Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers. I certainly appreciate that. I will certainly never seek to impugn the feelings of those who say that we have to have the PATRIOT Act in order to protect our country. We are all patriots here, and we all want America to be protected; but we have to recognize our constitutional experience here and the reason why we have a Fourth Amendment that protects people not just from unreasonable search and seizure, but from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their lives. When we look at our constitutional experience and all of the efforts that made it and built up to it, we didn't hear ``give my liberty or give me a wiretap.'' We didn't hear ``don't tread on me, but it is okay to spy.'' What we heard was a ringing declaration about freedom, and it was enshrined in the Constitution. I stood on the floor of the House way back when the Patriot Act came forward, voted against it because I read it and understood that it opened up the door for a broad reach and possibilities of broad reach by the government into our daily lives. The gentleman from Wisconsin, who is my friend, correctly pointed out earlier the difference between National Security Letters and the Patriot Act. But it also is true that section 505 of the Patriot Act gave the government the ability to greatly expand who could issue a national security letter, so much so that nearly 50,000 national security letters were issued by the FBI in 2006, I think the year was. They don't have to use section 215 of the Patriot Act. They can just invoke the national security letter authority and reach into people's financial records, their medical letters, their reading material. What is happening to our country? Why are we giving up our basic liberties? We need to take a stand here, and this is as good a day as any to take a stand. Many Members of Congress, including those supported by my friends in the tea party, maintain their goal is to get rid of big government, get government out of their lives. Well, how about the Patriot Act, which has the broadest reach and the deepest reach of government into our daily lives? Shouldn't we be thinking about that? Some want to get government out of health care. Some want to get government out of retirement security. How about getting government out of people's bedrooms, out of people's financial records, out of people's medical records? Vote ``no'' on extending the Patriot Act.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and memory of Mr. Gordon S. Murray. When Mr. Murray, a retired Wall Street executive, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer in 2008, he decided rather than quietly and privately succumbing to the disease, he would write a guidebook outlining his investment strategy. In doing so, he helped many Americans make sense of investing. Mr. Murray, a Baltimore native, spent years working for some of Wall Street's biggest names, including Goldman Sachs. Upon his retirement in 2001, he sought investment advice from Mr. Daniel Goldie of Dimensional Fund Advisors, who introduced him to a new way of understanding investment. Dimensional advisers suggested going against the Wall Street mentality of taking exorbitant risks and attempting to beat the markets. Mr. Murray was quickly convinced of this system's merits and began working for Dimensional as a consultant. Last year, when brain scans revealed a new tumor, Mr. Murray made the decision to end aggressive treatment, and began to focus on writing a book with Mr. Goldie in an attempt to spread their knowledge to the greater public. They initially self-published the resulting book, ``The Investment Answer,'' which sold out of the original 200,000 copies last fall. Mr. Murray passed away just days before the hardcover version of the book was set to hit shelves. Mr. Murray felt that writing ``The Investment Answer'' was a beneficial experience. He stated, `To have a purpose and a mission for me has been really special. It probably has added days to my life.' (New York Times, 1/24/2011) Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and memory of Mr. Gordon S. Murray, who proved to be an inspiration through his refusal to let his terminal illness prevent him from achieving his life's work. Mr. Murray will be loved and remembered by many, especially his widow, Randi; his mother; his two sons, Sam and Ben; two sisters, Gillian Koerber and Norma Inglehart; his many friends, colleagues and all who knew him.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the outgoing Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Major General Arnold Fields, issued a last warning yesterday before moving on from his post. Fields warned that over $11 billion of U.S. aid is at risk, citing insufficient planning and a lack of oversight. The $11 billion are funds designated to build facilities to house and train Afghan security forces. The lack of security in Afghanistan also poses a problem, placing any potentially beneficial projects that are completed at risk. Even if all the facilities scheduled to be built are completed, does Afghanistan have the capability to protect and maintain them? A March 2010 report by the United Nations states that there is a ``massive human rights deficit'' in Afghanistan, with 36 percent of the population living in absolute poverty and another 37 percent living just above the poverty line. Only 23 percent of the country has access to clean water. This, despite the billions of dollars in reconstruction and development aid we have funneled into the country. So where is our money going? We know that President Karzai and his cronies are living large, while the rest of the country falters. It is time to bring our troops home.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. As we begin this great debate over what our priorities are, it's worth reflecting on an article that was written nearly 3 years ago in the Sunday Times of London by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and his associate Linda Bilmes. Here is what they write: ``The Bush administration was wrong about the benefits of the war''-- talking about the Iraq war--``and was wrong about the costs of the war. The President and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined. ``The cost of direct U.S. military operations--not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans--already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War. ``And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost 10 times the cost of the first gulf war, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam war, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history that cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting 4 years, at a total cost, in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation, of about $5 trillion.'' They go on to write that, ``With virtually the entire Armed Forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop, in today's dollars, was less than $100,000.'' That's in 2007 dollars. ``By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop. ``Most Americans have yet to feel these costs.'' This was written almost 3 years ago. ``The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it--in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But, of course, the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.'' That from Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes almost 3 years ago. One of the biggest causes of our soaring debt and economic insecurity ends up being Pentagon spending. The budget for the Pentagon consumes more than half our discretionary spending. We have seen countless stories of U.S. taxpayer dollars going unaccounted for in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have had countless high-profile hearings on contractor fraud and the lack of oversight at the Department of Defense. According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, 39 percent of our income tax dollars last year went to Pentagon spending on past and current wars. And Stiglitz, again, has said that the Iraq war ``didn't just contribute to the severity of the financial crisis . . . it kept us from responding to it effectively. Increased indebtedness meant that the government had far less room to maneuver than it otherwise would have.'' So what we have is the U.S. financing war on borrowed money. We must examine our connection between soaring debt and these two wars, the war in Iraq and war in Afghanistan. Between 2003 and 2008, the U.S. debt increased by almost $4 trillion. A quarter of that debt is directly attributed to the war in Iraq. The cost of the war in Afghanistan has been over $455 billion to date, and the deadline for that keeps sliding past 2014. Now, in the nationalpriorities.org, they talk about a sustainable defense. And one report says that there are options for reducing military spending, saving nearly $1 trillion over the next decade without adversely impacting U.S. national security interests. So we can have a strong defense, but we're spending so much money, we're undermining our ability to be able to provide for the American people here at home. And we have to start taking care of things here at home. What will we sacrifice? Will we sacrifice the education of our children for these wars? Will we sacrifice Social Security for these wars? Will we sacrifice Medicare or Medicaid for these wars? Will we sacrifice our infrastructure for these wars? Or will we say the war in Iraq was based on lies; let's bring these troops home? Will we say that Afghanistan is a hopeless, corrupt mess and it's time to bring our troops home, and then begin to use the resources of our country, those resources that are hard-earned taxpayer dollars, use that money for things here at home? Let's have that debate as we talk about cutting the budget.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the contributions of Captain Dan Hoffman, a longtime public servant and Chief of the Parma Police Department. A natural leader and dedicated law enforcement officer, Captain Hoffman devoted nearly four decades of his life to protecting the people of Ohio. Mr. Hoffman grew up on the near west side of Cleveland and graduated from Old Lincoln High School. He began his career with the East Cleveland Police Department in June of 1973, and moved to the Parma department five years later. Over the last 33 years, Hoffman has worked in many areas of the Parma Police Department. In his early years, he served on the Uniform Patrol Division, the Motorcycle Unit, the S.W.A.T. Unit, the Detective Bureau, the Special Investigations Unit, and the Services Division. He later moved up to work as Commander of the Uniform Patrol, Records, and Services divisions before being promoted to Executive Officer and finally Chief. Somehow, Hoffman still made time to attend both the FBI National Academy and Northwestern School of Police Staff and Command. Like a true leader, Hoffman credits his employees and colleagues for the department's success. In a letter announcing his retirement, he wrote ``As I think about all of the past and present employees who have worked so hard to get us where we are now I am filled with a sense of pride for all of their and your accomplishments. It is apparent that everyone has committed to ensuring the safety and quality of life for the citizens of Parma.'' Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in applauding Dan Hoffman for his outstanding service to the people of Parma. May every American citizen feel deep gratitude for the bravery, dedication, and talent of men and women who spend their lives keeping our communities safe. Captain Hoffman had a true calling to law enforcement and he leaves behind a legacy of public spirit, excellence, and camaraderie.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, when talking to non-partisan health care financing experts about the ideal health care system, their preference is clear: they usually agree that a single-payer system that prevents the health insurance companies from getting between you and your doctor is the way to go. But they usually follow up with a caveat--the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry are too powerful to allow it to happen: it is not politically feasible. I am thrilled to say that argument is now a relic. On January 19, Harvard economist William Hsiao released a report that examined three health care systems for Vermont, whose new governor campaigned on a single-payer platform. The report found that a true single payer system would save Vermont 8-12 percent off their health care spending upon implementation and another 12-14 percent as the system gets up and running. The result is that 5000 new jobs will be created because of the burden lifted off of businesses. And it would cover every Vermonter. An article by VTDigger.org announced that ``Even the private insurance companies, many of whose policy-holders would presumably be diverted to the new `single pipe' which would channel all payments to doctors and hospitals through set rates for procedures cautiously welcomed Hsiao's proposal.'' We are at the doorstep of one of the most promising developments in health care of our time.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Ashley Turton, a loving wife, mother, daughter, sister and friend. Mrs. Turton's devotion to public service, and her passionate love for her family and children, has left a mark on countless lives. Mrs. Turton dedicated her life to serving the American public. She served as press secretary, and later, chief of staff to Congresswoman DeLauro. She also worked as an aid to Congressman Richard Gephardt. She was a leader during her career as a public servant and she worked for the benefit of the people. Upon leaving the public sector, Mrs. Turton continued to promote responsibility and good work ethics as a regulatory affairs analyst for Progressive Energy. She was a valued employee and a cooperative colleague, always happy and enjoying life's pleasures. For everything Mrs. Turton was, she was a kind and caring mother first. A mother of three, Mrs. Turton was an active part of her neighborhood, where she was commonly seen playing with her children. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering Ashley Turton, whose legacy of professionalism, service to others, and love and cheerful radiance will forever remain in our hearts and minds. I extend my sincere condolences to Mrs. Turton's husband, Dan Turton, a colleague of ours and a friend to many, and to Mrs. Turton's parents, siblings and children. Mrs. Turton's commitment to the common good and love will remain an example for us and those to come.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has long labored under a stigma of violence. An estimated one in four women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime. 30% of all students through grade six will experience bullying, either as victims or perpetrators. Domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in our schools, gang violence, racial violence and violence against those we perceive to be different than us remain prevalent. So what should we do? What if we had an organized approach to dealing with violence in our society? What if we treated violence as phenomenon that could be addressed, diminished and resolved? We have always been told that war is inevitable. That violence is inevitable. We must challenge these notions. Government has a role in creating an organized approach to addressing violence and to create structures to lessen violence and its impact on our lives. We cannot wait for more tragic events to occur to force us to examine issues of violence here at home. There is no time like the present to begin, again, the debate about violence in our society. I intend to facilitate this debate with a proposal I will soon bring forward.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, millions of retirees that worked in the public sector feel very threatened right now, and for good reason: their pensions are being threatened. As we engage in a national conversation about how to reduce the deficit both in our States and in our Nation, let us be clear about one thing: we will not be cutting the pensions of retirees--including teachers, police, fire and EMS workers, public works personnel, and many others--who devoted their careers to serving the public. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities recently reported that States are facing 2012 fiscal year operating deficits totaling nearly $125 billion dollars. This number represents both short and long-term financial challenges for States. But the fear, blame and confusion surrounding such a number has put a tremendous amount of pressure on elected officials and State legislatures to make immediate and drastic cuts to State services, including retiree pensions. Recently, a proposal was suggested to give States the ability to file for bankruptcy. Such an initiative is a non-starter, as it would do far more harm than good. It means that States who declare bankruptcy could seek to back out of their solemn promise to provide for those who served the public after their service was done. Those promises are known as defined benefit pensions. The public employees were promised the security of knowing those benefits would be there when they need them. If States successfully cancel out these agreements under cover of bankruptcy, the costs to individuals as well as the trust in government will be enormous. We cannot, we must not and we will not ask retirees to pay the consequences of upending these long-term promises for the sake of a false short-term financial solution.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate on the reduction of non-defense and security spending, a visit to recent history reveals a telling connection between our soaring debt and the two wars our country is waging. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the average American family of four almost $13,000 last year. We know from our constituents when we return to our districts that the average American family of four cannot afford that. They cannot afford to pay for wars that undermine our national and moral security. Many families can barely afford to stay in their homes. Nobel Prize winning economist and author of The Three Trillion Dollar War, Joseph Stiglitz, says that there is ``no question that the Iraq war added substantially to the federal debt. This was the first time in American history that the government cut taxes as it went to war. The result: a war completely funded by borrowing. The global financial crisis, he says, was due at least in part to the war. If this sounds familiar, it is because we are pursuing the same policies today. The ramifications of our spending on the Iraq War-- soaring oil prices, federal debt and a global economic crisis--were during a time when the resources dedicated to Iraq were much greater than those being dedicated to Afghanistan. The commitment of an additional 30,000 troops and a continually slipping withdrawal date commits us to an endless war and an endless stream of borrowed money. It commits us to seemingly endless economic insecurity. Moving past the costs of waging war, there are the costs of providing returning veterans with the care they need. When these costs are factored in, the costs of health care and benefits for veterans significantly increases the $3 trillion price tag to nearly $5 trillion. It is time to question the way we enhance our national security and our economic security. It will be a grave mistake to miss this opportunity. The facts tell us that the policies we have been pursuing in recent years have led us further from the very goals we claim to be working toward. The facts tell us that it is fiscally irresponsible to continue defense spending at current rates. By ignoring this responsibility--by pretending that it doesn't exist--we fail to heed the lessons from our economic decline. The costs of maintaining the status quo are great. The moral and human costs are even greater.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, as President Obama meets with visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao, in the past decade, we've lost at least 2 million American industrial jobs to China. In 2010 alone, the trade deficit between the U.S. and China was $252 billion dollars. The fact is that Chinese workers are paid much lower wages than U.S. workers, which means their products are much cheaper to produce than if companies operating in China had to pay actual fair labor costs. Chinese workers endure a much lower standard of living than Americans do. They also lack any right to organize or petition their employers or government for better working conditions. They do not enjoy the same protections of their environment that masses of Americans have fought so hard for. We take these basic protections for granted because they are enshrined in our law. We cannot seek to compete with the Chinese on their level by weakening environmental and worker protections in the hope that this will correct the economic imbalances between our two nations. Instead we must re-write the U.S.-China trade agreements to include these essential worker and environmental protections.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, Goldman Sachs, the most profitable U.S. securities firm in history, is on a well-publicized public relations (PR) campaign to improve its image. Goldman is hoping that this will help erase the negative appearance that lingers in the public's mind after it paid $550 million to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fraud suit last July. Since then, its stock has taken a beating. But don't worry about Goldman. It's no secret that its strategy to reap billions in profits came in part by creating and selling high-risk mortgages in a form known as ``collateralized debt obligations.'' This, while tens of thousands of families in Cleveland--and millions elsewhere--were losing their homes to foreclosure and their communities to decay and neglect. It's also well-known that Goldman had no ethical problem placing big bets against its own investment clients. In 2008, Goldman took $10 billion in below-market loans from the Federal Reserve, only to have the audacity to claim later that it didn't need that money after all. But those funds helped Goldman weather the financial crisis that they helped create. It's easy to claim now that they didn't need the help back when the financial system was nearly in ruins. But don't be fooled: it's still the same old Goldman, still as cunning and ruthless as ever when it comes to the pursuit of profits. Goldman hopes its PR money will be well-spent, and that the American people will forget the way it profited so handsomely, even off of the misery of others, including its own clients. But many of us are paying attention, and we will remember.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Chief of Police Donald L. Wagner upon his retirement from the Rocky River Police Department after 45 years of dedicated service. Chief of Police Wagner was born in Lakewood, Ohio on May 13, 1942. He graduated from Rocky River High School in 1960 and earned a bachelor's degree from Ohio University in 1964. Chief of Police Wagner began his career with the Rocky River Police Department on April 1, 1965. He was promoted to Sergeant in 1974, Lieutenant in 1980, Executive Staff Assistant to the Chief of Police in 1985 and finally to Chief of Police in 1995. He is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, the Cuyahoga County Police Chiefs Association and the Metropolitan Crime Clinic Association. The life of a police officer is one of true selflessness and service, and Police Chief Wagner is no exception. Each day the brave men and women of law enforcement put their lives on the line for the good of their communities. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Chief of Police Donald L. Wagner for his exemplary service on behalf of his community. Chief of Police Wagner's dedication to making Rocky River a safer place to live and work is honorable and inspiring. I wish Chief of Police Wagner peace, health and happiness in all his future endeavors.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Lieutenant Robert G. Sharp, upon his retirement from the Rocky River Police Department, following over 30 years of dedicated service. Born in Berea, Ohio on December 20, 1952, Lt. Sharp was raised in the West Park area of Cleveland. A few years after Mr. Sharp graduated from John Marshall High School, he joined the Rocky River Police Department. He earned an associate degree in Law Enforcement in 1982 from Cuyahoga Community College and a bachelors degree in Technical Education in 1989 from the University of Akron. Throughout the course of his career, Lt. Sharp received numerous commendations and special recognitions for his courage, lifesaving efforts, and dedication to those he served. In 1980, Mr. Sharp was promoted to Sergeant and later Lieutenant in 1984. He also served as the Commander of the Westshore S.W.A.T. Team from 1986 to 1996. In addition to his outstanding career as a police officer, Lt. Sharp has been an active member of the community. He is a member of the Westpark Cleveland Historical Society, and in the past participated in the National Tactical Officer's Association as well as the Ohio Tactical Officer's Association. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Lieutenant Robert G. Sharp for his exemplary service on behalf of his community. At the age of 58, Lieutenant Sharp has served and protected the people of Rocky River with courage for 34 years.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Mr. Terence P. Hudec, Executive Staff Assistant to the Chief of Police of Rocky River, upon his retirement from the Rocky River Police Department after more than 35 years of dedicated service. Mr. Hudec was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1948. He graduated from Cathedral Latin High School in 1966 and earned a bachelors degree from John Carroll University in 1972. Mr. Hudec began his career with the Rocky River Police Department on April 1, 1973. He was promoted to Sergeant in 1981, Lieutenant in 1986, and assigned to the position of Executive Staff Assistant to the Chief of Police in 1995. The life of a police officer is one of true selflessness and service, and Officer Hudec is no exception. Each day the brave men and women of law enforcement put their lives on the line for the good of their communities. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Mr. Terence P. Hudec, Executive Staff Assistant to the Chief of Police, for his exemplary service on behalf of his community. Mr. Hudec's dedication to making Rocky River a safer place to live and work is honorable and inspiring. I wish Executive Staff Assistant Hudec peace, health and happiness in all his future endeavors.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Ms. Inez Killingsworth, founder of Empowering and Strengthening Ohio's People (ESOP), as she is recognized by ESOP for her multitude of achievements. Ms. Killingsworth has a long history of standing up for the rights of the people of her community, refusing to let their needs be ignored. Ms. Killingsworth founded the East Side Organizing Project in 1993 as a means to address the unsafe conditions of her Union-Miles neighborhood. During the early 1990s, ESOP, under Ms. Killingsworth's leadership, began to rally against the lack of credit available to African Americans in the community. When predatory lending in the area increased and more and more community members were facing mortgage payments they could no longer afford, ESOP turned its focus to addressing this growing problem. ESOP became a statewide venture in 2008, when it opened 10 offices throughout the state of Ohio. The organization was then renamed Empowering and Strengthening Ohio's People. ESOP acts as a foreclosure counseling agency. Through tactics varying from protesting banks to negotiating agreements between lenders and borrowers to taking financial executives on tours of the collapsing neighborhoods that are in peril due to predatory lending, ESOP has helped thousands of families in Ohio avoid losing their homes. In 2009, 80% of ESOP clients received favorable loan modifications. In 2010, Ms. Killingsworth received a Purpose Prize from the San Francisco think tank Civic Ventures. This prize is awarded annually to ten Americans over the age of 60 who are changing the world in the second half of their lives. The award comes with a $100,000 prize, part of which Ms. Killingsworth intends to use to create a program to help newly released felons find work. She also intends to address problems in other areas, such as the lack of healthy food choices in poor, urban neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Ms. Inez Killingsworth for her unwavering dedication to solving difficult challenges faced by the people of Ohio. She has been a role model in her community, relentlessly fighting for justice. I wish Ms. Killingsworth peace, health and happiness in all her future endeavors.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Lieutenant Bruce F. Gunsch upon his retirement from the Rocky River Police Department after more than 30 years of dedicated service. Lieutenant Bruce F. Gunsch was born in Lakewood, Ohio on April 23, 1949. After graduating from St. Edward High School in 1967, Mr. Gunsch served in the U.S. Army from 1968 to 1971, achieving the rank of Sergeant. He earned a bachelor's degree in Business Administration from Cleveland State University in 1976. Lieutenant Gunsch began his career with the Rocky River Police Department on February 14, 1977. He was promoted to Sergeant in 1984 and Lieutenant in 1987. The life of a police officer is one of true selflessness and service, and Lieutenant Gunsch is no exception. Each day the brave men and women of law enforcement put their lives on the line for the good of their communities. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Lieutenant Bruce F. Gunsch for his exemplary service on behalf of his community. Lieutenant Gunsch's dedication to making Rocky River a safer place to live and work is honorable and inspiring. At the age of 61, Lieutenant Sharp has served and protected the people of Rocky River with courage for 34 years. We thank him for his service and wish him health and happiness.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan continues to sink deeper into political crisis. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's legitimacy and effectiveness as a leader is again being tested by the winners of last September's parliamentary elections. More than 200 parliamentarians have agreed to conduct a parliamentary session this weekend despite calls by President Karzai to delay the opening session due to complaints of fraud during parliamentary elections. Karzai appointed a special court to examine charges of fraud despite unanswered questions of massive fraud in his own reelection in 2009. A May 2009 report by the United Nations, UN, estimates that the majority of the Afghan population lives in poverty, despite the country having received almost 40 billion in aid between 2002 and 2009. The report blames widespread corruption and abuse of power as a main cause of Afghan suffering, leaving ordinary people without even the most basic services. If we accept the premise that we need to be in Afghanistan until corruption falls by the wayside, we will be in Afghanistan forever. We cannot afford to continue pouring billions of dollars in Afghanistan to prop up a hopelessly corrupt Afghan central government. It is time to end this war.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the FCC approved the takeover of NBC, a television network, by Comcast, a cable TV and internet provider. One condition of the merger's approval is that the combined company must not restrict access to any lawful online content. Another condition is that the merged company cannot give better treatment online to its own content than to the content produced by others. Comcast now has 23 million cable TV subscribers, and 16 million internet subscribers, making it the largest internet and cable TV service provider in the US. With such a pervasive conglomerate, it seems unlikely that these restrictions will ensure equal access to the internet, whose creation was funded by taxpayers. Like any powerful tool, the internet must be protected from falling into the control of any one entity or entities which have too much authority to decide who can access it and what content they can put there. We need real Net Neutrality, not the FCC's recent proposal, which I will fight to strengthen.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, admitting some ``very big mistakes,'' banking giant JP Morgan Chase revealed today that they overcharged more than 4,000 active-duty military personnel on their home loans and foreclosed, in error, on 14 of them. The Service Members Civil Relief Act of 2003 provides military personnel certain rights and protections as they enter active duty with respect to credit card interest rates, mortgage interest rates, and mortgage foreclosures. Per the provisions of this act both mortgage interest rates and consumer debt interest rates can be limited to 6 percent in some circumstances and foreclosures are not permitted. While Chase has apologized for this ``customer mistake,'' has agreed to send out $2 million worth of refunds and has resolved all but one of the foreclosure cases, the strain put on the service members and their families through the bank's failure to comply with this act is inexcusable. Two issues need urgent attention if we are to avoid a recurrence of this kind of illegal behavior on the part of the banks: 1) We must accelerate the formation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was created by Congress in the wake of the financial crisis; 2) We need to acknowledge that current interest rates are running as low as 4.6 percent for fixed 15 year loans and look into amending the Service Members Civil Relief Act of 2003 to reflect that reality, thus giving those who leave their families behind to serve our country the best rates available. [From NPR.org, Jan. 19, 2011] Bank Overcharged Military Families on Mortgages (By Tamara Keith) The banking giant JPMorgan Chase is admitting it made some very big mistakes. As first reported by NBC News, the firm says it overcharged more than 4,000 active-duty military personnel on their home loans and foreclosed in error on 14 of them. Julia Rowles and her husband, Marine Capt. Jonathan Rowles, have been fighting with Chase ever since Rowles was commissioned as an officer in 2006. ``They would say, `We will take your house. We will report you to the credit agency. This is a bad situation that you don't want to be getting into. Pay us today.' They were harassing us for money that we did not owe them,'' Julia Rowles says. Her husband once got a collection call at 3 a.m. None of that was supposed to happen. Under a federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, most troops can get their mortgage interest rates reduced to 6 percent while on active duty, and foreclosures aren't allowed. Rowles says her husband, who is now overseas, was granted the lower interest rate, but Chase didn't adjust its records. ``They kept still charging us 9 and 10 percent, and we were paying upwards to $2,000 when we should have only been paying $1,400,'' she said. This week Chase said it would send out $2 million worth of refunds to 4,000 active-duty customers like the Rowles family who were overcharged. It also admitted to wrongfully foreclosing on 14 homes, and said all but one of those cases had been resolved. Bank officials declined an interview request, but in a statement said: ``While any customer mistake is regrettable, we feel particularly badly about the mistakes we made here.'' But attorney Dick Harpootlian in Columbia, S.C., isn't ready to accept the apology. He's one of the lawyers representing the Rowles family in what he hopes will become a class-action lawsuit against Chase. ``I was a prosecutor for 12 years. Everybody that got caught taking money that wasn't theirs always said they were sorry, offered to give it back and call it even,'' he said. ``And that's just not what ought to happen in cases like this.'' Elizabeth Warren, a special assistant to President Obama, says the case illustrates why the U.S. needs a strong consumer financial protection agency. She's putting together the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was created by Congress to look out for consumers in the wake of the financial crisis. The agency will also focus on protecting military families. ``We need a cop on the beat,'' Warren said. ``The laws are in place, but there's no one to enforce them and no one to speak up for these families. This is just wrong.'' Warren says the laws exist so service members can concentrate on doing their jobs. They should not be ``worried about paperwork and bills and whether or not a loved one is being harassed for money that's not even owed.'' Warren visited Lackland Air Force Base in Texas on Tuesday to talk to military families about their financial concerns. She was joined by Holly Petraeus, the wife of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Holly Petraeus was one of the first hires for the new consumer bureau. ``I really can't think of anything better to be doing while my husband is deployed forever than working on a project like this,'' she said. She'll head the office of Service Member Affairs, which will be on the lookout for issues like those at Chase.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, opposition to the war in Afghanistan is growing. At a time when the divides in our nation seem beyond repair, Americans are united in their concern over the war. A recent poll of conservatives conducted by the Afghanistan Study group shows that 71 percent of conservatives overall, and 67 percent of Tea Party supporters are concerned about the costs of the war in Afghanistan. They worry that the costs will make it difficult to address the deficit and balance the nation's budget by the end of the decade. Two-thirds of conservatives polled support a troop reduction, with a further 30 percent supporting full troop withdrawal. More than 6 out of 10 Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan according to another poll conducted by CNN this month. 56 percent believe that things are going badly for the U.S. in Afghanistan. Yet we are being assured of progress in Afghanistan as the date for withdrawal continues to slip into 2014. The financial costs of the war are unsustainable. The human costs threaten to undermine our national, economic and moral security. It is time to bring our troops home. It's time to dedicate our resources to nation building here at home.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. The for-profit health care system is the problem. Eight hundred billion dollars every year is spent on corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing, and the cost of paperwork. In the for-profit system that we have, nearly 1 out of every 3 dollars goes for things not related to health care. If we took that $800 billion and spent it on care for people, we would have enough money to cover all medically necessary needs in addition to dental care, vision care, mental health care, prescription drugs, and long- term care. We now have a situation where 50 million Americans don't have any health insurance. Americans wouldn't have to worry about losing everything they've worked a lifetime for because there is an illness in the family. This debate is the wrong debate. A for-profit model is the wrong model. We should be talking about universal health care, single-payer, not-for-profit health care, Medicare for all, quality health care for all Americans.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is debating whether to take a giant step backward by repealing the Affordable Care Act. If we are not going to debate how to improve the health care bill, we should be working to strengthen our economy. A good place to help Americans out of a bad economy is to look at the number one cause of bankruptcies in the U.S.: medical bills. Specifically, over 62 percent of all bankruptcies are from medical bills. It is tempting to conclude from that statistic that most of those bills are due to the uninsured not being able to pay their bills. That would be wrong. In 78 percent of those medical bankruptcy cases, the victims had health insurance. That means that about half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. happen to people who have health insurance. This is what happens when insurance companies make money by not providing care. Their job is to make someone other than them pay the bills--even if it is you or me, and even if we already have insurance. They make us pay the bills by selling cheaper insurance policies that do not actually cover us when we get sick. We must eliminate the predatory for-profit health insurance industry by enacting H.R. 676, Medicare for All. No copayments, no deductibles, no premiums. For the same costs or less than we are paying now.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that insurance companies make money not providing health care. After all, they are in the insurance business; they are not charities. But with as many as 29 million Americans suffering from preexisting conditions, insurance companies want Congress to repeal health care reform. The provisions which require covering people with preexisting conditions would eventually cut into insurance company profits. Repeal means Americans will continue to pay more for insurance but get less--that is, if they can afford health insurance in the first place. The very idea of health care reform, solely within the context of a for-profit system, has been more than problematic. Today, 50 million Americans have no health insurance. What are we going to do for them? Rather than waste time debating how much reform insurance companies will permit, if any, it is time to change the debate. It is time to end the for-profit health care model. It is a time for not-for-profit- health care, single payer, universal Medicare for all, with an emphasis on wellness and personal responsibility. More about that tomorrow.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to your attention the 33-year public service career of Paul Oyaski who is retiring from his post as the Director of Cuyahoga County's Department of Development on January 14, 2011. Director Oyaski has directed with distinction the Department of Development since 2004, leading a staff of 62 in Ohio's largest county which serves all the people of Ohio's 10th Congressional District and surrounding districts. He has administered federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for 51 Cuyahoga County municipalities with fewer than 50,000 residents. His department has managed a $75 million budget supplemented by the CDBGs, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Through Paul's leadership, the people of Cuyahoga County were served ably and the federal dollars we appropriated were used wisely and with the people's needs first and foremost on the agenda. During his tenure as Director, he received numerous awards from the public and private sectors. Prior to his service at the county level, Paul Oyaski served as the Mayor of Euclid, Ohio from 1996 to 2003. As mayor of a city with a population of 53,000, Mayor Oyaski became familiar with the administrative responsibilities associated with the CDBG program. He led Euclid to receive the Livable Cities Award from the U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2000 for positive race relations. He was also spokesman for the First Suburbs Consortium which represents Euclid and 14 other inner-ring suburbs of Cleveland. Before his election as Mayor, Paul Oyaski served the City of Euclid with distinction as a member of the City Council, the Director of Community Services and Development, and as Law Director. Paul graduated from the Ohio State University School of Law with honors, earned his Bachelor of Arts Magna Cum Laude from Cleveland State University, and is a proud graduate of Euclid Senior High School where he was a member of the National Honor Society and received his letter for varsity soccer. Mr. Speaker and honored colleagues, please join me in wishing Paul Oyaski well as he retires from a long and illustrious career in the public sector working with the people of his hometown of Euclid, and Cuyahoga County for these many years.