Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I will use the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this is starting to sound like the debate over Iraq. My concerns are that this resolution is opposed to our national security, that it undermines diplomatic initiatives, that it creates a gas shortage in Iran which, in a sense, the regime would blame on the United States. It will benefit the Revolutionary Guard in its effort to gain profit off of a black market. It will throw the energy politics of the world into chaos with Russia, Venezuela and our European allies all coming in to play. It will undermine our diplomacy. It will isolate us from our allies. It will isolate us from trading partners. It will undercut international energy companies which try to work with the United States in back channels in diplomacy. It will undermine democracy efforts in Iran, and it will strengthen the hardliners. It will make U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan more dangerous for our troops. This sanctions resolution is, unfortunately, a path towards military escalation. As such, it should be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Ada Marie Hagan, beloved mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and friend, whose lived her life with grace, wit, love and passionate commitment to family, community and social justice issues. The matriarch of her family, Mrs. Hagan grew up in Youngstown, Ohio, the daughter of Italian immigrants. Her parents instilled in her a strong sense of faith, family, hard work and community. She met and married the love of her life, State Representative and comedian, the late Robert Emmet Hagan, also from the Youngstown area. Together, they raised fourteen children, teaching them the values of hard work, dedication to family and giving to others--all by example. Ahead of her time, Mrs. Hagan became a champion on behalf of social justice issues early on, and involved herself and her children in several activist movements, including the civil rights movement and worker's rights movement. Inspired by the Catholic worker's movement, Mrs. Hagan volunteered on behalf of unions and became involved in many social causes. She regularly marched with her young children down the main streets of Youngstown in support of fair housing, civil rights, peace and other causes. In addition, she volunteered her time and talents on behalf of those seeking public office, including her children. Her dedication to community service was life-long; at the age of 80, Mrs. Hagan led a group of friends and family in Washington, DC, in the Million Mom March to protest against guns. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Mrs. Ada Marie Hagan, whose joyous life, framed by devotion to family, friends and service to community, will always be celebrated and remembered. I extend my deepest condolences to her children: Katie, Maggie, Jim, Tim, Bill, Bob, Jack, Chris, Anne, Elaine, Monica, Susan, Mary Therese and Jeff; to her 28 grandchildren and six great- grandchildren; and also to her extended family members and many friends. Mrs. Hagan's youthful spirit, great sense of humor, boundless energy and strong convictions inspired countless people of all ages and backgrounds, promoted positive change, and helped to lift our community and our nation into the light of human rights and social justice--and she will never be forgotten.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of the beloved Idell ``Scotty'' Miller, devoted wife of the late John Miller; loving mother of John Jr. (deceased), Frank, Tyrone, Stanley, Czerny, and Linda; cherished grandmother of 17, devoted great- grandmother of 44, and loving great-great grandmother of 18; loving aunt and dear friend to many. Mrs. Miller devoted her life to her faith. Her family was the foundation and joy of her life. She and Mr. Miller created a loving home to raise their children. She never missed the special events in the lives of her children and grandchildren and she would prepare wonderful family dinners for them. Mrs. Miller, also known for her wonderful laugh, great sense of humor and generous heart, lived life with great joy and love. She was a true matriarch within her family. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Mrs. Idell Miller, whose joyous spirit and love for others will exist forever within the hearts and memories of those who knew her best--her family and friends. I extend my deepest condolences to her family.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Stephen John Kovacik III, beloved son, brother, uncle and friend. He lived with great joy and a passionate commitment to the arts, to his family and friends, and to issues of social justice. Mr. Kovacik had an engaging personality. He was extremely well-read and could spark an interest and a smile from everyone he met. He followed politics, and he was a long-time supporter of progressive candidates and issues. He had a special interest in issues related to unions and the rights of workers. Mr. Kovacik was known for his compassionate heart and could always be counted on to lend a helping hand. I extend my deepest condolences to his mother, Landa; to his sister, Lisa; to his brothers, David and Robert; to his niece and nephews, Elizabeth, Walker and Thomas; to his brother-in-law David and sister- in-law Magaly; and to his extended family members and many friends. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Mr. Stephen John Kovacik III. Stephen John Kovacik's love for life, generous heart and kind demeanor lifted the lives of others. His soulful spirit will live on forever in the hearts and memories of his family and friends.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Jean Elsner, age 90, whose youthful spirit and lifelong quest for learning is being recognized at Cleveland State University's fall commencement ceremony, where she will be awarded the coveted President's Medal. Mrs. Elsner grew up in Cleveland's Buckeye neighborhood during the Great Depression. Her parents were hardworking and resourceful, despite the harsh economic times. Even when they lost their home to foreclosure, and during a time when young women were not encouraged to further their education, her parents always stuck to their plan for her to go to college. In 1941, she graduated magna cum laude with bachelor's degrees in English and Sociology from Ohio University, and her quest for learning, sparked early on by her parents, never diminished. In 1982, Mrs. Elsner and a friend signed up to take a class at Cleveland State University, and she has been enrolled ever since. For nearly thirty years, she has taken two to three classes every semester. She holds the record for the most classes taken by any one student at Cleveland State--more than 100. Whether rain, sleet or snow, Mrs. Elsner walks to the bus stop every day she has a class and takes the bus downtown from her home in South Euclid. Mrs. Elsner's positive attitude and boundless energy continue to inspire. Her love of life and devotion to family and friends continues to frame each day. Together, she and her beloved husband, the late Sidney Elsner, raised three sons and instilled within them the same values of hard work and the significance of a solid college education. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Jean Elsner, whose exuberance for life, quick smile, caring heart and love for learning continues to enrich and inspire students, professors, friends and family. We wish her continued health, peace and happiness in all the years to come.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations for FY 2010. Our commitment to a strategy of aggression rather than a strategy of dialogue is evident in the State and Foreign Operations portion of this legislation that includes billions of dollars in military aid, sanctions and funds for policies in the Middle East that undermine the Administration's call for a commitment to diplomacy. There are many laudable provisions in this bill but I cannot support legislation that includes funding for programs and support for the failed policies of aggression and disregard for international human rights. I oppose the inclusion of the Export-Import Bank provision regarding Iran. This section calls on the President to implement the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 and encourages all foreign governments to require state-owned and private entities to cease all investment in Iran's energy sector. In June of this year, I joined the House of Representatives in voting to express support for the people of Iran who embrace the values of freedom, civil liberties and human rights. Sanctions are meant to destabilize economies and have disastrous effects on the citizens at the receiving end. This provision will not harm the leadership in Iran; it will harm the people of Iran we claim to support. I oppose the inclusion of $239 million in foreign military financing for Pakistan. More unmanned drone attacks have been authorized in the first few months of this Administration than in the last year of the Bush Administration. Hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed by these predator drones that contravene international law and cement anti-American sentiment. Military operations in the region will only serve to further destabilize a faltering Pakistan and undermine our national security. This legislation includes provisions that further undermine the image of the United States in the Middle East as an honest broker. It includes language that places conditions on aid to the West Bank and Gaza that cannot be satisfied in the immediate future. At the same time, the bill provides military aid to Israel without investigating credible accusations that Israel is using weapons provided by the U.S. in an offensive posture in contravention of U.S. law and international law. The perception of the U.S. as an honest broker is necessary for good-faith negotiations. I support many provisions in this bill, such as the $4.8 billion investment in transportation infrastructure and $1.4 billion allocated for dislocated worker programs. I fully support the $2.2 billion authorized for Community Health Centers that provide primary health care to almost 17 million patients, forty-percent of whom are uninsured. The $14.5 billion appropriated for Title 1 grants for 20 million disadvantaged children in school districts across the country and high-quality early learning programs are to be supported. Regrettably, these essential services were folded into a continuing resolution with programs that I cannot support. We cannot claim to travel the path toward peace when funding for a strengthened diplomatic core is paralleled by funding for policies of isolation and aggression.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Dr. William Henry ``Bill'' Cosby Jr.--a husband, a father, a renowned entertainer, and an activist who has recently been selected to receive the Kennedy Center's 12th Annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. His contributions as an author, writer, actor, singer, comedian, and television producer span every facet of the entertainment industry and his work is beloved around the world. In 1961, Mr. Cosby was the first African American to win the coveted Emmy award for his work on the TV show, ``I Spy.'' Since then, Mr. Cosby has garnered numerous awards for excellence in the performing arts including the Golden Globe, a People's Choice award, and Grammy and Emmy awards. His natural comedic talent was first noticed in college when he attended Temple University and worked as a bartender. His quick wit and laid-back style easily drew others to him, including the legendary producer and director Carl Reiner. During his successful career in entertainment, Mr. Cosby remained committed to education, eventually earning a doctorate degree in Education from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Mr. Cosby is a rare comedic genius. He is intelligent, creative and never relies on profanity. His popular stand-up comedy performances are drawn from personal experiences such as a childhood spent on the streets of Philadelphia and his experiences as husband and a father. His thought provoking performances feature themes of family, love and human fallibilities. In addition to stand-up, his work in television is well known. He worked on hits including the ``Electric Company,'' the animated comedy ``Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids'' and starred as Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable, the affable, educated and loving father on the hit comedy ``The Cosby Show.'' Mr. Cosby's work explored challenging family issues softened by comedy. His impact on children and young adults is immeasurable. Even today, Dr. Huxtable continues to be the most beloved television father of all time. Moreover, Mr. Cosby continues to be a mentor and voice of empowerment in urban and black communities. He uplifts and inspires young and old through public forums, music, humor and song. He continues to educate and encourage involvement based on the principles of family unity, community involvement and personal responsibility. Madam Speaker, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. William Henry ``Bill'' Cosby. Mr. Cosby's brilliant artistry, unwavering activism and volunteer spirit continue to lighten hearts and enlighten minds by bringing hope and laughter to millions. Mr. Cosby has made and continues to make our nation and our world a better place.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Charlie Burke upon the occasion of his retirement from Baldwin-Wallace College after nearly fifty years of dedicated teaching, service, and leadership. Professor Burke taught his first course in American Government and Politics in 1961. Since coming to Baldwin-Wallace in 1970, he has continued to teach and develop the course. He also crafted over a dozen other courses that critically analyze domestic and international politics. Through both his curricular and extracurricular leadership positions, Professor Burke was instrumental in making Baldwin-Wallace College an internationally-recognized, liberal-arts institution of higher learning. Equally importantly, Professor Burke demonstrated commitment to students. He connected with and mentored students in order to facilitate learning and leadership in informal ways. Professor Burke is one of only two students from his high school class to attend college. He also enlisted in the army at age 17 and served in the demilitarized zone in Korea. With help from the GI Bill, Professor Burke studied at Boston University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Charlie Burke, who has academically and personally helped better the lives of his students.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4173. Although I am supportive of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency as well as other provisions in the bill, ultimately I do not think H.R. 4173 adequately addresses the causes of the financial crisis, and I do not believe the reforms are sufficient to prevent another financial crisis from occurring. In testimony before the Committee on Financial Services earlier in the year, Dr. Robert Johnson of the Roosevelt Institute stressed that reform of the derivatives markets is absolutely central to fixing the financial system. In fact, he went so far as to say that without strong and comprehensive derivatives reform, any effort to address the problem of systemic risk would be rendered impotent. H.R. 4173 makes some progress toward regulating derivatives by establishing regulations for clearing and regulating over-the-counter derivatives; however the bill--especially in light of the House's adoption of the Murphy amendment--contains a number of loopholes that sophisticated financial industry insiders will exploit with ease. For example, the Murphy amendment's expansion of the exemption of derivatives users, jeopardizes the integrity of the whole reform. As Dr. Johnson said in his testimony, the challenge is to ``[preserve] as much scope for deriving value from derivative instruments for end users without making the definition of end user so broad that it allows large scale financial institutions to effectively continue their unregulated OTC practices and at the same time assures that end users do not themselves, through loopholes, contribute to a weakening of the integrity of the financial system.'' H.R. 4173 does not accomplish this. Credit rating agencies were also at the heart of the financial crisis. It was their bogus ratings on opaque securitizations and other financial products that fueled the asset bubble, and it was the fundamental conflict of interest in their ``issuer pays'' business model that strengthened their position in the industry. Unfortunately H.R. 4173, rather than address the fundamental conflict of interest in the ``issuer pays'' model, instead sidesteps the issue and gives the Securities and Exchange Commission more authority to mitigate conflicts of interest. The years leading up to the financial crisis, however, taught us some very important lessons regarding the enforcement authority of the SEC: when officials at the Agency operate with a philosophical disagreement with its mission, it does not matter what tools they have; they simply will not use them. In the interest of long-term, systemic reform, H.R. 4173 should have directly addressed this problem. As everyone knows, another major cause of the crisis was gargantuan, systemically-interrelated institutions headed by shortsighted executives that scarcely had a notion of their complexity. H.R. 4173 attempts to address ``too big to fail'' by creating a resolution authority for unwinding and dissolving large institutions that have failed. Simply put, too big to fail is too big to exist. Real financial reform would include prohibiting financial institutions from metastasizing to the point where they threaten the whole system. Real reform would also include limits on interconnectedness and risk. In the words of Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, ``Such an approach won't prevent another crisis, but it would make one less likely--and less costly if it did occur.'' Yet another cause of the financial crisis was the contagion that spread from the $8 trillion housing bubble that burst. The housing bubble was fueled by predatory and subprime mortgages that were securitized on a massive scale. The manager's amendment included language from H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, and I applaud Chairman Frank for acknowledging the importance of including this legislation. The manager's amendment also included $1 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to help communities address the problem of abandoned and foreclosed properties. My Domestic Policy Subcommittee did important work on how to target this federal assistance most effectively, I was glad to see its inclusion, and I supported the manager's amendment. Curiously absent from H.R. 4173, however, is real reform of the process of securitization or any acknowledgement whatsoever that the federal government, through interventions at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, is the securitization market right now. H.R. 4173 would only require that securitizers retain 5 percent of their assets, called ``skin in the game.'' However, regulators would have the power to raise that amount, but only to 10 percent, and could also eliminate it altogether. This would hardly act as a deterrent to what has become an abused practice. Securitization, done wisely and thoughtfully, is vital to our economy; however by failing to address this issue H.R. 4173 simply allows the abuse of securitization to continue. There is no reform of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that subjugated the ``public good'' aspect of their missions to the demands of their investors for higher profits. Finally, H.R. 4173 does not fix the problem caused by the conflict of interest in the Federal Reserve's dual mandate. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues Ron Paul and Alan Grayson to include in the bill the authority of the Government Accountability Office to conduct audits of the Federal Reserve, but the financial crisis--and the government's extraordinary response--taught us monetary policy and regulatory policy must be exclusive. Relying on one entity to conduct both activities so vital to a healthy financial system will inevitably give rise to conflicts of interest. This bill, however, further conflates these policies at the Fed by giving the Fed more regulatory authority. H.R. 4173 cannot be the end of this process, but I fear passage of this bill will preclude further consideration of financial reform. If Congress rests on the laurels of H.R. 4173, we will be back here sooner rather than later to debate the same issues all over again. I look forward to continuing efforts to enact real, comprehensive reform of the financial services industry.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, yesterday our President mused about the inevitability built of war, war's instrumentality in the pursuit of peace, and just wars. It is important for us to reflect on his words, because once we believe in the inevitability of war, war becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once we are committed to war's instrumentality in pursuit of peace, we begin the Orwellian journey to the semantic netherworld where war is peace, where the momentum of war overwhelms hopes for peace. And once we wrap doctrines perpetuating war in the arms of justice, we can easily legitimate the wholesale slaughter of innocents. The war against Iraq was based on lies, the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan based on flawed doctrines of counterinsurgency. War is often not just; sometimes it is just war. And our ability to rethink the terms of our existence, to explore the possibility of peace without war, may well determine whether we end war or war ends us.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the sharp increase in war spending is taking up a greater portion of our gross domestic product, which will cost the United States about 2 million jobs because such spending ``is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs.'' Contrary to popular assumptions, massive spending for war does not create jobs; it costs jobs. War spending is capital-intensive, not labor-intensive. War creates unemployment. The current plans to make extension of unemployment benefits contingent on Congress' passing a war spending bill raises serious questions about economic policy, not to mention basic decency and common sense. We're telling people that as long as we're at war they'll get their unemployment benefits. And of course, as long as we're at war, there will be more people unemployed. Instead of unemployment benefits, people need work. Instead of war, people need work. War drives up the deficit. War takes away money from job creation. War results in unemployment. War is a weapon of mass destruction.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, yesterday I began circulating to Members of Congress a letter that would enable Members to be able to sign on to legislation that will be introduced when we return in January that would be aimed at creating a vote in this House on whether or not we keep our troops in Afghanistan and continue operations in Pakistan. This action is being done pursuant to the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act was passed in 1973, and the intention of it was to claim Congress's constitutional authority under article I, section 8 to be able to take this Nation into war, commit our troops to war, or to continue to stay at war. Congress cannot remain on the sidelines in this matter. We have the lives of our troops at stake. We have trillions of dollars at stake. Congress must engage in this debate over whether or not to stay at war in Afghanistan and to continue operations in Pakistan. It's comforting to let the President do everything, but we can't do that, because whether we agree with the President or not, we have a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility, to make a decision on these wars. Now, some will say the authorization for use of military force dispensed with that. Oh, no, it didn't. A reading of that authorization makes it very clear that it does not supersede the War Powers Act. And so when I put this resolution to the Congress in January, it will be an automatic mandatory referral to the International Relations Committee. They will have 15 days to report it back to the House, where we can expect a debate. When the bill is introduced, it will be introduced with broad bipartisan support because this is not a Democrat or Republican issue. We have learned recently that U.S. contractors are paying the Taliban to ensure safe shipment of U.S. goods to U.S. soldiers, who then use those supplies to strengthen their war with the Taliban. We have learned that Blackwater is involved in ``black ops'' in Pakistan working as independent contractors for the purposes of assassination. We cannot let these things happen without Congress being directly involved and taking direct responsibility. All across this country people are worried about their jobs, their homes, their health care, their investments, their retirement security. Why is it that war becomes the centerpiece of our national experience? Some can say, well, it makes us safer. Oh, has it? Did the invasion of Iraq make us safer? Over 1 million innocent people perished in a war based on a lie; let us never forget that. The policies of unilateralism preempted at first strike were a dead- end. And for those who say war is inevitable, I say you're dead wrong. Peace is inevitable if you tell the truth. Peace is inevitable if you're ready to confront the difficulties of diplomacy. We have a right to defend ourselves, and I stand upon that right. I voted for this country to defend itself in those days in September of 2001. But we can never mistake defense for offense. We can never claim the right to aggress against another nation in the name of trying to make us safer because all we do is create more enemies. Occupations fuel insurgencies. If you want peace, you work for peace. If you want war, you create war, but we can never claim that war is peace. It's not. It often is a path to more war. The Constitution, when it was written, our Founders were very clear they didn't want an imperial government, they wanted to make sure the dog of war was chained. And the way to do it, they put that decision in the hands of the Congress. This is about our Constitution, our Constitution, which I always carry a copy of. This Constitution requires us to take a stand and to have a vote. And in January, we will have a vote whether to remain in Afghanistan and continue operations in Pakistan.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Today I will begin circulating two privileged resolutions which will trigger debate and votes on a timely withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution makes it Congress' responsibility to determine whether or not we go to war or stay at war. Consistent with article I, section 8, the privileged resolutions will invoke the War Powers Act of 1973. I ask for your support of these resolutions which will be introduced in the House in January. Yesterday, with the Secretary of Defense at his side, the President of Afghanistan declared that his country's security forces will need financial and training assistance from the U.S. for the next 15 to 20 years. We cannot afford these wars. We cannot afford the loss of lives. We cannot afford the cost to taxpayers. We cannot afford to fail to exercise our constitutional right to end the wars. Please sign on to the privileged resolutions to end the wars and bring our troops home. Stand up for the troops. Stand up for the truth. Stand up for the Constitution and Congress' responsibility.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, U.S. contractors are paying U.S. tax dollars to the Taliban in order to protect the delivery of U.S. shipments of U.S. goods to U.S. soldiers so that our soldiers can fight against the Taliban. In an investigative expose, The Nation magazine reveals ``how U.S. funds the Taliban,'' and ``with Pentagon cash, contractors bribe insurgents not to attack supply lines for U.S. troops.'' Another quote from the investigation: ``The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is ensuring security on the perilous roads controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents, and Taliban commanders.'' The American executive I spoke to was fairly specific about it: ``The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them,'' and then the Taliban uses that money to shoot at our troops. What a racket. Are we in Afghanistan to fight or to fund the Taliban or both?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I seek to claim time in opposition.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman asks for unanimous consent to split the time between himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I have already claimed time in opposition. What does the Chair rule on that?

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, as Chair of the Hungarian American Caucus, I want to bring to the attention of this Congress the concerns that have been raised about H. Res. 915, legislation which ``encourages the Republic of Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press.'' This legislation issues broad condemnation of the Republic of Hungary without regard to current legal proceedings that should receive more discussion. I urge my colleagues to consider the consequence of this legislation before casting a vote. It's already been stated that the Hungarian Prime Minister has given statements questioning the award of the contract, that there is a parliamentary committee looking into it, that courts are reviewing it, and that, in fact, there's a prosecutorial investigation in the offing. I have contacted the Hungarian Government, and in response to this congressional inquiry, the Hungarian Government pointed out that the licenses awarded to two national radio stations by the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board are under judicial review before the court: ``A criminal procedure related to the issue was launched with the prosecutor's office.'' Now, if this doesn't indicate a responsiveness by the government to the award of the contract, I don't know what does. The question then comes, Why is this even on the floor of the House as a suspension? I stand by the right of every Member of this body to protect the interest of any business in any district. That's what we're here for. But I think that to put this resolution before the House for passage before any committee meetings have been held to review the actual extent of the Hungarian Government's involvement or lack thereof is really not consistent with our duties and due diligence on every piece of legislation. Now, the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board awarded 12- year licenses to two national radio stations in 1997, to two companies, one based in the United States and another in Europe. The licenses expired last month and are the only licenses that allow for nationwide coverage by commercial rather than state-run radio broadcast services in Hungary. Following a national bidding process, the licenses were awarded to two Hungarian companies. Members across the political spectrum in Hungary have raised concerns regarding the manner in which the licenses were issued, and a U.S.-based telecommunication company filed legal proceedings in Hungarian court. Now, the legislation accurately states the importance of foreign investment and a need for equitable treatment in accordance with the United States and Hungarian laws. However, broad condemnation of the Republic of Hungary, charging the country, or implying, that there's widespread corruption without allowing legal processes to take place is more than problematic. This dispute should be resolved in Hungarian courts, which can render judgment and provide sufficient remedy to the injured party including, if they care to, revoke existing licenses, forcing a new round of competitive bidding, or awarding compensation. I mean, these are all things that the Republic of Hungary has the opportunity to do. But I just want to go back to the legislation itself, which raises questions about the integrity of the government itself. And, frankly, I don't think that's appropriate given the scope of the legislation and the grievances that Members have about the contract-awarding procedure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, this resolution encourages the Republic of Hungary to respect the rule of law. Now, if you're encouraging someone to respect the law, the underlying assumption is that they don't. I think that to look at the action of a single agency and to put a broad brush on an entire national government is really grossly unfair. To imply that Hungary does not respect the law is actually an insult to the people of Hungary, who put their lives on the line in 1956 fighting to break free of domination by the Soviet Union, who put their lives on the line to be able to establish a democracy and self-determination. Is this what they deserve? Do the people of Hungary really deserve to be treated this way? This should have been handled diplomatically. This should have been handled at a committee level before bringing it to the floor of the House of Representatives. And with respect to foreign investors, since the Government of Hungary has itself launched an investigation into the award of this contract, doesn't that show that they want foreign investors to be treated fairly? Doesn't it show that they respect the rule of law by going forward to raise the potential of prosecution of people involved in the award of this contract? Don't we already have what it is that this legislation supposedly aspires to, evidence of respect for the law and fair treatment of foreign investors? There is no evidence that the Republic of Hungary has suddenly taken a tilt towards Soviet-type control of the press; I hope that no one is seriously asserting that. Hungary is a proud and free society, and we should be very careful about moving forward with resolutions that in any way imply otherwise, not to say simultaneously, well, Hungary is a law-abiding nation, and then say, well, they ought to respect the law. So again, I wish that the sponsors of this legislation, who I deeply respect and who I know are working very hard for their constituents and the business community as well as for all the people in their districts. I would say take another look at this and maybe send it to committee so that we could have the opportunity to have a deeper discussion about the advisability of the legislation, and maybe to tailor it even more firmly. I mean, I could agree with questioning the action by the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board--the Hungarian Government is questioning that action, but to challenge the entire government's integrity when the government has already taken action to raise questions itself about the award of a contract, really we have to ask what we're doing here. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. KUCINICH. I question why this resolution was brought before this House under suspension. I question why an effort by the proponents of the legislation wasn't made to contact the Hungarian Government and to learn that their position is in fact that there is a judicial review and that there is a criminal procedure related to the issue that was launched with the prosecutor's office because that would clearly indicate action being taken on the part of the government to look at this particular contract. Why is this matter on the floor of the House of Representatives? Why are we taking this time to look at something that is already under review by the Hungarian Government and doing it in the context of urging the Hungarian Government to have respect for law? That's what they're doing, they are showing respect for law by taking this forward. Why do they need to be encouraged? Everyone here understands what that means; we're implying that they don't respect the law unless their judicial response is a certain way. That is not an appropriate way to proceed here. And again, it is very difficult when you have a colleague who you want to agree with on everything present a resolution with which you don't agree. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. As my colleague has stated, this resolution is intended to address the actions of the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board; they are the ones who awarded the contract. But yet, in the same breath, we're asking the Hungarian Government to respect the rule of law. Is there any other example, other than the action of a single board, that any proponent of this legislation can point to which indicates that the Republic of Hungary does not respect the rule of law? Or are we simply talking about one agency? Because if we're talking about one agency, then the resolution should have been written in a different way. Because the impact of this resolution is not going to be just to talk about the decision of one agency, it is going to imply, very broadly, that the Government of Hungary does not respect the rule of law. That passage should have been struck from this legislation. I ask my colleague, Mr. Engel, if you look at the second part of the enactment clause, if he would consider striking that. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KUCINICH. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KUCINICH. Is a motion to strike in order by the manager of the bill, or would the sponsor of the bill have to ask for such a motion?