Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who I am very honored to serve with in this Congress, I would say that, if there is a sense in which we are already doing it, then, perhaps, there should not be any objection to the amendment that I am offering, which simply asks that Congress has to respond in the same way that the executive agencies have to through the Government Performance and Results Act. While I, too, agree with my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), that there ought to be businesslike standards involved, I do not know any business that could survive having to do the same plans over and over. We have the largest business in America here. It is the United States of America. We have 100 different agencies that did strategic planning. We did the plans. The plans were complete. Now, we are told that every one of those plans, somehow every single one of them are not worth anything. They should be thrown out. We have to start all over again. I would say that is not very businesslike and that is not very efficient. I say that with all due respect to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I would suggest that under existing law we already have laws to make the agencies do a better job, we do not need to pass another law that tells all 100 agencies to do their plans all over again. That is the point of my presentation here, that what we are asking the agencies to do is unfair. We are smearing the entire government by proposing this legislation be passed, and we are doing it in the name of efficiency. Where is the efficiency in asking 100 agencies to do their plans all over again, plans that they just completed about 6 months ago? It just defies logic. I would like to say that this is not a mystery process here in the House of Representatives. We just have to ask, does it make sense? That is what I ask. Does it make sense that 100 agencies all failed in providing their strategic plans? Does it make sense that we ask 100 agencies to do plans all over again?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman that we have professionals who are also running this government. This is not amateur night in the government. If we pass this bill, it implies that we have a bunch of amateurs running the government and that is not true. People across this country are seeing ways in which government works. People across this country are finding that government can do things for them when they need the help of the government. I know I am not here as an apologist for government. I know better. I know that government can do better. But I also know that it is wrong for us to start condemning the very institutions which we are here to represent and to try to make work by asking people to vote for legislation that would in effect say that nothing is working.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would like it stated for the record that we took issue with this whole process because it established criteria which were absolutely impossible. The fact of the matter is, it defies logic, it absolutely defies logic, that every agency in the Federal Government does not know what it is doing. I would be afraid to get on an airplane if that were the case. I think that we need to understand that government can do better. I agree with the distinguished gentleman. We can do better. But to pass a law and as a consequence tell all 100 of those agencies that they do not know what they are doing and at the same time tell them that they failed.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would like to ask the gentleman who did the grading.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would say I looked at a few of them. I think all the plans could be done better. But should they all be done over again? No.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, the Government Performance and Results Act was strongly supported by Democrats when it became law in 1993. It was fully consistent with efforts by the administration to reinvent government. Let us be fair about this. Spearheaded by Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, the administration has made great strides in bringing greater accountability, efficiency, and economy to the Federal Government. It is actually the longest running reform effort in U.S. history. The policies have already saved American taxpayers over $130 billion. Now that is economy. The size of the Federal work force has been reduced through attritions and buyouts by over 300,000 employees. That is efficiency. We now have the smallest Federal work force since John F. Kennedy was President. That is economy and efficiency. Federal agencies have eliminated more than 16,000 pages of regulations. That is efficiency. Agencies have been cutting red tape, empowering Federal employees, and putting the public first. Government works. The American people know that government works. People know government can do better. They also know that government is doing its job. This is our government. We have a responsibility to make it work for us. That is what the Government Performance and Results Act is intended to do, to make government work, to make it work better, to make it work more efficiently, working for the people. We, the people of the United States, this is our government. Our government was required to do strategic plans by October 1, 1997. And each agency, Madam Chairman, has done the plans that they were required to do. When we tell each agency that after they have already submitted plans, in this case 100 agencies each submitting a plan that they have spent a year working on, when we tell those agencies that they should throw all those plans out and start all over again, we need to look at that process. I ask the Members of this House, is it possible that all the agencies submitted plans which should be failed? Let us say it is possible that one could have. One agency possibly may not have done the plans right. Do the plan again. But I ask, is it possible that every single agency in the Federal Government, Labor, HHS, Treasury, the FTC, the SEC, and all of those other agencies which the American people are familiar with, is it possible that none of these agencies know what they are doing? That they all have to be failed? Is that possible? Madam Chairman, I was a college associate professor for a while. I have had the opportunity to have classrooms full of students. I was in a role of a teacher. I had my objectives. At the end of the period, at the end of the course, I gave a test. What would it say about me if everyone in the class failed? The administration of the college would come back to me, and they would not say, what is wrong with your class? They would say, what is wrong with you? Think about that, all the people who have kids in school. If you had someone who failed every one of the kids in the class, would you say the kids were wrong, or would you say there is something wrong with the teacher? Let us look at this legislation. This legislation says everybody in the Federal Government failed. That is not credible. That is not even possible. Telling the American people that the entire Federal Government is in a shambles at a time when there is a balanced budget, at a time when we are making government work, at a time when we have lowered interest rates, and I say ``we'' because it has been the Congress and the administration, at a time that unemployment is down, at a time that we are making government work, at a time that we are making government accountable, this legislation stands all that on its head. If anyone believed that the entire government is a mess, then this Congress itself cannot escape the consequences of such logic. We smear ourselves by advancing such a proposition, ladies and gentlemen. It has been my experience in my first year in Congress that there is a lot of good men and women on both sides of the aisle. I want the American people to know that this is a Congress that can work for the people; that there are good people on both sides of the aisle. Sure we could do better. We can make the government work better. The executive branch has done a lot of good. Men and women who are in that branch ought not to be told that their work is worthless. They ought not to be told that they failed. If all of the agencies failed, then perhaps it is not the agencies that have failed, but the law which holds them to criteria and performance standards which are unobtainable because they are unreasonable. We all want government to work. We all want a results-oriented government. I believe that we can work with the administration to get them to do a better job. But let us not tell all these agencies their work is meaningless, because if that is what someone really believes, then what you are saying is you just do not believe in government. You do not like government. We are the government. That is my point. We should not promote this hatred of government. Because in doing so, we inspire bad feelings about the Congress itself. As I said, there are a lot of good men and women in this House. So do not tie up our government by telling 100 agencies they should do their work all over again. Do not create a paperwork mess by asking for another hundred plans. Do not tell the American taxpayers they should pay money and have those agencies do something again that they have already done once. Let the agencies do their jobs for the American people.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I simply want to say that I want to thank the chairman. This is, indeed, a technical amendment made at the request of the Inspectors General. I have had the opportunity to review it, and we have no objection to its adoption.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), in his eloquent presentation earlier, summed up his remarks by saying that you can teach an old dog new tricks. My response is, simply, do not beat that dog. Because what we are doing here is beating up on agencies which serve the people of this country, and when we ask them to do their plans all over again, we are wasting taxpayers' money. This amendment, Madam Chairman, is simple and straightforward. It eliminates the bill's requirement that all Federal agencies' strategic plans should be resubmitted on September 30, 1998. The annual performance plans required by GPRA have only just begun arriving in Congress. Some will make changes to agencies' strategic plans. It would be much better to absorb these annual plans fully before requiring the rewrite of all the strategic plans by this September. As a purely practical matter, it is now mid March. The best we can possibly expect from the Senate would be action toward the end of April. That would leave the agencies about 5 months to draft new plans, consult with Congress, and submit final strategic plans. That is simply not long enough. Also, the submission of these plans this October, less than 6 weeks from election day, opens the door to a politicization of GPRA, which we have tried to avoid. At the Subcommittee on Government Management and Information Technology, on this legislation, not one of the witnesses testified in support of this universal resubmission requirement. It is my understanding, Madam Chairman, that in open committee we did not even take the opportunity to talk to each agency about their plans. My amendment would save thousands of work hours and millions of dollars, millions of the taxpayers' dollars, in respect to the Federal agencies, time and money which would be better spent on productive activities, rather than repeating an exercise completed 6 months ago. A more targeted approach would be much wiser. If some of the strategic plans were inadequate, then the appropriators and authorizers with direct jurisdiction can and they should request resubmission of those plans. That can happen under existing law. OMB testified that they would support such efforts. Indeed, the existing OMB circular on GRPA states, ``Significant changes to a strategic plan should be made through a revision of the strategic plan, even if this accelerates,'' even if this accelerates, ``the required 3-year revision cycle. Minor adjustments to a strategic plan can be made in advance of a 3-year revision cycle by including these interim revisions in the annual performance plan.'' Madam Chairman, this guidance is fully consistent with the Government Performance and Reform Act. This process is proceeding. The Labor Department is proceeding with a complete revision of their strategic plan, and at least four other agencies, Interior, HHS, NASA, and Education, have made minor revisions through their annual performance plans. So if Congress wants revisions of specific plans, it can certainly get them. If the authorizing or appropriating committees of jurisdiction made a request to an agency for a revision of their strategic plan, ample authority already exists for that to happen. Given the power of the purse exercised by Congress, it certainly would happen. I would like to comment briefly on the concurrence of the administration with the scorecard that has been displayed, which has been implied by some. In the letter to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), OMB makes clear this is not the case. ``The Office of Management and Budget has never developed or endorsed a scorecard approach. In particular, we have never endorsed specific scores, specific scoring techniques, or the weight given to different factors contained in a scorecard used by the House majority leadership.'' Even if we were to accept the scoring of these plans, which I certainly do not, it is important to note that they only examine 24 agencies out of the entire number. Yet under this bill, 76 agencies whose plans were not even looked at would have to completely redo them. That is ridiculous. Again, it defies the test of logic. How can we reject something, sight unseen, unless we simply want to attack the entire Federal Government, without regard as to the proof which we would criticize, even not having seen it? In effect, this bill says to Federal agencies, we do not care how hard you may or may not have worked to develop sound strategic plans; everyone has to do them anyway. We penalize indiscriminately. I would like to take this moment to thank the men and women of all the government agencies who are trying to do a job despite this kind of pressure, and ask them to continue to try to do better, and let them know that the American people do appreciate the service which they are rendering, and they do not deserve this kind of an attack with this legislation.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John E. Moon, Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW). Mr. Moon has exhibited himself to be a model American through his proud service to his country throughout his life. Mr. Moon attended Northwest State College and earned degrees in Business Management and Human Resources. Mr. Moon entered the United States Marine Corps in July 1968 and went on to a successful career of defending the interests of his nation. His outstanding service in the Vietnam conflict earned him numerous honors including three bronze stars, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, and the National Defense Service Medal. After departing Vietnam, Mr. Moon went on to serve as Post Commander of his local VFW post, 2873, and served the people of Grover Hill, Ohio as their mayor for sixteen years. In his terms as local Post Commander, he was awarded the distinction of All State Post Commander. Mr. Moon also served on numerous national committees before achieving the top post in the VFW such as the Americanism committee which helps to inspire the American patriotic spirit within the populace of our nation, especially our youth. Mr. Moon was elected VFW Commander-in- Chief on August 21, 1997 at the VFW National Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah. My fellow colleagues, join me in saluting a true American patriot, one who believes the American spirit should continue to thrive in the hearts of all Americans, VFW Commander-in-Chief, John E. Moon.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lucie J. Duvall, Lieutenant of the Cleveland Police Department, on her retirement after twenty-five years of public service. Her outstanding service to the city of Cleveland will not be forgotten. Lt. Duvall entered the Cleveland Police Department on February 20, 1973 and soon after became one of the first females assigned to basic patrol. During her tenure in the Fourth District of the department, Lt. Duvall worked as a Scientific Investigative Unit and was instrumental in combating the prostitution problem in Downtown Cleveland. Lt. Duvall achieved the rank of Sergeant in 1981 and became a supervisor of the Hostage Negotiation Team. Lt. Duvall continued her work in the department as a member of the Child Pornography Task Force and was an original member of the Ohio Children's Trust Fund. Lt. Duvall achieved a hallmark in her career in 1982 when she became the first female police officer to head a vice unit in America. Lt. Duvall was promoted to her current rank of Lieutenant in 1982 and continued her fight for the protection of children. Lt. Duvall graduated from the F.B.I. National Academy in 1984 and earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Dyke College in 1993. Lt. Duvall was recently named Detective Bureau Coordinator in the Bureau of Special Investigation in Cleveland in 1995. My fellow colleagues, join me in saluting a model police officer, a woman who has pioneered numerous fields within the Cleveland police department, Lieutenant Lucie J. Duvall.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, a supplemental appropriation for the International Monetary Fund, IMF, is rushing toward the Congress. Against the backdrop of headlines coming from Asia, the supplemental appropriation would seem to be needed for an emergency. The fact is, the supplemental appropriation is not needed to bail out Asian borrowers. The bailout has already taken place with existing IMF funds. The supplemental is not needed on an emergency basis. Instead, the supplemental appropriation is a back-door attempt to increase the size and scope of the IMF. The $18 billion supplemental appropriation would be the U.S. share of a planned 45 percent increase in the size of the IMF and in its magnitude. Mr. Speaker, IMF proponents are counting on confusing Congress and the country in order to preclude careful scrutiny and push through a big increase in its size. The real question before this Congress should be do we really want to expand the size and scope of the IMF? Has the IMF been helpful or harmful? Are there changes we want? Mr. Speaker, do we not want to find the answers to these questions before we commit $18 billion to the IMF? The only way to get time to answer those and other questions is to first reject the supplemental appropriation.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues working on and thinking about electric deregulation (``retail wheeling'') the remarks of Anthony J. Alexander, Executive Vice-President & General Counsel of Ohio Edison Company, which he delivered to members of Local 245, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). There is much to be learned from the candid revelations of this leader in the electric power industry. Contrary to what you've heard from supporters of retail wheeling, this issue isn't about rate cuts--because there's no guarantee on rates. In fact, they could go up for many Ohioans. And, in any event, from a global competitiveness standpoint, we already have electric rates that are lower than those of most industrialized countries in the world. It's not about efficiency--we already have the most efficient and reliable system in the world. In fact, many of our energy-efficiency programs, especially for low income customers, could be lost under the new system. And it's not about fairness--because only a few, privileged customers and suppliers may profit from retail wheeling. And, it's likely to lead to many differences in prices, which today we'd call discrimination. Let's not be naive: This issue is all about money--and lots of it. There's a lot of money on the table--not only for those who believe that retail wheeling will allow them to negotiate more favored prices, but also for the speculators in futures, options, hedges and derivatives. Wall Street and others are driving this issue not for the sake of free markets, but to gain access to profits. After all, this change involves one of the nation's largest, and most capital-intensive, industries-as well as thousands of people, just like members of Local 245, who work hard every day to deliver high-quality service to customers. Make no mistake about this point: For supporters of retail wheeling, it's all about them getting more . . . and quite frankly, us getting less. And when I say us, I don't just mean utility employees. I'm also talking about senior citizens, small business owners, customers on low incomes, working families--including those headed by single parents . . . in other words, the vast majority of people who probably won't have suppliers competing for their business. Other key issues are reliability and convenience. Under the existing system, utilities are obligated to serve all customers--the unprofitable as well as the profitable. By effectively eliminating the basic obligation, the reserve margins generated by today's power plants--as well as the thousands of utility jobs associated with those margins-- simply wouldn't exist. Why? Because under retail wheeling, generation that is held in reserve to assure reliability would no longer be mandated. No one would build expensive new power plants or maintain reserves or any other inventories simply to assure reliable and adequate supply. Rather than a service, electricity would become a market- drive commodity in which price and profit are the only concerns. Reliability is a serious issue in any deregulated industry. But considering the essential role electricity plays in every home and business, unreliable electric service is a much bigger problem than a busy signal or a canceled flight. This is a complicated issue, because the electric business is far different from other industries that have been deregulated. At the same time, supporters of retail wheeling are trying to mask the real impact of transforming electric service into just another product for which there's no substitute--and, no other product or service just like it. Remember, choice goes both ways--customers can choose their suppliers, and suppliers can choose their customers. If lawmakers decide that our industry must be deregulated, then they should take the time to do it right the first time-- because the stakes are too high to do otherwise.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my views on H.R. 2181, the Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 1997. While this bill includes many valuable provisions which would improve States' witness protection and relocation programs, I cannot, in good faith vote for final passage due to a provision currently in the bill. My fellow colleagues, my moral and religious values prevent me from voting for a bill which calls for imposition of the death penalty. I believe those who commit serious crimes should be severely punished, even to the extent of life imprisonment, but I do not believe in the death penalty. I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life, and my voting record consistently reflects this belief. I hope that when this bill goes to conference the death penalty provision is removed. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide the States with the means to protect witnesses who put their lives at risk to do the right thing and to set strong and reasonable penalties for those who engage in witness intimidation or obstruction of justice.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mike McLaren and the players at the Rocky River courts in Rocky River, Ohio. Chris Ballard, the author of Hoops Nation, recently toured the country looking for the best basketball courts and pickup games around. I am pleased to announce that Ballard features the Rocky River Courts in Rocky River, Ohio among America's top five basketball courts. NBA greats Danny Ferry and John Amaechi must agree since they play there regularly. The following is Ballard's description of the Rocky River Courts: Take well-organized yuppie ball out of the health clubs, dump it on a court in a wealthy suburb of Cleveland, and you've got Rocky River, a magnet for Ohio's most talented gym rats. Mike McLaren, a local hoops junkie, has been organizing the games for 20 years, setting up teams and court rotations and keeping the slug fests to a minimum. Until City Hall runs the players out of town, as it's been threatening to do for years, McLaren's legions will be playing in fair and foul weather.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of John J. Broski for his years of service to Cleveland-area athletics and education. Mr. Broski was a dedicated educator and mentor to students of all ages. Mr. Broski was destined for greatness from the beginning of his high- school career. As a student at South High School, Mr. Broski earned six varsity letters and excelled in sports, specifically baseball and basketball. After playing freshman baseball at Western Michigan University, Mr. Broski Played minor-league baseball with the Cleveland Indians, igniting his interest in Cleveland sports. Mr. Broski obtained a master's degree from Western Michigan in 1955 and earned guidance counselor certification from Kent State University in 1968. Mr. Broski was named head coach at East Technical High School in 1954. During his tenure as coach, Mr. Broski won two state championships in class AA and was named Ohio Coach of the Year in 1959. Mr. Broski continued coaching at several area high schools and became a guidance counselor in 1968. With his retirement from Parma High School as guidance counselor in 1985, Mr. Broski became a registrar with Dyke College, now known as David N. Myers College, where he had coached basketball in the late 1970s. Mr. Broski was the lone Cleveland Cavaliers basketball scorer from 1970 until his death in 1996. His devotion to the Cavaliers and the new professional women's team, the Cleveland Rockers, highlight his tremendous life. Mr. Broski leaves behind his wife of 22 years, Paula; two daughters, two grandchildren, and a brother. My fellow colleagues, join me in saluting the life of a truly dedicated educator and sportsman, Mr. John J. Broski.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization on its 25th anniversary of service to the Cleveland community. The Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization prides itself on establishing close relations with members of the Cleveland community to promote neighborhood development. During the organization's tenure, numerous neighborhoods throughout Cleveland have seen the positive effects of Detroit Shoreway's work. By cooperating with community leaders, civic groups, and Cleveland citizens, the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization has accomplished its goal of developing successful neighborhood improvements in the Cleveland area. My fellow colleagues, join me in saluting the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization on their 25th anniversary of promoting successful economic development for Cleveland neighborhoods.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of John B. Perera, for his dedication to worthy causes, his numerous years of service, and for his devotion to the continuance of humanity. Born in New York City, Mr. Perera, because of his staunch Quaker faith, executed his military duties in the Korean War by doing social work in Mexico and El Salvador for the government. He studied at Ohio State University and held many jobs before finally arriving in Cleveland to work as a truck driver for a food cooperative. Unfortunately during his tenure as a truck driver, Mr. Perera acquired a respiratory illness that led to his retirement on disability. Mr. Perera's retirement can be seen as a blessing though. Mr. Perera took advantage of his retirement to pursue causes relevant to the survival of the human race and the advancement of human rights. He served on numerous councils and committees, most notably the Sierra Club, Coalition for a Clean Environment, and the American Lung Association. Mr. Perera testified in front of state committees to stop the dumping of nuclear waste, championed the issues of improving low- income housing and women's rights, and demonstrated for causes he strongly believed in such as the environment and health care. Mr. Perera's activism portrays him as a model American citizen. His peaceful demonstrations in support of his most cherished values and issues will never be forgotten. He leaves behind two sons, one daughter, his father, four grandchildren, a brother, three sisters, and a legacy of true patriotism. My fellow colleagues, please join me in saluting the life of Mr. John B. Perera.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the contribution of Dave's Supermarkets to the economic well-being and general welfare of the Ohio City neighborhood. Dave's Supermarkets have exemplified the attitude of community improvement and well-being during its many years of operation. With the opening of the Ohio City store, 93 locals, most of whom were unemployed or in low-income jobs, now receive union wage paychecks and even health care benefits and pension plans. Dave's gave them the opportunity to reintegrate themselves into the workforce, thus improving their lifestyles and revitalizing the neighborhood. The attitude of Dave's Supermarkets and its owners, the Saltzman family, has clearly affected the life of the Ohio City community for the better. Employees of the newly-constructed Dave's reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity of the neighborhood and are friendly, energetic, and optimistic. by mixing the local characteristics of the ``general store'' with the modern supermarket experience, Dave's provides a welcome community atmosphere. Truly, Dave's Supermarkets offer intrinsic American values that we all cherish: congeniality, supportive customer service, and a friendly atmosphere in which to shop. My fellow colleagues, please join me in saluting Dave's Supermarkets and the employees of the Dave's Ohio City store.