more egregious offenses, Sierra Health, based in Las Vegas, wrongfully terminated drug coverage for 2,300 HIV-positive Medicare Advantage enrollees, improperly claiming they had defaulted on plan premiums. Fewer options, not more.--Medicare Advantage advocates often speak of the greater choice in their plans as opposed to traditional Medicare. I don't think you can have more choice than to be able to choose from any doctor, which is the case with traditional Medicare, but we'll take a look anyway. As with Part D plans, there are countless stories of beneficiaries seeing changes to their plan midyear, including cost increases, dropping certain drugs from formularies, or doctors dropping out from frustration with the plans. In fact, Medicare Advantage plans talk a lot about their extensive network of doctors but customers frequently find that when try to go to one, the docs won't take Medicare Advantage customers. Many doctors don't like it because of the low pay and because of the insurance industry second- guessing their diagnoses and choices for providing care. Even though all these changes can be made at any time in the enrollment cycle, beneficiaries can only switch plans once per year. Some argue that Medicare Advantage offers a better quality of care than traditional Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees, stating ``though Medicare Advantage plans cost more than care under the fee-for-service program does, on average, they would be more cost-effective if they delivered a sufficiently higher quality of care . . . The limited [quality] measures available suggest that Medicare Advantage plans are not more cost-effective than the fee-for- service program.'' Those enrolled in Medicare agree, as traditional Medicare beneficiaries are less likely to have problems accessing specialists, according to MedPAC. Out of pocket costs.--Medicare Advantage insurance companies make money when they shift the costs onto you and me. One of the ways they do that is by providing incomplete insurance or underinsurance. They can offer meager coverage in specific unnoticeable areas that only matter if you get the illness that isn't covered well. Because Medicare Advantage plans are not required to be standardized--meaning different companies are not required to offer the same plan structure and compete only for price--these companies can skew their plans to maximize their profits and decrease benefits. One tragic result is that people in more need of services, especially those in need of physician-administered chemotherapy drugs and dialysis services, pay more under Medicare Advantage than they would under traditional Medicare for less service, Their out-of-pocket costs are unexpectedly and dangerously high. This is one of the biggest health care problems that we don't hear enough about. About half of all bankruptcies in this country are related to medical bills. Of those medical bankruptcies, 75 percent of the people had insurance before they got sick. But because their insurance still allowed them to go bankrupt, it was clearly lacking. Profitable, but lacking. For those of you that have seen Sicko, the Michael Moore movie about health care, you know that another way insurance companies make money is to deny benefits, which is done in spades under Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Rights Center who collects many Medicare Advantage complaints told the story of an 80 year old man enrolled in a private Medicare plan called HealthSpring. He had a heart attack and went to the hospital. All of his claims were denied because he didn't get prior authorization from the plan to enter the hospital. His hospital bills now top $87,000 dollars. Propping Medicare Advantage up.--You would think that since Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are getting such an inferior product, that it would cost less. It is not so. As with Part D, Medicare Advantage is far more costly than traditional Medicare. Both the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that for 2007, it costs taxpayers 12 percent more (on average) to cover beneficiaries enrolled in private Medicare Advantage Plans than under traditional Medicare. That is an extra $149 billion over 10 years. The Chief Medicare Actuary has said that the beneficiary enrolled in traditional Medicare pays an extra $24 per person this year because of overpayments to Medicare Advantage. This overspending also cuts years off the life of the Medicare trust fund and diverts money away from hospital and acute care services, While the Social Security trust fund can pay 100 percent of benefits until at least the year 2041 without any changes whatsoever, the Medicare Hospital Insurance (or HI) Trust Fund can pay 100 percent of claims only until the year 2019, based on current actuarial assumptions, in large part because of privatization. Not only is the program inefficient, but it is growing steadily. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 18 percent of current Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. This number is expected to increase to 26 percent by 2017. The biggest growth--about 650 percent since 2005--has been in enrollees in the private fee for service plans which have enjoyed exclusive access to major subsidies from Congress as well as exceptions to standards of quality care. Unfortunately, the fastest growing type of plan is also the least efficient of all Medicare Advantage plans. They cost, on average, 19 percent more than traditional fee for service Medicare. Where does all that money that should go to health care, actually go? MedPAC found that half of the overpayments go directly to profits, marketing, and administrative costs. That's worth repeating. Half of the overpayments go directly to profits, marketing, and administrative costs. These private fee for service plans aren't the only ones to get corporate welfare. The PPO ``stabilization'' fund is a slush fund designed to encourage growth of new regional PPOs of 10 billion dollars over 10 years. That's in addition to general subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans. But in 2006, 88 percent of beneficiaries had access to a regional PPO. So subsidies for growth are unnecessary. Even MedPac recommended eliminating the slush fund. I mentioned earlier that Medicare Advantage Plans are lucrative for insurance companies. UnitedHealthcare will make about 11 percent of its net income for 2007 from Medicare Advantage. That number is 66 percent for Humana. Between 2005 and 2006, when a lot of these subsidies took effect, United and Humana saw increases in revenue of over 50 percent. WellPoint saw an increase of 27 percent. When there is so much money at stake, it is very cost effective to have not only a big marketing push, but also a strong lobbying army to make sure your Congressional subsidies don't go away. That is what they do. general discussion There is a race in the health insurance world to determine who can provide the lowest quality benefits for the highest possible cost that consumers, companies, and the government will accept. Seniors and disabled individuals who have contributed to Medicare from a lifetime of work deserve to have simple, clearly defined benefits which do not change from month to month, year to year. We should not be paying companies exorbitant administrative costs and overpayments that maximize profit margins in order to put beneficiaries, benefits at risk. All of this is the case with the private Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D, and it should be stopped. The best, most efficient way to ensure all Medicare beneficiaries will always have real, reliable, and complete benefits is to end private involvement in Medicare. That's why I, along with John Conyers of Michigan, coauthored the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, back in 2003. HR 676 captures the enormous savings to be had if Americans had health care provided through Medicare and uses them to cover everyone for all medically necessary services with no copayments, no deductibles and no premiums. This bill would strengthen Medicare by removing the for-profit interests, decrease the financial burden to beneficiaries, and increase the quality of care--all without the confusing maze that privatized Medicare has become today. There is enough money that America spends in health insurance and health care today to cover everybody. Every year, $2.2 trillion is spent, and only about 69 cents out of every dollar actually goes to providing health care services. We are all paying for universal health coverage, we just aren't getting it. Congress will be required to hold hearings on and propose changes to Medicare due to the financial situation of the program which privatization has created. I intend to use this opportunity to emphasize the best, most comprehensive, and most cost efficient way to strengthen benefits for those enrolled in Medicare--H.R. 676. What's happening in Washington.--Many of you know an early version of a bill to provide health insurance to millions of children through a program called SCHIP, also called for cuts to one of Medicare Advantage slush funds I mentioned earlier. I supported that bill but the insurance industry mounted an expensive and aggressive lobbying campaign that ensured their slush fund stayed in place. Now there is talk of using that slush fund money to pay for maintaining Medicare payments to doctors as opposed to allowing scheduled cuts of about 10 percent to take place. H.R. 676 now has 85 cosponsors and is the only national health care reform bill that has an entire national movement behind it. There are two national non-profit organizations and several regional organizations devoted to its passage. And it has the official backing of 93 Central Labor Councils, including several Cleveland and Ohio unions as well as cities and states across the nation. There is the possibility of implementing an interim measure of providing a prescription drug benefit that gets rid of the insurance companies and lets the benefit be administrated by Medicare. Doing so would clearly lower costs, increase access and increase quality. But I would like to hear what you think of that idea. Would people be willing to give up their privatized plans for more plans that give greater security and coverage? And while I'm asking for your input, I'd like to ask you about another related issue that has recently come up. As I understand it, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) has announced that it will shift from offering two traditional Medicare plans to offering one traditional Medicare plan and one Medicare Advantage plan. I am concerned about this choice and would like to hear from you about it. I know you all have been waiting for the opportunity to ask questions and share your comments, so let's transition to that right now.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of my opening statement delivered before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 23, 2007 on Uranium Contamination. I want to thank and commend the Chairman for holding this hearing. Native Americans have borne a disproportionate burden of the toxic legacy from this country's pursuit of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. This is a topic that has been important to me for a long time. In this classic environmental justice story, we can see how long disadvantaged peoples have been burdened with inhumane levels of contamination. And we see how long it can take just to begin to undo the damage that such contamination brings. The stories we will hear today will also make clear that quests for power--be they political or electrical--have no respect for life and exact an unacceptable cost to human health and the environment. The EPA guesses there are about 520 abandoned uranium mines in the Navajo nation and 1,200 abandoned mines in the area. The Navajo nation is home to 5 old uranium mills. Each of the mill sites and the mine sites represent a potential groundwater contamination site in addition to being sources of air and soil contamination. There are many potential exposure routes. Children play in the water that accumulates in the radioactive tailing piles. Homes and hogans are built out of materials that are radioactive. Wind-blown dust from the tailings is inhaled. Groundwater is contaminated with uranium and its daughter products. Wildlife and plantlife concentrate the contamination and become food for other wildlife or for Navajo living off the land. Uranium can be toxic in two ways. First, its properties as a chemical confer an ability to irreversibly destroy parts of the kidney when acting in isolation. But, like lead and mercury, it is a metal which interacts with uranium in the human body. Native Americans are known to experience disproportionately high levels of lead poisoning. And when uranium and lead both make their way into a person, the toxic effect on the kidney could be additive or even synergistic. Uranium is also toxic because it naturally decays into other elements like radium, thorium and radon, each of which is also radioactive. Radon alone is the number two cause of lung cancer in the U.S. behind smoking. The industrial process of extracting and concentrating uranium uses a host of other highly toxic compounds like various acids and cyanide, which are common mine tailing contaminants. And of course there are the other elements that co-occur with uranium like arsenic and fluoride which are left behind when the uranium is refined. Each of these compounds bears its own list of health effects. And each combination of two or three or more of these compounds brings their own set of health effects. It could take generations just to completely understand the health effects of the contamination at all of these sites in question. Making things worse, it is a formidable challenge just to understand the magnitude of the contamination--so much so, it hasn't even been done yet. No comprehensive review of groundwater contamination at all of the mine sites has been done. No comprehensive review for the presence of elevated levels of radiation in Navajo houses has been done even though dozens are known to have been built with radioactive materials. No comprehensive review of the health effects of the contamination from the mines and mills has been done. There is no way we can begin to address the problem if we can't define it. One estimate I've heard is that the entire cleanup could cost around $500 million. That seems unrealistically low. Efforts just to clean up the groundwater at three of the old mill sites on the Navajo nation are predicted to take 20 years. Already, the contamination has spanned generations and will span many more if we continue the current pace of cleanup. Some effects can't be cleaned. Before the mines were opened, the Navajo way of life was heavily dependent on natural resources, which fostered a healthy respect for their environment. Not only did they rely on it for clean water and abundant food, but they incorporated it into their customs, their religion, and their way of life. Carol Markstrom and Perry Charley pointed out in their chapter of The Navajo People and Uranium Mining, that the contamination of livestock, of the medicinal herbs they used, and the water bodies their children played in, changed the view of the land. It was embraced and used as the conceptual center for their way of life. After the contamination, they feared it. It is hard to imagine how destabilizing it would be if we thought radioactive contamination permeated all that we rely on to be clean and safe. Now, almost 60 years after the first uranium contamination began, there are corporations who want to reopen some of these very same mines and extract more uranium for nuclear power plants. Never mind the contamination already created that we're still trying to define, let alone clean up. Never mind the permanent social damage inflicted by this contamination. Never mind that nuclear power is nowhere near economical. Never mind the lack of a viable and safe storage facility for the waste that will continue to be toxic for thousands of years. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about plans for cleaning up the contamination in shortest possible timeframe. And I stand ready to do whatever I can to not only help this process along, but to make sure we don't do anymore damage by failing to learn our lessons from the past.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Elizabeth Balraj as she retires after 35 years of dedicated public service to the people of Northeast Ohio, including 20 years as Cuyahoga County coroner. Dr. Balraj began her career in the 1960s, immigrating to the United States to become a physician and surgeon after completing her studies in her native India. She practiced medicine at Akron General Hospital and St. Luke's Hospital in Cleveland before coming to the Cuyahoga County Coroner's Office as deputy coroner and pathologist. In 1987, she was appointed Coroner of Cuyahoga County, following the retirement of Coroner Dr. Samuel Gerber, a position she held until her retirement in July of this year. During her time as Coroner of Cuyahoga County, Dr. Balraj established herself as a very capable and energetic leader. She worked very hard with local law enforcement officials to help solve murder cases and was there to console the many people who lost loved ones. Additionally, she advanced the cause of women in the medical field by blazing the trail for women to become more involved in science and medicine, as well as the law enforcement field. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Dr. Elizabeth Balraj or her service to Cuyahoga County, her passion for her work, and her kindness to the many families and individuals of Cuyahoga County over the last 35 years.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of Lakewood Hospital, which has proven to be a leader in northeastern Ohio's health care community. Founded in 1907, Lakewood Hospital provides high quality and innovative treatment to more than 130,000 patients annually from throughout Cuyahoga County. The hospital's affiliation with the Cleveland Clinic and other regional hospitals offers individuals access to state-of-the-art technology and individualized care. Lakewood Hospital is not only a vital community resource for treating illnesses and injuries, but it also works to keep individuals healthy through educational wellness programs, public health screenings and other community outreach programs. Lakewood hospital has introduced ``A Century of Touching Lives'' as the theme of its year-long centennial anniversary celebration. This theme reflects the tradition of caring and personal patient experiences that have become Lakewood Hospital's legacy. To recognize the important relationship between the hospital and local schools, Lakewood Hospital plans to sponsor a year-long series of health education programs. It will also celebrate ``Nurse's Week'' and ``Hospital Week'' to recognize the contributions of nurses and other employees throughout the hospital's history. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Lakewood Hospital for its 100-year commitment to high quality, community-based health care.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I opposed H.R. 3580, a bill to reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), because it failed to address the fundamental drivers of the high cost of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry's deplorable safety record, and their lack of accountability. The bill ignores the single biggest conflict of interest at the FDA. The pharmaceutical industry pays hundreds of millions of dollars every year to the Food and Drug Administration, which is tasked with regulating them. The result is that the FDA has a relationship with industry that treats them more like a customer than an entity in need of oversight and evaluation. A 2002 Government Accountability Office report found that ``Our analysis of FDA data found that a higher percentage of drugs has been withdrawn from the market for safety- related reasons since PDUFA's enactment than prior to the law's enactment . . .'' Furthermore, FDA staff morale has declined. The GAO found that ``FDA's attrition rates for most of the scientific occupations involved in its drug review process are higher than those for comparable occupations in other federal public health agencies and the remainder of the federal government.'' A Consumer Reports poll in April 2007 found that 67% of customers ``are concerned that much of the FDA's funding comes from the drug industry.'' This bill actually increases the amount the drug companies pay to the FDA. To ensure independence, the drug approval process should be funded by Congress. Second, the bill passed on a rare opportunity to address ways in which the pharmaceutical industry makes profits at the expense of health. An early version of the bill gave the FDA authority to ban Direct to Consumer advertising for three years, a practice which has repeatedly proven to influence drug use based on reason other than the merits of the drug. This bill contained only authority to assess penalties which pale in comparison to the profit to be made from running the ads. Another opportunity lost was to address the failure of the industry to put out new drugs that are substantially different from drugs that are already on the market, but which are less profitable because their patent monopolies are running out. Requiring clinical trials to compare new drugs not only to placebos but to existing drugs would, for the first time, give a clear indication of how useful the proposed drug is. It would also therefore provide a powerful incentive for the industry to focus its resources on truly innovative drugs instead of spending copiously on marketing to sell more profitable but less beneficial drugs. This bill gives lip service to these head-to-head trials when it should require them.