Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for the work he has done on this and ask the gentleman if he would answer a question. In looking at this presentation here, am I to understand that what the people in charge of this program have done is that they have basically failed to prove in any way that this system can work?

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

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to state that as a matter of law, this amendment complies with the rules of the House. The Department of Defense Inspector General is required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 to perform audits. There can be no dispute about that. This law requires the Inspector General to report its findings to Congress. It cannot be disputed. The Comptroller General of the United States sets accounting standards for the United States Government, absolutely true. These standards are required to be followed by the Inspector General in the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. Mr. Chairman, I have just stated chapter and verse why this amendment is in order. It is not legislating on an appropriation bill. Anyone familiar with these laws, with the Inspector General act, with the Chief Financial Officers Act, with the comptroller general's responsibilities for setting accounting standards, and with the standards required to be followed by the IG and the chief financial officer knows that we certainly are in a position of being able to offer this amendment and to call on a vote on it.

Mr. KUCINICH. I certainly do.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman please restate his point of order?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, think about that. Of course they should not have more money. The point of this amendment is that we take away 1 percent until they could pass an independent audit. Point of Order

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, obviously, the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Doggett) question is well taken because the Pentagon cannot pass a test of an audit. Not only that, but they do not know where their equipment is. Here is a case where 1.2 million protective suits cannot be located. That is incomprehensible. That ought to cause people at the high levels in the Army to shake in their boots.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment. The bill before us today provides $121.8 million for the initial construction of an inadequately tested mid-course missile defense system based in Fort Greely, Alaska. The Tierney amendment would cut these funds from Fort Greely construction. To start Fort Greely construction is premature, it is technologically infeasible, and it is unrealistic. Fort Greely construction is the first step in what would become a larger system whose final price tag would be $238 billion by the year 2025. And no one knows if it even can work. Do the taxpayers not deserve some amount of confidence? Do the taxpayers not deserve to know that a $238 billion initiative is being started with the knowledge that it is at least possible? Because right now no one knows if it is possible or not. No problem here. Just go right ahead and spend the money, and we will figure out later on if it is possible. According to the Pentagon's former chief investigator, Philip Coyle, testing on a national missile defense program is unrealistic and it is behind schedule. At a recent congressional briefing, Philip Coyle and missile defense expert Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of Concerned Scientists testified that 15 of 17 critical components needed for interceptor deployment at Fort Greely will not be completed by the year 2004. Why? The technology simply is not at the required level. No problem here. Just spend the money, regardless. Up to the present time, missile tests have failed to distinguish the target from a decoy except when the decoy has been made unrealistically easy to detect and smash, kind of like putting up a ``hit me'' sign electronically. There is even reason to question the success of the decoy hits. A General Accounting Office investigation found that defense contractors who conducted decoy tests found serious flaws in a 1997 test that the contractors had claimed was successful. I think America is learning about corruption involving corporations. The administration has promised to have this site at least partially operational by 2004. However, the Defense Department has moved to put these accelerated plans under greater secrecy from Congress and the public by exempting missile defense projects from planning and reporting requirements, ending reports to Congress with detailed cost estimates and timetables and pulling the plug on disclosing the results of missile defense tests to the public. Can there be any greater example of why there is an urgent need to get a handle on this program? The taxpayers are being asked to give this program a blank check, and no one even knows that it works. As a matter of fact, we have got plenty of evidence that it does not work, and it is all going to be hush-hush, a secret. With evidence of testing flaws in the past, it is a little bit too much to go along with the military contractors who are saying, Just trust us. How is Congress or the public expected to take military contractors' word or the Pentagon's word on the success of missile defense tests? And think of what it means to the American people if we rely on this to protect us and the results of tests have been phonied up. Yet all this money is being spent, instead of putting money where it really ought to be, developing technologies for peaceful resolution of our conflicts. The missile defense system is being built when the Defense Department does not have the tools to make it work. Construction is being rushed ahead on false premises and false promises. The Department of Defense has failed to successfully test the main components of the missile defense program. Now, as more money is being sought for this boondoggle, the Department of Defense refuses to show where the money is going or how it is being used. The American taxpayers have a right to demand how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent on programs in every place in government. And here it becomes even more important when the defense of our country is on the line. If Congress appropriates these funds, it will be impossible to hold the Department of Defense accountable. Congress should not continue to throw good money after bad. Vote ``yes'' on the Tierney amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. So all of our amendments, then, would have a chance to be brought forward. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. KUCINICH. A number of Members have amendments that might be relevant earlier in the bill. I just wondered, Will this open the process up to amendments at any point?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, at a time when this country is prepared to spend up to $400 billion for the military and an extra $50 billion for defense, $37 billion for homeland security, I think it is appropriate to ask how we can create peace around the world. Last summer, I introduced H.R. 2459, legislation to create a Cabinet- level Department of Peace which embodies a broad-based approach to peaceful, nonviolent conflict resolution at domestic and international levels. The mission of the Department is to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society and to help create conditions for a more peaceful world where someday we can make war itself archaic. Over 43 Members of Congress support this bill. The Department would be headed by a Secretary of Peace appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Domestically, the Department would be responsible for developing policies which address issues, including domestic violence, child abuse, mistreatment of the elderly. Internationally, the Department would analyze foreign policy and make recommendations to the President on matters pertaining to national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention and de-escalation on armed and unarmed international conflict. I have received thousands of letters of support and e-mails from all over the United States and all over the world in support of a Department of Peace. People are demanding an end to violence. They are demanding an end to war, and the Department of Peace can be instrumental in realizing this goal. We are in a new millennium, and the time has come to review age-old challenges with new thinking, wherein we can conceive of peace as simply not being the absence of violence, but the active presence and the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust and integrity; wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions which impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward developing a new understanding of, and a commitment to, compassion and love. We have above the Speaker the words ``In God We Trust.'' Let us place our faith in our capacity to go beyond weapons as instruments of resolving international conflict and believe in our own ability to evolve and to make a difference. The Department of Peace is a path toward just that.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that will withhold 1 percent of the budget of any component of the Department of Defense from being obligated if that component has not passed the test of the Department of Defense Inspector General audit. This extraordinary measure is required to protect the taxpayer, since no major part of the Pentagon has ever passed the test of an independent audit since audits were mandated by the CFO Act in 1990. The GAO found in its 2001 High-Risk Series Report that, of 22 high- risk operations listed in the GAO report, six are Department of Defense programs, more than any other agency. According to the report, DOD could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the items they purchased. The Navy wrote off as lost over $3 billion worth of in-transit inventory. The Department of Defense also purchases material it does not need. Based on current requirements, over $1.6 billion of inventory should not have been ordered. Nor are these problems recent phenomena. In March, 2000, the Pentagon Inspector General found that, of $7.6 trillion in accounting entries, $2.3 trillion were not supported, and this is a quote, ``were not supported by adequate audit trails or is sufficient evidence to determine their validity.'' At a March, 2001, hearing of the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans' Affairs, and International Relations, of which I am the ranking member, United States Comptroller General David Walker gave the Department of Defense an F on financial management. When asked, he admitted that it is probably the worst of any Federal agency in this respect. Bad accounting practices have left troops vulnerable to biological and chemical weapon attacks, and I want every Member of the House to follow this. At a hearing last week of the same Committee on Government Reform subcommittee, the GAO reported on the results of their effort to track a single procurement item through the maze of different accounting, inventory and financial management systems at the Department of Defense. The GAO chose one item, a suit worn by service members to protect themselves in the event of a chemical or biological weapon attack. Obviously, in light of the anthrax attacks and our military's deployment and prospective deployment to various parts of the world, these suits are extremely sought after. The Department is spending over a billion dollars to buy these suits at $200 apiece. The Pentagon has plans to buy 4.4 million of these suits, but to date they have issued only a quarter of these. According to the official in charge of this program, service members have been clamoring for these suits to protect them from biological and chemical weapon attacks. Despite the intense demand within the military, the GAO found that the Pentagon is simultaneously selling the same suits at a deep discount on the Internet for $3 apiece. That is a 99 percent discount from what it cost the U.S. taxpayers. The Pentagon's accounting systems are so bad that several military units actually thought they had an excess of the protective suits. As a result, they went ahead and resold their suits to the public through actions and on the Internet. Our troops have been left unprotected from biological and chemical attacks by bad accounting practices in the Department of Defense, and the taxpayer continues to have their money mistreated. Mr. Chairman, we even had testimony in committee this week that says that of 1.6 million protective suits that have been requisitioned, the Pentagon cannot even locate 1.2 million. I want to say that again. Of 1.6 million protective suits that have been requisitioned, the Pentagon cannot locate 1.2 million suits that would be used to put on our troops so they would be able to be protected against any chemical or biological weapons attack. We have an obligation to the men and women who serve to say that the Department of Defense has to be accountable. My amendment withholds only 1 percent of defense funding to encourage the Department of Defense to follow the law to ensure taxpayer money is accounted for, to ensure that the men and women who serve will get the equipment that they need, to make sure that our national defense will be the highest priority; and we cannot do that if we do not have any ability to control the spending and if we do not have any ability to monitor where all of these materials are. They cannot locate 1.2 million protective suits. Can the Members imagine that on the eve of the difficulties we have with Iraq?

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of H.R. 4623, the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002. I strongly support the goal of this legislation, which is to protect children from sexual exploitation. This legislation is in response to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, which struck down portions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act that made it illegal to create, distribute or possess ``virtual'' child pornography produced by means other than using real children, such as using adult actors who look like children or through computer generated images. In an effort to pass constitutional muster, this bill prohibits the creation, distribution or possession of computer generated images that appear ``virtually indistinguishable'' from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. We should not allow technological advances to hamper law enforcement's ability to prosecute individuals for child pornography. Law enforcement agencies must have all necessary tools to eliminate sexual exploitation of innocent children. However, I have concerns about how this legislation affects free speech protections under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 criminalizes speech that not only is not obscene, but that has redeeming literary, artistic, or other social value. This includes therapists and academic researchers who use computer-generated images in their research, and filmakers who create explicit anti-child abuse documentaries. While I am hopeful that this legislation will pass constitutional scrutiny we must also ensure that we do not infringe upon the First Amendment. I believe we must strive to eliminate child pornography, a despicable exploitation of our children, while at the same time respecting free speech.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4931 is made to help the rich get richer. Seventy-seven percent of the tax reductions in the bill will go to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans. H.R. 4931 allows executives to be rewarded for cutting rank-and-file pension benefits. It continues to allow executives to evade taxes on stock options when the company moves overseas in order to avoid taxes. It permanently extends benefits for the well-to-do, but selectively allows the only provision that applies to low-income workers to expire. So much for helping average workers. Have the sponsors of H.R. 4931 learned nothing from the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history that happened less than a year ago? Enron paid senior executives more than $744 million in cash and stock in the year up to the bankruptcy filing on September 2. Insider payments went to 140 top Enron managers. Enron set up a deferred compensation plan that allowed executives to contribute more, get guaranteed returns on their money, and get legal guarantees that these monies would be safe even if the company went bankrupt. The CEO of Enron has a pension that will pay $475,000 each year for the rest of his life, and a prepaid $12 million life insurance policy. What about the employees? No special benefits, and 6,000 Enron employees lost their jobs and pensions. They had to go to court to claim $4,600, their minimal severance pay, which is capped by law. The lack of a consistent set of rules between employees and executives is unfair, it is unjust, and it should be illegal. If executives faced the same risk as employees in their pension plan, they would have a vested interest in ensuring the plans are not empty during bankruptcy. Our substitute would encourage parity between executives and employees by taxing deferred compensation benefits if deferred compensation plans have special legal protections in the case of financial distress. H.R. 4931 does nothing for the average American. H.R. 4931 represents a massive transfer of wealth from the hardworking rank and file employees to self-serving executives. Vote for the Matsui substitute.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the American people are being prepared for war with Iraq with little or no discussion in this House. Longstanding prohibitions against political assassinations of foreign leaders have been lifted with little or no debate in this House. A policy of strike- first preemptive attacks has been initiated, effectively nullifying the constitutional role of Congress under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, assuring war at the whim of the President. Our Nation is being plunged into a state of continual warfare. President Madison once said: ``Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies. From these proceed debts and taxes. And armies and debts and taxes are known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.'' James Madison said that in 1795. In 2002 we would do well to remember those words.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Alfred Grisanti who served the City of Cleveland as a member of the City Council from 1944 to 1954 and then as an activist private citizen for many more decades. Mr. Grisanti was a fearless defender of the public interest, challenging the rationale of an urban renewal program years before its collapse. He was a visionary who understood that the best intentions of government had to be followed up by serious planning. The Urban renewal program in Cleveland in the 1950s moved tens of thousands of city residents out of their inner-city housing and gave the land to institutional and private interests. There was no program for relocation of residents, who were often forced into tenement districts where living conditions were intolerable; poor housing, poor health care, segregated schools. Mr. Grisanti waged a long and lonely challenge to the program on behalf of the dispossessed and small businesses. Years later was proven to have been right, as the urban renewal program of the 1950s became part of the civil rights disasters of the 1960s. Mr. Speaker, Alfred Grisanti brought a fighting spirit into city politics. He was a member of one of the most famous college football teams in American history, the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame, under legendary coach Knute Rockne. He was a reserve end on Notre Dame's national championship teams of 1929 and 1930. He graduated from Notre Dame in 1931, with a degree in economics. He later earned a law degree from Western Reserve School of Law. In 1948 he was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. Mr. Grisanti often used football analogies in his legal and political discussions. His love of football, the law and politics continued throughout his life and his friendships spanned all three fields from one end of America to the other. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that this United States House of Representatives pay tribute to the memory of Mr. Alfred C. Grisanti. True to the fight song of his Alma Mater, `Down through the years, he has re-echoed the cheers, and through his efforts brought fame' to Notre Dame, to his profession, to his city and to his own family name.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this morning I, along with 30 other Members of the House, filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court to block the President from withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. The President, by withdrawing from this particular treaty, insists that he has the authority to terminate any treaty and can do so without the consent of Congress. But according to article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution, treaties constitute the supreme law of the land and the President does not have the authority to repeal laws. Article I, section 1 empowers the Congress to create laws and charges the President only with carrying out these laws. Thus, the President's termination of the ABM Treaty represents an unconstitutional repeal of a law duly enacted by Congress. The world's geopolitical trash bin is already littered with treaties and agreements unilaterally discarded by the United States under this administration. It is critical that we reassert congressional authority and end this pattern.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois speaks to the Senate's ability to make treaties.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, may I respond.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my good friend from Illinois and letting him know that this is not about the ABM treaty. This is really about the role that this institution has in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, almost 226 years ago, the Founders of this great Nation cast off the yoke of imperialism and declared their independence from the tyranny of King George III. Soon after, these United States weaved from the sturdy threads of justice and democracy a Constitution to serve as the ultimate guardian of rule by the people and for the people. Over two centuries later, these documents still comprise the fabric of our Republic. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this fabric is today being steadily frayed by an executive that does not respect the constitutionally protected role of this Congress in the governance of our Nation. The President insists that he has the unilateral authority to terminate treaties; but article 1, section 1 of our Constitution clearly states, quote, ``all legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' The Constitution empowers Congress to establish laws and charges the President with carrying out these laws. Nowhere in this Constitution does it give the President the authority to repeal laws. Only Congress has the authority to undo its legislative work. Yet this is exactly what the President has done, unilaterally repeal a law, the ABM treaty, that was constitutionally enacted by joint action of the legislature and executive, Senate ratification and Presidential signature. The Constitution sets up the legislature and the executive as coequal and separate branches of government. Allowing the President to execute only those laws he agrees with obliterates our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. If the President acts both as the maker and the executor of laws, why have a Congress at all? Such action was so offensive to liberty that Thomas Jefferson cited it in the Declaration as a grievance warranting disaffiliation with Britain. Thomas Jefferson chafed at the actions of King George and others, quote, ``suspending our legislatures and declaring themselves vested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.'' Mr. Speaker, your decision today to grant privilege to this motion should take into consideration the grave challenge to the Constitution the President has made in his unilateral withdrawal from a treaty; but your decision, Mr. Speaker, will and must turn on House precedent. My motion to raise a question as to the privileges of this House under rule IX falls under section 702 of the rule and, Mr. Speaker, section 702 of this rule, which I have highlighted here in green in the Jefferson manual, and I would ask my colleagues to look at this because these are the rules that we play by. Section 702 of this rule states, ``The constitutional prerogatives of the House also include its function with respect to treaties.'' I am going to read that again. The constitutional prerogatives of the House, of the House, also include its function with respect to treaties. Hind's notations in this book contains 36 precedents. Thirty-five of them do not have any bearing on this issue today, but one of them does, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that one establishes the precedent for my motion today. I refer specifically to notation 1505. On March 2, 1835, the House agreed to the following resolution which read in part, ``Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, the treaty with France of the 4th of July, 1831, should be maintained.'' Why did the House pass a resolution stating that a treaty should be maintained? The treaty with France was done to settle claims by the U.S. against France for the confiscation of American vessels and cargo. At the time France confiscated American property, our two countries were hostile towards each other. The treaty of 1831, then, was an act of diplomacy intended to prevent the resumption of hostilities through the diplomatic resolution of claims. President Andrew Jackson was unhappy with French compliance with the treaty, which in his opinion was too slow. President Jackson, according to ``A Diplomatic History of the American People'' by Thomas Bailey, was thoroughly aroused. ``The French,'' he was reported to have shouted, ``won't pay unless they're made to.'' He declared that Congress should authorize the Federal Government to seize French property. According to another source, ``A Diplomatic History of the United States'' by Samuel Flagg Bemis, ``Further negotiation,'' Jackson declared, ``was out of the question.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, President Jackson wanted to withdraw from the treaty with France. The House, wanting to support the President, gave the President the authority to make contingent preparations to meet any emergency growing out of relations with France. But, and this is a critical point, Mr. Speaker, the House did not authorize the President to withdraw from the treaty. Rather, the House asserted the opposite, that the treaty should be maintained. Congress insisted that the President not rule out of question further negotiation with France as his rhetoric and actions suggested he wanted to. Instead, Congress in effect told him he had to continue negotiating with France. Now, I ask my colleagues today, who here has the courage, like our vaunted predecessors in this hallowed body, to assert Congressional prerogative? Who here will challenge a power grab by the chief executive? The world's geopolitical trash bin is already littered with treaties and agreements unilaterally discarded by the United States under this administration. Congressional requests for testimony and information are routinely ignored. Our insistence on our oversight role is scoffed at. We must assert our role in this treaty withdrawal in order to prevent further erosion of constitutional authority. Mr. Speaker, in 1835 the House of Representatives asserted its prerogative with respect to treaties, and that law is why this reference is in this manual. It did not permit the President to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty with France as he clearly intended to do and as he stated his intention to do so. Instead, through action in this House, Congress affirmed that the treaty with France be maintained. This episode, Mr. Speaker, set a precedent for this House that bears directly on this resolution today. My resolution states, ``Resolved, that the President should respect the constitutional role of Congress and seek the approval of Congress for the withdrawal of the United States of America from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.'' In other words, before the President unilaterally withdraws the United States from a treaty, he should seek approval of the Congress, as the Congress of 1835 asserted. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the privileges of this House as set forth by a precedent in 1835 have been violated by the President. My motion claims that a privilege of this House has been violated, and it is a privilege that sits on 167 years of precedent. Mr. Speaker, indeed, in more than two centuries, only a handful of treaties have been unilaterally terminated by the President. In the vast majority of those cases, one or both of the Houses of Congress consented. My motion, Mr. Speaker, deserves to be heard today. Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter ruled 50 years ago, ``The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.'' Mr. Speaker, at issue today are not the specifics of the ABM treaty, the merits of missile defense or any other policy considerations. At issue is whether this House of Representatives, this Congress, will stand up to an imperial President. ``The history of the present king of Great Britain,'' wrote Thomas Jefferson in this declaration, ``is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations.'' How many injuries and usurpations must this Congress endure before it fights back? How much longer will we allow this executive to trample on our Constitution? I urge the Speaker to allow this motion to be heard, and I urge my colleagues to defend this document, our Constitution of the United States, which establishes the centrality of the role of this Congress.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.