Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Honorable Elias Bou Saab, the Mayor of Dhour Shweir and Ain Al Sindyaneh, and welcome him to the City of Cleveland. Born and raised in Dhour Shweir, Mayor Bou Saab earned his Bachelor of Business Administration in Marketing from The American College in London and his Master of Arts in International Relations from Boston University. In 1992, he established and served as the first president of the Lebanese Graduates of Britain. Dedicated to higher education and improving relations between the United States and the Arab world, in 1995 Bou Saab moved to Dubai and founded the American University in Dubai. Today he serves as the executive vice president of the university overseeing the implementation of policies and long-term planning. In 2010, Bou Saab was elected as the Mayor of his hometown of Dhour Shweir and Ain Al Sindyaneh. He is also an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative, co-founder of the Emirates Lebanese Friendship Association and former Member of the Board of Directors of the Young Arab Leaders. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me welcoming Mr. Elias Bou Saab to the City of Cleveland.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Mr. William Arthur Fields, Sr., who lived his life centered around family, community, and hard work. Mr. Fields was born on May 21, 1915 in Columbus, Ohio. He was married to Estelle, for 68 years and had four children, William, Jr., Ronald, Janice and Charles. He was an avid reader, who enjoyed hunting, fishing and golf and shared his love of nature with his family on many fishing trips to Lake Erie. He was a life-long member of Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church. Mr. Fields started a family-owned and operated construction and masonry company, Fields Brothers Masonry. A skilled block and masonry contractor, he used his skills to improve his community whenever he was called upon. Following his first retirement, Mr. Fields became a dispatcher for the City of Columbus, Maintenance Department. In addition, he was a volunteer firefighter for Clinton Township. I offer my condolences to his children, Janice Bosley and Charles (JoAnn) Fields; daughters-in-law, Earlene Fields and Shirley Hawkins; brothers, Charles and Carl (Jean) Fields; sister-in-law, Bettye Randle; 15 grandchildren, 34 great-grandchildren and 13 great-great- grandchildren. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in celebrating the long and prolific life of Mr. William Arthur Fields, Sr.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Father John J. Cregan, who ministered to parishes throughout our community, including Blessed Sacrament, St. Joseph's Church, St. Thomas More and Our Lady of Angels. Father Cregan also served as the Chaplain for the Cleveland Police and Fire, Greater Cleveland Police and Fire, Holy Name Society, Cleveland Office of the FBI, the Greater Cleveland Police Emerald Society, Retired Irish Police Society and the Anchor Club. Collectively, he held these roles for more than forty years. Father Cregan had a long and distinguished history in Cleveland. Born on June 2, 1935, Father Cregan went to St. Vincent de Paul grade school and later graduated from Saint Ignatius High School. After attending St. Meinrad Minor Seminary, Borromeo Seminary, and St. Mary Seminary, Father Cregan was ordained at Saint John Cathedral by Auxiliary Bishop Floyd Begin on May 20, 1961. Father Cregan was especially active with safety organizations such as police officers and firemen. He was an invaluable source of support, kindness and guidance for the women and men who bravely serve in the line of duty. His service led to him being honored with numerous awards, including becoming the 12th inductee of the Cleveland Police Museum Hall of Fame. Father Cregan's joy and strong faith were apparent after listening to any of his sermons. His kind spirit and good nature has brought countless people to his church. His dedication, generosity, and love to his members was like no other. He truly cared for all people. We, as a community, were blessed to have Father Cregan. I offer my condolences to his sisters, Sister M. Theresine, Rita Joyce, and Florence Schwind and his 15 nieces and nephews. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the life of Father John J. Cregan who served his community selflessly with love and talent.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge the gathering of supporters of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Cleveland for the second annual Cleveland Luncheon on Monday May 21, 2012. The luncheon featured remarks by Museum Director Sara Bloomfield, a Cleveland native, and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Judge Mukasey discussed the importance of the Museum's training for judges, ``Law, Justice, and the Holocaust: How the Courts Failed Germany.'' The idea of a U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum began in 1978. On November 1, 1978, President Jimmy Carter established the ``President's Commission on the Holocaust,'' chaired by author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. The commission was charged with, among other things, reporting back on how an appropriate museum could be created in Washington to commemorate the Holocaust which would be funded through contributions by the American people. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum was completed in 1993 on 1.9 acres of land adjacent to the National Mall in Washington donated by the federal government with the $200 million in construction costs paid completely by private donations. To quote Director Bloomfield, the ``Museum presents the Holocaust in a way that challenges people to confront human nature--the entire spectrum, from extraordinary evil that led to the mass murder of Jews to the extraordinary goodness of people who risked their lives, risked the lives of their families to save another human being, and every kind of shade of human behavior in between. And, for me, it says to people, now that you know this about ourselves as a species, what must you do with this? You must do something with this. You must be responsible for our species.'' Mr. Speaker, Director Bloomfield's perspective sums up the practical necessity of peace education, which I fully support and have advocated on this floor and in the corridors of Congress. I am pleased that there is a national grassroots movement to support the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and that the movement has convened for a second year in Cleveland. Please join me in acknowledging the importance of this movement and the support they provide to continuing the peace education conducted on a daily basis at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. This year marks the Diamond Jubilee--the 60th year--of Queen Elizabeth II's reign as Monarch of the United Kingdom. As our closest relation, it's only fitting that we join the United Kingdom in celebrating the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Queen Elizabeth II's coronation as Queen was on June 2, 1953--when she was just 25 years old--following the death of her father, King George IV. Her Majesty is the second-longest-serving Monarch in British history. She has conducted regular meetings with every British Prime Minister since Winston Churchill. She serves as a patron of over 600 charities. Over the last 60 years, she has conducted 261 official visits to 116 different countries. Her Majesty has received eight Presidents of the United States and made five State visits to the U.S. Last year, she became the first British Monarch since 1911 to visit the Republic of Ireland, a significant and historic move for peace and reconciliation. Throughout decades of change, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, has served as a constant and steadfast presence in the United Kingdom and the world. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating and celebrating Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KUCINICH. My amendment would put a moratorium for fiscal year 2013 on any new loan guarantees under what is now known as the section 1703 loan guarantee program. To offset the loss of administrative revenue that would no longer come to the Department of Energy if the amendment passes, the amendment cuts $33 million from administrative costs that will not be necessary if the program is suspended. This program, originated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, offers a guarantee for the loans that finance an energy project. With that kind of guarantee, the risk for the loaning entity is considered lower, which means they can charge a lower interest rate to the people initiating the energy project. In other words, it saves the project money. But it also puts the taxpayers on the hook if the project defaults. Section 1703 projects cover nuclear, coal, and even renewable energy. The closer we look at the guarantees, the less they seem like a worthwhile investment for the American taxpayer. Let me give you an example. Some of the biggest guarantees are for nuclear power. One of the first and biggest loans the Department of Energy is considering is one that is not necessary. That's not my assessment; it's the assessment of Kevin Marsh, the president of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, which is attempting to build a new nuclear power plant. He said on a call to analysts and investors: We're confident in our ability to finance this project without a loan guarantee. This program stands to give him and his project, which could be in the $8 billion to $11 billion range, a preemptive bailout that is not even needed. Here's another example. A loan guarantee that is most likely to be awarded is for a new nuclear plant called Vogtle. That loan guarantee is for $8.3 billion. For those of you who displayed a great deal of concern about Solyndra's loan guarantee, this one is 15 times the size. With a project that big, it makes sense to look closely at the odds of this project going into default, leaving the taxpayers with the price tag. Well, Vogtle already has $913 million in cost overruns, and their SEC filings indicate more overruns can be expected. That, of course, is not at all unusual for a nuclear power plant project. Construction cost overruns are the rule, not the exception. Maybe that's why the CBO had this to say about nuclear loan guarantees: CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high--well above 50 percent. Or maybe they said that because there is another reason to expect nuclear power plants will continue to struggle financially: that reason is the low cost of natural gas that makes it far more attractive than taking multiple risks by going with nuclear power. Dale Klein, a former chairman of the NRC, cautioned that nuclear plants will not move off the blackboard and into construction, not as long as natural gas remains as cheap and plentiful as it is today. Nuclear power is not the only recipient of government largess under the section 1703 loan guarantee. Even if you are a nuclear power plant supporter, there are plenty of other boondoggles that are covered by this program that I don't have time to go into. That's why Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle can get behind this amendment, which is supported by a bipartisan coalition of groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, National Taxpayers Union, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. It is for those who are concerned about wasteful government spending. This program alone will cost the taxpayers over $500 million--not including any defaults the taxpayers may have to cover. This amendment is for those who have concerns about deficit spending. It's for those with free market concerns about an energy technology that is not financially viable even after tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and decades of opportunities to mature to the point where subsidies are not needed. It is for those who are concerned about the effects of these energy technologies on our drinking water, on clean air, on healthy soil, and on climate change. It is for those who have concerns as ratepayers that they'll get stuck holding the bill when an energy project fails and their electricity rates go up. It is for those who found the Solyndra default to be outrageous. There's a little something for everyone with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time. My amendment would put a moratorium for fiscal year 2013 on any new loan guarantees under what is known as the Section 1703 loan guarantee program. To offset the loss of administrative revenue that would no longer come to the Department of Energy if the amendment passes, the amendment cuts $33 million from administrative costs that will not be necessary if the program is suspended. This program, originated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, offers a guarantee for the loans that finance an energy project. With that kind of guarantee, the risk for the loaning entity is considered lower, which means they can charge a lower interest rate to the people initiating the energy project. In other words, it saves the project money. But it also puts taxpayers on the hook if the project defaults. Section 1703 projects cover nuclear, coal, and even renewable energy. The closer we look at the guarantees, the less they seem like a worthwhile investment for the American taxpayer. Let me give you an example. Some of the biggest guarantees are for nuclear power. One of the first and biggest loans the Department of Energy is considering is one that is not necessary. That is not my assessment. That is the assessment of Kevin B. Marsh, the President of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, which is attempting to build a new nuclear power plant. He said on a call to analysts and investors, ``[W]e are confident in our ability to finance this project without loan guarantee . . .'' This program stands to give him and his project, which could be in the 8 11 billion dollar range, a preemptive bailout that is not even needed. Here's another example. A loan guarantee that is most likely to be awarded is for a new nuclear power plant called Vogtle. That loan guarantee is for 8.33 billion dollars. For those of you who displayed a great deal of concern about Solyndra's loan guarantee, this one is 15 times as big. With a project that big, it makes sense to look closely at the odds of this project going into default, leaving you and me with the price tag. Well, Vogtle already has $913 million in cost overruns and their SEC filings indicate more overruns can be expected. That, of course, is not at all unusual for a nuclear power plant project. Construction cost overruns are the rule, not the exception. Maybe that is why the Congressional Budget Office had this to say about nuclear loan guarantees; ``CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high--well above 50 percent.'' Or maybe they said that because there is another reason to expect nuclear power plants will continue to struggle financially; that reason is the low cost of natural gas that makes it far more attractive than taking multiple risks by going with nuclear power. Dale Klein, a former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, cautioned that nuclear plants will not ``move off the blackboard and into construction . . . . Not as long as natural gas remains as cheap and plentiful as it is today.'' Nuclear power is not the only recipient of government largesse under the section 1703 loan guarantee program. Even if you are a nuclear power supporter, there are plenty of other boondoggles covered by this program that I don't have time to go into. That is why Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle can get behind this amendment, which is supported by a bipartisan coalition of groups including Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, National Taxpayers Union, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. It is for those who are concerned about wasteful government spending. This program alone will cost the taxpayers over 500 million dollars--not including any defaults the taxpayers may have to cover. This amendment is for those who have concerns about deficit spending. It is for those with free market concerns about an energy technology that is not financially viable even after tens of billions of dollars of subsidies and decades of opportunities to mature to the point where subsidies are not needed. It is for those who are concerned about the effects of these energy technologies on our drinking water, on clean air, on healthy soil, and on climate change. It is for those who have concerns as ratepayers that they will also get stuck holding the bill when an energy project fails and their electricity rates go up. It is for those who found the Solyndra default to be outrageous. There is a little something for everyone here. I urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich amendment. Potential Questions You are targeting nuclear loan guarantees. This is an anti-nuclear amendment. The Section 1703 loan guarantees will be awarded to a range of energy projects, including some which I wholeheartedly support like renewable energy. I firmly believe that renewables deserve to have aggressive subsidies to help them compete with the fuels of yesterday that have been so heavily subsidized for decades. But I am looking at the big picture here. This program, on balance, is bad policy. It is bad for our energy portfolio, bad for taxpayers, bad for clean air and water, and bad fiscal policy. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voiced concerns over government picking winners and losers. This qualifies. They have expressed concern about government spending. This is a half billion program at a minimum, probably many times that. They have expressed concern about deficit spending. This is it. They have expressed concern that the free market should reign. This program does the opposite. This is an anti-renewable amendment, This is a 32 billion dollar loan guarantee program, of which only between 1.2 billion and 4 billion dollars is dedicated to renewables. The rest goes to unsustainable energy. Still, I don't take the renewable money lightly. I am a major supporter of the solar industry. In fact, I think the rapid and full throated deployment of solar energy should be one of our top priorities in Congress. But I am looking at the big picture here. This program, on balance, is bad policy. It is bad for our energy portfolio, bad for taxpayers, bad for clean air and water, and bad fiscal policy. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voiced concerns over government picking winners and losers. This qualifies. They have expressed concern about government spending. This is a half billion program at a minimum, probably many times that. They have expressed concern about deficit spending. This is it. They have expressed concern that the free market should reign. This program does the opposite. This is a limitation amendment so you will not save a half billion dollars. We will not save the half billion all in one year. But if we hit the pause button on this program to consider it a little more carefully, we won't spend any of that money this year. Nuclear is viable/a good investment/financially sustainable. In reaction to Southern Company's investment in new nuclear reactors in 2010, Moody's downgraded its rating of Southern Company's. The Economist magazine declared in its March 10th issue that nuclear power is ``the dream that failed'': the plants are too costly and uncompetitive with alternatives. How will this amendment work? The CBO determined that budget authority would be increased by this amendment because administrative revenue from the loan guarantee recipients to the Department of Energy would be foregone. CBO estimated that amount to be $33 million. My amendment offsets that cost to the federal government buy cutting administrative expenses dedicated to running the program this amendment would suspend. What kind of energy is covered in the loan guarantees? $18.5 billion for nuclear power plants. $4 billion for uranium enrichment plants. $8 billion for non-nuclear technologies; probably coal. $2 billion for unspecified projects. $1.183--$3.0 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Taxpayers for Commonsense, Action, June 5, 2012. Dear Representative: Together we urge you support the amendment offered by Reps. Kucinich (D OH) and McClintock (R CA) amendment to stop the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program from issuing any new loan guarantees in FY 2013. Created in Title 17 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the DOE Loan Guarantee Program has received increased scrutiny with the recent default of a loan guarantee to the solar start-up company, Solyndra. Taxpayers stand to lose $500 million on the failed solar project and billions more could be lost if the program continues in its current form. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the DOE Inspector General, and many others have been critical of the existing loan guarantee effort. Recently the GAO found that DOE could not even provide comprehensive information on the current loan guarantee applicants and commitments, and a recent review commissioned by the White House found the program was not proactively protecting the taxpayer or providing for a reasonable prospect of repayment. A recent audit of the Loan Guarantee Program by the Office of the Inspector General found that the program, ``could not always readily demonstrate . . . how it resolved or mitigated relevant risks prior to granting loan guarantees.'' This creates serious concern for taxpayers that the financial terms of the loans are not being judiciously decided. Furthermore, loan guarantees provided under Title 17 guarantee 100% of a loan for up to 80% of the project cost-- leaving taxpayers to shoulder far too much of the project risk. Adding insult to injury, the little protection taxpayers did have in the event of project default was undermined in 2009 when DOE weakened the original statute. With hundreds of billions in bailouts already on the shoulders of US taxpayers, the country cannot afford to continue a program that could easily become a black hole for tens of billions in new defaults. We urge you to support the Kucinich-McClintock amendment to stop new loan guarantees from the troubled DOE Loan Guarantee Program! Sincerely, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity, Friends of the Earth, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Gore Vidal called it ``Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.'' The administration's unrestricted use of drones has taken us into undeclared wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and who knows where else, destroying not only alleged militants, but making a direct hit on international law and the U.S. Constitution. Drone strikes are killing militants now identified as males of fighting age. What are the rules? Trust us. What are the legal justifications? Trust us. Haven't 350 civilians been killed, innocents? Trust us, we're told. No transparency, no accountability--until now, no Congress. The Constitution requires Congress to weigh in and demand information and legal justification for drone strikes. That's in my letter to the administration. Drone strikes, absent a constitutional basis, sanctions the wholesale slaughter of innocents. One nation's drones over another nation's airspace is an act of war. With 50 nations exploring the development of drones--a $100 billion business--we cannot permit this Nation to further incite perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers. And I want to thank the chair as well for accepting the amendment, and I rise in support of the amendment. I think that Chairman Rogers' concerns are well stated. I know that the security of this country is something that you're committed to, as am I. This amendment, I think, will help slow down the rush towards war by asking those who are involved in our intelligence gathering to focus on just what a war with Iran will mean. I've been studying this in terms of the effects because we had a discussion a few years ago in Congress about the potential of bunker busters being used, and I looked at that and consulted with medical scientists who told me that a bunker buster would cause radiation to go hundreds, even thousands, of miles not only through Iran, but outside the country and into other countries, as well. It would be a major health catastrophe with a lot of innocent people killed. We have to think of the broad impact here of a potential attack. And I think that it's good that you're including this in the bill.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. The legislation contains damaging cuts to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and to the Legal Services Corporation. It also contains provisions that would further weaken the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the protections that the agency provides to unionized workers. H.R. 5326 contains a nearly $227 million cut to NASA's top-line, putting it at $1.15 billion below its FY2010 funding level. Thousands of private-sector jobs at NASA centers across the country have already been lost as a result of austere budget reductions. The cuts included in this legislation will result in the loss of hundreds more. NASA must be given adequate funding to ensure that the agency can accomplish its assigned missions, to maintain and grow investments in America's global competitiveness in aerospace technologies, and to preserve the United States' world leadership in space exploration. This legislation contains a $20 million cut from FY2012 levels to the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The LSC provides vital legal support to the most vulnerable populations, including veterans, victims of domestic violence, and those who would not otherwise be able to afford legal representation. The cuts included in H.R. 5326 would force the LSC to lay off over 100 staff attorneys at a time when an increasing number of Americans are experiencing poverty. This bill includes an amendment that would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from protecting American workers seeking exercise their right to form collective bargaining units by prohibiting funds from being used by the NLRB to litigate conflicts that arise out of secret ballot union elections. When workers attempt to form a union, they must often rely on the support and expertise of the NLRB. This amendment would take that assistance away. This provision further weakens the nation's only agency dedicated solely to protecting workers' rights in this country. Another amendment to this bill effectively prohibits the Department of Justice from enforcing the most fundamental of civil rights: the right to vote. According to a recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice, in the past year alone, fourteen states have enacted voter identification laws or imposed executive orders about voting or voter registration which have resulted in numerous documented instances of American citizens being denied the right to vote. The Department of Justice's inability to exercise critical oversight of such laws and executive orders will continue to result in the disenfranchisement of racial and ethnic minorities, low-income voters, seniors, and students. H.R. 5326 puts American jobs, basic rights, and our global leadership in the aerospace sector at risk. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. The proposed cuts in this bill directly attack low and moderate-income Americans while protecting an excessive defense budget. More than 40 percent of the cuts in this legislation come from programs that support low-income families. The bill abandons millions of Americans who rely on food assistance programs by making drastic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Free School Lunch and Breakfast program, and Meals on Wheels. The bill slashes funding for the Social Services Block Grant Program, which provides more than 20 million children and seniors services ranging from protection from abuse to transitional housing. Simply put, H.R. 5652 disproportionately cuts assistance targeted to low- and moderate- income families and will only deepen the poverty that they experience and leave more of them hungry. H.R. 5652 cuts the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and restricts any unused funds for deficit reduction. Though initially flawed, my efforts and those of my colleagues to improve HAMP have helped to make it is an essential response to the foreclosure crisis. Rather than completely eliminate it, as H.R. 5652 would do, the program should continue to be revamped to better serve the needs of the American people. This legislation includes provisions to require that all current and future federal workers pay an additional 5 percentage points of their salary toward their federal pensions. This cut in benefits would result in an annuity that is worth approximately 40% less than is the case under existing laws. Federal workers have already endured pay freezes and large programmatic budget cuts. Congress should not be playing politics with the pensions of the thousands of hard-working federal employees that are dedicating their lives to public service. In addition, H.R. 5652 weakens Americans' protections in the event of another financial crisis like the one that started our current recession. The bill prevents the FDIC from intervening to slow the chain reaction of investment bank failures that happens when one of the firms begins to fail, bringing the others with it because they are so closely tied together. The bill also eliminates the ability of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to fine law-breaking financial entities under its jurisdiction. The premise behind this legislation is that we should go back on the agreement that was reached and codified in the Budget Control Act by preserving a massively bloated Defense Department with funding from Americans of greatest need. I strongly oppose this bill.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, if you want peace, you prepare for peace. If you want war, you prepare for war. The NDAA prepares for war against Iran. It calls for pre-positioning planes, bombs, ships, munitions, and for naval maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz. This is not about defense; this is about offense. I was a third-string quarterback on a not-very-good varsity football team, and I knew the difference and know the difference between defense and offense. We're preparing to go on offense against Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons and has no intention or real capability to attack the United States. We're about to make the same disastrous mistake we made against Iraq. This bill does not explicitly authorize war, perhaps, but that's beside the point. It's licensing it. It sets the stage for it in an election year. Wake up, Congress.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Ohio Norsemen as they celebrate Syttende Mai in recognition of Norwegian Constitution Day. Every year May 17th, or Syttende Mai, is observed by people throughout the world in recognition of the National Day of Norway. This date marks the anniversary of the 1814 signing of Norway's Constitution which declared the nation's legal independence and established a government dedicated to the freedom and equality of the Norwegian people. The document was inspired by and embodied the ideas of other early independence movements, marking a major victory for democracy in early 19th century Europe. The holiday is celebrated with a prominent display of the nation's flag as well as a focus on parades featuring the children of the community. Processions are traditionally led by marching bands with some participants dressed in traditional Norwegian attire and often include speeches by young and old alike. The Ohio Norsemen continue the tradition of celebrating their proud Norwegian ancestry by holding celebrations, parades, and potlucks replete with the foods of Norway. The celebrations held by the Ohio Norsemen are in line with a long held American tradition of honoring one's cultural ancestry while highlighting the shared democratic values embodied by the constitutions of these two nations. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the Ohio Norsemen as they celebrate and share the culture and heritage of all our citizens of Norwegian descent.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Margaret Terry, who is retiring after 40 years of dedicated service with the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland. Legal Aid Society of Cleveland is a law firm for low-income individuals and provides services in the areas of consumer rights, domestic violence, education, employment, family law, health, housing, foreclosure, immigration, public benefits, utilities and taxes. It was founded as a nonprofit in 1905. Until 1966, it operated primarily with volunteers. In 1966, staff attorneys were hired; today there are 53 attorneys, 40 staff members and more than 1800 volunteers that serve Cleveland's low-income individuals. Legal Aid's mission is to secure justice and resolve fundamental problems for those who are low income and otherwise vulnerable by providing high quality legal services and working for systemic solutions. Ms. Terry graduated from East Carolina University in 1967 before enrolling in the University of North Carolina Law School. Upon graduating in 1970, she joined Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) and relocated to Cleveland, Ohio. Margaret was placed at the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, working in the Juvenile Unit during her second year of service with VISTA. She was permanently hired by the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland in January 1973. Throughout her career, Ms. Terry handled a wide range of cases. She developed knowledge in a variety of aspects of the law led to her becoming a supervising attorney for Legal Aid's Intake Unit. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Margaret Terry on retiring after 40 years of unparalleled service to the underprivileged who sought her help through the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Judge Robert E. Feighan. Judge Feighan was born on September 4, 1927 to Edward and Catherine Feighan. He was a lifelong resident of Euclid, Ohio and long-time member of the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Holy Cross Church. He attended St. Ignatius High School for three years before enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps. He served in China for a year before returning to graduate from Euclid Shore High School. He went on to John Carroll University and the Cleveland State University's Cleveland Marshall Law School, from which he graduated in 1955. Judge Feighan first gained notoriety as an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor; a position he held from 1961 until 1981. He made headlines for convicting a man who committed a stabbing at Higbee's Department Store. In 1980, Judge Feighan was elected as a Cuyahoga county Common Pleas Court Judge and served until 1988. Uninterested in furthering his career politically, Judge Feighan neglected to run for another term and began a twenty year stint as a visiting judge. He retired in 2008. I offer my condolences to his sister, Patricia Feighan and his many nieces and nephews. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Judge Robert E. Feighan, who dedicated his life to serving the Greater Cleveland community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Fortuna Family, who is being recognized by the Slovenian National Home (the Nash) at their annual Persons of the Year Recognition Dinner. The Fortuna Family began on November 21, 1953 when Joseph and Virginia Fortuna were married. In 1958, the couple opened the Fortuna Funeral Home in Cleveland's Slavic Village. Throughout their fifty-two year marriage, Joseph and Virginia raised four children, Joseph, Mary Ann, John and Jane. The eldest, Joseph, was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1980 and today serves as the Pastor of Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church in Euclid, Ohio. Mary Ann married James Trzaska; the two are licensed funeral directors working at Fortuna Funeral Home. Mary Ann and James also have two children, Sheryl and Anthony, who are both attorneys. John Fortuna works at the family funeral home and has been a licensed funeral director for 33 years. John and his wife, Roberta, have three children, Joseph, Katherine and Kristen. The youngest of the Fortuna children, Jane, married Phil DeMattia and they have raised two children, David and Rebecca. Jane works as a nurse at the Cleveland Clinic. The entire Fortuna Family has had a long connection to the Nash. In addition to Joseph and Virginia's wedding reception being held at the Nash, each of their children's wedding receptions were also hosted at the venue. Father Joseph's ordination was also celebrated at the Nash. Additionally, Joseph and Virginia began a long lasting family tradition of volunteerism at the Nash. Joseph served as President of the Board of Slovenian National Home and was named ``Man of the Year'' multiple times. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating the Fortuna Family as they are honored at the Slovenian National Home's Persons of the Year Recognition Dinner.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the dedication of the bust of Father Alexander Duchnovich in the Rusin Cultural Garden on June 24, 2012. The 254 acre piece of land that constitutes Rockefeller Park was donated to the City of Cleveland by John D. Rockefeller in 1896. The gardens were founded in 1926 to create a memorial area for the diverse ethnic groups that shape the region, and to serve as a space of reflection on peace, cooperation and understanding. The Cultural Gardens are currently a collection of 26 gardens which include African- American, American Indian, British, Chinese, Czech, Estonian, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Polish, and Slovenian gardens, among others. The Rusin Cultural Garden was dedicated in 1939. In May of 1952, the then leader of the Rusin Cultural Garden Association, Reverend Joseph Hanulya, unveiled a bust of Alexander Duchnovich. Alexander Duchnovich, a Greek Catholic priest, wrote the Rusin national anthem. His writings sought to unify Carpatho-Rusins. Unfortunately, the bust disappeared from the garden sometime during the 1970s. Decades later, John Krenisky, a Clevelander and member of the Carpatho-Rusyn Society began fundraising for a replacement bust of Father Duchnovich. On November 21, 2011, after more than ten years of work, a bronze replacement bust designed by Wawrytko Studios & Light Sculpture Works was installed in the Rusin Cultural Garden. A celebration to dedicate the bust and efforts of Mr. Krenisky will include a performance by the Living Traditions Fold Ensemble and banquet at Holy Spirit Church. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognition of the dedication of the bust of Father Alexander Duchnovich in the Rusin Cultural Garden.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mrs. Marilyn Ransom, the North Olmsted Community Council Citizen of the Year for 2012. A resident of North Olmsted, Ohio since 1967, Marilyn has been an active volunteer and activist in her community for more than four decades. Marilyn became involved in volunteerism as a parent by supporting her children's schools and the Girl Scouts. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, she volunteered as a cadet assistant leader, leader and eventually Field Director for the Erie Shores Girl Scout Council as a recruiter for future leaders. Marilyn was also an involved member of the Parent- Teacher Association (PTA). She served as president of the North Olmsted Pre-School PTA and the Early Childhood Education chair for the Ohio PTA. Marilyn dedicated her time to the City of Lorain YMCA, where, in her role as administrator, she was able to keep the facility open for an additional three years. She was an active member of the North Olmsted Christian Science Society, an organizer of Relay for Life teams and a volunteer with North Olmsted Community Council's Scholarship and Parade Committee. Marilyn was instrumental in the creation of the North Olmsted Honest Conversations program and the All Nations Day celebrations. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Mrs. Marilyn Ransom, the 2012 North Olmsted Community Council Citizen of the Year.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4970 because it represents a missed opportunity to renew the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. VAWA exists because women have a human right to live in dignity without fear of criminal activity being perpetrated against them, and local and national law enforcement agencies must have specific tools to protect that right. The bill before this House will undermine the progress our nation has made toward protecting and supporting victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. It runs counter to the intent of VAWA by cutting vital existing protections for battered immigrant women, and excludes important protections for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning, LGBTQ, victims, as well as Native American women. This bill fails to protect some of the most vulnerable victims and leaves them without access to essential services. Three in five Native American women have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. Up to 33 percent of the LGBTQ community are victims of domestic violence. These are not merely statistics; these are people we represent and they need our support. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. This week, Congress is considering two pieces of legislation relating to Iran. The first undermines a diplomatic solution with Iran and lowers the bar for war. The second authorizes a war of choice against Iran and begins military preparations for it. With respect to H. Res. 568, which eliminates the most viable alternative to war, the House is expected to vote on this. I would urge Members to read the resolution because section 6 rejects any U.S. policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons capable Iran. Section 7 urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with a nuclear weapons capability, and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to Iranian enrichment. This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, and would guarantee that talks with Iran currently scheduled for May 23 would fail. Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H. Res. 568 draws the red line for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability--capability--a nebulous and undefined term that would include a civilian nuclear program. Indeed, it's likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to prevent war would provide for uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes under the framework of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons treaty, with strict safeguards and inspections. This language in this bill makes such a negotiated settlement impossible. At the same time, the language lowers the threshold for attacking Iran. Countries with nuclear weapons capability could include many other countries like Japan or Brazil. It is an unrealistic threshold. An associate of former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated: This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war. Now, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, authorizes war against Iran and preparing the military for it. I want to point out how this happens. While H. Res. 568 undermines our diplomatic efforts and lowers the bar for war, H.R. 4310, the NDAA, begins military preparations for war. Members ought to read this. Section 1221 makes military action against Iran a U.S. policy. Section 1222 directs our Armed Forces to prepare for war. Now if you read these sections, you'll see that what I'm saying is true. Now, under subsection A, it says that Iran may soon attain a nuclear weapons capability, a development that would threaten the United States interests, destabilize the region, encourage nuclear proliferation, and further empower and embolden Iran, and on and on. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the U.S. and Israeli intelligence, have all agreed that Iran does not currently have a nuclear bomb, is not building a nuclear weapon, and does not have any plans to do so. Both U.S. and Israeli officials also agree that a strike on Iran would only delay their nuclear program and actually encourage them to pursue nuclear weapons. Sustained diplomatic engagement with Iran is the only way to ensure transparency and to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Rejecting or thwarting any inspections-based deal we are currently seeking with Iran, even when analysts are expressing guarded optimism that a near- term deal is achievable, makes preemptive military action against Iran more likely. Now I just want to cite some provisions right from the bill. In order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which they're not doing, the United States, in cooperation with its allies, must utilize all elements of national power, including diplomacy, robust economic sanctions, and credible--get this--``visible preparations for a military option.'' Under section 1222 where they talk about U.S. military preparedness, it talks of pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions. Under subsection B it talks about maintaining sufficient Naval assets in the region--get this--to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets. Now come on, we're getting ready for war against Iran. Why? I mean, we ought to have a broad debate about this other than just burying this section of a bill in the National Defense Authorization Act. We have plenty of evidence there is no reason to go to war against Iran. We made the mistake in Iraq. Let's not make another one with Iran and set off World War III.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. The NDAA authorizes war against Iran. It calls for a new policy--military action--which puts U.S. aircraft and munitions into position for air-and sea-based missions and the bolstering of U.S. capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets. It authorizes war under the pretext that Iran is threatening to launch a nuclear attack, even though Iran does not have nuclear weapons, does not have nuclear- weapons capability, and is not building a bomb. Beyond the obvious political and military questions here, there is a profound spiritual question: What is happening to the spirit of America that we can embrace war or waging war so casually? What happens to our souls when we authorize an attack on a nuclear facility in another country? What happens to the souls of those who perish when radiation is released from such an attack? The Golden Rule states: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It does not say: Do unto others before they do unto you.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. To start the war in Iraq, Congress was lied to. To start the war in Afghanistan, Congress was misled. To start the war in Libya, Congress was ignored. To start the war in Iran, language has been hidden in the NDAA. The NDAA prepares for war against Iran. It is a declaration of policy, which includes military action. It has a plan to pre-position aircraft, munitions, and fuel for air- and sea-based mission. It has a plan for maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets. This bill prepares for war. Some will say, Well, it doesn't authorize for war. This bill prepares for war. Even if it's amended, it prepares for war. And we need to vote this bill down because it prepares for a war with Iran, which would be devastating to this country's interests.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letters: May 9, 2012. Re Workers and Nuclear Safety Protection in the Department of Energy FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (HR 4310). Hon. Howard McKeon, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC. Hon. Adam Smith, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith: On behalf of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I write to express CWA's strong concern with language included in the House Armed Services Committee's FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As introduced, key sections of Title XXXI of the NDAA will weaken worker and nuclear safety protections for affected employees and community members living near facilities operated by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Section 3115 of the proposed legislation will transfer responsibilities for worker safety and health enforcement at DOE weapons complex sites from the DOE's Office of Health, Safety and Security to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Unfortunately, this will result in worker safety standards being limited to those issued under Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Further, nuclear facility safety would be based upon ensuring the safety and health of workers of NNSA and its contractors- as well as the general public- are as low as practicable (as opposed to achievable) and that adequate protection is provided. This new standard will provide a lower level of protection than that used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for commercial nuclear power plants. As such, this weakening of workplace and worker safety and health protections will result in today's workers becoming the next generation of occupational disease victims. Under the legislation, there would be a drastic shift in the entire safety and health structure to a performance-based oversight system based on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Such performance-based oversight will effectively eliminate the current DOE-specific safety and health standards that provide the means for adequate safety and health protections to be implemented at covered facilities and remove the enforcement mechanisms vital to ensuring worker and public safety. This change represents a dramatic shift towards contractor self- regulation and all but eliminates the government's role in ensuring the protection of workers and members of the public. CWA represents several thousand workers at three of the targeted facilities, i.e., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Our members at these facilities are exposed to a variety of radioactive and toxic materials. Many work operations at these facilities are unique to the DOE resulting in the issuance of specific worker safety orders setting requirements for contractors to follow and providing guidance helping workers to understand proper workplace protections. As noted, the proposed legislation would eliminate such DOE safety orders including important provisions of DOE Order 850 which provides specific worker protections for beryllium exposure. Beryllium is an extremely toxic, life-threatening compound which causes a devastating lung disorder--Chronic Beryllium Disease. Further, the DOE Order provides significantly more protection than the OSHA beryllium standard--including an exposure limit which is ten times less than the OSHA standard. In addition, the harmful legislation would eliminate coverage of DOE Order 851 which requires DOE facilities to have defined, proactive safety and health programs. (Unfortunately, there is no equivalent OSHA rule); eliminate DOE's current authority to order an employer to immediately correct a workplace hazard. (OSHA has limited authority to require such action of employers); and, as provided in the OSHAct, allow employers to delay workplace hazard abatement until lengthy legal procedures/appeals are exhausted. CWA urges you to reject HR 4310 and any other efforts to weaken critical safety and health protections for DOE workers. As a stakeholder in this process, we are prepared to meet with you and/or other members of the committee to further explore and discuss this matter. Sincerely, Shane Larson, Legislative Director, Communications Workers of America.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds. We're talking about the deaths of innocent people here. A recent article published in The Washington Post revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command have been given new authority that allows them to fire upon targets based solely on their so-called ``intelligence signatures,'' patterns of behavior that are detected through signal intercepts, human sources, aerial surveillance, and that indicated a presence of an important operative plot against U.S. interests. But allowing CIA and JSOC to conduct drone strikes without having to know the identity of the person they're targeting is in stark contrast to targeted strikes against suspected terrorists on lists maintained by the CIA and JSOC.