Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. As has been recounted by my friend from Massachusetts, the amendment which was in the bill that would have given the GAO the ability to audit the Fed was taken out of the bill; and the bill, as it was introduced originally, is before this Congress. I question the wisdom of moving on this bill, absent a provision to audit the Fed prior to the Senate acting because suppose the Senate, which has the ability to go any direction on this, suppose the Senate strips out the provision that I did support, the Ron Paul provision, the Senate strips that out, and then we have stripped out a provision in our bill. It just sends a signal to the Fed that it's business as usual. That's the reason I am raising this question right now, because it hasn't passed the Senate. If it passed the Senate, I would not be on the floor challenging this legislation. Because if it had been passed, it went through conference, then finally at last the Fed is going to be held accountable; but we aren't that far along yet. So I bring on the first day of legislative action in this second session of the 111th Congress a bill to the floor that essentially gives the Fed what they want, which is they don't want any oversight at all. And why was this brought forward in the first place? Because Congress and our committee, particularly, depend on the Government Accountability Office and the audits and the reviews they perform to assist us in helping us justify our oversight responsibilities. But GAO currently, unless the law changes, cannot perform audits or conduct reviews of the various credit facilities that the Federal Reserve created. And due to an express prohibition on auditing monetary activities of the Fed containing section 714 of title 31, GAO isn't allowed to assist Congress in conducting oversight on the Fed's role. Now, this Congress voted for the financial reforms. A majority of Members of Congress signed on to Mr. Paul's very strong proposal to audit the Fed. I was one of those signatories. So this isn't a question of whether we want to audit the Fed or not. A majority of the Members of Congress agree on that. Well, why start off this new year with a bill that strips that provision out long before the Senate acts? Let's see what the Senate is going to do. That's why I didn't want to see this bill brought to the floor at a time when the Senate hasn't acted on the Fed language; and if we go ahead and take that language out of our bill, some could read it in the Senate as a green light to strip out the Paul provision, which is a much stronger provision than what I brought forward in my amendment. So those are the concerns that I wanted to bring forward and air them publicly, and just ask Members--a cautionary note here about what's happening with respect to the Fed. Since a majority of Members of Congress already want to audit the Fed, why should we go and weaken our position by passing a bill that strips out audit provisions before the Senate has acted on the bill that contains the Paul amendment? With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts, you and I both support our Chair. We support the oversight function of our committee and of the Congress, and that is the spirit in which I rise. Also, I think it's critical that we track this financial reform legislation as it moves through the Senate to make sure that the provisions that were put in by Representative Paul are not going to be stripped. I would not want the Senate to misinterpret the stripping of a Federal audit provision from a government oversight bill as being an indication of the weakening of the intention of Congress to hold the Fed accountable. So it's for that reason that I raise that issue, and I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I have introduced H.R. 4414, the Responsible Bankers Act of 2010. Now, many of you know I voted against both pieces of TARP legislation. It is time that America got their money back and imposed a 75 percent tax on the bonuses that bankers are planning to pay themselves using windfall profits earned from massive taxpayer support of the financial services industry. The Responsible Bankers Act will not penalize banks for making a profit but, rather, will tax the bonus pools that are set aside. As I pointed out a month ago, bankers are preparing to pay themselves record bonuses, rather than lending and investing in American prosperity. They should use their profits, and they could use their profits, to do many things to improve the prospects of the American economy, like strengthen their capital base, reduce fees charged to customers, or increase lending to small and medium-sized companies. Well, they are not doing that. They are hoarding it. They are using the money to try to take over other banks. H.R. 4414 draws on the movement that is happening right now in the U.K. and around the world, where people are waking up that if banks are not there to help with the economy of the Nation, then they should have to pay a serious tax on their bonuses.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it is said that one out of every three American homeowners is underwater with their mortgage, meaning that they owe more on their mortgages than the house in which they live is worth. One out of every three Americans. We know that this year there could be at least 8 million Americans actually losing their homes. We know there are 15 million Americans unemployed. There have been record numbers of foreclosures and also record numbers of business failures. There has been a credit freeze. Some say that we have a jobless recovery, or a cashless recovery if you are an investor and you wait for your dividends because dividends aren't in at the moment, and perhaps even a homeless recovery where people are losing their homes, losing their jobs, losing the quality of their investments. And it is said that the economy is recovering. What is going on in America? What is going on is the banks have taken enormous power during the last few years, and they have received that power from the Federal Government in the form of bailouts. I voted against the bailouts. I don't think the government should be picking winners and losers in the economy. And I also don't think that the government should serve as an engine to take the wealth of the Nation and accelerate it upwards, because that is exactly what has happened. Whether it has been a Republican or Democrat administration, that process of acceleration of the wealth is continuing. Now U.S. banking companies have been the beneficiaries of unprecedented government money in the form of multiple, ongoing, taxpayer-financed Federal Government bailouts and subsidies, virtually unlimited access to money at near zero rates of interest, Federal purchases of impaired assets, low-cost loans, open-ended guarantees, all in the name of restoring normalcy to U.S. financial markets. In the coming days, banks are expected to begin paying out substantial bonuses to top executives. The total amounts rival the payouts at the peak of the real estate bubble in 2007 and are set against a clear commitment of policy to strengthen the underlying health of the banking system by enabling banks to recapitalize. The bonuses being paid out could and should be directed primarily toward enhancing the capital base of the banking system. Banks could also use the profits to deal with unrecognized losses from real estate transactions and other imprudent investments to reduce outsized fees charged to struggling consumers, to increase lending to small- and medium-sized businesses, and for a variety of other purposes that would provide struggling Americans with a more vibrant and beneficial financial system. Today, banks are earning outsized profits, not by lending or investing in the American economic prosperity, but by trading interest- free dollars taken from the Federal Reserve for other financial assets in the U.S. and around the world. And rather than use these profits to enhance the capital of the banks, they are being taken out in the form of bonuses to benefit certain individuals, corporate banking executives who have been more lucky than smart. Now in order to staunch this leakage of corporate profits from bank reserves and shareholder capital, I have introduced H.R. 4414, The Responsible Banking Act, that would tax banks for the windfall bonuses they pay to their management, and the tax would be at 75 percent. We cannot let banks crush businesses. We cannot let banks challenge this government with our own tax dollars. We need broad reform in our financial system, and I will be addressing that at another time. But one element of that reform must be to impose some fiscal discipline onto these banks that think that they can get away with giving themselves mega-bonuses while the rest of America is suffering and starved for capital. Support H.R. 4414.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Leo A. ``Lal'' DiEgidio; devoted husband, father, grandfather, great- grandfather, great-great grandfather and dear friend to many. His generosity, concern for others and gift for singing uplifted countless people throughout our community. Mr. DiEgidio's life was centered on family, faith, hard work and his love of song. For more than forty years, he lifted the spirits of people of all ages with his beautiful singing voice. Mr. DiEgidio volunteered his time and talents by visiting nursing homes and singing for residents and staff. During many of these visits, he sang with another local celebrity singer, Rocco Scotti. Mr. DiEgidio directed the choir at Gunning Park Golden Age Center in Cleveland, and was a founding member of the Choir at Holy Name Church, where he sang for nearly eighty years. Mr. DiEgidio often sang duets with the late Father John Dalton, whose favorite was ``Danny boy.'' Mr. DiEgidio was also known for his powerful versions of ``The Star Spangled Banner'' and ``God Bless America.'' Mr. DiEgidio lived his life with a spirit of generosity, a compassion for others, and a joy of living. His quick smile easily drew others to him. He was a devoted husband to the late Harriette, and was a devoted father to the late Leo, Ronald and Lalene. Together, Lal and Harriette worked hard to provide a wonderful and loving home for their family. In 1951, he established Lal's Cleaners and Tailors on Garfield Boulevard in the heart of Garfield Heights, Ohio. Now owned by his grandson, the business continues. Mr. DiEgidio was active in the Italian-American community of Garfield Heights. He was a longtime member of the Knights of Columbus Council and the Solon Italian-American Club. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Leo A. ``Lal'' DiEgidio, whose joyous spirit and love for others will exist forever within the hearts and memories of those who loved and knew him best--his family and friends. His life, framed by his gift of song, compassion for others, devotion to family and commitment to community, will be always celebrated and remembered.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2278 condemns the use by groups designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations in the Middle East of television programs to incite anti-American violence. I do not condone the use of television programming to promote anti- American sentiment in the Middle East; I strongly object to it. Similarly, I strongly condemn ongoing policies that seek to punish civilian populations in an effort to undermine political leadership in their respective countries. However, if we want to stop anti-American incitement in the Middle East, we must end our military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, we must put an end to the drone attacks in Pakistan and we must end the blockade of Gaza. Our continued occupation fuels the insurgency in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Just this week, over 100 people have been killed and almost 200 wounded in a series of bombings in Baghdad, resulting in one of the deadliest attacks in Iraq this year. President Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize as over 16,000 American troops were readying for deployment as part of our military escalation in Afghanistan. More unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan have been authorized by President Obama during his first three months in office than President Bush ordered during his entire presidency. Predator drones have killed hundreds of innocent civilians and have spurred significant anti- American sentiment. The recent revelations that the C.I.A. is running the predator drone program show that we are deploying an extraordinary use of lethal force in a country we are not at war with. On the eve of the one-year anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, the people of Gaza continue to suffer immeasurably under the U.S. imposed blockade, living in tents next to the remains of their homes. Not one house has been rebuilt and not one pane of glass has been allowed in. Ninety-five percent of the drinking water is unfit for human consumption as the man-made humanitarian crisis continues. The United States and our closest ally, Israel, have a responsibility to uphold international humanitarian and international human rights law, both of which are violated by this blockade. A resolution condemning television programming by designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations does not make our condemnation of terrorist acts more clear. Furthermore, this resolution does nothing to bring the United States and our friends in the Middle East closer to peace and stability. Anti-American sentiment in the Middle East can only be solved through diplomatic means and through the consistent application of peaceful solutions that ensure the security and basic human rights of all people.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. The Greatest Generation sacrificed during their lifetime so future generations could have it better. Here, the ``bailout generation'' demands the future will be sacrificed for the present with unlimited money from Wall Street and war. While the government expands the debt for Wall Street and war, people are led to believe that we're doing it for jobs on Main Street. Even today as Congress expands the debt limit, CitiGroup will get billions in new tax breaks. Last week, Congress let Wall Street keep their over- the-counter black box derivatives game going, which will leave the taxpayers exposed to huge losses in the future. Today, Congress will give the Pentagon another $550 billion and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan another $130 billion, where we expand the national debt, sacrificing the future for the present. In the past 2 years, Congress chose war and Wall Street over jobs and Main Street, expanding the debt, sacrificing the future for the present. Today's job bill is necessary but will address only a fraction of the unemployed. Rather than prime the pump of the economy and put all of America back to work, we have to sacrifice the future for war and for Wall Street.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. The word is that, with over 15 million Americans out of work and desperately in need of extended unemployment benefits, Congress will put unemployment compensation benefits into a bill which will give another $130 billion for war. Remember, our Democratic Party took control of Congress based on widespread opposition to the Iraq war. Unfortunately, we're now telling the American people the only way they'll get their unemployment compensation is to support another $130 billion to keep wars going. What a cruel choice Congress is forcing on people out of work: Put your sons and daughters on the firing line, and we'll pay you for being in the unemployment line. What a message to young Americans. No jobs for young people except to go to war. No chance for young people to go to college and have health care unless they learn to kill or be killed. Support this war, we tell the people, the war, which creates death, war which creates poverty, and war which creates unemployment, and we'll pay you for being unemployed. Is this really the best we can do?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, what we are saying is that in my friend's interest of making sure that there is an opportunity for Members to speak on the various sides here, you want to make sure the time is evenly divided for the underlying bill and also for the extension of time?

Mr. KUCINICH. The additional time is going to be evenly distributed. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Ron Paul.

Mr. KUCINICH. I'll reserve the time.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch). MR. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. I also come here with enormous respect for Mr. Berman, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and my friends. And if I thought for 1 minute that this bill would help the United States or protect Israel or undermine Mr. Ahmadinejad, I would support it. But I do not. I do, however, take great comfort in the chairman's and the chief sponsor's earlier comments that in the conference process he is open and willing to adjust the bill. And perhaps if these adjustments and improvements are made, I can support it at that time, but I am faced with the bill before me. And let me just say that I think that this bill will help Ahmadinejad, that this will have the same effect as we have seen with other embargoes and other sanctions. I point to a couple of examples, one being the example in Cuba where we put in an embargo there, and ever since then, the Castro regime has been able to blame everything that has gone wrong in Cuba, including tropical storms and hurricanes, on the U.S. embargo. It has helped that regime stay in power. We see the same effect happening in Gaza. I have been there a couple of times. The fact that we've got an embargo there and a blockade has caused many in Gaza to rally around the flag--in this case, Hamas--and the blockade has helped them. That is the effect that this bill will have in Iran. We have watched very closely. This past week, tens of thousands of students in Iran in the Green Revolution have come to oppose and call for the ousting of Ahmadinejad and his regime. What this will do, however, is this will undermine that opposition. This bill is focused on cutting off gasoline supply to the poor, to the working class, to the middle class and families, the very people who are supporting the revolutionary movement there to get rid of Ahmadinejad. We are, in a way, I think, substituting a plan that will not work for one that could very well work. We are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this bill. I hope earnestly that as the sponsor of this bill has indicated, the chairman, Mr. Berman, that there will be important changes perhaps made during the conference process. I hope that does happen, and I hope that I am able to support this bill when it comes back from conference based on those changes.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 3 minutes. This legislation obstructs the Obama administration's ongoing negotiations with Iran, amounts to economic warfare against the Iranian people, and brings us closer to an unnecessary military confrontation. I would like to delineate point by point the objections to this bill. First of all, I agree with Mr. Paul that the bill is opposed to our national security. I have a letter here, as Mr. Blumenauer submitted to the Record, from the Deputy Secretary of State which points out the ``serious substantive concerns of the administration, including the lack of flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign policy consequences.'' This letter is from the Obama administration, December 11, 2009. I would like it be included in the Record. Second, I would like to include an article from the National Journal Online, dated November 2, 2009, in the record of debate. In this article, it points out that a gas shortage will be created in Iran, that Iran subsidizes its gasoline, and that the regime wants to shrink the program. So here the U.S. will be creating the gas shortage, and the regime, which wanted to shrink the program, is going to blame the U.S. Third, the Revolutionary Guard has already been able to build its coffers by being able to sell things on the black market. It's widely understood that these sanctions would put the Revolutionary Guard in a position where they can make more money selling oil on the black market. Number 4, this proposal would throw energy politics of the region into chaos, and the broader geopolitical landscape is thrown into chaos. Russia, Venezuela, and our European allies all come into play in ways at odds with stated U.S. policies. Number 5, it undermines our diplomacy. It isolates us from our allies. It isolates us from our trading partners. Number 6, it undercuts international energy companies who work in a back-channel role to try to help us with our diplomacy. Number 7, it undermines democracy in Iran. All of us have seen those pictures. They have been all over the TV and the Internet in the last few months about a growing democratic movement in Iran. This sanction will force all people to close around the Iran's leadership. It will strengthen the hard-liners and will undermine democracy. Next, it will make the U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan even more dangerous for our troops. Number 9, it's a path to military escalation, and I will be discussing that later. The Deputy Secretary of State, Washington, December 11, 2009. Hon. John F. Kerry, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. Dear Mr. Chairman: I wanted to follow up on our conversations regarding Iran, and possible sanctions legislation to be taken up by the Senate (S. 2799). We share Congress's concerns on Iran and its nuclear program, and the need to take decisive action. One of the top national security priorities for the Obama Administration is to deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability. As we discussed, we are pursuing this objective through a dual track strategy of engagement and pressure; and we are engaged in intensive multilateral efforts to develop pressure track measures now. It is in the spirit of these shared objectives that I write to express my concern about the timing and content of this legislation. As I testified before the Congress in October, it is our hope that any legislative initiative would preserve and maximize the President's flexibility, secure greater cooperation from our partners in taking effective action, and ultimately facilitate a change in Iranian policies. However, we are entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran. This requires that we keep the focus on Iran. At this juncture, I am concerned that this legislation, it its current form, might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts. In addition to the timing, we have serious substantive concerns, including the lack of flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign policy consequences. I have asked Department staff to prepare for and discuss with your staff revisions that could address these concerns on timing and content. I am hopeful that we can work together to achieve our common goals. I hope that consideration of this bill could be delayed to the new year so as not to undermine the Administration's diplomacy at this critical juncture. I look forward to working together to achieve our common goals, and I will stay in close contact with you as our diplomatic efforts proceed. Sincerely, James B. Steinberg.

Mr. KUCINICH. I will yield to Mr. Paul 3 minutes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. I would like to point out that the organization of Iranians in the United States known as the National Iranian American Council have issued a statement in a staff report dated Monday, the 14th of December, 2009 that this sanctions act ``will only contribute to the Iranian people's suffering by seeking to restrict Iran's supply of heating oil and gasoline. Prominent members of Iran's opposition movement, such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, as well as human rights defenders like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, have all spoken out strongly against such sanctions that punish innocent Iranians.'' I enter this report from the National Iranian Council into the Record. IRPSA Hurts Iranian People, Undermines International Unity on Iran NIAC released the following statement today in response to yesterday's news that the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194) will be brought up for a floor vote on the suspension calendar within the next two weeks. The National Iranian American Council is deeply concerned that the House of Representatives' plan to bring H.R. 2194, the Iranian Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, IRPSA, to a vote the week of December 14, 2009, is a move in the direction of punishing the Iranian people instead of the Iranian government. NIAC supports the Obama Administration's ongoing engagement efforts and, though the Iranian government's response has thus far been frustrating, the U.S. must remain committed to working in concert with its international partners. Considering unilateral sanctions at this time threatens to preempt and undermine the President's multilateral efforts. A successful strategy for dealing with Iran must have diplomatic engagement as its basis. Sanctions can play a constructive role within that process, but in order to be effective they must target the Iranian government and the individuals responsible for the government's reprehensible behavior, with a special emphasis on those guilty of human rights violations. As Congress moves forward, NIAC encourages Congressional action to meet the following standards: Do not harm the Iranian people--No one has suffered under the repressive rule of the Iranian Government more than the Iranian people. Unilateral sanctions such as those included in IRPSA will hurt the people of Iran immensely and do little to target the actions such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who have consolidated power under the shadow of outside threats and profited under the sanctions economy. As the Iranian people continue to stand up to their government, prominent members of Iran's opposition movement, such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, along with human rights defenders like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, have all spoken out strongly against broad, untargeted sanctions such as those contained in IRPSA. Do not undermine the President--The Obama Administration has invested in a strategy of engagement with Iran because it is the best option to change the Iranian Government's behavior. While this process has been predictably difficult, Congress must not rush to pass legislation that will undermine multilateral efforts and tie the President's hands. The President has been consistent in stating that he will evaluate progress on the engagement process once the year has ended. This commitment was reiterated on December 3 by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who stated that the Administration's deadline for Iran is the end of the year. If the House passes IRPSA now, they send the world a signal that the U.S. Congress does not support the President's plan and is taking steps to preempt it. Do not undermine the unity among U.S. partners--On November 26, the IAEA voted overwhelmingly to approve a resolution censuring Iran. Significantly, all five veto-wielding members of the Security Council voted in favor of the measure, which opens up the potential for another round of Security Council sanctions. The significant progress is uniting the Security Council is attributable to President Obama's investment in diplomacy. If Congress moves forward with sanctions that target our allies, that unity will collapse. Trying to coerce the support of the rest of the world with threats and penalties will not isolate Iran; in fact, it may only isolate the United States. I have here an analysis that has been done by Americans for Peace Now, which is a strong group in support of Israel. At the same time, they did an analysis and summary of concerns about H.R. 2194. One of the points that they make is that ``the focus on crippling refined petroleum sanctions leads to the very problematic conclusion that the U.S. is seeking to inflict widespread suffering on the Iranian people in order to force them to put pressure on their government. It is an approach few believe will achieve the desired goal and many believe could well backfire to the benefit of the regime and sow anger at the U.S., not the Iranian Government.'' I will submit this analysis for the Record. Proposed Amendments to H.R. 2194--The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act--December 2009 For further information, go to www.peacenow.org.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. KUCINICH. Could I ask how much time remains.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 2 minutes. Though this bill claims to express international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program, it actually undermines those efforts. Passing legislation effectively forces our President's hand in one direction, diminishing the power of the President and his diplomatic team by significantly limiting the tools the administration can utilize. Furthermore, it projects a negative image of the United States in a region at a time when we need broad international support to succeed in our negotiations. Former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has repeatedly stated that sanctions against Iran will be ineffective in forcing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. In a speech to the Board of Governors in September of this year, Mohamed ElBaradei recognized the important developments with respect to Iran's compliance with IAEA inspections, stating that, We are not in a state of panic because we have not seen diversion of nuclear material. We have not seen components of nuclear weapons. In addition, he states, We went through this during the time of Iraq, when the Agency went exactly through that hype, fabrication, and it took a war based on fiction and not fact. It took a war and thousands of people dying for the Agency to become strong and more credible because we were sticking to the facts. Subsection A(1) of section 2 of this bill says, The illicit nuclear activities of the government of Iran, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles in support of international terrorism, represents a serious threat to the security of the United States and allies in Europe, the Middle East, and around the world. This language makes dangerous accusations that have been repudiated by the IAEA and paves the way for the same mistakes we have made in Iraq. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes at the cost of the innocent lives of the people in Iran.

Mr. KUCINICH. May I ask how much time is remaining for all sides?

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 2 minutes. One of our colleagues talked about, well, what are our alternatives here, as though the only alternative we have is to impose sanctions. We know from a report 2 days ago in The New York Times that Iran's foreign minister has said that his country was willing to exchange most of the uranium for processed nuclear fuel from abroad, as the United Nations has proposed. The article goes along to say, but only according to the timetable Western powers appear to have rejected. Well, we need to get back into those negotiations. I have some points here I want to share with Members of Congress. Here is what we can do. The debate in Iran is focused on two shipments of 400 kilograms each of low-enriched uranium. What is being proposed by Tehran is a phased delivery to the IAEA control of Iran's low-enriched uranium within 3 to 5 months of each other, for a total of 800 kilograms. Officially, we know Iran's foreign minister said they would put 400 kilograms of low-enriched uranium in Kish Island--that's in the Persian Gulf--under IAEA custody. The Iranians want objective guarantees, the guaranteed delivery of highly enriched uranium from Russia and France. Once it's delivered to Iran for medical purposes, they would then send another 400 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to the IAEA control at Kish Island. The simultaneous shipment of high-enriched uranium to Iran and low-enriched for medical purposes, and low-enriched uranium from Iran to Kish Island, are confidence-building measures which can form the basis for further cooperation. Second, we need to pledge a guaranteed delivery by the U.S. and other P-5-plus-1 participants. Third, the U.S. offer of assistance with modernizing the instruments for the Tehran reactor. Fourth, Iran's willingness to continue with its nuclear transparency and full-scope IAEA safeguards, including short-notice inspections. Five, Iran's willingness to participate in Geneva II. Six, Iran's willingness to participate in multilateral expert meetings on nuclear, non-nuclear, that is, regional issues, and consideration of a broad range of confidence-building steps. We don't need these sanctions. We need diplomacy.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. One of my colleagues cited The Washington Post, but if you read The Post article, they couldn't authenticate where the information came from. So after a while it has the ring of uranium from Niger. We have to be careful that this sanctions debate doesn't put us on the path of a military escalation. We have to think why is the Obama administration, as has been quoted several times in this debate, expressing concern about this legislation, that this legislation might weaken, rather than strengthen, international unity and support for our efforts, that there are serious substantive concerns, the lack of flexibility that this would put on our President in his negotiations? I submit for the Record Mohamed ElBaradei's September 9 comments as Director General about the Iran situation. We've got to be careful that we're not making a situation worse and we're not giving our President the time that he says he needs for diplomacy. Summary of the Director General's Comments Made at the End of the Board of Governors' Discussion on Agenda Item 6(d) (``Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran'') Vienna, September 9, 2009. Thank you, Chairperson. A few comments on the debate this morning and on what has been transpiring over the past few days. Clearly, we all need to break the logjam. Merely giving speeches here is not going to do that. We have to put our heads together. There is stalemate, as I have said. Iran has made some positive progress and I recognize that. It was partly, I hope, as a result of my private and public appeal to them to move in a positive direction. That is the only way to move. I don't think that talking about formalities--whether the work plan has been fully implemented or not, how we should write our reports, or whether to have an annex, or whether something is routine or not routine--that is not the issue. The issue is to clarify the substance and to make sure that all outstanding issues are dealt with. It has been six years and I don't want this to continue, as in the case of the DPRK, for 17 years. One lesson I learned from the DPRK is that it is only through dialogue that you can move forward. There is no other way. There is a positive development. Iran has agreed to our visiting the heavy water reactor and to strengthen verification in Natanz. These are all positive. But there is a lot more Iran can do. As Ambassador Soltanieh knows, I put a lot of premium on the Additional Protocol. I know it is not considered legally binding. But for us at the Secretariat, as we have repeatedly said, the Protocol is key for us to build confidence, not only about declared activities, but also about undeclared activities. And you (Iran) have implemented the Protocol before. I know Iran can do it again. I know you have been reacting to others, but frankly, you are not penalizing others, you are penalizing yourself. The Protocol will help us to move forward with the process. Iran implemented the Code (3.1), before. I don't see any impediment to Iran doing it again. There are a number of checkable facts, such as procurements by military establishments, and production by military establishments. These are issues, as Iran has said before, that Iran can help work with us to clarify. I hope you will do that because we need, both of us, to work together in a constructive, positive direction. Coming to the alleged studies: they are alleged because the whole question is not really about assessment or analysis, it is about the accuracy and authenticity of the information about the alleged studies. That it is the 64,000 dollar question, frankly, and that is where we are stuck. We have limited ability to authenticate the allegations. It is one word against another. When we deal with nuclear material, we are very comfortable; we know the litmus test. We do measurements, we do environmental sampling. When it comes to paperwork, that is quite different for us because we have very limited tools. We need Iran to help us to clarify these issues. We have said that we are not in a position to say these allegations are real, but we have serious concerns, because of what we've described--the detail, the different sources. We need to work with you to clarify these issues. I would be the first one to want to bring this issue to closure. I would hope that you would work with us and try to help us. I would also hope that the suppliers of the information would help us by providing us the authority to share with you as much information as possible. People talk about assessments. I am not a scientist, but I can tell you this: if this information is real, there is a high probability that nuclear weaponization activities have taken place. But I should underline ``if'' three times. With nuclear material, we can give you full assurance. With certain documentation, it is quite difficult unless one side or the other will help us to establish the facts. However, there are other issues like procurement, like manufactures, where Iran can work with us. These are checkable facts and we need simply to clarify them. We have in our reports always tried not to understate the facts and not to overstate the facts. We have serious concerns, but we are not in a state of panic because we have not seen diversion of nuclear material, we have not seen components of nuclear weapons. We do not have any information to that effect. But I need the Protocol in order to be on more solid ground to make such a statement. That is why I say a Protocol is absolutely essential for us to verify the absence of undeclared activities. When I hear Ambassador Davies and Ambassador Soltanieh, I don't see where the problem is. The U.S. is making an offer without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. Ambassador Soltanieh said they are ready to have a comprehensive dialogue. The offer by the U.S. is an offer that should not and cannot be refused, because it has no conditions attached. I hope your response to that is positive. We can spend days and nights talking about the issues, but unless we talk to each other and not at each other, we will not move forward. Dialogue is key. The Agency can provide some confidence, but there are many other issues that need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner and there have been a lot of opportunities lost over the past six years. We should not lose any more opportunities. Finally, I will talk about this issue which has come to the media about withholding information. I mentioned that in my opening speech. Obviously, people are trying to undermine the Agency, but they are really undermining an institution that is absolutely essential to the maintenance of international peace and security. All the information we got came from people sitting in this room. If anybody has any information that we have not shared, that has passed muster, that has been critically assessed in accordance with our practice, please step forward today. Otherwise, as a preacher would say, ``You should forever hold your peace.'' This is where we are. If you have information, please step forward. We have no more information. The assessment is in our report. As I said, if this information on alleged studies is true, the likelihood is high that military activities have taken place in Iran. But, that hinges on the word ``if,'' which is where we are stuck right now. As for the idea that we did not share all the information and that we only gave information in a briefing--I can't for the life of me understand how we can share information in a briefing with 150 Member States and at the same time be told that we have not shared information. That briefing is open to all Member States, every single one. But the briefing is simply to explain the report. It had nothing different from what is in the report. We went through this, I'm sorry to say, during the time of Iraq, when the Agency went exactly through that--hype, fabrication. And then it took a war based on fiction and not fact, a war President Obama called euphemistically ``a war of choice''. It took a war and hundreds of thousands of people dying for the Agency to become stronger and more credible because we were sticking to the facts. I don't want to go through that process again; you do not want to go through that process again. So let us all work together on the basis of diplomacy, on the basis of facts to be able to resolve the issues as early as possible. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General.