To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 710 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 710 provides for further consideration of the bill under a structured rule. Having discussed this last week on general debate, it provides that no further general debate shall be in order, it makes in order only those amendments that are printed in the report, it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order that they are printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 710 and the underlying bill, H.R. 4167, the National Food Uniformity Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will resume consideration of the National Food Uniformity Act of 2005 after having conducted general debate on the overall bill last Thursday, and this rule will allow us to move forward with the consideration of several amendments, most which are Democratic-sponsored amendments.

As I mentioned last week, currently food regulation is composed of a variety of different and sometimes inconsistent State requirements. Collectively, this hodgepodge of regulations not only inhibits interstate commerce, but it also drives up the cost for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, these different regulations from State to State for the same product create too many unnecessary costs and they jeopardize the well-being of consumers nationwide. Make no mistake, businesses cannot simply and completely absorb these unnecessary and additional costs, and therefore the consumers across this Nation, they are the ones who absorb the expense for labeling inconsistencies.

Without question, lower-income citizens truly feel the brunt of any additional cost to their food bill. Feeding one's family is not optional, and therefore any reduction to the cost of food will lower the cost of food products and help to ensure food on every table regardless of income.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not designed to deprive the public of life- or health-saving knowledge but, rather, to ensure that all consumers regardless of geography have this knowledge. If the Department of Health, as an example, in New York learns that a candy bar a day can give you tooth decay, then the citizens of Georgia as well as the citizens from each and every State should have access to that same knowledge through the FDA. This simply makes sense and has the potential to prevent future illnesses and save lives.

Further, while I have already spoken at length about the overall benefits of this bill, I would like to discuss one particular criticism made by the opponents. I have heard some say this bill is an assault on States rights. Well, I am an ardent supporter of States rights and I can attest this legislation is not designed to step on any State's toes. This bill does, however, guarantee all citizens access to the same information and warnings concerning their food while ensuring States not only can petition for their labeling requirement to be made part of the national standard, but they also can obtain a waiver for their State's requirement even though it need not be applicable to the other 49.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4167 is a commonsense piece of legislation that not only seeks to ensure nationwide knowledge of potentially lifesaving information but also to drive down costs for all consumers.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and move forward with a thoughtful debate on the amendments and support final passage of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentlewoman in regard to the amendment process, there are six amendments made in order. One, of course, is a manager's amendment which just makes very technical changes, as everybody knows. So really four out of five of the amendments that the Rules Committee have made in order on this bill are Democratic amendments.

The gentlewoman brought up the issue about Mr. Stupak's amendment and the use of carbon monoxide in regard to making meat continue to have a fresh appearance. Carbon monoxide has been used for 4 years in not only meats but other processed foods. It is perfectly safe. There is an herbal food company that has some other process that they use to do the same thing, to make food products, in particular, meat, maintain their redness and fresh appearance for a longer period of time. There is absolutely, absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the process that has been in place and approved by the FDA for more than 4 years in any way, shape or form is harmful. So that is the reason why that particular amendment was not made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds just in response to the gentleman from Tennessee.

The gentleman acknowledged, Mr. Speaker, that he is a cosponsor on the bill and in all probability will vote to support the bill. I know he has some concerns over process, but he used the phrase ``coverup,'' and I noticed the gentleman is very intelligent. If there were any coverup involved in this bill, he certainly would not have his name attached to it, nor would he be acknowledging that he would probably support it.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last week it was brought up about the number of organizations that were opposed to this bill. I want to submit for the Record at this point a list of 119 from all 50 States across the Nation that support this, small businessmen and women, large businesses, including the H.J. Heinz Company and many, many others.

Groups Supporting H.R. 4167--The National Uniformity for Food Act of

2005

Last Updated: February 27, 2006.

Ahold, Albertson's, Altria Group, Inc., American Bakers

Association, American Beverage Association, American Feed

Industry Association, American Frozen Food Institute,

American Plastics Council, American Meat Institute, American

Spice Trade Association, and Animal Health Institute.

Apple Products Research and Education Council Association

for Dressings and Sauces, Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers

Association, Bush Brothers & Company, Business Roundtable,

Cadbury Schweppes plc, California Farm Bureau Federation,

California Grocers Association, California League of Food

Processors, California Manufacturers & Technoloy Association,

Calorie Control Council, and Campbell Soup Company.

Cargill, Incorporated, Chocolate Manufacturers Association,

The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., ConAgra

Foods, Inc., Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,

Dean Foods Company, Del Monte Foods, Diamond Foods, Inc.,

Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association, and Flowers

Foods, Inc.

Food Marketing Institute, Food Products Association, Frito-

Lay, Frozen Potato Products Institute, General Mills, Inc.,

Gerber Products Company, Glass Packaging Institute, Godiva

Chocolatier Inc., Grain Foods Foundation, Grocery

Manufacturers Association, and H.J. Heinz Company.

The Hershey Company, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Hormel Foods

Corporation, Independent Bakers Association, Institute of

Shortening and Edible Oils, International Association of

Color Manufacturers, International Bottled Water Association,

International Dairy Foods Association, International Food

Additives Council, International Foodservice Distributors

Association, and International Formula Council.

International Ice Cream Association, International Jelly

and Preserves Association, The J.M. Smucker Company, Jewel-

Osco, Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods, Inc., Land O' Lakes,

Inc., Maine Potato Board, Masterfoods USA, McCormick &

Company, Inc., and McKee Foods Corporation.

Milk Industry Foundation, The Minute Maid Company, National

Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of

Manufacturers, National Association of Margarine

Manufacturers, National Association of Wheat Growers,

National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National

Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cheese Institute,

National Chicken Council, and National Coffee Association of

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as I say, this process has been going on for over 4 years. I do not know that there have been any reports of people harmed in any way by the process, and, again, I think this is just a competitive issue between a company that has herbal food or herbal products they are using and they would rather those be used, and, sure, ban the other process and remove competition.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. In response to the gentleman from California, in regard to those 200 State laws that, as he said, protect our food supply, Mr. Speaker, many if not most, maybe not all, but

many if not most of those State laws would be incorporated in the national food label that is allowed by the FDA.

And in this bill in particular, and I know the gentleman is very familiar with the bill, but let me just read a couple of provisions. The provision allows both exemptions from national uniformity and the adoption of a State requirement as a uniformed national standard, one of those 200 he mentioned, any State may petition the FDA to obtain an exemption from the requirement of national uniformity for a particular requirement. The FDA may grant the exemption if the State or local requirement protects an important public interest that would otherwise be unprotected.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this provision recognizes that special circumstances may justify a warning requirement in a particular State like California, or a locality, even though that requirement should not apply throughout the country. Thus, the need for local protection is fully recognized under the legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and certainly the gentleman is right, I do honor and respect States rights, but the fact that there are 200 laws today in the 50 States, there could be 800 a year from now and there could be no end to this process.

I think in further responding to the gentleman's inquiry, certainly it is appropriate that States in these situations would appeal to the Federal Government, if you will, the FDA. And the decision to either grant or not grant is not going to be based on anything but solid science, on sound facts and not scare issues, like this issue over the way meats or other foods are processed in a low-oxygen environment to maintain their fresh appearance and their red color, that we have been doing for 4 years in a perfectly safe manner.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the point is, as we have stated repeatedly in regard to this bill, if a State does appeal to the Federal Government, to the FDA, for a labeling requirement that they have concerns about in their particular State, no matter how long it takes the Federal Government to respond, indeed if they do not respond, then that label requirement will be applicable to that unique problem that that State has recognized.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is a 180-day appeal process, but if the Federal Government does not respond, it is my understanding, and I will be glad to talk to the gentleman later if he still thinks I am in error in my interpretation of this bill, but I think the point that I made was an accurate statement with regard to that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will draw this debate to a close so we can move forward with consideration of the amendments to H.R. 4167.

This bill should receive wide and bipartisan support because it does ensure everyone has access to the same food labeling information. Why would we want to deprive anyone of life- or health-saving information while driving down the cost of products for all consumers?

Mr. Speaker, as I have previously mentioned, there is no reason, nor is there any excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency to drive up cost and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that may affect their health.

As a physician Member of Congress, I have been and will remain committed to supporting legislation that will prevent illness and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question that the other side of the aisle is talking about, in fact used probably half of their allotted time to discuss. This is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that otherwise would be ruled out of order, as they know, as nongermane. So the vote is totally without substance.

The leadership of this House has already committed to bring forward legislation next week in regard to this very sensitive issue that we share on both sides of the aisle regarding port security. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I include for the Record an explanation of the previous question.

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part

that:

There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the one hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

In closing, I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule, and let us move forward with debate on several thoughtful amendments from both parties and ultimately supporting the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us addresses a fictional problem. Simply put, the Nation's largest food companies think that States are giving consumers too much information about the food they use to feed their families.

Along with the corporate lobbyists who wrote this bill, and we all know who they were because the paper printed them this week, these companies think it is wrong that States tell people when the bottled water on their supermarket shelves has high levels of arsenic.

They think it is wrong to inform a pregnant woman that eating mercury-laden fish could do serious damage to a fetus. And what about letting people know that their ground beef was treated with carbon monoxide? That apparently is wrong too. And I want to elaborate on that for just a moment. Many stores now buy their meat from common suppliers instead of having their own butchers at hand. In order to keep it looking fresh and looking better for a longer time, they treat it with carbon monoxide. You know, if you die from carbon monoxide poisoning, you turn a nice, bright, pink-red, which is what their meat does, and then they can keep it even for months. I saw a picture of one from November that it looked like it had just been butchered yesterday.

That is apparently wrong too. Do you want to eat that?

They want us to buy more and think less about health and safety and that alone is the motivation behind this bill. Supporters of the bill claim all they want to do is to make consumer protections the same for all Americans. But that is not what this bill will do. Most States already give their citizens much more information about the food than the Food and Drug Administration even requires. In fact, 80 percent of the food safety work performed in the United States is done by State and local officials. They are the ones with the expertise, the on-the- ground experience, and are needed to keep consumers safe, and they have been doing a good job. But this law will allow the FDA to invalidate State labeling laws and apply their own lower standards nationwide.

Listen, mothers, this is important. The consequences of this bill are going to be drastic. Within a matter of months, 200 State food safety laws will be wiped off the books. Will they be the ones that protect your child from an asthma attack or from dyes that would hurt them?

The experienced State health officials who want their regulations back are going to have to come, hat in hand, to the FDA and ask for permission to give their States more information than the Federal Government requires, which is paltry. They will have to plead with the FDA bureaucrats to keep the food safety laws in place, laws that their own legislatures and citizens have already established. In other words, they would have to seek approval from an agency that does not keep us safe anymore, an agency that cannot meet its current workload, and that, as we all know, has been in the business of approving drugs that turned out to be killing people and had to be removed from the market.

Now, I grew up believing that the FDA took care of me. And that was a lot like believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, because if I have learned one thing in the last 5 years, it is the FDA cannot do that. But suddenly the party of States' rights and small government wants to forget about both. Instead, it wants to send quality State regulations that are protecting Americans into a bureaucratic black hole.

Mr. Speaker, the people and organizations most concerned about the safety of our Nation's food stand in strong opposition to this bill. Attorneys General and public health and safety officials from all over the United States, in fact most of them, if not all of them, have come out against it and begged us not to pass it. In fact, the Association of Food and Drug Officials recently wrote a letter to the Representative who sponsored this bill, asking him to reconsider his own legislation.

He said, ``Members of the AFDO are State and local governments with no profit motive.'' That is the key here. These people have no profit motive, merely a public health concern, who feel strongly that the legislation will gravely impair State and local authorities' ability to protect their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows:

The National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2006.

Dear Members of Congress: The National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) is writing to reiterate

our concern and strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National

Uniformity for Foods Act. NASDA represents the commissioners,

secretaries and directors of the state departments of

agriculture in the fifty states and four territories.

The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 4167 this week and

we urge you to oppose this legislation. The state departments

of agriculture are very concerned that this bill goes far

beyond its stated purpose of providing uniform food safety

warning notification requirements and greatly expands federal

preemption under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Such

additional preemptions would seriously compromise our ability

to enact laws and issue rules in numerous areas of food

safety. Specifically, we believe the bill as currently

written threatens existing state food safety programs and

jeopardizes state/

federal food safety cooperative programs such as those

related to Grade A milk, retail food protection and shellfish

sanitation.

As you know, the current food safety regulatory system in

the United States is the shared responsibility of local,

state and federal partners. Approximately 80% of food safety

inspections in the nation are completed at state and local

levels. It is imperative that states have the right to act

quickly to address local and statewide public health concerns

that cannot be anticipated or are not adequately addressed

nationally. In addition, our existing food safety system

forms the first line of defense against the threat of a

terrorist attack against our nation's food supply. Passage of

this legislation will undermine the authority of state laws

and programs that address adulterated foods, including animal

feed, commodity laws and other food defense programs.

NASDA firmly believes the preemption of state and local

food safety programs would leave a critical gap in the safety

net that protects consumers. We call on Congress to hold

hearings to discuss these critical issues and seek full input

from state and local partners in the food safety system.

NASDA would welcome the opportunity to discuss ways the bill

could be amended to achieve its intent while limiting the

impact on critical food safety regulatory programs at the

local and state levels.

Now is not the time to pass H.R. 4167 and we urge you to

oppose this legislation until these important issues are

addressed.

Sincerely,

J. Carlton Courter III,

President.

As is often the case, the bill before us does more than provide just another example of how private interests trumped the public good in today's Congress. It also shows us how broken and undemocratic our political system has become. No hearings were held on this legislation. No State and no local public health officials were called to testify about it, even though they offered.

Both the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the Association of Food and Drug Officials expressed their willingness to talk to Congress about the issue, but they were turned away. These dedicated public servants were ignored because this legislation could never have withstood proper scrutiny. It was written with special interests in mind, not the public interests, pure and simple.

Last year the majority pledged honest and immediate reform of the way Congress wrote its bills, because when the public caught on to what was going on here, there was a great outcry. And yet here we are, in a new year, doing the very same thing: handing over the public interests to private corporations.

I wish we had an open and democratic process in this House. We need to stop passing bills that hold the public interest in contempt, and we need to start today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend that there is a far cry between lemon juice, as Mr. Stupak said, and carbon monoxide. Let me tell you, if you believe the FDA, ask the people who took Vioxx. They do not have a very good record over there.

But the idea of putting carbon monoxide on there is to hide the fact that the meat is on the verge of spoilage. I do not want to feed it to my family, nor should you want to feed it to yours.

His list of people who support it have the profit motive that the attorneys general and the State consumer representatives all told us was the difference between them and his supporters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that I can amend the rule to give the House an opportunity to vote today, up or down, to block the President's plan to turn over our Nation's ports to a government run by the country of Dubai.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that stops the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we need to ensure that Congress has a voice in the outcome of this potentially dangerous and secretive deal.

On Monday of this week, Great Britain's highest court refused to consider an objection to the purchase of the British shipping company by Dubai, thus clearing the way for the sale and potential takeover of American ports by this company. Additionally, and many people may not know this, news reports this week have revealed that the contract negotiated by the Bush administration would impact more than just the six ports mentioned in

the initial reports. It would affect at least 22 ports in the United States.

The more we learn about the agreement, the worse it gets, and the clock is ticking on this deal and we must not allow more time to go by without taking any action in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of ports that make up the 22 ports.

Dubai Deal Now Includes 22 Ports

Washington.--The $6.8 billion deal British courts approved

today putting a Dubai-owned company in charge of significant

operations at six U.S. ports, also gives the company a lesser

role in other dockside activities at 16 other American

seaports. By purchasing London-based Peninsular and Oriental

Steam Navigation, DP World bought the publicly traded British

firm's concessions to manage and operate some cargo or

passenger terminal facilities in New York, New Jersey,

Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Department of Homeland Security has said DP World would

only operate and manage specific, individual terminals

located within six ports. Homeland Security says DP World

would operate one of Philadelphia's five terminals, not

including the port's single cruise ship terminal.

Last week, DP World formally submitted to an unusual,

broader security examination by the Bush administration over

the ports deal. Among the new cities included in the deal are

Camden, N.J. and Wilmington, Del.

Here is a list of all U.S. ports affected by the pending

sale of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation

Co. to Dubai-owned DP World:

BALTIMORE: Would manage and operate two of the port's 14

terminals.

BATON ROUGE, LA: DP Would run some stevedoring operations

at port's general cargo dock.

BEAMONT, TEXAS: Would run one of about six stevedoring

operations.

BOSTON: Operate Black Falcon Cruise Terminal with

Massachusetts Port Authority; would run stevedoring

operations at the Moran Automobile Terminal.

CAMDEN, N.J: Run some stevedoring operations, part owners

Delaware River Stevedores.

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS: Operate some stevedoring operations,

part of joint venture, Dix-Fairway.

DAVISVILLE, R.I: Run some stevedoring operations.

FREEPORT, TEXAS: Run some stevedoring operations.

GALVESTON, TEXAS: Run stevedoring operations at one

terminal.

GULFPORT, MISS: Would become one of two stevedoring

companies.

HOUSTON: Work with stevedoring contractors at three of

port's 12 terminals.

LAKE CHARLES, LA: Operate some stevedoring operations.

MIAMI: Operate/manage with Eller & Company Inc., one of

three terminals; doesn't include Miami's seven cruise ship

terminals and would operate some stevedoring services.

NEWARK: Operate and manage one of the port's four

terminals.

NEW ORLEANS: Manage and operate two of the port's five

terminals and doesn't include chemical-plant terminals along

the Mississippi River.

NEW YORK: Manage and operate the New York Cruise Terminal.

NORFOLK, VA: Involved with stevedoring activities at all

five port terminals and would not manage any of the

terminals.

PHILADELPHIA: Operate one of five terminals and doesn't

include the port's single cruise ship terminal.

PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS: Operate as one of three stevedoring

companies.

PORTLAND, MAINE: Operate as one of stevedoring companies

serving Portland's terminals and take over crane maintenance

at one terminal.

TAMPA, FLA: Operate/manage terminals under pending contract

negotiated Feb. 21; Port authority says will reconsider deal

if DP World deal is finalized; also provide some stevedoring

services.

WILMINGTON, DEL: Run some stevedoring operations as part

owners Delaware River Stevedores, one of two stevedoring

companies at the port.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question and then we can deal with this matter which has an urgency to everyone in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Mr. Thomas for the manner in which this legislation has been brought forward, in allowing us to vote on the permanent normal trade relations with the Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, in my capacity as ranking member at the U.S.-Helsinki Commission, I traveled to the Ukraine with my colleague and chairman, Congressman Chris Smith. We made our trip shortly after the historic Orange Revolution, and I was impressed by the commitment of the Ukraine's new leaders to consolidate democracy, promote respect for human rights, and modernize the country's economy.

I also was impressed by the leader's commitment to further integrate Ukraine into the European and Euro-Atlantic community.

I am not the only one to have been impressed by Ukraine's efforts. International organizations such as Freedom House have acknowledged Ukraine's progress of recent years in protecting the political rights and civil liberties of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress should demonstrate its support for Ukraine's reforms by approving legislation today that would grant Ukraine's permanent normal trade relation status, and, therefore, take it one step closer to becoming a member of the WTO.

The passage of PNTR for Ukraine will also show Congress's support for the efforts of the Yushchenko government to ensure that the upcoming March 26 parliamentary elections will be free and fair. I am pleased that my Helsinki Commission colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings, has been appointed as the OSCE PA Special Coordinator for our election observation mission there, and I look forward to reviewing the mission's findings and reports.

So far, the pre-election process, while not completely problem free, has been dramatically different from the period leading up to the fraudulent elections of November 2004, which ignited the Orange Revolution. In the 2004 elections, the Ukraine and government instructed the media about how to cover the elections and systematically abused government resources. In contrast, the upcoming elections are expected to be free and fair.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a few moments to comment on the issues of the underlying legislation we are considering today. The issue Congress is formally considering today is whether to withdraw the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Ukraine and thereby grant Ukraine permanent normal trade relations status. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was adopted in 1975, was intended to provide a way for the United States to deny trade benefits to countries that are denying the rights of its citizens, particularly religious minorities.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the commitment that Ukraine has demonstrated in protecting the rights of religious minorities, I think it is appropriate that we withdraw the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Ukraine.

Since independence, each successive Government of Ukraine has demonstrated a consistent commitment to defending the religious and ethnic rights of all of the people of the Ukraine. Current President Victor Yushchenko has continued this unambiguous commitment by pledging to bring minority groups together and reconciling historic conflicts. The International Religious Freedom Report of 2005 published by the United States State Department recognizes, ``President Yushchenko has, since taking office, spoken publicly about his vision of a Ukraine in which religious freedom flourishes and people are genuinely free to worship as they please.''

It must be understood, however, that there remain issues of concern, most notably the return of communal religious property that was confiscated during the Soviet era, and the anti-Semitic activities of Ukraine's largest private university, the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management.

Mr. Speaker, I have raised both of these issues in recent days with the Ambassador from the Ukraine and from other Ukrainian officials, and I have been impressed by their commitment to address these issues. Ukrainian officials have assured me that the

government is committed to continuing its effort to return communal property and that the Government of Ukraine will continue to condemn at the highest levels the anti-Semitic activities of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management and any other anti-Semitic activities.

Mr. Speaker, given these concerns, I am pleased that the legislation we are considering today highlights the importance of Ukraine's continuing commitment to ensure freedom of religion, respect for minorities, and eliminating intolerance.

Shortly I will yield time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the International Relations Committee and our leader in Congress on the issue of human rights, democracy and religious freedom. Mr. Lantos is the leader in Congress of our Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, and I want to thank him for working with me, the Helsinki Commission, and the OSCE as we have battled against the rise of anti-Semitism globally, and particularly within the OSCE states.

Ukraine has agreed to certain commitments to fight anti-Semitism, as have all of the 55 participating states of the OSCE. And let me make this crystal clear: today we intend to hold Ukraine to these commitments, including the responsibility to denounce anti-Semitism statements and vigorously enforce hate crime laws and promote diversity and tolerance in school curriculum. I am pleased that section 1, paragraph 4 of the resolution before us references these OSCE commitments.

Let me make a personal reflection here. During my visit to Ukraine last year, I visited two monuments, the Ukraine Famine Memorial, honoring the millions of victims of Stalin's genocidal 1932 and 1933 famine, and Babi Yar, where hundreds of thousands of Jews and others were massacred by the Nazis during World War II.

Mr. Speaker, it was a moving experience for me to lay a wreath at these sites in the Ukraine. These horrific events were a testimony to the cruelty and intolerance of dictatorships, and I do believe that today's independent Ukraine now understands that respect for human rights and a commitment to democracy and tolerance are the best inoculation against the horrors like the famine and Babi Yar.

The United States Government, the Helsinki Commission, and the OSCE look forward to working with a democratic Ukraine as they continue to build their institutions of democracy, establish the rule of law, protect human rights and religious freedom and combat corruption.

I commend Ukraine for its progress in promoting political and economic freedom for its citizens and its integration into the global rules-based economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in demonstrating support for the Ukraine's efforts by voting today to grant the country permanent normal trade status.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our champion on human rights here in the Congress and our leader in the fight against anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me once again thank my friends for bringing this legislation forward. I want to acknowledge again Mr. Lantos and his strong work on behalf of human rights and fighting anti-Semitism, and Mr. Levin who authored a bill on our side for PNTR for Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the Anti- Defamation League acknowledging the changes that have been made by the leadership of the Ukraine, dated January 25, 2006. The Anti-Defamation League is the premier organization fighting anti-Semitism globally.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Anti-Defamation League

ADL Welcomes Ukraine's Strong Condemnation of University Fomenting

Anti-Semitism

New York, NY, January 25, 2006 . . . The Anti-Defamation

League (ADL) welcomed the statements and actions of the

Ukrainian government to condemn anti-Semitism, and

specifically one of the country's leading institutions of

higher education, which ADL has called a hotbed for anti-

Semitic incitement. Ukraine's Foreign Minister and the

Ministry of Education and Science publicly condemned MAUP

University's anti-Semitic activities and called for ``anti-

incitement laws to be effectively enforced.''

In a letter to Borys Tarasyuk, Ukraine's Foreign Minister,

Barbara B. Balser, ADL

National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director

welcomed his ``strong statement condemning the anti-Semitic

actions of MAUP University as unlawful and wrongful and

proclaiming that `there is no place for any form of anti-

Semitism and xenophobia in the Ukraine.'''

The League leaders also welcomed the statement of the

Ministry of Education and Science accusing MAUP of breaking

Ukrainian law by persistent incompliance with requirements of

state licensing rules for universities and failure to abide

with legally binding procedures of the State Accreditation

Commission.

``We hope the Ukrainian government will continue to condemn

such anti-Semitic activities and ensure anti-incitement laws

will be effectively enforced,'' Ms. Balser and Mr. Foxman

said.

A university with 50,000 students, MAUP has made statements

supporting the President of Iran's denial of the Holocaust

and appeal for Israel's destruction and is a bastion of anti-

Jewish propaganda and incitement in the Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Maryland for yielding, for his eloquent statement and for his leadership on all human rights issues that come before this House.

Mr. Speaker, like all of our colleagues, I welcome the democratic strides that Ukraine has taken since the Orange Revolution, and I want to note that the country has met the basic narrow condition for lifting Jackson-Vanik restrictions. Jews are allowed to emigrate from Ukraine. But I am very deeply concerned about the larger human rights questions, and particularly the failure to deal with rampant anti-Semitism in Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Defamation League, which monitors anti-Semitic incidents around the world, reports a disturbing trend in Ukraine. In 2005, 164 incidents of anti-Semitism, ranging from vandalism to brutal violence, were reported there, three times the incidents reported in 2004.

The principal source of anti-Semitic agitation in Ukraine is the so- called private university MAUP, which is officially recognized as an institute of higher education. It is accredited by Ukraine's Ministry of Education, it has tens of thousands of students enrolled

at various campuses around the country, and it offers courses in many fields.

But despite the apparent claim of legitimacy, this is the worst kind of disgrace to academia worldwide. This so-called university organizes sickening anti-Semitic meetings and conferences and regularly publishes anti-Semitic articles and statements in two widely distributed periodicals. Its so-called president and other faculty members have made it their life's goal to resuscitate and spread anti-Semitism in Ukraine, a country with a disgraceful history and mass murder in that subject. The president of this university, Shchokin, is the head of another organization which also uses its license for purely anti- Semitic activities.

One of these institution's most appalling actions has been to court the disgraced and odious American white supremacist David Duke. This ``university'' awarded him a doctorate for a thesis entitled, ``Zionism as a Form of Ethnic Supremism.'' David Duke holds forth in the classrooms in Ukraine on history and international relations. He was also a key participant in a June 2005 conference sponsored by this so- called university entitled, ``Zionism: A Threat to World Peace.''

Other leading anti-Semites in Ukraine were given star billing at that conference, including Holocaust deniers.

Recently the president of the so-called university expressed public support for Iranian President Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust, and approved of his threat to wipe Israel off the map.

Mr. Speaker, in meetings with officials of Ukraine and top officials of our own government, I have repeatedly emphasized that I cannot support lifting Jackson-Vanik provisions for Ukraine when the government fails to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism. I have called upon Ukrainian officials to speak out and publicly denounce this vile venom from the so-called university and its president.

I am pleased to report to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that while this ugly problem has not yet been fully resolved, over the last few months a number of positive steps have been taken by the Government of Ukraine, and that is the reason I am willing to support the lifting of Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine.

I would like to mention the most positive actions that have been taken to deal with anti-Semitism in response to the serious concerns that I have raised with both Ukrainian and American officials. The President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko, on December 5, 2005, publicly condemned anti-Semitism, and he specifically criticized the so-called university, MAUP, for its systematic publication of viciously and violently anti-Semitic articles.

President Yushchenko urged all Ukrainians to join him in condemning all manifestations of anti-Semitism and xenophobia, which he said the new democratic Ukrainian state will not tolerate. President Yushchenko called upon the faculty of this so-called university to respect citizens of all nationalities and religious faiths and to stop rousing national hatred.

On January 23 of this year, the Foreign Minister of Ukraine, Borys Tarasiuk, strongly condemned the anti-Semitic actions of this university. He announced, ``Having exhausted all efforts to convince the university's leaders to drop their unlawful and wrongful actions'', the Foreign Minister broke off all contacts with the university a year ago. The Foreign Minister stressed, ``There is no place for any form of anti-Semitism or xenophobia in Ukraine.''

The Ministry of Education and Science also issued a statement on January 23 accusing this so-called university of violating Ukrainian law. It said that there was persistent noncompliance with requirements of state licensing rules for universities. The ministry's statements said this institution pursued ``activities inconsistent with the status of higher educational institutions in the Ukraine.''

I am calling on the Government of Ukraine to lift the license of the so-called university to function. It is a disgrace to the new Ukraine, and it is a disgrace to the civilized world, and I am looking forward to early action by the Government of Ukraine.

On February 16, Mr. Speaker, the Presidential party made a statement condemning the anti-Semitic activities of this institution, noting, ``Inflaming hostility, anti-Semitism and xenophobia by leaders of MAUP is a blatant violation of the rights and freedoms of the people. It casts a shadow on Ukraine, a country pursuing the way of democracy''.

Just this past Friday, Ukraine's Foreign Minister, Borys Tarasiuk, in a letter to me, said that his government takes anti-Semitism seriously and will deal with it in a bold manner. He said that all governmental departments have ceased cooperation with this institution, that it is becoming isolated and marginalized. Its future is more than vague, in view of the ongoing investigations, said Minister Tarasiuk in his letter. He also stated that formal charges are to be filed in the coming weeks.

I look forward to the filing of these formal charges and the lifting of the license of the institution.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my statement, I will insert into the Record the full text of all of these documents.

Mr. Speaker, I believe Ukrainian officials are acting in good faith to stop the nauseating and repulsive anti-Semitic actions of this so- called university and its vile and despicable leadership. I will continue to monitor anti-Semitism in Ukraine, and I will continue to work with the officials of the Ukrainian Government to bring this ugly process to an end.

I support, Mr. Speaker, reluctantly and with reservations, the legislation before us today to grant PNT status and to remove the Jackson-Vanik provisions from Ukraine. Ukraine has taken important steps forward, and I look forward to working with the Government of Ukraine under the leadership of President Yushchenko in dealing with the problem I discussed.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record here the materials I discussed previously:

Ukraine President Condemns Anti-Semitism

Victor Yushchenko urged society to jointly condemn all

manifestations of anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and claimed

that the state would not tolerate them.

The President stressed that government should protect

citizens of all nationalities and religious beliefs. He

pledged that it would consistently fight against national,

racial or religious discrimination in our country.

``There can be no national issue in a civilized country,''

he said. The Head of State is worried that anti-Semitism

spreads throughout Ukraine.

He condemned the Interregional Academy of Personnel

Management (IAPM) as an institution that systematically

publishes anti-Semitic articles in its publication

`Personnel.'

Yushchenko said he had left the supervisory council of the

journal to protest against this inhumane policy. He called on

professors of the IAPM to respect citizens of all

nationalities and confessions and to ``stop rousing national

hatred.''

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Nancy Kaptur, co-chair of the Ukranian Caucus, and I have been strong supporters of political freedom in Ukraine and have advanced the cause of Ukranian culture internationally and in the United States.

Today we will vote ``present'' on H.R. 1053, a bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine. We wish to make clear that this was not a ``no'' vote, but a ``we know'' vote.

We know that democracy is on the march in Ukraine. We also know that the conditions for a fully functioning democracy are not in place.

We adhere to the principles of a similar bill to life Ukraine from Jackson-Vanik in the 107th Congress, H.R. 3939. However, that bill specified certain conditions be met prior to lifting that reflect the spirit of the law as much as the letter of the law, including that the government of Ukraine--

(1) Adopt and institute policies that remove undue restrictions and harassment on labor organizations to freely associate according to internationally recognized labor rights; (2) Take additional positive steps to transfer places of worship and related religious property for all confessions to their original owners; (3) Establish an independent legal and judicial system with rule of law that is free of political interference and corruption; (4) Commit to providing funding and administrative support for reforms of the legislature; (5) Demonstrate a firm commitment to freedom of the press by prohibiting physical harm and intimidation of journalists through such means as prevention of abuse of tax and libel laws; (6) Adopt and

vigorously enforce laws to prohibit the trafficking of women and of illicit narcotics; (7) Accelerate governmental structural reform and land privatization policies which benefit ordinary citizens; (8) Adopt a more comprehensive program to protect the environment; (9) Support internationally recognized standards of transparency in monitoring of elections; and (10) Remedy trade disputes involving violation of international property rights, transshipment of counterfeit goods, and dumping of such products as steel into the United States market in such increased quantities as to cause harm to the domestic industry.

Despite our high aspirations for the Ukraine, we do not believe that these conditions have been met, although we are mindful that there are people in civil society working to bring these principles to fruition.

The Jackson-Vanik requirement for annual review of the trading relationship was originally intended as a way to sanction anti-Semitic regimes. According to the Anti-Defamation League, in a document attached to this statement, that we attach for the Record, at least one university in Ukraine, sadly, is still teaching anti-Semitism in Ukraine.

We have both worked to ensure human rights, labor rights and environmental quality standards are including in trade agreements. However, the WTO does not permit trade on this basis. This makes new entrants into the WTO highly vulnerable to the export of their jobs to nations which offer cheap labor and no standards. A transfer of wealth from the great mass of the people of Ukraine to multi-national corporate interests will result unless there are safeguards. Any nation, and Ukraine is no exception, which is heavily influenced by oligarchical interests, could easily be sacrificed. We remain committed to continuing to work with the valiant people of Ukraine and the wonderful groups of the diaspora to lift up the economic, political and social progress of the Ukranian people. We are optimistic about the blossoming of freedom, economic democracy and human rights in Ukraine.

Ukraine University Schooling in Anti-Semitism

maup: schooling in anti-semitism

MAUP is the main source of anti-Semitic agitation and

propaganda in Ukraine. It organizes anti-Semitic meetings and

conferences, regularly issues anti-Semitic statements and

publishes two widely distributed periodicals, Personnel and

Personnel Plus, which frequently contain anti-Semitic

articles.

At the same time, MAUP is a bona fide university--its

English name is the Interregional Academy for Personnel

Management--accredited by Ukraine's Ministry of Education,

with more than 50,000 students enrolled at campuses in

various locations. Business, political science and

agriculture are among the subjects taught.

The anti-Semitic activities are directed by MAUP's

President, Georgy Tschokin, and a number of his colleagues.

In addition, Tschokin is the head of another body called the

``International Personnel Academy'' (IPA), which he also uses

to issue anti-Semitic statements.

White supremacist David Duke has close links with MAUP: he

``teaches'' a course on history and international relations,

has been awarded a doctorate for a thesis on Zionism and was

a key participant in MAUP's June 2005 conference on

``Zionism: Threat to World Peace''.

On November 22, Tschokin issued a statement of solidarity

with Iranian President Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe out

Israel. The statement blended traditional Christian anti-

Semitism with anti-Zionism: ``We'd like to remind that the

Living God Jesus Christ said to Jews two thousand years ago:

`Your father is a devil!' . . . Israel, as known, means

`Theologian', and Zionism in 1975 was acknowledged by General

Assembly of UNO as the form of racism and race

discrimination, that, in the opinion of the absolute majority

of modern Europeans, makes the most threat to modern

civilization. Israel is the artificially created state

(classic totalitarian type) which appeared on the political

Earth map only in 1948, thanks to good will of UNO . . .

Their end is known, and only the God's true will rescue all

of us. We are not afraid, as God always together with his

children!'' .

MAUP's June 2005 anti-Zionist conference was attended by

anti-Semites from all over the region, as well as Duke,

French Holocaust denier Serge Thion and Israel Shamir, a

Russian Jew who converted to Christianity and is notorious

for publishing anti-Semitic essays on the internet. The

Palestinian Authority representative in Ukraine, Walid Zakut,

was also reported to have attended.

MAUP's anti-Semitic activities can be traced back to at

least 2002. MAUP's leading figures have been at the root of

attempts to bar Jewish organizations in Ukraine and, more

recently, a call to ban ``The Tanya'', a classic work of

Hassidic Jewish literature, on the grounds that it promotes

racism against non-Jews.

maup: context and responses

At the Auschwitz liberation ceremonies in January 2005,

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko declared that his

country had adopted a policy of ``zero tolerance'' towards

anti-Semitism. Yet over this year, there has been a sharp

spike in anti-Semitic incidents, including the brutal beating

in August of a Yeshiva student in Kiev, who remains

hospitalized in Israel in a coma. Following this attack, 30

Ukrainian rabbis declared: ``Calls to violence against

Judaism and Jews are published in the press, freely

distributed and sold. On the walls of synagogues, buildings,

bus stops and along the road, anti-Semitic symbols appear

more and more often.''

Critically, Mr. Yushchenko has done nothing against MAUP,

aside from resigning from its Board.

Ukraine needs to take decisive action now. Measures could

include the following: Invoking anti-incitement laws against

Tschokin and his colleagues; the Education Ministry revoking

recognition of MAUP diplomas; a statement of condemnation by

Mr. Yushchenko and a ban on David Duke entering Ukraine.