Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Saint Leo the Great Parish, a parish that builds on tradition, innovation and education. In October 1948, St. Leo opened its doors. Father Sylvester Lux was appointed as the first pastor. Constructed to serve the growing communities of the South Hills area of Cleveland, Brooklyn Heights, and the northeast area of Parma, St. Leo drew its original families from Our Lady of Good Counsel and St. Francis DeSales parishes in Cleveland and Parma respectively. In the spring of 1949, realizing that members of the parish didn't enjoy attending Mass at a public school, a temporary building was erected in three days. In January 1950, construction began on both a new school and a new church. The school opened in September 1950, and inaugural Mass was celebrated in the church on December 24, 1950. Throughout the last fifty years, pastors have benevolently dedicated themselves to spreading the word of God and developing a parish that contributes to the well-being of its community. Both pastors and parishioners have devoted much of their time to sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, fostering the elderly and educating the youth. These same principles are still emulated today under the direction of Fr. Bob Bielek. As the 50th anniversary approaches, St. Leo and parishioners are seizing the opportunity to make the world a finer place. Among the events marking the anniversary year is the Habitat for Humanity Adopt a House Project. The parish would become the first Catholic Parish within the city of Cleveland to complete such a project. The project is directly linked to St. Leo's 50th anniversary theme; to ``Build a House Where Love Can Dwell.'' My fellow colleagues, please join me in celebrating St. Leo's 50th anniversary, a celebration of service and enhancement that began in 1948 and continues today.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today for the NASA funding provided in this bill. Last year at this time, there were rumors floating that NASA's proposed budget was going to be cut by $1 billion in 1999. This would have seriously damaged NASA's programs. Mr. Weldon and I rallied support for NASA. 201 Members of Congress signed a letter to the Speaker arguing for stabilization of NASA's budget. The $1 billion dollar cut was avoided in the President's budget as a result of the overwhelming bipartisan support which NASA enjoys in the House. Today, I am very happy to see an increase in NASA's budget to $13.7 billion. This is more than the President's request and more than the House and Senate in the VA-HUD Conference Report. NASA is a government agency that looks to the future. For every dollar we invest in the space program, we receive a return of at least $2 in direct and indirect benefits. With the International Space Station program close to launch and assembly, it is crucial that NASA receives no further cuts. I am especially pleased to see that more money is included for aeronautics research and for life and microgravity sciences, research areas at NASA Lewis Research Center in my district. NASA Lewis is NASA's Lead Center for Aeropropulsion and also a NASA Center for Excellence in Turbomachinery. Microgravity research in combustion and fluids is also performed at Lewis.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to again point out that the town has had a cemetery problem for 2 years. The State has 1 year to identify a suitable replacement, and there are concerns that the Coast Guard property may not work. Now, I say that all in the context of I wish that we had had some hearings at a full committee level and, therefore, we could have brought all these points into a debate. And the bill was only introduced 2 weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be calling for a recorded vote, but before I get to that, I am going to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New Hampshire so that he can state his concerns for his constituents in New Hampshire. And I want the people in New Hampshire to know that we are also concerned about their problems, but we do have a legislative process that we have to regard here. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With respect to those who are concerned about bureaucracies, and I certainly am, I would submit there is an easy administrative procedure already in the law and that we are creating a bureaucracy through all of the machinations involved in this bill. This bill creates the problems in terms of creating the circumstance for a property transfer, problems that we have been all trying to fix. And that such property transfer, which this legislation would effect, sets and creates a bad precedent. I would like to further state that I do not believe that what we are submitting here is so much an attempt to sanctify the bureaucratic process as to insist on the preeminence of the legislative process; that, in fact, as Members of Congress, we are entitled to request full hearing on any legislation that comes before a committee. And while we engaged, I thought, in a constructive discussion in subcommittee, we were given assurances that we would have a full discussion in the full committee. Such a discussion has not occurred. I do not think that any Member of Congress would attempt to diminish the importance of a hearing on any piece of legislation, because that, in fact, my colleagues, is the purpose for our being in the Congress of the United States; to be able to assess information that is brought before us, to be able to make as judicious a decision as we can about a legislative matter, and to be able to vote, if we may, on any legislation in front of a committee. To jump over the committee process, I believe, does not serve the process of the Congress well and does not properly show respect for the legislative process, as much as I am sure my colleagues do respect the legislative process. It is, indeed, a work of mercy to bury the dead. It is a work of mercy which I think we all recognize and we all respect. But I would submit that we cannot bury our legislative responsibilities and we cannot bury administrative process in our desire to bury the dead. This legislation must submit, as all other legislation in the Congress of the United States must submit, to some kind of a review process in the committee. And the fact that we are bypassing that really does not give us adequate opportunity, I believe, to be able to respect the real needs of the people of New Hampshire in regards to this. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the merits of the case which the gentleman from New Hampshire would present on behalf of his constituents, but we have strong disagreement as to how to advance that, and how do we advance it by vitiating the legislative process itself. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains for each side?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of our committee.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is correct, the staff meeting was at 1 o'clock on Monday, the 27th of September. That was 2 hours before the subcommittee markup, and the subcommittee markup was at 3 o'clock that same day. I think that serves to illustrate the concerns that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) continues to express. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, we may have some ambiguity here, because the State is under a legal obligation with the Department of Interior. The town may also be included, but the State is the one who is ultimately responsible. And the National Park Service indicated to us that the State was on the hook. Mr. Speaker, this colloquy in itself proves the need for further hearings on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, we may have a disagreement in our perception on that. It is my understanding that the town does not have to replace the land; that the State of New Hampshire does, and this is under agreement with the Department of the Interior. I would be happy to continue the colloquy with my friend from New Hampshire if he has better information. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that the bill as drafted may have serious weaknesses, which is another question which relates to process. Early reports from the Department of the Interior indicates that the land to be conveyed is probably not adequate to serve as replacement property for park land. And we know that the Coast Guard wants to retain easements across the property. There is a great concern on our side of the aisle about the Federal property disposal process and that it not be subverted. That is the reason why the administration opposes this bill. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) to hear a response.

Mr. KUCINICH. It does or does not?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman then saying that the town does have to replace the land, or does not?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that the town does not have to replace the land; that the State does, under an agreement with the Department of the Interior.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to repeat that this bill has not been considered by the full Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. It has not been fully vetted through the committee. And when we had our discussion in subcommittee, it was our understanding that the full committee would address this legislation. So, there is a question here of the adequacy of the process. And while I think all of us in this Congress would admire the spirited defense which the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) gives to the needs of his constituents, we at the same time have to be bound by a process in order to make government work for all the people. I would agree that the gentleman presents a case that there is a critical need for cemetery space. But there is an administrative process through the Department of Interior that works faster and better than this bill, I would submit. And the town, it is my understanding, is pursuing this approach and the Department of the Interior is working with the town and the State to help. Mr. Speaker, I think we do have to be concerned that we have not had a full airing here, not withstanding the good intentions of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), our ranking member who I have the greatest respect for, and of the gentleman from New Hampshire. Because at the time of the meeting, it is my understanding that the National Park Service had not seen the property, that GSA had and continues to express concerns. We had a half-hour meeting with the administration officers where they explained the administration process, where they gave the gentleman from New Hampshire and our staff technical advice on language. But I believe they specifically refused to give an administration opinion at that time. It is my understanding further that the property is not surplus, that the National Park Service still has concerns with the Coast Guard property and with respect to its size, in that it is small, it has easements, and of course that the emergency situation can be addressed administratively. Current law would appear to provide a better solution. The town and the State of New Hampshire are aware of an administrative remedy that will provide for the immediate conversion of the park land for use as a cemetery. The town, as I mentioned earlier, is actively pursuing this avenue. At least I believe it is.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 930, as amended. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for working closely with the minority in drafting this bill and bringing it to this point. The other body has made some minor but common-sense changes to the House-passed legislation, and I support its current form and urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. I think that this is the time for some plain speaking. Everyone should be aware that S. 314, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, is the first step down the road towards privatizing much of the Federal Government. The goals of the sponsor of this bill are plain from the legislative history. S. 314, as originally introduced in both the House and the Senate, would have required the Federal Government to privatize all the activities it performed which could be done by the private sector. I believe it was a recipe for the wholesale dismantling of much of the Federal Government as it now exists. The bill before us, much to the credit of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), has been moderated from its inception, but the goals remain the same. The means are incremental, but the ends are unchanged. The purpose of the bill is to force the Federal Government to identify likely targets for privatization or contracting out. The Federal contractors would like the government to help them identify new business opportunities. This legislation raises fundamental issues which have a profound and lasting impact on the structure of the Federal Government, on Federal employees, and on the American public. Unfortunately, the bill assumes that the debate on the proper role of government has already been settled. Its aim is to drive more and more of the services, the Federal Government provides to taxpayers, into the private sector by contracting out. Supporters of this bill say that government should not be in competition with business. Well, that certainly sounds right in a free enterprise economy, but the fact of the matter is, from the beginning of this Nation, our Founders recognized an appropriate role for government. Our Founders thought that government would be here to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Based on those principles, we established and ordained a Constitution, Mr. Speaker. Based on those principles, the Government of the United States today provides for Social Security for tens of millions of Americans; for health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, a whole range of programs, for tens of millions of Americans; for education for our young people; and, yes, for the defense of our Nation. There is a proper role for government in our society, and we have to be aware that in describing the role of government we are speaking of the commonwealth of this Nation; not only at a national level, but at a State and local level as well. People across this country understand that government does play a vital role. In an area that I am personally familiar with, that of municipal electric systems, there are over 2,000 municipally-owned electric systems in the United States of America; part of a long legacy of public power. We have public parks, we have public recreation centers, we have public sewer systems. We have all these things which belong to the people because they have paid for it with their money. There is a proper role for the government in society. This is something that always comes up in the debate over privatization. The roles of the Federal Government and the private sector are distinct. The role of the government is to provide a service. The taxpayers of our Nation pay a lot of money to make sure they get those services. They also rightly expect that the people providing those services be held accountable to them through our system of democratically elected representatives. That is another point about privatization. Who is accountable when we privatize government services? In a system where government provides the services, elected representatives must be accountable. But in a privatized system, accountability is obscured. The words of James Madison inscribed on the Library of Congress are instructive: ``The safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this homily that we would make to privatization today deserves some closer inspection because the Federal Government is already spending vast amounts of money on service contracts. Unfortunately in many cases that money is not being well spent. According to both the Office of Management and Budget and the General Accounting Office contract administration is one of the highest risk activities which the government engages in. Examples abound. Senate hearings uncovered 27 billion a year in Medicare fraud. In 1995 25 billion in payments to defense contractors could not be matched to invoices, and in many cases the Department of Defense relies on contractors themselves to identify overpayments. At one Department of Energy site a contractor poured toxic waste on radioactive wastes into the ground and stored more in leaky drums. Whether from outright theft, charges of unallowable costs, lack of top level management, attention to contract management or ineffective contract administration and auditing, the Federal Government is losing billions of dollars a year, and it seems to me that this bill puts the cart before the horse. If we are truly interested in more cost- effective management, we should drastically improve contract management before moving to contract out billions more in services. Yet unfortunately the legislation does not speak to this. The legislation before us also seems to have a one-sided approach which favors contractors at the expense of Federal employees and the American public. Although it requires agencies to conduct inventories of services performed by Federal employees, no such inventory is required of work by contractors. The intent of this bill is to identify activities which might be privatized, yet we have no idea how much of the Federal government's activities are already being performed by the private sector or how big the contractor work force is. Such an inventory would also be useful in helping agencies control waste, fraud and abuse. Now, finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill will inevitably and inappropriately politicize the outsourcing process. At the conclusion of a constitutional convention Benjamin Franklin was asked, ``What have you?" And he answered: ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' And I say outsourcing and privatization is a piecemeal dismantling of our republic.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As someone who stands about 5'6\1/2\", I am not here to talk about being in defense of anything big, and particularly big government. As someone who has worked in local government, I can understand the difficulties which people can have in dealing with big bureaucracies and things like that. I was struck by my good colleague the gentleman from Tennessee's remarks about the small business being attacked by big government. Back in Cleveland, Ohio, where I am from, the neighborhoods where I live, I do not think small business has been under attack by big government as much as they have been under attack by big business. For example, to my good colleague, look at what is happening across this country with the old mom-and-pop drug stores. Do you know of any that exist in the country anymore in the face of the Rite-Aids and the CVS and all the other drug store chains that just come into neighborhoods and destroy them? Government never does anything like that. But big business does. Look at the supermarkets. Remember the little mom-and-pop stores that you had in your neighborhood where you could go buy your milk and bread and whatever you needed for your family? Find those in America anymore. They have not been wiped out by government. They have been wiped out by the big supermarket chains. Look at the gas stations. Remember the independent gas station owners? Find one today, anywhere. They were not wiped out by government. They were wiped out by big oil companies. Go to the five- and-dime, wiped out by the Wal-Marts of the world. We have to stand here to debate a bill, but I also think that it is important to put it in its proper context. The difficulties that small businesses have today in this country are of concern to all of us. They have a problem with high utility rates, they have problems with taxes which we try to address, they certainly have some problems with regulations which we have talked about. But I do not think their problem is that they are under attack by the combined efforts of government to provide service for the people. Now, the private sector has goals and the public sector has goals and sometimes their aims are mutually exclusive. The private sector is there to make a profit. I think that is all well and good, because, let us face it, money makes the world go around. People in business want to make money. That is what America is all about. That is what capitalism is all about. We have been doing that in this country for many years and everybody ought to have a chance to take part of that American dream of being able to make something of themselves, make a good living, support their family, have the good things in life. But the goal of the private sector is to make a profit. It is not to transmit democratic values. We cannot go to the private sector and ask them to do what we want them to do because it is private business. That is what we are told. It is none of our business. It is private business. We respect that. That is the system. But government has a legitimate role in providing service. Government has to make sure that the safety and happiness of the society are considered. That does not have to be the aims of the private sector. Business generally operates on one motive, the profit motive. There may be a little role in some places for the private sector in participation with the government. I remember back in Cleveland years ago we did not have enough snowplows to deal with a snowstorm. We could not wait to order the plows in order to serve the people. We had to contract it out. We contracted the snowplowing out so we could get the snow off the ground. That is common sense. That is an area where the private sector was able to help. There are areas where the private sector can help. But we must remember that the private sector is motivated by very different goals. This bill seems to proceed from a number of assumptions that must be challenged. First of all, it proceeds from the assumption that the Federal workforce is too large. Yet the current administration has made great strides in making the Federal Government more efficient through the longest running reform effort in American history. These policies have already saved American taxpayers over $130 billion. The size of the Federal workforce has been reduced through attrition and buyouts by over 320,000 employees. We now have the smallest Federal workforce since John F. Kennedy was President. As a percentage of the total workforce, the Federal Government is the smallest, Mr. Speaker, since 1931. Another false assumption this bill makes is that the Federal Government is not contracting out enough. Let us look at this. The fact is we spend more on the contracting of services, close to $120 billion in fiscal year 1997, than we spend on pay and retirement for the entire civilian workforce. In fact, some of the more recently created Federal agencies like the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the EPA have relied from the start on contracting out services rather than performing them directly. Those two are subjects for debate, but it is a fact that it is happening. A 1994 OMB report found contracting out for services to be the fastest growing area of federal procurement. Now on one hand I do not agree with the administration's approach in contracting out. I have a difference of opinion on that. I believe there is a role for government in the society. On the other hand, we cannot say that contracting out does not exist because this administration has been a strong supporter of contracting out, and so, therefore, one has to wonder why we need a bill that lays the groundwork for contracting out even more. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to also echo the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), because it has been very gratifying to have a chance to work with him on this. We do have a difference of opinion, but I have a great deal of respect for his political acumen and his dedication to people, and I want to thank him for the chance to work with him. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)