Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, in May 2004 the General Accounting Office released a report entitled ``NRC Needs to More Aggressively and Comprehensively Resolve Issues Related to the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant's Shutdown.'' The report was requested by me, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and Senator Voinovich. The scope of the report was to examine the failures of the NRC related to the recent troubles at the Davis Besse nuclear power plant. The report also examined options to improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to effectively regulate. The report offers five important recommendations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that will greatly improve nuclear reactor safety. I would like to work with the chairman and the ranking member to include language in the conference report that directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to follow the recommendations found in the May 2004 General Accounting Office report.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Donald J. Campbell--admired and respected businessman, community leader, and friend and mentor to countless--upon his retirement following 10 years of exemplary service as the Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field in Cleveland, Ohio. Under his tenure as Director, Mr. Campbell carried out the mission of the NASA Glenn Research Center with great focus, vision, and dedication. He easily garnered the admiration of the entire staff at NASA Glenn. Moreover, Mr. Campbell forged strong partnerships with local and national business leaders, political leaders, and educational institutions, including historically black colleges and universities. These unbreakable bonds that radiate outward from NASA Glenn Research Center inspire countless young adults to follow their dreams of exploring careers in aeronautics, elevate our community's interest and understanding of aeronautics, and serve to support and enhance numerous educational opportunities for students within our community. As the only African American NASA Center Director during his tenure, Mr. Campbell served as an inspiration to numerous young Americans to remain focused on their academic and professional dreams, despite barriers or challenges along the way. Beyond his professional accomplishments, Mr. Campbell continues to take an active role within our community. He is a member of the board of directors of the American Red Cross and is a member of the Kent State University Aeronautics Division Advisory Board. Mr. Campbell has been honored numerous times for his significant career in public service, including the Affirmative Action Award from the Ohio Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday Commission, and the Technical Excellence in Government and Engineer Award from the National Technical Association. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Mr. Donald J. Campbell, as we recognize his significant contribution to NASA Glenn Research center and to our entire community. His work, expertise and dedication has enhanced and fortified the cornerstone of technology within our region. More importantly, it has served to provide tangible educational opportunities and limitless dreams of possibility for the young people of our community. I extend best wishes of peace, health and happiness to Mr. Campbell and his family, today, and throughout all of his future endeavors.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Mr. Edward Licht, Bailiff for the Garfield Heights Municipal Court, as he is being honored as the Regional Court Officer of the Year by the Ohio Bailiff and Court Officers Association. A life-long resident of Cuyahoga County, Mr. Licht served as a Special Agent with the U.S. Treasury Department for twenty-five years. During his tenure as Special Agent, Mr. Licht assisted in the investigation, apprehension and conviction of criminals involved in major gambling, illegal drug and money laundering operations. For his invaluable service, Mr. Licht was honored with several awards, including two Special Achievement awards, One Superior Service award, and an Honorable Mention for Outstanding Community Service award. Since 1999, Mr. Licht has held the position of Baliff with the Garfield Heights Municipal Court. His unwavering integrity, outstanding communication abilities and strong work ethic continues to uplift all facets of this regional court system. Beyond his significant professional contributions, Mr. Licht continues to volunteer his time and talents within our community. He continues to be an active member of the Democratic Party within our community. A long-time member of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, Mr. Licht currently serves as Deputy Treasurer. He has also been very active in the Independence Democratic Party for many years, as a member and an officer. Moreover, Mr. Licht continues to make an impact upon the lives of many as a volunteer probation officer with the Bedford and Garfield Heights court systems. His positive outlook and kind nature, combined with his sense of compassion and wonderful sense of humor, continuously serves to uplift those around him. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Mr. Ed Licht, upon being selected as the Regional Court Officer of the Year. Mr. Licht's professional contribution to our federal and regional justice system--reflected by strong ethics and a high level of integrity, continues to be significant and invaluable. Moreover, Mr. Licht's concern for his community and commitment to the democratic process continues to instill strength and integrity throughout the Democratic Party, and serves to strengthen our entire community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of all veterans of the 10th Congressional District of Ohio--for their service, bravery, and dedication on behalf of our country. Most significantly, we stand in tribute and remembrance of those veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice when they answered the call to duty. The lives of many veterans and their families have been uplifted by the outreach efforts of the Westside Veterans Center--a haven of services, programs and assistance focused on the psychological, medical and economic needs of more than 44,000 veterans who live in the 10th Congressional District of Ohio. The Westside Veterans Center, located in Parma, Ohio, celebrated the opening of the McCafferty outstation in 1998. The McCafferty Outstation remains focused on addressing the needs of Hispanic American and African American veterans who live within our Westside communities. Reflective of their commitment to serve our diversified community, the Westside Vet Center and McCafferty Outstation both employ bilingual staff The services provided by the Westside Veterans Center and the McCafferty Outstation Center is the least we can do on behalf of our veterans--our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, mothers, fathers and grandfathers--thousands of whom have made significant sacrifices and suffered great losses during and after their unwavering service to our country. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, tribute and gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces--let us forever remember their service, sacrifice and sense of duty--yesterday, today, and for generations to come.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, we rise today in honor and remembrance of former Cleveland Mayor Ralph S. Locher--Devoted family man, accomplished attorney, Ohio Supreme Court justice, community leader, and admired friend and mentor. Mr. Locher's term as Mayor of the City of Cleveland during a turbulent period of Cleveland's history, solidified his reputation as a man of honesty, integrity and heart. Mayor Locher was born in Romania to American parents. His family left Europe to return to America, settling in western Ohio. Mayor Locher graduated from Bluffton College in 1936 and graduated from Western University School of Law three years later. He practiced law in Cleveland with Davis & Young until 1945, when he left for Columbus to accept the position of secretary of the Industrial Commission of Ohio. His political career began in 1953, when Mayor Locher was appointed by Cleveland Mayor Anthony Celebrezze as the city law director. Mayor Locher did not seek elected office--it sought him. In 1962, Mayor Celebrezze resigned his post to accept an appointment by President John F. Kennedy, which immediately plunged Mr. Locher into the role as Mayor of Cleveland. Mayor Locher significantly trounced his opponent at the special election, and ran unopposed for a full term the next year. Following his departure from office, Mayor Locher went on to be elected as probate judge in 1972. In 1976, Mayor Locher was elected as an Ohio Supreme Court justice, where he served until retiring from the bench in 1988. Mayor Locher served the bench with honor, integrity and concern, and garnered the admiration and respect of everyone associated with the court. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join us in honor, gratitude and remembrance of Mayor Ralph S. Locher--An outstanding citizen, devoted husband, father, grandfather and greatgrandfather, and an exceptional man and caring leader whose life positively impacted the lives of countless. We extend our deepest condolences to Mayor Locher's beloved wife, Eleanor, his daughter, Virginia Wells, and his grandson, and great-granddaughter. His passing marks a deep loss for so many of us who called him friend. Mayor Locher's flawless legacy of exceptional leadership, judicial integrity and sincere concern for others will be remembered always by the people of Cleveland--and far beyond. Moreover, his kindness, grace, and quiet dignity will always serve as example of a successful leader and more importantly--an exceptional human being.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has pointed out that this resolution is being covered by C-SPAN. I would suggest it ought to be covered by the Science Fiction Network. Let us not be fooled by this bill, which endorses an illegal war which this Nation entered into based on lies and misrepresentation. Lest we forget, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, with al Qaeda's role in 9/11. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong to go in, and it is wrong to stay in. The June 30 sovereignty this resolution discusses is a hoax. What kind of sovereignty will Iraq have with 130,000 U.S. troops present? What kind of sovereignty does Iraq have when the U.S. is now selling Iraqi oil and spending the money as it sees fit? This bill states that we are handing Iraq a safe, secure and stable state. In effect, it declares a desert an oasis, a swamp a garden, a lie the truth. The continued U.S. occupation of Iraq will not end on June 30, and it is counterproductive. Make no mistake about it, when July 1 comes, the violence will continue, the attacks will not stop, and our troops will still be in harm's way. It is time for us to recognize the Nation went down the wrong path in Iraq. The policy is unsustainable and it is a failure. We cannot continue with it. It is time for a peace plan with an exit strategy. It is time for us to get the U.N. community involved and to bring our troops home. U.N. in, U.S. out. We should not be fooled. We should vote against this resolution, and we should be looking towards bringing this Congress together with a new direction to truly have a peace plan with an exit strategy. This resolution does not do this. This resolution is a farce and should be defeated.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to thank all my colleagues for their perspectives as to why this is a necessary amendment and comment that today that Admiral Stansfield Turner has also endorsed this amendment. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for supporting it.

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

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for helping to demonstrate the very reason why it is important to have an Inspector General's audit because of all the conflicting information. So I appreciate his presenting his side. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), our ranking member.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, President Bush told the Nation, ``You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.'' That assertion was one of the key justifications for the war in Iraq. At the appropriate point in the debate, I shall enter into the Record 16 similar assertions by leading members of the administration and several other relevant documents. Those assertions have, like the White House's other claim that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, not found substantiation in fact. I quote 27 top-level U.S. diplomats and military commanders who have said, ``The administration . . . justified the invasion of Iraq . . . by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda . . . The evidence did not support this argument.'' One week ago, the 9-11 Commission published staff statement number 15 entitled ``Overview of the Enemy,'' which found no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The staff statement was the product of professional people, all of whom were jointly appointed by both the Republican chairman and the Democratic vice chair of the Commission. Included among these staff people are former analysts with the intelligence agencies, investigators and academics. Instead of accepting the finding of this Commission, which Congress and the President established in order to find the definitive answer to this and other questions, the Vice President went on national television to question the credibility of the Commission. He repeated the assertion that the administration has made so many times, and he said he ``probably'' has more information than the Commission about ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Does the administration have more information than the Commission, or does it not? Is the White House informing the public of substantiated facts, or is the White House engaged in what could be called a cynical campaign to disinform the American public? As the St. Petersburg Times editorial of yesterday stated, ``We don't know what information the Vice President is referring to, but we do know this: Every important public charge that the White House and its supporters did make against Iraq in the months leading up to war, such as the purchase of nuclear weapons materials from Africa, meetings between al Qaeda and Iraqi operatives in Prague, and mobile biological weapons labs in the Iraqi desert, have been discredited . . . The bipartisan Commission's credibility isn't in question. The administration's is. That is the most important reason for the Vice President to come forward and produce the evidence he alluded to.'' That is the question the Kucinich-Tauscher amendment seeks to answer. Submission by Dennis J. Kucinich in Support of the Kucinich/Tauscher Amendment to H.R. 4548, June 23, 2004 The Kucinich/Tauscher amendment has been endorsed by: Admiral Stansfield Turner, former DCI 1977-1981; Greg Thielmann, former State Department Intelligence official; Coleen Rowley, in her personal capacity, former FBI official; Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst; Gene Betit, former Army Intelligence official; Ray Close, former CIA chief of station, Saudi Arabia; David MacMichael, former National Intelligence Council analyst; Mel Goodman, professor at National War College; Col. Patrick Lang, retired U.S. Army Special Forces; Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, at DIA; Larry Johnson, former CIA and State Department intelligence analyst; Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs), Steering Committee; Center for American Progress.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, there is much in H. Con. Res. 460 that I do support. I support the finding that ``there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until Israel and the Palestinians, and all countries in the region and throughout the world, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations.'' I support the finding that ``the United States remains committed to the security of Israel, including secure, recognized and defensible borders, and to preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat.'' And I support the right of Israel to defend itself against terrorism. But what I do not support, and what I think is inappropriate for Congress to do, is to predetermine the outcome of certain questions that the Israelis and Palestinians must themselves decide. It is not the place of the U.S. Congress, if we wish to preserve the U.S. as an honest broker of a negotiated peace, to circumscribe the rights of Palestinian refugees. It is not the place of the U.S. Congress to condone, as ``new realities on the ground in Israel,'' unlawful settlements of Israelis in the Occupied Territories. Congress did not have to make inappropriate judgments such as these to offer support for the security of Israel. I believe that H. Con. Res. 460 is more of a disservice than an aid to the peaceful resolution of the conflict, and for that reason, I must vote against it.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Congressional Human Rights Caucus co-Chairs, Congressman Lantos and Congressman Wolf, for inviting me to speak at this important event. June 26 marks the United Nations' international day in support of torture victims. This declared day honors the essential human right of freedom from torture for all, as guaranteed by international law and defined under the United Nations Convention against Torture. Despite this international law, however, over 117 countries still practice torture, according to Amnesty International. It is a practice that occurs both in undemocratic societies as well as in countries that are U.S. allies and that receive significant U.S. foreign aid. Torture is used against politicians, union leaders, journalists, health professionals, human rights defenders, people in detention or prison, members of ethnic or religious minorities, student leaders, and ordinary citizens, children as well as adults. The physical and psychological ramifications of torture are incomprehensible and can last a lifetime. There is an estimated 100 million torture survivors worldwide, with 500,000 foreign torture survivors residing in the United States. Rehabilitation centers have been set up around the world to treat victims of torture, yet more must still be done. Today we will hear testimonies from expert witnesses regarding the treatment of torture from the perspectives of human rights workers, physicians, and torture survivors. At this time I would like to thank the Human Rights Caucus and the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Committee for hosting this important and timely briefing.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4613, the Defense Appropriations Act of FY 2005. The bill spends $418 billion--including $25 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress could spend tens of billions less and still easily protect our nation. And continued funding of military operations in Iraq keeps the US in the long running quagmire. If the administration's request of more than $447 billion, including military construction and energy spending, is approved, overall defense spending, in real terms, would be about 18 percent higher than the average Cold War budget. Moreover, if current long-term administration plans are realized, defense spending would increase by 23 percent from 2004 to 2009, or about 23 percent above average Cold War levels. None of these figures include additional FY 2005 funding expected for operations in Iraq. The bill provides $9.7 billion for national missile defense programs (NMD); $632 million, 7 percent, more than the current level. The NMD has not completed its development tests, much less its critical operational tests performed under realistic combat conditions. As a result, there is no way of knowing if the system will be successful. Thomas Christie, director of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, confirmed in a March 11 hearing that there is no way to determine if the system will work. In an April 2004 report, the GAO stated: ``As a result of testing shortfalls and the limited time available to test the BMDS [Ballistic Missile Defense System] being fielded, system effectiveness will be largely unproven when the initial capability goes on alert at the end of September 2004.'' NMD provides no defense against the most likely future attacks on U.S., which would not be delivered by missiles. The methods of delivery have already been demonstrated at the World Trade Center in New York, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the U.S.S. Cole, the U.S. embassies in Africa, the trains in Madrid and the subway in Tokyo. A nuclear weapon is much more likely to be delivered on a truck than a ballistic missile. The bill wrongly spends $3.6 billion on the controversial 24 F/A-22 Raptor fighter, the most expensive jet fighter every built. The F-22, continues to be plagued by cost over-runs, technical problems, and questions about whether the Air Force should be directing its resources to expensive aircraft when newer strategies might be more effective and less costly. The aircraft also continues to be plagued by technical problems, including a weak horizontal tail, perpetual overheating and overly complex avionics software that has often failed during testing. The F-22 is now 10 years behind schedule and is over four times more expensive than the F-15 and F-16 it is meant to replace. Shifting to the F-22 means a smaller airforce that is paradoxically more expensive to procure and maintain. The bill permits the Pentagon to proceed with its wrong-headed plan to lease or buy 100 KC-767A refueling tankers for the Air Force. The plan represents an enormous subsidy for Boeing and delivers planes the Air Force does not need. Last month, a report by the Defense Science Board found no ``compelling material or financial reason'' to buy or lease 100 of the aircraft. The report followed a study released last month by the department's inspector general claiming that alternatives to the current plan should be re-examined. Among the many other objectionable provisions, the bill funds an increase of 13,000 active-duty Army and Marine Corps personnel. And the measure provides for an average pay hike of 3.5 percent for military personnel, but only 1.5 percent for civilian Defense Department employees.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard). The Department of Homeland Security should be prevented from undertaking its privatization review of the investigation and adjudication of applications for immigration rights and benefits. It is simplistic to assume that privatization automatically leads to savings and efficiency. Sometimes it does not, and this case is one that clearly does not. Consider that. The Department of Homeland Security, that part of the Department of Homeland Security which is formally known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, does not keep track of its existing contractors, according to the General Accounting Office. Specifically, GAO said the INS, which is now the Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services, does not have the basic infrastructure, including oversight, information and an acquisition workforce in place to ensure that its contracting activity is effective. INS has not consistently ensured that acquisition personnel are adequately trained to do their jobs, and this is from a GAO report less than a year ago. Number two, independent parties report that the Department's recent contract for similar, but much simpler, work has had disastrous results. According to dozens of civil rights advocates, recent experience with the national customer service center offers another example of the negative impacts of contracting out immigration functions and the differences that result from using an outside contractor rather than a trained CIS employee. The contrast has been profound, and the resulting problems ranging from the frustrating and time-wasting, to truly damaging errors. Before the June changeover, existing government personnel readily solved the majority of these problems. Operators who now answer the calls know nothing about the subject of the call and rarely provide assistance. So much for contracting out. These operators who work from scripts frequently cannot even identify which script they should be using and are rarely able to provide meaningful assistance. In fact, they often provide answers that convey a clear misunderstanding of the subject matter with which they are dealing. Number three, the Department, according to internal documents, has failed to heed warnings from its own staff and consultants that this particular privatization review is ill advised, because it is poorly structured, unlikely to generate efficiencies, and inspired in order to meet a privatization quota that has been prohibited by Congress and repudiated by the administration. I have some familiarity with an example of privatization through the A-76 process and would like to share it with my colleagues. During 2000, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service conducted an A-76 competition for its Military Retired and Annuitant Pay functions, most of which are performed in my district in Cleveland. A private contractor, ACS Government Solutions Group, was awarded the contract on the basis of a very small cost advantage, over $1.9 million over the entire 10-year contract period. In March of 2003, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense reviewed this A-76 award. It determined that the award to a private contractor in 2001 was erroneous. According to the IG, an error committed by the private company hired by DFAS to prepare its in-house bid resulted in an erroneous high bid by the government. The error was compounded by the audit division of the DoD IG, which served as the independent review officer and which failed to discover the error. As a result, the higher bidder actually won the competition. Now, in spite of these findings, DFAS has renewed its contract in each succeeding year with the higher bidder. Now, what is the lesson we should learn? First, privatization does not necessarily equal efficiency. Second, privatization does not necessarily lead to savings in cost, and third, privatization wastes taxpayers' funds and degrades the performance of government work. Vote ``yes'' on the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and prevent a waste of taxpayer funds.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, it seems that there are a number of people on our side here who are prepared to speak to this, and I think that before we agree to a unanimous consent, it would be good to poll to see how many Members we have so we are not going to be denied an opportunity to present our concerns about this and our support for this amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The Sanders amendment is something that I believe that people on both sides of the aisle will be able to support, and let me explain why. If I may quote from something previous that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has actually presented to this House, he pointed out that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the past under both Democratic and Republican administrations has, in fact, lowered the price, lowered the price of gas and crude oil. When President Clinton ordered the release of 30 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2000, the price of gas fell by 14 cents a gallon in just 2 weeks. And, when President George H.W. Bush released 13 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1991, crude oil prices dropped by over $10 per barrel. So those are Democrats and Republicans out there alike who are getting socked by these high prices for gasoline. So it is up to us to be able to stand up for both Democrats and Republicans alike who are suffering from high gasoline prices. The Sanders amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, is a win-win for consumers and for the Federal Government. It is going to reduce the price of gas. People want to know, Congressman, what will you do to reduce the price of gasoline? The Sanders amendment. It will reduce the price of gas and reduce the deficit at the same time. Expenditures for gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas in 1999 accounted for about $1,400 per year of total household expenditures. Price increases over the past 4 years for these residential items added about $350 per household per year, meaning that domestic energy price shocks have increased household energy bills by 25 percent. The driving motivator of these energy price shocks is the monopolistic energy industry. The industry has been concentrated in the hands of a few vertically integrated companies that have shut down refineries, reduced stocks, and exploited markets when they became tight. Since these price increases were about padding the corporate bottom line, not about responding to increased costs, petroleum industry profits have risen to record highs over the period. Domestic petroleum companies have stuck U.S. gasoline and natural gas consumers with about, get this: $250 billion in price hikes since January 2000, resulting in an after-tax windfall profit of $50 billion to $80 billion to the industry. So the next time someone goes to the pump, they have to understand they are subsidizing windfall profits for the oil companies, and all of these families in America that are suffering from the high cost of gasoline, the Sanders amendment is the solution to do something about it. Now, this amendment will suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve effective to March of 2004 when several Members of Congress wrote to President Bush calling for a halt of oil deliveries into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to maintain more than 647 million barrels of oil. We can always swap it out if there is a problem with the numbers. At the present time, there is 661.4 million barrels of oil in that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Bush administration is to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its capacity of 700 million barrels, regardless of price, and that is the policy that is keeping the prices higher. At a time when the price of gas still averages about $2 a gallon, it simply does not make any sense to continue to put more oil into that Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is the policy that keeps gas prices unnecessarily high, and my constituents in Ohio and all across the country, they are paying the price at the pump. The quickest method to reduce gas prices is to send a clear message to the oil industry that the Federal Government is not going to tolerate further price increases and profiteering. The Sanders amendment will do that. Further profiteering is only going to hurt our weak economy. It is time for Congress to protect our constituents' pocketbooks and improve the economy. We must prod the oil companies into compliance rather than subsidize them. This amendment is good for consumers, it is good for this country, it is good to stop the rising inflation that the increased costs of gasoline is contributing to, and it maintains an adequate level of crude oil in Federal stockpiles. It is time for Congress to take action on this, and again, this is a bipartisan amendment. People on both sides of the aisle can support it. I represent Republicans as well as Democrats, and I am proud to say that, and I am proud to say that people, both Democrats and Republicans, I believe, in my district support this amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I had the opportunity to visit Yellowstone a couple of weeks ago and to meet with groups of citizens who are actively involved in trying to protect the wild and free-roaming buffalo of Yellowstone National Park; and it is their position, and having been on the site and seen where buffalo follow migration patterns, it is their position that everything should be done to make sure that these free- roaming buffalo are protected for future generations. One of the things that has not been brought up in the debate that I would like to add at this time is the importance of protecting these buffalo as a genetically unique herd. I enter into the Record of this discussion here remarks that were made by a Texas A&M professor in the Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, who said ``The so-called random shooting at the Montana borders is actually eliminating or depleting entire maternal lineages; therefore, this action will cause an irreversible crippling of the gene pool. Continued removal of genetic lineages will change the genetic makeup of the herd; thus it will not represent the animal of 1910 or earlier. It would be a travesty to have people look back and say we were idiots for not understanding the gene pool.'' The so-called random shooting at the Montana borders is actually eliminating or depleting entire maternal lineages, therefore this action will cause irreversible crippling of the gene pool. Continued removal of genetic lineages will change the genetic makeup of the herd, thus it will not represent the animal of 1910 or earlier. It would be a travesty to have people look back and say we were ``idiots'' for not understanding the gene pool. Bison have developed a natural resistance genetically as long as they have enough to eat, limited stress and are not consumed by other disease. There is no magic bullet in wildlife disease, therefore management is important. Vaccines are one management tool and one component, but genetic structure is necessary for future management. Every animal which is removed from the breeding population can no longer contribute to the genetic variability of the herd. So there are genetic implications to this action as well. We have to understand that what is happening here is that buffalo in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, according to the Save the Buffalo National Petition, are not protected on traditional winter habitat to the north and west of Yellowstone National Park. The park does not provide sufficient winter range, except during mild winters, for the resident herds of buffalo; and buffalo leave the park to forage on lower grasses critical for winter survival. That is not because the park is overgrazed, but because forage is unavailable due to winter conditions. Thus the buffalo follow their instinctual migration routes to lower elevation and unwittingly enter a conflict zone where their survival is undermined by politics. Now, this petition, which is available on the Web, points out that one of the solutions is that the U.S. Government recognize the importance of traditional buffalo grazing and calving lands and migration quarters to the future of wild herds. The Hinchey petition would protect the status of the free-roaming buffalo. They also go on to say that the Forest Service should close grazing allotments to settle and reallocate them to the last wild buffalo. This is something that we need to keep in mind, because on the 7th of June, the Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife and Parks released a draft environmental assessment to analyze the possibility of a sport hunt of buffalo that cross the borders of the Yellowstone National Park into Montana. We have to see that what is happening here is that buffalo are being hazed with helicopters. Once they go off lands, and sometimes they are on Federal lands, they are subjected to not just hazing but eventual capture and elimination. I think that we need to see that we have a national obligation here. It is part of our national obligation. This is not about East versus West. This is about who we are as a country. One of the iconic songs of another generation, ``Home on the Range,'' begins, ``Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam.'' It did not go on to say, and let us capture them and kill them. It talks about an image of America, which still resides in the hearts of many Americans today. There are many young people who are working in the area of Yellowstone National Park to save the buffalo, and we ought to be joining their efforts. We ought to be joining it, because this is part of who we are as a Nation, this is a part of America's heritage; and while we need to be concerned about the cattle ranchers, we also need to take into account that according to science there has been no demonstration after transmission of brucellosis from a buffalo herd into cattle. So we have to go on the facts, but we should also remember who we are as a Nation. Let us protect the buffalo, and let us vote for the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection, provided that the gentleman wants to share that time.