Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor, welcome and recognition of Justice Adrian Hardiman of the Supreme Court of Ireland and Justice Yvonne Murphy of the Circuit Court of Ireland--united in marriage and also in their quest for truth and justice--and I welcome them both to Cleveland, Ohio, on St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 2006.

For the past twenty-seven years, Tim Collins and Thomas Scanlon have organized the St. Patrick's Day Party and Parade, a joyous event that brings people together in the heart of Cleveland and is one that promotes and preserves the treasured traditions of their beloved Irish homeland. Once again, Euclid Avenue will spring to life as a sea of green and the spirited sound of drums and bagpipes begin their march along our city streets. This enchanted day promises old friendships renewed, the discovery of new ones, and serves as a living bridge that transcends space and time, connecting the north coast of Cleveland to the shores of the Emerald Isle.

Justice Adrian Hardiman was born in Dublin and was called to the Bar in 1974, the Inner Bar as Senior Counsel in 1989, and was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2000. Justice Hardiman continues to be actively involved in social issues in Ireland. He speaks fluent Irish and is an advocate within the Court on behalf of the rights of those who speak native Irish. In 1974, Justice Hardiman married Justice Yvonne Murphy, judge of the Circuit Court of Ireland. They have three sons. Justice Murphy was born in Donegal and was a practicing barrister in County Donegal until being appointed as Judge of the Circuit Court in 1998. She has worked as a journalist in both print and radio mediums and is the author of several books, including ``Journalism and the Law'' and ``Insider Dealing''. Justice Murphy is chairwoman of the Irish Association of Women Judges.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor of the Honorable Justice Adrian Hardiman and the Honorable Justice Yvonne Murphy, for joining us in Cleveland as we celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Please also join me in recognition of Tim Collins and Thomas Scanlon for organizing this wondrous St. Patrick's Day party this year, as they have for the past 27 years. ``Ni dheanfaidh smaoineamh an treabhadh duit--You'll never plough a field by turning it over in your mind''--Old Irish Proverb.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for the opportunity to address this.

We are all concerned about drug policy and about drug control policy. We are concerned about the impact drug addiction has on individual lives and families. We are concerned about the ripple effects of addiction on communities.

But I would just like to make this observation as we prepare to vote on this bill: We have to be careful in our strategy to ensure that we do not mistake victims for enemies. We make a mistake when students are punished both through the legal system and then by denying them critical education provisions, as the drug provision of the Higher Education Act does. The recent scaling back of that provision by this Congress is a step in the right direction, but we must do more. Denying students the opportunity for a higher education does not solve the Nation's drug problems, nor does it provide drug treatment.

We also make a mistake when we rely on randomized student drug testing to prevent addiction and abuse of drugs. Instead of focusing our efforts on educating our children about drugs and engaging them in the decisions about their lives and futures, drug testing assumes all youth are the same. Drug testing may be right in certain situations with reasonable evidence and a court order, but randomized testing renders all youths suspect and treats them as criminals. High expectations for our children may reap great rewards, but what will we sow with the expectation of deception? So we have to focus our efforts on helping our children, not punishing them, and we cannot allow the war on drugs to become a war on children.

I am sure there are many provisions of the bill before us that are aimed at helping many communities, but I just wanted to make this observation in general about our policies, so that as we get into a broader discussion on other legislation, that we pay close attention to the policies that we are considering or are enacting in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Rose Nader, loving mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, community activist, author and dear friend and mentor to many. Her passing marks a great loss for her family and friends, and also for the people of Winsted, CT, whom she consistently inspired and served with the highest level of dedication and honor.

The great care and love that Mrs. Nader showered on her family extended throughout her community, where she carried the torch of advocacy on behalf of many social justice issues. She became deeply involved in many local, national and global issues, including active memberships in Peace Action, Co-Op America and the Women's International Relations Committee. Following a devastating flood in Winsted in the 1950's, Mrs. Nader organized a public gathering and refused to relent until U.S. Senator Prescott Bush promised to build a dry dam. The dam was built and the city of Winsted has been dry for half a century.

Born and raised in Lebanon, Mrs. Nader worked as a teacher of French and Arabic before emigrating to America with her husband, Nathra Nader. Together they raised four children, with family the central focus of her life. She instilled values of integrity, hard work and active citizenship within the hearts and minds of her children, gently guiding and always teaching. Mrs. Nader offered them gifts of experience and wisdom through song, proverbs and culinary traditions of her beloved homeland, infusing her wisdom and joy around the kitchen table, connecting the old world to the new.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Rose Nader, whose unbridled joy for life served as a source of love, inspiration and guidance for her family and friends and for the people of Winsted, CT. I extend my deepest condolences to her children, Claire, Laura, Ralph, and the memory of Shafeek; to her three grandchildren and three great-grandchildren; and also to her extended family and many friends. Mrs. Nader's infinite heart and unwavering focus on giving back to the community will forever live within the hearts of family and friends, and will forever illuminate the soul of Winsted, CT, and miles beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Frank M. Duman, beloved husband, father, grandfather, great- grandfather, dedicated civil servant, promoter of the classical arts and friend and mentor to many, including myself.

Mr. Duman was born and raised in Cleveland and remained in the city his entire life. For 50 years, he lived in the same house in the Old Brooklyn neighborhood, where he and his wife Olivia raised their four sons. Following his graduation from Ohio University in 1941, Mr. Duman was recommended by then Safety Director Eliot Ness for a position in the city recreation department. Mr. Duman's unwavering work ethic and meticulous approach to his work reflected throughout his professional career. He ascended the ranks of city government and served in several leadership capacities, including Superintendent for City Park Maintenance, Parks Commissioner and Director of the Cleveland Convention Center.

Mr. Duman worked for nine City of Cleveland mayoral administrations, including my own. He never sought out the spotlight, rather, he was content to work diligently behind the scenes, making sure that goals were reached, improvements were made and projects were completed. Mr. Duman's leadership drew premier leaders in the business industry to the Convention Center. He also promoted the Cleveland's established status as a national arts center by procuring annual visits of the New York Metropolitan Opera.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, remembrance and gratitude to Mr. Frank M. Duman, whose life was highlighted by his unwavering devotion to his family and to his community. I offer my condolences to his wife of 62 years, Olivia; to his sons, Richard, Robert, Donald and James; to his seven grandchildren and two great- grandchildren; and to his extended family members and many friends. Mr. Duman's life, lived with great joy and accomplishment, will forever reflect within his family, friends and throughout our community, and he will be remembered always.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from hundreds of workers about H.R. 2830. Over 400 UAW members called my office to express their concerns about 2830 as it has been reported out of committee.

I was not alone in hearing from concerned workers. Workers from across America called congressional offices and asked for protection for their pension benefits.

Now, my vote in favor of the Pension Protection Act in December was cast to codify the improvements negotiated by auto workers and to enable the steel workers to press for further improvements in the conference committee. I have some hope there is a process for making additional improvements. But my vote was conditioned on the expectation that the bill would be substantially improved in the conference committee. I will need to see significant further improvements before voting again.

There are still some serious problems with H.R. 2830, and these problems must be addressed to ensure that all workers' pensions are protected. One such problem, which I hope will be fixed in the conference committee, concerns the rules affecting plant shutdown benefits for companies with small numbers of facilities.

The rules are biased against such companies, which will be faced with onerous funding requirements in the event of the shutdown of a facility. The workers, of course, would be the ultimate bearers of the burden, since older workers would lose the shutdown benefits that enable them to fully vest in the event of a plant shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the conferees to adopt further shutdown benefit reforms. Conferees must also address the issue of cash balance plans. This bill does a great disservice to older workers by denying the reality that conversions from traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance plans harm older workers.

A report released in early November by the GAO found that a majority of older workers experienced deep cuts in their pension when converted from a traditional plan to a cash balance plan, without transition protection. This is not only unfair, it is wrong. Providing transition protection for older workers should not be a choice for employers, but a requirement, and any change in the plans must protect the accrued benefits of employees, and the conference report should reflect that reality.

Finally, I strongly support a provision to help airlines avoid terminating their pension plans by giving them additional time to fund their workers' plans. Section 403 of Senate bill 1783 will give airlines the time they need to meet their pension obligations, and that is a good provision, and we ought to support that. You know, then there will not be any bankruptcy movements because of pensions. There will not be any dumping of pension obligations on the PBGC, and there will not be any jettisoning of obligations to workers who have worked a lifetime and expect their pension benefits. And that kind of a provision will serve the workers and the American taxpayers.

I want to say that we have an obligation here of the American retirees to support full PBGC retirement protection for pilots who are forced to retire at age 60. Workers should not be punished for retiring at the age of 60 when safety regulations require them to stop flying. The American people are waiting to see if we care for those who have put in their time. They deserve their security.

This Congress has an obligation to America's retirees. We see corporations all over the country trying to throw their obligations onto the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, but when we have some companies that are trying to do the right thing, as we do with the Senate provision that recognizes that American Airlines is trying to do the right thing, then we should provide them with the help that they need to meet their pension obligations.

This is a moment of truth for this Congress. Are we going to be true to our commitment to the American workers? Are we going to say to people who worked a lifetime, deserve the commitment that corporations made to them, that they are going to get the pension that they spent their lifetime for?

There are a lot of people who are watching this debate, asking if Congress is going to do the right thing. I strongly support Mr. Miller's work here, and I hope this Congress will agree with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wasserman Schultz amendment.

It is widely known that mercury is a highly toxic chemical, especially to our children. It causes entire clusters of cells in the developing brain to die. It causes loss of fine motor skills, learning disabilities, and seizures. Later in life, it can translate into kidney diseases, and immune system disorders.

One of the primary ways children are exposed to mercury is through consumption of fish--either they eat it or their mother does. At the same time, eating fish that is not contaminated has been shown to be important to childrens' health.

The best way to deal with the problem is to stop mercury from getting into our environment in the first place. Of course, this administration and Congress have repeatedly refused to take substantive action to require coal burning power plants to take responsibility for their toxic mercury releases that end up in our fish. But because mercury pollution is allowed to persist, people are forced to take on the coal plants' responsibility by trying to avoid fish that are contaminated.

In recognition of this, some States are considering laws that will label fish that are high in mercury. It is a critical consumer empowerment tool that is the last line of defense for those who do not want their children or themselves to be exposed to this toxic substance.

But the Food Uniformity Act would undercut States' ability to even provide that basic level of protection through labeling. So not only does the bill undercut States rights, but it also undercuts personal responsibility.

The Wasserman Shultz amendment makes an exemption for labeling laws that apply to mercury and fish and shellfish. It is a commonsense amendment. Please join me in supporting it.

Madam Speaker, I want to say to my good friend and my respected chair and the Member who just spoke that one of the things you have to keep in mind is the information that they are saying hasn't been brought forward to the public wouldn't be brought forward to the public under what has been essentially a secret manner of investigation.

I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it offers only superficial reform that would have little, if any, impact on safeguarding our civil liberties. Furthermore, it has become crystal clear that this administration is currently and will continue to abuse, attack, and outright deny the civil liberties of the people of this country in defiance of our Constitution. This administration is illegally wiretapping American citizens, illegally collecting information on peace groups, and illegally signing statements to ignore the torture ban recently enacted by this Congress.

Some of my colleagues will stand up here today and argue the PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with these nefarious activities, but my colleagues are not looking at the big picture. The administration is violating the laws Congress has passed and trampling on the Constitution of the United States.

I will not give this administration any additional police powers. Congress has failed to do its job as a coequal branch of government. The administration's attack on our democracy has to

be reined in. This Congress must not walk away from its role in providing a check and balance to the administration's exercise of executive power.

This Congress was not zealous in oversight prior to 2001; but since that time, this Congress has ignored its constitutional duty, and 200 years of American democracy have suffered. The complacency of this Congress is clearly viewed by the administration as a license to ignore the laws it disagrees with, and then it demands Congress pass expanded police powers.

In the name of the Constitution of the United States of America, I reject this complacency. I will not vote to give a single new police power to this administration. I voted against the PATRIOT Act when it first passed, and I remain even more opposed to this legislation today.

The bill before us today enables the FBI to investigate any American for any reason without the checks and balances of the judicial system. History tells us that unchecked police powers with little or no oversight will be abused and the citizens will be harmed. The administration's record in this area is concrete proof that history repeats itself.

I am for police function that protects citizens of this great Nation, not a police function that is used to terrorize them. I urge my colleagues to vote against the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, to stand up for our Constitution, to stand up for our Bill of Rights, to remember the long struggle that was instrumental in establishing those liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of the House to the juxtaposition of two news stories: one that says, relating to 9/ 11, Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the September 11, 2001, terror attacks that Osama bin Laden

and al Qaeda were planning aircraft hijacking and suicide attacks according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.

And this, from the front page of today's Washington Post: a newly leaked video recording the high-level government deliberation the day before Hurricane Katrina hit shows disaster officials emphatically warning President Bush that the storm posed a catastrophic threat to New Orleans and the gulf coast, and a grim-faced Bush personally assuring State leaders that his administration was fully prepared, quote-unquote, to help.

Do we see a pattern here? 9/11, Katrina? They knew something was going to happen and they did not act. They knew that if they went into Iraq that we were looking at a disaster, that there was no way we were going to be able to run that country.

They know that global climate change poses a threat to the entire planet. Nothing is being done. There is a pattern of recklessness, indifference, callousness. The implications are deadly for the people of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the debate here, one of the things that I keep hearing in this House is a question of what the role of government is. One of the gentlemen who spoke earlier would insist that all this is about is throwing money, good money, after bad.

I think there are people in this Congress who actually believe that government does not have a benign role in the lives of the people, except as an engine to redistribute the wealth of the Nation upwards. This legislation proves otherwise. It proves that government does have a responsibility to step up when people have a problem. It also confirms the role of the Congress of the United States.

We see in today's news that the administration was warned on Katrina. It didn't respond quickly enough. Well, the Congress of the United States has an obligation to respond here. That is what we are doing with this legislation today. That is why I support it. We know that so much of the Federal response to the economic security of the Katrina victims has been lacking.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, unemployment is a serious problem for hurricane victims. But the evacuees who are still not back in their homes, and they number 500,000 people, to them unemployment is epidemic, one-quarter of Whites, one-half of African American evacuees are still out of work.

The cause, Mr. Speaker, is not a lack of jobs. At the current time there is a labor shortage in New Orleans. The cause is a lack of housing near the job sites. The Economic Policy Institute found that simply returning home from the Katrina Diaspora makes a dramatic difference in those staggering unemployment figures.

Unemployment rates fall among Whites to 10.7 percent, among Blacks to 11.6 percent if people have a home to go to. But the unfortunately indifferent Bush administration, through the now infamous FEMA, is compounding the unemployment problems of the hurricane victims. The Federal emergency housing effort located the largest temporary housing facility for New Orleans evacuees in Baker, Louisiana, 91 miles away from New Orleans. That is not a commute for anyone, especially low- income workers.

On September 8, the President urged a proclamation to lower the wages of all workers on a Federal contract to rebuild the hurricane-affected region. He suspended Davis-Bacon, a 74-year-old law which requires that companies receiving Federal contracts pay the average wage to employees who are hired to perform those Federal contracts.

He also suspended the requirement of having affirmative action plans. Fortunately, some Members of Congress became involved in that and offered a counterbalance.

That is what we are trying to do here today. We are trying to offer a counterbalance to an administration that was not there when the American people needed some guidance.

But today this bill will show that Congress has a role, and we have to keep remembering it. Congress has a role in meeting the needs of the American people and government has a role in the life of the American people, has a positive, a powerful, a constructive role; and we have to confirm that role over and over again with our work on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bipartisan initiative to give the people of the Katrina disaster area some additional relief. I think we need to keep focusing on what is the appropriate role of government.

Let's help people in this country with the resources we have.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill does, I say to the gentlewoman from California, is to create circumstances where it undermines all these food safety laws all over the States. Under the guise of promoting uniformity in food safety and labeling laws, this bill requires all State food safety laws to be identical to the requirements of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. And since the States regulate many food safety issues not covered by the FDA, many food safety laws will be voided and replaced actually with no law at all.

The uniformity to be achieved by this bill is, in many instances, the uniform absence of food safety regulation, which is desired by the food industry. So this bill is uniformly bad.

For example, the bill would preempt Alaska's newly passed law to label genetically engineered fish. The Alaskan

State legislature passed this law to ensure the State's principal industries are protected. The State of Alaska has an interest to ensure that its products and reputation are not harmed. Today, we are telling the people of Alaska that the natural Alaska king salmon cannot be distinguished from the genetically engineered version bound to enter the market one day.

Another great example of the State laws this bill is designed to undermine is California's Prop. 65. Prop. 65 provides for the labeling of products that contain compounds that cause cancer or reproductive problems. California voters approved it by a 2-1 margin in the 1980s. Since enacted, it has sped the elimination of toxic compounds from the products we use or eat every day. It led one company to remove a carcinogenic chemical from a waterproofing spray. It led to the removal of lead foil from wine bottles. It led to the removal of lead solder in cans used for food. It took lead out of calcium supplements, brass kitchen faucets, and hair dyes.

In fact, when many companies reformulated their product to avoid having it labeled as a carcinogen, they did it without telling anyone because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that their product included dangerous chemicals in the first place.

So there are countless other examples of Prop. 65 protecting public health and the environment that we don't even know about. It is exactly this triumph of public heath over large food corporations that has driven the food industry to push for the so-called National Food Uniformity Act. But it is bad policy. In fact, even President Reagan rejected attempts to undermine it.

This so-called uniformity bill will cost the taxpayers dearly. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal Government will have to pay $100 million to consider States' appeals; and at the local and State level, food and safety officials would be obstructed. They perform some 80 percent of the work to ensure the safety of our food.

In 2001, States acted in 45,000 separate instances to keep unsafe food from entering our food supply. This bill simply says that the United States Congress believes uniformity is more important than food safety or the consumers' right to know.

This bill ought to be defeated. We need to listen to what the people in the States are saying about their desire to have food that is safe to eat, and this bill absolutely vitiates any effort that States make to protect their own people.

This is a bad bill. Large corporations are pushing for it, just like years ago they pushed to try to stop this Congress from investigating cigarettes that caused cancer. We need to defeat this bill. It is a rotten idea.

Madam Speaker, the taxpayers of the United States of America have a right to know whether or not their tax dollars were or are being used to manipulate the news, falsify intelligence, or mislead the public.

Very serious questions have been raised about a number of contracts that have been given to public relations firms, firms that then went ahead and devised a whole plan to try to sell the war in Iraq to the American people. I have introduced a resolution of inquiry in the House of Representatives that demands all documents pertaining to contracts that the United States Government has signed with the intent to sell the war in Iraq.

This resolution directs the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense to provide the House with certain documents relating to any entity which the United States has contracted with for public relations purposes concerning Iraq.

The people of this country have a right to know if there was an effort to deliberately mislead them, and the taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. Support the resolution of inquiry. Reclaim the power of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.

I want to thank my friend and indicate that I rise in opposition.

This rhetoric that we are hearing on the House floor from people who I have to say I do respect greatly is eerily reminiscent of the debate in this House prior to the United States authorizing an attack on Iraq. I think we can look back today and say that the U.S. rushed into war against Iraq, only to find that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Madam Speaker, I will include for the Record an article from the Washington Post dated August 2, 2005, which says, ``A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredients for nuclear weapons, roughly doubling the previous estimate of 5 years.'' It goes on to say that ``this carefully hedged assessment, which represents consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrasts with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted but have not offered proof that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal.''

I also include for the record the remarks of Angela Merkel, who is the leader of Germany, who says that we have not used all of our available windows of opportunity. She saw an opportunity for a negotiated settlement. As a matter of fact, in this news dispatch out of Berlin from yesterday, the German chancellor says there are real chances for a diplomatic deal to defuse the ongoing crisis over Iran's nuclear program.

Madam Speaker, I include for the record a news report out of Moscow and Tehran of yesterday which says that Iran and Russia will hold talks on Monday on a Russian offer to conduct uranium enrichment for Iran in the Russian territory. This would avert what is a building crisis.

Madam Speaker, I include for the record an analysis that was done of the joint resolution on Iraq, this was done by myself, that pointed out the flaws in a resolution that was presented to this House. This is an analysis from October 2, 2002, that relates to analyzing the Iraq resolution. I think this would be very valuable when you compare it side by side with the resolution that we have now.

Madam Speaker, I want to call to the Members' attention the same article that Mr. Paul called to Members' attention, section 3 of the enactment clause, which calls on members of the United Nations Security Council, particularly the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, to expeditiously consider and take action in response to the report of Iran's noncompliance. This is in response to a report of Iran's noncompliance and fulfillment of the mandate of the Security Council to respond and deal with situations bearing on the maintenance of international peace and security.

The importance of this point and this amendment is that this point undermines and sets aside the only possibility for a peaceful resolution of this crisis, namely the offer by Russia to enrich uranium for Iran to use in its nuclear power plants. Iran would not operate any enrichment processing facilities of its own, so we have an opportunity to put aside this crisis if we see what is developing now. This resolution, unfortunately, would scuttle the Russian-led negotiated settlement. I ask Members to consider that this resolution would put us on the threshold of war.

Now, I stand with Mr. Lantos in defense of the right of Israel to survive. I voted for legislation yesterday that challenges any nation that would call for the destruction of Israel, and we should do that. But we don't have to go to war against Iran or to set the stage for a war against Iran when we have diplomatic means of resolving this. We should continue to pursue diplomacy.

Madam Speaker, I include the articles referred to earlier for the Record.

[From washingtonpost.com, Aug. 2, 2005]

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb

(By Dafna Linzer)

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is

about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for

a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of

five years, according to government sources with firsthand

knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus

among US. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful

public statements by the White House. Administration

officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that

Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The

new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran

over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he

wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that ``all

options are on the table.''

The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the

intelligence community views as credible indicators that

Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the

sources said there is no information linking those projects

directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that

Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and

mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.

The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's

ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear

arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior

intelligence official familiar with the findings said that

``it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left

to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear

weapons.''

At no time in the past three years has the White House

attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as

it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion.

Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and

questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would

require a large-scale nuclear energy program.

The NIE addresses those assertions and offers alternative

views supporting and challenging the assumptions they are

based on. Those familiar with the new judgments, which have

not been previously detailed, would discuss only limited

elements of the estimate and only on the condition of

anonymity, because the report is classified, as is some of

the evidence on which it is based.

Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several

administration officials said, as the White House formulates

the next steps of an Iran policy long riven by infighting and

competing strategies. For three years, the administration has

tried, with limited success, to increase pressure on Iran by

focusing attention on its nuclear program. Those efforts have

been driven as much by international diplomacy as by the

intelligence.

The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in

January, is the first major

review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about

Iran. Additional assessments produced during Bush's first

term were narrow in scope, and some were rejected by

advocates of policies that were inconsistent with the

intelligence judgments.

One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current

officials said was commissioned by national security adviser

Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the

possibility for ``regime change'' in Iran. Those findings

described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward

democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that

process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's

classified findings only on the condition of anonymity.

The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question

of Iran's political future. But it is unable to answer

whether the country's ruling clerics will still be in control

by the time the country is capable of producing fissile

material. The administration keeps ``hoping the mullahs will

leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability,'' said

an official familiar with policy discussions.

Intelligence estimates are designed to alert the president

of national security developments and help guide policy. The

new Iran findings were described as well documented and well

written, covering such topics as military capabilities,

expected population growth and the oil industry. The

assessments of Iran's nuclear program appear in a separate

annex to the NIE known as a memorandum to holders.

``It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and

what assumptions we have,'' a U.S. source said.

Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February

testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the

Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the

capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S.

officials have continually estimated Iran to be ``within five

years'' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has

not.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran

will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly

enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon,

before ``early to mid-next decade,'' according to four

sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the

shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical

limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line

with recently revised British and Israeli figures.

The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but

there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be

ready by then with an implosion device, sources said.

The time line is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect

a program moving full speed ahead without major technical

obstacles. It does not take into account that Iran has

suspended much of its uranium-enrichment work as part of a

tenuous deal with Britain, France and Germany. Iran announced

yesterday that it intends to resume some of that work if the

European talks fall short of expectations.

Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of

suspicions that Iran's military has been running its own

separate and covert enrichment effort. But there is evidence

of clandestine military work on missiles and centrifuge

research and development that could be linked to a nuclear

program, four sources said.

Last month, U.S. officials shared some data on the missile

program with U.N. nuclear inspectors, based on drawings

obtained last November. The documents include design

modifications for Iran's Shahab-3 missile to make the room

required for a nuclear warhead, U.S. and foreign officials

said.

``If someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he

has really good connections, he'll get that program

through,'' said Gordon Oehler, who ran the CIA's

nonproliferation center and served as deputy director of the

presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction. ``But

that doesn't mean there is a master plan for a nuclear

weapon.''

The commission found earlier this year that U.S.

intelligence knows ``disturbingly little'' about Iran, and

about North Korea.

Much of what is known about Tehran has been learned through

analyzing communication intercepts, satellite imagery and the

work of U.N. inspectors who have been investigating Iran for

more than two years. Inspectors uncovered facilities for

uranium conversion and enrichment, results of plutonium

tests, and equipment bought illicitly from Pakistan--all of

which raised serious concerns but could be explained by an

energy program. Inspectors have found no proof that Iran

possesses a nuclear warhead design or is conducting a nuclear

weapons program.

The NIE comes more than two years after the intelligence

community assessed, wrongly, in an October 2002 estimate that

then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass

destruction and was reconstituting his nuclear program. The

judgments were declassified and made public by the Bush

administration as it sought to build support for invading

Iraq five months later.

At a congressional hearing last Thursday, Gen. Michael V.

Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said that

new rules recently were imposed for crafting NIBs and that

there would be ``a higher tolerance for ambiguity,'' even if

it meant producing estimates with less definitive

conclusions.

The Iran NIE, sources said, includes creative analysis and

alternative theories that could explain some of the

suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three

years. Iran has said its nuclear infrastructure was built for

energy production, not weapons.

Assessed as plausible, but unverifiable, is Iran's public

explanation that it built the program in secret, over 18

years, because it feared attack by the United States or

Israel if the work was exposed.

In January, before the review, Vice President Cheney

suggested Iranian nuclear advances were so pressing that

Israel may be forced to attack facilities, as it had done 23

years earlier in Iraq.

In an April 2004 speech, John R. Bolton--then the

administration's point man on weapons of mass destruction and

now Bush's temporarily appointed U.N. ambassador--said: ``If

we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer, it will be

too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons.''

But the level of certainty, influenced by diplomacy and

intelligence, appears to have shifted.

Asked in June, after the NIE was done, whether Iran had a

nuclear effort underway, Bolton's successor, Robert G.

Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said: ``I

don't know quite how to answer that because we don't have

perfect information or perfect understanding. But the Iranian

records what the Iranian leaders have said . . . lead us to

conclude that we have to be highly skeptical.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of my friend, Dick Goddard, for his life-long activism and advocacy in promoting and protecting the welfare of animals, especially humankind's best friends, our dogs and cats.

Mr. Goddard has served as WJW TV8's, FOX8 News, Chief Meteorologist for 40 years. His interesting intellectual insights and quick wit reflect in every forecast and have endeared him to thousands of daily, faithful viewers. For decades, Mr. Goddard has channeled his celebrity profile, both, on and off camera, to promote and support programs that benefit the animal companions of our community. From neuter and spay programs, to featuring dog and cat adoptions twice weekly during the 6 o'clock news broadcast, Mr. Goddard's unwavering and compassionate focus has provided safe and secure homes for hundreds of unwanted pets.

Mr. Goddard has built strong connections with area animal shelters and volunteers his time and talents in raising tens of thousands of dollars for more than 60 animal welfare organizations throughout Ohio. He regularly attends and promotes animal welfare events and is the point person in our community regarding animal-related concerns. Mr. Goddard's commitment and compassion is equaled and supported by many volunteers, including Patti Fisher and Mary Pennington, who've worked behind-the-scenes with Mr. Goddard for nearly 20 years.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Mr. Dick Goddard, whose personal and professional integrity, affable nature, and deep concern for our community lends a voice of protection, rescue, warmth and shelter for stray and abandoned dogs and cats throughout our region. I also wish my friend a very happy birthday and a lifelong forecast of peace, health and happiness, under blue and sunny skies.

Mr. Speaker, I gave the attached statement, in support of the banning of methyl bromide on February 15, 2006.

Statement of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Subcommittee on Energy and Resources, House Committee on Government Reform: Hearing on ``Methyl Bromide: Are U.S. Interests Being Served by the Critical Use Exemption

Process?''

I was dismayed when I learned that today we would be

discussing efforts to perpetuate--and possibly increase--the

use of methyl bromide. Continuing to allow it to be

manufactured and used is bad for the environment, bad for

human health, bad for international relations, bad economics,

and is simply unnecessary.

Methyl bromide has been responsible for a significant

amount of the degradation of our protective ozone layer. In

2005, the size of the resulting hole in that layer over the

Antarctic reached 9.4 million square miles, an area almost as

big as the combined areas of the U.S. and Canada, according

to NASA. Current estimates say that it will take another 50

years for the hole to repair itself.

Too much UV-B, which is filtered by the ozone layer, causes

cataracts and suppresses our immune systems, making us more

vulnerable to viruses and bacteria. It also contributes to

skin cancer. It was this threat to human health that was a

major reason that the international community agreed to ban

it. It was a display of unprecedented cooperation in the face

of an environmental threat.

Methyl bromide puts our own workers and consumers at risk

too. When it is injected into the soil, it kills almost every

living thing in the soil. It is no wonder that it also

causes chronic health problems for the workers who apply

it and the nearby communities who are also exposed to it.

Exposure has effects on the neurological system including

functional impairment, lethargy, twitching, tremors, and

paralysis in extreme cases. It has also been linked to

prostate cancer and birth defects in some studies.

Continuing the manufacture of methyl bromide is bad

economics. Since the international community agreed to phase

out methyl bromide, companies who play by the rules have been

planning for its phaseout. They have incurred real financial

costs by investing in alternatives, anticipating the phase-

out required by the Montreal Protocol. Failing to adhere to

the U.S. promise to phase out methyl bromide puts these

companies who were playing by the rules at an unfair

competitive disadvantage. Those who do the right thing and

obey the law should be rewarded for their good faith efforts,

not punished.

Consider the international relations implications as well.

An attempt to let the U.S. allow methyl bromide to be used

without going through the specified channels--like other

countries are required to do--would further harm our standing

in the international community. It sends a signal to other

countries that we will only honor our agreements until we

change our mind. It harms negotiations on future agreements.

It furthers the stereotype of the U.S. as the bull in the

proverbial global china shop.

The EPA is currently trying to address the methyl bromide

issue by substituting chemicals, like methyl iodide, that

aren't as harmful to the ozone layer but are still highly

toxic. Instead, we need to look to alternatives for pest

control that not only preserve the ozone layer but also

protect worker health, community health, consumer health, and

ecological health. In fact, that's exactly what Americans

want.

One of the biggest growth industries right now is organic

food. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``The

annual rate of market growth since 1990 has remained steady

at about 20%.'' When given a choice between food grown with

toxic chemicals or food grown organically, people choose the

latter, especially when the price is comparable, which is

increasingly the case as economies of scale become more

prevalent.

One of methyl bromide's biggest uses is for strawberry

crops. Jake Lewin, director of marketing for California

Certified Organic Farmers says ``. . . strawberries can be

grown without pesticide. We've got 60 growers who don't use

(methyl bromide) . . . The bottom line is small and large

growers have successfully produced strawberries without

pesticides.''

So we are talking about yielding to the management of

chemical producers and agribusiness--who by the way rarely

have to apply the toxic pesticide themselves or live in the

adjacent communities--at a drastic cost to our health and

that of the earth. It speaks to a systematic deference to

corporations at the expense of the biological systems on

which we intimately depend for life. It is unwise and

unnecessary. I call for the immediate and permanent phase-out

of methyl bromide.