Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, in a moment I will introduce legislation with 46 cosponsors to create a Department-level office of peace and the Department of Peace is introduced at this moment when it seems that war is inevitable, when our troops are in the streets of Baghdad, when members of the administration talk about the possibility of invasion of Iran and the possibility of invasion of Syria. This is the moment when we need to ask whether war is inevitable or not. This is the moment when a Department of Peace can take steps to making nonviolence an organizing principle in our society and when we can create a structure in our government where we can strive to make war itself archaic. Forty-seven Members of Congress have put their names on this legislation because we are at a moment in the history of our Nation and in the world where we need to be asking questions. Is war inevitable? Forty-seven Members of Congress say no. Is peace inevitable? The answer must be yes.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in the past year, Guatemala has relapsed into some of the same anarchic behavior it demonstrated during its brutal civil war from 1960 to 1996, which pitted leftist guerrillas against the military and associated right-wing death squads. An alarming escalation is now taking place not only in the country's general level of violence, but also in the activity of death squads linked to the military. There has been an ominous increase in human rights violations. HIJOS, a humanitarian organization based in Guatemala, released a study on January 29 which reported that 61 young people have been murdered in Guatemala City during just the first 3 weeks of the new year. These covert paramilitary groups, which are remnants of the anti- Communist military and civil institutions that existed during the country's bitter civil strife, have reemerged to protect a burgeoning drug trade. Guatemala's government, led by President Alfonso Portillo, is hopelessly mired in corruption, intertwined with illicit activity on the part of the military, and is complicit with the expansion of the drug trade. Since Portillo took office, drug seizures have decreased dramatically. According to a 2001 United Nations Office of Drug and Crime (UNODC) study, Guatemala's reported seizure of cocaine steadily increased from 956 kg in 1995 to 9,959 kg in 1999. In 2000, however, the year after Portillo took office, this trend reversed and the number plunged to 1,517 kg of cocaine. The country's difficulties with drugs, corruption, and human rights abuses are germane because they jeopardize the White House's plans for the development of a U.S.-sponsored free-trade agreement with Central America. The Bush administration, by decertifying Guatemala but not suspending its $53 million in aid, is purposefully misusing the decertification process by sacrificing its war on drugs for a potential trade accord, continuing aid to the corrupt Portillo regime in order to maintain relations with Guatemala at all costs. The following research memorandum was authored by Jason Ballet, a research associate with the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonpartisan, non-profit organization that has been long committed to addressing issues associated with democracy and human rights throughout the hemisphere. Guatemala's Drug Woes and the Misuse of the Drug Certification Program (By Jason Ballet, Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs) In the past year, Guatemala has relapsed into some of the same anarchic behavior it demonstrated during its brutal civil war from 1960 to 1996, which pitted leftist guerrillas against the military and associated right-wing death squads. The latter groups were responsible for most of the 200,000 deaths that occurred during the conflict. An alarming escalation is now taking place not only in the country's general level of violence, but also in the activity of death squads linked to the military. These groups have reemerged with a new motivation--to protect a burgeoning drug trade. By deferring to the military, a weak government led by Alfonso Portillo is either unwilling or unable to halt rights violations and impede the now booming narcotics trade. The Bush administration, by maintaining normal relations with Guatemala through decertifying it but not suspending its $53 million in aid, is sacrificing the drug war in favor of cultivating a free trade agreement with Central America. Today, Portillo's government more closely resembles a ``drugocracy'' than a democracy; it is corrupt, an utter captive of the drug trade, and linked to growing rights violations. The Return of Death Squads Rightist death squads have resurfaced, relying on an arsenal of tactics ranging from death threats, to the intimidation of prominent political figures, judges, and human rights activists, and political assassinations. These groups have committed numerous rights violations just within the past month. On January 9, 2003, unidentified gunmen assassinated the former congressional leader and head of the Christian Democrats, Jose Lubon Dubon. A few weeks later, on January 27, assailants attacked the opposition leaders of the National Unity for Hope (UNE) party, resulting in 5 injuries. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Guatemala recently revealed that more than 130 judges received death threats since 2001. The majority of international and local observers attribute such activities to illegal arms groups. High profile assassinations are not a new phenomena in Guatemala, occurring in the thousands during the 1980s. Former foreign Minister Alberto Fuertes Mohr, Myrna Mack, an anthropologist who investigated displaced indigenous populations during the civil war, and Bishop Juan Gerardi, the head of the Guatemalan Archdiocese who published a major Truth Commission study implicating the military in the vast majority of deaths during the war, were all murdered by clandestine groups due to their democratic standing. Preliminary statistics recorded this year demonstrate an ominous increase in murder rates compared to the already substantial levels over the past two years. HIJOS, a humanitarian organization based in Guatemala, released a study on January 29 which reported that 61 young people have been murdered in Guatemala City during just the first 3 weeks of the new year. The report explains that ``50 percent of the victims showed a bullet wound to the head,'' indicating that many were premeditated executions designed by organized groups. A New Motivation and Portillo's Complicity Why have the death squads reemerged? The escalation of violence and the reintroduction of death squads have accompanied an expansion of the drug trade under the tenure of Portillo, beginning in December of 1999. The government is hopelessly mired in corruption and intertwined with illicit activity on the part of the military. Both the military and government are complicit in protecting and expanding the drug trade in Guatemala, from which they handsomely benefit. The illegal armed groups now being found in Guatemala are in fact remnants of the anti-Communist military and civil institutions that existed during the country's bitter civil strife of the 1980s. According to a 2002 Canadian Disarmament Information Service (CANDIS) report, retired military officers often transformed their entire units into criminal enterprises. These former soldiers possess intimate knowledge of the nation's facilities that in the past were used in covert operations, such as secluded landing strips, and safe houses for the monitoring of local populations. This knowledge, along with an easy access to weapons, has facilitated the expansion of the drug trade and incidents of political intimidation, making attempts to restrain drug trafficking more difficult. These tainted groups are capitalizing on the pivotal geographic location of Guatemala to advance the drug trade. Occupying the southern border of Mexico, it plays a strategic role in trafficking and storing the cocaine being moved from South America to the United States. Many of these officials have a history of human rights abuses. The United Nations Mission to Guatemala (MINIGUA) observed that ``the army and former military officials are all too often appointed to carry out and supervise strictly civilian work.'' The current president is a protege of Efrain Rios Montt, the former military dictator of the nation from 1982 to l983. The ex- general, who now leads the nation's congress, conducted brutal genocide campaigns during the civil war and many believe he still exerts enormous influence on Portillo. Rios Montt's brother, Bishop Mario Rios Montt, became the Catholic Church's new head of its human rights office after the murder of Bishop Gerardi. His appointment created a situation of a radical conflict of interests; Mario Rios Montt's job is to investigate the same rights violations for which his own brother was allegedly responsible while he ruled. Portillo has done little to discourage the expansion of the illicit drug trade. Since he took office, drug seizures have decreased dramatically. According to a 2001 United Nations Office of Drug and Crime (UNODC) study, Guatemala's reported seizure of cocaine steadily increased from 956 kg in 1995 to 9,959 kg in 1999. In 2000, however, the year after Portillo took office, this trend reversed and the number plunged to 1,517 kg of cocaine. A corrupt anti-narcotics police force is partially culpable. The scope of the problem, however, extends beyond this inadequate anti-narcotics unit, penetrating deep within Portillo's complicit, corrupt administration. Gabriel Aguilera, Guatemala's vice minister of foreign relations, as cited by the Washington Times on January 31, stated that his own government ``hasn't yet achieved a control of the criminal organizations that are behind these illegal activities.'' Many speculate, including some senior U.S. officials, that Portillo's acknowledged failure to curb the drug trade is no accident and is due to his links to criminal organizations. Otto Reich, the former Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere who now has shifted to the National Security Council (NSC), testified before a House subcommittee in October 2002 that since Portillo has taken office, ``narcotics trafficking and alien smuggling are on the rise. Some of the leaders of these activities have very close ties to the highest levels of government and regularly influence decisions, especially with respect to personnel nominations in the military and the ministry of government.'' Decertifying Guatemala On January 31, President Bush decertified Guatemala, declaring it, along with Haiti (which hardly deserved such treatment) and Burma, to be ``demonstrably failing'' in the past 12 months in their anti-drug efforts. Established in 1986 by Congress, the drug certification program annually evaluates whether a foreign nation is cooperating with Washington in its international war on drugs. If decertified, the U.S., according to the program, should have suspended the $3.5 million it contributes to Guatemala's antinarcotics unit and close to $50 million in general assistance it sends annually to the nation. The suspensions of Guatemala, Haiti, and Burma, however, were more empty and symbolic than meaningful policy formulations. Burma receives no U.S. aid and President Bush granted Guatemala and Haiti vital national interest waivers, which allows for, despite decertification, the continuation of U.S. aid to each designated country. While a strong case can be made for Haiti's waiver on humanitarian grounds (because of the impact on that beleaguered island of benighted U.S. policies), no such case can be made for the continuation of aid to Guatemala. Unlike the latter, Haiti does not have death squads, a president who is indifferent to drug trafficking, or a military which is the prime factor in both rights violations and the drug trade. Furthermore, the drug traffickers and the political figures that support the drug trade give minimal credence to the decertification branding, as long as U.S. aid continues. Directly following the announcement, congressional leader Rios Montt declared the U.S.'s negative assessment as an ``eminently political'' maneuver that ``seeks to affect the government but will not have, from any point of view, any social, economic, or financial repercussions.'' Montt correctly, if insolently, affirms that there is essentially no U.S. policy change towards Guatemala. As a result, government activity, including its corrupt practices and complicit actions with organized crime, will continue unimpeded. Guatemala's difficulties with drugs, corruption, and rights abuses are germane because they jeopardize the White House's plans for the development of a U.S. sponsored free-trade agreement with five Central American nations: El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala. The U.S. would be hard put to exclude Guatemala from the potential arrangement because it is Central America's most populated nation and is critical to making any free-trade pact a success. The Bush administration is purposefully misusing the decertification process by sacrificing its war on drugs for a potential trade agreement, continuing aid to the corrupt Portillo regime in order to maintain relations with Guatemala at all costs. What to do Cleaning up Guatemala demands not only the accountability on the part of the Guatemalan government, but the moral fortitude of U.S. authorities to suspend all aid to that country, if need be. Despite potential economic gains, the U.S. cannot establish a free trade pact with Central America until Guatemala reforms and becomes a sound investment, both financially and morally. Guatemala should serve as a warning to Washington as well as to the rest of Latin America of the increasing power and influence of the drug trade and its implications on vulnerable governments throughout the region.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of George E. Ledford, United States Veteran, beloved husband to the late Marjorie Jean; dedicated father, grandfather, educator, community volunteer, and friend and mentor to many. Mr. Ledford's life reflected a true example of an outstanding citizen--he lived each day with a consistent and deep commitment to his family, his community and to his country. He was an inspiring teacher for many years, and later, he was an effective and dedicated high school principal. Mr. Ledford graduated from the Merchant Marines Academy in 1946. After serving in WWII, Mr. Ledford served for many years as a reservist in the United States Navy, and remained committed to the Marines throughout his life. Beginning in the nineteen seventies--and continuing after his retirement as an educator--Mr. Ledford volunteered his time and expertise in the role as admissions officer with the Merchant Marine Academy. In that capacity, Mr. Ledford hosted informational ``College Nights'' for students considering a career in the military and also volunteered a significant amount of time that focused on outreach work for military families. And for many decades, Mr. Ledford represented the Merchant Marine Academy at the annual Military Academy Service Days, held at the Congressional District office. Mr. Ledford's kindness, honesty, openness, and willingness to share his personal experiences provided local students with a realistic glimpse of life in the military, and assisted them in making a sound decision regarding their future. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of George E. Ledford, an outstanding American citizen whose integrity, warmth, wit and concern for others have served to uplift our entire Cleveland community. I extend my deepest condolences to Mr. Ledford's cherished daughters, Barbara and Cathy; cherished son, David; and also to his beloved grandchildren, and extended family members and friends. Although he will be deeply missed, George E. Ledford's spirit will live on in the hearts and memories of everyone he loved and inspired-- especially his family, students, and closest friends--today, and for generations to come.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, every Member in this Chamber is familiar with my position on the administration's actions in moving towards war against Iraq. And I think that while we have our respective position, we should be careful not to expand the conflict which the United States finds itself in and not to take people who have been allies consistently for this country and turn them into something other than allies. The world community has differences with the United States and we are going to have to heal those rifts. But it is more than interesting to have Members standing up condemning the French when we would not be in this Chamber today if it was not for one of the heroes of the Revolutionary War whose image and picture looks upon our every action. I am talking about Lafayette. And we are familiar with Lafayette. Lafayette is not only a place in Indiana, Lafayette is one of the heroes of the American Revolutionary War. And the father of our country to my right, George Washington, and Marquis de Lafayette one of the great American and French statesmen, look upon us and watch these debates. We need to reconcile ourselves with all of the nations of the world who may be disagreeing with this administration. We cannot be standing here singling out Russia and France and China and Syria as if they are outside the world community, because when this war is over, we must be the repairers of the breach. Let us not forget that the very symbol of liberty which generations of Americans sailed into New York harbor under, that Statue of Liberty came from France. There are deep spiritual connections between France and the United States. I happen to agree that this country should not have proceeded in war against Iraq, and I love this country. And I think there are French men and French women who still love America despite the action that the administration has taken. So let us start looking ahead. Let us not condemn nations if they are not agreeing with the administration. Let us find a way to be the repairers of the breach. Let us find a way to look to the next challenge for America to bring the world communities together once again. We have had a genius for that in this country. We need to remember where we came from. And we came from a relationship with Great Britain, who is now our ally, a relationship which was transformed through the Declaration of Independence, and we fought a war of liberation in this country with the help of the French, and we should never forget it.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, Kellogg, Brown & Root, the engineering and construction division of Halliburton, was granted a contract to put out Iraqi oil fires. This contract was awarded without competitive bidding. The contract also contained no set time limit or cost limit. This means that U.S. taxpayers will have to pay for whatever Halliburton chooses to charge; that is, whether they are the prime contractor or a sub-prime contractor. There is danger to the taxpayers when contracts are awarded without competitive bidding. USAID, which gave out the contract, stated there was no competitive bidding for this contract because the job involved a ``complex emergency'' and ``national security'' issues. According to the Federal acquisition regulations and AID acquisition regulations, such waivers exist. Okay, maybe that is understandable. But what about contracts for the postwar reconstruction of Iraq? The uncontested contract acquisition of Kellogg, Brown & Root to put out Iraqi oil fires raises serious concerns over the administration's continued ties with big oil. The fact that the Department of Defense's Army Corps of Engineers did not conduct competitive bidding for this contract implies that an uncomfortably cozy relationship still exists between Halliburton and the administration. Also, given there is no time limit or cost limit, it raises further concern that the contractor could increase the costs unchecked. For the postwar reconstruction effort, waivers of emergency and national security will no longer be applicable. The reconstruction of schools, hospitals, airports, roads, bridges, and even oil refineries are not emergencies. If these types of efforts are not considered emergencies here in America, then they most certainly should not be considered emergencies in Iraq. As such, contracts for the postwar reconstruction of Iraq should be awarded exclusively on the basis of competitive bidding in order to protect U.S. taxpayers from corruption. These long-term contracts, which USAID has categorized into eight areas, seaport administration, airport administration, capital construction, logistical support, public health, education, personnel support, and local governance, must be subject to competitive bidding. It is not news that this administration has deep-pocket connections with big oil and defense companies. The President was CEO of Arbusto, CEO of Spectrum 7, and on the board of directors at Harken Energy. The Vice President was CEO of Halliburton. The Commerce Secretary was the CEO of Tom Brown, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company. The National Security Adviser was a director of Chevron Oil. The Veterans Affairs Secretary was chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin. Then there is the Defense Policy Board, whose nine members have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. There is Mr. Perle, who until last week was chairman of the board, and has been accused of profiting from the war in Iraq because of his corporate connections with Trireme and Global Crossing. It is because this administration has so many corporate ties that could lead to the misuse of taxpayer funds that it is important to stress the use of fair and competitive bidding. What this legislation would do and what we should be advocating is that officials in our government should not use their connections to secure these contracts. The purpose of competitive bidding is to ensure that the acquisition of contracts is completely fair. It is because of these corporate ties that this administration should be going out of its way to reaffirm their commitment to competitive bidding. The amendment would reaffirm already-existing law for this supplemental bill, stating that all contracts acquired for the reconstruction of Iraq must be subject to competitive bidding, as stated in the Federal acquisition regulations and the AID acquisition regulations. Mr. Chairman, I think Members of this Congress, having been informed of this conversation this evening, should take steps in our various congressional committees to assure appropriate oversight; to make sure that competitive bidding laws are used to protect the American people, to protect the taxpayers of the United States. This is an issue that really goes far beyond this particular piece of legislation in the supplemental, but I wanted to use this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to let Members of both side of the aisle know that this issue is not going to go away and that the appropriate forum for dealing with it would be congressional investigative subcommittees or committees which could call the administration to an accounting. In the meantime, this forum is an appropriate place to demand competitive bidding. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's request.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, in the interchange that we were having, I was momentarily distracted. The agreement that we had worked out earlier I understood was 15 minutes. I thought it was 15 minutes a side, instead of 7\1/2\ minutes a side.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the troops and the concern that all of our Members have for them, whatever their position is on this war, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), for his remarks. I respect his service to our country, both in the military and in this Congress. To my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey): If I could have offered an amendment that would have required the President to bring the troops home now, I would have. As my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows, the majority would not have permitted such an amendment, and that leaves me with two options. One, which is to do nothing. And considering the statements that I have made over the past year challenging this war, that is not going to happen. And the other is to offer the amendment before us now, which my colleague from Wisconsin understands does have a powerful symbolic impact, and, as I understand it, is limited by the limitations of the amendments process. But my amendment was crafted to ensure that the troops would have safe passage home, $10 billion to assure that they come home safely. I yield to no one in my love for this country, in my commitment to the men and women who serve, and I honor similarly the patriotism which brings every Member of this House to this floor, their honest differences of opinion about the policies of this United States which have brought this country into Baghdad today. This is an appropriate moment for us to stop and think whether or not aggressive warfare is consistent with the aspirations of this country, whether or not policies of preemption and unilateralism, as articulated in the National Security Strategy, will serve this country well in a complex world where so many nations possess biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons as well as the missile capability to deliver them. This amendment seeks to create this discussion in this House at this moment as to whether or not this is the time in world history to seek to reengage the world community, which certainly understands America's concern, but to get that same world community which has shown sympathy for America in the past to join with us in once again going back to Iraq with U.N. inspectors instead of our troops, who we would never want to have to find weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield in combat used against them. It is much more appropriate to have inspectors determine whether or not such weapons exist, and if they do, to move to destroy them. We need to find a way to reintegrate nations like Iraq and the others, which are hostile to this country at this point, back into the world community. We need to find a way to catch what I believe is an advancing tide of human unity which we see expressed all around the world with friends of ours who have stated their concern about the American position of aggressive war against Iraq. This is a turning point in this country's history, and it is an important moment for us to ask questions about the direction we are going in. Because we are not only talking about Iraq here. We are not just talking about a down payment on a war. We are not just talking about the safety of our troops today. We are talking about the safety and security of the world, America's role in the world, our ability to keep America safe and secure in a climate with an administration that is determining that aggressive war is the way to achieve that. I maintain that is always open to debate, and I want to thank the gentleman for providing me with this opportunity to raise this question on this floor. We are all patriots. We all love our country. But one of the glories of this country is its first amendment, which provides not only for freedom of speech, but which provides for a national discussion on issues that are of urgent importance. And I want to thank both the ranking member and the chair for ensuring that this happens on this issue, and I acknowledge that. And when it is appropriate, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment out of respect for the heartfelt concerns expressed by my colleagues.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment points out that the administration has spent $30 billion already on current military operations. This amendment will give the Pentagon another $10 billion to ensure that the troops can be brought safely home to their families. Out of the $59.6 billion for military operations, my amendment will leave $40 billion to pay for the war to date and to get the troops home now. I want to restate that $10 billion is there to ensure that the troops get home safely. This amendment is a statement that we should end the war now and that we should bring our troops back home safely; that we can pay the bills that have already been incurred, but that we should not incur any more bills. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. We all stand here today hoping that no more American soldiers will be killed in Iraq. My amendment will do the most to prevent more American fatalities. This amendment would bring the troops home immediately and safely. It will end this unjust and illegal war now. The administration has spent $30.3 billion already on current military operations. This amendment will give the Pentagon another $10 billion to ensure the troops can be safely brought back home to their families. Out of the $59.6 billion for military operations, my amendment will leave $40.3 billion to pay for the war to date and to get the troops back home now. This amendment will save taxpayers $19.3 billion. The savings from the adventure in Iraq can be used for increased homeland security, education, health care, or veterans funds. Mr. Chairman, I believe this war is not about defending the United States from the threat of Iraq, this war is not about the U.S. trying to save or liberate the Iraqi people, this war is not about an Iraqi nuclear threat. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction that have been able to be detected by the U.N., and it would be most unfortunate if it was for our troops to find those weapons in combat when, by stepping back and letting the U.N. inspectors return, we could avoid that kind of confrontation and cataclysm. None of us in this Chamber holds any brief for Saddam Hussein. He is a dictator, yet it is not the responsibility of the United States to oust the leaders of sovereign nations. There are many who want to see this Nation become more safe, but I think a good case can be made that the action against Iraq will not make this country more safe, it will make this country less safe. It will foster terrorism and it will increase anti-American feelings. We will continue to see more orange alerts as the threats against our Nation increase, and we will continue to see the hatred of America grow from people around the world. This war is killing our troops. It is killing innocent Iraqi civilians. This war must end now. It was unjust when it started 2 weeks ago and it is still unjust today. The U.S. should get out now and try to save the lives of our troops and of innocent Iraqi citizens. This is the ultimate support-the-troops amendment. There is no better way to ensure their safety than to bring them home now. I support the troops, but I oppose the war. I am not the only Member of Congress to have taken such a position. On another war at another time with another President, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was quoted in The New York Times on May 7, 1999 as saying, ``While we may not support the President's ill-advised war, we do support our troops.'' My colleague from Texas, for whom I have the greatest respect, was referring to a different war, but he demonstrates the precedent for opposing the mission and supporting the troops. I believe he is a patriot and I believe he is a good American. In fact, I voted with him that year on a vote seeking to get the troops out of Kosovo. On December 13, 1995, the House, under the control of Speaker Gingrich, considered H.R. 2770. The bill, a prohibition of funds for the deployment of forces in Bosnia, was introduced by Representative Dornan. Many leading Republicans, such as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), voted to cut off funds for the military action while the troops were deployed in Bosnia. In fact, 82 percent of the gentlemen and gentlewomen from the other side of the aisle voted to cut off funds while troops were deployed in Bosnia. I urge my colleagues to read the Congressional Record of that day. I would quote: ``Mr. Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that Members would get up in the well of this House and talk about cutting the knees out from under the troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. We want to get the troops there out, and we do not want to send any more troops.'' That was our good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). Again, another quote: ``Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a troubled heart. I rise tonight to ask my colleagues to support our troops. Support them by bringing the 150 home. Bring them home now before we get into a mess like I personally had to live through 30 years ago.'' That was my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). I believe that a ``no'' vote on this supplemental is patriotic, because this war is not about defending the United States from a threat of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. There has never been a link demonstrated of any credibility connecting Iraq to al Qaeda's work on 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with the anthrax attack upon this country. Iraq did not attack this country. Iraq does not have the military capability to attack this country. The United Nations had not been able to establish before their inspectors were withdrawn that Iraq in fact had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not acquiring nuclear material from Niger, as had been advanced by some in the administration. This war is not about the U.S. trying to liberate the people of Iraq. It is not about an Iraqi nuclear threat. Ending this war now and resuming weapons inspections could salvage world opinion of the United States, which has been deteriorating since even the talk of war began. After all, the greatest threat to the United States at this time is terrorism. This war will breed terrorism. I agree with those in this Congress who today have taken this floor to express concern about meeting the challenge of terrorism. But this war against Iraq and our occupation of Iraq will make America less safe, not more safe. This war will make America a target. We all desire safety and security in this country. The only way that we can truly achieve that is to work cooperatively with the world community. We had the sympathies of the world after 9-11. Nation upon nation looked forward to cooperating with the United States after 9-11. This approach towards aggressive war has squandered the support of the world, the very support that we need to successfully meet the challenge of terrorism here at home. Every dime that we spend to advance aggressive war in Iraq, or anywhere else in that region, for that matter, will require later on spending two dimes or $2 to secure our own Nation. I believe that now is the time for America to take a new direction, to turn away from aggressive war. Mr. Chairman, we have been told that it is Iraq's possible possession of weapons of mass destruction which brings us into their borders and causes our troops to go throughout their cities. This country needs to confront the reality that there are many countries which possess or are pursuing or are capable of acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or missile delivery systems. As of 2000, there were 17 such nations with respect to nuclear weapons, 26 such nations with respect to chemical weapons, 20 with biological weapons, 17 with missile systems. The administration's nuclear posture review and their national security strategy taken together would put us towards confrontation with many nations of the world. Now is the time for us to reassess that. This downpayment on this war, which is represented by this supplemental, is not simply a way of supporting the war; it is a way of supporting a policy which can only lead this Nation to disaster around the world. Now is the time to step back. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if that would be acceptable to him.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the parish community of Saint Wendelin Church, as they celebrate one hundred years of healing and hope in Cleveland's Ohio City neighborhood. Throughout the past century, Saint Wendelin's has served as a spiritual refuge, opening its doors to any soul in search of guidance and peace, The ministry of Saint Wendelin's began in 1903, originally serving the Slovak community of Cleveland's near west side. On May 3rd of that same year, the community received permission to found Saint Wendelin Parish. A small church was soon constructed and on December 6, 1903, Father Koudelka celebrated Saint Wendelin's first mass. Not long after, the Sisters of Notre Dame established Saint Wendelin's School. The order would continue to provide quality Catholic education for the next seventy years. In 1925, the current church and school complex was dedicated. Always reaching outward, Saint Wendelin's welcomes all believers to join in worship. It is a testament to the Saint Wendelin ministry that Catholics from all corners of the city heed the call to celebrate at the little church on Columbus Avenue. Cleveland's vital tradition of Catholic education is reflected at Saint Wendelin's with their active participation in the Urban Community School. Saint Wendelin's facilities serve as a second home to over three hundred students of Urban Community School. My fellow colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of every member of Saint Wendelin Church, and its leaders-Pastor Jerome Lajack and Deacon James J. Armstrong, as they celebrate mass with Bishop Anthony Pilla in commemoration of one hundred years of service to God and community. Saint Wendelin parish continues its dedication to social justice and spiritual healing--within the neighborhoods of Ohio City, and the world community beyond.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Sergeant Gayle D. Miller Cooper, Officer in Charge of Communications, on the occasion of her retirement from the Cleveland Police Department that spans twenty-five years of service to the Cleveland community. Raised in Cleveland, Sergeant Cooper graduated from John F. Kennedy High School in 1969. She attended Cuyahoga Community College and Case Western Reserve University, then joined the Cleveland Police Department in 1977. Sergeant Cooper was one of the first female officers assigned to work in zone cars--a pioneering and courageous achievement in a formerly male dominated profession. Her determination and ability to make a difference as a police officer opened many doors for women who followed in her path. Sergeant Cooper's outstanding work and personal dedication to helping others was clearly reflected throughout her tenure of service. In 1980, she was promoted to Detective in the Vice Unit of the 5th District. Her varied professional experience also included positions as Police Academy recruiter, instructor, and background investigator. Officer Cooper focused her commitment, courage and intellect on issues involving women and children. She became the Domestic Violence expert for the Cleveland Police Academy, and in 1993, was appointed as Detective in the Youth Gang Unit. Later, Officer Cooper became the Juvenile Liaison Officer for the City of Cleveland. Promoted to Sergeant in 2001, she was also appointed to the position of Officer in Charge of Communications that same year. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, gratitude and recognition of Sergeant Gayle D. Miller Cooper upon her retirement from the Cleveland Police Department. Sergeant Cooper's exceptional and courageous service on behalf of the citizens of Cleveland, have served to lift the spirits and the lives of countless individuals, families-- and the entire Cleveland community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq for biological and chemical weapons. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will find out in combat whether Iraq has such weapons. Why put our troops at greater risk? We can get the United Nations inspectors back in. Stop the war now, before we send our troops into house-to-house combat in Baghdad, a city of 5 million people; before we ask our troops to take up the burden of shooting innocent civilians in the fog of war. Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al Qaeda may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country. Iraq did not try to acquire nuclear weapon technologies from Niger. This war is built on falsehoods. Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not attack this Nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this Nation. Each innocent civilian casualty represents a threat to America for years to come and will end up making our Nation less safe. The $75 billion supplemental needs to be challenged, because each dime we spend on this war makes America less safe. Only international cooperation will help us win the war on terror. After 9/11, all Americans remember that we had the support and the sympathy of the world. Every nation was ready to be of assistance to the United States in meeting the challenge of terrorism, and yet with this war we have squandered the sympathy of the world. We have brought upon this Nation the anger of the world. We need the cooperation of the world to find the terrorists before they come to our shores. Stop this war now. $75 billion more for war, three-quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans' benefits. Money for war, but no money for health care in America. Money for war, but no money for Social Security. But money for war. We have money to blow up bridges over the Tigres and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs. Stop this war now. It is wrong, it is illegal, it is unjust, and it will come to no good for this country. Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity to be able to stop it. Bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this Nation from a war which is wrong, which is unjust, which is immoral. Stop this war now.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and understand the spirit in which they come forward to support this resolution. Considering the dynamics of this war, I would just like to urge a note of caution here, Mr. Speaker; and the note of caution is that this resolution may be seen by some as an attempt to inject religion into this war at a time when some of America's enemies abroad are asserting that this is indeed a war about religion. I know that the intentions of the sponsors are to ask for the blessings of Providence upon our troops. I think that all of us support the troops. Some of us do not support the mission. Pope John Paul II, greeting a group of Polish pilgrims in Vatican City on March 5, 2003, said, ``I ask all of you for this prayer and fasting. May these be concrete gestures of the involvement on the part of those who believe in the mission to remind the world that it is never too late for peace.'' I think that it would be very constructive as this House proceeds in deliberating resolutions of this type if an appeal was made not only for the success of those who work for this country under the flag of this country in fields far from home, as soldiers in combat, I think it would be constructive if this House also in this resolution or in another resolution would agree that it is never too late for peace. I also think that aggressive war is not consistent with prayerful aspirations. The golden rule, which represents an even higher calling than this resolution, do unto others as you would have them do unto you and love your neighbor as you would love yourself, I think is instructive in guiding us to be quite cautious about passing a resolution that would easily be interpreted as sanctioning aggressive war. So I reluctantly come here to offer this note of caution, knowing full well that Members who have proposed this are very good people, they are good Americans, they are patriotic Americans, and we all care about our troops.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the parish community of Saint Wendelin Church, as they celebrate one hundred years of healing and hope in Cleveland's Ohio City neighborhood. Throughout the past century, Saint Wendelin's has served as a spiritual refuge, opening its doors to any soul in search of guidance and peace. The ministry of Saint Wendelin's began in 1903, originally serving the Slovak community of Cleveland's near west side. On May 3rd of that same year, the community received permission to found Saint Wendelin Parish. A small church was soon constructed and on December 6, 1903, Father Koudelka celebrated Saint Wendelin's first mass. Not long after, the Sisters of Notre Dame established Saint Wendelin's School. The order would continue to provide quality Catholic education for the next seventy years. In 1925, the current church and school complex was dedicated. Always reaching outward, Saint Wendelin's welcomes all believers to join in worship. It is a testament to the Saint Wendelin ministry that Catholics from all corners of the city heed the call to celebrate at the little church on Columbus Avenue. Cleveland's vital tradition of Catholic education is reflected at Saint Wendelin's with their active participation in the Urban Community School. Saint Wendelin 's facilities serve as a second home to over 300 students of Urban Community School. My fellow colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of every member of Saint Wendelin Church, and its leaders--Pastor Jerome Lajack and Deacon James J Armstrong, as they celebrate mass with Bishop Anthony Pilla in commemoration of one hundred years of service to God and community. Saint Wendelin parish continues its dedication to social justice and spiritual healing--within the neighborhoods of Ohio City, and the world community beyond.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. FRANK OF Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the gentleman from California respond to the gentleman from Ohio when the gentleman from Ohio referred to that part of the resolution which quotes the President's letter and said he disagreed with it in effect. The response from the gentleman from California was that simply factually recounts the President's letter. If, in fact, he is saying this is not necessarily by this body an endorsement of that, but simply a recognition of the fact that the President says it, and this is on the record, I think that would help us advance this. So I appreciate the gentleman from California having made that point that that particular phrase that the gentleman from Ohio mentioned is not the wording of this House. It is a reference to a fact that the President said that, and it does not reflect one way or the other what individual Members might think.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is correct. I think this House should be able to give a commendation to the troops. Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my reservation of objection in the hopes that in the course of the debate we can clarify that while we all support the troops, there are many of us who have reservations about the wording of this resolution and it going beyond support for the troops.

Mr. KUCINICH. To the gentleman, and he is a gentleman, I would like to say that we all agree that we want to support the troops. This resolution, however, or at least half of it, is not about the troops. At least half of it is about the war in Iraq, which is a matter of contention. We understand that. There are 133 Members of this House who voted against the Iraq resolution. The gentleman has made his decision, and I regret the decision, which I think unfortunately politicizes what is really a very important resolution to support the troops. I think it lets politics get beyond the water's edge, Mr. Speaker. I do not think my good friend really intends to do that. I have a question to ask my good friend. Mr. Speaker, in looking at this resolution, I would like to call attention to page 3 of the resolution. I just want to understand, would the gentleman be prepared to amend his unanimous consent request to eliminate any references in this resolution to 9-11, since no credible evidence has ever been presented that would link Iraq to 9-11, so that this Congress would not be put in a position when something really has not been decided, we have not had a commission that has made that decision? The media has not really had an investigation that has decided that Iraq is connected to 9-11, this Congress has not made that association, yet this resolution does make that association. Would the gentleman be prepared to delete that reference in order to make this resolution something that would be more palatable?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

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