Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. So since this legislation is being offered under suspension, then no motion to strike would be in order; is that right?

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. I withdraw my request for a colloquy with my friend from New York. I just think if it was so important to bring this to the floor, it should have been tailored quite narrowly to talk about the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board and not to take a broad brush with which we paint the Government of Hungary. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. I think that in the time that I had allotted, I had an opportunity to present my point here. And I just hope that when my colleagues vote on this later on in the day that they will consider the diplomatic implications of voting for this resolution. And I will say again, and this is really a concern that I have that I want to express to the leaders of the House of Representatives, we have a lot of bills that come to this floor under suspension that appropriately should be discussed in committee before they come to the floor of the House. I think this is a good example of such a bill. And I would ask our leadership to please pay more careful attention to these issues because this House has very valuable time, and while we have the freedom of speech on this floor, the speech gets very expensive when there are so many other issues waiting for discussion on the floor. I appreciate the opportunity here. I want to thank my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for what she has expressed and for the concerns that Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Engel have expressed. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KUCINICH. With all due respect to my good friend, Mr. Engel, you have compared this to a tempest in a teapot. It's your teapot and it's your tempest.

Mr. KUCINICH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, this morning I stood before this House and pointed out that The Nation magazine did an investigation that showed that U.S. tax dollars were going to U.S. contractors who then gave the Taliban money so that the Taliban wouldn't attack a shipment of U.S. goods to U.S. troops. And of course U.S. troops would use those resources to attack the Taliban. The war in Afghanistan is a racket. We have a strategy to pay off insurgents, warlords, the Taliban, in pretending that somehow this practice is going to help make an already corrupt central government more stable. I have been in this House now for seven terms, and I have seen the slow and steady erosion of the Constitution of the United States and, in particular, congressional authority with respect to article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, which very explicitly puts the power to create war in the hands of the United States Congress, not in the hands of the executive. When the Founders crafted the Constitution, they were very clear that they did not want a monarchy. They wanted to what was called ``restrain the dogs of war'' by placing the power to commit men and women into combat in the hands of an elected Congress, in this case in the hands of the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, over a few generations, we have seen that power of Congress erode. Today, according to ABC News, Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, in a joint press conference with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, said that his country's security forces will need financial and training assistance from the United States for the next 15 to 20 years. Now, since we're already spending at least $100 billion to $150 billion a year in Afghanistan, we are now committed, through Mr. Karzai, we're embarked on a strategy that could lead us to spend $2 trillion, maybe more. We've had speakers precede me today speak about the need for jobs in the United States. It goes without saying we should start taking care of things here instead of endeavoring to pour our resources into a corrupt administration, and furthermore, engage in a kind of corruption through trying to pay off warlords and even the Taliban to create shipments to our troops. As President Obama prepares to escalate military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we must reinstate our prerogative as it relates to war. The United States has been involved in military action--both in Afghanistan and Pakistan--since the inception of this administration despite the fact that the President has never submitted a report to Congress pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution. Madam Speaker, when Congress returns in 2010, I intend to bring to the floor of the House privileged resolutions reasserting this congressional prerogative. My bills will trigger a timeline for timely withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Pakistan, invoke the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and secure the constitutional role of Congress as directly elected representatives of the people under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution for Congress to decide whether or not America enters into a war or continues a war or otherwise introduces Armed Forces or materials into combat zones. Despite the President's assertion that previous congressional action gives him the authority to respond to the attacks of September 11, 2001, a careful reading of the authorization of military force makes clear that this authorization did not supersede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution and therefore did not undermine Congress' ability to revisit the constitutional question of war powers at a later date. We will have an opportunity in this House in January to vote on this issue of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I urge my colleagues to join the resolution, which I'll begin to circulate the notice of starting tomorrow. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, the Obama Administration, in forging a new foreign policy that is more humane and less antagonistic towards other nations, would do well to follow the lead of the late Tom Lantos, who dedicated his life to the cause of human rights, an issue that has now become his legacy. Indeed, it is rare for the House to name an entity after one of its own, but the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, chaired by our colleague Jim McGovern, can rightly claim that distinction. Throughout his public career, Tom Lantos and his wife, Annette, maintained a deep and enduring commitment to human rights. Among the members of this chamber, Tom Lantos was widely respected across the political spectrum for his knowledge of foreign policy and commitment to human rights. The issue was the very core of his beliefs and his eloquent voice became this chamber's conscience on many international issues. Few in today's world can match Tom Lantos' commitment and achievements in the cause of human rights, but if there were such a person, it would be Dr. Irene Khan, who in 2001 became the first woman, the first Asian, the first Bangladeshi and the first Muslim to hold the position of Secretary General of Amnesty International. Dr. Khan's caring about human rights victims and the poor dates back to her native Bangladesh's early struggle for independence, as she witnessed widespread poverty and multiple threats to human dignity. It has been a combination of her personal outreach to human rights victims and case studies from around the world, combined with her professional involvement in U.N. Organizations, that led to her being selected to head Amnesty International. In her recently published book, The Unheard Truth, Dr. Khan describes the divergent tracks of a fellow Bangladeshi who was born in the same household and she grew up with, and while Khan went on to be a successful lawyer, her friend, Fajal, suffered a lifetime of violence and unemployment, and is now disabled, living in a shack in one of Dhaka's sprawling slums, surviving on handouts. For Dr. Khan, this is a grim reminder of how people remain hopelessly trapped in poverty, often due to circumstances beyond economic conditions but rather the result of political repression, famine, war, or simply the insecurity and fear inherent in their local surroundings. In her book, Dr. Khan reveals a more acute understanding of the forces that bring about human rights abuses. Poverty, she argues, is more than the lack of material resources, it is all about fighting deprivation, exclusion, insecurity and powerlessness. As the numbers of people living in poverty swell to upwards of 2 billion, she argues that poverty is the world's worst human rights crisis. By raising the issue of rights, Dr. Zhan is not pointing fingers but providing a formula for sustainable and equitable solutions, and giving people the means to change the power imbalance that keeps them in poverty. To achieve Tom Lantos' vision of the banner of human rights waving ``over every corner of the world,'' I recommend that international leaders adhere to Dr. Khan's compelling message on the need to empower the world's poor with the basic economic, social, political, and legal rights to assure them a strong voice in shaping their own future.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. America is in the fight of its life. And the fight is not in Afghanistan; it's here. We're deeply in debt. Our GDP is down; our manufacturing is down; our savings are down; the value of the dollar is down. Our trade deficit is up; business failures are up; bankruptcies are up; foreign borrowing is up. The war is a threat to our national security. We'll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our Army, and put more soldiers' lives on the line. Meanwhile, back here in the USA, 15 million people out of work; people losing their jobs, their health care, their savings, their investments, their retirement security; $13 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war. When are we going to start taking care of things here at home?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Sister Donna L. Hawk of Cleveland, Ohio, as she is named the West Side Catholic Center's Walk in Faith recipient of 2009. Throughout her life, Sister Donna Hawk has turned her faith into action, uplifting the lives of those living on the streets. Sister Donna has become a nationally-known leader by creating and operating transitional housing for the homeless, especially for women and their children fleeing domestic violence. While working for many years as a volunteer at the West Side Catholic Shelter, Sister Donna developed a special compassion for women, many of whom had young children seeking refuge from abusive situations. In 1986, without funding, Sister Donna teamed with Sister Loretta Schulte to rally community leaders and developers in order to transform a motel on Cleveland's west side into Transitional Housing, Inc.--a place of shelter and source of counseling and resources for women and children in need. For more than twenty years, Transitional Housing, Inc. has served as a model for similar programs throughout the nation and across the world. Madam Speaker, please join me in honor and recognition of Sister Donna L. Hawk, whose faith in action, unwavering belief in the possibility of transformation, and staunch advocacy has given strength and hope to countless women and children.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda's been routed. Our occupation fuels a Taliban insurgency. The more troops we send, the more resistance we meet. If we want to be truly secure, we need to redefine national security to include financial security, because America has record debt, skyrocketing unemployment, huge trade deficits, record business failures, and foreclosures. The people of Afghanistan don't want to be saved by us. They want to be saved from us. Our presence and our Predator drones kill countless innocents, create more U.S. enemies, and destabilize Pakistan. The U.S.-created Karzai government is hopelessly corrupt, despised by Afghans. Our solution: provide them with a high-level U.S. minder, making him less legitimate. Another strategy: buy or rent friends among would-be insurgents. Give them cash and guns. When the money runs out, they shoot at U.S. soldiers. We played all sides in Afghanistan--and all sides want us out. They don't want our presence, our control, our troops, our drones, our way of life. We're fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. What part of ``get out'' do we not understand?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Today our President will announce an escalation in Afghanistan: as many as 35,000 additional troops, costing an additional $35 billion to prop up a government which most acknowledge is indefensibly corrupt. We need to redefine our national security. Our national security will not be found in occupations which fuel insurgencies. Our national security will not be found through paying off contestants in Afghanistan who are with us one day and who shoot at our soldiers the next. We can secure our borders without expanding them across the world. And we can redefine our national security by making sure that every able-bodied person in America has a job, by helping people save their homes and protect their savings and their investments and their retirement security. We need new thinking and a new course of action, not further into Afghanistan but out. Not further away from the concerns of the American people, but focusing on what's important here at home.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act. Unfortunately, the bill includes statutory-pay-as-you-go requirements. Our country's economy continues to flounder in the worst downturn since the Great Depression, yet Congress insists on passing legislation that will constrain our ability to respond appropriately to our economic circumstances. The Nation's unemployment rate is over 10 percent, and is likely to remain high well into the next year. The private sector is slashing payrolls and squeezing productivity out of the employees who remain, stubbornly refusing to contribute to an economic recovery. The government must be the spender of last resort to get Americans working again. While the Recovery Act has certainly helped to stave off a more severe economic downturn, it is obviously insufficient. We have more work to do, but pay-as-you-go requirements will only inhibit our ability to help our constituents. However, Medicare is one of the most popular government programs in part because, in contrast to private insurance plans, seniors and people with certain disabilities can have access to their doctor of choice. Doctors will be less willing to participate, however, if they are not sufficiently paid, as is the case now. I have met with doctors and doctor representatives in the Cleveland area to discuss the issue and the urgency is clear. We must maintain incentives that lead to a high standard of care. I am especially supportive of the extra growth allowance for primary care services as a small down payment toward addressing a severe shortage of primary care physicians. For those reasons, I support the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. We feel the presence of Rev. Jesse Jackson not only in this Chamber but in this Nation. Through nearly a half century commitment to social and economic justice, Rev. Jackson heard the call of Dr. King and marched for civil rights and helped to make civil rights for millions of Americans a reality. He heard the call of the prophet Isaiah early in his life and made justice the measuring line--not just social justice, but economic justice, political justice. He heard the call of Matthew and made his life about a commitment to doing for the least of the brethren; asked the question, When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you shelter me? He has been and continues to be a powerful force for economic justice in America. He has and continues to be a person who points the way--a way-shower--for jobs, for health care, for housing, for education. Let us celebrate Rev. Jesse Jackson by continuing to support his work.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Sister Donna L. Hawk of Cleveland, Ohio, as she is named the West Side Catholic Center's Walk in Faith recipient of 2009. Throughout her life, Sister Donna Hawk has turned her faith into action, uplifting the lives of those living on the streets. Sister Donna has become a nationally-known leader by creating and operating transitional housing for the homeless, especially for women and their children fleeing domestic violence. While working for many years as a volunteer at the West Side Catholic Shelter, Sister Donna developed a special compassion for women, many of whom had young children, who sought refuge from abusive situations. In 1986, without funding, Sister Donna teamed with Sister Loretta Schulte to rally community leaders and developers in order to transform a motel on Cleveland's west side into Transitional Housing, Inc.--a place of shelter and source of counseling and resources for women and children in need. For more than twenty years, Transitional Housing, Inc. has served as a model for similar programs throughout the nation and across the world. Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring and recognizing of Sister Donna L. Hawk, whose faith in action, unwavering belief in the possibility of transformation, and staunch advocacy has given strength and hope to countless women and children.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of John Timothy ``Jack'' Mulhall, Sr., for his lifelong dedication to the service of others, and especially for his commitment to helping tens of thousands of people build lives based on a platform of hope, strength and sobriety. Mr. Mulhall grew up in Cleveland and graduated from Holy Name High School. He joined the Army, and in July, 1944 at a USO dance in Natchez, Mississippi, he met the love of his life, Estelle Jones. They married three months later on October 28th, 1944 at St. Mary Basilica Church in Natchez. He was later deployed overseas, surviving battles in both Germany and France, and suffering severe frostbite while there. Before his honorable discharge in 1946, he achieved the rank of Master Sergeant and was awarded several commendations, including the Presidential Citation, the Good Conduct Medal, and the Overseas Service Medal. He returned to Cleveland and began building a new life with his wife. He played semi-professional baseball during his twenties, worked at Republic Steel and Standard Oil, then General Tire and Rubber. Together, he and Estelle raised eleven children. Married for nearly 65 years, the joy of their lives are their eleven grown children, 31 grandchildren and 16 great-grandchildren. Mr. Mulhall discovered what would become his life's work in 1972, when he began reaching out to help individuals, young and old, break free from the pain of alcohol and chemical addiction. For nearly forty years, he has remained steadfast in his focus. From 1972 to 1991, Mr. Mulhall served as the director of Stella Maris Detox Hospital. He later co-founded the Freedom House, Inc., a sober living facility-- established to fill the critical need to provide a sober environment and treatment for any individual, regardless of their ability to pay. He left Freedom House in 1998 to co-establish the Ed Keating Center, Inc., an organization with the same mission and the dedication to providing service as Freedom House. The Ed Keating Center relied entirely on private donations from individuals and corporations, receiving no public assistance. The Center continues to serve the Cleveland community restoring lives, re-connecting families, and giving people, especially those without health insurance or those unable to afford treatment, the tools to live sober, healthy, happy and productive lives. Over the years, Mr. Mulhall positively impacted the lives of more than 60,000 women and men. Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor of John Timothy ``Jack'' Mulhall Sr., for his efforts, vision and work creating havens of strength, comfort, hope and healing. Because of Mr. Mulhall's compassion and unwavering focus, institutions like the Ed Keating Center exist as a lifeline, providing vulnerable citizens the treatment they need to end the devastating cycle of addiction. These people become free to live happy, productive, drug and alcohol free lives, which in turn uplifts and strengthens our entire community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, we have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for- profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system. Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick. But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more cost, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies--a bailout under a blue cross. By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states ``since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.'' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that ``money will start flowing in again'' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy. During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The ``robust public option'' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies. Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy--in which most Americans live-- the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street. This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care. Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, why is it we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war? The inequities in our economy are piling up: trillions for war, trillions for Wall Street, tens of billions for insurance companies. Banks and other corporations are sitting on piles of cash and taxpayers' money, while firing workers, cutting pay, and denying small businesses money to survive. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their health, their retirement security. Yet there is unlimited money for war and Wall Street and insurance companies but very little money for jobs. There is unlimited money to blow up things in Iraq and Afghanistan, relatively little money to build things in the U.S. The administration will soon bring to Congress a request for an additional $50 billion for war. I can tell you, a Democratic version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions for war, for Wall Street, billions for insurance companies. When we were promised change, we weren't thinking it meant we give a dollar and get back 2 cents.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Terry ``Kelly'' Joyce, Sr., devoted husband, father, grandfather, friend and staunch labor advocate, whose commitment to family, to his Irish heritage and to the workers of Cleveland has left an indelible imprint throughout our community. Born and raised in County Mayo, Ireland, Mr. Joyce immigrated to America in 1957 and settled in Cleveland. A year later, he met his wife, Bridget ``Bridie'' Jennings, whose journey to America also originated in County Mayo. They married in 1964 and raised three children, Maureen, Eileen and Terry. Mr. Joyce's wife, children and grandchildren were the center and spark of his life--and he remained actively involved in their lives. Mr. and Mrs. Joyce held their Irish homeland close to their hearts, and regularly celebrated treasured customs and traditions for their children and grandchildren to know and cherish. They travelled often from Cleveland to the Emerald Isle, and their strong connection to their heritage reflected throughout our community. Mr. Joyce was named the Irish Fellowship Man of the Year in 1974, and helped found the Irish National Caucus in Cleveland, serving as its president in 1971. He also served on the board of the West Side Irish American Club (WSIA) for many years, and was named the WSIA Man of the Year in 1978. In 1991, he served as co-chair of the Cleveland St. Patrick's Day Parade, and served as parade announcer for twenty- four years. Mr. Joyce lived his life with heart, compassion, integrity, a great sense of humor and an unwavering work ethic. He mastered the construction trades and became a union member and leader. In 1957, the same year he settled in America, Mr. Joyce joined Cleveland's Laborers Local 310. From 1965 until his retirement in 1991, he served as Local 310's business agent. Mr. Joyce also served as president of the Ohio Labor District Council from 1975 until his retirement in 1991. During his tenure as labor leader, he worked tirelessly on behalf of workers and their families. Mr. Joyce was responsible for major advances in the labor force, including the attainment of critical benefits, including pensions, for union workers. Because of his leadership, Laborers Local 310 of Cleveland grew to become one of the most effective labor unions in the country. Madam Speaker, please join me in honor and remembrance of Terry ``Kelly'' Joyce, Sr., whose energy for life, kind heart, and unwavering service to others will forever endure within the hearts and memories of his family, friends and the laborers of our community. I extend my condolences to Mr. Joyce's wife, Bridget; to his children, Maureen, Eileen and Terry; to his son-in-law John and daughter-in-law Nicole; to his grandchildren, Brona, Eoin, Cormac and Aislinn; sister, Grace; and to his extended family members and numerous friends. From family and friends to County and Cleveland Mayor, Mr. Joyce's love of life and service to others will continue to touch the hearts of many, and he will be remembered always.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of the beloved Lena T. Hughes, devoted wife, mother, grandmother, great- grandmother, sister and friend. Mrs. Hughes' family was the foundation and joy of her life. She was the wife of the late Patrick Gilbert Hughes, with whom she created a loving home and raised three daughters, Rose, Lynne and Mary Jo. Their mutual devotion to family was reflected in the closeness they shared with their seven grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. Mrs. Hughes created a warm and inviting home for her family and friends. From never missing special events in the lives of her children and grandchildren, to preparing wonderful meals for family gatherings, her priority was always her family. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Mrs. Lena T. Hughes, 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 daughters; her son- in-law, Timothy; her seven grandchildren and three great-grandchildren; her sister, Anne; and to her many friends. Mrs. Hughes will be remembered always.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the Book of Ecclesiastes says, To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven, a time to plant, a time to reap. Many years ago, people in States across America planted the seeds of single payer health care. Those seeds have sprouted and borne fruit where powerful State citizens' movements exist to create not-for-profit health care. This led to passage of an amendment to the health care bill which protected the rights of States to pursue single payer. Unfortunately, that amendment was taken out of the bill and we must try to get it into the conference report. While the State health care movement is strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. It has resulted in the Conyers bill, H.R. 676, Medicare for All. The bill has 87 cosponsors, a significant number, but nowhere near enough to bring the bill to the floor where it would face certain defeat. To those who want a stand-alone vote on single payer now, I want to ask this question: Is this a time to plant or a time to reap? What fruit will be borne from a tree that has received no light and no water in this Capitol?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, before we celebrate the new health care legislation, keep in mind that the American people will be required by law to buy private insurance, and they will pay a penalty if they don't; that insurance companies will be subsidized by the government; that insurance companies have had double-digit increases in premiums in the past 4 years; that we are locking in a for-profit structure. This is the result of a health care debate, the flawed premise of which is that health care reform cannot happen without the cooperation of the insurance companies which make money not providing health care. The truth is that reform cannot happen with them; that insurance companies are the problem, not the solution; and that the legislation, no matter how well intended, will likely not be able to deliver and cost too much and be another bailout for Big Business at the expense of the American people.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, even though insurance companies make money not providing health care, the so-called reform bill gives so much power and money to the insurance companies that we are giving far too much for the few benefits which the bill may confer. The insurance companies get at least another 26 million new customers. They will receive at least another $50 billion in new revenue. They will be able to raise premiums 25 percent even though in each of the last four consecutive years the industry raised premiums by double digits. As long as there are for-profit insurance companies, there will be no effective way to protect consumers against ever-escalating premiums, copays, and deductibles unless the insurance companies know that people at the State level will always have a choice to reject the insurance companies and establish a single payer, not-for-profit system. That is why the Kucinich amendment should be put back in the health bill, not just to protect the rights of States to pursue single payer, but to protect the rights of consumers to be free of the economic death grip of the insurance companies.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt. Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist. Because behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian. The resolution before us today, which would reject all attempts of the Goldstone Report to fix responsibility to all parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and Israel, may as well be called the ``Down is Up, Night is Day, Wrong is Right'' resolution. Because if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read concerning events it has totally ignored about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution. How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights, if we look the other way, or if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation? How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to human security of jobs, education, and health care? We will have peace only when the plight of both Palestinians and Israelis is brought before this House and given equal consideration in recognition of the principle that all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive. And it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim.