Updated 06.21.

2007

Detailed Issues Menu PAGE 2

Ten Key Issues
1. Universal Health Care PAGE 3 2. International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in PAGE 6 3. Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO PAGE 8 4. Repeal of the "Patriot Act" PAGE 11 5. Guaranteed Quality Education, PreK Through College PAGE 12 6. Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65 PAGE 14 7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights PAGE 17 8. Balance Between Workers and Corporations PAGE 18 9. Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy PAGE 20 10. Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms PAGE 22

I want to inspire America to take a new path, a different direction.
I envision an America which has the capacity to reconnect with the heart of the world; an America which proceeds in the world optimistically and courageously. An America which understands that the world is interdependent, that it is inter-connected, and that what we do today impacts future generations. I want to break the shackles of fear which have deprived our citizens of rights. We need to change the way this country values humanity, so that instead of fear and lies, we can live our lives based on principles of peace and hope. We need to regain the trust of the American people and we need to have a government which trusts the American people. It's time for America to resume its glorious journey; time to reject shrinking jobs and wages, disappearing savings and rights; time to reject the detour towards fear and greed. It's time to look out upon the world for friends, not enemies; time to counter the control of corporations over our politics, our economy, our resources, and mass media. It's time for those who have much to help those who have little, by maintaining a progressive tax structure. It's time to tell the world that we wish to be their partner in peace, not their leader in war. Most of all, it is time for America to again be the land where dreams come true, because the government is on the side of its people. Dennis J. Kucinich

1

Campaign Issues

    

Campaign Finance Page 24 Campaign Reform and IRV Page 25 Electronic Voting Page 26 Media Reform Page 28 Open Debates Page 29

Crime/Law Issues

        

The Arts Page 76 Children's Issues Page 77 Domestic Violence Page 79 Education Page 81 Housing Page 83 Poverty Page 84 Predatory Lending Page 85 Seniors Page 86 Vouchers Page 89

     

Crime Page 30 Death Penalty Page 31 Drug War Page 32 Gun Laws, Gun Rights & Violence Page 33 Mandatory Minimum Sentences Page 34 Marijuana Decriminalization Page 35  Health Issues

Economic/Financial Issues

            

Corporate Power Page 37 Economic Justice Page 38 Farm Policy Page 39 H-1B and L-1 Visas Page 41 Jobs Programs / Infrastructure Page 42 Manufacturing Page 45 Minimum Wage Page 46 Outsourcing Jobs Page 47 Public Services Page 48 Small Business Growth Page 49 Social Security Page 51 Taxes Page 53 Workers' Rights Page 55 

       

AIDS Page 90 Complementary and Alternative Medicine P. 91 Mad Cow Disease Page 92 Medical Marijuana Page 93 Medicare Bill Page 95 Mental Health Page 97 Prescription Drugs Page 98 Universal Health Care Page 100

International Issues

Environmental Issues

         

Clean Air Page 57 Clean Water Page 59 Electronic Waste Page 62 Energy Page 64 Environment Page 65 Forests and Logging on Public Lands Page 67 Genetically Engineered Food Page 69 Hemp Page 70 Nuclear Safety Page 73 Organic Farming Page 74 

         

Aid to Africa Page 103 Cuban Embargo Page 104 Haiti Page 105 International Cooperation Page 106 The Kucinich Plan for Iraq Page 108 Korea Page 113 Middle East Page 114 Sweat Shops Page 116 Trade Page 117 World Hunger Page 118

Military/Defense Issues

Family/Social Issues

       

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Page 119 Department of Peace Page 120 Depleted Uranium Page 122 The Draft Page 124 Military Budget Page 125 National Security Page 126 Nuclear Weapons Page 127 Terrorism Page 128

2

  

Torture Page 129 Veterans Page 130 Weapons and Non-Proliferation Page 132

Race/Ethnicity Issues

     

Affirmative Action Page 133 African American Issues Page 134 Native Americans Page 136 Arab Americans Page 139 Irish-Americans Page 141 Racial Discrimination Page 142

"Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity and there is an obligation for society to ensure that every person be able to realize this right." Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Chicago Archdiocese Our health care system is broken, and H.R. 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill, is the only comprehensive solution to the problem. It is also the system endorsed by more than 14,000 physicians from Physicians for a National Health Program. Nearly 46 million Americans have no health care and over 40 million more have only minimal coverage. In 2005 some 41% of moderate and middle income Americans went without health care for part of the year. Even more shocking is that 53% of those earning less than $20,000 went without insurance for all of 2005. In fact, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance. The American health system is quite sick. Pulitzer Prize journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele, in their stunning analysis of the health care industry, Critical Condition (2006 Broadway Books), insist that "... U.S. health care is second-rate at the start of the twentyfirst century and destined to get a lot worse and much more expensive." Considering the following facts from Tom Daschle's article for the Center for American Progress: "Paying More but Getting Less: Myths and the Global Case for U.S. Health Reform":

 Rights Issues

 Animal Rights Page 143  Civil Liberties Page 144  DC Statehood Page 145  Disability Rights Page 146  Immigrants' Rights Page 147  LGBTQ Rights Page 150  Patriot Act Page 152  Reproductive Rights Page 153  Voting Rights Page 154  Water as a Human Right Page 155 1. Universal Health Care Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential Candidate with a plan for a Universal Single Payer, NOT FOR PROFIT Healthcare system. MEDICARE FOR ALL The plan in embodied in HR 676 the Conyers-Kucinich bill, written by Dennis Kucinich & John Conyers The plan covers all healthcare needs, including dental care, mental health care, vision care, prescription drugs, and longterm care - at NO extra cost! Kucinich's plan, HR 676, is supported by 78 Members of Congress, 250 Union Locals, and 14,000 physicians and is endorsed by the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

Americans are The Healthiest People in the World. FACT: Citizens of 34 nations live longer than Americans. The U.S. is the Best Place to Get Sick. FACT: The World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the world for health system performance. Countries like Australia and the United Kingdom rank above the U.S. Americans have lower odds of surviving colorectal cancer and childhood leukemia than 3

Canadians who do have national health care. Americans also experience greater problems in coordination of care than the previously mentioned countries and New Zealand.

with. This type of waste is easily 20%. Also consider that 98% of Medicare funds are spent on medical care. IMPORTANT: The hackneyed -- and inaccurate -- mantra of Republicans when universal health care is introduced is to blame trial lawyers and malpractice cases for our lack of national health care. In fact, 0.46% of our total health spending is spent on awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs -- about the same as Canada and the United Kingdom and about the same amount we spend on dog and cat food each year. While "defensive medicine" may drive up the price, it hardly accounts for our stunning health care costs. The belief that citizens should give up their right to fair legal redress for legally proven medical mistakes in exchange for lower health care costs rings as true as the promise that if we must give up our civil rights to be safe from terrorists. Even those with coverage too often pay exorbitant rates. The current profit-driven system, dominated by private insurance firms and their bureaucracies, has failed. We must establish streamlined national health insurance, "Enhanced Medicare for Everyone." It would be publicly financed health care, privately delivered, and will put patients and doctors back in control of the system. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans; encourage prevention; and include prescription drugs, dental care, mental health care, and alternative and complementary medicine. Perhaps the clearest and most eloquent explanation of the Conyers-Kucinich National Health Insurance Bill was given on February 4, 2003, in Washington, D.C., by Dr. Marcia Angell in introducing H.R. 676. Backed by over 14,000 doctors, this is the future of American medicine. "We are here today to introduce a national health insurance program. Such a program is no longer optional; it's necessary. 4

Covering All Americans Will Lead to Rationing. FACT: Same-day access to primarycare physicians in the U.S. (33%) is far less available than in the United Kingdom (41%), Australia (54%) and New Zealand (60%). Per capita spending for health care averaged $2,696 in countries without waiting lists and $5,267 in the U.S. Global Competitiveness is Hampered in Comprehensive System. FACT: "Health care costs are not just a burden and barrier to care for individuals; they are taking a heavy toll on American businesses." The strain on employers in 2005 was staggering. "The average total premiums for an employer-based family plan was $9,979 in 2005 ..." Most of our competitors in the world markets finance their systems outside corporate taxes and employer mandates. Without Medicare for Everyone, the U.S. will continue to hemorrhage jobs. We Cannot Afford to Cover All Americans. FACT: We already spend enough to have universal health care. "The truth is, we cannot afford to not reform the health system." We spend about 50% more than the next most expensive nation and nearly twice per person what the Canadians do. On May 1, 2006 Paul Krugman explained in Death by Insurance how incredibly wasteful the current system is. The doctor he referenced has two full-time staff members for billing, and two secretaries spend half their time collecting insurance information on the 301 different private plans they deal

"Americans have the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend about twice as much per person as other developed nations, and that gap is growing. That's not because we are sicker or more demanding (Canadians, for example, see their doctors more often and spend more time in the hospital). And it's not because we get better results. By the usual measures of health (life expectancy, infant mortality, immunization rates), we do worse than most other developed countries. Furthermore, we are the only developed nation that does not provide comprehensive health care to all its citizens. Some 42 million Americans are uninsured (nearly 46 million today -- updated figure) -disproportionately the sick, the poor, and minorities -- and most of the rest of us are underinsured. In sum, our health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Why? The only plausible explanation is that there's something about our system -- about the way we finance and deliver health care -that's enormously inefficient. The failures of the system were partly masked during the economic boom of the 1990's, but now they stand starkly exposed. There is no question that with the deepening recession and rising unemployment, in the words of John Breaux, 'The system is collapsing around us.' "The underlying problem is that we treat health care like a market commodity instead of a social service. Health care is targeted not to medical need, but to the ability to pay. Markets are good for many things, but they are not a good way to distribute health care. To understand what's happening, let's look at how the health care market works ... " "Mainstream" writers like Ph. D. economist and columnist for the New York Times Paul Krugman now agree with those doctors and Dennis that "covering everyone under Medicare would actually be significantly cheaper than our current system." They all recognize that we already spend enough to provide national health care to all but lack the political courage to make the tough decisions that doctors, nurses and medical professionals must run our health care system -- not "for

profit" insurance companies, who make money by denying health care. It is time to recognize that all the civilized countries have a solution that we must adapt to this country. American businesses can no longer be competitive shouldering the entire cost of health care. Health care is a right that all Americans deserve.

5

responses to 9/11 have made future 9/11s more likely to occur. In the America of my dreams, the America I see taking root and flourishing under new administration, other nations will encounter an America that abides by Lincoln's precept: "The only lasting way to eliminate an enemy is to make him your friend." We will accommodate rather than alienate, make friends instead of enemies, and employ carrots far more often than sticks. We need an administration that will drain the swamps of hopelessness, exploitation, and humiliation that cause vulnerable individuals to head down the terrorist road. We need leaders who will be both tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror. We spend one-tenth of one percent of our Gross National Income on development aid -the lowest of any developed country. Is this a formula for winning the hearts and minds of the next global generation? 2. International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in In the past three years, the U.S. has subjected the world community to a doctrine of preventive, unilateral, and illegal first strikes against "forces of evil" that have not attacked us. America has maintained into perpetuity an obsession with overwhelming U.S. military superiority. We have insisted that everyone else adhere to rules of international order that we have no intention of following ourselves. We have demonstrated a contempt for international organizations and any multilateral constraints whatsoever on the employment of American power. All of this has estranged and frightened our allies and provoked enduring enmity in the councils of other governments and the hearts of citizens around the world. George Bush's foreign policies have made us new foreign enemies. George Bush's defense policies have weakened our defenses. George Bush's We must seek to re-engage the world by collaborating with the world's nations on our most intractable common challenges. The Bush Administration has squandered opportunities to cooperatively address environmental degradation, persistent hunger, ignorance and illiteracy, safe water, the AIDS pandemic, the degrading status of women in so many places, failed states, cultural obliteration, transnational governance of exploitative transnational corporations, and perhaps most important of all, the desperate grinding poverty of two billion souls -- fully one-third of the planet. We need leadership who will work to bridge the chasm between the rich and the poor -- around the block and around the world. We must work to replace the law of force on the world stage with the force of law. By showing such open disdain for the UN Charter and international law during the past three years, we have become in the eyes of many the primary outlaw on the world stage. If we disregard the law of nations, we're left with the law of the despot, where the only 6

constraint on violence is the power and ruthlessness of those who would employ it. Rest assured, in that world we won't be the only ones to use it. We must immediately move for the United States to re-engage in the important treaties that the Bush Administration has abandoned. We must affirm and ratify treaties, beginning with: The Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change The Biodiversity Treaty The Forest Protection Treaty The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty The Landmine Ban Treaty The Biological Weapons Convention The Chemical Weapons Convention The International Criminal Court Our country and all nations must review and modify all treaties that reject national sovereignty in the cause of a global corporate ethic that does not respect human rights, workers' rights, and environmental quality standards. This means reviewing the practices and the practical impact of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. I am working to create a Department of Peace to stand alongside the Department of Defense. If our country must spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year preparing for war, we can spend at least one percent of that amount for a department aimed at preventing war. The Department of Peace will seek to make nonviolence an organizing principle of society. It will present a wider range of alternatives within the councils of our government. It will offer a new clear vision of people working out their differences without resort to primitive violence, of peaceful coexistence in a tolerant world, of peace as a higher evolution of the human psyche.

Millions of citizens of the world have taken to their streets this past year to bravely protest our country's launching a foolish and dangerous war whose consequences we can still only dimly foresee. But the Department of Peace idea aspires to do more than just prevent particular wars. With a Department of Peace, we can articulate a vision of the future where humanity has abolished war itself.

7

corporations will continue to move jobs out of the country and produce goods in developing and third-world nations (with great costs to those countries' workers and environment). In order to buy American, we have to assure that goods are still being produced in America. That's why we must first cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, which have lost us millions of jobs and spurred a soaring trade deficit. I have a Jobs Plan that will put 2 million Americans back to work at a living wage in such enterprises as rebuilding schools, designing roads, refurbishing environmental projects, and manufacturing steel for water systems. The Kucinich jobs plan will also increase the quality of life in America, by making highways safer, water cleaner, and schools more conducive to learning. Right now, unemployment stands at 6.2% nationally. Long-term unemployment has become a persistent problem. Nearly 2 million Americans have been looking for work unsuccessfully for over 6 months, while over 9 million Americans are unemployed. According to the Economic Policy Institute, there are three unemployed people for every job opening. Ironically, at the same time so many Americans can't find work, there is so much work to do. The crisis of our decaying infrastructure is something we see every day when we sit in traffic bound by orange barrels that line our highways. It is something that school children experience at their desks, crowded together under leaking roofs. In cities, municipal sewer systems overflow into rivers, streams, and estuaries. These events occur with increasing regularity as systems age. Infrastructure problems threaten our productivity, our economy, our environment, and our health. It is time to put America back to work. It is time to address the twin crises by putting unemployed Americans to work rebuilding America's neglected infrastructure. The Kucinich plan will make that happen. 8

3. Jobs Programs / Infrastructure Putting America Back to Work IN America Our country is facing twin crises: high unemployment and a decrepit infrastructure. At the same time, millions of manufacturing and high-tech jobs are being shipped overseas. I have a plan that will turn our problems around and put Americans back to work in America. By pulling out of NAFTA, we can return jobs that have been lost, including high-wage jobs in the information technology field. By initiating a WPA-style jobs program that puts Americans back to work rebuilding America, we can create millions of jobs and simultaneously improve our quality of life. As a nation, we face a predicament of either buy American, or bye-bye America. Unless we cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA,

The Kucinich Jobs Plan to Rebuild America The Kucinich plan calls for the creation of a low-cost federal financing mechanism to administer $50 billion in zero-interest loans every year to localities for infrastructure projects for ten years. Twenty percent of these funds would be targeted for school construction and repair. The Kucinich plan also calls for a 15% reduction in the military budget, redirecting that $65 billion towards hometown security issues such as education, jobs, and health care for all. State and local governments would continue to issue bonds to finance infrastructure projects. But under the Kucinich plan, the federal government would be authorized to buy those bonds. States would have to repay the principal, but unlike normal municipal borrowing, these bonds would pay zero interest. So, the cost of borrowing for infrastructure improvement would be reduced by half. The federal government would hold these bonds in the Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization (FBIM). The bank, as an extension of the Federal Financing Bank under the Treasury, would administer the loans. The loans would bear a small fee of one-quarter of one percent of the loan principal to cover the administrative costs of the FBIM. In order to provide the money for the loans, the FBIM would hold a portion of the Treasury securities that the Federal Reserve normally holds. The Fed currently holds about $300 billion in Treasury securities. Transferring about $50 billion annually to the FBIM would still allow the Fed to operate as it does now to add liquidity to the system. The Fed, instead of buying securities, would buy the mortgage loans of the states. This way, the FBIM's finances would be integrated by the Federal Open Market Committee so as not to disrupt its ability to promote economic stability.

This amount would be varied, so that the funds could be used as a tool to foster stable economic growth. During times of economic slowdown, the FBIM would make more loans available to spur investment. During times of economic boom, the FBIM would make fewer loans available. All of the jobs within this new system would be living-wage jobs, because I would raise the minimum wage to at least $8 an hour and create an index so that the minimum wage rises automatically with cost of living increases. If we establish both universal health care and universal pre-kindergarten, workers will no longer be plagued by the high costs of health care and child care. The net savings of these programs is enormous, and as result, I believe we will have a healthier society and a more resilient economy. The Kucinich Plan to Keep Jobs in America The exodus of jobs from our shores and the "race to the bottom" for workers around the world is an obvious result of NAFTA and the WTO, both of which make it impossible to place taxes or tariffs on outsourced work. The search for countries where workers are unrepresented and environmental rules are lax must end. NAFTA, WTO, "Fast Track" legislation, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas must be rejected and replaced with Fair Trade policies in which bilateral trade agreements are negotiated to provide for living wages for workers and environmental safeguards. Canceling NAFTA and the WTO will enable the U.S. to protect high-tech jobs from outsourcing. This, plus careful monitoring of H-1B visa practices, will slow the tide of outsourcing. The Bush Administration has embraced the concept of outsourcing American jobs overseas as a new form of international trade. Where is the patriotism in this? U.S. companies are expected to ship 200,000 jobs a year to India in the near future, in pursuit of lower wages, and we have already lost a significant fraction of our manufacturing jobs to countries overseas. In this continued loss of 9

control over the development of our own technology and materials, and the continued loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs, we are creating serious threats to our national and economic security. I am advocating a new policy to replace our current H-1B and L-1 visas, a policy that does not put skilled American workers in the hightech industry at risk. There are many techindustry jobs that could be done by Americans who are out of work, and often the immigrants who come to our country on H-1B visas find themselves in indentured servitude situations. We cannot continue to tolerate the loopholes and offshore profit shifting that corporations engage in to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. We must also take a much harder line on corporate crime, by increasing the roles of the FTC, the SEC, and the Justice Department in addressing it. We live in strange times when patriotism merely extends to unnecessary wars and not to protecting the lives and welfare of American families by keeping jobs here. It is necessary to promote a new corporate responsibility and sense of shared commitment, so that the race to minimize wages for workers and maximize shareholder profits in already profitable businesses is considered unpatriotic and punishable by tax policy. We must reject Bush's efforts to transfer more and more wealth upward, by creating an intelligent tax structure that promotes the public good. My entire mission is aimed at increasing the benefits to the public good. My campaigns are financed completely by ordinary individuals, not large corporations. I am not beholden to any corporate interests; there are no strings attached. My campaigns and my work represent all the people of our nation, not just the wealthy elite.

10

Without a warrant or probable cause, the FBI can now search your private medical records or access your library records. Your doctor or local library is forbidden from notifying you when these searches take place. The government may search your home while you are away and in some cases even confiscate your property. Judicial oversight of these measures is virtually nonexistent. These are only a few of the PATRIOT Act's provisions that compromise our civil liberties. I believe the only way to stop these unconstitutional infringements on basic American freedoms is to revoke the exorbitant powers the PATRIOT Act has granted the government. I voted against the PATRIOT Act. I am working to repeal it. Along with 20 other members of Congress, I have introduced the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act, which would repeal several major sections of the law. It would eliminate the PATRIOT Act's subjective search-and-seizure provision, unwarranted incarcerations, and the authority of federal officials to search our private records without probable cause. The act would restore the fundamental right of attorney-client privilege, revoke various Department of Justice secrecy orders, and repeal provisions harmful to the rights of immigrants. In addition, it would restore transparency to Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security administrative procedures by revoking Freedom of Information Act secrecy orders. Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In eroding our civil liberties, President Bush has taken our freedom while making us no safer, no better protected against terrorism. The "PATRIOT Act" is not what American patriots fought and died for. As Americans, we cannot allow fear and scaremongering to lead us to a place where we abandon our most precious traditions.

4. Patriot Act It's time for our Party to show some backbone. It's time to stand for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I spoke against it, I voted against it, and I introduced legislation for its repeal. From traveling across America, it's unmistakably clear to me that there is an almost universal rejection of the PATRIOT Act. Just 45 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush rammed the "PATRIOT Act" through Congress with virtually no debate. This law poses an unprecedented threat to Americans' individual freedoms and is a violation of our civil liberties. Many provisions of the act had been long sought after by law enforcement and repeatedly rejected by Congress in the past.

11

reason I have been a leading advocate for early childhood education, with a special emphasis on the support and care of lowincome infants and toddlers. I am a strong supporter of the keystone federal educational program for poor children, Head Start. In the House Education Committee, I have offered an amendment that would vastly expand Head Start by allowing all centers to run for a full day and by increasing the number of children who qualify for the program, raising family eligibility thresholds to twice the federal poverty line. By tripling the Head Start budget, we could bring an additional 1.5 million children into the program. In the 107th and 108th Congresses, I introduced the Universal Pre-Kindergarten Act, a bill to create a free, universal, and voluntary pre-kindergarten program for 3- to 5-year-old children across the county. Universal pre-kindergarten would revolutionize America's commitment to early childhood education and change the nature of child care provision for the better. The cost of this program is $60 billion per year, which I plan to pay for by cutting the bloated Pentagon budget by 15%. Pre-kindergarten programs prepare children to meet the challenges of school. Studies show that young children who have access to a quality education benefit with higher academic achievements, increased graduation rates and decreased juvenile delinquency. Nationwide, there's a severe shortage of affordable, quality education programs. By providing universal pre-kindergarten, we are ensuring that all of our children are ready for school. The Universal Pre-Kindergarten Act will provide funding to states to establish universal pre-kindergarten programs that build on existing federal and state pre-kindergarten initiatives. The program is voluntary and will be available free of charge to all families who choose to participate. The legislation requires pre-kindergarten programs to meet quality standards of early education and provides 12

5. Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College The right of every American child to a highquality free public education is one of America's most treasured principles. We must improve the quality of public education in those schools that are struggling and expand public education to include pre-kindergarten beginning at age 3 for any families that want it, as well as tuition-free college for millions of students. I am here to act on my view that the education and well-being of our nation's children is a collective responsibility that all Americans share, and that education is a life-long process beginning long before a child enters kindergarten. Studies have shown that the most critical cognitive development occurs in the years from birth to age 3. That is one

resources for the professional development of teachers. For grades K through 12, my priorities are based on the bedrock principle of a free, universal, and high quality public education for every child in America. I strongly oppose initiatives that seek to undermine that commitment and have established a strong anti-voucher voting record. I believe that we cannot improve education by draining funding from our public schools. In Congress, I have proposed a constitutional amendment to codify the right of all citizens to equal, high-quality public education. To achieve that goal, I support a substantial reinvestment in the infrastructure of our nation's public schools. I co-sponsored the Better Classroom Act and the Expand and Build America's Schools Act, two bills to help communities make needed school repairs and expansions. I have supported additional funding for teacher training.

pave a path out of poverty for many families. Five years ago when welfare was reformed, recipients were discouraged and even prevented from earning a higher degree. Since 1996, the City University of New York experienced annual declines in the number of students who were welfare recipients, from a high of 22,000 students in 1996 to only 5,000 welfare students in 2000. As soon as welfare reform passed, some recipients were even kicked out of school, some only a few months from graduation. What improved condition worthy of the name of reform would create barriers to a college degree? Congress should allow and encourage people to obtain career training; work toward a college degree, GED, or other degree; or learn English. It should create exemptions from time limits so welfare recipients aren't prevented from earning a college degree. If an individual has a bachelor's degree, the average yearly wage is $30,730, nearly three times as much as the $11,432 that non-degree employees earn. A college degree translates to a living-wage job that allows people to live self-sufficiently and move from welfare programs for good. I believe Congress should allow home child care to count as an allowable work activity. For women on welfare, child care during evening and weekend hours is notoriously difficult to find and is too costly for a welfare recipient. In 1998, 43 states reported waiting lists for child care, and only 12% of those eligible for child care are getting it. Not only does it make practical sense to allow mothers to take care of their own children; it makes sense for families to stay together. The current Administration wants to box our young people in with standardized tests and a limited focus on math and science. These days, American students are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in American history and unparalleled anywhere in the world. Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking.

I was also an original co-sponsor of HR 935, the most comprehensive child care and education bill in the U.S. Congress, encompassing 33 federal programs to improve child well-being and education in America. In addition to universal pre-kindergarten, I have a plan to provide tuition-free higher education to millions of students in state universities. There are 12 million young Americans who attend public institutions, colleges, and universities. They now pay, on average, over $10,000 a year. That adds up to $120 billion a year. That's less than the President's most recent tax cut for the wealthy. Even allowing for an increase in the cost per student and in the number of students enrolled, this remains a question of shifting priorities, not a need for new resources. Education is the only solution proven to reduce poverty levels. This conclusion is backed by thousands of national studies. Given the opportunity, education and training

13

I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music, and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess. Also See: Vouchers Floor Statements, 109th Congress: Reporting of School Bus RR Crossings Funded H.R. 609 Will Not Help Students Don't Let the War on Drugs Become a War on Children Students Pay for Tax Cuts for the Rich

predatory lending practices that have victimized so many American seniors, while simultaneously establishing a federal Office of Elder Justice. Rights for the disabled are fundamental rights, for which I continue to fight. By establishing a universal single-payer health plan, we can ensure that seniors never again resort to splitting pills or skipping medication to save costs, because they will already be covered. This plan, "Enhanced Medicare for All," provides comprehensive health coverage including prescription drugs, dental care, and complementary or alternative medicine. By removing the profit from health care coverage, patients and doctors will be put in charge of health care, instead of HMOs. My plan will cost employers, on average, less than they now pay -- those that provide coverage at all. Corporations don't heal people; people do. Social Security My platform is centered upon a nonnegotiable commitment to preserve Social Security against all assaults. I stand to return full Social Security benefits to senior citizens at age 65 -- a rollback from the present age of 67. In addition, I staunchly oppose all efforts to privatize Social Security, thus diverting payroll tax dollars into individual accounts. I am against raising the retirement age, against raising the cap on taxable wages, and against means-testing for benefits. There is no question that America can afford to uphold its social compact with its senior citizens. The finances of the Social Security system are more secure now than ever. America is wealthier than at any previous point in Social Security's history, and the fund is solid through 2042 with no changes whatsoever. I believe the interest rate on the Social Security trust fund is too low. It is much less than the average interest rate for U.S. Treasury-backed securities. If Congress changed the law to credit the trust fund with the average interest rate, we could reduce long-term financing problems by 30%. 14

6. Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65 I see a new vision for American seniors. I see a country where all citizens can retire with full benefits at age 65, where social security will never become privatized, and where retirement years won't land in the hands of the stock market. I see an America where equal access and equal rights are obtained by all; where health care is regarded as a human right; and where the people who have lived to see this country grow can continue to grow old with it in peace. I encourage programs that support the public good, such as community-based senior services and home care. We must stop the

Medicare and Prescription Drugs The compact with America's seniors to provide them with health care is now at risk, because the new Medicare bill passed just before Thanksgiving is not reforming Medicare, it is dismantling it. It is a windfall for HMOs and big insurance companies and obscenely profitable drug companies -- but a debacle for America's senior citizens. This bill does nothing to restrain the skyrocketing escalation of drug prices. The Republican refusal to confront the pricing power of the drug companies is the #1 cause of the bill's exorbitant price tag -- $400 billion -- for American taxpayers. Several studies indicate that my plan for universal, single-payer health care would save at least $200 billion annually -- more than enough to provide health care and prescription drugs to all those currently left out. I have a long record of addressing issues related to Medicare and prescription drugs in the U.S. Congress. Recently, I co-sponsored legislation to provide for a voluntary prescription benefit, to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, to negotiate fair prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers, to provide for accelerated generic drug competition, and to allow for the importation of prescription drugs from Canada after meeting strict guidelines for safety and effectiveness. Our government must be empowered to lower prices and impose windfall profits taxes on the exorbitant pricing of an out-of-control drug industry. We need a new Prescription for America, a regulatory structure that puts a ceiling on drug company profits, the same way credit laws establish what constitutes usury and the way utility rates are controlled. We're already paying for national health insurance that could include prescription drug benefits. The only problem is, we're not getting it.

The Kucinich plan for Universal Health Care is "Enhanced Medicare for All": non-profit, universal, single-payer national health insurance. It would be publicly funded health care, privately delivered -- similar to that used in most of the other developed countries of the world. It will decrease total health care spending, while providing more treatment and services. It will remove private insurance companies from the system, along with their bloated bureaucracies, blizzards of paperwork, excessive executive salaries, mammoth advertising budgets -- and, above all, profits. Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, seniors went from being the group least likely to have health insurance to the group most likely -because of Medicare. Medicare has achieved goals that Congress has not been able to accomplish for the rest of our population, by keeping millions out of poverty, increasing access to health care, improving quality of life, and even extending life expectancy by 20%. The new Medicare bill just passed will eliminate guaranteed health care for the only part of our population that has it. American seniors, however, are concerned not only with their own health care, but with the health care of their children, grandchildren, and all Americans. There is no more comprehensive solution to the nightmare that is American health care today than the one I propose and will stand by 'til the end. I was one of the leading voices in the U.S. Congress trying to prevent the disgraceful new Medicare bill from becoming law. Medicare privatization is bad for seniors, bad for retirees, bad for employers, and bad for the economy. The only ones who benefit from this plan are the pharmaceutical companies and insurance giants, who seek to continue health care for profit in this country. I am fighting to reverse this shameful bill and to make Medicare a solemn contract with America's seniors again. Eventually, we should extend the essentials of the Medicare social contract not just to seniors, but to all. I believe that health care should be a public good, rather than a private commodity. Health care is not 15

just a privilege for those who happen to have the right job. Health care is a human right. Older Americans Act and Elder Justice Throughout my career in public service, I have been a strong supporter of seniors' issues. In advocating for the amended Older Americans Act, I have shown my support for older Americans' need for adequate income in retirement, the best possible physical and mental health, suitable housing, long-term care services (with special attention to those who wish to stay in their homes and for their caregivers), help for grandparents raising children, and efficient community services. There are few greater moral transgressions than abusing the trust of our elders. That is why I have co-sponsored in Congress H.R. 2490, a bill that would establish an Office of Elder Justice. Such an office would help prevent elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. It would significantly expand elder care research, training, and clinical practice, nationwide. It would aspire to create models for optimal elder care and services. And it would encourage non-profit organizations to establish volunteer programs in support of elder justice.

Executives, it turns out, often get very special treatment with their pension plans: more investment choices, no lock-down restrictions, generous deferred compensation plans without requirements that they be disclosed, guaranteed rates of return, and "golden parachutes" when a company begins to get in trouble. Employees, on the other hand, are treated very differently. The most egregious disparity is that during a bankruptcy, executive pension plans are totally protected from creditors. Employees, however, stand at the end of the line and must wait behind other creditors -- to claim what rightfully belongs to them for compensation that they have already earned! All of this must change. Housing Seniors on fixed incomes often have financial problems meeting rising property taxes and maintenance costs and must have supportive communities to help them live in dignity. I believe that decent housing is a fundamental human right and a basic right of citizenship for all Americans, young and old. In recent years, the cost of housing has risen, while incomes for working Americans have stagnated. The result has been an affordable housing crisis that must be urgently addressed by federal, state, and local governments. The first step towards housing security is passage of the National Housing Trust Fund Act, which I cosponsored. The goal of this plan is the creation of 1.5 million new housing units over the next decade, especially for low-income renters and owners, using the profits generated by the Federal Housing Administration and other federal housing agencies. These funds would be used for the production of new housing, preservation of existing federally assisted housing, and rehabilitation of existing privatemarket affordable housing. New housing units would be primarily rental units, and the focus would be on low-income households in mixed-income neighborhoods. The widely heralded success of state and local housing trust funds shows this to be a proven method of addressing the affordable housing crisis while stimulating the economy. 16

Pensions The American dream -- to work hard, develop a career, be successful, get ahead, and save for retirement with a decent and secure pension -is being diminished and destroyed every day in this country by corporate executives who are cheating ordinary Americans out of their hard earned retirement benefits. As the nation watched gargantuan corporate bankruptcies unfold at Enron and Global Crossing -- and the people of my 10th District of Ohio watched Chapter 11 proceedings at LTV Steel -- we all learned to our great surprise that there are two sets of rules in this arena. Corporate executives play by one set of rules. And employees play by another.

abortion, while the poor would have less access to terminating their pregnancies. The fact is that most Americans, including myself, are uncomfortable with abortions and feel there are too many of them. At the same time, the vast majority of Americans recognize that there are circumstances in which a woman and her doctor should be allowed to make this most difficult decision without government intervention. To return to the days when woman could self-abort without penalty, but to imprison doctors who would help them, seems senseless, especially recognizing that a new abortion law would likely become known as "The Abortions for the Rich-Only Bill." I have a plan to reduce abortions by encouraging family planning, including abstinence training, combined with a full economic and health care plan that would clearly alleviate the number of abortions. Voters have a choice: Choose Republican rhetoric that will never allow the issue to come to a vote or a real plan to reduce the number of abortions with a program of economic justice. Factually, all the Republican rhetoric and phony issues surrounding abortion have never directly addressed the legality of abortion and have had no or negligible impact on the number of abortions.

7. Right-to-Choose, Why have a Republican House and Senate never even offered one vote proposing a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? If the issue were truly important to them as anything but a wedge issue, they would have. The truth is that Republicans have hidden from an honest up or down vote on abortion and will never allow one to take place in the Congress. Instead, they will continue fooling well-intentioned voters who feel strongly about abortion that they "feel their pain," when clearly they do not. Even if the Supreme Court were to do the unlikely and return abortion to the states, it would merely mean that the rich could travel to blue states for

Privacy and Civil Rights The "Patriot Act" is not what American patriots have fought and died for. To allow our Bill of Rights to be nullified without judicial supervision invites tyranny. The Attorney General has been handed unfettered power to wiretap, search, jail, and invade our most sacred right to privacy. The government must not be allowed, without probable cause or warrant, to snoop on our communications, medical records, library records, and student records. The recent disclosures of the President's refusal to follow the FISA law should worry all Americans concerned with the dangers 17

posed by a too-powerful executive. We elect Presidents, not kings, and no president is above a clearly written law expressly curbing his powers. Far more worrisome, however, is the lap dog Congress that we currently have -- something even Republican Congress people are sheepishly admitting. For example, only eight members of Congress have been told ANYTHING about the FISA violations and they are sworn to secrecy. However, when they are asked if they have been told much, several have acknowledged that they have been pretty much left in the dark. That is not a Republic in action. No people should be frightened into giving up their precious rights. Recent refusals by the Attorney General to disclose whether similar programs are being used against purely domestic communications should send a chill down all our spines. The time to stop the erosion of our rights is now. All elected officials want terrorists to be listened to and caught. Does anyone seriously believe that terrorists feel they can talk freely on the phone? The misleading and duplicitous response that the government can't talk about its secret programs even in secret sessions of Congress is, frankly, ludicrous. 8. Balance Between Workers and Corporations The hopes and dreams of the men and women who sent me to Congress are the stars by which I journey. Whenever there is an organizing campaign, a picket line to walk, jobs to save, working conditions to improve, laws to champion, I'm there. This is my purpose: To stand up and to speak out on behalf of those who have built this country and who want to rebuild this country. This is my passion: To raise up the rights of working people. Workers' rights are the key to protecting our democracy.

Workers' rights embody spiritual principles that sustain families, nourish the soul, and create peace. Workers' rights are human rights. Labor has stood almost alone while corporations have cut wages and benefits, slashed working hours, tried to undermine wage and hour provisions, reneged on contracts, and jettisoned retirements through bankruptcy strategies. The current clamor for corporate accountability calls for honesty in stating the numbers, and faithful custody of shareholders money. There needs to be equal concern for those who created the wealth through their labor, because the attacks on unions are a means of redistributing the wealth upwards. As union membership has declined, the disparity of wealth has increased. Since 1973, union membership has dropped from 24% to 14%. And the share of aggregate income of the poor, the middle class, and the upper middle class has declined. Congress has not passed an increase in the $5.15 minimum wage, even though the inflation-adjusted minimum wage is 21% lower today than in 1979. Since 1981, the share of income of the richest 5% of this country has increased more than 40%, while that of the lowest fifth has decreased more than 20%. An even starker contrast arises. According to Business Week, the average CEO made 42 times the average worker's pay in 1980, 85 times in 1990 and 531 times in 2000. Forbes Magazine points out that the number of billionaires increased from 13 in 1982 to 149 in 1996. People have a right to:
• • • • • • •

Have a job. Have a safe workplace. Get decent wages and benefits. Organize and be represented. Grieve about working conditions. Strike. Get fair compensation for injuries on the job. 18

• • •

Sue if injured by negligent employers. Have secure pension and retirement benefits. Participate in the political process.

These basic rights ought to be inviolate in a democratic society. There can be no true corporate accountability unless corporations are accountable to workers. There can be no accountability to workers unless workers' rights are protected. And workers' rights cannot be protected unless the Democratic party makes it the centerpiece of its legislative program. The Democratic Party must be challenged by Labor to truly be the party of all the people. When the Democratic Party rises, it must be with the ranks, not from the ranks. "The future of labor is the future of America," said John L. Lewis. Labor cannot afford to settle for half-hearted nominees or half measures that keep in place a system that is destroying our democracy through trade agreements that transfer sovereign power to the World Trade Organization, undermine our economy, and devastate workers' ability to defend themselves. It is the restoration of the rights of workers that will put us at the dawn of a new political age. The rights of workers are core principles of an American Restoration. These aren't mere political principles. These are timeless moral principles, about fairness, about equality, about justice.

19

philosophy of interdependence and interconnection, which respects the environment as a precondition for our survival. I am not tied to any corporate interests that would strip our forests or pollute our air or water. Throughout my career, I have worked for structures of law that protect the environment, and the principles that animate my campaign are principles of sustainability. The principles that animate my life are principles of sustainability. I have a long and consistent record of working for protecting the environment. I was active in helping draft the first environmental law protecting the air, as a member of the Cleveland City Council 30 years ago. I led the effort in Ohio challenging nuclear power as being unsafe, unreliable, and unsustainable, and I'm still leading the effort in challenging it. And, most recently, I was at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, advocating a plan with Mikhail Gorbachev for a Global Green Deal that would enable the introduction of $50 billion of new solar projects around the world. It will be a major initiative to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs to Americans, to reduce energy use here at home, and to partner with developing nations to provide their people with inexpensive, local renewable-energy technologies. 9. Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy The EPA under the Bush Administration has stood for Every Polluter's Ally. The air and the water and the land are viewed by this administration as just another commodity to be used for private profit. We as a nation must turn our efforts towards the great work of restoring our air and our water and our land. We must view our natural resources as the common property of all humanity -- even more, as the commonwealth of all humanity. And so my candidacy arises from a As a peace advocate, I hope to launch a major renewables effort so that Middle East oil fields do not loom so large as strategic or military targets. There has to be a renewable energy portfolio of 20% by 2010. And that means introducing wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, biomass, and all of the options that must be available and need incentivizing. That also means withdrawing incentives for the production of nonrenewable energy. I'm not talking about building new hydro dams; I'm not talking about damming up more rivers and streams.

20

We need to subsidize the development of new energy technologies. And I'm willing to do that through NASA, which has been of singular importance to our economy by developing technologies for propulsion, for aerospace, for materials, for medicines, and for communication. We need to fund NASA in, among other areas, a mission to planet Earth. The United States should lead the way in protecting our oceans, rivers and rural environments -- and I have been speaking out on these issues across America. I will also continue to lead in fighting for clean, affordable, and accessible drinking water -which is an emerging global concern. Over the years, I have worked hand in hand with the environmental movement on many battles, from thwarting a nuclear waste dump to boosting organics to demanding labels on genetically-engineered products. I've won honors from the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and the League of Conservation Voters. In the summer of 2002, I was one of the few U.S. officials at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. To repair the earth, America must lead. We must reverse course on most Bush Administration policies and support the Kyoto Treaty that Bush rejected. We must strengthen environmental laws and increase penalties on polluters. We should provide tax and other incentives to businesses that conserve energy, retrofit pollution prevention technologies, and redesign toxins out of their manufacturing processes. Nontoxic, safe substitutes for hazardous chemicals must become permanent. I would initiate a "Global Green Deal" to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs at home, increase our independence from foreign oil, and aid developing nations with cheap, dependable, renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.

21

Cancel NAFTA and the WTO, replacing them with bilateral trade agreements designed to benefit family farmers and workers while protecting the health of communities and the environment. Country-of-origin labeling would be required. Empower farmers in the marketplace by providing incentives to join a collective bargaining unit -- with voluntary membership open only to active producers and the right to bring suit in federal court if an agribusiness doesn't bargain in good faith. Market Concentration Create new markets by actively enforcing existing anti-trust laws and proposing new laws to force divestiture in concentrated markets, breaking apart monopolistic agribusiness companies and shifting farm economics towards higher commodity prices for farmers. To increase competition in the livestock industry, support a national ban on packer ownership of livestock. Biotechnology and GM Seeds Advocate only for responsible farm sector biotechnology, creating an indemnity fund -financed by the corporations responsible for the technology -- for farmers who incur losses caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To protect farmers, labeling GMO seeds with disclosure and liability information must be required. To protect consumers, food containing GMOs also requires labeling.

10. Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms Something is wrong when profits of agribusiness corporations skyrocket, but farmers must find off-farm jobs or sell their farms to survive. I believe the United States must implement the following farm policies to benefit farmers, provide our nation with wholesome food, protect our natural resources, and restore our rural communities: Fair Price and Fair Markets

Local Food Systems Shift USDA funding and focus away from the promotion of concentrated intensive and industrial agribusiness. The new focus must benefit family farmers, rural communities, the environment, and consumers, with policies crafted to enable farmers to earn a fair price and to provide safe, nutritious food to all people. Increase funding for regional food processing facilities, marketing assistance, farm-to-school programs, on-farm renewable energy, and the Farmers Market Nutrition 22

Program. Agricultural research and development institutions must be given funding priority to help family farmers make a transition to profitable and sustainable agriculture. Conservation and Environmental Protection Strengthen and enforce air and water quality laws to safeguard rural communities from factory farm pollution. The number of animal units per site would be limited to a level that allows for on-site manure management, and local communities would be given control over the siting of industrial livestock operations. Programs that reward family farmers for protecting the environment would be expanded, and funding to help small independent farmers qualify for organic certification would be increased. Food Industry Workers and Food Safety Implement new safety standards in meatpacking and food processing. Worker health and safety protections would be expanded through increased inspections and fines, with criminal charges for employers who cause injury or death to agricultural industry workers. Backing meatpacking unions will help to bring wages and benefits in line with the risks of the job, and funding for smaller, regional packing plants will create better economic opportunities for family farmers, better conditions for workers, and safer meat for consumers. Rural Communities Initiate a major new program of investment in rural America, putting thousands to work rebuilding invaluable public assets such as schools, hospitals, libraries, swimming pools, and parks. Teachers, doctors, veterinarians, and other important service providers would be offered incentives to work in under-served areas. A variety of support mechanisms and financial incentives would be given to local businesses, so that locally owned businesses have a fair chance to compete. 23

House and donated to 71 Senators and 186 House members. Private control of campaign financing leads to private control of the government itself and schemes like the privatization of social security, which would put trillions in retirement funds of Main Street workers at the disposal of Wall Street speculators. Public control of the political process requires public financing. The restoration of our American Democracy depends upon public financing. The Supreme Court, equating money with free speech, will not restrict the power of corporate interests to dominate government. The establishment of our democracy began with the Constitution. Let us renew the Constitution by amending it, requiring public financing to redeem from the perishable fires of corporate control an imperishable government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Banning soft money is a step in the right direction, but doubling hard money limits is a giant step the other way, and one that has received much less attention. The National Voting Rights Institute challenged that change on behalf of a coalition of non-wealthy voters, candidates, and public interest organizations -including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, and ACORN. That suit alleged, quite accurately, that doubling the hard money limits excludes non-wealthy voters and candidates from the political process on the basis of their economic status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution. When only 0.11% of the voting age population contributed sums of at least $1,000 to a 2002 congressional candidate, doubling the limit to $2,000 provides even more power to a tiny financial elite. Those large contributions amounted to 55.5% of the candidates' individual fundraising. Think about that. More than half the money driving the political campaigns comes from 1% of the people. And we wonder why popular positions, like universal health care or a living wage, are not enacted. Six of the 10 major party candidates for president in 2004 raised more than 75% of their money from 24

Campaign Finance The largest roadblock toward the American Restoration is a corrupt campaign finance system that promotes plutocracy allowing laws and regulations to be stealthily auctioned to the highest bidder. Less than 1% of the U.S. population contributes 80% of the money in federal elections. The top 1% in income also received more than half the Bush tax cuts. Tax policy has become an engine for transferring wealth upward. Enron had been poised to dominate energy markets worldwide largely because it strongly influenced the White

contributions of $1,000 or more, and that includes President Bush, who raised more than all the Democrats combined. Most people cannot pay $2,000 to attend a dinner with a candidate. It is very difficult to run for office at all if you are neither rich nor willing to accept money from corporate interests. I know. I'm trying to do it. Banning soft money is a positive step which has oddly overshadowed in the media the bigger negative step of doubling hard money. What we need, other than media reform, is true campaign finance reform, complete public financing and the criminalization of bribery. I ran my presidential campaign in line with these reform principles. I don't take corporate PAC money. My campaign was financed largely through small donations, mostly through the Internet -- and propelled by thousands of volunteers -- a true grassroots campaign.

Enhanced voting rights enforcement An end to the racially-biased disenfranchisement of felons who have served their time Full Congressional representation for residents of the District of Columbia Cross-party endorsement or "fusion" An inclusive debate process that does not exclude credible third-party candidates Expansion of elections, using full (proportional) representation, which assures more accurate and broader representation than winner-take-all elections I also support Instant Runoff Voting. IRV offers a cost-effective way of insuring that the winning candidate is preferred by a majority of voters; it encourages voters to vote their wishes and not their fears; it promotes greater voter turnout and positive campaigning. Most U.S. elections are held under plurality voting rules in which the candidate with the most votes wins. If three or more candidates run in the race, then the winner can have less than a majority of the vote. But the question always arises: Was that winning candidate really preferred by most voters? As stated by the Center for Voting and Democracy, Instant Runoff Voting is a sensible reform for elections where one person wins. Examples include elections for governors, mayors, legislatures using singleseat districts, and U.S. president (for allocation of Electoral College electors). Instant Runoff Voting is better than plurality elections because: It ensures the election of the candidate preferred by most voters. It eliminates the problem of spoiler candidates knocking off major candidates. It frees communities of voters from splitting their vote among their own candidates. It promotes coalition-building and more positive campaigning. How IRV works: Each voter has one vote, and ranks candidates in order of personal choice (1, 2, 3, etc.). The counting of ballots simulates a series of run25

Campaign Reform and IRV Our election system is in need of serious reform to expand and enrich democracy. I support measures such as: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) Comprehensive campaign finance reform and Clean Money public financing of the public's elections Ample free television time for candidates, coupled with the break-up of the media monopolies that restrict political debate Election Day as a holiday Election Day voter registration

off elections. All first choices are counted, and if no candidate wins a majority of first choices, then the last place candidate (candidate with the least first-choices) is eliminated. Ballots of voters who ranked the eliminated candidate are then redistributed to their next-choice candidates, as indicated on each voter's ballot. Last place candidates are successively eliminated and ballots redistributed to next choices until one candidate remains or a candidate gains over 50% of votes. Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish -- their favorite candidate first, their next favorite second, and so on. Voters have every incentive to vote for their favorite candidate rather than the "lesser of two evils," because their ballot can still count toward a winner if their first choice loses. There also is every reason for a voter to rank as many candidates as they want, since a voter's lower choice will never help defeat one of their higher choices. I ran my presidential campaign in line with these reform principles. I did not take corporate PAC money. My campaign was financed largely through small donations, mostly through the Internet -- and propelled by thousands of volunteers -- a true grassroots campaign. To learn more about Instant Runoff Voting, see Center for Voting and Democracy Electronic Voting Democracy today is at risk by the very instrument that seeks to uphold it. Electronic voting machines with meager security and significant technical flaws threaten to undermine our voting rights and thus the reliability of the election process. Without federal review and software testing, these voting machines are being marketed by companies and bought by states at an alarming rate. We cannot wait for Congress to pass legislation to address this danger. We, the people, must take action NOW to ensure the accuracy and integrity of upcoming elections.

As citizens of the United States of America, we are fortunate to have a voting system that is designed to uphold democracy as the bedrock of our society. Although not flawless, this system serves to deliver our political representatives through a process aimed at creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This type of government is essential to our democracy and, for the sake of the public interest, it must be preserved. Election integrity cannot be assured without openness and transparency. Using electronic voting machines to conduct elections is dangerous to democracy because there is no way of ensuring their accuracy. It is imperative that there be a required voterverified paper trail for every election so that any errors and irregularities caused by the voting machines can be discovered. Unfortunately, there are no such requirements for the so-called "Direct Recording Electronic" machines currently being used in many communities and states. With the computer technology in use, there is constant risk of a program flaw -- or worse, tampering with the software, which could change votes and thus change the outcome of elections. Without a "voter verified audit trail," meaning a permanent record of each vote that the voter can check to verify that it represents his or her intent, these changes might never be detected. Recent studies have reported numerous very serious technical flaws in electronic voting machines, including allowing a person to: vote more than once, see ballots that have been cast on a machine, change party affiliation on ballots, alter the counting of votes, modify, create or even delete votes inside the voting machines and interfere with audit logs and election results. Their analysis shows that the voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards, placing our future elections at risk to both insider and outsider attacks. I am strong supporter and co-sponsor of H.R. 2239, otherwise known as the "Voter 26

Confidence and Increased Accountability Act of 2003." If enacted, this bill would: Require all voting machines to produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits and recounts. Ban the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems. Have required all voting systems to meet these requirements in time for the general election in November 2004. Require that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006. Require mandatory surprise recounts in 0.5% of domestic jurisdictions and 0.5% of overseas jurisdictions. We have already seen the consequences of inaccurate vote keeping in Florida during the 2000 Presidential Elections where over 280,000 ballots were uncounted, leaving the sum of disenfranchised Floridians far greater than the 537-vote margin by which the state was won. Thousands of nationally and internationally renowned computer scientists consider a voter-verified paper trail to be a critical safeguard for the accuracy, integrity, and security of computer-assisted elections. Many of them can also list dozens of plausible ways for computerized voting machines to be compromised. While there is certainly room for improvement in voting technology, electronic voting machines are not the answer. I believe that election reform is an issue that deserves close attention, but we must also guard against changes that inadvertently create even worse problems. Unless we are using auditable voting equipment, public confidence in our elections will be eroded and the results of any election will remain open to question. To learn more about electronic voting see Blackbox Voting and verifiedvoting.org In the News: OpEdNews.com, 4/24/04 Kucinich calls for suspension of electronic

voting Floor Statements, 109th Congress: Go to Paper Ballots

27

actually boost both media ratings and voter turnout. In addition to requiring free air time for political campaigns, we need to create a greater diversity of viewpoints in the media by breaking up the major media conglomerates, encouraging competition and quality as well as diversity. We should place new caps on media ownership and ban the granting of exceptions to those caps. We should limit the number of media outlets one corporation can own in a given medium, such as radio, print, or television. We should strictly prohibit crossownership and vertical integration. I believe the people should be involved in the maintenance of their airwaves, creating public media outlets controlled by community boards similar to the model of Pacifica Radio. Funding for public broadcasting channels on television and radio should be greatly expanded, assuring the existence of media outlets free of the influence of advertisers. I aim to promote knowledge of the public process through which citizens can challenge the licenses of local broadcast outlets failing to provide local coverage and coverage directed at the whole community, or outlets airing excessive violence. Not-for-profit groups should be allowed to obtain low-power FM radio-station licenses. The development of new, community-based, noncommercial broadcasting outlets should be encouraged. The United States must withdraw from the World Trade Organization; media companies are currently lobbying the WTO for the creation of trade sanctions against countries that fund public broadcasting, limit foreign ownership of media, or establish standards for local content. For similar reasons, we must block U.S. participation in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. I have a strong record on media reform. I filed formal objections with the FCC to their deregulation of the media. I held hearings on 28

Media Reform I am working for serious media reform, including substantial free air time for candidates and parties. Given the high cost of campaigns, the power of corporate special interests, and the fact that the networks are given free use of the public's airwaves, I believe that the networks should be required to give something back other than "reality" shows. Media conglomerates are currently among the most powerful lobbyists against media reform, but I believe that were the media to provide substantive coverage of politics it would

Capitol Hill on what the media weren't telling people about the war. I hold a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in speech and communications from Case Western Reserve University, and have been honored by Case Western Reserve as being one of the top 50 students in that program in the last 50 years. My past experience includes working as a copy boy for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and a copyreader at the Wall Street Journal. I have hosted my own radio shows, done on-camera television reports for Channel 8 in Cleveland, and had my own TV production unit, and I carry a card as a member of the IATSE, the cameraman's union.

1988 as an extension of the major political parties, the CPD has transformed the presidential debates from dynamic political forums to "glorified news conferences," where candidates recite prepackaged sound bites and avoid discussion of significant issues. Prior to this control, the presidential debates were faithfully sponsored by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters, who courageously included popular independent candidates, such as Congressman John Anderson, and prohibited major party campaigns from manipulating debate environments. The Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, however, did not want a sponsor who limited their candidates' control in order to further public interest. Their official agreement "for the parties to take over presidential debates" has led to a complete partisan control of these important events by major parties with little to no interest in promoting any alternatives to business as usual in Washington. I believe in the power of open debates to restore higher values of democracy and voter education to the American political process. By establishing a Citizen's Debate Commission to replace the CPD, the American public can once again see presidential debates that are rigorous, fair, and inclusive of important issues and all popular candidates. There is an increasing demand for voices that challenge the bipartisan consensus on many critical issues in America, and I am one of those voices. It is time for open debates that will serve the American people first.

Open Debates Presidential debates are the single most important event in the process of selecting a presidential candidate. They provide the American people with the opportunity to view all viable candidates as they discuss important issues in an unscripted manner, designed with the best interests of the people, not the political parties, in mind. They are an essential component of true democracy in America. Unfortunately, the value of this democratic principle has failed under the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Established in

29

funds to police departments that continue to practice racial profiling. It is important to emphasize that the vast majority of police officers are law abiding and committed professionals. However, the common attitude of "we protect our own" amongst some police must give way to a more enlightened attitude that the law must be truly color blind. A fraction of law enforcement officers must not be allowed to continue to endanger the lives of citizens and other law enforcement officers with intemperate and sometimes overtly racist acts. We need federal legislation to prosecute hate crimes, which tend to be the most violent form of crime in American society. Signing federal hate crime legislation will send a message of unity throughout our nation. America must not tolerate any citizen's human rights being denied. The problems of policing in the minority community are complex ones. Only the best and brightest should wear badges and carry guns. There are many, many great law enforcement officers, but low pay and terrible working conditions allow some to slip into the long blue line that should not be there. For example, the "War on Drugs" has made many in the black community feel as though they live in an occupied territory. Greater minority representation on police forces would help, but a new national policy on nonviolent drug users would also help tremendously. Crime Our nation's police should be fully capable of protecting neighborhoods from crime and drugs, while respecting the rights of residents and communities. The U.S. government must spend the necessary money to ensure that our first defenders are our best defenders. I support strengthening civilian review boards, greater community policing, and an end to the drug war that has poisoned relations between cops and neighborhoods in too many cities. I also support legislation introduced by my colleague Rep. John Conyers to deny federal Funding quality after-school programs could go a long way toward taking kids off the streets during "prime crime time" hours and giving them a constructive way to spend their after-school time. I think we should also provide greater resources for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program and make it an entitlement program for the states. We also need to increase federal funding for the identification and treatment of substance abuse among parents in the child welfare system and do a lot more than we are to support kinship care alternatives. The amount 30

of money required to do these things is a relative drop in the bucket, compared to what the federal government is spending to wage war in Iraq and to give the richest families in America huge, new tax cuts. If we end the racially biased war on drugs and address drug use as a medical problem, fewer parents will be incarcerated and away from their children for long periods of time. We should return to a sane drug policy, which our country once followed. This would reduce the violence in our cities, which is a byproduct of the war on drugs. Before there was a war on drugs, drug violence was practically unheard of. Our drug war has made all of us less safe.

Morally, I simply do not believe that we as human beings have the right to "play God" and take a human life -- especially since our human judgments are fallible and often wrong. Indeed, since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 700 men and women on Death Row have been executed, three-fourths of those executions taking place since 1992. Since 1976, more than 100 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence. That translates into one death row inmate being found innocent for every seven executed. Given this track record, I simply cannot support the death penalty, since we know that it will, inescapably, be erroneously applied and innocent people will be put to death. Second, all the evidence suggests that the death penalty is no deterrent to crime. Indeed, in those states that do have capital punishment, the average murder rate per 100,000 people is 8, while in states that have abolished the death penalty, the murder rate is just 4.4. In other words, states that do not have capital punishment actually have lower murder rates than states that do. I confidently believe that rather than decreasing murder, capital punishment actually has a brutalizing effect on society, contributing to an increase in murder. Third, the evidence shows that the imposition of the death penalty is both racially and economically biased. African American defendants, for example, are far more likely to receive death sentences than others who committed similar crimes. To put that into perspective, 42% of inmates on death row today are African American, even though they comprise only 13% of the U.S. population; 180 African Americans have been executed in cases involving white victims, while 12 whites have been executed in cases with black victims. Of all the people on death row today, 75% of them are non-white. Moreover, a full 98% of all defendants sentenced to death have been people who could not afford their own attorneys. I simply cannot support a policy that is so unfairly and unevenly applied. 31

Death Penalty Like most Americans, I arrived at my position on the death penalty through a process that involved the application of morality and moral principles (derived from my religious and spiritual convictions), personal reflection, and a rational examination of facts and statistics. In the end, all of these considerations have led me to come down strongly on the side of opposing capital punishment.

Fourth, America is one of the last nations in the world to still practice the death penalty. In fact, for each year since 1976, two additional countries have abolished capital punishment, and the overwhelming majority of nations around the world have now put an end to it in law or practice. Even in our own country, opposition to the death penalty has doubled since 1994. Recent polls say that 64% of Americans support a moratorium on all executions. In Congress, I introduced the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2003 to establish an end to capital punishment. At the same time, however, I believe that criminals who take innocent life or commit other horrific crimes should pay a severe penalty, and that we have a duty to protect our society from danger. For that reason, I favor life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as an acceptable moral alternative for the worst and most violent offenders in our society.

and thousands of Al Capones. Prison should be for people who hurt other people, not themselves. We don't jail people for merely drinking. We jail people when they drink and drive or hurt another human. Drug use can and should be reduced. But a continuation of our current War on Drugs will not do it. Instead, the current policies have only helped increase drug use and foster violence across the country. California was able to cut teenage tobacco use in half with a straightforward ad campaign that was financed by a tax on cigarettes. Not a shot was fired. The supporters of the drug war have only one solution to this debacle -- more money for law enforcement, more people, more power, more prisons -- with no end in sight. Of course, these happy drug warriors who justify their living hunting down drug users come on TV and promise us that they see light at the end of the tunnel. They promised us a drug-free America by 1995, and instead we see new and more exotic drugs constantly being added to the mix. I know that proponents of the Drug War will say that I am pro-drugs. I am not. As mayor of Cleveland, I saw first-hand the damage done by addiction to drugs, including alcohol. I also witnessed that the wasted resources and collateral damage did not promote a safe society. It is unconscionable that only one bed exists for every ten people that apply for drug treatment. Our priorities and our resources are being put in the wrong place. The primary job of law enforcement should be protecting our country and its citizens -- not protecting people from themselves. The shredding of our rights to privacy and property promoted by the Drug War is inconsistent with a free society. Criminalization of private or self-destructive behavior is not acceptable in a free nation. The racism evident in the Drug War, and the clearly preferential treatment for offenders with connections, undermine our concept of a just society. Draconian prison sentences that 32

Drug War My position on this issue is to face it directly, though other politicians run away from it. I agree with the many law enforcement officials and experts in the field that we must find a new way of dealing with illegal drugs. I have studied the issue for decades and recognize that our "War on Drugs" has failed. In fact, because our War on Drugs drives up the price, it encourages violence. Prohibition simply doesn't work. It only creates thousands

dwarf those for violent crimes, like murder and rape, destroy respect for our laws. The rampant corruption of the criminal justice system spawned by the $400 billion-a-year black market could be ended with the stroke of a pen. So also would be the wholesale devastation we have brought to other countries. Countries like Colombia, where we send billions of dollars of military aid and spray hundreds of thousands of acres of populated land with dangerous herbicides in a country with nearly a million displaced people. And each military campaign or spraying is like a squeezing a balloon; production merely shifts to another site or goes into a temporary hiatus. Drug addiction is a medical and moral problem that should be treated by professionals, not dumped on the criminal justice system. Setting up a national commission of medical professionals to develop an intelligent program, based on the experience of drug experts from around the world, would be a first step. Allowing doctors to treat drug addiction humanely and intelligently, including the prescription of maintenance doses, would allow us to quickly eliminate most of the black market and much of the damage to a safe, free, and just America. It is time for an honest dialogue on this issue. Time to stop the documented lies, half-truths, and propaganda that got us into this mess in the first place. It is time to face the facts. Gun Laws, Gun Rights & Violence There are few topics that divide America more than the issues associated with firearms. For the vast majority of Americans who own firearms, they are a form of recreation in the character of hunting and/or target shooting. For many, they are a method for safety and protection in a society characterized by violence. But all too frequently, they are used for violence.

I have friends who both hunt and shoot. These are good people, they are not criminals, and they lock up their guns when not using them. I support their right to their hobbies, and I support the right to bear arms. I have also talked with widows and children left fatherless due to the improper use of firearms, and I am committed to preventing such tragedies from happening. By helping to develop a society which does not look to violence as a method of solving problems, my proposed Department of Peace will play a key role in this. Conflict resolution and alternatives to violence will constitute major areas of responsibility within this new Department, so that we can begin to lead by examples as well as by words. My efforts to lead the fight against assault weapons have been highly recognized by The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. One year after the DC-area sniper attacks, I co-signed a bill, H.R. 2038, to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban. I also attended a recent Save Our Sons and Daughters (SOSAD) event. While some believe that gun laws should reside at the state level, I respectfully disagree. In this mobile society, national control of guns just is necessary, just as it is with pollution. It is the right of Americans to keep and bear arms; however it is not the right of American felons to arm themselves. In a time when homeland security is of utmost concern, it is perplexing why anyone would not wish to keep guns out of the hands of those who might do us harm. This is why I would support legislation to require background checks, identical to the background checks currently required for transfers by licensed gun dealers, for firearm transfers by unlicensed gun dealers at gun shows. Sensible laws to prevent guns from winding up in the wrong hands do not infringe on any constitutional rights. I agree with the Brady Campaign that Congress should end the gun industry's 33

immunity from product safety regulation and that irresponsible dealers who allow weapons to fall into the hands of criminals should be held accountable. President Bush campaigned on the promise to reauthorize the law banning assault weapons. However, in a calculated move to avoid signing the bill, the President has not spoken out publicly or forcefully to make the House Republicans under Rep. Tom DeLay bring the legislation out of committee and pass it. It is a shame that our current President is willing to expend limitless political capital to financially benefit his own campaign contributors with trillion-dollar tax cuts, but will spend nothing to keep assault weapons out of the hands of potential terrorists.

federal minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses call into question whether we are truly the "home of the free." John Ashcroft's call for federal prosecutors to push for maximum charges and sentences is mind boggling in its insensitivity -- and ignorance. Justice without mercy is just cruelty, and too many Americans have discovered what a town without pity -Washington -- can do. Mandatory minimums must be abolished, and judicial discretion must be returned to judges. Computers should not be determining sentences; bright, caring judges should. Moreover, mandatory minimums are an extension of a failed racist drug war. Hence, the repeal of mandatory minimums must be coupled with programs that focus on rehabilitation, not criminalization, of those addicted to drugs. The underground economy will continue to flourish if there is no access to a decent and living wage in our society. Therefore, we must increase access to living wages and strong universal healthcare, including drug rehabilitation.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences Clearly, when two Supreme Court justices have openly questioned the efficacy of mandatory minimum sentences, as they have lately, it is time to act. Mandatory minimums came from pandering politicians who frighten their constituents and then offer ersatz "solutions" that destroy far too many lives and fragment far too many families. Obscene 34

moral corruption and undesirable behavior. Accepting these premises led Congress to conclude that a federal ban on the production and sale of alcohol would go a long way toward reducing crime and addressing a variety of other social problems. Within a decade, however, Americans discovered that the criminally enforced prohibition of alcohol produced harmful side effects. The rise of black markets empowered organized crime to an unprecedented degree. In some of America's largest cities, local governments had been heavily corrupted by the influence of organized crime. The black market provided minors with easy access to bootlegged alcohol, which was frequently of poor quality and unsafe to drink. Faced with the disastrous consequences of Prohibition, Congress decided in 1933 to repeal the Volstead Act. Since that time, the government has implemented the much more successful policy of focusing law enforcement efforts on irresponsible alcohol users who endanger the rights of others. Unfortunately, current drug policy fails to take into account the lessons of Prohibition. The law regards all users as abusers, and the result has been the creation of an unnecessary class of lawbreakers. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, more than 734,000 individuals were arrested on marijuana charges in 2000. This number far exceeds the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Eighty-eight percent of those arrested were charged with possession only. Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare, and food stamps, and may be removed from public housing. In many cases, those convicted are automatically stripped of their driving privileges, even if the offense is not driving related. In several states, marijuana offenders may receive maximum sentences of life in prison. The cost to the taxpayer of enforcing marijuana prohibition is staggering -- over $10 billion annually. The harsh nature of punishments for marijuana offenses is even more disturbing if one 35

Marijuana Decriminalization With the enactment of the Volstead Act in 1919, America embarked on a social experiment known as Prohibition. Prohibitionists rejected the idea that people could be trusted to drink in moderation, arguing that alcohol use inevitably led to

considers the racial bias of the war on drugs. According to data collected by the National Household Survey, on an annual basis the overall difference between drug use by blacks and whites is quite narrow. However, a recent national study found that African Americans are arrested for marijuana offenses at higher rates than whites in 90% of 700 U.S. counties investigated. In 64% of these counties, the African American arrest rate for marijuana violations was more than twice the arrest rate for whites. Questions of racial bias affect the integrity of investigations, arrests, and prosecutorial discretion. If we truly aspire to the ideal of "Justice for All," then these unjust racial disparities are unacceptable outcomes for the American justice system. The rationale for continuing this draconian policy of marijuana prohibition is unclear. Statistical evidence shows that marijuana use follows a pattern very similar to that of alcohol. Most marijuana users do so responsibly, in a safe, recreational context. These people lead normal, productive lives -pursuing careers, raising families, and participating in civic life. In addition, marijuana has proven benefits in the treatment of numerous diseases, such as providing a valuable means of pain management for terminally ill patients. In either of these contexts, there is no rational justification for criminally enforced prohibitions. These unnecessary arrests and incarcerations serve only to crowd prisons, backlog the judicial system, and distract law enforcement officials from pursuing terrorists and other violent criminals. New Mexico's 2001 state-commissioned Drug Policy Advisory Group determined that marijuana decriminalization "will result in greater availability of resources to respond to more serious crimes without any increased risks to public safety." This finding is backed by the successful implementation of such policies in twelve states. The state governments of Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon approved these measures after the

National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended that Congress adopt a national policy of marijuana decriminalization. A recent CNN/Time magazine poll indicates overwhelming public support for this approach, with 72% of Americans favoring fines as a maximum penalty for minor marijuana offenses, and 80% approving of marijuana used for medical purposes. As a nation, we must work to implement a drug policy that removes responsible recreational users and medical users of marijuana from the criminal justice system, in order to redirect resources toward the following goals:
• •

• •

Enforce penalties for those who provide marijuana to minors. Enforce penalties for those who endanger the rights of others through irresponsible use, such as driving under the influence. Develop drug treatment programs focused on rehabilitation, rather than incarceration. Support the efforts of state governments in developing innovative approaches to drug policy. Improve drug education by emphasizing science over scare tactics. Implement a Department of Justice program that would review the records of, and consider for sentence reduction or release, inmates convicted for nonviolent marijuana offenses.

36

The implosion of the Enron Corporation is a cautionary tale of the danger to the people of our nation, to our economy, and to our political system of unregulated corporations. The influence wielded by the power industry at every level of government must be shaken. The drive to privatize must be halted. Enron's considerable financial contributions to the campaign coffers of 71 Senators and 186 House members clearly demonstrate the urgency of creating full public financing of our elections. Government at the state and federal levels must reclaim its rightful role as regulator in the public interest, restructure electric rates to protect residents and small businesses, finance the construction of municipal power systems, and ensure -- as my Progressive Tax Act of 2003 does -- that corporations pay their fair share in taxes. Despite the overwhelming influence which corporations have in the life of our nation, I see a new era of corporate accountability. I see a new horizon in America where ethics, sustainability, and sensible priorities guide corporate conduct in cooperation with vigilant, fair-minded, government regulation. We cannot stand by idly while powerful economic engines -- virtually unregulated corporations -- violate workers' rights, human rights, and the environment, sweeping aside antitrust laws, eliminating competition. We need a new relationship between our government and corporate America, an armslength relationship, so that our elected leaders are capable of independently affirming and safeguarding the public interest. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state. This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations can do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter that describes and 37

Corporate Power The challenge before us today is whether we can maintain a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether we will timidly accept the economic, social, and political consequences of a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

clearly delineates corporate rights and responsibilities. Corporations must be compelled to pay a fair share of taxes. If corporations shift profits offshore to avoid paying taxes, they should not be permitted to operate in the United States. The decrease in corporate tax responsibility is an indication of the rise of corporate power. Corporations pay three and half times less in taxes now than they did in the 1950s. Working families have to make up the difference. We need an administration that will take corporate crime seriously and significantly increase the capacity of the SEC, the FTC, and the Justice Department to address it. Wall Street should not get its hands on Americans' hard-earned Social Security savings. The Social Security system is not in financial crisis, but it faces the same political crisis much of our government faces: the pressure to privatize. I am working to prevent the privatization of Social Security, of water, of municipal services, and of our democracy. Also see: Power to the People: My Story - by Dennis Kucinich

are falling. People are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs. The unemployed and the employed alike are experiencing a falling standard of living. The middle class aspirations of many are being dashed. Where the private sector fails to provide jobs, the public sector has a moral responsibility to do so. People want work, not welfare. And while there ought to be welfare for those unable to work, there ought to be work for those who are able to work and who want to work. And there is enough work to do. I see a newly rebuilt America. I see a new horizon where America provides a means to have massive public works to rebuild our cities, our water systems, our public transportation systems, our schools, our parks, our public energy systems. Nearly $150 billion is needed over 20 years to repair and provide for adequate wastewater treatment systems. Another $120 billion is needed for drinking water systems. We need a new financial mechanism to get money to cities and states to begin rebuilding and to put America back to work. The federal government can give cities and states loans for infrastructure programs to be repaid over a period of 30 years, at zero interest. This will boost economies and spur private investment. A Federal Bank for Infrastructure Maintenance would administer a program of lending $50 billion per year to state and local governments. The money comes from an innovative adaptation of the normal money supply circulation activity of the Federal Reserve Bank. The cost to the American taxpayer is simply the cost of the interest on the loans. It is up to the Democratic Party to be the advocates for economic progress for all the people.

Economic Justice I see an America where the economy works for everyone because everyone is working. I see a new horizon in this country where there is no such thing as an acceptable level of unemployment. Nearly 9,000,000 Americans are unemployed. Millions more are not being included in the official count. Average wages

38

Fair Price and Fair Markets Cancel NAFTA and the WTO, replacing them with bilateral trade agreements designed to benefit family farmers and workers while protecting the health of communities and the environment. Country-of-origin labeling would be required. Empower farmers in the marketplace by providing incentives to join a collective bargaining unit -- with voluntary membership open only to active producers and the right to bring suit in federal court if an agribusiness doesn't bargain in good faith. Market Concentration Create new markets by actively enforcing existing anti-trust laws and proposing new laws to force divestiture in concentrated markets, breaking apart monopolistic agribusiness companies and shifting farm economics towards higher commodity prices for farmers. To increase competition in the livestock industry, support a national ban on packer ownership of livestock. Biotechnology and GM Seeds Advocate only for responsible farm sector biotechnology, creating an indemnity fund -financed by the corporations responsible for the technology -- for farmers who incur losses caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To protect farmers, labeling GMO seeds with disclosure and liability information must be required. To protect consumers, food containing GMOs also requires labeling. Local Food Systems Shift USDA funding and focus away from the promotion of concentrated intensive and industrial agribusiness. The new focus must benefit family farmers, rural communities, the environment, and consumers, with policies crafted to enable farmers to earn a fair price and to provide safe, nutritious food to all people. Increase funding for regional food processing facilities, marketing assistance, farm-to-school programs, on-farm renewable energy, and the Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Agricultural research and development institutions must be given funding priority to help family farmers make a 39

Farm Policy Something is wrong when profits of agribusiness corporations skyrocket, but farmers must find off-farm jobs or sell their farms to survive. I believe the United States must implement the following farm policies to benefit farmers, provide our nation with wholesome food, protect our natural resources, and restore our rural communities:

transition to profitable and sustainable agriculture. Conservation and Environmental Protection Strengthen and enforce air and water quality laws to safeguard rural communities from factory farm pollution. The number of animal units per site would be limited to a level that allows for on-site manure management, and local communities would be given control over the siting of industrial livestock operations. Programs that reward family farmers for protecting the environment would be expanded, and funding to help small independent farmers qualify for organic certification would be increased. Food Industry Workers and Food Safety Implement new safety standards in meatpacking and food processing. Worker health and safety protections would be expanded through increased inspections and fines, with criminal charges for employers who cause injury or death to agricultural industry workers. Backing meatpacking unions will help to bring wages and benefits in line with the risks of the job, and funding for smaller, regional packing plants will create better economic opportunities for family farmers, better conditions for workers, and safer meat for consumers. Rural Communities Initiate a major new program of investment in rural America, putting thousands to work rebuilding invaluable public assets such as schools, hospitals, libraries, swimming pools, and parks. Teachers, doctors, veterinarians, and other important service providers would be offered incentives to work in under-served areas. A variety of support mechanisms and financial incentives would be given to local businesses, so that locally owned businesses have a fair chance to compete.

40

consider undesirable. It has also reduced the number of IT jobs held by Americans. At its peak in 2000, there were 10.5 million people working in Information Technology in the United States. By 2001, there were fewer than 10 million -- despite continued global growth in Information Technology employment. Professor Norman Matloff of UC Davis estimates that in the spring of 2003 there were 500,000 unemployed and underemployed U.S. programmers, while there were 463,000 H-1B workers employed in the field. The government must ensure adequate funds for the enforcement of visa regulations -including much-ignored regulations prohibiting the use of foreign nationals in critical infrastructure. A special investigator should be appointed to examine the extent and nature of H-1B and L-1 visa fraud and the reasons for heavy use of H-1B and L-1 visas at Enron, WorldCom, and Anderson. We should take seriously the allegations of perjury by corporate leaders who have testified before Congress to request expansion of this program in 1998 and 2000, as well as allegations of the use of the H-1B and L-1 programs in corrupt organizations. We need an industry fact-finding commission, including representatives of major U.S. investors, U.S. tech workers, and business leaders who have been competitive in the international marketplace without use of the H-1B / L-1 program. These representatives can make suggestions as to a new policy on the immigration of people with specialized knowledge or unique skills. H-1B and L-1 Visas The expanded use of H-1B and L-1 visas has had a negative effect on the workplace of Information Technology workers in America. It has caused a reduction in wages. It has forced workers to accept deteriorating working conditions and allowed U.S. companies to concentrate work in technical and geographic areas that American workers I have already set forth plans for major technical initiatives in the areas of renewable energy, pollution control, and promotions of Open Source software and media -- additional major initiatives will be considered -- creating a wider diversity of means by which technologists are funded outside of the service of major corporations. It may not be possible to undo the damage that corporate shortsightedness has done to the U.S. technical 41

community -- but it is possible to give a real voice to the vision that the U.S. technical community has for a better America.

By pulling out of NAFTA, we can return jobs that have been lost, including high-wage jobs in the information technology field. By initiating a WPA-style jobs program that puts Americans back to work rebuilding America, we can create millions of jobs and simultaneously improve our quality of life. As a nation, we face a predicament of either buy American, or bye-bye America. Unless we cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, corporations will continue to move jobs out of the country and produce goods in developing and third-world nations (with great costs to those countries' workers and environment). In order to buy American, we have to assure that goods are still being produced in America. That's why we must first cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, which have lost us millions of jobs and spurred a soaring trade deficit. I have a Jobs Plan that will put 2 million Americans back to work at a living wage in such enterprises as rebuilding schools, designing roads, refurbishing environmental projects, and manufacturing steel for water systems. The Kucinich jobs plan will also increase the quality of life in America, by making highways safer, water cleaner, and schools more conducive to learning. Right now, unemployment stands at 6.2% nationally. Long-term unemployment has become a persistent problem. Nearly 2 million Americans have been looking for work unsuccessfully for over 6 months, while over 9 million Americans are unemployed. According to the Economic Policy Institute, there are three unemployed people for every job opening. Ironically, at the same time so many Americans can't find work, there is so much work to do. The crisis of our decaying infrastructure is something we see every day when we sit in traffic bound by orange barrels that line our highways. It is something that school children experience at their desks, crowded together under leaking roofs. In cities, municipal sewer systems overflow into 42

Putting America Back to Work IN America Our country is facing twin crises: high unemployment and a decrepit infrastructure. At the same time, millions of manufacturing and high-tech jobs are being shipped overseas. I have a plan that will turn our problems around and put Americans back to work in America.

rivers, streams, and estuaries. These events occur with increasing regularity as systems age. Infrastructure problems threaten our productivity, our economy, our environment, and our health. It is time to put America back to work. It is time to address the twin crises by putting unemployed Americans to work rebuilding America's neglected infrastructure. The Kucinich plan will make that happen. The Kucinich Jobs Plan to Rebuild America The Kucinich plan calls for the creation of a low-cost federal financing mechanism to administer $50 billion in zero-interest loans every year to localities for infrastructure projects for ten years. Twenty percent of these funds would be targeted for school construction and repair. The Kucinich plan also calls for a 15% reduction in the military budget, redirecting that $65 billion towards hometown security issues such as education, jobs, and health care for all. State and local governments would continue to issue bonds to finance infrastructure projects. But under the Kucinich plan, the federal government would be authorized to buy those bonds. States would have to repay the principal, but unlike normal municipal borrowing, these bonds would pay zero interest. So, the cost of borrowing for infrastructure improvement would be reduced by half. The federal government would hold these bonds in the Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization (FBIM). The bank, as an extension of the Federal Financing Bank under the Treasury, would administer the loans. The loans would bear a small fee of one-quarter of one percent of the loan principal to cover the administrative costs of the FBIM. In order to provide the money for the loans, the FBIM would hold a portion of the Treasury securities that the Federal Reserve normally holds.

The Fed currently holds about $300 billion in Treasury securities. Transferring about $50 billion annually to the FBIM would still allow the Fed to operate as it does now to add liquidity to the system. The Fed, instead of buying securities, would buy the mortgage loans of the states. This way, the FBIM's finances would be integrated by the Federal Open Market Committee so as not to disrupt its ability to promote economic stability. This amount would be varied, so that the funds could be used as a tool to foster stable economic growth. During times of economic slowdown, the FBIM would make more loans available to spur investment. During times of economic boom, the FBIM would make fewer loans available. All of the jobs within this new system would be living-wage jobs, because I would raise the minimum wage to at least $8 an hour and create an index so that the minimum wage rises automatically with cost of living increases. If we establish both universal health care and universal pre-kindergarten, workers will no longer be plagued by the high costs of health care and child care. The net savings of these programs is enormous, and as result, I believe we will have a healthier society and a more resilient economy. The Kucinich Plan to Keep Jobs in America The exodus of jobs from our shores and the "race to the bottom" for workers around the world is an obvious result of NAFTA and the WTO, both of which make it impossible to place taxes or tariffs on outsourced work. The search for countries where workers are unrepresented and environmental rules are lax must end. NAFTA, WTO, "Fast Track" legislation, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas must be rejected and replaced with Fair Trade policies in which bilateral trade agreements are negotiated to provide for living wages for workers and environmental safeguards. Canceling NAFTA and the WTO will enable the U.S. to protect high-tech jobs from outsourcing. This, plus careful 43

monitoring of H-1B visa practices, will slow the tide of outsourcing. The Bush Administration has embraced the concept of outsourcing American jobs overseas as a new form of international trade. Where is the patriotism in this? U.S. companies are expected to ship 200,000 jobs a year to India in the near future, in pursuit of lower wages, and we have already lost a significant fraction of our manufacturing jobs to countries overseas. In this continued loss of control over the development of our own technology and materials, and the continued loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs, we are creating serious threats to our national and economic security. I am advocating a new policy to replace our current H-1B and L-1 visas, a policy that does not put skilled American workers in the hightech industry at risk. There are many techindustry jobs that could be done by Americans who are out of work, and often the immigrants who come to our country on H-1B visas find themselves in indentured servitude situations. We cannot continue to tolerate the loopholes and offshore profit shifting that corporations engage in to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. We must also take a much harder line on corporate crime, by increasing the roles of the FTC, the SEC, and the Justice Department in addressing it. We live in strange times when patriotism merely extends to unnecessary wars and not to protecting the lives and welfare of American families by keeping jobs here. It is necessary to promote a new corporate responsibility and sense of shared commitment, so that the race to minimize wages for workers and maximize shareholder profits in already profitable businesses is considered unpatriotic and punishable by tax policy. We must reject Bush's efforts to transfer more and more wealth upward, by creating an intelligent tax structure that promotes the public good. My entire mission is aimed at increasing the benefits to the public good. My campaigns are

financed completely by ordinary individuals, not large corporations. I am not beholden to any corporate interests; there are no strings attached. My campaigns and my work represent all the people of our nation, not just the wealthy elite.

44

capacity of our mills. We need to spend at least $500 billion to rebuild our schools, roads, bridges, ports, sewer systems, water systems, and government buildings. A highly trained, highly skilled workforce backed by Davis-Bacon guarantees will make it happen. A federal bank of infrastructure modernization can be created to fund this program with zerointerest loans to the states. The following steps need to be taken in order to begin to help the American economy recover: First of all, considering that we've lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs since July of 2000, it's shocking that the United States does not have a manufacturing policy, an economic policy that states that the maintenance of steel, automotive, aerospace, and shipping is vital to our national economy and our national security. Secondly, we have to do everything we can to secure our manufacturing base, and that means giving a critical examination to those trade agreements that have caused a loss of hundreds of thousands -- in some cases, millions -- of jobs in this economy. We must cancel NAFTA and the WTO and to return to bilateral trade, conditioned on workers' rights, human rights, and the environment. America needs a great new public works program to restore the dream of a full employment economy, to restore the physical health of our nation. On Labor Day, 2003, I announced a new initiative -- an initiative that will enable the United States to rebuild its cities in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt America during the Depression. Through a WPA-type program, this initiative would rebuild our cities, our streets, our water systems, our sewer systems, and new energy systems, while simultaneously putting millions of people back to work. It's time to rebuild America. We have the resources to do it, we just have to have the will to go through with it. 45

Manufacturing Our nation will be restored with new manufacturing policy, where the maintenance of our industrial base is understood to be vital to our national economic welfare. We can fuel domestic steel production and consumption by rebuilding our nation's infrastructure with American made steel, utilizing the productive

12 that have established higher minimum wage levels than the federal. In addition, over 115 cities and counties have passed living wage laws, applying higher wage standards to those working on public contracts or at companies benefiting from public subsidies or, in some cases, to direct government employees. Local and state governments are in closer touch with popular wisdom on this issue than is Congress. A 2002 poll by Lake Snell Perry & Associates for the Ms. Foundation found that 77% of likely voters surveyed supported raising the minimum wage to $8. And 79% supported regular increases to address the effect of inflation. A 2001 survey for Investor's Business Daily found that 75% of respondents supported raising the minimum wage as a way to stimulate the economy. Putting decent wages in the hands of those who need the money is a far surer way to boost an economy than giving tax breaks to those with more money than they know what to do with. And the living wage movement of the past decade has added more evidence to the already solid documentation that adjusting the minimum wage upward along with inflation does not cause unemployment. We must make it a top priority to restore the value of the federal minimum wage, bringing it up to at least its 1968 level and indexing it to automatically keep pace with the cost of living. This will allow workers to quit their second or third jobs and spend more time with their families. Minimum Wage The federal minimum wage is $5.15 and would be over $8.50, had Congress adjusted it for inflation over the past 35 years. (Of course, Congress routinely adjusts its own members' pay for the cost of living.) Over the past six years since the last time Congress "raised" the minimum wage, we've gone from six states to My goal is to combine this with the creation of a truly universal single-payer health care system, universal free preschool, free college tuition at state colleges and universities, a public jobs program to restore our infrastructure, and withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO in favor of bilateral trade pacts that protect workers' rights here and abroad. This will transform the lives of working people, and without the efforts of working 46

people who have made the living wage an issue, this would not be possible.

must end. NAFTA, WTO, "Fast Track" legislation, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas must be rejected and replaced with Fair Trade policies in which bilateral trade agreements are negotiated to provide for living wages for workers and environmental safeguards. Canceling NAFTA and the WTO will enable the U.S. to protect high-tech jobs from outsourcing. This, plus careful monitoring of H-1B visa practices, will slow the tide of outsourcing. "Outsourcing" is a process in which American jobs, mainly in technological fields, are contracted out to countries where wages are significantly lower. According to the February edition of Wired Magazine, the typical salary for an American programmer is $70,000 a year. The typical salary for a programmer in India is $8,000 a year. U.S. companies are expected to ship 200,000 jobs a year to India in the near future, in pursuit of these lower wages, and we have already lost a significant fraction of our manufacturing jobs to countries overseas. The Bush Administration has embraced the concept of outsourcing American jobs overseas as a new form of international trade. Where is the patriotism in this? In this continued loss of control over the development of our own technology and materials, and the continued loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs, we are creating serious threats to our national and economic security. I am advocating a new policy to replace our current H-1B and L-1 visas, a policy that does not put skilled American workers in the hightech industry at risk. There are many techindustry jobs that could be done by Americans who are out of work, and often the immigrants who come to our country on H-1B visas find themselves in indentured servitude situations. We must not tolerate the loopholes and offshore profit shifting that corporations engage in to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. We must also take a much harder line on corporate crime by increasing the roles of 47

Outsourcing Jobs The exodus of jobs from our shores and the "race to the bottom" for workers around the world is an obvious result of NAFTA and the WTO, both of which make it impossible to place taxes or tariffs on outsourced work. The search for countries where workers are unrepresented and environmental rules are lax

the FTC, the SEC, and the Justice Department in addressing it. We live in strange times when patriotism merely extends to unnecessary wars and not to protecting the lives and welfare of American families by keeping jobs here. It is necessary to promote a new corporate responsibility and sense of shared commitment, so that the race to minimize wages for workers and maximize shareholder profits in already profitable businesses is considered unpatriotic and punishable by tax policy. We must reject Bush's efforts to transfer more and more wealth upward, by creating an intelligent tax structure that promotes the public good. My entire mission is aimed at increasing the benefits to the public good, specifically by keeping American jobs in America. My campaigns are financed completely by ordinary individuals, not large corporations. I am not beholden to any corporate interests; there are no strings attached. My campaigns and work represent all the people of our nation, not just the wealthy elite.

As a man who has served nearly all my life in a career of public service, I realize how important this sector is to the well being of the nation and the world. When I was in my early twenties, I won a seat on the Cleveland City Council and soon after became the mayor of Cleveland. Today, as a Congressman from Ohio and a leader of the Peace Movement, I stand in strong support of the programs that offer opportunities for all people to participate in public service, from Peace Corps to AmeriCorps to Senior Corps. I am committed to raising awareness of, and breaking down barriers to, service opportunities within federal government agencies, and will encourage not only volunteerism but also detailing, stipends, and grants for such opportunities. The federal government should divert extra resources to volunteer programs that support community building and peaceful reconciliation; we should work to incorporate these programs into schools across the country. I am sharply disappointed in the Bush Administration's vast budget and personnel cuts to the public service sector. I introduced a bill to create a cabinet-level U.S. Department of Peace, which also seeks to develop a Peace Academy for instruction in peace education and nonviolent conflict resolution. Graduates of this four-year course would be required to serve five years in public service in domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution programs. This plan will serve as a powerful asset to both public services and the establishment of peace. By expanding the public service sector, I believe we can help create an America where human rights, workers' rights, and environmental quality principles are within the ark of the Human Covenant -- where people build families, build communities, and build an American community that can light the way to a better world.

Public Services Where the private sector fails to provide jobs, the public sector has a moral responsibility to do so. People want work, not welfare. And while there ought to be welfare for those unable to work, there ought to be work for those who are able to work and who want to work. And there is enough work to do.

48

currently give further advantages to large corporations at the expense of small businesses and local economies are central to this goal. I have developed a plan to stimulate the economy through investment in a jobs program restoring infrastructure. Such a program will give a boost to small businesses in urban areas, in contrast to the lack of stimulus provided by President Bush's massive investment in weapons and in tax cuts for the wealthy. This effort will begin rebuilding our decaying infrastructure nationwide -- such as schools, roads, water treatment, and environmental systems -- through jobs programs paid for by zero-interest federal loans to states and local governments. My support for a bill to establish a National Housing Trust Fund follows the example set by local housing trust funds, which have a strong record of stimulating the economy and small businesses, as well as creating affordable housing. I advocate shifting the nation's energy policy away from support for major oil, coal, and nuclear companies to smaller businesses developing renewable energy technologies. I believe the federal government must help small agricultural businesses compete by requiring country-of-origin labeling; by actively enforcing existing anti-trust laws; and by enacting new laws to force divestiture in concentrated markets, breaking apart monopolistic agribusiness companies and shifting farm economics towards higher commodity prices for farmers. To increase competition in the livestock industry, I strongly support a national ban on packer ownership of livestock. Our country must shift USDA funding and focus away from the promotion of concentrated intensive and industrial agribusiness. A new focus will benefit family farmers, rural communities, the environment, and consumers, with policies crafted to enable 49

Small Business Growth The United States must create a more level playing field for small businesses by reconstituting the trust-busting powers of the Justice Department and breaking up the monopolies that make competition next to impossible for small businesses in many industries. Repealing corporate trade agreements -- NAFTA and the WTO -- that

farmers to earn a fair price and to provide safe, nutritious food. It is time we increased funding for regional food processing facilities, marketing assistance, farm-to-school programs, on-farm renewable energy, and the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. Agricultural research and development institutions must be given funding priority, to help family farmers make a transition to profitable and sustainable agriculture. It is time we initiated a major new program of investment in rural America, putting thousands to work rebuilding invaluable public assets such as schools, hospitals, libraries, swimming pools, and parks. Teachers, doctors, veterinarians, and other important service providers should be offered incentives to work in under-served areas. A variety of support mechanisms and financial incentives must be given to local businesses, so that locally owned businesses have a fair chance to compete. I believe we must also work to make it possible for small media companies to compete. I have filed formal objections with the FCC to their deregulation and held hearings on Capitol Hill on what the media were not telling people about a war. We must bust the media monopolies. I have put forth an economic plan focused on investing in jobs, rather than wars and tax cuts for the rich, a plan that will restore some fiscal balance while stimulating the economy by putting money in the hands of people who actually need it. I support repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, while retaining those small tax cuts that have gone to ordinary Americans.

50

shortfall. In fact, merely returning the tax rates for those averaging $1.25 million a year in income, the top 1%, would nearly eliminate the guessed at shortfall for the next 75 years. Any shortfall of Social Security is easily handled if the government merely has the courage to face the special interests and say "No." Stopping the Destruction of Social Security Our Greatest Insurance Plan As AARP and many other informed groups have written, Social Security may need some small changes but it must not be demolished as the current proposals would certainly do. It is the most important insurance and retirement plan most Americans earn. Note the emphasis on "earn." Social Security is an earned benefit. It is not charity. It is for people who work hard and play by the rules and bad things happen to them or, they simply grow old and need to retire. At a time when pensions, savings, wages and health care are disappearing, shrinking or stagnating, it is breathtaking that our government would seek to make the lives of its citizens even riskier. Privatization as a Con Game for Wall Street However, as you study the privatization plan more carefully and the possible repudiation of the Trust Fund, the elements of an elaborate con game have become apparent to Missouri University economist Michael Hudson. A con game that will benefit – as did the borrowing for tax returns – those who earn, on average, about $1.25 million a year. Hudson explains that it has all the elements of a "pump and dump" scheme to prop up stock prices for the most privileged and then to leave ordinary Americans holding the bag. Social Security Is Not Facing a Crisis! The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Social Security will pay out 100% of all currently promised benefits until 2052 – some 46 years away. That is 51

Social Security April 2006 When the President faced the American public and insisted that Social Security was facing a financial crisis, it was interesting to note that he didn't also reveal that his tax cuts, according to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget office were five times the anticipated

hardly a crisis and certainly not when compared to the financial problems of the National Debt, Health Care, Medicare, Wages, Trade Deficits ... As with Iraq, the Republicans have manufactured a crisis. In fact, in 2052 Social Security will able to pay out 80% of promised benefits if their pessimistic projections are true. But 80% of those projected benefits is actually a far larger basket of goods than today's retirees receive. Each successive year, retirees with the same income receive a larger basket of goods to reflect the growing prosperity of the country. Fixing the Potential Problem Is Easy While it is entirely unclear if there is a shortfall within Social Security, "fixes" are relatively easy. For example, if we accept the CBO numbers it is likely that the full 75 year shortfall could be eliminated by simply having the top 1% of American taxpayers (those averaging $1.25 million a year in income) return to the tax rates of the 1990s when the economy was booming and the Clinton administration created 22 million jobs. Leaving Iraq would also likely save more than enough to meet the CBO projected shortfall, as would keeping the estate tax for individuals leaving more than $3 million. In fact, the tax cuts for those averaging $1.25 million a year in income is nearly twice the projected shortfall for Social Security projected to infinity according to conservative sources. Making the rich richer and leaving the middle class and others to fend for themselves is a familiar mantra for this administration. The Inherent Risk of the Stock Market It the stock market always produces better results, as the Bush administration intimates, why do all CEOs of the top 100 companies have defined benefit pension plans? What do they know that the Bush administration does not? One of the country's leading stock market researchers, Robert J. Shiller of Yale, estimates that nearly three out of every four Americans would far more poorly under a privatization plan than the current system. Notice the deliciously misleading rhetoric the

administration shills employ in discussing private accounts. They say that they wish "to give you the opportunity to earn more on your money." Of course, left unsaid is that you can certainly earn less, much less, as well. It's just that privateers rarely get around to that necessary disclaimer. And any financial planner worth her or his salt knows that the first investments one should make for retirement are in safe vehicles like treasury securities, so the absolute necessities of life are covered. Stocks are risky and are placed higher up the risk scale in the investment pyramid. Currently, all investments in Social Security are made into treasury securities earning, on average, about 5-6%. Statements that Social Security only earns 1% are just plain wrong and meant to mislead. Our Social Safety Net Social Security is both a social safety net and an economic covenant between generations and financial groups. To allow the current administration to pit one group or one age group against another is cynical and destructive to the ties that bind us together as a compassionate society. Those who call for "strengthening" Social Security with private accounts are clearly not uniters, they are dividers. They know full well when Social Security is split into different age groups and benefits are no longer directly related to earnings - as they are now - the system will lose favor with many. It will only be a matter of time before the system that we universally back today will die because so many will no longer feel connected to it. Why Change (Kill) Our Greatest Poverty Program? Why would this administration attempt to kill the most successful anti-poverty program in our history? An earned benefit based on your full work history? Frankly, from a number of White House memos and materials written by conservatives over the years, it is clear that conservatives hate Social Security as the last major vestige of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. These are the Grover Norquist 52

people running this government (and the "K" Street Project) who talk about drowning government in a bathtub, people who can't manage disasters like Hurricane Katrina because they don't want government to work. They simply want it to wither away and for everyone to fend for themselves. The true goal of their "ownership society" -- according to some pointed but telling humor -- is "to have everyone on their own." Atomizing, dividing and pitting one group against another is their method. While they may not express a belief in evolution, they like to at least see Social Darwinism in action.

exception of 1983, when Reagan was in office, this is the lowest portion of our tax receipts that corporations have paid since 1933. If corporations and the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, who must take up the slack? Yes, working Americans. The fact that a billionaire sitting next to a pool pays a lower tax rate than the person who cleans bedpans or finishes concrete should trouble all of us. America should reward those whose labors have made it great. To force the hardest working and most productive of all Americans to pay more of their income than those who merely receive dividend checks from an investment is to diminish their efforts. The Republican effort to keep the taxation rate on dividends at 15%, or to eliminate it altogether, is truly evidence that the Republican Party and some Democrats simply do not respect hard work. They only respect and admire wealth. Part of that admiration may stem from the fact that those are the people who fund their campaigns. For example, the campaign to eliminate the estate tax is being largely pushed by 18 superwealthy American families, who figure to save some $71.6 billion in taxes if the estate tax is eliminated. Incidentally, if the inheritance tax is eliminated, the average American will have to come up with about $7,500 more in taxes over a ten-year period. The estate tax is a graduated tax that only about 1% of taxpayers pay and where one in a thousand estates pays most of the tax. Our greatest concern can no longer be the children of the rich.

Taxes April 2006 "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." Said by Warren Buffett, world's second-richest man at $42.9 billion, in criticizing the fact that corporate taxes only amounted to 7.4% of fiscal 2003 U.S. tax receipts. With the

The very wealthy owe a great debt to this great country and those who preceeded them. Indeed, as President Theodore Roosevelt stated in 1906, "the man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government." In 1909 in his inaugural address William Howard Taft pointed to the "graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and as certain and easy of collection." 53

Bill Gates's father also has argued for the continuing existence of the estate tax, despite knowing that the transfer of his son's immense wealth at death will be taxed. "The estate tax should be regarded as just paying back to the country for all the wonderful things it's made possible for the people who have that wealth," said Bill Gates, Sr. "I don't think there's any great societal goal being served by inherited wealth. And certainly there's no sensible argument that I can think of for insisting on being able to pass the last penny of $100 million on to your three kids." Clearly, middle class taxpayers pay too much in taxes and are paid too little in the workplace. And the super-rich and corporations pay too little. In fact, the Bush administration has not given tax cuts. They have forced the American people to borrow money for massive tax cuts for those earning, on average, $1.25 million a year. The Center for Tax Justice has shown that the top 1% of taxpayers, those earning on average $1.25 million a year, will individually receive $476,176 in tax cuts between 2001 and 2010, if the tax cuts become permanent. Most shocking is that the top 1% will receive some $641 billion over that time period, while the bottom 80% will receive $636 billion in tax cuts. The administration statements that the poor and middle class received most of the tax cuts is not an issue for debate. It is a lie, no matter how you try to order the evidence. Much of the most direct evidence, by the way, the administration refuses to release. Perhaps they feel the facts would weaken Republican -- not national -- security. The Clinton period tax rates for the most affluent should be returned, while the tax cuts for those earning less than $405,000 a year should be maintained, for now, until we see how the economy fares. Because the average taxpayer pays some $5,000 a year for the military, significant tax savings could be generated by eliminating

waste and weapons like Star Wars that simply won't work and programs that have nothing to do with protecting this country. Keep in mind that the government borrows all the Social Security surplus each year and doesn't even report the borrowing as part of the yearly deficit. So far, the Bush administration has borrowed about $6,000 in overpayments from the Social Security Trust Fund from the average taxpayer. This, after promising in the first Presidential campaign to put the money in a "lock box." Especially unsettling is that after borrowing nearly $800 billion from the trust fund, the President has declared several times that the Trust Fund simply doesn't exist. If the government refuses to honor its borrowings from the Social Security Trust, it means that the Bush administration will have financed much of the government on the most regressive of taxes. Even more shocking are the calculations of economist Dean Baker that such a repudiation of the Trust Fund would result in a windfall of $800,000 for the top 1% of taxpayers and a loss of $10,000 for the average family.

54

people. Workers' rights are the key to protecting our democracy. Workers' rights embody spiritual principles that sustain families, nourish the soul, and create peace. Workers' rights are human rights. Labor has stood almost alone while corporations have cut wages and benefits, slashed working hours, tried to undermine wage and hour provisions, reneged on contracts, and jettisoned retirements through bankruptcy strategies. The current clamor for corporate accountability calls for honesty in stating the numbers, and faithful custody of shareholders money. There needs to be equal concern for those who created the wealth through their labor, because the attacks on unions are a means of redistributing the wealth upwards. As union membership has declined, the disparity of wealth has increased. Since 1973, union membership has dropped from 24% to 14%. And the share of aggregate income of the poor, the middle class, and the upper middle class has declined. Congress has not passed an increase in the $5.15 minimum wage, even though the inflation-adjusted minimum wage is 21% lower today than in 1979. Since 1981, the share of income of the richest 5% of this country has increased more than 40%, while that of the lowest fifth has decreased more than 20%. An even starker contrast arises. According to Business Week, the average CEO made 42 times the average worker's pay in 1980, 85 times in 1990 and 531 times in 2000. Forbes Magazine points out that the number of billionaires increased from 13 in 1982 to 149 in 1996. People have a right to:
• • • • • •

Workers' Rights The hopes and dreams of the men and women who sent me to Congress are the stars by which I journey. Whenever there is an organizing campaign, a picket line to walk, jobs to save, working conditions to improve, laws to champion, I'm there. This is my purpose: To stand up and to speak out on behalf of those who have built this country and who want to rebuild this country. This is my passion: To raise up the rights of working

Have a job. Have a safe workplace. Get decent wages and benefits. Organize and be represented. Grieve about working conditions. Strike. 55

• • • •

Get fair compensation for injuries on the job. Sue if injured by negligent employers. Have secure pension and retirement benefits. Participate in the political process.

These basic rights ought to be inviolate in a democratic society. There can be no true corporate accountability unless corporations are accountable to workers. There can be no accountability to workers unless workers' rights are protected. And workers' rights cannot be protected unless the Democratic party makes it the centerpiece of its legislative program. The Democratic Party must be challenged by Labor to truly be the party of all the people. When the Democratic Party rises, it must be with the ranks, not from the ranks. "The future of labor is the future of America," said John L. Lewis. Labor cannot afford to settle for half-hearted nominees or half measures that keep in place a system that is destroying our democracy through trade agreements that transfer sovereign power to the World Trade Organization, undermine our economy, and devastate workers' ability to defend themselves. It is the restoration of the rights of workers that will put us at the dawn of a new political age. The rights of workers are core principles of an American Restoration. These aren't mere political principles. These are timeless moral principles, about fairness, about equality, about justice.

56

The Clean Air Act has steadily improved our air quality since 1970, but was substantially weakened by special interests acting through the Bush administration. While a few big businesses reap excessive profits, average citizens face increased health problems and additional expenses for health care that most can ill afford. Nearly half of all Americans are forced to breathe unhealthy air. This should not be tolerated under any administration. The human cost of air pollutants is estimated at as many as 100,000 premature deaths and about $50 billion annually in the United States. Because we breathe in 3,400 gallons of air every day, chemicals we cannot see, smell, or taste can do irreparable harm over long periods. We should not be forced to endure the dumping of chemicals and other pollutants into the air that we must breathe, nor should we be forced to pay more in medical costs to treat the problems of breathing polluted air. We certainly should not be forced to accept an early death so that pollutants can thrive in our air. The personal cost of air pollution, estimated to average around $200 every year, applies to everyone, everywhere, but is even higher for some regions. For example, a 22-square-mile area north of Fort Wayne has been identified as the most mercury-contaminated spot in the country. In addition, some racial groups are hit harder than others. For instance, 71% of African Americans lived in counties that violated federal air pollution standards in 2002, compared to 58% of the white population. Clean Air We need a President who will reinvigorate the Clean Air Act and work to eliminate the pollutants in the air we breathe. We need a President who will join world efforts to curb global warming; who will ratify the Kyoto Protocol, spur research and development into clean-burning, renewable fuels, and move the United States to 20% renewable energy use by 2010. It is now crucial that the lethal impacts of air pollution be realized and acted upon. Soot from the oldest and dirtiest power plants kills 30,100 Americans each year; comparatively, drunk driving kills 16,935 and homicides kill 17,893. These same power plants emit pollution that triggers 603,000 asthma attacks annually, most of which occur in children. The technology to clean up these plants has literally existed for decades. If these old power plants were made to be as clean as newer 57

power plants, we'd save three times as many lives as are saved by seatbelts. The Bush Clear Skies Initiative is a clear step backwards for the quality of the environment and for every American. Even the EPA has admitted that the Clear Skies Initiative will create more pollution from the electric power industry than if the EPA had enforced existing programs. As written, the Clear Skies Initiative will allow 36% more nitrogen oxides, 50% more sulfur dioxide, and as much as 500% more mercury to be released into our air. This will mean millions more asthma attacks, heavier acid rainfalls, and more toxic bodies of water where the fish cannot be eaten. This implementation of big industry wishes has derailed the Clean Air Act and undermined the health of this nation. We need an administration that will act on the fact that the air we breathe is essential to life. Even unseen pollution harms all our lives and destroys some of our lives. All of us pay for the pollution of others. Pollution is not necessary and the price of pollution is not something we need to pay to maintain our lifestyles. In many cases, the cost of cleaning up the pollution is less than the medical costs of treating the effects of pollution. We all must continue to cleanse the air and drive down the cost that everyone pays for a dirty atmosphere. The Bush administration has seriously weakened the Clean Air Act, raising the health costs of everyone; it is time to restore it. As a nation, we must take the following steps: Reinvigorate the Clean Air Act and reverse the actions of the Bush administration to impede it. Offer incentives for wind, solar, and other non-polluting forms of energy. This will help clean our air and reduce our dependence on polluting forms of energy and on foreign oil and gas. Offer incentives for more efficient devices and systems that use or generate power. Automobiles can be more efficient and safer

without being less comfortable. Many of our power plants can be more efficient and produce fewer pollutants. Mega-farms can produce much less toxic gas. Support the Kyoto Treaty to join international efforts to decrease our emissions of greenhouse gases and thus curb global warming. Work cooperatively with other nations. Air is a universal resource; our efforts to improve air quality mustn't end at the U.S. borders.

58

Make a major investment in water system infrastructure Make a financial commitment to providing healthy drinking water to all the world's people When the Clean Water Act was written in 1972, the goal was to make all waters safe for fishing and swimming. Yet data from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that the nation's water bodies are getting dirtier -nearly half are unsafe. The Clean Water Act has helped to reduce pollution from sewage treatment plants and other direct dischargers, but it has been generally ineffective in controlling polluted runoff from farm fields, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), roads and parking lots, construction sites, oil and gas operations, mining sites, etc. Overdevelopment of wetlands, which would accelerate under proposed Bush Administration rule changes, destroys nature's natural pollution filters and increases flooding. Subsidies for auto-dependent sprawl and transportation further contribute to runoff pollution. Coal-burning utilities add to mercury contamination of lakes from acid rain, a particular health hazard to children and pregnant women. A quarter of our industrial plants and water treatment plants are in serious violation of pollution standards. Half of the most serious offenders exceed pollution limits on toxic substances by more than 100%, yet due to inadequate funding, only a fraction of them face consequences. Those found in violation are often given little more than a slap on the wrist. While most family farmers are good stewards of the environment, too many communities are being harmed by industrial-style agriculture and its disregard for the environment. Millions of fish have been killed by countless manure spills from overflowing lagoons. Runoff of fertilizers and other contaminants has created a "dead zone" at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Many rural areas have themselves 59

Clean Water Dennis Kucinich Plan for Clean Water for All In Summary: Strengthen and enforce air and water regulation and protections Reward environmentally-responsible farmers and businesses Stop privatization of drinking water and sewer systems

become "dead zones" due to the rapid decline of family-farm agriculture. Residents of rural communities throughout America are suffering the consequences -- contaminated well and surface water, gastro-intestinal illnesses, lung problems, neurological damage, and decreases in property values. Privatization of drinking water and sewer systems, with its accompanying goal of profit above all and its leverage of control over an essential commodity, has produced disastrous outcomes. Privatization contributed to a cholera outbreak in South Africa and led to filthy, overpriced, undersupplied water in Atlanta. In India, some poor households must pay 25% of their income for water. The list of problems goes on and on. Under-funded and often antiquated water treatment plants are a thin line of defense between the pollution entering our water bodies and what comes out of our taps. Pollutants are occurring in alarming amounts in some water systems. Of the 2,000 chemicals commonly found in public drinking water supplies, the Environmental Protection Agency tests for only 83. Recent studies show that, on average, people have more than 30 toxic chemicals in their bodies. Many states charge nothing for polluters to obtain permits to legally discharge into their rivers, lakes, and streams. According to the United Nations, 2 billion people worldwide are dying or at risk of dying from unsafe drinking water and/or lack of access to adequate sanitation. Water-related diseases are responsible for 80% of illnesses and death in the developing world. More than 2 million people, mostly children, die each year from waterborne diseases. The current Administration has unleashed an unprecedented assault on water quality protection. It permits coal companies to dump fill from blown-up mountains into streams. It has rejected the first President Bush's policy of ensuring no net loss of wetlands, withdrawn proposed rules that would have reduced raw sewage discharges, and dropped proposals to

cut storm water pollution from new development. Instead, this Administration seeks to limit the scope of the law, leaving entire classes of waterways unprotected. Water is the sustainer of all life. We deserve it ourselves, and we owe it to future generations to leave them the gift of clean water. We need an administration that will make clean, healthy water a right for all, strengthening air and water protections. Regulation and enforcement against polluters must be increased, while environmentally responsible farmers and businesses should be rewarded. We must work to stop privatization of drinking water and sewer systems and make a major investment in water system infrastructure, while making a significant financial commitment to providing healthy drinking water to all the world's people. Strengthen and enforce air and water regulation and protections We should regulate pollution from CAFOs as industrial discharges subject to permits, limits, and fines for non-compliance. Business and factory farms in violation of regulations should forfeit federal subsidies. Mountaintop removal of coal should be prohibited, and tough controls should be instituted to reduce global warming emissions and acid rain from coal-burning utilities. Federal assistance to states is needed, to help implement and monitor mandatory plans to reduce pollutants entering water bodies, shift resources to watershed protection, and increase funding for public transportation programs to reduce autoand sprawl-related water and air pollution. We should increase testing of chemicals prevalent in drinking water bodies, require manufacturers of toxic chemicals to produce safer alternatives -- many of which are currently available -- and make pollution permit fees mandatory, subject to revocation for repeat offenders. Budgets for environmental monitoring and enforcement should be increased, with cleanup costs funded by fees and fines paid by polluters. 60

Reward environmentally responsible farmers and businesses A healthy environment and a strong economy should go hand in hand. If we are to be serious about making our water safe, we need a transformation of our economy to one that recognizes environmental costs. The Conservation Security Program needs to be greatly expanded; this is a model program that's a win-win-win for farmers, the environment, and everyone who lives downstream. Protections for all wetlands should be strengthened. Assistance should be given to state environmental agencies to curtail polluted runoff. Farms and businesses that employ pollution reduction strategies should be encouraged with tax and other incentives. Funding should also be provided to help family farmers meet their environmental responsibilities and make the transition to less chemical-intensive agriculture that increases profits, reduces pollution, and restores our precious water bodies. Stop privatization of drinking water and sewer systems Access to water is fundamental. It must not be controlled by private industries and sold only to those who can afford it. Water is a human right and must be kept in the public domain, not controlled by corporations aided by WTO, IMF, and World Bank loan policies. Instead, privatization of water must be reversed; drinking water systems must be publicly owned, subject to municipal control; the practice of making water privatization a condition for favorable loan terms must be ended. Make a major investment in water system infrastructure Current funding to upgrade drinking water and sewer systems is woefully inadequate. We need a major WPA-style investment in water infrastructure improvements, to protect the public health and put people back to work. The funds spent will create thousands of jobs,

while reducing pressure to sell water supplies and treatment plants to private companies. Make a financial commitment to providing healthy drinking water to all the world's people Returning to our ideal of an America of compassion, we should at least double annual spending on safe drinking water and sanitation programs in the developing world. We have a moral obligation to take action. If we can afford to spend $100 billion for wars, we can afford to help end the needless suffering of our brothers and sisters throughout the world. Funds can be re-directed from the bloated military budget to help pay for these programs. Supporting alleviation of the suffering of the world's poorest and most desperate people is not only an urgent moral necessity, it will also reestablish the image of the United States as a helping, not conquering, nation.

61

believe that by the year 2004, over 315 million computers will become obsolete, leaving approximately 1.2 billion pounds of lead, 2 millions pounds of cadmium, and 4 billion pounds of plastics in the waste stream. We must all work together to bring electronic waste to the forefront of environmental issues, through increased education, strengthening of environmental laws, and emphasis on corporate responsibility. Due to a lack of consumer education and awareness, most people scarcely stop to wonder what happens to their old computers once they are done using them, or how they should best discard them in the first place -- hence, the widespread solution of closet and garage storage. If current conditions persist, this electronic waste stream will more than likely flow in the direction of landfills, incinerators, or overseas exports. While CRTs (cathode ray tubes, or monitors), computer towers, televisions, and other electronic equipment are known to contain numerous toxic substances, they are scarcely designed in ways that will ensure proper management. Landfills, incinerators, and even most modern recycling plants are not secure solutions to managing e-waste. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, over 3.2 million tons of e-waste ended up in national landfills in 1997. This is an insufficient and dangerous method of management, as both landfill and incinerators significantly contribute to rising problems in land, water, and air contamination. Even the best "state of the art" landfill is not completely secure, allowing certain amounts of chemical and metal leaching to occur. Electronic discards contribute to about 70% of heavy metals (primarily mercury and cadmium) found in landfills. These and other hazardous substances can severely contaminate groundwater and consequently filter into public water supplies and the food chain. Beyond problems of leaching in landfills, the vaporization of metallic mercury and dimethylene mercury is also of great concern. Furthermore, uncontrolled fires may arise in landfills, releasing extremely toxic dioxins and 62

Electronic Waste Electronic waste, or e-waste, represents the broad and growing range of electronic devices produced mainly in the last two decades as an inevitable by-product of the Information or High-Tech Revolution. From cell phones and video games to televisions and computer equipment, e-waste is now the fastest growing waste stream in the industrialized world, produced by the world's largest growing manufacturing industry: electronics. Experts

furans (dioxin-like compounds) into the atmosphere. Most efforts to divert e-waste from landfills and incinerators result in hazardous dismantling, shredding, burning, exporting, and other unsafe, irresponsible disposal methods. Due to unchecked market forces and scarce economic incentives to do otherwise, the vast majority of e-waste -- a shocking 80% -- that is supposedly recycled is actually shipped overseas to poor countries. Rich, industrialized countries have made convenient use of the word "recycling" to justify the free trading of hazardous wastes to the developing countries of Asia, where labor is cheap and health and environmental restrictions are lax. Investigative reports of these overseas "recycling" destinations have described horrifying working conditions and extreme environmental degradation. Unprotected workers -- many of them women and children -- spend long days dismantling equipment, mostly with the help of low-tech tools such as hammers, chisels, screwdrivers, and bare hands. Hazardous recycling operations such as toner sweeping, open burning, CRT cracking and dumping, and acid stripping of chips expose workers to deadly pollutants like chlorinated dioxins and furans that contaminate their bodies and their environment. Local drinking water has deteriorated to the point that supplies must be trucked in daily on rickety tractors from ten miles away. Near a riverbank that has been used to break down and burn circuit boards, a water sample revealed levels of lead 190 times as high as the drinking water standard set by the World Health Organization, while samples from the sediment displayed levels of lead and other heavy metals, like barium and chromium, hundreds of times as high as U.S. and European environmental standards for acceptable risk. The power to change lies largely in the hands of developed countries. It is time that this power was realized and addressed in the United States.

While other governments are developing environmental guidelines for the preceding Info-Tech Revolution, the U.S. continues to lag behind and even regress. Beyond refusing to sign the Basel Convention, which aims to curb the unwarranted effects of free trade in toxic wastes, both the U.S. government and American manufacturers have made numerous efforts to challenge recent European Union initiatives, under the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The United States must sign the Basel Convention and adopt policies of corporate responsibility, to ensure that toxic waste from the United States is no longer dumped on developing countries with scarce resources to handle it safely. The United States must adopt a whole-systems approach to the e-waste problem in order to profit from remanufacturing, as the EU has recently done in their regional Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Initiative. The electronic industries can no longer deny the rampant resource consumption and waste generation that plagues the Information Age, while simultaneously benefiting from their failure to claim responsibility for it. As the most rapidly escalating waste problem in the world, the ewaste dilemma represents both a call to producers to extend their responsibilities and the rumblings of an environmental crisis that has only just begun. We must work to transform the U.S. into a closed-loop system, where products enter and exit the market through the same open doors. This way, obsolete products will no longer end up in a dangerous heap at the end of their lives. The system through which the e-waste problem thrives requires a systemic solution that will work in the best interests of all stakeholders, and not just those at certain locations in the network. Manufacturers must take initial responsibility for creating this whole-systems approach, thus discovering new ways to profit from remanufacturing. 63

From producers to governments to average consumers, stakeholders in the e-waste crisis must recognize together both the environmental and economic value of sustainability in the ensuing Info-Tech Revolution.

energy technologies will produce new jobs. We can and must double our energy from renewable sources by 2010. And we can very soon have hybrid and fuel cell cars dominating the market. As a peace advocate, I hope to launch a major renewables effort so that Middle East oil fields will not loom so large as strategic or military targets. There has to be a renewable energy portfolio of at least 20% by 2010. And that means introducing wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, biomass, and all of the options that must be available and need incentivizing. That also means withdrawing incentives for the production of nonrenewable energy. I'm not talking about building new hydro dams; I'm not talking about damming up more rivers and streams. We need to subsidize the development of new energy technologies. And I'm willing to do that through NASA, which has been of singular importance to our economy by developing technologies for propulsion, for aerospace, for materials, for medicines, and for communication. We need to fund NASA in, among other areas, a mission to planet Earth. I have a long and consistent record of working for protecting the environment. I was active in helping draft the first environmental law protecting the air, as a member of the Cleveland City Council 30 years ago. I led the effort in Ohio challenging nuclear power as being unsafe, unreliable, and unsustainable, and I'm still leading the effort in challenging it. And, most recently, I was at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, advocating a plan with Mikhail Gorbachev for a Global Green Deal that would enable the introduction of $50 billion of new solar projects around the world. It will be a major initiative to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs to Americans, to reduce energy use here at home, and to partner with developing nations to provide their people with inexpensive, local renewable-energy technologies.

Energy Thanks to advances in renewables, there are fewer technical obstacles to energy independence for our country. There are many political obstacles -- but the oil, auto and electric utility corporations should not be directing energy policy. We must work to spur research and investment in "alternative" energy sources such as hydrogen, solar, wind and ocean, and make them mainstream. Clean

64

As an environmentalist, my view is always holistic and global: we need to launch a "Global Green Deal" -- a major initiative to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs to Americans, to reduce energy use here at home, and to partner with developing nations to provide their people with inexpensive, local renewable energy technologies. As a citizen of Planet Earth, I want this project for the same reason I would sign the Kyoto climate change treaty -- because we need it for our children and our grandchildren.

common property of all humanity -- even more, as the commonwealth of all humanity. And so my candidacy arises from a philosophy of interdependence and interconnection, which respects the environment as a precondition for our survival. I am not tied to any corporate interests that would strip our forests or pollute our air or water. Throughout my career, I have worked for structures of law that protect the environment, and the principles that animate my campaign are principles of sustainability. The principles that animate my life are principles of sustainability. I have a long and consistent record of working for protecting the environment. I was active in helping draft the first environmental law protecting the air, as a member of the Cleveland City Council 30 years ago. I led the effort in Ohio challenging nuclear power as being unsafe, unreliable, and unsustainable, and I'm still leading the effort in challenging it. And, most recently, I was at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, advocating a plan with Mikhail Gorbachev for a Global Green Deal that would enable the introduction of $50 billion of new solar projects around the world. It will be a major initiative to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs to Americans, to reduce energy use here at home, and to partner with developing nations to provide their people with inexpensive, local renewable-energy technologies. As a peace advocate, I hope to launch a major renewables effort so that Middle East oil fields do not loom so large as strategic or military targets. There has to be a renewable energy portfolio of 20% by 2010. And that means introducing wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, biomass, and all of the options that must be available and need incentivizing. That also means withdrawing incentives for the production of nonrenewable energy. I'm not talking about building new hydro dams; 65

Environment The EPA under the Bush Administration has stood for Every Polluter's Ally. The air and the water and the land are viewed by this administration as just another commodity to be used for private profit. We as a nation must turn our efforts towards the great work of restoring our air and our water and our land. We must view our natural resources as the

I'm not talking about damming up more rivers and streams. We need to subsidize the development of new energy technologies. And I'm willing to do that through NASA, which has been of singular importance to our economy by developing technologies for propulsion, for aerospace, for materials, for medicines, and for communication. We need to fund NASA in, among other areas, a mission to planet Earth. The United States should lead the way in protecting our oceans, rivers and rural environments -- and I have been speaking out on these issues across America. I will also continue to lead in fighting for clean, affordable, and accessible drinking water -which is an emerging global concern. Over the years, I have worked hand in hand with the environmental movement on many battles, from thwarting a nuclear waste dump to boosting organics to demanding labels on genetically-engineered products. I've won honors from the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and the League of Conservation Voters. In the summer of 2002, I was one of the few U.S. officials at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. To repair the earth, America must lead. We must reverse course on most Bush Administration policies and support the Kyoto Treaty that Bush rejected. We must strengthen environmental laws and increase penalties on polluters. We should provide tax and other incentives to businesses that conserve energy, retrofit pollution prevention technologies, and redesign toxins out of their manufacturing processes. Nontoxic, safe substitutes for hazardous chemicals must become permanent. I would initiate a "Global Green Deal" to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs at home, increase our independence from foreign oil, and aid developing nations with cheap, dependable, renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. A clean environment, a sustainable

economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future. The League of Conservation Voters has compiled extensive information on my environmental record: http://www.lcv.org/Campaigns/Campaigns.cf m?ID=93 I have a 100 percent rating on the environment from the Public Interest Research Group: http://www.pirg.org/score2002/ohio.html

66

air. They regulate climate and provide soil stability and wildlife habitat, including habitat for fish and for the pollinators of food crops. Many modern medicines are derived from the forest. Our very survival as a species depends upon intact forests, yet we have destroyed 96% of our original forests. And we have not necessarily corrected the error of our ways. President Bush and Congress recently created the "Healthy Forest Initiative," which targets the remaining 4% of intact forest for logging, under the guise of "forest-fire management." I am calling for a fundamental shift of public policy that will protect both our future on this planet and our tax dollar: Zero Cut, Zero Extraction on Public Lands. The American people own 635 million acres of public land. These public lands are controlled by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are comprised of a variety of ecosystems. Public lands provide 80% of municipal water supplies and half of the remaining habitat left to endangered species. On the other hand, public forests comprise less than 4% of the timber supply derived from this country, and half of the trees cut in the U.S. are exported as minimally processed wood, pulp, and chips! We must end public lands logging and insist on export of only finished wood products, thus protecting both the environment and American jobs. Log exports alone cost 60,000 timber jobs per year, and rampant logging has contributed to a precipitous decline of the fishing industry from coast to coast. American public lands are currently managed for the short-term profits of corporations. The U.S. Forest Service routinely loses $1.2 billion per year for the taxpayers, since they spend more money building logging roads and administering timber sales for timber companies than they receive from the sale of public trees. The real cost is immeasurably more, since unlike a normal business, the U.S. Forest Service liquidates public assets without 67

Forests and Logging on Public Lands Our society has shown a fundamental disregard for the ecosystems that provide life on this planet. The United States was originally blanketed with a billion acres of forest. Now only 40 million acres remain uncut. Forests provide clean water and clean

any evaluation of inventory worth or replacement cost. An honest, full cost accounting of the Forest Service would reveal that revenues from living public forests are worth over $117 billion per year, yet revenues from Forest Service lands are only $354 million per year. "Conservatives" squander both public money and the irreplaceable ecosystems that our life and economy depend upon. The President must require that, as of January 2005, the federal government purchase only 100% post-consumer waste chlorine-free paper, or 100% tree-free chlorine-free paper. China already makes 80% of its paper from agricultural waste. Why can't we? Ranching on Public Lands The Bureau of Land Management manages our public grasslands for the short-term benefit of the livestock industry. Cows and sheep have already permanently destroyed 50% of the nation's grasslands, and are currently munching on another 40%. Only 10% of the nation's original grasslands are available for wildlife, and most of this land is unprotected. Public lands ranchers have permanently destroyed millions of acres of lands in the arid regions of the West, yet they provide only 3% of the nation's beef supply. The cost for a rancher to use public land for grazing is a mere $1.35 per month for a head of cattle, compared to approximately $10 per month on private lands. According to the Cato Institute, a conservative D.C. think tank, public lands ranchers receive $200 million in direct subsidies yearly. Indirect subsidies and public assets liquidation cost the taxpayers billions per year. The Bush Administration has extended water rights to ranchers that feed on public lands. It is time we stop the ranching on public lands. In 1931, the federal government created a program to "eradicate, suppress, and control" wildlife species that livestock and agricultural interests find offensive. Since then, "Wildlife Services" of the Department of Agriculture (formerly named the Animal Damage Control

Program) has poisoned, shot, gassed, and lethally trapped millions of mammals and birds on public land. This taxpayer-financed operation is responsible for directly decimating all 19 species of large mammals in the West, including the grizzly bear, black bear, gray, red, swift and kit foxes, gray wolf, mountain lion, bobcats, lynx, jaguar, moose, elk, pronghorns, bighorn sheep, mule deer, whitetail deer, buffalo, and coyote. We must end the government-financed killing of wildlife, saving both public land ecosystems and millions of taxpayer dollars. Mining on Public Lands Mining on public lands represents yet another taxpayer giveaway to environmental destroyers. For a mere $5 per acre, anyone can stake a mining claim on American public land. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that between 1872 and 1992 the federal government gave away $231 billion in royalty-free mineral reserves to private mining companies on public land. For example, a Canadian company named American Barrick Resources paid less than $10,000 to the Federal Treasury to mine about 2,000 acres of public land in Nevada. The mine is estimated to contain $10 billion worth of gold. Not only do we give away our mining assets for a pittance, but the public is left with cleaning up the toxic mess. Sixty-six Superfund clean-up sites are abandoned mines on public lands. It's estimated that the cost to clean up the current waste left by private mining on public land will be over $1 trillion. Of course, no amount of money can return to life all those already killed by asbestos, arsenic, and lead poisoning. A 1996 report by the General Accounting Office states that mines have left 50 billion tons of waste, the equivalent of 2,400 football fields each filled a mile high. The Bush Administration recently extended the right of miners to leave piles of toxic waste on public lands. I am standing to seek an end to mining on public lands mining and to demand that private corporations pay for the cleanup. I support policies to encourage reuse and reduction of mined material and encourage "mining" of our landfills instead. 68

Oil Rigs on Public Lands There are 46,000 oil rigs currently operating on American public lands. The Bush Administration has promoted oil interests both at home and abroad. The Bureau of Land Management is contemplating the eventual drilling of 50,000 oil and gas wells in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. A current proposal would drill 5,000 wells, and require 2,500 miles of new roads and 2,500 miles of pipelines. It would ravage 3,600 square miles of predominately public land in Wyoming, for no more than 15-20 years of extraction. I see another energy future, one dependent upon clean, renewable energy, energy conservation, and efficiency. In summary, I believe that complete protection of our public lands from exploitive industry is necessary for environmental, economic, and human health. For too long, corporations have plundered our public lands, ravaging the landscape, costing billions in direct taxpayer dollars and trillions in public assets liquidation. I endorse Zero Cut, Zero Extraction on Public Lands.

multinational companies have invested millions of dollars into the research and development of GEF. They claim that genetically engineered food is safe and that it is associated with good environmental practices. Of course, there is a huge conflict of interest when the leading authorities on GEF are the same industries that hope to profit by them. Genetically engineered food is produced with the use of bacteria and "gene guns" along with other unnatural techniques to aggressively insert foreign genetic material into a plant or animal. Genetic engineers also use viruses and genes that are resistant to antibiotics in order to activate these foreign genes. These methods lead to questions about the introduction of allergens and toxins into the food, the reduction of nutritional value of the food, and how consuming the food might lead to resistance to antibiotics. Environmental concerns also arise. The biggest push in GEF has been for creating plants that are resistant to herbicides and pesticides. Crops that encourage the increased use of pesticides that already have a negative impact on our ecosystems are a step in the wrong direction. Despite the obvious concerns that these practices cause, the FDA has maintained since 1992 that genetically engineered food is "substantially equivalent" to conventional food. Proponents of genetically engineered food have said that this technology will end world hunger because increased crop yields will create more food. This simplistic argument does not take into account the true causes of hunger. In the past we have consistently produced more than enough food to feed the people of the world. The United Nations has predicted that growth in agriculture will continue to exceed population growth. The real cause of world hunger is not a shortage of food, but poverty. Food is not distributed well enough to the areas that need it, and hungry people are too poor to buy that which is available, or they lack the land and resources to grow it for themselves. 69

Genetically Engineered Food Genetically engineered food (GEF) poses grave risks, and much serious research into the potential harms is needed. The dominant voices in the public debate over genetically engineered food have been those of the agribusiness and biotechnology industries. These

People must have a right to select foods for themselves and their families that are proven to be safe and environmentally friendly. In Congress, I have introduced legislation in support of regulating genetically engineered food. I have argued for scientifically valid testing of the safety of all GEF. I have opposed the introduction of genetically engineered fish, because the ecological effect was not adequately considered. I have worked to empower farmers against the GEF industry. I have worked to require that all foods containing GEF be labeled as such. To accomplish these goals, we should create a fund, financed by genetically engineered food corporations, for farmers who incur losses caused by GEF. We should fund research institutions that help family farmers make the transition to profitable and sustainable agriculture. We should also provide funding to assist independent farmers in qualifying for organic certification.

That plant is hemp, cousin to the psychoactive marijuana plant. Hemp is classified as a "drug" under the Controlled Substances Act, although it poses no danger to public health or safety. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species Cannabis sativa L. that contains less than 1% THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the psychoactive chemical that gets people "high." According to David West, Ph.D., "... THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could ever get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana; it could be called anti-marijuana." Article 28-2 of the UN Single Treaty Convention on Narcotic Drugs states, "This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fiber and seed) or horticultural purposes." The United States is a signer of this convention. The industrial hemp plant has a surprising number and variety of uses, including textiles, paper, food, paint, bio-fuels, bio-composites, automobile parts, plastics, and fiberboard. In ancient times, people added handfuls of hemp fiber to their clay to strengthen the bricks used for building. In France today, houses are being built from hemp that are fire- and termiteresistant. Tree-free hemp paper can be made without dioxin and can be recycled 10 more times than tree-pulp paper. An acre of hemp produces more pulp than four acres of trees. In 1916, USDA Agriculture Bulletin 404 reported that our forests were being cut down three times faster than they grew. It called for alternatives to the use of timber and recommended using hemp pulp for paper instead of tree pulp.

Hemp Re-legalizing the Commercial Growing of Industrial Hemp in the United States Since 1937, Federal laws have criminalized a harmless plant. Outdated attitudes and drug war paranoia in Washington have limited the many uses of this vital plant and have even prohibited its growth in the United States.

For textiles, an acre of land will produce two to three times as much hemp fiber as cotton, and hemp requires little to no pesticides or herbicides. Hemp leaves the soil in excellent condition (even removing heavy metals) for any succeeding crop, especially when weeds may otherwise be a problem. Hemp anchors and protects the soil from runoff, and during reforestation tree roots will follow the paths 70

loosened by hemp roots, so trees grow more quickly. Hemp seed plays an important role in nutrition for humans, livestock, and birds. Hemp seed is a complete source of protein, second only to soybeans, and contains the highest concentration of essential amino and fatty acids found in any food. It contains omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids at the optimum 3:1 ratio and contains gamma linolenic acid (GLA). Hemp seed could replace the animal protein fed to livestock at far less cost to the health of people and our planet. It is also perfect for a vegetarian and vegan diet. By using a renewable resource, the hemp industry has the potential to help move our economy in a direction that is more sustainable and more socially and environmentally responsible. Since hemp grows well in most climates and offers amazing product versatility, it has the potential to stimulate commercial activity that benefits both humans and the ecology. "Make the most of the hempseed, sow it everywhere." President George Washington, 1794 During America's Colonial days, hemp was a cornerstone of civil development, and its production was considered necessary. England and Holland hoped their American colonies would furnish enough hemp for their great navies, for which it was as important as flax, iron, and timber. Hemp has always been important to the U.S. economy and was exchanged as money throughout most of the Americas from 1631 to the early 1800s. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were drafted on hempen paper. Colonial women sewed soldiers' uniforms and flags from the tough hemp fibers, and bagging, cordage, twines, ropes, and sails were all made with hemp. Oil for lamps and for paints was pressed from the seed.

As the American Revolution approached, patriot Thomas Paine insisted that the colonies were strong enough to break free from old King George's oppression and rise to their own greatness, in part "because hemp flourishes here." After Pearl Harbor, when hemp imports to the United States were cut off, the U.S. government asked farmers to grow hemp once again, although growing it without a permit had been prohibited since 1937. USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation contracted with War Hemp Industries, Inc. to produce planting seed and fiber, and 42 hemp mills were built across the American Midwest. The USDA film, "Hemp for Victory" was shown in theaters and Grange halls across the land. USDA Farmers' Bulletin No. 1935, entitled "Hemp," was issued to farmers in January, 1943. Hemp was used to sew millions of pairs of boots for American soldiers, hemp twine was used for tying and upholstery, and thousands of feet of hemp rope were supplied to each battleship. In fact, the parachute that saved George H. W. Bush's life during World War II was rigged with hemp. Even 4-H clubs in Kentucky planted their own hemp patches "to serve their country in wartime." By war's end, nearly a million acres of hemp had been cultivated to support the war effort. In April 1952, during the Korean War, the USDA reissued Farmer's Bulletin No. 1935. By 1957, however, prohibitionists had reimposed a total ban on the domestic hemp industry, which has been in effect ever since. Hemp Today, Hemp in Our Future Hemp is the natural competition that the timber and synthetic products industries don't want you to know about. It is part of a sustainable economy that will help wean us from dependence on foreign energy sources. This new economy will help farmers to be an integral part of the restoration of rural America. Today's hemp industry is a thriving commercial success, despite the government's refusal to let American farmers be a part of 71

this economic growth. U.S. retailers and manufacturers annually import large quantities of hemp fiber, hemp seeds, and hemp seed oil from Canada and other nations. Studies commissioned by a number of U.S. states have recommended hemp as a viable crop, and legislation has been enacted in some states allowing farmers to grow hemp. But Federal approval is still necessary, and it is seldom given. On February 6, 2004, after several years of litigation, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals permanently enjoined an attempt by the Drug Enforcement Administration to regulate foodstuffs containing materials derived from hemp, opening the way to even greater commercialization of hemp products than exists today in the United States. The Court held that Congress had explicitly exempted industrial hemp from its definition of THC in the Controlled Substances Act, and that the DEA would have to go through welldefined procedures to "schedule" hemp as a controlled substance. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture recently urged the USDA, the DEA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop and adopt an official definition of industrial hemp that comports with definitions used by countries producing hemp. Those definitions make it possible to grow hemp for food and fiber in those countries, feeding, clothing, and giving livelihoods to thousands of people. They also urged Congress to distinguish statutorily between industrial hemp and marijuana and to direct the DEA to revise its policies to allow the USDA to regulate hemp farming. I stand in support of a major renewables effort and of spurring research and investment in alternative energy sources. As an environmentalist, my view is always holistic and global. It is time this country put an end to the demonization of hemp, paving the way for renewed commercial hemp cultivation in the United States and breaking down the unnecessary barriers that keep American

farmers from enjoying the benefits of this thriving, sustainable industry. Related News: Vote Hemp Releases Voter Guide: Kucinich Scores A+ U.S. Newswire, 2/2/04 This is an industrial hemp issue. Dennis knows the difference! See Marijuana Decriminalization.

72

shipments. More radioactive waste will be shipped in the first full year of repository operations than has been transported in the entire five-decade history of spent fuel shipments in the United States. The Department of Energy proposes to directly impact 44 states and many of the major metropolitan areas in the nation. At least 109 cities with populations exceeding 100,000, including my constituents in Cleveland, Ohio, will be subjected to repeated shipments with minimal safeguards. Highway shipments alone will impact at least 703 counties with a combined population of 123 million people. Nationally, 11 million people reside within one half mile of a truck or rail route. This unprecedented attempt to transport radioactive materials will bring with it many risks, including potentially serious economic damage and property value losses in cities and communities along shipping routes. And the poorly tested transportation casks may be vulnerable to highway accidents and security breaches. Because of a lack of rail facilities to several reactors the Department of Energy will use barge shipments to move this waste to a port capable of transferring 120-ton casks to a train. Some of these shipments will occur on the Great Lakes, the world's largest source of fresh water. Over 35 million people living in the Great Lakes basin use it for drinking water. The federal government must radically improve the safety and security of these shipments. That is the purpose of the Nuclear Waste Transportation Protection Amendments Act of 2002, which I introduced in Congress. This legislation would require: Nuclear Safety Nuclear waste poses a serious threat to this nation. The transportation of this waste will require over 96,000 truck shipments over four decades. Almost every major east-west interstate highway and mainland railroad in the country will experience high-level waste Comprehensive nuclear waste transportation safety programs Protection of populated communities The oldest fuel to be shipped first Full cask testing Consultation on state and local routes Private carrier prohibition Advance notification and safety precautions 73

Supporting the Family Farm America depends upon a rich supply of diverse foods at a good price. Our farmers work long hours, often under unsafe conditions, for very little income to provide this needed food supply. The farmer must borrow heavily to put in his/her crop, maintain and upgrade equipment, and buy inputs such as genetically modified organism (GMO) seed and petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then the farmer must hope that the grain markets reach a level where the crop can be sold at a profit. Most farms are not the idyllic, relaxed, simple places with a variety of crops and livestock that Americans picture. The typical conventional farm requires vast acreage to be profitable, and that area requires huge equipment to plow, plant, and harvest. The huge size also requires farms to become specialized -- either grain or livestock. The huge size has made farms become industrialized, which has brought problems, such as pollution to the soil and water, erosion, GMOs, and dangerous working conditions. The USDA's policies for decades have given the U.S. farmer the options of getting big or getting out, which has destroyed our farm base and rural communities. Under current policy, the small family farmer has become an endangered species. As of 2002, there were more prisoners in the U.S. penal system than farmers growing crops. We remain deeply indebted to the dedicated people who produce our nation's food, and I continue to strive in every way to improve their well-being. Problems on the Farm Organic Farming I am proud to give strong and unwavering support to our organic family farmers. This approach to the land provides the safest foods, the best incomes for our farmers, and new products for this nation to export. Many farmers are appalled at some current trends in agribusiness. They face everincreasing expenditures for inputs such as fertilizers and seeds, while they must sell their crop for ever-decreasing profits. Farmers go to the bank every spring to borrow large amounts of operating capital and then wager all of it on a decent harvest and a good market price from the brokers in Chicago. Many farmers and 74

their spouses must work full time off the farm to make ends meet. Bigger and bigger equipment creates compaction problems in the fields. Pesticides kill the beneficial insects and microbial life in the soils. Animals are confined in tiny spaces, whereas they naturally need to range. Confined animals are being treated with heavy doses of antibiotics and growth hormones and are being fed a diet they were not meant to eat. (Cows eat grass, not grain and meat, for example.) None of this makes sense to the stewards of the land, but it is all part of industrialized agriculture. NAFTA and the WTO have made things far worse for the U.S. farmer by opening up markets that can produce commodities far more cheaply than can the U.S. farmer. Problems Beyond the Farm Beyond the individual farm, the detrimental impacts of industrial farming affect the health and well-being of everyone in our suburbs and cities. Runoff of farm chemicals and the manure runoff from confined feeding operations (CFOs) or factory farms has dramatically adverse effects on our streams, rivers, and drinking water. Antibiotics in animal meats are being consumed in large quantities by our population, which is thereby made immune to the restorative effects of these important drugs. Growth hormones, which are linked to cancer, are being passed on to unaware consumers. GMO grains are in almost all processed foods, with no labeling to inform the consumer of that fact. Because of trade agreements like NAFTA, more and more of our food comes from abroad. America depends upon a rich supply of diverse foods at a good price, but this food also needs to be completely safe. And our government is not doing nearly enough to verify the safety of what we are eating. Fewer than 0.002% of our cattle are ever inspected for anything. The Organic Farming Alternative

Organic farming draws on traditional methods and is an alternative way of farming that is becoming prominent worldwide. Organic methods, which have their philosophical origins in the early 20th century in Austria and England, were introduced to the U.S. by people like J.I. Rodale in the 1950s and Rachel Carson in the 1960s. The movement has grown steadily and is now a clear option for both farmers and consumers. Organic agriculture is based on improving soils, because healthy soils lead to healthy plants and animals. Healthy soils mean a farmer has less need of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, which are prohibited in organic agriculture. Rather than making their operations bigger and more like factories, organic farmers concentrate on understanding the needs of the plants and the animals, and focus on production in harmony with nature. Organic farmers often choose to market their goods directly to the public through farmers markets, CSA's, and farm stands, rather than going through the wholesale commodity markets. In 2002, after a decade of discussion, the USDA took over the certification of organic farms in the U.S. from the 66 independent organic certifying agencies (which now operate under USDA rules). The idea was to get all the certifying agencies to operate under one rule so the consumer would have no confusion as to what organic means. When the USDA took over, big agribusiness players such as Coca-Cola, ADM, and General Mills came into the game. Now the organic farmers are being asked to get big or get out. But there are still many tenacious family farmers in the U.S. who are still organic but not getting big and staying in. They do it by selling their food locally. Reasons to Support Organic Farm Families Organic farms must follow stringent regulations that include precise record keeping in order to become certified. Organic farming preserves and rebuilds the soil and many farmers are concerned with preserving endangered seeds and animals. Organic farming produces crops without 75

relying on petroleum-based synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, thereby dramatically decreasing the impact of farming pollution on the local air, soil, and water. Organic farming assures us that all its products are completely free of genetically modified substances. Organic farm and production operations are inspected at least annually, to ensure compliance with all of these standards. The organic farm produces an alternative to chemically raised foods that may well be more nutritious and is usually tastier, all while giving the organic grower a decent livelihood from farming (organic farmers usually don't have to work off the farm to make ends meet). The organic movement provides America with a new product we can export in the name of human and environmental health.

and culture in our communities. The United States spends only a very small percentage (less than 1/10th of one percent) of its total federal budget on arts and culture, less than is spent by most industrialized nations of the world. As I have demonstrated in my pledge to the American Arts Alliance, this is something that I believe should change significantly. There is a positive role that the federal government can play in promoting arts and culture in our communities. Investing in the arts is investing in the community. There's no limit to what increased funding for the arts could do to help impoverished communities for example -- making the community more beautiful, building community around artistic events, inspiring hope and providing a creative outlet for youth. Specifically in education, starting at a very young age, the arts must be given more emphasis. The current Administration wants to box our young people in with standardized tests and a limited focus on math and science. These days, American students are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in American history and unparalleled anywhere in the world. Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking. I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess. I am a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, and I have a solid voting record of support for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am a co-sponsor of bills authorizing the establishment of the National Museum of African-American History and the National Museum of Women's History Advisory Committee. In my home state of Ohio, I continue to encourage high school students in my district to participate in the Artistic 76

The Arts I remain a strongly committed supporter of the arts, both in Congress and in my personal life. I believe there is a positive role that the federal government can play in promoting arts

Discovery Contest (the annual Congressional High School Art Competition) each year.

pre-school (also referred to as prekindergarten), free of charge, for all children who choose it. The Universal PreKindergarten Act, which I introduced in Congress, would provide funding to states to establish universal pre-kindergarten programs that build on existing federal and state prekindergarten initiatives. Pre-kindergarten programs prepare children to meet the challenges of school. Studies show that young children who have access to a quality education benefit with higher academic achievements, increased graduation rates, and decreased juvenile delinquency. Nationwide, there's a severe shortage of affordable, quality education programs. By providing universal pre-kindergarten, we are ensuring that all of our children are ready for school. The Universal Pre-Kindergarten Act will provide funding to states to establish universal pre-kindergarten programs that build on existing federal and state pre-kindergarten initiatives. The program is voluntary and will be available, free of charge, to all families who choose to participate. The legislation requires pre-kindergarten programs to meet quality standards of early education and provides resources for the professional development of teachers. Universal pre-kindergarten would revolutionize America's commitment to early childhood education and change the nature of child care provision for the better -- and it would not empty any banks. The cost of this program is $60 billion per year, which I plan to pay for by cutting the bloated Pentagon budget by 15%. This cut would still leave America's military budget higher than any country's in the world, and would do nothing to weaken our defense.

Children's Issues Child Care I favor universal, publicly financed early childhood education. That means full-time

After School Care I support federal funding to local school districts that offer quality after-school programs. Funding quality after-school programs could go a long way toward taking kids off the streets during "prime crime time" 77

hours and giving them a constructive way to spend their after-school time. Health Care I staunchly oppose the recent cuts in Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program), as these are programs on which millions of families depend to provide care for their children's health. It is a moral obligation to provide all our children with quality health care. But while these programs are valuable, they are not enough. I support universal publicly financed health insurance for all Americans. Children with Disabilities The best thing Congress can do for kids with disabilities is to fully fund IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) so that state and local governments don't have to choose between serving kids with disabilities and meeting other urgent priorities. IDEA requires the federal government to provide 40% of the extra cost of educating students with special needs. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), I co-sponsored several bills with this objective. Most recently in the 108th Congress, I was an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2107, the Keep Our Pact Act, which required the full financing of the IDEA. Child Abuse / Child Neglect There are several things the federal government can do to end the abuse of our children: Provide greater resources for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program as an entitlement to the states. Expand federal funding for identifying and treating substance abuse among parents in the child welfare system. Support kinship care alternatives. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Reauthorization We must not force families off public assistance unless we can provide adequate day care, job training, and public jobs programs. I would not force low-wage workers with children off public assistance until we can provide them with adequate day care, job

training, and public jobs programs -- which is exactly what was wrong with the recent socalled "reform" of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. Questions and Answers from ConnectForKids.org

78

violence in the home. My proposal for a Department of Peace, which seeks to make nonviolence an organizing principle of life, applies directly to the alleviation of domestic violence. In 2001, Approximately 903,000 children were found to be victims of child maltreatment. Nearly one-third of American women (31%) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. The key to solving domestic violence is correctly identifying the problem. The problem is not the victim's. The problem is the abuser's (most often a man's) behavior. Women face many problems in leaving abusive situations: They face losing their children if they get an order of protection. The "logic" is that a woman who cannot protect herself against an abuser cannot protect her children, so the children must be removed from the home. Also, seven out ten men who fight for custody get custody (most often they are men who have financial resources for legal support). It has been documented that judges are more likely to give custody to an abusive man than to a non-abusive man. More women who leave abusive situations are killed than women who stay. 31,260 women were murdered by an intimate from 1976 to 1996. Abusive men commonly threaten to harm family or friends of the woman. Women do not have the financial resources to provide for the family. They are allowed very limited time in the shelters. Many women do not have families to help them. Between 35% and 50% of the homeless in all major cities are women and children fleeing domestic violence. Women are afraid to report abuse because they are afraid of being ostracized by society. Children In domestic violence situations, which are abundant in our society, positive family values do not and cannot exist. Society cannot expect children who grow up with violence as a way 79

Domestic Violence All violence is rooted in an abusive need for power and control. This is true at the international, national, state, city, schools, and work site levels. It is also true of domestic

of life in their families to become nonviolent members of society. Children who see and experience violence in the home often act out violence in the schools and communities and continue the cycle of violence in the home. The American Psychological Association reports that a child's exposure to the father abusing the mother is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next. If they learn nothing else, these children learn that violence is a way to gain power, to control others, and to survive. Children do not understand the hypocritical nature of a society that wants to punish them for being violent, but does not want to punish the man who showed them that violence is acceptable. Children of domestic violence often have extreme difficulty with concentration and learning. If they also have attention deficit disorder or a learning disability, it becomes nearly impossible for them to learn. Solution The label must be removed from the wrong product and placed it where it belongs. We need to do this in a nonviolent and proactive way. It is time to take the road not yet traveled, the road that is not paved with victims but paved with healed abusers who can be a positive influence in their families and ultimately a more positive force in society. The safe place for the abused women, children, and sometimes men should be in their home. Taking the victims out of the home and putting them in hiding serves no purpose to anyone but the abuser. Forcing the victims into shelters only punishes them and rewards the abusers. It sends a message to the abuser that his behavior is acceptable. What we really need are shelters for abusers (specifically men) which are a combination of work release programs and rehabilitation centers. Both elements are necessary to solve this problem of domestic violence. Only by ending the abuse can a healthy relationship begin. Only through a healthy relationship can positive values grow.

Family violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism, and non-productivity. The concept of a work release program allows the man to continue his employment and support his family, while living in an environment that will help him recognize and deal with his destructive behavior. The man would leave the shelter only during his normal working hours. He would be transferred to and from work by a supervisor, social worker, policeman, probation officer, or other appropriate person who has been screened and trained to understand and handle the behavior of an abusive man, who often can be very charming. One quarter of the working man's income would go to support the shelter, and three quarters would go to the mother to support the children. Those who do not have jobs would receive training from job service programs. The goal in defeating domestic violence is to stop the cycle of abuse and to initiate a cycle of love and respect. It is the abuser who needs the controlled environment that also offers him security and love and direction to change. All children should have the right to their childhood and to peaceful existence in their home. If we are to work for peace in the world, we must start with the children in our own country. Domestic violence is weapon of mass destruction not only of women, but also of innocent children and troubled men.

80

those schools that are struggling and expand public education to include pre-kindergarten beginning at age 3 for any families that want it, as well as tuition-free college for millions of students. I am here to act on my view that the education and well-being of our nation's children is a collective responsibility that all Americans share, and that education is a life-long process beginning long before a child enters kindergarten. Studies have shown that the most critical cognitive development occurs in the years from birth to age 3. That is one reason I have been a leading advocate for early childhood education, with a special emphasis on the support and care of lowincome infants and toddlers. I am a strong supporter of the keystone federal educational program for poor children, Head Start. In the House Education Committee, I have offered an amendment that would vastly expand Head Start by allowing all centers to run for a full day and by increasing the number of children who qualify for the program, raising family eligibility thresholds to twice the federal poverty line. By tripling the Head Start budget, we could bring an additional 1.5 million children into the program. In the 107th and 108th Congresses, I introduced the Universal Pre-Kindergarten Act, a bill to create a free, universal, and voluntary pre-kindergarten program for 3- to 5-year-old children across the county. Universal pre-kindergarten would revolutionize America's commitment to early childhood education and change the nature of child care provision for the better. The cost of this program is $60 billion per year, which I plan to pay for by cutting the bloated Pentagon budget by 15%. Education The right of every American child to a highquality free public education is one of America's most treasured principles. We must improve the quality of public education in Pre-kindergarten programs prepare children to meet the challenges of school. Studies show that young children who have access to a quality education benefit with higher academic achievements, increased graduation rates and decreased juvenile delinquency. 81

Nationwide, there's a severe shortage of affordable, quality education programs. By providing universal pre-kindergarten, we are ensuring that all of our children are ready for school. The Universal Pre-Kindergarten Act will provide funding to states to establish universal pre-kindergarten programs that build on existing federal and state pre-kindergarten initiatives. The program is voluntary and will be available free of charge to all families who choose to participate. The legislation requires pre-kindergarten programs to meet quality standards of early education and provides resources for the professional development of teachers. For grades K through 12, my priorities are based on the bedrock principle of a free, universal, and high quality public education for every child in America. I strongly oppose initiatives that seek to undermine that commitment and have established a strong anti-voucher voting record. I believe that we cannot improve education by draining funding from our public schools. In Congress, I have proposed a constitutional amendment to codify the right of all citizens to equal, high-quality public education. To achieve that goal, I support a substantial reinvestment in the infrastructure of our nation's public schools. I co-sponsored the Better Classroom Act and the Expand and Build America's Schools Act, two bills to help communities make needed school repairs and expansions. I have supported additional funding for teacher training. I Â was also an original co-sponsor of HR 935, the most comprehensive child care and education bill in the U.S. Congress, encompassing 33 federal programs to improve child well-being and education in America. In addition to universal pre-kindergarten, I have a plan to provide tuition-free higher education to millions of students in state universities. There are 12 million young Americans who attend public institutions, colleges, and universities. They now pay, on average, over $10,000 a year. That adds up to $120 billion a

year. That's less than the President's most recent tax cut for the wealthy. Even allowing for an increase in the cost per student and in the number of students enrolled, this remains a question of shifting priorities, not a need for new resources. Education is the only solution proven to reduce poverty levels. This conclusion is backed by thousands of national studies. Given the opportunity, education and training pave a path out of poverty for many families. Five years ago when welfare was reformed, recipients were discouraged and even prevented from earning a higher degree. Since 1996, the City University of New York experienced annual declines in the number of students who were welfare recipients, from a high of 22,000 students in 1996 to only 5,000 welfare students in 2000. As soon as welfare reform passed, some recipients were even kicked out of school, some only a few months from graduation. What improved condition worthy of the name of reform would create barriers to a college degree? Congress should allow and encourage people to obtain career training; work toward a college degree, GED, or other degree; or learn English. It should create exemptions from time limits so welfare recipients aren't prevented from earning a college degree. If an individual has a bachelor's degree, the average yearly wage is $30,730, nearly three times as much as the $11,432 that non-degree employees earn. A college degree translates to a living-wage job that allows people to live self-sufficiently and move from welfare programs for good. I believe Congress should allow home child care to count as an allowable work activity. For women on welfare, child care during evening and weekend hours is notoriously difficult to find and is too costly for a welfare recipient. In 1998, 43 states reported waiting lists for child care, and only 12% of those eligible for child care are getting it. Not only does it make practical sense to allow mothers to take care of their own children; it makes sense for families to stay together. 82

The current Administration wants to box our young people in with standardized tests and a limited focus on math and science. These days, American students are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in American history and unparalleled anywhere in the world. Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking. I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music, and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess. Also See: Vouchers Floor Statements, 109th Congress: Reporting of School Bus RR Crossings Funded H.R. 609 Will Not Help Students Don't Let the War on Drugs Become a War on Children Students Pay for Tax Cuts for the Rich

urgently addressed by federal, state, and local governments. The first step towards housing security is passage of the National Housing Trust Fund Act, which I cosponsored in Congress. The goal of this plan is the creation of 1.5 million new housing units over the next decade, especially for low-income renters and owners, using the profits generated by the Federal Housing Administration and other federal housing agencies. These funds would be used for the production of new housing, preservation of existing federally assisted housing, and rehabilitation of existing privatemarket affordable housing. New housing units would be primarily rental units, and the focus would be on low-income households in mixed-income neighborhoods. The widely heralded success of state and local housing trust funds shows this to be a proven method of addressing the affordable housing crisis while stimulating the economy. The work of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been critical in promoting affordable housing and community development. However, Congress has failed to fund the department's work. HUD's overall budget has been cut by 63% in the last 25 years. Under budget proposals currently being considered in Congress, up to 100,000 households stand to lose Section 8 vouchers, which provide a lifeline to lowincome families at risk of homelessness. We must restore the HUD budget to its 1978 level and fully fund all existing Section 8 vouchers, as well as new incremental vouchers. The housing affordability crisis is a truly national problem -- it is not limited to the cities. That is why I support restoring funds recently cut from the Agriculture Department's Section 515 Rural Rental Housing program, which reaches tenants with incomes at less than 50 percent of the local median. Funding for this critical program, which reached $540 million in 1994, has been virtually eliminated. Unconscionably, President Bush's recent budget request called for less than one-seventh that amount. The result has been hardship for 83

Housing Decent housing, free of discrimination, is a fundamental human right and a basic right of citizenship. In recent years, the cost of housing has risen while incomes for working Americans have stagnated. The result has been an affordable housing crisis that must be

working families in America's heartland. I also support the Rural Rental Housing Assistance Act, which would create a new $250 million fund to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct rural rental housing for low-income people, with priority for very low-income households. Through international cooperation, the United States can support the right to housing. At the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Bush administration has actively opposed recognizing housing as a human right. It has also refused to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which both include the right to adequate housing. It is time we reverse these harsh policies, remember the meaning of compassion, and promote adequate housing both at home and abroad.

America, but money to rain death, destruction, and starvation on Iraq. Once again, the hopes of people of two nations are being smashed by weapons in the name of eliminating weapons. Let us abolish weapons of mass destruction at home. I am from the inner city. I have inspected these weapons. Joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Hunger is a weapon of mass destruction. Poor health care is a weapon of mass destruction. Poor education is a weapon of mass destruction. Discrimination is a weapon of mass destruction. Let us abolish such weapons of mass destruction here at home. Eight and a half million Americans are unemployed. Bankruptcies are up. The number of uninsured without health care is up. The price of prescription drugs is up. Poverty is up. Crime is up. Homelessness is up. Hopelessness is up. Fear is up. Let us use the trillion dollars which some would cast upon Iraq in bombs and warring troops, instead for the restoration of the American dream, to rebuild our economy, to rebuild our cities and to expand opportunities for all. Those who say we can have guns and butter do not know the cost of guns and do not know the bread you would put your butter on is being stolen. America may spend over a trillion dollars for war in Iraq. America can give a trillion dollar tax cut to the rich, spend a trillion dollars to put weapons in space, but not a dime more for temporary assistance to needy families.

Poverty America is losing its way at home and in the world. We have no money to rebuild America's cities, but we have money to blow up cities in Iraq. No money to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless in

I believe the American people are people of strength, wisdom, and courage. They have a right to expect their government to be truly representative! It is time to say stop this war. It is time to recognize that the terror we visit on the people of Iraq will bring terror to our own people. Bring our troops home. Come home, America. Come home and fix your broken 84

streets and mend your broken dreams. Come home and rebuild your cities and create full employment, put millions who are unemployed back to work. Come home and establish a living wage, let workers share the wealth they create. Come home and provide affordable housing. Come home and provide single-payer, guaranteed health care for the 41 million Americans who suffer illness with no relief. Come home, America. Come home and provide free public college for all who aspire to attend. Come home and act affirmatively to make sure that all opportunities are afforded to all Americans.

themselves over many years of consistent labor. The Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have fallen down on the job when it comes to protecting homeowners from predatory lending. I grew up in the inner city of Cleveland, where I saw firsthand the damage wrought by redlining and reverse redlining. The performance of banks in these neighborhoods is critical to their development. When the lending industry goes after short-term profits by stripping homeowners of their equity and forcing them into foreclosure, efforts to develop and improve communities fall apart. Too many bankers, lenders, and brokers are hurting the public interest and even their own long-term interest by preying on borrowers rather than building them up. A bank that aggressively sells a family an overpriced and abusive loan is not concerning itself with creating return customers or positive word-ofmouth promotion. This tearing down of families and neighborhoods is unacceptable. In the long run it weakens our economy and deprives lenders of future business. Banking can be a noble profession. The provision of credit can uplift whole communities, encourage innovation, and teach responsibility. I have never hesitated to tell lenders when their actions are wrong. Some lenders believe only they know what's good for homeownership, as exemplified by baseless claims that banning predatory loans will dry up good loans as well. The evidence from the many states that have passed tough restrictions should have ended that debate by now.

Predatory Lending We must fight to stop the predatory lending practices that have victimized so many American seniors. These loan sharks can devastate in weeks the financial security that older Americans have strived to build for

In the U.S. Congress, I have co-sponsored amendments to the Truth in Lending Act to protect consumers from these immoral and illegal loan schemes, to take some initial steps to reform the industry, and to offer comprehensive attempts to limit predatory abuses. 85

It is time we listen to community groups like ACORN that have taken a lead in raising concerns about predatory lending. Legislators across the nation can draw on the excellent legislation passed in states like North Carolina, New Jersey, and New Mexico. We can all urge Congress to pass such legislation to put the interests of homeowners ahead the interests of loan sharks and put a stop to efforts in the executive branch to deny states and cities the right to protect their own homeowners. I believe we must greatly expand the capacity of the FTC to penalize offenders. It is time to build up communities, not tear them down.

access and equal rights are obtained by all; where health care is regarded as a human right; and where the people who have lived to see this country grow can continue to grow old with it in peace. I encourage programs that support the public good, such as community-based senior services and home care. We must stop the predatory lending practices that have victimized so many American seniors, while simultaneously establishing a federal Office of Elder Justice. Rights for the disabled are fundamental rights, for which I continue to fight. By establishing a universal single-payer health plan, we can ensure that seniors never again resort to splitting pills or skipping medication to save costs, because they will already be covered. This plan, "Enhanced Medicare for All," provides comprehensive health coverage including prescription drugs, dental care, and complementary or alternative medicine. By removing the profit from health care coverage, patients and doctors will be put in charge of health care, instead of HMOs. My plan will cost employers, on average, less than they now pay -- those that provide coverage at all. Corporations don't heal people; people do. Social Security My platform is centered upon a nonnegotiable commitment to preserve Social Security against all assaults. I stand to return full Social Security benefits to senior citizens at age 65 -- a rollback from the present age of 67. In addition, I staunchly oppose all efforts to privatize Social Security, thus diverting payroll tax dollars into individual accounts. I am against raising the retirement age, against raising the cap on taxable wages, and against means-testing for benefits. There is no question that America can afford to uphold its social compact with its senior citizens. The finances of the Social Security system are more secure now than ever. America is wealthier than at any previous point in Social Security's history, and the fund 86

Seniors I see a new vision for American seniors. I see a country where all citizens can retire with full benefits at age 65, where social security will never become privatized, and where retirement years won't land in the hands of the stock market. I see an America where equal

is solid through 2042 with no changes whatsoever. I believe the interest rate on the Social Security trust fund is too low. It is much less than the average interest rate for U.S. Treasury-backed securities. If Congress changed the law to credit the trust fund with the average interest rate, we could reduce long-term financing problems by 30%. Medicare and Prescription Drugs The compact with America's seniors to provide them with health care is now at risk, because the new Medicare bill passed just before Thanksgiving is not reforming Medicare, it is dismantling it. It is a windfall for HMOs and big insurance companies and obscenely profitable drug companies -- but a debacle for America's senior citizens. This bill does nothing to restrain the skyrocketing escalation of drug prices. The Republican refusal to confront the pricing power of the drug companies is the #1 cause of the bill's exorbitant price tag -- $400 billion -- for American taxpayers. Several studies indicate that my plan for universal, single-payer health care would save at least $200 billion annually -- more than enough to provide health care and prescription drugs to all those currently left out. I have a long record of addressing issues related to Medicare and prescription drugs in the U.S. Congress. Recently, I co-sponsored legislation to provide for a voluntary prescription benefit, to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, to negotiate fair prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers, to provide for accelerated generic drug competition, and to allow for the importation of prescription drugs from Canada after meeting strict guidelines for safety and effectiveness. Our government must be empowered to lower prices and impose windfall profits taxes on the exorbitant pricing of an out-of-control drug industry. We need a new Prescription for America, a regulatory structure that puts a ceiling on drug

company profits, the same way credit laws establish what constitutes usury and the way utility rates are controlled. We're already paying for national health insurance that could include prescription drug benefits. The only problem is, we're not getting it. The Kucinich plan for Universal Health Care is "Enhanced Medicare for All": non-profit, universal, single-payer national health insurance. It would be publicly funded health care, privately delivered -- similar to that used in most of the other developed countries of the world. It will decrease total health care spending, while providing more treatment and services. It will remove private insurance companies from the system, along with their bloated bureaucracies, blizzards of paperwork, excessive executive salaries, mammoth advertising budgets -- and, above all, profits. Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, seniors went from being the group least likely to have health insurance to the group most likely -because of Medicare. Medicare has achieved goals that Congress has not been able to accomplish for the rest of our population, by keeping millions out of poverty, increasing access to health care, improving quality of life, and even extending life expectancy by 20%. The new Medicare bill just passed will eliminate guaranteed health care for the only part of our population that has it. American seniors, however, are concerned not only with their own health care, but with the health care of their children, grandchildren, and all Americans. There is no more comprehensive solution to the nightmare that is American health care today than the one I propose and will stand by 'til the end. I was one of the leading voices in the U.S. Congress trying to prevent the disgraceful new Medicare bill from becoming law. Medicare privatization is bad for seniors, bad for retirees, bad for employers, and bad for the economy. The only ones who benefit from this plan are the pharmaceutical companies and insurance giants, who seek to continue health 87

care for profit in this country. I am fighting to reverse this shameful bill and to make Medicare a solemn contract with America's seniors again. Eventually, we should extend the essentials of the Medicare social contract not just to seniors, but to all. I believe that health care should be a public good, rather than a private commodity. Health care is not just a privilege for those who happen to have the right job. Health care is a human right. Older Americans Act and Elder Justice Throughout my career in public service, I have been a strong supporter of seniors' issues. In advocating for the amended Older Americans Act, I have shown my support for older Americans' need for adequate income in retirement, the best possible physical and mental health, suitable housing, long-term care services (with special attention to those who wish to stay in their homes and for their caregivers), help for grandparents raising children, and efficient community services. There are few greater moral transgressions than abusing the trust of our elders. That is why I have co-sponsored in Congress H.R. 2490, a bill that would establish an Office of Elder Justice. Such an office would help prevent elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. It would significantly expand elder care research, training, and clinical practice, nationwide. It would aspire to create models for optimal elder care and services. And it would encourage non-profit organizations to establish volunteer programs in support of elder justice.

As the nation watched gargantuan corporate bankruptcies unfold at Enron and Global Crossing -- and the people of my 10th District of Ohio watched Chapter 11 proceedings at LTV Steel -- we all learned to our great surprise that there are two sets of rules in this arena. Corporate executives play by one set of rules. And employees play by another. Executives, it turns out, often get very special treatment with their pension plans: more investment choices, no lock-down restrictions, generous deferred compensation plans without requirements that they be disclosed, guaranteed rates of return, and "golden parachutes" when a company begins to get in trouble. Employees, on the other hand, are treated very differently. The most egregious disparity is that during a bankruptcy, executive pension plans are totally protected from creditors. Employees, however, stand at the end of the line and must wait behind other creditors -- to claim what rightfully belongs to them for compensation that they have already earned! All of this must change. Housing Seniors on fixed incomes often have financial problems meeting rising property taxes and maintenance costs and must have supportive communities to help them live in dignity. I believe that decent housing is a fundamental human right and a basic right of citizenship for all Americans, young and old. In recent years, the cost of housing has risen, while incomes for working Americans have stagnated. The result has been an affordable housing crisis that must be urgently addressed by federal, state, and local governments. The first step towards housing security is passage of the National Housing Trust Fund Act, which I cosponsored. The goal of this plan is the creation of 1.5 million new housing units over the next decade, especially for low-income renters and owners, using the profits generated by the Federal Housing Administration and other federal housing agencies. These funds would be used for the production of new housing, preservation of existing federally assisted housing, and rehabilitation of existing privatemarket affordable housing. New housing units 88

Pensions The American dream -- to work hard, develop a career, be successful, get ahead, and save for retirement with a decent and secure pension -is being diminished and destroyed every day in this country by corporate executives who are cheating ordinary Americans out of their hard earned retirement benefits.

would be primarily rental units, and the focus would be on low-income households in mixed-income neighborhoods. The widely heralded success of state and local housing trust funds shows this to be a proven method of addressing the affordable housing crisis while stimulating the economy.

Vouchers represent an attempt to disestablish not only public education, but the entire public realm. Even in Cleveland and Milwaukee, where voucher programs are in place, there have been no tangible results in student achievement. Instead, the programs have diverted public money away from the vast majority of public school students. In most cases, these are the students who need it the most. In Congress, I have voted consistently against legislation on school vouchers. I voted NO on HR 4380 to allow vouchers in Washington DC schools, and NO on HR 2746 to allow states to use certain federal funds designated for elementary and secondary education to provide vouchers to low-income families to send children to private schools. Voters, for the last 30 years, have rejected vouchers every time they've been proposed. Oftentimes, funds for vouchers compete with funds for overall improvements in America's public schools. For this reason, teachers, parents, and the general public have been long opposed to the programs. As a nation, we must fight to improve public schools and oppose alternatives that divert attention, energy, and resources from efforts to reduce class size, enhance teacher quality, and provide every student with books, computers, and safe and orderly schools.

Vouchers Vouchers are no solution for students in poor families, no solution for education in America. School vouchers might seem a relatively benign way to increase the options poor parents have for educating their children. In fact, they pose a serious threat to values that are vital to the health of American democracy. 89

The U.S. should invest at least $30 billion over the next four years in the global fight against AIDS. We must work to repeal trade agreements that impede access to affordable generic drugs. We must work to cause the IMF and the World Bank to reduce and eventually eliminate the debt that takes poor nations' resources away from crises like AIDS. We must focus America's leadership on addressing and ending this epidemic. Education is the only solution proven to reduce poverty levels. This conclusion is backed by thousands of national studies. Given the opportunity, education and training pave a path out of poverty for many families. A college degree translates to a living-wage job that allows people to live self sufficiently and move from welfare programs, for good. The quality of public education in those schools that are struggling must be improved; I have a plan that will expand public education to include pre-kindergarten, beginning at age 3, for any families that want it, as well as tuition-free college for millions of students. The United States should fully fund efforts to eradicate hunger by fully funding our allocation to the UN World Food Program, whose work saves countless lives in more than 80 countries through school feeding programs, nutrition programs for HIV/AIDS sufferers, refugee food relief, and many other vital tasks. The Secretary General of the United Nations has called on world leaders to aggressively combat the AIDS epidemic that is devastating Africa and making serious inroads in South America, Asia, and around the world. Kofi Annan has lamented the lack of world leadership on this issue. He is right to complain. AIDS has taken 28 million lives since 1981. That's more than the soldiers who have been killed in some of the biggest wars in human history. But, in contrast to the U.S. Pentagon budget of $400 billion plus additional hundreds of billions for particular wars, President Bush pledged only $3 billion for the fight against AIDS in his State of the Union address and then proposed only $2 billion in his budget request. Senator Dick 90

AIDS AIDS is a global epidemic. The United States must commit our full resources to fighting this growing global crisis. To do anything short of that is unacceptable. In the name of justice, humanity, and for the protection of the global community, we must seek ways to increase, not decrease, funding to fight this epidemic.

Durbin, Illinois, introduced an amendment adding an extra $289 million and shamed the Republican leadership into supporting the measure. But this is far from sufficient. I have proudly joined AIDSvote.org. We need to invest at least $30 billion over the next four years to the global fight against AIDS. We must repeal trade agreements that impede access to affordable generic drugs. We must work to cause the IMF and the World Bank to reduce and eventually eliminate the debt that takes poor nations' resources away from crises like AIDS. America's leadership should focus on addressing and ending this epidemic.

I have great respect for allopathic practice, but at the same time, I think that you will find that allopathic practitioners who are candid will admit that there are limitations to their own practice. I think that we are fully aware that the United States enjoys some of the most advanced health care in the world, yet we are unable to provide relief for a number of common ailments. The current standards of practice occasionally fail to recognize that medicine is an ancient art that encompasses all methods of healing. Somewhere along the road to advance medicine we sometimes forget that there are methods of treating those who need help. It's time to help widen the vision of modern medical doctrine and explore alternative medicine. We have to let go of the fear that alternative medical practices will replace and endanger standards and instead embrace the idea that any method that is proven a safe form of treatment ought to be available to the people. American citizens have a right to health care ... we have a duty to ensure that they have every available proven treatment option. Complementary and alternative medical care encompasses numerous forms of studied and tested procedures and practices, and it is gaining support from mainstream medicine. Unfortunately, there is some unwillingness to support its practice and research. We must ensure non-prejudicial disbursement of research funds to all disciplines of medicine, including alternative medicine. We must utilize this research not only to educate practitioners and the public, but to provide them with access to proven methods of alternative medicine. I hope to broaden our understanding of alternative medicine and to expose and end any bias that may exist within our current system of medical doctrine. All citizens deserve access to safe and proven methods of medical care and I believe that we must expand our understanding of medicine that some would deem, unfortunately, the alternative. 91

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Complementary and alternative medicine are included in my Enhanced Medicare for All single-payer health care program. Opportunities that will advance medical care and expand the treatment options afforded to today's doctors will be given vast amounts of support.

We have a wonderful opportunity to think creatively about health care; to think dynamically; to draw new worlds toward us, using a higher consciousness of the potential we have within us to make this a better world.

In 2003, the USDA tested only 19,990 cattle believed to be at risk for Mad Cow Disease, out of a population of about 96 million, or 1 out of every 5,000 cattle. By contrast, in Europe every single animal above a given age gets tested for this fatal brain-wasting disease (one out of every four cattle). The USDA argues that there is no risk to humans, because slaughterhouses are required to remove all central nervous system (CNS) tissue from sick cattle. This tissue is where BSE is found and can infect humans, if eaten. However, removing this tissue is rarely completely effective. The USDA's own studies found that 35% of advanced meat recovery product tested was contaminated with CNS tissue. While the USDA-sponsored Harvard risk assessment of BSE in the U.S. noted that compliance with the FDA's 1997 BSE feed rule is the most important factor in preventing a BSE outbreak, it is clear that this rule is not being rigorously enforced. Two General Accounting Office (GAO) reports have shown how lax the FDA has been in ensuring compliance with the feed rule. The first GAO report, published some three years after the BSE feed rule went into effect, found fairly widespread non-compliance. The 2002 GAO report found no improvement and found that the FDA compliance data was unreliable. In Congress I intend to introduce legislation that will: Prohibit meat from downer cattle from entering the human food supply. Test all downer cattle using modern rapid quick tests (estimates range from 190,000 to 970,000 cattle). Establish a mandatory trace back system for all bovines. Require mandatory recall of food products infected. Prohibit the feeding of the remains of any mammal to any animals that humans eat. Tighten the law on dietary supplements, which currently allow supplements to contain CNS tissue. 92

Mad Cow Disease The unfortunate discovery of a dairy cow in Washington State infected with Mad Cow Disease, or BSE, is a result of irresponsible U.S. agricultural policies. BSE in the United States is preventable, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture (UDSA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must do more to protect American consumers.

Require doctors and hospitals to report all cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More can and must be done to protect Americans, and our economy, from this devastating disease and the public panic it can cause.

have discovered that marijuana reduces pain without the myriad side-effects associated with many conventional painkillers. AIDS sufferers report that marijuana effectively counteracts the appetite loss and nausea associated with HIV drugs. In addition, marijuana has shown promise as a treatment for glaucoma, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and post-polio syndrome. Containing over 400 different molecular compounds, the marijuana plant may have other beneficial uses waiting to be discovered by researchers. Unfortunately, the current administration has chosen to ignore the vast potential of medical marijuana in favor of intensifying the destructive "war on drugs." Most medical marijuana clinics are non-profit collectives treating terminally ill patients. Currently, the DEA raids marijuana clinics, destroying property and arresting patients. These actions are an extension of a punishment-based approach to drug policy that favors large-scale incarcerations. Our nation already keeps nearly half a million drug offenders behind bars. It makes no sense to waste manpower and resources arresting and jailing doctors and their patients for practicing a proven alternative medicine. Our drug policy must be based on a rational examination of scientific evidence. Two main goals of a compassionate health care system are the treatment of disease and the alleviation of patient suffering. A growing body of evidence suggests that marijuana has vast potential in both of these areas. Therefore, the current policy of categorically rejecting marijuana as a legitimate medical treatment directly opposes these goals. I support issuing an executive order allowing marijuana for medical purposes, effectively ending DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and their providers. Disease sufferers should not have to turn to dangerous black markets to obtain this beneficial drug. Instead, doctors should be free to prescribe marijuana and marijuana-based medicines to their patients as needed to treat illness and manage pain. This will be an important step toward joining our friends in the UK, Spain, Germany, and Portugal in 93

Medical Marijuana The overwhelming majority of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and Oregon have adopted measures to allow patients access to this beneficial drug, which has been found to provide broad-spectrum relief from a variety of ailments. Patients suffering from cancer

moving away from criminally-enforced prohibitions that divert resources from domestic projects and distract law enforcement officials from critical national security issues. Kucinich Statement to Congress: The following is a statement I recently made in Congress in arguing that doctors in California and other states that have legalized medical marijuana should be allowed to continue their work without the interference of the federal government. "Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. "There is a context here which is worth reflecting on, and that is the law enforcement policies of an administration which cannot effectively meet the challenge of international terrorism, but is ready to wage a phony drug war, including locking up people dying of cancer simply because those poor souls seek relief from horrible pain. "I ask, can we truly be so lacking in compassion? This is not about legalizing marijuana. That is just a smoke screen. It is an amendment to end federal raids on medical marijuana patients and providers in states where medical marijuana is legal. Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine report, recommending its use in certain circumstances, federal law refuses to recognize the importance and safety of medicinal marijuana. "Instead, federal penalties for all marijuana use, regardless of purpose, include up to a year in prison for the possession of even small amounts. "Let us reflect again on how cynical and how dark it is to even contemplate sending someone to prison for a year, when they may not even have that much time left in their life; but since 1996, eight states have enacted laws to allow very ill patients to use medical

marijuana in spite of federal law. The present administration has sought to override such state statutes, viewing the use of medicinal marijuana for purposes in the same light as heroin or cocaine. "Last year, federal agents raided the Women and Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, an organization that under California state law legally dispensed marijuana to patients whose doctors had recommended it for pain and suffering. Eighty-five percent of this organization's 225 members were terminally ill with cancer or AIDS. "This is about compassion. The federal government should use its power to help terminally ill citizens, not arrest them. And states deserve to have the right to make their own decisions regarding the use of medical marijuana. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment."

94

obscenely profitable drug companies -- but a debacle for America's senior citizens. Because I don't want to believe that the AARP's national leadership willfully sold out its members, I guess I prefer to say that they naively allowed themselves to be sold a bill of goods. But senior citizens weren't fooled -- the AARP membership engaged in the biggest revolt against its leadership since the 1980s, with somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 members resigning from the organization in just a couple of weeks. The problems with the bill are many-fold. For one thing, it does nothing to restrain the skyrocketing escalation of drug prices -- and that failure is largely responsible for the bill's exorbitant price tag -- $400 billion -- for American taxpayers. Second, the bill does not restrain exorbitantly priced drugs or allow for a blanket re-importation of American-made drugs from Canada, where the same drugs are sold for 30-70% less than they are here. Third, the bill's new "asset tests" and eligibility requirements mean that many lowincome seniors (perhaps as many as 3 million) will no longer qualify for pharmaceutical subsidies. Fourth, the bill loosens requirements for health plan quality assurance, makes the health care labyrinth ever more complex, and fails to provide any standardized systems or adequate tools to allow patients to make informed health care choices. And maybe worst of all, the bill doesn't even provide much of a drug benefit! Instead of paying a modest co-payment for prescription drugs like most seniors were anticipating, under this bill, seniors with $5,100 of drug costs will have to pick up $3,600 of the cost themselves. And this, of course, is after and in addition to paying an average premium of $420 a year for the so-called "benefit." What it all adds up to is this: According to the highly respected Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, because of the bill's meager drug benefit and its failure to contain drug prices, MOST seniors will be spending MORE on drugs in 2007, when the 95

Medicare Bill The so-called "new" Medicare bill passed in 2003 is not about reforming Medicare, it is about dismantling it. It is a Republican bait and switch of historic proportions, and if it is allowed to stand, it may well result in the unraveling of Medicare itself. Actually, it is a curious kind of Medicare reform: a giveaway to HMOs, big insurance companies, and

so-called benefit is fully in effect, than they do today when there is no Medicare drug benefit at all. Of course, some folks make out very well, indeed, under this bill. It's absolutely larded with handouts to drug companies and private insurers, many of whom are, unsurprisingly, major campaign contributors to President Bush and the Republican Congress. In the end, however, I think one of the worst things about this bill is that by forcing traditional Medicare to compete against private plans beginning in 2010, it may well lead to the privatization of Medicare and putting seniors in the hands of "insurance sharks" who are more concerned about profits than providing quality medical care. To understand why the privatization of Medicare is such a bad idea, you have to understand that insurance companies don't want to insure too many people who might actually need real health care. They make money by "cherry picking" -- that is, by insuring healthy and wealthy customers and excluding the less healthy and less fortunate. Under this bill, they will be free to do that, thus leaving the poorest and the sickest elderly folks to be insured by Medicare. Of course, that will allow the private insurance companies to make money, while the Medicare program loses it -- thus giving the Republicans another chance to crow about the efficiencies of the private sector over the public sector. In truth, of course, private insurance companies in America -- which fail to cover over 40 million citizens -- now spend more than $1,000 per person on health care administration costs, while Canada's system of public health care -- which covers everyone in that country -- spends only about $300 per person on administrative costs. I am proud to have voted against this shameful Medicare "reform" bill. And I will do everything in my power to reverse it and again make Medicare a solemn contract with America's seniors. Nor will I stop there. I will also lead the fight to make enhanced

Medicare, truly comprehensive coverage, available to all Americans. Also see: Universal Health Care for details about "Enhanced Medicare for All" and how it can be financed.

96

develop mental illness because of the conditions in which they are forced to live. Hundreds of thousands of mentally ill citizens are arrested and locked up every year -- most for nonviolent crimes like disorderly conduct or trespassing. In fact, our nation's prisons are now the largest provider of mental health in the nation, despite the fact that it is much more expensive to incarcerate a person than it is to provide psychological treatment. There are a half-million mentally ill veterans who are homeless. These fellow citizens need help, but it is not always available. For those who are not homeless, incarcerated, or living in a shelter, treatments for mental illnesses can work -- if they can afford them. Unfortunately, most companies do not treat mental illness as insurable, forcing patients and their families to pay the high expenses out of pocket. This climate of neglect towards the mentally ill must change. I have long been an advocate of increased funding towards mental health programs. I am a strong supporter of The Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act and co-sponsored numerous other acts that also address the issue of insurance companies charging significantly more for mental ailments than they do for physical ailments. I co-sponsored the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act, which aims to divert our youth who need mental health counseling and substance abuse counseling away from detention halls and into treatment centers. I have also written letters in support of mental health treatment and services and addressed congress about the essence of these issues. Mental health care is a right, not a privilege. We can ensure that everyone has access to the treatments and counseling they need, as part of my not-for-profit universal health care plan. This fundamental change in our health care system will provide full coverage, including mental health, to every American, both working and unemployed. By taking the profit 97

Mental Health Millions of citizens in this country are being neglected by our current leadership. Among them are the homeless, veterans, convicts, and the mentally ill. These members of our society are intricately linked, because there is much overlap between them. Those who are mentally ill are often homeless because they are unable to work. Homeless people often

out of health care, we will be able to direct our resources towards doctors and patients, not corporations and CEOs. When people start getting the mental help they need, not only will we be a healthier society, but our prisons will benefit and there will fewer people forced to live on the streets.

These are the words of Dennis on September 28, 2004, the day he introduced the legislation: "By now, it is well known that drug costs are high and getting higher. It is also well known that the rising costs of drugs are a major contributor to the spiraling cost of health care more generally. "But what is less well known is that one of the main reasons that drug costs are so high is that drug companies get legal manufacturing monopolies through the patent system. When they get exclusive rights to manufacture a drug, they can do whatever they want with prices. And they often do. Drug markups are several hundred percent over market values and sometimes more. Meanwhile, some are deciding between their drugs and food or paying their bills. In many cases, people are selling their belongings, spending their retirement savings and going into bankruptcy to afford drugs they need to simply stay healthy. This is unjust and unsustainable, especially for Cleveland's elderly and poor who spend far more on drugs as a portion of their income than other age groups. No other country grants monopolies on drugs without concessions like price controls. "Later today, I will introduce legislation that will lower the price of drugs for all Ohioans. The idea is simple: instead of giving a monopoly for every new drug, any qualified entity will be able to manufacture and distribute it. Competition will lower prices and allow greater access to prescription drugs for many people.

Prescription Drugs April 2006 Perhaps the most shocking increases in health care are occurring in prescription drugs. This is a problem like so many where Dennis has a real solution. H. R. 5155, the Free Market Drug Act, will dramatically lower the cost of prescription drugs if and when enacted.

"How would it work? My bill would greatly increase funding for research and development of pharmaceuticals through the National Institutes of Health. The NIH would develop some research capacity in house and would fund other research at institutions like pharmaceutical companies, small biotech companies and universities. In exchange for accepting federal research dollars, all research findings would be made public and patents 98

would be available to any company that wished to manufacture the drugs. "The bill would not prevent anyone from getting a patent. But patented drugs developed with private funding would have to compete with drugs whose research and development was publicly funded, which would be difficult. The result would be that most drug research would be publicly funded. "My bill also corrects another major problem with pharmaceuticals today: The pharmaceutical companies are getting less efficient. They are increasingly turning out drugs that are less important to public health because they are not as profitable. For example, roughly 70% of new FDA approved drugs are copycats or "me too" drugs which are small variations on existing drugs, usually done to reduce R&D costs and extend the patent life of an existing drug. We should be focusing instead on breakthrough drugs that require more basic research but may not be as profitable. How many more Viagra knockoffs do we need? Our research priorities would be better decided by the world renowned NIH, which houses several Nobel Laureates. "Another benefit of the bill lies in the disclosure requirement. Since research will have to be made public as it evolves, it will be more difficult to hide research that may show any adverse effects of a drug. We want to know about it before the drug goes to market, not after. "Now, the opposition from this bill will come primarily from the pharmaceutical industry and it is easy to see why. They have a lot to lose. In 2002, there were 10 pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500. According to a report (by Public Citizen), the combined profits of those 10 companies was more than the profits of the rest of the fortune 500 companies COMBINED. In the same year, they spent more than $91 million on lobbying. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine writes in a recent article.

"According to a report by the non-profit group Families USA, the former chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., made $74,890,918 in 2001, not counting his $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. The chairman of Wyeth made $40,521,011, exclusive of his $40,629,459 in stock options. "And that still does not even the extravagant spending on marketing and advertising. Right now, when you pay for drugs, you are also paying for all of this. Patents make it possible. "The Free Market Drug Act is a bold bill that increases transparency, efficiency and, most importantly, lowers the price of prescription drugs. As it stands, pharmaceuticals are becoming increasingly out of reach. But the good people of Ohio not only deserve accessible pharmaceuticals, they need them. The Free Market Drug Act, already cosponsored by my colleagues John Conyers, Jose Serrano, Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, and Major Owens, is a major step in the direction of fairly priced drugs for all."

99

The plan is embodied in HR 676 the Conyers-Kucinich bill, written by Dennis Kucinich & John Conyers The plan covers all healthcare needs, including dental care, mental health care, vision care, prescription drugs, and longterm care - at NO extra cost! Kucinich's plan, HR 676, is supported by 78 Members of Congress, 250 Union Locals, and 14,000 physicians and is endorsed by the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

"Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity and there is an obligation for society to ensure that every person be able to realize this right." Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Chicago Archdiocese Our health care system is broken, and H.R. 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill, is the only comprehensive solution to the problem. It is also the system endorsed by more than 14,000 physicians from Physicians for a National Health Program. Nearly 46 million Americans have no health care and over 40 million more have only minimal coverage. In 2005 some 41% of moderate and middle income Americans went without health care for part of the year. Even more shocking is that 53% of those earning less than $20,000 went without insurance for all of 2005. In fact, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance. Universal Health Care Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential Candidate with a plan for a Universal Single Payer, NOT FOR PROFIT Healthcare system. MEDICARE FOR ALL The American health system is quite sick. Pulitzer Prize journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele, in their stunning analysis of the health care industry, Critical Condition (2006 Broadway Books), insist that "... U.S. health care is second-rate at the start of the twentyfirst century and destined to get a lot worse and much more expensive." Consider the following facts from Tom Daschle's article for the Center for American Progress: "Paying 100

More but Getting Less: Myths and the Global Case for U.S. Health Reform":

Americans are The Healthiest People in the World. FACT: Citizens of 34 nations live longer than Americans. The U.S. is the Best Place to Get Sick. FACT: The World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the world for health system performance. Countries like Australia and the United Kingdom rank above the U.S. Americans have lower odds of surviving colorectal cancer and childhood leukemia than Canadians who do have national health care. Americans also experience greater problems in coordination of care than the previously mentioned countries and New Zealand. Covering All Americans Will Lead to Rationing. FACT: Same-day access to primarycare physicians in the U.S. (33%) is far less available than in the United Kingdom (41%), Australia (54%) and New Zealand (60%). Per capita spending for health care averaged $2,696 in countries without waiting lists and $5,267 in the U.S. Global Competitiveness is Hampered in Comprehensive System. FACT: "Health care costs are not just a burden and barrier to care for individuals; they are taking a heavy toll on American businesses." The strain on employers in 2005 was staggering. "The average total premiums for an employer-based family plan was $9,979 in 2005 ..." Most of our competitors in the world markets finance their systems outside corporate taxes and employer mandates. Without Medicare for Everyone, the U.S. will continue to hemorrhage jobs. We Cannot Afford to Cover All Americans. FACT: We already spend enough to have universal health care. "The truth is, we cannot afford to not reform the

health system." We spend about 50% more than the next most expensive nation and nearly twice per person what the Canadians do. On May 1, 2006 Paul Krugman explained in Death by Insurance how incredibly wasteful the current system is. The doctor he referenced has two full-time staff members for billing, and two secretaries spend half their time collecting insurance information on the 301 different private plans they deal with. This type of waste is easily 20%. Also consider that 98% of Medicare funds are spent on medical care. IMPORTANT: The hackneyed -- and inaccurate -- mantra of Republicans when universal health care is introduced is to blame trial lawyers and malpractice cases for our lack of national health care. In fact, 0.46% of our total health spending is spent on awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs -- about the same as Canada and the United Kingdom and about the same amount we spend on dog and cat food each year. While "defensive medicine" may drive up the price, it hardly accounts for our stunning health care costs. The belief that citizens should give up their right to fair legal redress for legally proven medical mistakes in exchange for lower health care costs rings as true as the promise that if we must give up our civil rights to be safe from terrorists. Even those with coverage too often pay exorbitant rates. The current profit-driven system, dominated by private insurance firms and their bureaucracies, has failed. We must establish streamlined national health insurance, "Enhanced Medicare for Everyone." It would be publicly financed health care, privately delivered, and will put patients and doctors back in control of the system. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans; encourage prevention; and include prescription drugs, dental care, mental health care, and alternative and complementary medicine. 101

Perhaps the clearest and most eloquent explanation of the Conyers-Kucinich National Health Insurance Bill was given on February 4, 2003, in Washington, D.C., by Dr. Marcia Angell in introducing H.R. 676. Backed by over 14,000 doctors, this is the future of American medicine. "We are here today to introduce a national health insurance program. Such a program is no longer optional; it's necessary. "Americans have the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend about twice as much per person as other developed nations, and that gap is growing. That's not because we are sicker or more demanding (Canadians, for example, see their doctors more often and spend more time in the hospital). And it's not because we get better results. By the usual measures of health (life expectancy, infant mortality, immunization rates), we do worse than most other developed countries. Furthermore, we are the only developed nation that does not provide comprehensive health care to all its citizens. Some 42 million Americans are uninsured (nearly 46 million today -- updated figure) -disproportionately the sick, the poor, and minorities -- and most of the rest of us are underinsured. In sum, our health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Why? The only plausible explanation is that there's something about our system -- about the way we finance and deliver health care -that's enormously inefficient. The failures of the system were partly masked during the economic boom of the 1990s, but now they stand starkly exposed. There is no question that with the deepening recession and rising unemployment, in the words of John Breaux, "The system is collapsing around us." "The underlying problem is that we treat health care like a market commodity instead of a social service. Health care is targeted not to medical need, but to the ability to pay. Markets are good for many things, but they are not a good way to distribute health care. To understand what's happening, let's look at how the health care market works ... "

"Mainstream" writers like Ph. D. economist and columnist for the New York Times Paul Krugman now agree with those doctors and Dennis that "covering everyone under Medicare would actually be significantly cheaper than our current system." They all recognize that we already spend enough to provide national health care to all but lack the political courage to make the tough decision that doctors, nurses, and medical professionals must run our health care system -- not "forprofit" insurance companies, who make money by denying health care. It is time to recognize that all the civilized countries have a solution that we must adapt to this country. American businesses can no longer be competitive shouldering the entire cost of health care. Health care is a right that all Americans deserve.

102

international relief organizations such as the UN World Food Program, whose work saves countless lives in over 80 countries through school feeding projects, nutrition programs for HIV/AIDS sufferers, refugee food relief and many other vital tasks. But aid is not enough. Impoverished countries are being ravaged by debt payments to global institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. $2.5 billion is transferred every year from Sub-Saharan Africa to foreign bankers and creditors, while 40% of its population experiences some form of malnutrition. We must push for the immediate cancellation of all bilateral debts of poor countries as well as cancellation of debts to the IMF and World Bank. In addition, the economic policies dictated to poor countries by the IMF and the World Bank -- so-called "structural adjustment programs" -- have devastated Third World economies. Last year's food crisis in Malawi, where as many as several thousand died of hunger, followed IMF-mandated cutbacks in agricultural aid to small farmers and in food subsidies for families. It is time that we end this cruel betrayal of the world's hungry by working to end structural adjustment. Less than a year after President Bush and the GOP made headlines promising a commitment to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, their backsliding is already well underway. After pledging up to $3 billion per year to combat the epidemic in his State of the Union address, President Bush submitted a budget request calling for only $2 billion in next year's budget. Thankfully, my colleague, Rep. Dick Durbin, introduced an amendment adding an extra $289 million and shamed the Republican leadership into supporting the measure. We won that fight, but the president still has not demonstrated that his high-minded words mean anything when it comes to battling the great plague of our times.

Aid to Africa It is an outrage that President Bush is proposing to cut core funding for overseas humanitarian aid while millions in Africa and worldwide face the threat of hunger and poverty. The United States should fully fund efforts to improve the lives of the world's poor by dramatically increasing our allocations to

103

Common sense dictates that we pursue a policy of normalizing relations with Cuba. We need to work for repeal of the Helms-Burton Act and the immediate lifting of the trade embargo. We must lift not only the trade embargo. We must also lift the travel ban. We must cooperate with Cuba on issues of national security. It is time to create a new era in CubanAmerican relations. Here are several steps to restoring a more humane and effective policy toward this important neighbor: Support normal bilateral trade with Cuba. Farm communities throughout the U.S. are being denied a natural market in Cuba, and Americans are being denied products from Cuba. Restore Americans' freedom to travel to Cuba. Our government's travel ban violates the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of movement. Work to repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act, which has encouraged smuggling and put lives at risk -- and has reinforced arbitrary and unequal immigration policies. Support increased national security cooperation with Cuba.

Cuban Embargo Our policy toward Cuba has failed. More than four decades of a unilateral embargo and persistently hostile and aggressive rhetoric and actions from successive administrations have created only misery for the Cuban people and have hurt, not helped, U.S. interests at large.

104

abundantly clear that the Bush Administration wanted him gone. We need an independent investigation into the circumstances of his departure -- one designed to determine whether he "resigned," as the Administration claims, or was forcibly removed, as some evidence suggests. And this investigation must be undertaken by the United Nations, the OAS, and the Caribbean community, not the Bush Administration. I would further suggest that that investigation extend to the roles that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund played in creating the framework for failure. Pressure should be applied to the World Bank and the IMF and donor nations to unblock badly needed financial assistance. Order must be maintained by a United Nations-led coalition of nations while the leaders of Haiti, through their Constitution, can restore a Constitutional government through the electoral process. That same UN-led coalition must support, mediate, and monitor the Haitian election from start to finish. The UN has already begun providing humanitarian assistance. This is a vital undertaking, and the UN peacekeeping forces must see it as a priority. We must also be very aware of the attempts that will be made to privatize, as they were in Iraq -- to install the Haliburtons and the Bechtels as the "rebuilders" of Haiti -- and be prepared to see to it that these attempts do not succeed. Finally, but perhaps foremost, the United States must change its immigration policy toward Haiti. "Equal treatment for Haitians." People fleeing for their lives, seeking refuge or asylum or simply opportunity, should not be thrown in immigration jails and then forced to return to face the dangers and the turmoil they are trying to escape. It is an absolute outrage to the principles of human rights that the Bush Administration has singled out Haitians from among all other peoples for "special" treatment. It is discrimination. It is racist. It is unconscionable. And it must end.

Haiti What we are witnessing in Haiti is a clear failure of U.S. foreign policy under the Bush Administration and a possible violation of international law. Whatever the circumstances of President Aristide's departure, it is

105

us. America has maintained into perpetuity an obsession with overwhelming U.S. military superiority. We have insisted that everyone else adhere to rules of international order that we have no intention of following ourselves. We have demonstrated a contempt for international organizations and any multilateral constraints whatsoever on the employment of American power. All of this has estranged and frightened our allies and provoked enduring enmity in the councils of other governments and the hearts of citizens around the world. George Bush's foreign policies have made us new foreign enemies. George Bush's defense policies have weakened our defenses. George Bush's responses to 9/11 have made future 9/11s more likely to occur. In the America of my dreams, the America I see taking root and flourishing under new administration, other nations will encounter an America that abides by Lincoln's precept: "The only lasting way to eliminate an enemy is to make him your friend." We will accommodate rather than alienate, make friends instead of enemies, and employ carrots far more often than sticks. We need an administration that will drain the swamps of hopelessness, exploitation, and humiliation that cause vulnerable individuals to head down the terrorist road. We need leaders who will be both tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror. We spend one-tenth of one percent of our Gross National Income on development aid -the lowest of any developed country. Is this a formula for winning the hearts and minds of the next global generation? We must seek to re-engage the world by collaborating with the world's nations on our most intractable common challenges. The Bush Administration has squandered opportunities to cooperatively address environmental degradation, persistent hunger, ignorance and illiteracy, safe water, the AIDS pandemic, the degrading status of women in so many places, failed states, cultural 106

International Cooperation In the past three years, the U.S. has subjected the world community to a doctrine of preventive, unilateral, and illegal first strikes against "forces of evil" that have not attacked

obliteration, transnational governance of exploitative transnational corporations, and perhaps most important of all, the desperate grinding poverty of two billion souls -- fully one-third of the planet. We need leadership who will work to bridge the chasm between the rich and the poor -- around the block and around the world. We must work to replace the law of force on the world stage with the force of law. By showing such open disdain for the UN Charter and international law during the past three years, we have become in the eyes of many the primary outlaw on the world stage. If we disregard the law of nations, we're left with the law of the despot, where the only constraint on violence is the power and ruthlessness of those who would employ it. Rest assured, in that world we won't be the only ones to use it. We must immediately move for the United States to re-engage in the important treaties that the Bush Administration has abandoned. We must affirm and ratify treaties, beginning with: The Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change The Biodiversity Treaty The Forest Protection Treaty The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty The Landmine Ban Treaty The Biological Weapons Convention The Chemical Weapons Convention The International Criminal Court Our country and all nations must review and modify all treaties that reject national sovereignty in the cause of a global corporate ethic that does not respect human rights, workers' rights, and environmental quality standards. This means reviewing the practices and the practical impact of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. I am working to create a Department of Peace to stand alongside the Department of Defense.

If our country must spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year preparing for war, we can spend at least one percent of that amount for a department aimed at preventing war. The Department of Peace will seek to make nonviolence an organizing principle of society. It will present a wider range of alternatives within the councils of our government. It will offer a new clear vision of people working out their differences without resort to primitive violence, of peaceful coexistence in a tolerant world, of peace as a higher evolution of the human psyche. Millions of citizens of the world have taken to their streets this past year to bravely protest our country's launching a foolish and dangerous war whose consequences we can still only dimly foresee. But the Department of Peace idea aspires to do more than just prevent particular wars. With a Department of Peace, we can articulate a vision of the future where humanity has abolished war itself.

107

In November of 2006, after an October upsurge in violence in Iraq, the American people moved decisively to reject Republican rule, principally because of the conduct of the war. Democratic leaders well understand we regained control of the Congress because of the situation in Iraq. However, two months later, the Congress is still searching for a plan around which it can unite to hasten the end of US involvement in Iraq and the return home of 140,000 US troops. There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that recognizes the plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal basis of the United States war against Iraq, the realities on the ground which make a military resolution of the conflict unrealistic and the urgent responsibility of the United States, which caused the chaos, to use the process of diplomacy and international law to achieve stability in Iraq, a process which will establish peace and stability in Iraq allow our troops to return home with dignity. The Administration is preparing to escalate the conflict. They intend to increase troop numbers to unprecedented levels, without establishing an ending date for the so called troop surge. By definition, this escalation means a continuation of the occupation, more troop and civilian casualties, more anger toward the US, more support for the insurgency, more instability in Iraq and in the region, and prolonged civil war at a time when there is a general agreement in the world community that the solution in Iraq must be political not military. Iraq is now a training ground for insurgents who practice against our troops. What is needed is a comprehensive political process. And the decision is not President Bush's alone to make. The Kucinich Plan for Iraq Kucinich unveils comprehensive exit plan to bring troops home, stabilize Iraq Dennis J Kucinich, Monday, January 8, 2007, New York City Congress, as a coequal branch of government has a responsibility to assist in the initiation of this process. Congress, under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution has the warmaking power. Congress appropriates funds for the war. Congress does not dispense with 108

its obligation to the American people simply by opposing a troop surge in Iraq. There are 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq right now. What about them? When will they come home? Why would we leave those troops in Iraq when we have the money to bring them home? Soon the President will ask for more money for the war. Why would Congress appropriate more money to keep the troops in Iraq through the end of President Bush's term, at a total cost of upwards of two trillion dollars and thousands of more troop casualties, when military experts say there is no military solution? Our soldiers stand for us in the field, we must to stand for them in our legislature by bringing them home. It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose the war, then do not vote to fund it. If you have money which can be used to bring the troops home or to prosecute the war, do not say you want to bring the troops home while you appropriate money in a supplemental to keep them in Iraq fighting a war that cannot be won militarily. This is why the Administration should be notified now that Congress will not approve of the appropriations request of up to $160 billion in the spring for the purposes of continuing the occupation and the war. Continuing to fund the war is not a plan. It would represent the continuation of disaster. The US sent our troops into Iraq without a clear mission. We created a financial, military and moral dilemma for our nation and now we are talking about the Iraq war as our problem. The Iraqis are forgotten. Their country has been destroyed: 650,000 casualties, [based on the Lancet Report which surveyed casualties from March of 2003 to July of 2006] the shredding of the social fabric of the nation, civil war, lack of access to food, shelter, electricity, clean drinking water and health

care because this Administration, with the active participation of the Congress, authorized a war without reason, without conscience, without international law. The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, logistical, and political problems. The US can determine how to solve our problems, but the Iraqi people will have problems far into the future. This requires an intensive focus on the processes needed to stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem you solve the US problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account as a primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people, while providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs and taking steps to regain US credibility and felicity within the world community. I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only viable alternative to the Bush Administration's policy of continued occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians die. These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan: 1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement. 109

2. .US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force. 3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors. Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice. It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Bagdhad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal. 4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should

be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy. A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations. The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate. It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. 5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops. The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a 110

political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation. The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peace keeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties. Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed. According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops. 6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the

process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships. For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam. A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation. It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have 111

little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists. The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians. 7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis. 8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation. 9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization. Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully

functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq. 10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs. 11.Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank. \n\n\n 12 .International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq. In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world. Thank you.

112

the Bush administration's "axis of evil." The U.S. should develop diplomatic and humanitarian relations with North Korea, with the goals of assisting the Korean people, furthering reunification, and advancing disarmament. We should engage in direct negotiations with North Korea, and in a multilateral peace conference involving both Koreas and the surrounding states, to pursue a permanent peace settlement. As a part of this process, we should consult closely with our South Korean allies, to evaluate appropriate conditions for a reduction or eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces. By engaging in direct negotiations with North Korea and in a multilateral peace conference involving both Koreas and the surrounding states, the U.S. could pursue a permanent peace settlement. This settlement would include a non-aggression agreement and a nuclear weapons-free zone. Half a century after the Armistice agreement, the United States still spends billions of dollars every year to maintain some 37,000 troops in South Korea. Both Korean governments have shown interest in reconciliation and cooperation, but the Bush administration has shown little support for their efforts. The Bush administration's harsh rhetoric and hard-line policy have reversed the diplomatic progress made under President Clinton and aggravated a potential threat. The invasion of Iraq, which did not present an imminent threat to us, as well as George Bush's description of North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," have clearly increased the fear that North Korea is next on the preemptive attack hit list. Continuing a policy of isolation and threats will back Kim Jong Il into a corner and make the use of WMD more likely, not less. Korea We need a new foreign policy towards Korea. We need a President who will visit both Koreas, meet personally with Kim Jong Il, and strive to block the self-fulfilling prophecy of U.S. foreign policy should aim to restore the world's trust in America, the trust that has been violated by the Bush administration. First, we must abandon the doctrine of preemptive war that this administration has promulgated, which has done so much to 113

alienate our friends and allies, and stop asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons while the U.S. continues to create more. We must embrace a principled foreign policy that relies on cooperative diplomacy and views military action only as a last resort. The United States must sign the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Landmine Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. The United States can lead the way to peace through word and deed.

struggle. Many are tempted to see this as merely the latest chapter in an endless and timeless tragedy. And it's not. Not only is a just and peaceful solution possible -- it's inevitable. This was brought home to all of us recently, at the signing of the Geneva Accords by courageous Israelis and Palestinians. We need to keep in mind that there is no such thing as a victory for one side. No "win-lose" solutions are possible, only "win-win" outcomes. Coercion of one side or the other cannot succeed, no matter how strongly one might want it, or how much force might be brought to bear. Recently, four previous directors of the Israeli General Security Service stated publicly that Israel is headed for a disaster that can only be averted by a peace agreement with the Palestinians. This meeting took place not long after the Israeli Chief of Staff admitted to journalists that the policy of using force and punitive measures had not only failed to contain Palestinian violence, it was in fact exacerbating it. Israelis are living in fear, an understandable result of more than three years of suicide bombings and other terror attacks against civilians. The measures carried out against the Palestinian population have the support of many Israelis, because of the logic of fear. But as those outspoken military men have pointed out, this logic is leading to unacceptable outcomes, both in failing to protect Israelis, and in terms of human rights abuses committed against Palestinians. These measures include hundreds of roadblocks, mostly separating Palestinians from each other. The roadblocks are one of the two defining features of the occupation, since they define every sphere of existence: access to jobs, schools, medical care, relatives and friends. The other defining feature is the growth and spread of settlements, all of which are illegal under international law. The daily hardships imposed by Israel and the loss of land fuel the despair that leads to terror. It's time to fight terror with the only weapon left in Israel's arsenal: hope. 114

Middle East Israel and Palestine For the past three years, Israelis and Palestinians have been locked in bitter, violent

As we watch our brothers and sisters suffer and die, we shouldn't be asking which side to join, which side to strengthen so as to defeat the other. The question is, how can we use our power to foster healing and reconciliation? The power and faith of the American people has been used that way in the past in that part of the world, particularly by President Carter and President Clinton. Today we need to call on that spirit and go with it further than ever before. The recent signing of a model peace agreement known as the Geneva Accord embodies a change in the logic of peacemaking. Instead of small steps leading to an uncertain future, unofficial negotiators -with a high standing in their respective societies -- have shown us what a comprehensive peace agreement might look like. It has inspired optimism all over the world, because of the potential it has to unblock the dialogue between the Israeli and Palestinian societies. That's why I've come out to affirm my support for HR 479, introduced on December 9, 2003, by Congresswoman Lois Capps along with 31 other cosponsors, myself included. The resolution states that the Geneva Accord and other private initiatives "demonstrate that both Israelis and Palestinians have a partner for peace, that both peoples want to end the current vicious stalemate, and that both peoples are prepared to make necessary compromises in order to achieve peace." Israelis and Palestinians, locked in to a recursive conflict that feeds on itself, need to see more private initiatives, and more American support for them, as evidence that we will be there to assist in ending the conflict with our resources and moral power. We cannot do this when what investment we currently have is so overwhelmingly weighted towards military means. The U.S. should support the spirit of the Geneva Accord, which demonstrates that representatives from both Israel and Palestine can negotiate a mutually beneficial and mutually agreeable contract to resolve their longstanding conflict. 115

so many products purchased in our country are made in sweat shops -- and a leader who feels that walking a picket line is more important than walking a golf course. The U.S. should institute a policy that any company that receives federal aid or assistance must observe "Sweat Free" procurement laws. To end sweat shop conditions, the global trade regime must be confronted. This means withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO and replacing them with bilateral agreements that raise up labor and environmental standards around the world. Workers' rights -- especially to bargain collectively -- must be a component of all trade agreements. Right now, the WTO can be used to force products made by child labor upon us, and secretly negotiated elements of NAFTA can be used to challenge U.S. environmental laws. To address issues of economic exploitation in the U.S., we must work to repeal Taft-Hartley, to reinstitute a truly progressive tax system including an estate tax, and to return to the concepts of the Fair Labor Standards Act passed during the New Deal. Federal dollars must not subsidize sweat shops, directly or indirectly. School districts in Los Angeles and Minneapolis, as well as the state of Maine, have already adopted no-sweat procurement policies and these are models we can build on. There is no reason why the Federal government should continue to underwrite corporate human rights abusers. I would strongly support legislation banning the domestic sale of goods made in sweatshops, the use of "hot cargo" provisions, or any other disincentives to the manufacture of consumer products by sweatshop labor, child labor, convict labor, or bonded labor abroad. For years, the government and the courts have used trade sanctions to protect corporate intellectual property rights. It's time we started using these tools to protect workers' rights and human rights. Unfortunately, voluntary corporate compliance often means non-compliance. In recent years, 116

Sweat Shops It is time this country makes a priority of ending sweat shop conditions at home and abroad. Working people in our country deserve a leader who will expose the fact that

apparel manufacturers have tried to pass off what basically amounts to a self-monitoring system -- the Fair Labor Association -- as a solution to the problem of sweat shop labor. Only a strong, independent body that includes workers' rights advocates can be counted on to monitor compliance. I encourage students' and labor groups' efforts to hold corporations accountable, as the Worker Rights Consortium is doing today. The United States can lead in lifting up environmental and labor standards around the globe, instead of allowing multinational corporations to drive them down under current arrangements. U.S. trade officials (including Democrats) have worked diligently to try to ensure that every Disney movie secures its licensing fee. Yet while our government works to enforce copyright and patent laws over the face of the planet, a concern for people often seems mysteriously absent. Because the 20-year resurgence of sweat shops has been the by-product of a well crafted campaign to enrich multinational corporations at the expense of employees, it will take a strong commitment and plan to reverse the free fall of workers. I have both the commitment and a plan. Workers' rights are truly human rights, whether they apply to the maquila in Mexico or to workers in Saipan or New York's Chinatown. The notion of a minimum wage must be replaced by the right to a living wage -everywhere.

there is no alternative but to repeal NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO. I have sworn to repeal NAFTA and the WTO, and I will unalterably continue to work toward these goals. For a decade, we have been subjected to a grand experiment called NAFTA. When that agreement was signed in 1993, it was enthusiastically supported by big business, Republicans, and all too many Democrats. Now it is clear that this experiment has failed. We've lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs since July 2000. Over a half million of these are directly attributable to NAFTA. Our trade deficit grew to $418 billion last year and continues to climb. And, because of the WTO, corporations have been granted unprecedented powers to sue the government in closed trade courts anytime laws designed to protect workers or the environment are deemed to infringe on corporate "rights." This is called "free trade." But where is freedom when jobs are lost? Where is freedom when industries threaten to move out of the country unless wages are cut? Where is freedom when the right to bargain collectively is crushed? Where is freedom when a union is broken? Where is freedom when you can't make a mortgage payment? Where is freedom when you can't send your children to college? An economic democracy is a precondition of a political democracy. Where is freedom? It is time to reclaim state and local sovereignty, which NAFTA has usurped. No NAFTA, no Fast Track Authority. Fast track is a barrier. Fast track brought us NAFTA. It prohibits amending trade agreements. We could not amend NAFTA Chapter 11, which grants corporate investors in all NAFTA countries the right to challenge any local, state, or federal regulations, which, those corporations say, hurt their profits. No more back track on democracy. No more back track on workers' rights. No more back track on human rights. No back track on the Bill of Rights.

Trade If the United States is to be free to negotiate fair trade agreements that protect jobs, the rights of workers, and the environment, then

117

The Bush administration wants to extend NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere through the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). This proposal is being pushed by the administration and its Republican allies in Congress and the corporate world, although it is opposed by many leaders throughout Latin America. The only way to undo the damage these trade deals have caused is to end them. If the United States is to be free to negotiate fair trade agreements that protect jobs, the rights of workers, and the environment, then there is no alternative but to withdraw from the WTO. If our agriculture, textiles, and other industries are going to be able to help pull the world up, rather than being dragged down to the level of serfdom or exported abroad, we must put an end to the disaster known as the WTO. The NAFTA and WTO treaties include legal clauses permitting the signatory countries to withdraw from them at any time, following a routine notification period. The President should invoke these withdrawal clauses and once and for all take America out of an unfair system of corporate trade. We should return to bilateral trade conditioned on workers' rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles. This would provide security for American workers and for workers worldwide. We need a new start. We must begin from scratch with decent, bilaterally negotiated trade agreements between this country and each other country we trade with, agreements that are based from the start on the needs of people and communities.

It is an outrage that President Bush is proposing to cut core funding for overseas humanitarian aid while millions worldwide face the threat of hunger. The United States should fully fund efforts to eradicate hunger by dramatically increasing our allocation to the UN World Food Program, whose work saves countless lives in over 80 countries, through school feeding projects, nutrition programs for HIV/AIDS sufferers, refugee food relief, and many other vital tasks. Drop the Debt Poor countries facing widespread hunger are being ravaged by debt payments to global institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. $2.5 billion is transferred every year from Sub-Saharan Africa to foreign bankers and creditors, while 40% of its population experiences some form of malnutrition. We should push for the immediate cancellation of all bilateral debts of countries facing hunger, as well as cancellation of debts to the IMF and World Bank. Swords into Plowshares President Eisenhower once observed: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." This year our nation will spend over $360 billion on the Pentagon, but barely more than $1 million on food aid for the world's hungry. It is time the U.S. set an example for the world by proposing a 15% cut in the military budget to help meet pressing social needs, including hunger, both abroad and at home. I have proposed a bill to establish a Department of Peace to mediate international conflicts, negotiate arms control agreements, and promote nonviolence, so that other nations can devote resources to the fight against hunger, not the arms race.

World Hunger Foreign Aid

118

acting like an Empire, unilaterally undermining international agreements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The ABM treaty first entered into force October 3, 1972, between the U.S. and former USSR to constrain the Parties from deploying territorywide defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. By withdrawing from the ABM Treaty on June 14, 2002, saying that "the U.S. must protect its homeland, its forces, and its friends and allies against the threats of missile attacks from rogue nations and terrorist groups" (George W. Bush), the President insists that he has the authority to terminate any treaty without the consent of Congress. But according to Article 6, Clause 2, of the Constitution, treaties constitute the "supreme law of the land." And the President does not have the authority to repeal laws: Article I, Section I, empowers Congress to create laws, and charges the President only with carrying out these laws. Thus, the President's termination of the ABM Treaty represents an unconstitutional repeal of a law duly enacted by Congress. I filed a lawsuit in federal district court to block the President from withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. The United States must immediately re-engage in the important treaties that the Bush Administration has abandoned. We must affirm and ratify treaties, beginning with: The Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change The Biodiversity Treaty The Forest Protection Treaty The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty The Landmine Ban Treaty The Biological Weapons Convention The Chemical Weapons Convention The International Criminal Court Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Our security will be enhanced by working with other nations and the UN instead of 119

The United States was founded on hope, optimism, and a commitment to freedom. We can once again become a beacon of hope for the world. To do that, we must reject the current administration's policies of fear, suspicion, and preemptive war. It is time to jettison our illusions and fears and to transform age-old challenges with new thinking. This is the idea behind my proposal to establish a Department of Peace. This is the idea to make nonviolence an organizing principle at home and abroad and dedicate ourselves to peaceful coexistence, consensus building, disarmament, and respect for international treaties. Violence and war are not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. We can move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all wars. Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make nonviolence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values. We must change the metaphor of our society from one of war to one of peace. The Department of Defense now requires in excess 120

Department of Peace H.R. 808, Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act

of $400 billion for its activities. A Department of Peace can be an effective counterbalance, redirecting our national energies towards nonviolent intervention, mediation, and conflict resolution on all matters of human security. A Department of Peace can look at the domestic issues that our society faces and often ignores as we focus on matters internationally. We have a problem with violence in our own society, and we need to look at it and address it in a structured way. Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, and police-community relations conflicts, and would work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as "violence is inevitable" or "war is inevitable." Thus, it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus. The Department of Peace will also address human development and the unique concerns of women and children. It will envision and seek to implement plans for peace education, not simply as a course of study, but as a template for all pursuits of knowledge within formal educational settings. Americans have proven over and over again we're a nation that can rise to the challenges of our times, because our people have that capacity. And so, the concept of a Department of Peace is the vehicle by which we express our belief that we have the capacity to evolve as a people, that someday we could look back at this moment and understand that we took the steps along the way to make war archaic. Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children from fear, from harm, from destruction.

Congressman Kucinich is the 2003 recipient of the Gandhi Peace Award. Former recipients include Eleanor Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, A.J. Muste, Dr. Linus Pauling, Dorothy Day, Sen. Wayne Morse and Marian Wright Edelman. For more information about efforts to establish a Department of Peace, see The Peace Alliance. http://www.thepeacealliance.org/

121

remediation. Also, we must develop a program to provide care and restitution for people suffering as a result of the United States' use of depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons production, nuclear testing, and uranium mining. Through four wars (Gulf War I, Sarajevo, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II), the U.S. military has deployed tons of nuclear tank missiles of depleted uranium (DU), which are solid 10-pound uranium bullets made from radioactive waste from the U.S. Department of Energy's uranium enrichment process. At least 350 tons of solid radioactive uranium remains in Iraq after Gulf War I, and 2,000 more tons of radioactive rubble has been added from our present Gulf War II. Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. According to Pentagon experts, approximately 13,000 Gulf War I veterans are now dead as result of injuries and illnesses incurred while participating in military operations between August 1990 and October 1991. As of May 2002, at least 221,000 veterans were on disability as result of injuries and illnesses incurred during military operations in the Persian Gulf combat theater of operations. All of our troops presently in Iraq are continually being exposed to this radioactive depleted uranium contamination, other war related contaminants, water- and food-borne illnesses, and endemic diseases every second they remain there. A recent study shows that U.S. Gulf War veterans' children have a much higher likelihood of having three specific types of birth defects: two types of heart valve abnormality occurring to children of male veterans, and genital-urinary defects to children born of female veterans. A study of British veterans of the Gulf War, Bosnia, and Kosovo reveals that they have 10 to 14 times the usual level of chromosomal abnormalities. A Canadian medical research facility recently found that the urine of Afghani people living near the area where the United States carried out military operations contained radioactive 122

Depleted Uranium The United States must order an end to illegal use of depleted uranium munitions and lead an international effort to recover depleted uranium. We must promote environmental

isotopes 100 to 400 times as high as Gulf War veterans from the United Kingdom who were tested in 1999. The Canadian team recorded an average of 315.5 nanograms of these isotopes in people in Jalalabad, Tora Bora, and Mazar-e-Sharif. A 12-year-old boy near Kabul tested at 2,031 nanograms. The maximum exposure considered safe by the United States is 9 nanograms/year. With growing evidence of an increase in birth defects and stillborns, the situation should be addressed as an issue of the highest priority. According to humanitarian law specialist, Karen Parker J.D., a weapon is made illegal in two ways: (1) by adoption of a specific treaty banning it; and (2) because it may not be used without violating the existing law and customs of war. A weapon made illegal only because there is a specific treaty banning it is only illegal for countries that ratify such a treaty. A weapon that is illegal by operation of existing law is illegal for all countries. This is true even if there is also a treaty on this weapon and a country has not ratified that treaty. As there is no specific treaty banning depleted uranium weapons, its illegality must be established in the second fashion. The laws and customs of war (humanitarian law) include all treaties governing military operations, weapons, and protection of victims of war, as well as all customary international law on these subjects. In other words, in evaluating whether a particular weapon is legal or illegal when there is not a specific treaty, the whole of humanitarian law must be consulted. There are four rules derived from the whole of humanitarian law regarding weapons: Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in the war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off of the legal field of battle. (The "territorial" test). Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion. (The "temporal" test).

Weapons may not be unduly inhumane. (The "humaneness" test). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 use the terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" for this concept. Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment. (The "environmental" test). DU weaponry fails all four tests: It cannot be "contained" to legal fields of battle and thus fails the territorial test. Instead, the DU is air-borne far afield of legal targets to illegal (civilian) targets: hospitals, schools, civilian dwellings, and even neighboring countries with which the user is not at war. It cannot be "turned off" when the war is over. Instead, DU weaponry continues to act after hostilities are over and thus fails the temporal test. Even with rigorous cleanup of war zones, the air-borne particles have a half-life of billions of years and have potential to keep killing and injuring former combatants and non-combatants long after the war is over. The toxicity is confirmed by U.S. Army documents. The Director of the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute stated in a congressionally mandated report that "No available technology can significantly change the inherent chemical and radiological toxicity of DU. These are intrinsic properties of uranium." (Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army: Technical Report, AEPI, June 1995) It is inhumane and thus fails the humaneness test. DU weaponry is inhumane because of how it can kill -- by cancer, kidney disease, etc. -- and long after the hostilities are over, when the killing must stop. DU is inhumane because it can cause birth (genetic) defects such as cranial facial anomalies, missing limbs, grossly deformed and non-viable infants and the like, thus affecting children who may never be a military target and who are born after the war is over. The teratogenic nature of DU weapons and the possible burdening of the gene pool of future generations raise the possibility that the use of DU weaponry amounts to genocide. It cannot be used without unduly damaging 123

the natural environment and thus fails the environment test. Damage to the natural environment includes contamination of water and agricultural land necessary for the subsistence of the civilian population far beyond the lifetime of that population. The U.S. Army also confirms that depleted uranium contamination will affect food and water. The primary U.S. Army training manual: Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks states, "NOTE: (Depleted uranium) contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption." Cleanup is an inexact science and, in any case, extremely expensive -- far beyond the ability of a poor country to pay for. In the course of armed conflicts (wars), weapons may only be used against legal military targets and for the duration of the war. Weapons may not cause undue suffering or superfluous injury. Weapons may not use or employ "poison." Weapons may not severely damage the environment. DU weaponry cannot be used in military operations without violating these rules, and therefore must be considered illegal. Use of illegal weapons constitutes a violation of humanitarian law and subjects the violators to legal liability for their effects on victims and the environment, as well as criminal liability. In my view, use of DU weaponry necessarily violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and hence its use constitutes a war crime or crime against humanity. All illegal use of depleted uranium munitions should be halted, as the U.S. becomes a leader in the international movement to recover depleted uranium.

thought they were only going to be there for a first tour. That 40% of the people in Iraq today are either guardsmen or guardswomen or reservists. We never anticipated being in combat under those conditions. We also know as the United States continues to get deeper and deeper into this conflict, there is no question that there will be a draft. There are bills sponsored by both parties in Congress to create a draft. In 2004 the selective service system put up on their website a call for people to staff local draft boards. There was a commotion about it immediately after that went up; they took it down. There's a substantial amount of money in the budget to be able to put into effect the structure to create a draft. With high stakes at hand, America is getting deeper and deeper into this situation in Iraq. It's getting much worse every day. Now we're being told by people in both parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we have to stay the course. We can't "cut and run." We have to go in and finish the job that we went in there to do. We're hearing all kinds of euphemisms that are frankly are vaguely reminiscent of the kinds of euphemisms that we heard in the sixties, which caused the United States to make a deeper and deeper commitment in a place called Vietnam. There was a point in the early sixties where the casualty level of Americans was below 100. Then it went into the hundreds. Then it went into the thousands. Then it went into the tens of thousands. And all the time we kept wading into this war in Vietnam, people just kept talking as if it was just going to end. And there was almost this obliviousness to the fact that we kept getting in deeper and deeper. And the casualties kept piling up. And the more lives that were lost, the more people kept insisting, "Well, we've got to stay there." Historian Barbara Tuchman wrote a book some of you may be familiar with called "The March of Folly," where she traced throughout human history how governments pursued what they fully knew to be the wrong course of 124

The Draft The United States is talking about sending in more troops to Iraq. We already know that our government has extended the tour of duty for members of the armed service. That they have sent people back for a second tour when they

action, but once it proved to be wrong, they kept doing it anyhow. She described it as a kind of "wooden-headedness." "Wooden-headedness, the source of selfdeception, is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts. It is epitomized in a historian's statement about Phillip II of Spain, the surpassing wooden-head of all sovereigns: 'No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence.'" -- Barbara Tuchman, "The March of Folly" This country surely knows that we've gone in the wrong direction in Iraq. But we're somehow committed to continuing it. We're putting in more troops, more resources, running the risk of precipitating a holy war in that region, and setting this country on a path of separating ourselves from the world community. It's time for this nation, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come together and oppose all efforts to reinstate the draft. For the sake of our children and our future, we must end this wrongful war.

Few politicians have the courage to raise the obvious questions of the military industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about and which no one else seems to see. While we spend approximately what the rest of the world combined does on their military (with most of the big spending nations our allies!), we have tremendous waste. While many retired generals and admirals have stated that at least 15% waste could be cut from past military budgets, politicians seem to panic when the administration refers to the military budget as our "security" budget. Does anyone seriously believe that the Iraq War is a defensive war against an enemy that struck us or would have struck us? Most Americans now realize that using 19 hijackers armed with knives or box cutters as a pretext for a war in Iraq or for trillions of dollars of additional defense expenditures makes no sense and is about as honest as was the case for war. The terrorists have no submarines, planes, or armies. Yet, a small group of fanatics with small arms has been used to justify some $5,000 per taxpayer per year in military expenditures. It is likely that the war in Iraq will cost each taxpayer about $15,000 above that. Militarism not only invites military solutions to diplomatic problems, but also destroys the economic dreams of countless families and ultimately sabotages our entire economy, as Chalmers Johnson points out in The Sorrows of Empire. April 28, 2006, Daytona Beach News-Journal (Florida)

Military Budget April 2006 This budget chooses war over health care, tax cuts over education, special interests over the needs of the nation, and rich over poor.

$60 Billion for Real Security: Dent in the Military-Industrial Complex? By Jack Shanahan "We have failed to discard the outmoded 'force on force' military philosophy driving today's military thinking, planning and spending. So we end up with fighter jets at $320 million a 125

copy, $3 billion submarines, $13.5 billion aircraft carriers. Try to connect the dots between these weapons and what is needed to fight guerrillas, terrorists and fringe religious fanatics. Don't spend too long trying to connect the dots. They don't connect. It's plain irrational, and it's all driven by the confluence of power among members of Congress, the president, and powerful defense contractors and their lobbyists. That's the group President Dwight D. Eisenhower aptly labeled the military-industrial complex so many years ago. It's the military industrial complex that drives senseless Pentagon spending. To feed the military industrial complex, we are underfunding education for our children, underfunding health care for millions of Americans, under-funding environmental needs and much more. In turn, this is threatening the quality of life for most Americans and adversely affecting our ability to compete globally. That's bad for national security. Passage of Woolsey's bill, called the Common Sense Budget Act, would also eventually level the slippery slope the military industrial complex has put this nation on. And that's really good for national security." Jack Shanahan, a retired Navy vice admiral, lives in Ormond Beach. He heads the Military Advisory Committee of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. We must cut bloated and unneeded weaponry from a military budget that now almost equals the military spending of all other countries combined. The resulting peace dividend can then be invested in education, health care, environmental clean-up, urban infrastructure, Social Security, veterans' benefits, and other pressing domestic needs. National Security The current administration's national security doctrine, with its reliance on preventive war as a standard instrument of policy, is making the world more dangerous. We must reject this approach, and develop and communicate to the American people our own vision of national security. National security policy

must contribute to broader foreign policy objectives, and complement our domestic priorities. Since the 1970s, the Democratic Party, especially its progressive wing, has been put on the rhetorical and political defensive on national security issues. Conservatives have sought to portray their opponents as weak on defense, and have denigrated legitimate differences of opinion as naivete or disloyalty. The attacks of September 11 and the consequent "War on Terror" have allowed the Bush administration to frame the national security debate as it sees fit. The attack on Iraq was portrayed as a part of this war, despite a lack of any credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. At the same time, budgets for defense programs across the board have been greatly increased, with no reference to, or debate regarding, their relevance to the war against those who attacked us. The perception of an ongoing emergency has made many Democrats hesitant to take on the administration, in an area that effectively has been surrendered to the Republicans. The current administration clearly believes that international terrorism can be defeated solely through military, law enforcement, and intelligence actions, without addressing the underlying foreign policy issues that, while in no way justifying the attacks on us, certainly contribute to explaining them. This is a prescription for war without end, for exacerbating anti-Americanism and winning more recruits to al Qaeda, and for continuing to alienate our friends and allies worldwide. The reluctance of Congress and the public to criticize the President during wartime (which, given the nature of terrorism, could be defined by the White House as lasting indefinitely) also facilitates the accomplishment of this administration's domestic agenda, including the erosion of civil liberties and economic policies blatantly favoring the wealthiest among us. My vision of national security ties together not only military but diplomatic, economic, and 126

human rights polices, and views the use of military force as a last resort. Building the link between domestic and defense issues, I believe that this country is more secure when the largest possible number of its citizens have a stake in its success, when decent education, healthcare, and housing contribute to productive lives for everyone. The U.S. military is the strongest in the world, by far, and will remain so. We need to recognize the accomplishments of, and hardships experienced by, our men and women in uniform. My position on pay and benefits, for both active duty military and retired veterans, reflects this recognition. The Kucinich approach to national security is antimilitarist, not anti-military. National security must be defined in terms much broader than size of the defense budget, or number of carrier battle groups, fighter aircraft, or infantry divisions. Unfortunately, the response of many Democrats has been to paint their canvas in a Republican frame, to accept the need for vastly higher budgets and assertive use of military force, with minor fine-tuning. It is time to redefine the argument, to convey to the public that effective multilateral institutions, appropriate economic aid, principled foreign policy, and support for arms control regimes buy us more real security than launching preventive attacks or further increasing the Pentagon budget.

Nuclear Weapons The United States must take the following steps to promote world peace: Lead the way toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the earth. Our goal should be a steady movement toward complete nuclear disarmament. Renounce first-strike policy. We must set aside

the Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which is a strategy for nuclear proliferation. We must assure the world community that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. Cancel all U.S. nuclear weapons programs. We must work to put an end to the development of any new nuclear weapons, to the manufacture of any nuclear weapons, and to any plans to test nuclear weapons. Stop the use of all depleted uranium munitions. We must order an end to the United States' use of depleted uranium munitions. We must lead an international effort to recover depleted uranium. We must promote environmental remediation. We must develop a program to provide care and restitution for people suffering as a result of the United States' use of depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons production, nuclear testing, and uranium mining. Ban all nuclear weapons testing by the United States. We must enact a new policy banning nuclear testing and work to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Open talks with all nuclear powers. The U.S. must begin new talks with Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Israel, and Pakistan to develop a plan aimed at the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The first step should be to suspend all "readiness" levels of nuclear weapons systems, including those of the United States. Encourage participation in the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. We must encourage all nations to actively participate in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and meet personally with the leaders of India, Israel, and Pakistan to request that they sign as non-nuclear weapons states. The President must also meet personally with Kim Jong Il to encourage North Korea to rejoin the community of nations through reaffirming its participation as a non-nuclear weapons state. Discourage nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. We must work with the nations of North Korea, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, and others to discourage the acquisition of nuclear weapons capability. Reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and cancel the Ballistic Missile Defense. We must 127

work with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The treaty prevents both the United States and Russia from developing nationwide ABM defense systems and limits employment of new ABM technologies. Consequently, the ballistic missile defense program must be cancelled. Meet all requirements of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. We must work to ensure that the United States leads the world again in fulfilling all requirements of the treaty. This means the United States must negotiate the complete elimination of its nuclear arsenal. Commit to greatly expanding inspections. We must work with the 188 signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency to greatly expand the use of inspections in all nations. Lead an international effort to bring terrorists to justice. The United States must participate in a cooperative world effort to track down terrorists who are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

We cannot hope to end terrorism by killing terrorists. Hatred feeds on violence and killing. I understand this and am here to offer a more practical approach: to reduce poverty worldwide with bold changes in current U.S. policy. NAFTA and the World Trade Organizations have only served to increase global poverty, thus deepening one of the most virulent causes of terrorism. This is why I am calling for immediate cancellation of NAFTA and U.S. withdrawal from the WTO. For the sake of justice and wellbeing, it is time we established bilateral fair trade agreements that contain strict provisions for workers' rights, human rights, and environmental principles. World opinion, which fuels much of the terrorism against the United States and threats of terrorism, could easily be turned to America's advantage with less force and more diplomacy, undergirded by an understanding that "We share this fragile planet and are our brother's keeper." This is why I believe it is imperative that we pull our troops out of Iraq, where we are only worsening the quagmire and losing more soldiers and innocent civilians each day, and bring in UN peacekeepers for a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty. By reaching out and rejoining the world community, we can wage peace to simultaneously combat terrorism. The United States must develop a deep understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between history and acts of terror. America's goodwill has been misused by previous administrations, leading to a growing divide between us and our allies and growing mistrust and hatred for the United States among the world's most oppressed populations. There is another path for this nation; it is up to us to choose it.

Terrorism The roots of terrorism lie in desperation. People with no hope resort to acts of indiscriminate violence. People with futures don't typically strap on bombs to kill others. We must all refrain from condoning some acts of violence as justified while similar actions by others are dismissed as "terrorism." 128

the "intelligence" obtained by torture that there were WMDs in Iraq demonstrates that people who are being tormented will say anything to make the pain go away. We know of at least 28 prisoners that were killed during interrogation during our recent wars. One was a high-ranking Iraqi officer who, apparently, was not providing enough "actionable intelligence" on WMDs. While God may forgive us for our actions, others nations are not as generous. The reality is that the United States has employed torture and has transported people to certain torture -- and perhaps death. Torture is not an American value, and the President's signing statement reserving the right to torture is a clear violation of international and U.S. law that makes all of us -- and especially our soldiers -- less safe. The dismissal of the Geneva Convention as "quaint" and the legal gymnastics performed by this administration to justify brutalizing another human should shock all of us. The failure of Congress to confront the President over the lawless signing statement is another disturbing chapter in its failure to exercise oversight of an "out of control" administration. For the head of the C.I.A. to testify in front of Congress that "water boarding" is a "professional interrogation technique" is horrifying. In essence, the American people are being told that Thomas de Torquemada and the rest of the Spanish Inquisitors were not torturers when they used the "aselli," the water torment; they were merely professional and forceful questioners. Let us be candid, water boarding is a war crime. And following the administration's legal analysis, the Spanish inquisitors were not guilty of torture because their goal was not to inflict pain, it was merely to save souls. The fact that people would suffer pain was just an unfortunate by-product of saving souls. Nothing is more misleading -- or immoral -than the use of the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Even if such a scenario existed -129

Torture April 2006 How can a President say: "We do not torture" but reserve the right to do so? This type of deception and brutality is losing us essential and necessary friends all over the world. We are also losing our souls in exchange for an imaginary, short-term gain. In fact, some of

which has yet to be documented -- does it justify wholesale torture and the brutalization of people we suspect could or might do something in the future? As we have learned, framing all threats as "imminent" is a convenient way to anaesthetize people's consciences to agree that the ends do justify the means. The America that people around the world have come to love and admire is being destroyed by degrees by messianic militarists who believe that torture and force are the tools God has given them to use. Clearly, if they simply employ them to merely save lives, why not employ them to save immortal souls? Torture degrades us as a people. History has shown that when torture is employed, interrogators become lazy and brutal, and many, many innocent people die or are destroyed for life. Our humanity is the first death in the process. My reasons for opposing torture are not just the clear moral prohibition, but a more practical reason: What would you do if your child was tortured -- especially if they were innocent, as so many tortured people are? Torture breeds torture and brutality. Torture is a slope no American should step onto.

Treating our servicemen and veterans with anything other than honor is not appropriate and must not be tolerated by any U.S. Administration. The families of those in service must no longer be ignored, their needs no longer neglected. The fact that the families of many American soldiers need food stamps to survive should shame us all. The rights and welfare of the retired and disabled must no longer be an unwanted expense, but instead a responsibility of gratitude that will be honorably satisfied. As an Ohio Congressman, I have proven my commitment to the wellbeing of veterans throughout my career. In the 106th Congress, I helped to pass the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act, H.R. 2116, which allowed for the expansion of veterans' benefits and long term health care benefits. It also eliminated the establishment of a framework for hospital closures that make it easier for the government to close important and necessary veterans' health facilities. I support legislation that provides the necessary services to our nation's veterans. I was a co-sponsor of H.R. 179, the "Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act," to restore health care benefits to military retirees with more than 20 years of service. More recently, I have also become a cosponsor of legislation, H.R. 303, to permit retired members of the Armed Forces with over 20 years of service and who have serviceconnected disabilities to receive compensation from the Department. Something is inherently wrong with the way the current Administration is treating our veterans. They have sent troops into battle one day, and slashed their benefits the next. The Administration has made a mockery of the treatment of our veterans; ignoring their needs and slashing the Department of Veteran Affairs budget by 27%. While thousands of men and women stood risking their lives in the Middle East, the Bush administration cut their combat pay by one-third. Although this reduction is built into the $87.5 billion President Bush has just received, Halliburton 130

Veterans The men and women who serve the United States of America in the armed forces deserve unyielding support and appreciation from our country. On the battlefield, they pledge to leave no soldier behind; it is our duty to uphold this pledge to them at home. Our society must again show its respect for those who work for us and protect us.

and Bechtel have not been asked to reduce any of their enormous profits. The members of the Guard and Reserve units in Iraq are finding out that the separation pay they have received for their families is also being reduced. This is a shameful dishonor and it must be stopped. It is time for soldiers and all Americans to receive not a minimum wage but a true living wage! It was wrong to send our troops to Iraq and it is wrong to keep there them there. But it is unacceptable to be slashing their benefits! Every day more of our men and women are killed and wounded, and the Administration has no exit plan. For more than a year now, I have laid out my exit plan to this occupation, which has turned into a quagmire. My plan to get the UN into Iraq and the U.S. out will bring our troops home quickly and increase American security. We must spend no more money on war profiteering while veterans lose their benefits, families live without health care, and people all over the country lose their jobs. The White House has turned its back on the very people who serve this country, investing instead in an $87 billion package that will only lead to more false promises, more money wasted, and more of our sons' and daughters' lives lost. It is time for this government to show some respect for these people by providing them with the support and benefits they deserve. It is time to support our troops by bringing them home now! While I have strongly opposed this war and call for an end to the occupation in Iraq, I am committed to treating its veterans with the utmost respect and dignity, providing all of the benefits and support that they need to live comfortable, successful lives. Citizens who have risked their lives to serve their country deserve nothing less.

131

all nuclear weapons. Our nation must: Revive the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Sign and enforce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Abandon plans to build a so-called missile shield. Prohibit the introduction of weapons into outer space. Statement by Dennis Kucinich to AntiLandmine Campaign: Foremost among the reasons I decided to run for president is my deep and personal commitment to peace and disarmament. The worldwide campaign to ban landmines is a remarkable testament to the power of citizen action in the struggle for nonviolence. I have been proud to offer my unwavering support for those efforts from the very beginning. I have been a strong supporter of the Mine Ban Treaty and of its ratification by the United States. In 2001, I joined with 124 members of Congress to urge President Bush not to abandon efforts to ban antipersonnel land mines. And I have proposed institutionalizing America's commitment to disarmament by establishing a cabinet-level Department of Peace to mediate international conflicts, coordinate arms control, and promote nonviolence. To the worldwide movement to ban landmines, I say: You have my full support.

Weapons and Non-Proliferation We must demand that our nation and all nations: Abide by the principles of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. Stop the development of new nuclear weapons. Take all nuclear weapons systems off alert. Persist towards total, worldwide elimination of 132

action policies. And I continue the fight for diversity and civil rights. Until America is truly a level playing field, affirmative action will be essential to achieving those goals. For the first time since Brown v. Board of Education, which opened up educational opportunities for millions of Americans, our public schools are becoming increasingly segregated by race. In our cities, indices of black-white segregation suggest extreme separation of minorities far beyond the levels reported in other multi-racial societies such as Brazil, Canada, Australia, and the UK. In fact, the only other nation where minority segregation indices routinely exceed those reported in the United States was the Union of South Africa under apartheid. Segregation in our cities leads to dire consequences in the educational environment for minorities. High minority school districts receive far less in state and local educational funding than districts that have predominantly white students. America's diversity is a strength, not a weakness, and it is absolutely critical that we nurture programs that enhance opportunities for those who have been historically left behind. To do nothing, to abolish affirmative action, is to use de jure means to fall back into the de facto segregation of the past, which made a mockery of democracy, equality, liberty and justice - the very values on which this nation was founded. Affirmative action is still essential, because a truly level playing field is still an elusive goal, not a reality. Today, we must stand united in our support of affirmative action. Our nation is at a critical junction; the Supreme Court must not send our nation back into some of the darkest moments in our history, but instead lead our nation to a fair and just future.

Affirmative Action Affirmative action is necessary, affirmative action is right, and affirmative action must be preserved. I supported the Supreme Court's decision allowing colleges and universities to use race and ethnicity as an admission factor. In Congress, I joined with 110 representatives to file a friend of the court brief in defense of the University of Michigan's affirmative

133

A study of the best means by which to make reparations for slavery Immediate statehood for the District of Columbia Abolition of the racist death penalty An end to the racist "War on Drugs" Tougher gun control laws Creation of affordable housing and a crackdown on predatory lending Protection of workers' rights Universal health coverage Investment in education Crime Our nation's police should be fully capable of protecting neighborhoods from crime and drugs while respecting the rights of residents and communities. I support strengthening civilian review boards, greater community policing, and an end to the drug war that has poisoned relations between cops and neighborhoods in too many cities. I also support legislation introduced by my colleague Rep. John Conyers to deny federal funds to police departments that continue to practice racial profiling. Affirmative Action Affirmative action is right, it is necessary, and it must be preserved. I supported the Supreme Court's decision allowing colleges and universities to use race and ethnicity as an admission factor. In Congress, I joined with 110 representatives to file a friend of the court brief in defense of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies. And I continue the fight for diversity and civil rights. Until America is truly a level playing field, affirmative action will be essential to achieving those goals. African American Issues I grew up in the inner city of Cleveland, where my family was often the only Caucasian family in the neighborhood. People of color have been my friends and allies my entire life. My own views reflect my concern with racial justice. In summary, I support: Drug War A safe, free, and just America is undermined, not bolstered, by the costly and ineffective War on Drugs. This misguided policy -- which emphasizes criminalization over treatment -has led to increased violent crime, misdirected resources of law enforcement and restricted Constitutional liberties. Despite billions spent yearly on the drug war, addiction is up. Our country must rethink a 134

policy that produces many casualties, but benefits only the prison-industrial complex. Nonviolent drug offenders often receive Draconian sentences, tearing apart families. Racial bias in the enforcement of drug laws is pervasive. According to a Human Rights Watch report based on FBI statistics, blacks were arrested on drug charges at nearly five times the rate of whites. Drug use is consistent across racial and socioeconomic lines -- yet in the state of New York, for example, 94% of incarcerated drug offenders are Latino or African-American, mostly from poor communities. Countries in Europe and elsewhere are turning away from failed policies. They are treating addiction as a medical problem and are seeing significant reductions in crime and violence -with fewer young people becoming involved with addictive drugs in the first place. In our country, due to misplaced priorities and resources, only one bed exists for every ten people who apply for drug treatment. Addiction is a medical and moral problem that should be treated by professionals, not dumped on the criminal justice system. Aid to Africa It is an outrage that President Bush is proposing to cut core funding for overseas humanitarian aid, while millions in Africa and worldwide face the threat of hunger and poverty. The United States should fully fund efforts to improve the lives of the world's poor by dramatically increasing our allocations to international relief organizations such as the UN World Food Program, whose work saves countless lives in over 80 countries through school feeding projects, nutrition programs for HIV/AIDS sufferers, refugee food relief and many other vital tasks. But aid is not enough. Impoverished countries are being ravaged by debt payments to global institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. $2.5 billion is transferred every year from Sub-Saharan Africa to foreign bankers and creditors, while 40% of its population experiences some form

of malnutrition. We should push for the immediate cancellation of all bilateral debts of poor countries as well as cancellation of debts to the IMF and World Bank. In addition, the economic policies dictated to poor countries by the IMF and the World Bank -- so-called "structural adjustment programs" -- have devastated Third World economies. Last year's food crisis in Malawi, where as many as several thousand died of hunger, followed IMF-mandated cutbacks in agricultural aid to small farmers and food subsidies for families. We must end this cruel betrayal of the world's hungry by working to end structural adjustment. Voting Rights Our election system is in need of serious reform. Too many Americans, especially African-Americans, have been intimidated, excluded, and shut out from our democracy. I support measures such as Election Day as a holiday; election-day voter registration; enhanced voting rights enforcement; an end to the racially-biased disenfranchisement of felons who have served their time; and full Congressional representation for residents of the District of Columbia. In addition, we need comprehensive campaign finance reform and Clean Money public financing of the public's elections, ample free television time for candidates, and the breakup of the media monopolies that restrict political debate.

135

3. Trust Funds 4. Economic Development 5. Gaming 6. Energy Development 7. Housing 8. Indian Health Service Funding 9. Education 10. Homeland Security 11. Crime Rates on Indian Land 12. Diabetes

1. Sovereignty Many people in this country have forgotten that Native Americans constitute this country's First Americans, and their tribes our First Nations. We all need to remember that Indian tribes are sovereign nations and treaties between the tribes and the federal government are treaties between sovereign equals. First and foremost, we must honor our treaties with our First Nations. The current administration should offer all First Nations an official apology for the past injustices of the United States of America toward native peoples. We cannot work together now and in the future until we reconcile the past. This healing needs to take place. Native Americans Comprehensive American Indian Policy American Indians and Hawaiian and Alaskan Natives 1. Sovereignty 2. Government to Government Relations Over time, Congress and the Supreme Court have eroded the sovereignty of tribes as nations. I look to Indian leaders to help me better understand these issues and help me develop appropriate remedies that will allow tribes to more fully protect tribal lands and tribal members from erosion of the powers of tribal courts. Search and seizure by states on Indian lands without tribal court approval, and 136

violence against Indian women by non-Indians are two examples, out of many, that deserve attention and reforms. We need executive orders, congressional acts, and court appointments to erode the encroaching authority of states and the federal government over tribal sovereignty. It is clear to me that since the treaty times, and even since the 1970's when tribal government and sovereignty was restored, the federal government is on a conscious path toward the assimilation of Indian nations into the dominant society of the colonists. I do not support this policy of incremental destruction of Indian tribes in our country. In that spirit, I would streamline the recognition process for deserving tribes still seeking federal recognition. [back to top] 2. Government-to-Government Relations We need to strengthen the ability of federal agencies to consult with tribal governments, as sovereign nations, whenever rule-making or other agency activities affect or are of interest to tribes. The President should consult with Indian leaders regularly to ensure that the administration is meeting the needs of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Hawaiian Natives. He should honor the Clinton-era Executive Order requiring federal agencies to develop Indian consultation policies and maintain government-togovernment relationships with tribes. [back to top] 3. Trust Funds The trust fund is only as good as the people managing it. I would overhaul the system to ensure accountability now and in the future. Settlement of the Cobell vs Norton case needs to be expedited in a manner that brings equity and justice to all Indian people that have been wronged in the past by fraudulent accounting on all levels of the bureaucracy. [back to top] 4. Economic Development I understand that it is difficult to start a business without first having the right amount of capital on hand to succeed. This is why economic development is slow for Indian

nations. Banks are not inclined to loan money to tribes or private corporations for enterprises on Indian lands. The federal government must take the initiative to ensure that worthy projects will be funded, either by grants or loans, at levels that will reasonably assure success. Assistance with economic development, leading to sustainable self-sufficiency of tribes, must be the paramount feature of our federal Indian policy. The President should work with tribal leaders, through consultation, to identify mechanisms to be put into effect that assist tribes with their economic goals. We can work together to ensure that this becomes reality. [back to top] 5. Gaming I see the current process of compacts as infringing on tribal governments, which are sovereign governments. States have too much control over the process and governance of casinos. The President should work with tribal leaders to implement an Indian gaming development process that acknowledges the sovereignty of tribal governments, while also respecting the gambling laws of states. [back to top] 6. Energy Development The Federal government has failed in its responsibilities as a guardian of Indian resources and as a treaty partner; the mismanagement of Indian mineral rights is appalling. The mineral resources owned by tribes and tribal members are theirs to use as they deem necessary. By protecting tribal sovereignty and the trust fund, tribal governments will be able to use these resources free from the injustices of the past. I would like to emphasize, however, the legacy of health and environmental problems from the extraction and production of uranium and fossil fuels. I am not in favor of building more nuclear power plants and more coal fired power plants at this time. I believe that we should launch a national program to maximize energy conservation and renewable energy systems to eliminate the need for these 137

polluting facilities that harm the health of local people and the environment, and contribute to global warming. The U.S. must ratify the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Uranium, oil and coal reserves should be held in reserve for times of real need; this is not the time. [back to top] 7. Housing Tribal housing authorities require better funding levels. Tribal people could receive training for home repairs and receive funding for helping others. The current system is too slow, under funded and under staffed. The President should work with tribal leaders to ensure adequate housing for all, with a program that will instill pride in home ownership. [back to top] 8. Indian Health Service Funding I understand that current data proves that funding per Indian in the federal health care system is lower than the funding per patient expenditures for federal prisoners; in fact, it is half the amount. This injustice must be solved by increasing the level of funding above the current substandard level to match the highest levels in the system. However, infrastructure and manpower needs of the Indian Health Service needs to be met in order to ensure better quality and faster service for Indian patients. Funding levels must also ensure that Indian Health Clinics are able to conduct research on health trends of their patients and make regular reports to the tribes they serve. Under my plan for a universal, single-payer system of health insurance for all, Native Americans would receive the same highquality health care as all Americans. Additionally, I would expect to see a significant increase in the number of Native Americans in the health care field, as my plan for free education, from pre-K through college, will make it possible for more Native Americans to become physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals. [back to top] 9. Education We must provide for free education to all, from pre-kindergarten through college. We

must strengthen funding and capacity of tribal colleges and increase the numbers of tribal colleges, elementary schools, and secondary schools serving tribes and Indian populations. We should also encourage the training of more Indian teachers, through an economic incentives program. Education is the only solution proven to reduce poverty levels. This conclusion is backed by thousands of national studies. Given the opportunity, virtually all peoples embrace education and training as a proven path out of poverty. [back to top] 10. Homeland Security Certainly in the border areas, tribes need to be an integral part of our homeland security program. Tribal staff and governments should have equal opportunity to training and participation within the system, and play an important role in our security. I think, however, that homeland security is more than just a border issue. All tribes should be full participants in our homeland security system. Tribes should be funded to train and participate as federal partners for the protection of all Americans. We must ensure that tribes are adequately funded and trained to serve our nation in this capacity. [back to top] 11. Crime Rates on Indian Land Certainly, funding for tribal law enforcement staff and infrastructure is a very important element of this problem. We must ensure that funding is adequate to the needs of tribes. On the other hand, this crime rate is, all but certainly, symptomatic of poverty, high unemployment, low education levels, and despair. The administration I should work with tribes to increase economic development opportunities on Indian lands and increase funding for education programs. I have also sponsored a bill that will create, for the first time in our country, a Department of Peace. This department will not only deal with foreign policy initiatives, but will work to solve the issues of violence in our streets, reservations, and homes. Economic 138

opportunity, education, and family counseling services, along with law enforcement, will help solve these problems, in addition to encouraging local approaches, including tribal courts and traditional processes. [back to top] 12. Diabetes It is my understanding that this disease in Indian people may be due, in part at least, to eating foods of the dominant non-Native culture, rather than eating traditional native foods. European grains may be a common cause for this disease in our native populations. The high carbohydrate foods of the dominant culture may have a more severe impact on native peoples. I also understand that traditional cultural practices, including subsistence hunting, gathering, and agriculture, are difficult and nearly impossible for many on their reservations, because of their locations. In addition, environmental pollutants threaten the areas remaining to tribes for the practice of their culture. We must work to clean up polluted tribal land and strengthen pollution standards throughout the country. We should ensure that federal agencies assist tribes with protection of their natural resources. I support hunting and fishing rights on tribal lands and traditional places for these practices. We should ensure that funding programs are in place to help establish Indian-owned farmers' markets, distributing foods grown by Indians. Beyond this, we need educational programs and increased funding to the Indian Health Service for the treatment of this and related diseases.

freedom, it has been encroaching on our civil liberties and curtailing our rights here at home. The federal government can and must protect Americans from the threat of terrorism without eroding our constitutional liberties. Today, Arab Americans are especially vulnerable to abuses of government power. Yet ultimately all Americans are put at risk when our rights come under attack. We must work to preserve our constitutional rights and roll back the most egregious infringements of our individual freedoms. I support: Regular Congressional oversight of major law enforcement programs initiated since 9/11, to determine effectiveness in law enforcement use and impact on civil liberties. Congress abdicated its responsibilities by hurriedly rubber-stamping the Patriot Act with little scrutiny and almost no debate. I have fought in Congress to ensure that civil liberties are not being trampled, and I will continue that fight and push for regular and formal legislative oversight. Sunset provisions on domestic intelligence gathering authorized by the Patriot Act. Many provisions of the Patriot Act relating to domestic surveillance had been previously requested by law enforcement and repeatedly rejected by Congress. Congress must ensure that unconstitutional expansions of federal surveillance power do not become permanent features of our legal landscape. Full Congressional hearings on the proposed Patriot II law. This proposal would drastically scale back judicial oversight of law enforcement and opens the way for serious potential abuses of federal power. Peaceful political and religious activity must not be subjected to unlawful government spying. Reports from the Inspector General of the Justice Department on the impact of antiterrorism legislation on U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. Elimination of the use of secret detention for immigrants and citizens. Such detentions are unconstitutional and represent blight on our law enforcement system. Elimination of the use of secret evidence in 139

Arab Americans Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties The freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are among our most precious legacies as Americans. Yet, even as the Bush administration wraps itself in the rhetoric of

cases involving immigrants and citizens. Restoration of full judicial oversight of government surveillance programs targeting U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. Elimination of all forms of discriminatory police profiling. Elimination of requirements for institutions such as libraries and universities to provide information to the federal government in noncriminal investigations without the consent of the affected party. Immigration Rights The United States has always been a nation of immigrants; they enrich our culture and enliven our heritage. New residents living lawfully in the United States must not be made scapegoats. We must work to ensure that America will do right by our newcomers. I support: Restoring the 245(i) visa exemption that allows legal immigrants to renew their current visa without departing from the U.S. Annual reports to Congress on the impact of visa policies on tourism, international students, and visitors for business, tourism, and medical treatment by region and sector. Allocating sufficient resources to consular offices overseas and relevant federal agencies to fully implement visa screening, registration, and review procedures in a timely manner. Eliminating discriminatory exclusion policies targeting individuals of Middle Eastern descent. Allocating sufficient resources to federal agencies to reduce the citizenship naturalization backlog that is now more than two years' duration. Devoting needed resources to the "refugee and asylum" programs to eliminate backlogs, expedite security clearances, and reunite families. U.S. Interests in the Middle East The United States must work closely with the Arab countries as well as Israel to promote peace, strengthen ties, and achieve greater freedom and human rights for all. Perpetual war and poisonous rhetoric will not help us

erase the bitterness that still plagues relations with the countries of the region. We must establish a Department of Peace to help settle conflicts and advance foreign policies that aim to promote cooperation, not create enemies. I support: The vision of two free and fully independent states, Israel and Palestine, living peacefully side by side and enjoying friendly relations with the other countries of the region. So far, the Bush administration has failed to alleviate doubts over how sincerely it remains committed to this vision. We must work tirelessly to ensure that Israelis and Palestinians live free from the threat of violence and to bring an end to the occupation of 1967. Such an effort is not only in the interests of the people of region but is also in the interests of the American people. Direct negotiation by Israelis and Palestinians to determine the final statues of Jerusalem. In order to achieve peace in the region, the final status of Jerusalem must be negotiated peacefully between the two parties. Both sides must refrain from unilateral actions that would prejudice the outcome of those negotiations. Efforts to make the Middle East a region free of weapons of mass destruction. The George H.W. Bush administration supported that goal when it voted for UN Security Council resolution 687 in 1991. Yet little progress has been made in the intervening years. All countries of the region should work with the United States, the UN and its partners towards eliminating these weapons from the region. Close work between the U.S. and the United Nations and other international organizations to resolve the humanitarian and development challenges in Iraq and Palestine. Working with activists and civic organizations fighting for human rights, democracy, and greater freedom in the Middle East. We must challenge oppressive governments and stand up for peaceful progressive change in the region. Continued opposition to the expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied territories. Strengthening bilateral relations with all governments in the Middle East, while 140

supporting the efforts of those in the region who are striving to achieve democracy, human rights, and greater freedom for their citizens.

American foreign policy towards Ireland represents an opportunity to positively impact the international peace process, and I support the highest level of involvement in the negotiations of the Irish Peace Process. We should consider all options for the most effective placement of this responsibility to determine whether it belongs in the hands of the National Security Council or elsewhere within the structure of the U.S. government. I recommend sending a special envoy of representatives to Ireland as needed to ensure the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which I believe represents a valuable opportunity for peace after many years of violent conflict. I strongly support efforts to increase human rights and to punish those individuals and governments that systematically violate these rights. The work of independent organizations such as Human Rights Watch contributes greatly to the international community's understanding of these violations, which occur all too frequently. We must continue efforts to identify and punish offenders wherever possible. I am aware that the utilization of federal agencies and their employees to enforce statutes and regulations is a key issue facing Irish Americans today. The U.S. government has already designated federal agencies to ensure that recipients of U.S. funds are in compliance with fair employment standards and that officers trained by the U.S. military have not committed human rights violations. I continue to support these agencies in their efforts to enforce the laws of the U.S. Finally, it would be my honor and pleasure to visit Ireland as part of a diplomatic envoy. This is the best and most effective way to truly understand the issues and concerns of Irish Americans so as to better meet their needs in the United States. To the millions of Irish Americans seeking lasting peace for their native region, I say, you have my full support. 141

Irish-Americans Achieving peace and justice in Ireland is an important step towards the resolution of the regional conflicts which persist in today's world community. I stand in full support of the Irish peace process and of their returned devolution.

belief that no person should be discriminated against for any reason, anytime. America's diversity is its strength, not a weakness, and it is absolutely critical that we nurture programs such as affirmative action that enhance opportunities for those who have been historically left behind. To do nothing, to abolish affirmative action, is to use de jure means to fall back into the de facto segregation of the past, which made a mockery of democracy, equality, liberty, and justice -- the very values on which this nation was founded. In our cities, indices of black-white segregation suggest extreme separation of minorities far beyond the levels reported in other multi-racial societies, such as Brazil, Canada, Australia, and the UK. In fact, the only other nation where minority segregation indices routinely exceed those reported in the United States was the Union of South Africa under apartheid. Segregation in our cities leads to dire consequences in the educational environment for minorities. High-minority school districts receive far less in state and local educational funding than districts that are predominantly white. It is time to face the fact that institutional racism still exists and must be treated with education -- and legal enforcement. Police departments that consistently engage in racial profiling must be subject to federal penalties. "Driving while black" is an all too common "crime" in America. The President should sign an executive order ending all forms of racial profiling. A recent survey indicates that 75% of all African Americans and other ethnic minorities serving in the U.S. military have experienced racially offensive behavior while in uniform. The first key to overcoming institutional racism in the military is to truly integrate the armed forces -- meaning, of course, the officer corps. This can only be done with an even more vigorous affirmative action program. It must be stated that the military has made far greater strides than much of America. 142

Racial Discrimination

I proudly endorse a comprehensive nondiscrimination policy, including nondiscrimination based on race. It is my strict

We need federal legislation to prosecute hate crimes, which tend to be the most violent form of crime in American society. The signing of federal hate crime legislation will send a message of unity through our nation. America will not tolerate any citizen's human rights being denied. Also See: Drug War Death Penalty Affirmative Action Arab Americans Honoring the Life and Accomplishments of Coretta Scott King In Honor and Recognition of Civil Rights Activist Rosa Parks

condition of compassion and inherent respect. Through elevating the cause of every creature, we elevate our own humanity. We lift up the cause of humanity by reaching out and connecting with all things living. It is our sense of interconnection with all living things that brings us to respect the rights of animals; to understand that animals are not to be "lower than"; that animals should not have less of a claim to existence, less of a claim to the possibility of survival, less of a claim to dignity. Every one of us knows a story of animal cruelty; every one of us knows how in one way or another official policies have sanctioned cruelty to animals. I am working to put compassion into action in our policies with respect to animals in this country and to have America set a higher standard, not only for this country, but for the world; to make sure that all of God's creatures, that all animals are given a chance to have dignity in our society and are given a chance to experience the appreciation they should have as living beings. I would include advocacy of animal rights in the Department of Peace, which I have already proposed to Congress. This cabinet-level department would work with, and offer an alternative to, the Defense Department. There have been numerous studies that have suggested a link between animal cruelty and domestic violence. The Department of Peace would not only seek to resolve international conflicts with nonviolent means, but also seek to instill a peaceful paradigm into the hearts of all the people of the world, so that one day war will be an archaic relic of a time that has passed.

Animal Rights As a necessary component of the living world, we must extend compassion to one another and to every living thing. Our mission as human beings can truly be to elevate this world from a condition of suffering and cruelty to the planet's creatures, and towards a

My farm policy favors independent and family-owned farms. I support a national ban on packer ownership of livestock, and numerous new incentives for farmers to convert to sustainable and organic farming and ranching techniques. The vision of the meat that we consume coming from happy and healthy free-range animals can become more of a reality, as opposed to the inhumane 143

conditions that the often mutated chickens and cows and pigs are forced to sustain in our current system. As a member of Congress, I have cosponsored every piece of major animal protection legislation. In addition, I hold the distinction of being the only vegan in Congress. I made this lifestyle change many years ago, because I consider all life on our Earth to be sacred. As a vegan, I choose not to eat any animals or animal products. I strive to live my life in accordance with my convictions, and any other choice of diet would defy my ideals and, in my judgment, be hypocritical.

General has been handed unfettered power to wiretap, search, jail, and invade our most sacred right to privacy. The government must not be allowed, without probable cause or warrant, to snoop on our communications, medical records, library records, and student records. The recent disclosures of the President's refusal to follow the FISA law should worry all Americans concerned with the dangers posed by a too-powerful executive. We elect Presidents, not kings, and no president is above a clearly written law expressly curbing his powers. Far more worrisome, however, is the lap dog Congress that we currently have -- something even Republican Congress people are sheepishly admitting. For example, only eight members of Congress have been told ANYTHING about the FISA violations and they are sworn to secrecy. However, when they are asked if they have been told much, several have acknowledged that they have been pretty much left in the dark. That is not a Republic in action. No people should be frightened into giving up their precious rights. Recent refusals by the Attorney General to disclose whether similar programs are being used against purely domestic communications should send a chill down all our spines. The time to stop the erosion of our rights is now. All elected officials want terrorists to be listened to and caught. Does anyone seriously believe that terrorists feel they can talk freely on the phone? The misleading and duplicitous response that the government can't talk about its secret programs even in secret sessions of Congress is, frankly, ludicrous.

Civil Liberties April 2006 The "Patriot Act" is not what American patriots have fought and died for. To allow our Bill of Rights to be nullified without judicial supervision invites tyranny. The Attorney

144

help in Congress. I ran in the DC primary and stand in unwavering support of DC statehood. The majority of Americans may not be aware that the citizens of Washington DC are currently disenfranchised and largely ignored, because they lack statehood. There are nearly 600,000 taxpaying citizens in the District of Columbia who have no federal voting representation in Congress. Despite the fact that DC residents have fought and died in every war since the War for Independence, and including the recent "Operation Iraqi Freedom," they do not return home to a democratic society with the same rights and privileges as all other Americans who served their country. We need to fully restore DC to financial health. We must provide for increased infrastructure, jobs, education, and health care spending. I have a broad-based plan to promote this. DC residents pay enough annually in federal taxes to support a state. In fact, they pay more federal taxes than several states and have a per capita tax payment that is above the national average. Because it belongs to the federal government, approximately 50% of DC's real estate is exempt from taxation. Over half of all sales in DC are to the federal government or other tax-exempt organizations, and this produces no revenue to the DC government. It is time DC residents had statehood and the same rights as all Americans. This can be achieved specifically through the following steps: Create local authority within the District over our three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. Eliminate all federal government committees and/or subcommittees that have oversight or appropriation power over the DC government. Provide complete and equal voting representation in the United States Congress. Achieve equality through statehood. As Sam Smith wrote in his article, The Case for DC Statehood, "Our right is entire 145

DC Statehood As someone who works in the District of Columbia, and as a member of the Government Reform Committee, I have a close relationship to the District and a special obligation to the people of the District. I've been there whenever the District has needed

membership in the United State of America as the 51st state. Let us seek nothing less."

As an example of commitment to these principles, in 2004 I delayed campaigning to stay at my post on Capitol Hill, fighting Bush's proposal to block-grant Medicaid -- a proposal that would have reduced support for the community-based services on which many Americans with disabilities depend. I have strongly supported such services in my Ohio district, as when I helped save the Tremont Neighborhood Opportunity Center in Cleveland from closure. In Congress, I have fought for full financing of the shamefully under-funded Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires the federal government to provide 40% of the extra cost of educating students with special needs. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), I co-sponsored several bills with this objective. Most recently in the 108th Congress, I was an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2107, the Keep Our Pact Act, which required the full financing of the IDEA. I have supported the Rehabilitation Act, which helps provide job training for people with disabilities; the Blind Empowerment Act of 2001, which increases disability insurance for blind individuals; and the National Health Insurance Act, which would provide affordable, comprehensive health care to all. We need equal-rights oriented judges who interpret the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) broadly. We need an amendment to the ADA to ensure the coverage that was originally intended prior to restrictive rulings by Republican-appointed judges. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission needs increased resources, as do the civil rights divisions in the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services, to enforce the rights of people with disabilities.

Disability Rights I am a longtime supporter of people with disabilities and their struggle for equal rights. I believe all of our people should be able to participate in all avenues of American life.

I support community-based services, home care, and adequate resources for families with children with severe disabilities. My plan for universal health coverage will make it possible for these goals to become a reality (see Universal Health Care). 146

I believe our long-term service system must change. Recently, I became a co-sponsor of MiCASSA, the Medicaid Community-based Services and Supports Act of 2001, to give people real choice in long-term care options. This act aims to reform Medicaid and end the institutional bias, while allowing individuals who are eligible for Nursing Facility Services or Intermediate Care Facility Services for the Mentally Retarded Services (ICF-MR) the opportunity to choose MiCASSA as an alternative. The money will follow the individual.

forces, and study at universities, the Bush administration has waged an assault on immigrant's rights. Undocumented workers have been left in legal limbo, while local police forces have been pressured against their will to hunt down undocumented workers, which jeopardizes their relationships with immigrant communities. Thousands of immigrants have been detained in secret, denied due process, and deported. In the economic sphere, undocumented workers have become convenient scapegoats. Yet the reality, as shown in study after study, is that they pay more in taxes than they receive in government services. Welcoming immigrants to our shores is one of our country's vital traditions -- the heart and soul of the American dream. In Congress, I have co-sponsored a number of bills to help immigrants, including the Family Unity Legalization Act, which allows those who have been in the country for over five years to legalize their status. Among other legislation in this area, I have co-sponsored a bill supportive of refugees from Columbia and Peru and a bill helping nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti to become permanent residents. We need to honor this welcoming legacy by legalizing the status of hard-working, taxpaying undocumented workers in the U.S. It would clear out the backlog in the naturalization process so that those who are eligible to become citizens can do so without endless delays. It would offer immigrants a clear road map to citizenship, so that they can become fully participating members of our communities. And it would work with our partners in Mexico to normalize the flow of immigrants by forging an agreement on migration.

Immigrants' Rights Our country is a nation of immigrants. They have enriched our heritage and enlivened our culture. As millions of newcomers continue to work hard, raise families, serve in our armed

I am a strong supporter of the USA Family Act (HR 440). It offers immigrants a clear road map to legal status in the United States. Among other changes, it grants legal permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for five or more years. 147

It offers conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding immigrants living in the United States for less than five years. And it revokes current laws that bar certain people who live abroad from reentering the U.S. for a period of three to 10 years. We cannot continue with a system in which millions of workers and their families live in fear and are subject to economic exploitation. There is no place in our country for secondclass status. It is time to restore respect for the rights and contributions of immigrants. Questions and Answers: In general, do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to allow higher education institutions to use race and ethnicity as a decision factor in student admissions? "Yes. Affirmative action is right, it is necessary, and it must be preserved. I supported the Supreme Court's decision allowing colleges and universities to use race and ethnicity as an admission factor. In Congress, I joined with 110 representatives to file a friend of the court brief in defense of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies. And I continue to fight for diversity and civil rights. Until America is truly a level playing field, affirmative action will be essential to achieving those goals." Would you favor the use of the National Guard or other military personnel to assist in securing U.S. borders? "I oppose giving the Department of Defense control over border security. In our democracy, it is critical that we preserve the distinction between our armed forces and domestic law enforcement. Also, I am concerned about the threat of vigilantes intimidating or attacking individuals at the border. Border security is a job for state and local authorities, not soldiers or vigilantes." Members of Congress in both parties have introduced proposals to reframe our nation's

immigration laws. These proposals include efforts to legalize some undocumented workers in the United States and to institute temporary worker programs. Are there programs you specifically favor or oppose? "I am a strong supporter of the USA Family Act (HR 440), which was recently introduced by my colleague Rep. Luis Gutierrez, chair of the Hispanic Caucus's immigration task force. The goal of the bill is simple: It offers immigrants a clear road map to legal status in the United States. It grants legal permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for five or more years. It offers conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding immigrants living in the United States for less than five years. In addition, the bill revokes current laws that bar certain people who live abroad from reentering the U.S. for a period of three to 10 years, as well as portions of the law that place immigrants at risk of deportation for having committed minor, nonviolent offenses in the past. I support this bill because I believe we cannot continue with a system in which millions of workers and their families live in fear and are subject to economic exploitation. There is no place in our country for secondclass status." Do you feel bilingual education is a pedagogy that should be used more broadly or less extensively in the public school system? "I believe bilingual education is a valuable tool to help immigrants and other students with limited English proficiency. I support full federal funding of state and local bilingual education programs." Do you believe children of undocumented immigrants should be allowed to pay in-state tuition to attend college in states where they have lived for several years and should have the opportunity to obtain immigration relief? "Yes. Obtaining high-quality education is a top goal for many of America's newcomers 148

and they should receive all the help they can get. Offering in-state tuition levels for immigrant students is a good first step. But even in-state tuition is unaffordable for many families. The federal government should fully fund efforts to bring down the cost of higher education and expand America's commitment to public education." Do you feel that federal protection related to employment discrimination should be expanded, left as it is, or reduced because it is too cumbersome for employers? "Federal anti-discrimination protection is a critical tool for promoting equality and justice in the workplace. I believe these laws must be preserved and, where they are insufficient, expanded to ensure that people of color have equal opportunities in the job market." Do you believe that the Department of Homeland Security can still do its job of protecting the homeland while protecting the rights of immigrants, Hispanics, and other persons of color? "Absolutely. It's time Congress finally passed the End Racial Profiling Act, which was introduced by my colleague Rep. John Conyers of Michigan. This bill would require all federal, state and local agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, to take steps to end racial profiling, and it would deny federal funds to law enforcement agencies that failed to do so. Unfortunately, the Republicancontrolled congress has repeatedly failed to act on this bill. I continue to fight hard for it. Discrimination and harassment of immigrants and people of color must not be tolerated." Do you support greater enforcement or stricter penalties in regards to current law that punishes employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants? "No. Sanctions on employers of undocumented workers have failed. Our immigration laws have allowed employers to exploit immigrant workers and thus have denied labor rights to all who work. As the

saying goes, an injury to one is an injury to all. I welcome the AFL-CIO's call to end employer penalties and I have joined with advocates for immigrants and people of color in urging that they be eliminated."

149

race, color, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice. There are times, after decades of struggle and perseverance in the name of equal protection, justice, and civil liberty, when a single event becomes a proud and shining moment in the history of everything we stand for and cherish as a nation. In 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extended the precious and powerful right to vote to women. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the principle of "separate but equal" that had denied education opportunities to millions of children because of the color of their skin. Ten years later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended generations of discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Only a year later, Congress enacted and the President signed an historic Voting Rights Act that expanded non-discrimination at the ballot box. On May 17th, 2004, the 50th anniversary of the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education that declared "separate" is not "equal," the people of the state of Massachusetts became a part of another such moment in history when the legally empowered and legally protected right of civil marriage is finally extended to all citizens, regardless of gender. The decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to recognize and uphold this civil right is a victory not just for gay and lesbian citizens who have been denied their civil rights and relegated to second-class status. It is a victory for all Americans who believe, as I do, that the promise of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be upheld for everyone. LGBTQ Rights I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of As welcome as this moment is, it is only one step in the struggle to achieve freedom of choice and equal protection under the law for all citizens across the nation. 150

In Massachusetts, the law will now extend legal benefits, protections, and obligations of civil marriage to same-sex couples: family leave, health care and visitation, retirement and survivor benefits, property rights, and scores of others. The laws of Massachusetts will now apply equally to all loving and committed partners who enter into a civil marriage. What those laws do not do, and what they cannot do, is extend the comparable federal protections and rights to those same partners. That is the next step -- a giant step that many of the political "leaders" in our nation have not shown the courage to take. I firmly believe that this nation must take a new direction: away from war and toward peace; away from convoluted schemes that promise expanded health care for all Americans but deliver only a fraction; away from trade policies that rob our nation of jobs; away from fear-inspired laws that deny basic Constitutional rights and lead to oppression and abuse. And, importantly, away from policies that discriminate against targeted groups of citizens because their lifestyles are "different." Regrettably, the America of which I dream and to which I and the many who stand with me have committed ourselves, is not the same America that the Republican Administration or the Democratic Party are campaigning to realize. The Republican Administration is promoting a Constitutional Amendment that would deny Americans the rights that the state of Massachusetts has granted. The leadership of the Democratic Party is content to advocate a state-by-state approach to the issue of samesex marriages, cloaking its lack of resolve with the words "civil unions." On this issue, as on every other, the mainstream political leadership of our nation finds political expediency and political popularity preferable to political courage. As the fight to preserve newfound civil liberties in Massachusetts continues, and the effort grows to expand those liberties all

across the United States, the challenges will most certainly become even more daunting. As much as we wish we could, without qualification, celebrate this historic moment in Massachusetts, we cannot, for a moment, believe that the struggle for civil liberties, equal protection, and justice are over. That moment is not yet here. Nor will it be here unless we stand together, ever strong, ever vigilant, and never tiring. Our message must remain strong, and it must be voiced and repeated and echoed in every city, every state, and every chamber where the future of our nation is being decided. I have been taking that message with me all across this great country, as well as to the Platform Committee of the Democratic Party and to the floor of the Democratic Convention in Boston in July of 2004. I ask you now, as someone who has advocated, supported, and defended the equal rights to which you are entitled, to add your voices to mine and become part of a campaign for change that did not end in 2004, nor even in 2006. It will not end until peace, economic and social justice, health care for all Americans, and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and protections are afforded equally to all citizens.

151

voted against it, and I introduced legislation for its repeal. From traveling across America, it's unmistakably clear to me that there is an almost universal rejection of the PATRIOT Act. Just 45 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush rammed the "PATRIOT Act" through Congress with virtually no debate. This law poses an unprecedented threat to Americans' individual freedoms and is a violation of our civil liberties. Many provisions of the act had been long sought after by law enforcement and repeatedly rejected by Congress in the past. Without a warrant or probable cause, the FBI can now search your private medical records or access your library records. Your doctor or local library is forbidden from notifying you when these searches take place. The government may search your home while you are away and in some cases even confiscate your property. Judicial oversight of these measures is virtually nonexistent. These are only a few of the PATRIOT Act's provisions that compromise our civil liberties. I believe the only way to stop these unconstitutional infringements on basic American freedoms is to revoke the exorbitant powers the PATRIOT Act has granted the government. I voted against the PATRIOT Act. I am working to repeal it. Along with 20 other members of Congress, I have introduced the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act, which would repeal several major sections of the law. It would eliminate the PATRIOT Act's subjective search-and-seizure provision, unwarranted incarcerations, and the authority of federal officials to search our private records without probable cause. The act would restore the fundamental right of attorney-client privilege, revoke various Department of Justice secrecy orders, and repeal provisions harmful to the rights of immigrants. In addition, it would restore transparency to Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security 152

Patriot Act It's time for our Party to show some backbone. It's time to stand for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I spoke against it, I

administrative procedures by revoking Freedom of Information Act secrecy orders. Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In eroding our civil liberties, President Bush has taken our freedom while making us no safer, no better protected against terrorism. The "PATRIOT Act" is not what American patriots fought and died for. As Americans, we cannot allow fear and scaremongering to lead us to a place where we abandon our most precious traditions.

Why have a Republican House and Senate never even offered one vote proposing a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? If the issue were truly important to them as anything but a wedge issue, they would have. The truth is that Republicans have hidden from an honest up or down vote on abortion and will never allow one to take place in the Congress. Instead, they will continue fooling well-intentioned voters who feel strongly about abortion that they "feel their pain," when clearly they do not. Even if the Supreme Court were to do the unlikely and return abortion to the states, it would merely mean that the rich could travel to blue states for abortion, while the poor would have less access to terminating their pregnancies. The fact is that most Americans, including myself, are uncomfortable with abortions and feel there are too many of them. At the same time, the vast majority of Americans recognize that there are circumstances in which a woman and her doctor should be allowed to make this most difficult decision without government intervention. To return to the days when woman could self-abort without penalty, but to imprison doctors who would help them, seems senseless, especially recognizing that a new abortion law would likely become known as "The Abortions for the Rich-Only Bill." I have a plan to reduce abortions by encouraging family planning, including abstinence training, combined with a full economic and health care plan that would clearly alleviate the number of abortions. Voters have a choice: Choose Republican rhetoric that will never allow the issue to come to a vote or a real plan to reduce the number of abortions with a program of economic justice. Factually, all the Republican rhetoric and phony issues surrounding abortion have never directly addressed the legality of abortion and have had no or negilible impact on the number of abortions.

Reproductive Rights April 2006

153

African Americans, have been intimidated, excluded, and shut out from our democracy. I support measures such as Election Day as a holiday, election-day voter registration, enhanced voting rights enforcement, an end to the racially biased disenfranchisement of felons who have served their time, and full Congressional representation for residents of the District of Columbia. We cannot continue to punish former felons after they have paid their debt to society. To do so, perpetuates the racism of the Reconstruction. Over a million black males have unjustly been deprived of their right to vote. The national media's collective silence on the intentional purging of a disproportionate number of black voters in Florida in 2000 is living proof that the race card is alive and well in the Republican party. In addition, we need comprehensive campaign finance reform and Clean Money public financing of the public's elections, ample free television time for candidates, and the breakup of the media monopolies that restrict political debate. Other measures I support: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) Comprehensive campaign finance reform and Clean Money public financing of the public's elections Ample free television time for candidates, coupled with the break-up of the media monopolies that restrict political debate Election Day as a holiday Election Day voter registration Enhanced voting rights enforcement An end to the racially-biased disenfranchisement of felons who have served their time Full Congressional representation for residents of the District of Columbia Cross-party endorsement or "fusion" An inclusive debate process that does not exclude credible third-party candidates Expansion of elections, using full (proportional) representation, which assures more accurate and broader representation than 154

Voting Rights Our election system is in need of serious reform. Too many Americans, especially

winner-take-all elections Related Issues: Campaign Reform and IRV Campaign Finance DC Statehood Floor Statements, 109th Congress: Go to Paper Ballots

All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain. It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water to its peoples. There shall be public ownership of drinking water systems, subject to municipal control. Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival. Water shall be protected from commoditization and exempted from all trade agreements. Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal or loan forgiveness. Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights. Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets. Water resources shall be protected from pollution. Our children should be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life.

Water as a Human Right Ten Principles 155

156

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful