Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the following article to the attention of my colleagues. This article discusses how the savings from creating a truly competitive market for prescription drugs, as is proposed by the Free Market Drug Act, could be used to eliminate any projected shortfall in Social Security. The American people demand that we focus our attention on the very real crisis that the soaring price of prescription drugs presents to their daily lives.

[From the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Apr., 2005]

Bigger Than the Social Security Crisis: Wasteful Spending on

Prescription Drugs

(By Dean Baker)

Executive Summary

President Bush started a national debate on the future of

Social Security when he announced his plan for private

accounts shortly after the November election. In order to

promote his plan, he has argued that Social Security faces a

serious long-term funding gap.

It is easy to show that the projected funding gap for

Social Security is relatively minor. The Social Security

trustees estimate that the gap over the program's 75-year

planning period is equal to 0.6 percent of GDP over this

period. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

estimates this gap at 0.4 percent of GDP. By comparison, the

increase in annual defense spending since 2000 has been equal

to 1.0 percent of GDP, more than 1.5 times the size of the

shortfall projected by the Social Security trustees and 2.5

times as large as the shortfall projected by CBO.

Given the size of the projected Social Security shortfall

it is reasonable to argue that attention should be focused on

bigger problems. One glaring example is the soaring price of

prescription drugs, which is imposing huge costs on both the

private and public sectors. This paper examines the

relationship between the potential savings from creating a

free market in prescription drugs and the size of the Social

Security shortfall.

Specifically, it calculates the savings that the federal

government could accrue in Medicare if drug research was

publicly financed and then the resulting patents were placed

in the public domain, as proposed in the Free Market Drug Act

(FMDA). This would allow prescription drugs to be sold in a

competitive market, like other products. By eliminating

government imposed patent monopolies, drug prices would

decline by approximately 70 percent.

This paper calculates that the savings to the federal

government from having drugs sold in a competitive market

could reach $110 billion annually by 2014. By the end of the

period (in 2080) the annual savings would be equal to 1.2

percent of GDP. The cumulative savings over the 75-year

planning horizon would be $3.3 trillion (in discounted 2005

dollars); this is slightly larger than the $3.2 trillion

Social Security shortfall projected by the CBO. In other

words, if the federal government's savings on prescription

drugs from the FMDA were attributed to the Social Security

trust fund, it would be more than enough to make Social

Security fully solvent over its 75-year planning period.

The enormous potential savings from developing a free

market in prescription drugs should be a powerful argument

for moving in this direction in any case, but the possibility

of using the savings to eliminate the projected Social

Security shortfall could make the policy even more

attractive. Of course, the savings to the private sector from

having drugs sold in a free market would be even larger than

the savings to the federal government.

However, the most important benefit is that the FMDA would

eliminate the incentives that government patent monopolies

create to conceal or misrepresent research findings, as was

recently exposed with drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex. If

research is no longer financed by government patent

monopolies, the perverse incentives they create will be

eliminated. This will lead to better health care, in addition

to much lower drug prices.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 21, I had the honor of chairing a citizens hearing on the need for national health care which took place in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. I heard testimony from citizens from a wide variety of backgrounds including labor, elected officials, seniors, youth, and physicians and health care workers. What I heard powerfully demonstrates the need for fundamental changes in how America takes care of its people. The hearing clearly showed that the time is long overdue to bring our health care system up to the same standards that other industrialized countries have enjoyed for years. I wish to share some of the testimony I received with my colleagues.

Carol McMann, a retiree and an active member of the

Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees (SOAR) Chapter

2020:

``I am disappointed and frustrated about the way our health

care system is going in the United States. A lot of people do

not want national health care, but when you get in my

situation it would be appreciated!''

``When LTV Steel liquidated and took my health insurance in

the year 2002, it totally left me out in the cold.''

``I had two choices for health care and the expensive one

was the one that I had to take because I needed a

prescription drug program. I had to purchase individual

health care from Highmark Blue Shield/Blue Cross. If I chose

an HMO and was accepted, then I had a year that I would not

be covered for pre-existing conditions.''

``This individual policy costs me $411.95 a month with a

$1,000 deductible. It increases each year in September. Who

knows what the total will be in two more years! My husband

and I figured out our total cost for health care each year,

including prescription drugs, and it came out to more than

$10,000. It takes all of my social security just to pay the

premium alone. I am a homemaker!''

``At the end of the month, we have to watch because if our

fixed income is gone, we must use our savings again and

again. We fear it may be gone in the future. To wind this

down, we no longer vacation, go on shopping sprees, buy our

sons much, or enjoy life as before. It has depressed us at

times and causes us to feel as though my husband worked for

absolutely no reason! He served in the Army and also the

Reserves. Our health care just meant everything to us in our

retirement. Just everything!

``We feel this administration and other elected leaders

will not fix this problem. Everyone in this country now is

just expected to take care of themselves.''

Mike Sabat, an unemployed Anchor Hocking worker whose son

Mikey suffers from autism:

``Whatever happened to the American dream of hard work at a

good job with medical benefits? Now we have to ask employers

what kind of medical insurance they offer, how much it costs,

and then deal with an endless assortment of HMOs, PPOs, and

managed care and third-party administrators. And don't forget

the eye care, dental, orthotics, and mental health coverage.

It seems like we have been working all our lives just for our

medical benefits!''

``I am laid-off again at the present time, however, a union

contract saved my medical insurance for four months.''

``In a country so rich, no one should have to go without

food, water, clothing, shelter, quality education, and

especially health care!''

``People should not be in debt, as I am, over their medical

insurance or bills!''

``Those commercials about insurance fraud kill me. I think

when you have insurance and you go to the doctor or hospital

thinking you are covered then you get a large bill, that's

the real insurance fraud!''

Ian Thompson, a recent graduate of Penn State University

who will soon be losing his health coverage:

``Simply put, to say that the current health care system is

failing to meet the needs of America's young adults is at

best a gross understatement. While young people between the

ages of 19 to 29 account for a mere 15 percent of the U.S.

population, they are disproportionately represented among the

roughly 45 million Americans who currently lack health

insurance, accounting for roughly 30 percent according to

recent census figures. These findings have shown that young

people account for the highest percentage of uninsured

Americans.''

``Nineteen to 29 year olds represent one of the biggest and

fastest growing segments of the population living day to day

without health insurance, yet individuals in this age group

rarely appear in the national debate on health insurance.''

``It probably comes as no surprise that one of the largest

barriers for young adults in seeking health insurance

coverage is cost. In many instances, the price of coverage

simply rises faster than incomes, making it especially

difficult for younger people to obtain coverage.

``For many younger people, the consequences of going

without health insurance don't seem as immediate as cutting

back on grocery bills, losing car insurance, or missing a

rent or mortgage payment. So they decide to take a chance--a

calculated risk that they won't face a serious and costly

health crisis--and forgo health coverage for months and often

years at a time. Sadly, for many this proves to be a

devastating gamble. When catastrophes hit the uninsured, as

they can and do to individuals in every age group, many are

left completely buried in massive amounts of debt, unable to

afford even basic medical necessities.

``With the numbers of uninsured Americans steadily

increasing, today's young people face the sad prospect of

being sicker and less econeconomicallyductive over the course

of their lives. Amid a soft job market and ever increasing

insurance costs, many experts fear that more and more young

adults will forgo medical care altogether. Research has in

fact shown that it is a common practice among uninsured young

people to go to a doctor less often and later into an

illness, often ending up with so many other countless

uninsured Americans in hospital emergency rooms for

conditions that easily could have been treated at an earlier

time.

Those who argue that younger adults are an age group that

does not have the same health needs as other segments of the

population simply have not been paying attention to the

facts. Younger adults have the highest number of annual

visits to emergency rooms each year (usually from injuries).

They account for a third of new HIV diagnoses. And nearly

four million pregnancies occur in women in their 20s every

year. The results of a lack of insurance for young people are

truly shocking and should act as a wake-up call to the

consciences of Americans from across the political spectrum.

The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 young adults

die each year because they lack health insurance to cover

their problems. Additionally, uninsured adults are 25 percent

more likely to die prematurely than those with private health

insurance coverage.

``There is something inherently perverted and fundamentally

flawed with a health care system that prides itself as being

the best and most advanced in the world while at the same

time allowing 18,000 young people to die each and every year

from illnesses and diseases that in many cases could be

avoided with simple preventive treatment.

``The time is long overdue to change our outrageously

costly and grossly inefficient health care system to one that

meets the basic needs of the American public in terms of

gaining universal, efficient, available, and affordable

access to the highest quality health care. H.R. 676, the U.S.

National Health Insurance Act goes a long way towards

accomplishing this very goal. This legislation would improve

and expand upon what older Americans already receive through

the very successful Medicare program to include all U.S.

residents. To say it is needed is an understatement. The

current for-profit system of health care must be replaced

with one that puts the interests of people first.''

Madam Speaker, in the last few weeks I have had the honor of addressing Chambers of Commerce from districts which have included the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). In both cases, we ended up having a deep discussion about the rising cost of health care, about how health care is becoming increasingly costly for many American businesses, a threat to their profitability.

Today's news is that General Motors is talking about cutting 25,000 jobs and closing plants. Here is what GM's CEO says in today's news, ``A big challenge for General Motors is to cut its soaring health care expenses, $5.6 billion this year for its 1.1 million current and former workers and their families. Health care bills add about $1,500 to the cost of each GM vehicle, a significant disadvantage versus our foreign- based competition.''

Madam Speaker, it is time for a universal, single-payer, not-for- profit health care system which will enable businesses to survive and the health care needs of the American people to be provided for.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment today to begin a discussion in this House which is aimed at ensuring the livelihood of commercial fishermen and protecting our oceans, lakes, and streams. This amendment is a reasonable and moderate safeguard. It will delay FDA approval of genetically engineered fish for a year. This amendment is necessary because commercial fishermen and environmentalists have raised concerns that GE fish may pose ecological risks. Scientists from Purdue University and the University of Minnesota have raised a number of serious questions about the ecological impacts of GE fish. These risks include GE fish escape from ocean pens into the environment, which could impact wild populations of fish.

In this first chart, Mr. Chairman, GE fish are being engineered to grow faster and bigger. However, several fish ecologists from the University of Minnesota and Purdue University have expressed concerns with these salmon, as their accidental release may create environmentally disastrous extinctions of natural wild salmon species.

In the second chart, the bottom fish is the same age as the two smaller fish on top.

But, of course, what we have here is a genetically engineered fish on the bottom.

The third chart, scientists have determined that a larger fish has an advantage in mating. Thus, larger GE fish, which are more aggressive and consume more food, attract more mates than wild fish. In essence, one could call this one the ``handsomely big GE fish'' is more successful than the ``lonely natural fish.''

Scientists have also determined that these GE fish may survive for only a limited number of generations in the wild. Their offspring will be less fit and less likely to survive. So we are talking about the survival of species here.

On the fourth chart, mutant fish are created as GE fish escape into the wild and mate with natural fish. The mutant's fish larger size gives an advantage in mating, forcing new genetic traits to be integrated into the wild. But these mutant fish may only survive for a limited number of generations in the wild. The implications are serious. After several generations, natural fish may go extinct because larger GE fish are more successful than natural fish in mating. Mutant fish also go extinct because their mutant genes decrease the survivability of the species.

As a result of GE fish producing unfit offspring that are more successful in mating, the Purdue scientists predict that if 60 genetically engineered fish were introduced into a population of 60,000 wild fish, the species would become extinct within only 40 fish generations.

Scientists call this outcome the Trojan Gene Effect. The end result is a possible extinction of important commercial fish species like salmon. The National Academy of Sciences has examined this issue in their report ``Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns, 2002,'' and found ``considerable risk'' and a need for more research.

``Transgenic Atlantic salmon pose a near-term regulatory issue. A brief review of the hazards they pose provides a useful illustration of the environmental hazards posed by GE aquatic species more generally.

``The committee's review,'' continuing on of the quote, ``of ecologic principles and empirical data suggests a considerable risk of ecologic hazards being realized should transgenic fish or shellfish enter the natural ecosystems. In particular, greater empirical knowledge is needed to predict the outcome should transgenes become introgressed into natural populations of aquatic organisms.''

The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the science society of experts on fish, amphibians, and reptiles, has joined the call for a 1-year moratorium. This amendment is strongly supported by commercial fishermen because their struggling industry cannot afford a negative ecological impact on the wild fish species that they depend on for their livelihood.

Several States have passed legislation regulating GE fish, including prohibitions, labeling requirements, and permit requirements. The States include Alaska, California, Maryland, Oregon, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I brought this discussion to this House for the purposes of alerting the Members of Congress that we need to have a deep debate about this, that we need to do more research, we need to get into this; and for that reason I would have the debate continue.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment would permit anyone to test for Mad Cow if they so desired. It would require the USDA to perform the test and require the requestor to pay for it.

This amendment may strike my colleagues as unnecessary. After all, any food manufacturer should be able to test their own product for safety. Let me explain.

Mad Cow disease has been detected in 187,000 cows all over the world. Its early symptoms include weight loss, loss of balance, and acting skittish. The cow later descends into drooling, arching its back, waving its head, and exhibiting unusually aggressive behavior. It is inevitably fatal.

Variant CJD, as it is called, which is the disease humans can get from eating infected cattle, has resulted in over 150 deaths in Europe. Most of those occurred in the U.K., the epicenter of the human and bovine outbreaks. The U.S. was spared until 2003 when the first case of Mad Cow was detected in Washington State.

Immediately, countries that had invested heavily in their own testing and processing infrastructure in order to assure a safe beef supply closed their borders to American beef exports. Countries like Japan, which now tests every cattle slaughtered, demanded similar testing rates and practices of their own of any importer, including the United States. In the case of Japan, the U.S. refused to meet their demands. As a result, an industry trade group claimed losses of $4.7 billion for cattle producers.

Small businesses like Gateway Beef Cooperative, which processes 200 cattle per week, were losing $50,000 per week. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef was losing about $40,000 per day. Some businesses responded with a logical plan. They wanted to test all of their cattle, just like Japan. Not only would it restore access to a crucial overseas market, but it would give them a competitive advantage in parts of the world where consumers demanded the highest safety standards. It was a solution that let the free market work its purported magic by allowing consumers to choose how safe they wanted their beef.

But, Mr. Chairman, the USDA stopped them. They invoked a 1913 law, originally intended to ``protect the farmer and stock raiser from improperly made and prepared serums, toxins, and viruses.'' The law gives them control over ``veterinary biologics'' like diagnostic tests. In this case, the USDA took control over who could test their cattle and when by using this law to license use of the diagnostic test only to themselves. An American company was forbidden from testing their own product for safety.

Their reasoning? Allowing companies to test all of their cattle, FDA says, ``would have implied a consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically warranted.'' In other words, the FDA worried that consumers will see a label indicating that their meat has been tested for Mad Cow disease and assume it is safer than meat that has not been tested.

Why would they worry about that? Is this not the way it is supposed to be? If your food has been tested, you can be assured it is safer. It is not a reason to prevent testing. In fact, it is a strong argument in favor of allowing testing.

The real reason the USDA will not let a business owner test their own product is that the beef industry is afraid that a new standard of safety will be set and the marginal cost of adequate testing will cut into their shareholder profits. They also stand to lose if a sufficient number of tests are conducted and another Mad Cow case surfaces. In the meantime, Japan and South Korea are under enormous pressure to lower their beef testing standards and reopen their borders to American beef. They look at all their options.

Option number one is to require the U.S. to bring their testing rates up to speed with other industrialized nations. France and Germany test over half their cattle. The U.K. tests all cattle over 24 months old. Japan tests every single one. Meanwhile, the United States boasts about their ramped-up testing rate. In 2004, the year after we found our first case of Mad Cow, the USDA tested 176,468 out of roughly 35 million cattle. That is about a rate of one-half of 1 percent. In other words, about one out of every 200 cattle was tested.

On top of that, the administration proposed to reduce funding for surveillance by two-thirds this year, from $69 million to $29 million.

The second option for Japan and South Korea is to give in to U.S. demands, drastically lower their safety standards, and allow beef that is held to a safety benchmark that is orders of magnitude lower than their own. In so doing, they would risk undermining fragile public confidence in meat safety. It is not right that the administration would play politics with global food supply.

Now, my amendment would allow voluntary testing to occur by requiring the USDA to perform the test on demand. That way the integrity of the testing procedures is maintained under close supervision, and there is accountability and transparency.

In the future, there must be a provision to ensure that Congress does not reduce the amount of USDA funding with funds paid by industry for the testing program.

In trying to rescue their business by giving consumers what they want, some American beef producers could help fill the leadership vacuum left by the USDA. They should be allowed to.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman is right. There is a point of order, because we need to legislate to fix this problem. I hope that when the authorizing and appropriating committees meet next year that they will consider this approach, giving it the consideration it deserves. It is for both American cattlemen and consumers.

The gentleman is correct. I will concede the point of order, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of all veterans of the 10th Congressional District of Ohio for their service, bravery, and dedication on behalf of our country. Most significantly, we stand in tribute and remembrance of those veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice when they answered the call to duty.

The lives of many veterans and their families have been uplifted by the outreach efforts of the Parma Veterans Center--a haven of services and assistance focused on the emotional, psychological, medical, financial, and employment needs of thousands of veterans and their families.

The services and support provided by the Parma Veterans Center is the least we can do on behalf of our veteran--our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, mothers, fathers and grandfathers--thousands of whom have made significant sacrifices and suffered great losses during and after their unwavering service to our country.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, tribute and gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces--let us forever remember their service, sacrifice and sense of duty--yesterday, today, and for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, on May 26, 2005, I sent the following letter to Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):

House of Representatives,

May 26, 2005.

Dr. Michael D. Griffin,

Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Washington, DC.

Dear Dr. Griffin: NASA is able to develop long term, high-

risk enabling aeronautics

technologies that the private sector is unwilling to develop

because they are too risky or too expensive. In fact,

government funding of basic science has historically been the

major role of government-sponsored research in aeronautics as

well as the pharmaceutical, defense, and energy industries.

When that basic research yields information that could lead

to a service or product with profit potential, the private

sector transitions the technology from research to

development in order to bring it to market.

It is clear that where there is no basic research, there

can be no development. Where there is no research and

development, there can be no competitive industry. Without a

thriving competitive aeronautics industry, we undermine our

economy, national security, and airline safety.

Any management decisions that significantly erode NASA's

aeronautics programs will require decades and billions of

dollars to replace. We urge you to take all possible steps to

preserve a robust aeronautics program at NASA.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Kucinich,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and welcome Ron Ellington Shy, the musician and actor, back home to Cleveland. Ron will be at the Joseph Gallagher Middle School in Ohio's 10th Congressional District on May 27, 2005, to participate in the ``Stars for Peace'' rally for peace and violence prevention.

A musician, actor, and dynamic entertainer with incredible vocal ability, Ron Ellington Shy was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame as a former member of such legendary groups as ``The Coasters,'' ``The Drifters,'' and ``Don & Dewey.''

Ron was born and raised in Cleveland. He moved to California where he attended Fullerton Junior College and continued his education at the University of Southern California, majoring in psychology and minoring in music. His early career included playing professional football and achieving many accolades for his athletic abilities. He was a Golden Gloves boxing champion and holds a black belt in Karate.

As a recording artist, Ron Ellington Shy performed such memorable hits of the 1950s and 1960s as ``Leavin' It All Up To You,'' ``Jungle Hop,'' ``Justine,'' ``The Letter,'' ``Farmer John,'' and my late colleague Sonny Bono's ``Koko Joe.'' A gifted vocalist, Ron is also a versatile musician who plays guitar, piano, organ, saxophone, valve trombone, and harmonica. He is known for his charismatic showmanship, involving his audience as they sing along to the many classic oldies he performs in his shows. As an actor, Ron has appeared on television in such notable programs as ``Dallas,'' ``Knotts Landing,'' and ``Falcon Crest,'' as well as TV commercials for Right Guard deodorant, Church's Chicken, and the California Lottery.

Currently, Ron is on a national tour acting the role, and performing the music, of the late Ray Charles. Ron graciously accepted the invitation of the Joseph Gallagher Middle School, the East Cleveland Neighborhood Center, and local Hip-Hop impresario Bill ``Silver B'' Richards, to participate in the ``Stars for Peace'' rally for peace and violence prevention. Ron and the sponsors and organizers of this event understand the importance of international peace and that peace begins with each of us as individuals and in our homes.

Mr. Speaker, and Colleagues, it is my pleasure to welcome Ron Ellington Shy to Ohio's 10th District, to congratulate him on his many accomplishments, and to commend him on taking a stand in using his fame and international recognition to promote world peace and violence prevention.

Mr. Speaker, today I welcomed legislators from Central American countries to discuss the perils of CAFTA. I submit my opening remarks for the Record.

Thank you all for coming to this important briefing on how

the Dominican-Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement

was passed in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. I would

like to thank Congressman Becerra for hosting this briefing

with me, and of course, the Central American legislators for

traveling up here to share their experiences with us.

There are innumerable reasons to oppose CAFTA, in the

United States and in Central America. Governments will have

little to no control over the investments of foreign

companies, and foreign investors will not have to comply with

International Labor Organization standards when they invest

in Central American business ventures. Workers' rights will

be undermined, especially for women workers, farmers and

maquilla workers. The current labor rights abuses prevalent

in

some Central American countries will run rampant under

CAFTA's weak labor provisions. Countries will enjoy greater

tariff benefits for goods made by workers whose rights have

been denied.

Family farms in Central America will fall victim to CAFTA,

which will threaten locally grown produce and undermine food

security for Central Americans. Basic public goods and

services, such as education, health care and water will

become privatized, as governments will lose the flexibility

to subsidize these services. Expensive brand-name drugs will

have expanded patents, and inexpensive generic medicines will

have greater restrictions. Poor people will not have access

to life-saving pharmaceuticals.

Yet these concerns could not be fully considered or debated

by lawmakers in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. CAFTA

was brought up suddenly, in the wee hours of the morning,

with no public notice, and many lawmakers did not get the

chance to investigate what they were voting on. Is this how

far-reaching legal reform bills should be considered? Of

course not. And the real story of how CAFTA was pushed

through the legislatures of Central American countries will

undercut any legitimacy its ratification may have.

Please join me in welcoming the lawmakers who opposed CAFTA

in their respective legislatre assemblies when it was

considered, and who have traveled here to continue to oppose

CAFTA. Let me introduce: Diputada Doris Gutierrez, from

Honduras; Diputado Victor Manuel Sales, from Guatemala;

Diputado Hugo Martinez, from El Salvado; and Diputado

Salvador Arias, from El Salvador.

Mr. Speaker, health care in this country is a crisis of major proportions. Seniors are still splitting pills to make their medications last. People will not go to a doctor because they cannot afford it. Only if some are near death will they rush to the hospital. It is clearly time for a universal, single payer, not-for-profit health care system called Medicare For All, and that is exactly what H.R. 676, sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and by myself would achieve.

Medicare For All will cost the same amount the Nation currently spends for health care overall, but funds will be reallocated to cover everyone, to improve care and eliminate cost for individuals. And here is what would be covered: all medically necessary procedures, primary care and prevention, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, long-term care, mental health, dental health, and vision care, as well as chiropractic services.

It is time for us to realize a primary purpose of our government is to make sure our people are healthy. Health care is a basic right in a democratic society.

I am urging support for H.R. 676.

Madam Speaker, why should a family risk losing everything they have worked a lifetime for because one of their family members gets sick? Right now, one of the major economic crises in this country is the lack of accessibility to affordable health care for the American people.

There are 45 million Americans without health insurance, and those who have health insurance are finding that their premiums, copays, and deductibles are putting a tremendous financial burden on their families. It is time for this Congress to come up with a solution.

There is a solution at hand. It is H.R. 676, a bill to establish Medicare for all. A universal, single payer, not-for-profit health care system, which takes the resources of our system and makes it possible for people to be covered for all medically necessary procedures: for vision care, for dental care, for mental health care, for long-term care, and a prescription drug benefit.

It is time that we recognize that the people of this country are suffering from a health care system which is not responsive to their needs. It is time for Medicare for all, universal single payer, not- for-profit health care, H.R. 676.

I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bradley amendment because my hometown, Cleveland, is losing 1,100 jobs. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS, which is the fourth largest employer in Cleveland, is shifting these jobs to DFAS facilities in Columbus; Denver, Colorado; and Indianapolis. The NASA Glenn Research Center will also lose 50 civilian military research jobs as a part of BRAC. The Army research laboratory at Glenn is losing the vehicle technology directorate. And, finally, the Navy Corps Reserve Center in Cleveland will close and lose 25 jobs.

The Secretary of Defense is required to consider the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations. In this case, the Department of Defense erroneously states that a 0.1 percent job loss in the Cleveland metropolitan statistical area has minimal economic impact. However, the Department of Defense failed to take into account the current economic position of the Cleveland area.

Cleveland has been labeled as the poorest city in the country today. Its poverty rate of 31.3 percent is the highest in the Nation, according to the most recent Census Bureau data from 2003. Cleveland's number one ranking in poverty rate results from the significant job losses in the steel and manufacturing industries over the past several decades.

These job losses continue. For example, the current 2006 budget recently passed by Congress would slash up to 700 high-paying Federal jobs at the NASA Glenn Research Center. The economy around Cleveland is stagnating. It is inconceivable that the Department of Defense thinks that 1,100 more job losses will not have a major impact on the city of Cleveland.

If the process used to cut these jobs is flawed, I have no choice but to vote for a fix to disable the BRAC process.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me time.

The reason I am rising to support her amendment is because I think that we have come to a time in the war in Iraq where Democrats and Republicans alike need to consider all the events that have transpired, to do it in a way that is compassionate for the decisions that were made to send us into war, and to do it without recriminations, without challenging each other's integrity, without challenging each other's love for our country or support for the troops.

Democrats and Republicans came together to send this country to war. We can only come together to take this country out of Iraq. You start to see the signs that make it so apparent that the time is near. The time is near when this Congress must consider the reality facing our troops, the reality of the circumstances which sent our troops into battle. And we need to do this as colleagues who may have started from different points of view on Iraq. I certainly have a different point of view. I voted against the war. But now we are starting to see people who voted for the war coming forward and expressing their concerns.

We have to have that capacity for rational reflection and an ability, not to say so much that we were wrong, but to say we have new information and we therefore have a right to reappraise the situation and take a new direction. The Woolsey amendment gives us a chance to do that, and it sets us on a path.

So whether it is the Woolsey amendment or something that happens in the

next few weeks and months, Democrats and Republicans are going to have to come together to help the President get out of the mess that this country is in.

So I think we can proceed in a spirit that is amicable. We do not have to be beating each other up on this. We do not have to have a war about war, or certainly a war about a peaceful withdrawal.

So the Woolsey amendment is an important step in the direction of setting this country on a path towards extricating ourself from Iraq. For that reason, I support it, and I want to commend her for her activity on behalf of it.

Offered By: Mr. Kucinich

Amendment No. 1: Page 17, line 17, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000) (increased

by $15,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the following article to the attention of my colleagues. We must continue to challenge the FDA's assumption that all genetically engineered food is safe.

[From the Independent, May 22, 2005.]

Revealed: Health Fears Over Secret Study Into GM Food

(By Geoffrey Lean)

Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn

developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to

their blood, raising fears that human health could be

affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of

secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant,

which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller

kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these

health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed

non-GM food as part of the research project.

The disclosures come as European countries, including

Britain, prepare to vote on whether the GM-modified corn

should go on sale to the public. A vote last week by the

European Union failed to secure agreement over whether the

product should be sold here, after Britain and nine other

countries voted in favour.

However, the disclosure of the health effects on the

Monsanto rats has intensified the row over whether the corn

is safe to eat without further research. Doctors said the

changes in the blood of the rodents could indicate that the

rat's immune system had been damaged or that a disorder such

as a tumour had grown and the system was mobilising to fight

it.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a senior lecturer on human anatomy and

cell biology at Liverpool University, called for the

publication of the full study, saying the summary gave

``prima facie cause for concern''.

Dr. Michael Antoniu, an expert in molecular genetics at

Guy's Hospital Medical School, described the findings as

``very worrying from a medical point of view'', adding: ``I

have been amazed at the number of significant differences

they found [in the rat experiment].''

Although Monsanto last night dismissed the abnormalities in

rats as meaningless and due to chance, reflecting normal

variations between rats, a senior British government

source said ministers were so worried by the findings that

they had called for further information.

Environmentalists will see the findings as vindication of

British research seven years ago, which suggested that rats

that ate GM potatoes suffered damage to their health. That

research, which was roundly denounced by ministers and the

British scientific establishment, was halted and Dr. Arpad

Pusztai, the scientist behind the controversial findings, was

forced into retirement amid a huge row over the claim.

Dr. Pusztai reported a ``huge list of significant

differences'' between rats fed GM and conventional corn,

saying the results strongly indicate that eating significant

amounts of it can damage health. The new study is into a

corn, codenamed MON 863, which has been modified by Monsanto

to protect itself against corn rootworm, which the company

describes as ``one of the most pernicious pests affecting

maize crops around the world''.

Now, however, any decision to allow the corn to be marketed

in the UK will cause widespread alarm. The full details of

the rat research are included in the main report, which

Monsanto refuses to release on the grounds that ``it contains

confidential business information which could be of

commercial use to our competitors''.

A Monsanto spokesman said yesterday: ``If any such well-

known anti-biotech critics had doubts about the credibility

of these studies

they should have raised them with the regulators. After all,

MON 863 isn't new, having been approved to be as safe as

conventional maize by nine other global authorities since

2003.''

Mr. Speaker, this week I will offer an amendment to the defense authorization bill, cosponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), which will reaffirm the policy of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, signed into law by President Eisenhower, that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

This amendment will reaffirm that it is U.S. policy to preserve peace in space by not deploying space-based weapons. Today's New York Times states: ``Congress and the administration need to assess whether a multilateral treaty to ban space weapons might not leave the Nation far safer than a unilateral drive to put the first weapons in space.''

Please support my amendment, cosponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to keep space devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind; and support H.R. 2420, now cosponsored by 28 Members of the House, which sets the stage for a multilateral treaty to keep space devoted to peaceful purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.

H.R. 810 is the safest, most ethically and morally sound way to proceed with this potentially life-saving scientific advancement. This debate is not about whether or not embryonic stem cell research should occur. The Administration is not stopping private embryonic stem cell research. It just opposes the expansion of public stem cell research.

The private sector is not restricted from such research. The private sector currently uses frozen embryos which would otherwise be discarded. Corporate entities already have access to 125 new and better embryonic stem cell lines, created after August 9, 2001, when the President announced his new stem cell policy.

H.R. 810 expands the number of frozen embryos to be used for stem cell research by the Federal Government. Federally sponsored research is subject to greater oversight and safeguards and higher ethical standards. Ethical controls over privately funded research are limited.

Recent scientific breakthroughs have demonstrated that embryonic stem cell research has life saving potential. It could result in saving millions of lives. It could be the answer to the prayers of those who suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injuries and other debilitating conditions. Recent studies have set back the case for the efficacy of adult stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research will continue with or without the federal government. This bill expands federal research, which will be subject to greater oversight and safeguards.