Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, each generation has had to take up the question of how to provide for the health of the people of our nation. And each generation has grappled with difficult questions of how to meet the needs of our people. I believe health care is a civil right. Each time as a nation we have reached to expand our basic rights, we have witnessed a slow and painful unfolding of a democratic pageant of striving, of resistance, of breakthroughs, of opposition, of unrelenting efforts and of eventual triumph. I have spent my life struggling for the rights of working class people and for health care. I grew up understanding first hand what it meant for families who did not get access to needed care. I lived in 21 different places by the time I was 17, including in a couple of cars. I understand the connection between poverty and poor health care, the deeper meaning of what Native Americans have called ``hole in the body, hole in the spirit.'' I struggled with Crohn's disease much of my adult life, to discover sixteen years ago a near-cure in alternative medicine and following a plant-based diet. I have learned with difficulty the benefits of taking charge personally of my own health care. On those few occasions when I have needed it, I have had access to the best allopathic practitioners. As a result I have received the blessings of vitality and high energy. Health and health care is personal for each one of us. As a former surgical technician I know that there are many people who dedicate their lives to helping others improve theirs. I also know their struggles with an insufficient health care system. There are some who believe that health care is a privilege based on ability to pay. This is the model President Obama is dealing with, attempting to open up health care to another 30 million people, within the context of a system run by insurance companies who make money by denying care. There are others who believe that health care is a basic right and ought to be provided through a not-for-profit plan. This is what I have tirelessly advocated. I have carried the banner of national health care in two presidential campaigns, in party platform meetings, and as co-author of H.R. 676, Medicare for All. I have worked to expand the health care debate beyond the current unsustainable system, to include a robust public option and my amendment to free the states to pursue single-payer. An early version of the health care bill, while badly flawed, contained these provisions which I believed made the bill worth supporting when it was considered by the Committee on Education and Labor. I voted for it. The provisions were taken out of the bill after it passed the Committee. I joined with the Congressional Progressive Caucus in saying that I would not support the bill unless it had a strong public option and unless it protected the right of people to pursue single payer at a state level. It did not. I kept my pledge and voted against the bill when it was considered by the full House of Representatives. Since then, I have continued to oppose it while trying to get the provisions back into the bill. Some have speculated that, as the final vote on this health care package drew closer, I might have been in a position of casting the deciding vote. The President's visit to my district on Monday underscored the urgency of this moment. I have taken this fight further than many in Congress cared to carry it because I know what my constituents experience on a daily basis. Come to my district in Cleveland and you will understand. The people of Ohio's 10th district have been hard hit by an economy where wealth has accelerated upwards through plant closings, massive unemployment, small business failings, lack of access to credit, foreclosures and the high cost of health care and limited access to care. I take my responsibilities to the people of my district personally. The focus of my district office is constituent service, which more often than not involves social work to help people survive economic perils. It also involves intervening with insurance companies. In the two weeks before the vote on the final health care package, it became clear that the vote would be very close. I take this vote with the utmost seriousness. I am quite aware of the historic fight that has lasted the better part of the last century to bring America in line with so many other modern democracies in providing single-payer health care. I have seen the political pressure and the financial pressure being asserted to prevent a real challenge to a highly profitable system dominated by private insurance companies. I know I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see it, but the bill as it is. My criticisms of the legislation have been well reported. I do not retract them. I incorporate them in this statement. They still stand as legitimate and cautionary. I still have doubts about the bill. I do not think it is a first step toward anything I have supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to support, even as I continue efforts until the last minute to modify the bill. However after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth, the frequently personal and tragic stories of my constituents and close friends, I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation. If my vote is to be counted, let it now count for passage of the bill, hopefully in the direction of comprehensive health care reform. We must include coverage for those excluded from this bill. We must free the states. We must have control over private insurance companies and the cost their very existence imposes on American families. We must strive to provide a significant place for alternative and complementary medicine, religious health science practice, and the personal responsibility aspects of health care which include diet, nutrition, and exercise. The health care debate has been severely hampered by fear, myths, and by hyper-partisanship. The President clearly does not advocate socialism or a government takeover of health care. The fear that this legislation has engendered has deep roots, not in foreign ideology but in a lack of confidence, a timidity, mistrust and fear which post 911 America has been unable to shake. This fear has so infected our politics, our economics and our international relations that as a nation we are losing sight of the expanded vision, the electrifying potential we caught a glimpse of with the election of Barack Obama. The transformational potential of his presidency, and of ourselves, can still be courageously summoned in ways that will reconnect America to our hopes for expanded opportunities for jobs, housing, education, peace, and yes, health care. I want to thank those who have supported me personally and politically as I have struggled with this decision. I ask for continued support in our ongoing efforts to bring about meaningful change. I have taken a detour through supporting this bill, but I know the destination I will continue to seek, for as long as it takes, whatever it takes, is an America where health care will be firmly established as a civil right. Empowering individuals Smart personal choices in areas like diet, nutrition, and exercise are essential to a healthier world. At the same time, we must remove the barriers and change the incentives that discourage or prevent responsible behavior. The Institute of Medicine estimates that in 2004 approximately $10 billion was spent on food advertising directed at children, using every method available--television, radio, the internet, even embedded in video games. Simply put, marketing to children works--companies would not make such a substantial investment if it were ineffective. Marketing directed at youth is extremely well constructed and relies heavily on behavioral science. The developing brain of the child can not discriminate fact from opinion and can not think critically; it is no match for a $10 billion industry that exploits this vulnerability using cartoons, cross branding with popular toys, giveaways, and myriad other methods to develop brand loyalty and shape judgment as early as possible. Established early, these affinities are the most enduring. Astonishingly, the Federal Government subsidizes this methodical preying on children by granting a tax write-off for expenses associated with it. This must stop. The government must take action to protect American children and ensure that they grow up in a healthy environment. My bill, H.R. 4310, would eliminate the tax deductibility of fast food and junk food advertising directed at children. H.R. 4310 has the potential to raise billions of dollars in revenue to fund child nutrition and anti-obesity initiatives. There is precedent: approximately 50 countries, including Sweden, Norway, Australia, and Great Britain, have limited or prohibited food advertising directed at youth. Additionally, recent research has concluded that eliminating the tax deductibility of food advertising directed at youth would reduce obesity rates. Long-term health care reform must address the personal responsibility, the corporate responsibility, and the government's fair share of the responsibility for improved health. I will work to ensure that is the case. Each generation has had to take up the question of how to provide for the health of the people of our nation. And each generation has grappled with difficult questions of how to meet the needs of our people. I believe health care is a civil right. Each time as a nation we have reached to expand our basic rights, we have witnessed a slow and painful unfolding of a democratic pageant of striving, of resistance, of breakthroughs, of opposition, of unrelenting efforts and of eventual triumph. I have spent my life struggling for the rights of working class people and for health care. I grew up understanding first hand what it meant for families who did not get access to needed care. I lived in 21 different places by the time I was 17, including in a couple of cars. I understand the connection between poverty and poor health care, the deeper meaning of what Native Americans have called ``hole in the body, hole in the spirit.'' I struggled with Crohn's disease much of my adult life, to discover sixteen years ago a near-cure in alternative medicine and following a plant-based diet. I have learned with difficulty the benefits of taking charge personally of my own health care. On those few occasions when I have needed it, I have had access to the best allopathic practitioners. As a result I have received the blessings of vitality and high energy. Health and health care is personal for each one of us. As a former surgical technician I know that there are many people who dedicate their lives to helping others improve theirs. I also know their struggles with an insufficient health care system. There are some who believe that health care is a privilege based on ability to pay. This is the model President Obama is dealing with, attempting to open up health care to another 30 million people, within the context of the for-profit insurance system. There are others who believe that health care is a basic right and ought to be provided through a not-for-profit plan. This is what I have tirelessly advocated. I have carried the banner of national health care in two presidential campaigns, in party platform meetings, and as co-author of H.R. 676, Medicare for All. I have worked to expand the health care debate beyond the current unsustainable system, to include a robust public option and my amendment to free the states to pursue single-payer. An early version of the health care bill, while badly flawed, contained these provisions which I believed made the bill worth supporting when it was considered by the Committee on Education and Labor. I voted for it. The provisions were taken out of the bill after it passed the Committee. I joined with the Congressional Progressive Caucus in saying that I would not support the bill unless it had a strong public option and unless it protected the right of people to pursue single payer at a state level. It did not. I kept my pledge and voted against the bill when it was considered by the full House of Representatives. Since then, I have continued to oppose it while trying to get the provisions back into the bill. Some have speculated that, as the final vote on this health care package drew closer, I might have been in a position of casting the deciding vote. The President's visit to my district on Monday underscored the urgency of this moment. I have taken this fight further than many in Congress cared to carry it because I know what my constituents experience on a daily basis. Come to my district in Cleveland and you will understand. The people of Ohio's 10th district have been hard hit by an economy where wealth has accelerated upwards through plant closings, massive unemployment, small business failings, lack of access to credit, foreclosures and the high cost of health care and limited access to care. I take my responsibilities to the people of my district personally. The focus of my district office is constituent service, which more often then not involves social work to help people survive economic perils. It also involves intervening with insurance companies. In the two weeks before the vote on the final health care package, it became clear that the vote would be very close. I take this vote with the utmost seriousness. I am quite aware of the historic fight that has lasted the better part of the last century to bring America in line with so many other modern democracies in providing single-payer health care. I have seen the political pressure and the financial pressure being asserted to prevent a real challenge to a highly profitable system dominated by private insurance companies. I know I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see it, but the bill as it is. My criticisms of the legislation have been well reported. I do not retract them. I incorporate them int this statement. They still stand as legitimate and cautionary. I still have doubts about the bill. I do not think it is a first step toward anything I have supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to support, even as I continue efforts until the last minute to modify the bill. However after careful discussions with the President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth, and in consideration of the frequently personal and tragic stories of my constituents, I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation. If my vote is to be counted, let it now count for passage of the bill, hopefully in the direction of comprehensive health care reform. We must include coverage for those excluded from this bill. We must free the states. We must have control over private insurance companies and the cost their very existence imposes on American families. We must strive to provide a significant place for alternative and complementary medicine, religious health science practice, and the personal responsibility aspects of health care which include diet, nutrition, and exercise. The health care debate has been severely hampered by fear, myths, and by hyper-partisanship. The President clearly does not advocate socialism or a government takeover of health care. The fear that this legislation has engendered has deep roots, not in foreign ideology but in a lack of confidence, a timidity, mistrust and fear which post 911 America has been unable to shake. This fear has so infected our politics, our economics and our international relations that as a nation we are losing sight of the expanded vision, the electrifying potential we caught a glimpse of with the election of Barack Obama. The transformational potential of his presidency, and of ourselves, can still be courageously summoned in ways that will reconnect America to our hopes for expanded opportunities for jobs, housing, education, peace, and yes, health care. I want to thank those who have supported me personally and politically as I have struggled with this decision. I ask for continued support in our ongoing efforts to bring about meaningful change. As this bill passes I will renew my efforts to help those state organizations which are aimed at stirring a single payer movement which eliminates the predatory role of private insurers who make money not providing health care. I have taken a detour through supporting this bill, but I know the destination I will continue to seek, for as long as it takes, whatever it takes, is an America where health care will be firmly established as a civil right. moving Toward True Health Care Reform In pursuing meaningful change in the health care system, there can be no better investment than to remove federal barriers to allowing states to implement the only model of health care proven to cover everyone, lower costs and increase quality: single-payer. Systems that remove the insurance companies from care are well tested and consistently outperform systems that rely on private insurance. Their costs are lower, their access is universal, the coverage is comprehensive, and their systems are far more equitable. Such a single- payer health care system would also provide major economic stimulus. Half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are the result of the failure of an insurance plan to do the very thing that drives us to buy health insurance--protect us from catastrophic financial burdens that arise from health care needs. Only single-payer health care can rid us of the economic drag of medical bankruptcies by providing truly comprehensive coverage--for less money than we are currently paying. It is no wonder then that states are demanding single payer. Not only does it help people stay out of poverty, but it would provide major relief for states facing budget difficulties. The Lewin Group's financial analysis of the California single payer bill that recently passed the legislature twice found that ``the net cost of the program to state and local governments is a savings of about $900 million'' in 2006 alone. There are also strong single payer movements in Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Colorado, and New Mexico. In fact, the savings to a state from a single-payer plan have been well documented. Fourteen states are listed below, along with their savings and the year of the applicable study. The worst-case scenario is Maine, which would break even. State: Annual Single-payer Savings--Year New Mexico (Lewin Group): $151,800,000--1994 Delaware (Solutions for Progress): $229,000,000--1995 Minnesota (Lewin Group): $718,000,000--1995 Massachusetts (Lewin Group, Solutions for Progress/Boston University School of Public Health): $1,800,000,000-- $3,600,000,000--1998 Maryland (Lewin Group): $345,000,000--2000 Vermont (Lewin Group): $118,000,000--2001 California (Lewin Group): $7,500,000,000--2002 Maine (Mathemetica Policy): $0--2002 Rhode Island (Solutions for Progress/Boston University School of Public Health): $270,000,000--2002 Missouri (Missouri Foundation for Health): $1,700,000,000-- 2003 Georgia (Lewin Group): $716,000,000--2004 California (Lewin Group): $8,000,000,000--2005 Colorado (Lewin Group): $1,400,000,000--2007 Kansas (Lewin Group): $869,000,000--2007 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has been used to thwart efforts at the state and regional level to improve health care. Though the law was intended to protect the integrity and quality of employee benefit plans including health care, ERISA has been used in courts to stop or make impractical health care reform efforts in Maryland, San Francisco, and Suffolk County, New York. It is the most difficult federal barrier a single-payer state will face, though there will be others. I will continue to work to help these states. We must yield to the wishes of those in a state who demand a health care system that is proven to work well. It would be entirely voluntary. If a state wants better health care than can be provided by the federal government, the federal government should not stand in their way. Public Option A robust public option is not sufficient to control costs, cover everyone, and increase quality of care. However, it is a good interim option for those who do not want to be subject to the abuses of the insurance companies but are required to purchase health insurance under the health care bill we are passing today. The extreme inefficiency of the private health insurance companies and the inefficiency they cause throughout the health care system are well documented. Americans need refuge because the health insurance companies are ruthlessly efficient at one thing: denying care. They have to be because that is how they make money. In the short term, I will continue to fight for a strong public option until a single payer plan is in place. Integrative Medicine and Religious Health Care A 2008 study by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health and the National Center for Health Statistics revealed that 38% of American adults used some form of integrative medicine to meet their health care needs. However, access to these services is limited because of lack of insurance coverage of these safe, cost-effective and clinically effective medical approaches. Some of those modalities include chiropractic care, acupuncture and many others under study at the National Institutes of Health. However, some insurance companies are starting to realize that it is beneficial to their bottom line if they cover some integrative medicine approaches. More and more plans are covering chiropractic and acupuncture, for example. The medical literature abounds with studies showing that the cost-effectiveness of interventions like transcendental meditation for hypertension and heart disease is far better than that for conventional pharmaceutical interventions. An early version of the health care overhaul bill included my amendment that would guarantee that a practitioner of integrative medicine is one of the people that decides the minimum required benefit package. It also created a task force of integrative medicine practitioners to help inform the decision makers about what should be covered. Finally, it required that when a patient goes to the Exchange website and looks up doctors, practitioners of integrative medicine are easily identifiable. Though the language was removed before a vote on the bill was taken by the full House of Representatives, I will continue to work to advance integrative medicine by increasing its accessibility and safety. Under this bill, most Americans, including people who practice other distinctive approaches to health care, are forced to buy private health insurance. I recognize the difficult position for Christian Scientists and others similarly situated. Millions opt for spiritual care that coincides with their religion. But as of today, even though the care they prefer is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and some plans available to federal government employees, few private insurance plans cover it. The new healthcare legislation we are considering today does not prevent insurance companies from covering their care; it also does not create a pathway for its serious consideration by insurance companies. I look forward to helping to identify a way to ensure that spiritual and integrative care get a fair chance at coverage by insurance companies.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Frank D. Celebrezze, a dedicated husband, father, grandfather, an Army Veteran and a former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice. A third-generation Italian-American, Judge Celebrezze learned early the importance of family, faith and service to community. From 1956 to 1958, he served in the Ohio Senate. In 1964, he was elected to serve as a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge, a position he held until 1972, when he was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court. Judge Celebrezze became Chief Justice in 1978 and held that position until 1986. Judge Celebrezze was highly admired by those serving in the judicial system. He served with honor, integrity and recognition of those who served before him. He was a mentor and friend to numerous attorneys, clerks and colleagues. Above all else, Judge Celebrezze was a devoted husband, father and grandfather. He and his wife, Mary Ann, were married for 62 years. Together, they raised their children Rebecca ``Judith Ann'', Frank D., Laura, David, Jeffrey, Keith, Matthew and the late Brian and Steven. He was a devoted grandfather to Miranda, Christina, Nicole, Keith Jr., Daniel, Ashley, Jessica, Jaime and Adam. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembrance of the Honorable Judge Frank D. Celebrezze. His legacy as a jurist and as a man will not be forgotten.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Cleveland Heights Police Officer Thomas F. Patton II, who courageously and selflessly rose to the call to duty and made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our community. Being a police officer was Officer Patton's childhood dream. He was a nine-year veteran of the Cleveland Heights Police Department, and served every minute on duty with excellence, expertise, unwavering dedication and integrity. Officer Patton's kind heart and good-natured personality easily drew others to him, and his loyalty to fellow police officers, to the citizens of Cleveland Heights, and to his family, reflected every day of his life. Officer Patton's passion and energy for police work was unmistakable, yet his greatest joy in life centered around his family and friends. I extend my deepest condolences to his family, friends and fellow police officers. He was a loving partner to fiance Tricia Sindelar, loving new father of seven-month-old daughter, Kayleigh Evelyn Patton; beloved son of State Senator Thomas F. Patton and the late Evelyn Patton; beloved brother to Shannon, Erin, Meghan, Brigid, and Kathleen; beloved brother-in-law of Duke, Michael and Anthony; adored grandson of Rita Patton and Joan Kessler; beloved uncle of Owen and Colin Southworth; much loved cousin and nephew; and beloved close friend to many. Madam Speaker, and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Police Officer Thomas F. Patton--gone far too soon. Officer Patton's professional excellence, commitment to protecting others, unwavering kindness, generous spirit and love for his family and friends, will be forever honored and remembered by our entire community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Justice Peter Kelly, High Court Justice of Ireland, upon the occasion of his arrival to Cleveland, Ohio, on St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 2010. During his studies at University College in Dublin, Ireland, Justice Peter Kelly became a member of the prestigious Honorable Society of the King's Inn. He was called to the Irish Bar in 1973, the Bar of England and Wales in 1981, the Bar of Northern Ireland in 1983, and the Inner Bar of Ireland in 1986. Justice Kelly was appointed Judge of the High Court in 1996 and has led the Commercial Division of the High Court since its inception in 2004. In addition to conducting a successful legal career, Justice Kelly is active in the community. He volunteers for several organizations and is a leader on numerous boards. He is the Director of the Dublin Choral Foundation and serves as Chair of the Commercial Law Centre in Dublin. Justice Kelly comes to Cleveland on the occasion of our annual St. Patrick's Day Celebration. For thirty-one years, attorneys Tim Collins and Thomas Scanlon have organized Cleveland's St. Patrick's Day Party and Parade. This joyous event promotes and preserves the rich traditions of the Irish homeland. On March 17, our downtown streets will spring to life as a sea of green and the spirited sound of drums and bagpipes wind their way along Euclid Avenue. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Justice Peter Kelly as we welcome him to Cleveland on St. Patrick's Day. Please also join me in recognition of Tim Collins and Thomas Scanlon for organizing the St. Patrick's Day Celebration. ``Ni dheanfaidh smaoineamh an treabhadh duit--You'll never plough a field by turning it over in your mind''--Old Irish Proverb.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, I rise today in honor and recognition of the 20th Anniversary of the ceremonial placing of the sculpture of Hungarian Statesman Lajos Kossuth, which occurred on March 15, 1990, in the United States Capitol Rotunda. Lajos Kossuth is known as the Father of Hungarian Democracy. A lawyer and political columnist who was popular for his criticism of the government, he was imprisoned for his writings between 1837 and 1840. After his release, he worked to empower citizens and was a key leader during the 1848 Hungarian Revolution. Mr. Kossuth's activism on behalf of the people of Hungary resulted in the passage of the `March Laws' that eradicated the privileges of nobles, freed the peasants, and established a legislature. The 1990 dedication was made possible by legislation sponsored by my dear friend and colleague, the late Congressman Tom Lantos of California. The dedication was attended by Interim President of the Republic of Hungary, Mr. Matyas Szuros, former House Speaker Thomas S. Foley, Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole, Deputy Secretary of State of Lawrence Eagleburger, and several U.S Representatives and Senators. Madam Speaker and colleagues, I am honored to commemorate the life of Freedom Fighter and Hungarian statesman, Lajos Kossuth, in collaboration with the Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary, Bela Szombati, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, and Mrs. Annette Lantos, Chairwoman of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice. Mr. Kossuth, a man of courage and conviction, paved a path to freedom in Hungary. His life and works will forever live as a testament to the power of commitment to freedom. ``The time draws near, when a radical change must take place for the whole world in the management of diplomacy''--Lajos Kossuth.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Paul McHugh as he is named the recipient of the 2010 James P. Sweeney Founder Award by the Retired Irish Police Society of Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. McHugh began his service as a police officer in 1965 as a member of the Cleveland Motorcycle Unit. His twenty-seven-year tenure was framed by integrity, loyalty and bravery. He risked his life on numerous occasions to protect his colleagues and the citizens of Cleveland. His acts of courage did not go unrecognized. In 1967, Mr. McHugh was awarded the Meritorious Award for an act of heroism by the Cleveland Police Department. While assigned to the First District Detective Bureau, Mr. McHugh's sharp and persistent investigative efforts led to the dismantling of a massive burglary ring, for which he was recognized as the ``City of Cleveland Police Officer of the Month.'' After his retirement from the Police Department in 1992, he volunteered as a leader and member of many local police and charitable organizations including the Police and Fire Holy Name Society, where he currently serves as Treasurer, the Saint Patrick West Park Hunger Center, the American Legion and AmVets, and the Holy Family Cancer Home. Mr. McHugh has a life-long connection to his Irish heritage. He grew up as one of twelve children on Cleveland's west side. He is extremely active in Cleveland's Irish-American community. For the past twelve years he has served as Treasurer for the Retired Irish Police. Mr. McHugh is also a member of the West Side Irish American Club, serves on the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee, and served as the Past President of the Mayo Society of Greater Cleveland. Above all his civic engagements, Mr. McHugh is a dedicated family man. Together, he and his wife, Marie raised their children, Colleen and Allan. Mr. and Mrs. McHugh remain active in the lives of their children and four grandsons. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Paul McHugh, whose exemplary service on behalf of our community is an inspiration and example for all of us. His dedication to helping others continues to enhance and strengthen our entire community, and we are grateful for his efforts.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Angelo Petitti upon his recognition as the recipient of the St. Malachi Center's 2010 Sister Michael Marie Griffin Anchor Award, which will be presented to him at the St. Malachi Center's Tenth Annual Soup for the Soul Benefit. Mr. Petitti emigrated from Faeto, Italy in 1963 when he was just 16 years old. He studied political science at Kent State University and worked as a landscaper. He left Kent State to pursue his true passion: landscape design. He moved to Florida and founded his own landscape business, but eventually moved the business back to Ohio to form Petitti Landscape Company with his brother Dominic. Working out of a small garage, the Petitti brothers were soon inundated with requests from passersby who saw the shrubs that lined the driveway. Over the past forty years, Mr. Petitti has become one of the most successful garden center owners in Ohio. He can be heard on his weekly radio show, ``In the Garden with Angelo,'' and is regularly seen out in the community, lending his time to help raise funds for numerous local charitable organizations. Above all, Mr. Petitti is devoted to his family. His wife, Maria, also emigrated from the same town in Italy, and they married in 1975. Together, they raised their son, AJ, and daughters, Andria and Lisa--all of whom are involved in the family business. Mr. Petitti's unwavering integrity and generosity continues to spread throughout our community, where he is highly respected and admired by the community. He is a kind and humble man with a deep sense of charity. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Angelo Petitti, recipient of the 2010 Sister Michael Marie Griffin Anchor Award. Mr. Petitti personifies the American Dream and is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Otis Paul Drayton Jr., a Veteran and an Olympic champion. Mr. Drayton's life was built upon a foundation of family, friends and community. His kind heart and energetic spirit will be forever remembered by those who loved him. As a young man, Mr. Drayton moved from New York to Cleveland. He graduated from Cathedral Latin High School and went on to Villanova University where his talent as a runner was apparent. He won several national championships including a 1961 meet with the Soviet Union where Mr. Drayton set a world record for the 4 x 100 relay with a time of 39.1 seconds. In the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo where he won gold and silver medals, Mr. Drayton set the record again with a time of 39.0 seconds. Though highly accomplished, Mr. Drayton was a kind and humble man. His quick smile and gentle nature easily endeared him to everyone. For many years he served as the Deputy Project Director for the City of Cleveland Division of Recreation and later as a part-time employee of the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department. Above all else, Mr. Drayton was a devoted husband to his beloved wife, Jeune. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring Otis Paul Drayton. I offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Jeune, his son, Walter, and his extended family and friends. Mr. Drayton lived his life with great joy, energy, and a generous heart. He will never be forgotten.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Father Jerome Lajack, who has served as pastor of St. Wendelin Parish in Cleveland since 1977. Throughout his tenure, Father Lajack worked tirelessly to strengthen and guide the community of St. Wendelin. A man of kindness and compassion, Father Lajack brought a sense of family and community to the St. Wendelin congregation. Moreover, he brought special attention to the needs and struggles of our most vulnerable citizens--the young and the elderly. Father Lajack developed and instituted many new programs on behalf of children and teens, including Children's Choir, Children's Liturgy, and Vacation Bible School. He also focused on caring for the elderly of the congregation, visiting the sick and addressing the needs of the homebound. Additionally, Father Lajack has been an excellent steward of the parish, maintaining fiscal stability over three decades through the generous help of parishioners. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognition of Father Jerome Lajack. Father Lajack's leadership, kindness, unwavering faith and ability to improve the lives of others will endure as part of the spirit of the members of St. Wendelin Church. His impact will forever radiate far beyond the front steps of St. Wendelin's.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Doris ``Granny D'' Haddock, whose 100 years of life radiated love, energy, and belief in social justice. Granny D and her late husband, Jim Haddock, shared a spirit of activism and a belief in giving back to the people. Together they raised two children, Elizabeth and James. Their family, which would come to include eight grandchildren and sixteen great-grandchildren, was a source of their joy and strength. Granny D and her husband's commitment to public service began fifty years ago when they worked tirelessly to stop the development of a nuclear bomb test site in Alaska. Their efforts were successful and an entire Inuit fishing village was saved. More than a decade ago, Granny D took the first step in a cross- country trek from California to Washington D.C. She walked over 3,000 miles to bring international attention to the need for campaign finance reform. After 14 months of marching eastward, and just after her ninetieth birthday, Granny D arrived at her destination. Granny D's work on behalf of this issue has taken root in her home state where New Hampshire House Bill 513 will appear on the ballot in the next election. If passed, the bill will enable candidates running for certain state senate seats to campaign with pubic financing. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring Doris ``Granny D'' Haddock. I offer my deep condolences to her son and daughter-in-law, Jim and Libby Haddock, her grandchildren, her great-grandchildren, and her many friends. Granny D will never be forgotten.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Lester A. Stumpe, an engineer with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) for nearly 3 decades. As an engineer, Lester played a key role in protecting the rivers and streams in northeast Ohio. I am saddened to learn that Lester died on Sunday, March 7 after a 5-year struggle with cancer. Lester Stumpe had more than 30 years of experience designing and directing a variety of efforts to protect and enhance our water resources. He conducted numerous large-scale multifaceted facilities planning and watershed studies. In total, he directed or managed more than $20 million in engineering and technical studies that have resulted in several hundred million dollars in constructed projects. Lester served on a variety of boards and committees to further environmental and infrastructure goals in the Greater Cleveland area. Through his studies and activities, Lester has greatly contributed to our knowledge and protection efforts of both West Creek and Mill Creek, major tributaries to the Cuyahoga River. Lester was passionately concerned for the streams and watershed areas of Northeast Ohio. His job title was NEORSD's ``Manager of Watershed Programs, Policy and Technical Support.'' But for Lester, this was much more than a job or title. Protecting our region's watersheds was Lester's life mission. Even while battling cancer, Lester lit up with enthusiasm when he communicated his ideas about how to make the Cleveland area's watersheds cleaner and more habitable to the species meant to live there, including the human species. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering Lester and expressing condolences to his wife, Marcia Mauter, his children Meagan, Melissa and Justin Mauter, his mother Dorothy, his sister Ruth Tofle, and the many friends, relatives, and colleagues who mourn his loss.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. We're either in or we're out. Unless this Congress acts to claim its constitutional responsibility, we will stay in Afghanistan for a very, very long time at great cost to our troops and to our national priorities. Or we can set a date, December 31, 2010, by which we must leave. And this is exactly what the resolution seeks to do. Congress has to be mindful of our responsibilities under this Constitution, article I, section 8, to claim responsibility for the true casualties, which are now close to 1,000, to claim responsibility for the cost, which is approaching $250 billion and together with the Iraq war close to $1 trillion. And this at a great cost to our priorities here at home for housing, for job creation, for health care, for education; to claim responsibility for the casualties to innocent civilians, the human costs of the war. Congress must claim responsibility one way or another for challenging the corruption that my colleagues have talked about that has engulfed the Afghanistan administration. We must claim responsibility and understand exactly the role the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has in all of this. We must claim responsibility for debating the wisdom of the counterinsurgency strategies which apparently have failed and claim responsibility for the logistics of withdrawal. I brought this resolution to the floor of the House with the help of the Rules Committee and the support of the leadership, which believes the debate is merited, because after 8\1/2\ years it is time that this Congress be heard from. It is time that we claim our constitutional responsibility under article I, section 8. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to ensure that Congress has a role in the decision to send the United States Armed Forces into hostilities or the continued use of such forces and hostilities. And my legislation, if enacted, would require the President to bring the Armed Forces out of Afghanistan by December 31, 2010. As the U.S. Armed Forces and our allies begin the first in a series of large military operations in Afghanistan, it is up to us to have our voice and our vote felt at this important moment. Regardless of your support or opposition to the war, this resolution is about ensuring meaningful and open debate. And in the 3 hours ahead, I'm confident that this House will have the opportunity to do that so that people, no matter what their position is, can finally be heard from with respect to our constitutional responsibilities.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1146, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 248) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 2001 I joined the House in voting for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. In the past 8\1/2\ years, it has become clear that the Authorization for Use of Military Force is being interpreted as carte blanche for circumventing Congress' role as a coequal branch of government. My legislation invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973. If enacted, it would require the President to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan by December 31, 2010. The debate today will be the first opportunity we have had to revisit the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which the House supported following the worst terrorist attack in our country's history. Regardless of your support or opposition to the war in Afghanistan, this is going to be the first opportunity to evaluate critically where the Authorization for Use of Military Force has taken us in the last 8\1/2\ years. This 2001 resolution allowed military action ``to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.'' Those of us who support the withdrawal from Afghanistan may or may not agree on a timeline for troop withdrawal, but I think we agree that this debate is timely. The rest of the world is beginning to see the folly of trying to occupy Afghanistan: The Dutch Government recently came to a halt over the commitment of more troops from their country. In Britain public outcry over the war is growing. A recent BBC poll indicated that 63 percent of the British public is demanding that their troops come home by Christmas. In Germany opposition to the war has risen to 69 percent. Russia has lost billions of dollars in the 9 years it spent attempting to control Afghanistan. Our supposed nation-building in Afghanistan has come at the destruction of our own. The military escalation cements the path of the United States down the road of previous occupiers that earned Afghanistan its nickname as the ``graveyard of empires.'' One year ago last month, a report by the Carnegie Endowment concluded ``the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.'' So with this debate today, Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance for the first time to reflect on our responsibility for troop casualties that are now reaching 1,000; to look at our responsibility for the costs of the war, which approaches $250 billion; our responsibility for the civilian casualties and the human costs of the war; our responsibility for challenging the corruption that takes place in Afghanistan; our responsibility for having a real understanding of the role of the pipeline in this war; our responsibility for debating the role of counterinsurgency strategies, as opposed to counterterrorism; our responsibility for being able to make a case for the logistics of withdrawal. After 8\1/2\ years, it is time that we have this debate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to say that you can talk about how the Democratic leadership is bringing this up at the time that there is obviously a surge about to begin, but why question the timeliness of the debate when in fact my friend in the minority, their party didn't bring this up for 8 years of debate? Eight years. I mean I think it's timely. That is the whole point. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KUCINICH. Could I ask, Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend that the authorization for the use of military force, which passed September 14, 2001, had in its provision this particular line: ``Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.'' So the war powers resolution is properly the subject of a debate and properly serves as a vehicle to bring this debate to the House of Representatives, and we don't need to cede our right under article I, section 8 at any time to determine whether or not we go to war. This is clearly a constitutional issue. And when I take an oath to defend the Constitution, I don't cross my fingers behind my back and say, Well, I will let the President make the final decision regarding war. Our Founders didn't want to do that. Our Founders said in order to restrain the dog of war, they would put the ability to declare war in the legislative branch. They were very clear about that. Do not disrespect this institution when it comes to the Constitution. Remember, the War Powers Act specifically was mentioned in the resolution that was passed on September 14, 2001. It was not superseded. And I might add that while I voted for the authorization for the use of military force because I believe America has a right to defend herself, I didn't give any President carte blanche to go and carry or prosecute a war wherever he or she, in the future, determines necessary. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.