Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to say that the gentleman from Oregon's point is well taken. As someone who engaged in the debate over India, I am familiar with the concerns that he has raised. And there are concerns about the ability of the United States Congress, which is being asked to on one hand ascent to the proliferation of one group, and deny the proliferation of another, for this Congress to be in a position of trying to help this country have a consistent program of nuclear nonproliferation, which I know is exactly the point that the gentleman relates to. In addition to that, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission has said that North Korea ought to be given the same kinds of guarantees that is in the agreed framework of 1994 that they are not going to be attacked. This is the same thing that has been recommended that is done with Iran as well. So we do not need to get into these nuclear crises and say that people are threats if we engage them in talks that work towards nonproliferation. This group made recommendations, Mr. Wu, that I am sure you are familiar with. They said that a negotiation with North Korea should aim at a verifiable agreement, including as a principle element, North Korea's manifestation of its adherence to the MPT and accepting the 1997 additional protocol, as well as the revival and a legal confirmation of the commitments made in the 1992 joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And notably saying that neither North nor South Korea shall have nuclear weapons nor nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities, and fuel cycle services should be assured through international agreements. The agreements should also cover biological and chemical weapons as well as the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, thus making the Korean Peninsula a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. So what Mr. Wu is asking about, and which I certainly support, is some consistency in policy. And it beings with Congress since we are being called upon, as Mr. Wu stated, to either agree or disagree with these policies. I want to thank the gentleman for raising that, because this is the appropriate time to raise that.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the installation of a statue of Mohandas Gandhi in the Cleveland Cultural Gardens. The statue stands as a beacon for the ideals Gandhi promoted: peace, amity, and cooperation of all people of all nations. The unveiling event is being co-hosted by the Cleveland Cultural Gardens Association and the Federation of Communities of India Communities Association. The Cleveland Cultural Gardens started as a 256-acre tract of land donated to the City of Cleveland by John D. Rockefeller in 1896. With the theme ``Peace Through Mutual Understanding,'' the Gardens are represented by 24 nations from all around the world. These Gardens, which have become both a staple of Cleveland and the entire country, have inspired people of all backgrounds throughout its entire rich history. President Herbert Hoover once said of the Gardens that, ``Cleveland, by its series of cultural gardens, is setting a notable example to the nation.'' The addition of a statue of Gandhi continues this shining example of peace and cooperation. The statue stands in the India Cultural Garden on a mixture of Indian and American soil. In accordance with the values taught by Gandhi, the earth, which belongs to us all, can only be stewarded through cooperation, understanding, and embracing diversity. Mohandas Gandhi, who pioneered the global civil rights struggle, has become a symbol of the movement for peace in international politics, brotherhood amongst diverse communities, and social progress through understanding. Gandhi, though a Hindu by practice, embraced diversity of all religions and expressions of spirituality and urged all human beings to stay in touch with a transcendental bond that connects us all. His life is a testament to strengthening international peace efforts through acknowledgement of each individual's power to make a positive peaceful change in this world. Born in 1869 in Gujarat, India, Gandhi studied law at University College London where he found himself at a cultural crossroads trying to embrace English customs while still preserving the traditions of his Indian ancestry. Gandhi would go on to lead the civil rights struggle in South Africa and finally the independence movement in his native India. Though he studied, lived, and worked in many countries, Gandhi became more of a global citizen, adopting the idea that all humans on the earth share a common thread of wanting peace, security, self- expression, and individuality in a diverse society. It is this sense of global citizenship and acceptance of all people that is echoed in the Cleveland Cultural Gardens with the installation of this new statue. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the contributions to peace and community of Mohandas Gandhi through this statue in the Cleveland Cultural Gardens.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Iran should not have nuclear weapons; and, along with the United States as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, should work with the community of nations to abolish all nuclear weapons, as is the express intent of the NPT. However, this administration is trying to create an international crisis by inflating Iran's nuclear development into another Iraq WMD hoax. There they go again. Today, the House will consider a bill which will give the administration a pass on covert activities it has already undertaken in Iran to attempt to destabilize the government. Additionally, today's bill will enable another Rendon type propaganda machine to feed the U.S. media a steady stream of lies, all to set the stage for a war against Iran. Think about it; this, without a single hearing on Iran in this Congress. Think about it; this, while the State Department and DOD is ducking even classified briefings. There is a Chinese proverb that says: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Will Congress be fooled again into supporting still another war against still another nation, which is not an imminent threat and which has no intention nor capability of attacking the United States?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, it is important to go back a little bit in history here. The Iraq Accountability Act of 1998 was about funding a media propaganda machine which was, unfortunately, used to lay the groundwork for a war against Iraq. That act was about encouraging and funding opposition inside Iraq, unfortunately, to destabilize Iraq prior to a war. You could call this bill the ``Iran Accountability Act.'' This act funds media propaganda machines to lay the groundwork for a war against Iran. It encourages and funds opposition inside Iran for that same purpose. Notwithstanding what the words are in this bill, we have been here before. This administration is trying to create an international crisis by inflating Iran's nuclear development into an Iraq-type WMD hoax. ``Iran is not an imminent threat,'' this from Dr. Hans Blitz, former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, speaking to our congressional oversight subcommittee the other day. The International Atomic Energy Agency points out that Iran has an enrichment level of about 3.6 percent. You have to go to 90 percent to have weapons quality enrichment. Iran is not an imminent threat. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. This is a time for us to engage Iran with direct talks, our President to their President. This is the time to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them. Unfortunately, this administration has chosen to conduct covert ops in Iran. This administration has chosen to select 1,500 bombing targets with the Strategic Air Command. This administration has chosen plans for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This administration looked the other way when a congressional staff report basically claimed that Iran was trying to engage in nuclear escalation. We don't need war, we need to talk, and that is what we ought to stand for here. No more Iraqs. The End of the ``Summer of Diplomacy'': Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran A CENTURY FOUNDATION REpORT (By Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)) This report is part of a series commissioned by The Century Foundation to inform the policy debate about Iran-related issues. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Century Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. ``The doctrine of preemption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy. We do not rule out the use of force before the enemy strikes.''-- Stephen Hadley, March 16, 2006. Introduction The summer of diplomacy began with a dramatic announcement: on May 31, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared that if the Ahmadinejad government agreed to halt Iran's nuclear enrichment program, the United States would talk directly with Tehran. Secretary Rice crafted the statement working alone at home. She called President Bush and received his approval. The Bush administration announced it as a significant initiative; it appeared to reflect a major change in policy. This shift was not uncontroversial within the administration; Vice President Dick Cheney had opposed the announcement. But the rationale that prevailed seems to have been that if the United States were going to confront Iran, the diplomacy box had to be checked. The secretary of state was given the summer to try it. Well, the summer is over. Diplomacy was given a chance, and it now seems that the diplomatic activity of the past several months was just a pretext for the military option. Unfortunately, the military option does not make sense. When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense--that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The ``making sense'' filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran. In order to understand the position of those within the U.S. government who will make the final decision to execute a military option against Iran, you must first consider the seven key truths that they believe: Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction--that is most likely true. Iran is ignoring the international community--true. Iran supports Hezbollah and terrorism--true. Iran is increasingly inserting itself in Iraq and beginning to be involved in Afghanistan-- true. The people of Iran want a regime change--most likely an exaggeration. Sanctions are not going to work--most likely true. You cannot negotiate with these people--not proven. If you understand these seven points as truth, you can see why the administration is very close to being left with only the military option. Administration officials say that they want to give diplomacy a chance. But when they say that, we need to remind ourselves that they do not mean a negotiated settlement. They mean that Iran must do what we want as a result of our nonmilitary leverage: suspend enrichment, and we will talk. But enrichment appears to continue, and there are no direct discussions between the two main parties. Satisfied that nonmilitary leverage is not going to work, those who believe the seven ``truths'' argue that the only viable option remaining is a military one. The story, however, is more complicated. This report draws on my long experience of running military war games to examine some of the complications of the current situation: the various pressures and rationales for an attack on Iran; the probable direct and indirect consequences of air strikes; the significant gap between what proponents of the military option want to achieve and what in fact such attacks will achieve; and the likelihood that policymakers will ignore those gaps and proceed to war despite them. Timing and Uncertainty Waiting makes it harder. The history of warfare is dominated by attackers who concluded that it was better to attack early than to wait. One source of the momentum in Washington for a strike on Iran's nuclear program is the strategic observation that if such an attack is in fact inevitable, then it is better done sooner than later. I conducted a war game for the Atlantic Monthly magazine two years ago. On a chart prepared for a mock meeting of the National Security Council, I identified thirteen nuclear- related targets in Iran. I still do this kind of gaming. My most recent chart reflects twenty-four potential nuclear- related facilities. In the past few years we have seen Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility buried under more than fifteen meters of reinforced concrete and soil. There is evidence that similar hardening is taking place at other facilities, and there is some evidence of facilities being placed inside populated areas. The longer the United States waits, the harder the targets--and the harder the targeting. Another major issue that affects timing is the conspicuous absence of reliable intelligence about Iran. A report by the House Intelligence Committee found that we have serious gaps in our knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program. Paradoxically, those gaps in intelligence produce not caution, but further pressure to attack. U.S. intelligence agencies do not know the locations of all of Iran's facilities; they are not certain how far Iran has gone with enrichment. They know that Iran's nuclear program bears a striking resemblance to the Pakistani program, but they do not know whether Iran has acquired technology that might put it ahead of current estimates. Some U.S. officials say that Iran is ten years from a weapon. The Pentagon, we are told, is operating under the assumption that Iran could have a weapon in five years. Some Israeli estimates say that Iran could have a weapon in three years. John Negroponte, the U.S. director of national intelligence, recently said that Iran could not develop a nuclear weapon until some time in the next decade. But the next day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said he did not trust estimates of the Iranian program. The very ambiguity of the intelligence picture has become another argument for military options, because even if U.S. policymakers could agree on a firm policy red line, there would be no way of determining if and when Iran crossed that line. Vice President Cheney's espoused calculation for dealing with global threats is that if there is even a 1 percent chance of a country passing WMD to a terrorist, the United States must act. Because there is a 1 percent chance Iran could pass WMD to a terrorist, the Bush administration finds itself obliged to reject nonmilitary options. Regional Pressures Adding to the political momentum toward war with Iran is significant pressure from the Israeli security establishment. Israel says that it has a plan for attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel recently appointed an airman to be in charge of the Iranian theater of operations. It was announced that this major general would coordinate Israeli planning for Iran. Israeli military planners have U.S. penetrating weapons and a replica of the Natanz facility. They say that the attack would resemble the kind of operation they used against Egypt in 1967. They say that the plan involves more than just air strikes from the ``Hammers'' of the Israeli Air Force's 69 Squadron. It would include Shaldag commando teams, possibly some version of sea-launched missiles, and even explosive-carrying dogs that would penetrate the underground facilities. Israel probably could hit most of the known nuclear targets. But such an attack would leave Iran with significant retaliatory options. That is a serious problem. U.S. forces and interests in the region would be likely targets of Iranian retaliation, so even an independent Israeli military operation would have critical consequences for the United States. Part of the problem is that the two countries' red lines for Iran are not the same. Israel's red line is enrichment. The U.S. red line used to be the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. But over the past six months, America's red line has drifted closer to Israel's. On March 21, the president said that the United States could not allow Iran to have the knowledge to make a weapon. He repeated the phrase in August. By redrawing the red line in this manner, U.S. policymakers are creating pressure to go to war with Iran. In saying that Iran could not be permitted to have the knowledge to develop nuclear weapons, the president used almost the exact words the Israeli Foreign Minister had used a year earlier. More recently, a senior State Department official said that Iran was near ``the point of no return'' on its nuclear program. Again, this was an exact echo of the words of Israeli officials. The Israeli pressure has worked. Marketing the Military Option I often hear from those who were strongly supportive of the Iraq invasion that the targeting of the Iranian facilities would be simple. If you understand the elements of the nuclear process, all you have to do is go after a small number of targets. The argument continues that Iran's nuclear facilities could be devastated on a single night, in a single strike, by a small number of U.S. B-2 bombers. The apparent ease of the operation is another element of this pressure to go now: If the Iranian nuclear program can be stopped in one night by a simple strike, why should the United States wait? But the elimination of Iran's nuclear capability, while it might be the stated aim for the United States, is only part of the objective. While the Iranian regime's weapons program is a genuine source of concern, American policymakers are also troubled by Iran's interference in Iraq. Despite U.S. warnings, the Revolutionary Guard continues to supply weapons, money, and training to insurgents inside Iraq. Some proponents of attacking Iran feel that Tehran should be punished for supporting militias and extremists in Iraq. In addition to Iran's role as an aspiring nuclear rogue and a supporter of the insurgency in Iraq, the country has been repeatedly portrayed as a key adversary in the war on terrorism. The United States has put Iran into a separate and new terrorism category, dubbing it the ``Central Banker of Terrorism.'' The new National Security Strategy says, ``Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror, such as Syria or Iran, has chosen to be an enemy of freedom, justice, and peace. The world must hold those regimes to account.'' ``Unnamed intelligence officials,'' citing evidence from satellite coverage and electronic eavesdropping, have told the press that Iran is hosting al Qaeda, granting senior operatives freedom to communicate and plan terrorist operations. Indeed, the case against the regime is so forceful, and so multifaceted, that it becomes clear that the goal is not simply to do away with the regime's enrichment program. The goal is to do away with the regime itself. And on top of all of those pressures--pressure from Israel, pressure from those worried about a nuclear Iran, Iran in Iraq, and Iran in the war on terrorism--is another, decisive piece of the puzzle: President George W. Bush. The argument takes several forms: the president is said to see himself as being like Winston Churchill, and to believe that the world will only appreciate him after he leaves office; he talks about the Middle East in messianic terms; he is said to have told those close to him that he has got to attack Iran because even if a Republican succeeds him in the White House, he will not have the same freedom of action that Bush enjoys. Most recently, someone high in the administration told a reporter that the president believes that he is the only one who can ``do the right thing'' with respect to Iran. One thing is clear: a major source of the pressure for a military strike emanates from the very man who will ultimately make the decision over whether to authorize such a strike-the president. And these various accounts of his motivations and rationales have in common that the president will not allow does-not-make-sense arguments to stand in the way of a good idea. Below the CNN Line Stay below the ``CNN line.'' That was the guidance given to the Air Component Commander, General Mike Mosley, as the secret air strikes began against Iraq in operation SOUTHERN FOCUS. It was July 2002. This classified bombing campaign would involve strikes on almost 400 targets. It was initiated just after the president visited Europe where he announced numerous times, ``I have no war plans on my desk.'' There was no UN resolution. The congressional authorization was not to come for four months. But the United States was starting the war. All of the pressures described above are pushing for war with Iran, and increasingly, a public case for such a war is being made. But behind the scenes, military operations are already under way. (See Figure 1.) Most likely, the same guidance has been given to military commanders. The pattern is repeating. When U.S. commandos began entering Iran--probably in the summer of 2004--their mission appears to have been limited. The objective was to find and characterize the Iranian nuclear program. From press reports, we know that the task force doing these operations was implanting sensors to detect radioactivity. Intelligence for these early operations inside Iran was coming from information provided by A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani dealer in black market nuclear material. The incursions were focused in the northeast, where the Iranian nuclear facilities are concentrated. The base of these incursions was most likely Camp War Horse in Iraq. Israel also was conducting operations inside Iran in late 2003 or early 2004. The Israeli commandos reportedly were operating from a base in Iraq. These commandos also were implanting sensors. I would expect the U.S. and Israeli operations to have been coordinated. At about this time the United States began operating remotely piloted vehicles inside Iran over nuclear facilities. (Although this was certainly an embarrassment to the Iranians, they mentioned the flights numerous times in their press.) In 2005, the balance within the U.S. government shifted in favor of those who were pushing for regime change in Iran. This was to result in the eventual creation of the Iran/Syria Operations Group inside the State Department, a request to Congress for $75 million, and the creation of a robust ``democracy promotion'' program. Meanwhile the United States moved from intelligence collection inside Iran, to establishing contact with ethnic minorities, to being involved in--and most likely conducting---direct action missions. Reports suggest that the United States is supporting militant groups in the Baluchistan region of Iran. There have been killings and kidnappings in this region. Iran Revolutionary Guard convoys have been attacked. In a New Yorker article, Seymour Hersh confirmed that this region was one of the areas where U.S. forces were operating. The Iranian press also has accused the United States of operating there. In addition, press reports suggest that the United States may be sponsoring former members of the Iraq-based MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq) in Baluchistan. I recently attended a Middle East security conference in Berlin. At dinner one night, I sat next to the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali- Asghar Soltanieh. I told him I had read that the Iranians were accusing the United States of supporting elements in Baluchistan. I asked him how they knew that. Without any hesitation, Soltanieh told me that they have captured militants who confessed that they were working with the Americans. The United States is also directly involved in supporting groups inside the Kurdish area of Iran. According to both western and Iranian press reports, the Iranian Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) has been allowed to operate from Iraq into Iran and has killed Revolutionary Guard soldiers. The Iranians have also accused the United States of being involved in shooting down two of their aircraft, an old C-130 and a Fa1con jet, carrying Revolutionary Guard leaders. NEXT STEPS: Above the CNN Line How do we get from being below the CNN line to the next step? The path is fairly clear. The United Nations Security Council will fall short of imposing serious sanctions on Iran. The United States, then, will look for a coalition of the willing to implement smart sanctions, focused on the Iranian leadership. But the sanctions will be designed less to ensure compliance from the Iranians than to generate domestic and international support for the American position. I do not know an Iranian specialist I trust who believes that the sanctions would cause the Iranians to abandon their nuclear program, any more than did the sanctions on India and Pakistan after their nuclear tests in 1998. The sanctions will be used to raise the collective conscience that Iran is a threat, and to convince the world that the United States has tried diplomatic solutions. If the experience of 1979 and other sanctions scenarios is a guide, sanctions will actually empower the conservative leadership in Iran. There is an irony here. It is a pattern that seems to be playing out in the selection of the military option. From diplomacy to sanctions, the administration is not making good-faith efforts to avert a war so much as going through the motions, eliminating other possible strategies of engagement, until the only option left on the table is the military one. When imposing the sanctions fails to alter Tehran's position, policymakers will revert to a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. One can imagine the words of a planner in the meeting: ``If we are going to do this, let's make certain we get everything they have.'' I have done some rough ``targeting'' of nuclear facilities for which I can find satellite photos on the Web. By my calculation, an attack of relatively high certainty on nuclear targets would require 400 aim points. (An aim point is the specific location where an individual weapon is directed. Most targets would have multiple aim points.) I estimate seventy-five of these aim points would require penetrating weapons. (See Table 1, page 12.) But it is unlikely that a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical weapons production plants. He would want to hit those. He would want to hit Iran's medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. Although the Iranian Air Force is not much of a threat, some of these airfields are less than fifteen minutes flying time from Baghdad. Military planners would want to eliminate that potential threat. The Pentagon would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That would mean targeting cruise missile sites, Iranian diesel submarines, and Iranian naval assets.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. It is good to cite Ben Franklin. Maybe we should also be citing Phineas T. Barnum, because there is a section in this bill, section 10, entitled ``Compliance with Court Orders and Antiterrorist Programs.'' That actually amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card for someone who may have leaked classified information. Now, Gerald Ford gave Richard Nixon a pardon. I am wondering to whom this bill is giving a pardon. Does it give immunity or impunity for certain crimes and misdemeanors? This bill may actually be about someone's legal problems. We need to look at this. We need to find out if someone leaked classified information and this bill is going to give them a get-out- of-jail-free card. Read the bill. Take a look at section 10. I want the sponsor to tell me that no one is going to get out of jail free who may have leaked classified information, and no one is going to escape prosecution for certain crimes and misdemeanors once this bill passes. I want them to tell that to the Congress. Tell us you are not slipping in a clause here where you are trying to get somebody out of jail. Tell me that. Tell us that.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, Hans Blix, former chief U.N. weapons inspector, cautioned the U.S. before it attacked Iraq that Iraq was not an imminent threat. He was right. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Now America is more vulnerable than ever because of this administration's pathological deceptions. Yesterday, Dr. Blix said Iran is not an imminent threat and we should open up direct talks with Iran, not attack Iran. He is right again. Last week Intelligence Committee staff reports' deliberate distortion of the degree of Iran's uranium enrichment was exposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nevertheless, according to credible reports, the administration has had covert operations in Iran, selected 1,500 bombing targets, and is preparing a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which will set the stage not only for a war against Iran, but also for $5 a gallon gasoline. Meanwhile, the State Department and the Department of Defense will not even appear in classified briefings to discuss the plans for a war against Iran. Wake up, America. There is another war being planned.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, and let my colleagues know that I have read the bill and what I read here is pretty chilling. Matter of fact, I want to quote something from the bill that has not been discussed and ask that all of my friends read this bill so that we can see if this really reflects what we want to do and the implications this could have for Members of Congress because I have stood on this floor time and time again to protect this institution, and I want Members of Congress to think about this provision. You know, we have heard the President make comments that people who oppose this bill are really hurting the United States. We have all heard him say this. Section 26, wrongfully aiding the enemy. Any person subject to this chapter, by the way anybody is who in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States or any of the co-belligerents of the enemy shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct. I want to know, are Members of Congress who challenge this administration as to their taking us into illegal wars, is that somehow contrary to allegiance to the United States? I mean, we need to think about this. What are we doing to this institution here? Are we turning us all into mice here, running into a corner because we are afraid to challenge the President? I mean, my friends who are Republicans, stand up for the Republic, to the Republic for which it stands. Stand up for the Republic. Read this provision in this bill. There is another provision in the bill that I think deserves a careful look. Suppose a President sometime in the future declares that some country has weapons of mass destruction, and based on those claims, the Congress moves quickly to give the President the authority to wage war, and then war is waged and hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed as collateral damage, and then we find out later on they did not have weapons of mass destruction, and then you have all these dead people, but they were collateral damage. Under this bill, which I have read, collateral damage is precluded from applicability with respect to the enforcement of the rule of law, or if there is a lawful attack, collateral damage is precluded from being cited. Now, suppose that happened in this country. That would be so awful that something like that happened, but essentially we are giving a get- out-of-jail free card to the very officials who could lead this country down a path to war and kill innocent people based on lies. I do not see this as a Republican or a Democrat argument. I see this as a question of whether we stand up for what this country was founded upon. What are we about? What do we believe in? That is what we have to answer here, and this bill is everything we do not believe in. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Cleveland's Casey Coleman Day. Mr. Casey Coleman is a landmark in Cleveland radio broadcasting and sportscasting who has recently been diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer with only months to live. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson has proclaimed September 26 as ``Casey Coleman Day'' to honor the distinguished Cleveland resident. Mr. Coleman has been an acclaimed sports broadcaster for over 25 years and has been recognized by the Associated Press for ``Best Regularly Scheduled Sports'' and ``Best Sportscaster'' in the State of Ohio. While performing television broadcasting, Mr. Coleman received four Emmy Awards. Mr. Coleman also has the honor of being the field and locker room reporter for the Cleveland Browns for the past five consecutive years. Casey Coleman Day will be more than just a title, as a ceremony will be held at Tower City, and on September 27 there will be a blood drive sponsored by the American Red Cross in Mr. Coleman's name. The region-wide blood drive effort will help hundreds of lives in 57 different Ohio hospitals. Everyone who donates blood at a Red Cross site on September 27 will be able to write a personal message to Mr. Coleman. The day of celebration also marks the creation of ``Casey's Fund,'' which will contribute all donations to help treat alcoholics and addicts as Mr. Coleman is a recovered alcoholic and his legacy will continue to aid in fighting addiction with the help of Recovery Resources. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join the city of Cleveland and myself in honoring and rejoicing over Mr. Casey Coleman's inspiring life, courage against cancer, and devotion to Cleveland. My thoughts go out to his wife and his six daughters during this difficult time.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we have a right and an obligation to defend America, as one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle pointed out. It is in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. We also have an obligation to tell the truth to the American people. The Bible says: ``You shall know the truth. And the truth shall set you free.'' The truth is that about $70 billion in this spending will go for bridge funding to support the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth is there should have never been a war against Iraq. The truth is Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. The truth is Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The truth is Iraq did not have any relationship to al Qaeda and 9/11. The truth is Iraq had nothing to do with the anthrax attack on this country. The truth is Iraq did not have the intention or the capability of attacking the United States. The truth is Iraq did not try to get uranium from Najaf for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. The truth is Iraq did not try to secure aluminum tubes for the reprocessing of uranium. The truth is we never should have gone to war in Iraq, and the truth is we should bring our troops home from Iraq. Of the numerous reasons to vote against this bill, the continued funding for the war in Iraq is most noteworthy. If the U.S. were to withdraw as soon as possible out of Iraq, we would save $1.5 billion each week in Iraq, $6 billion a month and $72 billion annually, and then maybe we would not have to borrow money from China, Japan and Korea to fight a war. It is increasingly clear that this administration's occupation and reconstruction of Iraq has failed. For every $1 spent on war costs, we are taking away $1 from programs that are needed in this country for housing, for education, for health care, for the elderly. After 3\1/2\ years, Iraq is less safe, not more. Mr. Speaker, this administration's policies have turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists and created the greatest recruiting tool ever for al Qaeda. Even the national intelligence estimate suggests the invasion of Iraq has evolved into our largest terrorist threat. The more money we spend in Iraq, the more of a problem we will have with terrorism. What should we do? We should get out of Iraq. We should support our troops by bringing them home, bring them home so that we can give them the appropriate honor for their service. Congress has the power to end the war, and that power is in this moment. Cut off the funds for the war, and the war is over. The money in the pipeline can be used to bring our troops home. The greatest tragedy is that we have lost close to 2,700 American soldiers and tens of thousands more have been injured. Up to 200,000 innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion. Every day, 120 more Iraqis die at the hands of execution-style death squads, kidnappings, murders, IEDs and sectarian violence. The war in Iraq has been a great and tragic mistake. It has cost us in blood and treasure. It has damaged our once unchallenged representation in the world. It has squandered the goodwill rained upon this Nation after 9/11. We should vote against this rule, vote against the bill. This is a vote on Iraq.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in admiration and remembrance of my cherished friend, Robert T. Woodworth--devoted father, grandfather, brother, uncle, friend, United States veteran and long- time community activist. Mr. Woodworth was born in Cleveland to loving parents. His father drove streetcars in the city and his mother was a loving housewife. With extended family nearby, he learned early on the significance of family and community. As a young adult, Mr. Woodworth enlisted in the United States Air Force, giving him the opportunity to travel the world. The languages he learned and friends that he made never left him, transcending time and distance. He spoke fluent German, Spanish and French and always remained closely connected to friends living in faraway lands. Mr. Woodworth's warm demeanor and quick smile easily drew others to him. His unwavering belief in community service and volunteerism was illuminated throughout Cleveland's Westside, especially within our democratic process, where his grassroots involvement constantly affected our neighborhoods in a positive way. His leadership and diligence had been key in several political races, including his role as campaign manager for then council candidate Nelson Cintron. Councilman Cintron became the first Hispanic councilman in Cleveland's history. I had the opportunity to work with Mr. Woodworth in his role as a Ward 14 and precinct leader. He also played an active role in my first election to Congress in 1996 and in my subsequent reelection campaigns. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognition, gratitude and celebration of Robert T. Woodworth, for his civic activism that uplifted our entire Westside Cleveland community. His unwavering commitment to his family, friends and community, enriched and inspired all throughout our Cleveland community and far beyond.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of GrafTech International upon the celebration of its 50th anniversary. Beginning in 1956, GrafTech, with its global headquarters in Parma, OH, has led its industry in research, development and testing of graphite and carbon science. Through GrafTech's 50 years of dedicated work, the company boasts nearly 700 patents and new technologies. In 2003, GrafTech was named a National Chemical Landmark for its work on the discovery and development of carbon fibers. This great research scopes the discovery of carbon fibers to new graphite materials for fuel cells. GrafTech has been recognized 11 times as the recipient of the R&D 100 awards. GrafTech employs 3,800 workers in 13-state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities spanning 4 continents and serving over 80 countries. With its global headquarters located in Parma, OH, and more than 100 years of manufacturing excellence in Lakewood, OH, GrafTech International provides nearly 300 jobs for the area and has been recognized for significant job creation in Northeast Ohio. I am proud that this great company is located in my congressional district. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of the 50-year anniversary of GrafTech International. GrafTech has served as a pioneer in its industry. I wish GrafTech International continued years of success and offer my thanks in providing many northeast Ohioans with a great workplace.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures, as it celebrates 10 years of innovative journalism exploring the possibilities for peace and environmental justice in our world. Yes! is more than just a magazine, it is a catalyst for positive social action, encouraging its readers to actively take part in the global movement for a more harmonious and sustainable world. Yes! magazine is a quarterly journal produced by the Positive Futures Network, a non-profit organization dedicated to the collective power of individual and community efforts worldwide to bring healing, justice, and peace to all sectors of our society. In 1996 Yes! Magazine was founded to promote the belief that profound change is needed to save our society from an unsustainable path. Printed on recycled paper and available online, this ad-free alternative news source embodies the sustainable and inclusive lifestyle it advocates. Distributed worldwide, Yes! Magazine is a growing phenomenon that has tripled its subscriptions in the past 3 years alone. In 2001, Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures received the Utne Magazines Alternative Press Award for Best Cultural Coverage. In addition to saying ``No!'' to the dominant trends of violence and oppression, this journal shouts a resounding ``Yes!''for creative and constructive alternatives. Each issue addresses a specific concern within the fields of social, economic, and environmental justice, identifying innovative scientific and cultural solutions. Yes! Magazine serves as a tool to unite the activists of different peace movements by reporting on the grassroots efforts of ordinary individuals creating extraordinary transformations across the board and challenging readers with a call to action. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and tribute to Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures for 10 years of meaningful journalism proving that peace is not only possible, but practical as well.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory and recognition of Flossie Perry Collins who passed away on September 8, 2006. A beloved mother, grandmother, and local democratic organizer, Flossie embodied the true spirit of the Democratic Party both publicly and in her daily life. Born in Newville, Alabama, Flossie moved to Cleveland, Ohio after high school where she married Frederick Douglas Collins and began a career as a nurse. Upon her retirement, Flossie dedicated herself to her community by becoming an active volunteer for organizations including the Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, War 19 Democratic Club, the Parent Teacher Association, and the Gunning Recreation Center. Her service to her community stands as a beacon of the American Spirit of dedication to civic improvement and rich cultural development. Her steadfast loyalty to volunteering for charitable and meaningful causes locally earned Flossie lifetime friendships and the respect of many that knew her. The programs she spearheaded, including after school activities for at-risk youth and an effort to improve undeveloped neighborhoods through community interaction, became staples to the cultural development of the Cleveland area. Flossie's unwavering courage and commitment to core values such as honesty, integrity, grace, and love were strengthened and reinforced by a deep faith in God and a sturdy foundation in the true principles of Christianity. For over 60 years, Flossie embodied these principles through being an active member and leader in the Gethsemane Baptist Church. Though she held many titles and performed many duties for the church, her passion was in singing. To her, the choir brought together the voices of many people and bound them together in unity and community--just as she did in her life. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory and recognizing the accomplishments of Flossie Collins as a woman who stood for true American values.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. [From Time Magazine, Sept. 17, 2006] What Would War Look Like? (By Michael Duffy) The first message was routine enough: a ``Prepare to Deploy'' order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again. What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing dues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical-- prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran. No one knows whether--let alone when--a military confrontation with Tehran will come to pass. The fact that admirals are reviewing plans for blockades is hardly proof of their intentions. The U.S. military routinely makes plans for scores of scenarios, the vast majority of which will never be put into practice. ``Planners always plan,'' says a Pentagon official. Asked about the orders, a second official said only that the Navy is stepping up its ``listening and learning'' in the Persian Gulf but nothing more--a prudent step, he added, after Iran tested surface-to-ship missiles there in August during a two- week military exercise. And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran--over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region--may be impossible to avoid. The chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), General John Abizaid, has called a commanders conference for later this month in the Persian Gulf--sessions he holds at least quarterly--and Iran is on the agenda. On its face, of course, the notion of a war with Iran seems absurd. By any rational measure, the last thing the U.S. can afford is another war. Two unfinished wars--one on Iran's eastern border, the other on its western flank--are daily depleting America's treasury and overworked armed forces. Most of Washington's allies in those adventures have made it clear they will not join another gamble overseas. What's more, the Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 5\1/2\ years in office. For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the Administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition that includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council and is trying to force Tehran to halt its suspicious nuclear ambitions. Even Iran's former President, Mohammed Khatami, was in Washington this month calling for a ``dialogue'' between the two nations. But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway. And for all the good arguments against any war now, much less this one, there are just as many indications that a genuine, eyeball-to-eyeball crisis between the U.S. and Iran may be looming, and sooner than many realize. ``At the moment,'' says Ali Ansari, a top Iran authority at London's Chatham House, a foreign-policy think tank, ``we are headed for conflict.'' So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost. And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, all the signs of preparation for war against Iran are there for anyone who can see. Covert action, the Strategic Air Command, the selection of 1,500 targets, and a plan for a naval blockade, a faked or hyped intelligence report on the degree of uranium enrichment and the manipulation of the media. It is Iraq all over again, but instead of a Nation of 25 million, Iran is a Nation of 70 million sitting right next to Iraq, where 130,000 U.S. troops are in danger simply because of the war planning. Today, while our government borrows money from China, Japan and Korea to pay for a war in Iraq that could cost up to $3 trillion, the administration is preparing to spend more money for a war against Iran. This Congress must not permit this administration to open up another war without permission, without oversight, without justification, without the financial resources, without the human resources, without a shred of common sense or realism. Bombs are no substitute for diplomacy. You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute and recognition of Hospice of the Western Reserve as it celebrates the opening of its Lakewood office. The new office will enable the Hospice to provide more quality care to the people of Lakewood. Hospice of the Western Reserve is a community-based agency that provides comfort and care as well as emotional support to its patients and their families. Regardless of age, disease, or ability to pay, all are welcomed to the Hospice. Serving more than 1,000 patients daily, The Hospice of the Western Reserve is the largest program of its kind in Ohio and the fourth largest in the country. In addition to pain alleviation, the Hospice also offers social, psychosocial and spiritual support for both patients and family members. The Hospice is ever increasing its ability to provide quality care and support and enhancing quality of life. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of the Hospice of the Western Reserve and the opening of its Lakewood office. Providing quality assistance to those who need it most, the Hospice stands as a monument to palliative care and end-of-life service.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory and recognition of Evelyn Kahan Dubrow who passed away on June 20, 2006. Known to her friends and colleagues as ``Evy'', she dedicated her life to the public service of worker's rights in the United States for over 5 decades. Known on Capitol Hill as the lobbyist everyone loves, Evy had the ability to be a uniter and inexorable activist for the power of the people. As a union activist and general advocate for working families from across the country, Evy's accomplishments ranged from being named one of Washington Magazine's Top 100 Women to winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. From a humble upbringing as the daughter of immigrant Belorussian factory workers, Evy rose to become one of America's most notable labor organizers. Her ability to not stray from her roots while still embracing a wide variety of viewpoints led to her success as a civil rights activist and a champion of the average American. Her distinguished career in labor organizing eventually led her to Washington, DC, where she became a pillar of the movement as an unflinching and vigilant lobbyist for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Her accomplishments were honored in 1999 nationally when President Clinton named her a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Upon meeting Evy Dubrow, President Clinton said that she was a tiny woman, larger than life. The President went on to note her candor, strength, and dedication to being the champion of the impoverished. Indefatigable until the end, Evy lived until age 95 and never lost her passion for human rights and the spirit of each individual person. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory and recognizing the great accomplishments of Evy Dubrow in the field of labor organizing. For over 50 years, Evy Dubrow stood for the strength, resolve, and gritty integrity of millions of working class Americans.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today's Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 has nothing to do with protecting the right to vote and everything to do with restricting it. The real threat to our electoral system is not a contrived conspiracy of noncitizens illegally voting in Federal elections. The true threat is vulnerable electronic voting machines. It is machines with no paper trail. It is poll workers with inadequate training and resources. It is voter alienation because people have lost faith in the political process. Congress has the ability and the duty to act on real voting reform that addresses the real issues that mar our electoral system, issues researched and documented by countless activists and academics. There is a reason the article in the Washington Post, ``Major problems at Polls Feared,'' does not once mention concerns about noncitizens voting. It is not a real issue of voting reform. If we want to strengthen democracy, we want to protect the right to vote. We want to reengage Americans in our government. We need real voting reform now. Throw out electronic voting machines, that Diebold technology election hacker's dream. Go to paper ballots, a paper trail. Make our election process honest again. Enough of stolen elections. Make every vote count, and let every vote be honestly counted.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Satish Kumar, for a lifetime dedicated to teaching and serving as an inspiration to all. Mr. Kumar has done more, seen more, accomplished more and walked more than most and has never ceased in bringing his message to others. Mr. Kumar started as a Jain monk at the age of nine before being called to greater causes. At 18, Mr. Kumar sought to make Gandhi's vision of a renewed India and peaceful world a reality. To this end Mr. Kumar walked, more than 8,000 miles, from India to four nuclear powers: Russia, France, Britain and the United States, to bring the leader of each a bag of tea and a message of peace and understanding. Carrying no money, he crossed deserts, traversed mountains, withstood snow and was even thrown in jail. Though Herculean in scale, Mr. Kumar's quest was completed, the tea was delivered, and he is still working to bring the message of peace to the world. Mr. Kumar settled in England in 1973 to become the editor of Resurgence magazine, a post he maintains to this day, as well as the founder of the Small School in Hartland. The school focuses on combing education with ecological and spiritual values. In 1991, Mr. Kumar helped found Schumacher College, an international center for ecological studies, and serves as its Director of Programmes. Mr. Kumar has also co-founded Jain Spirit, an international magazine that provides insight and information on Jain values and teachings, and helped to etablish the School of the Seed, a college devoted to sustainable living in India. At 70, he still offers a weeklong course on Gandhian Values. When Mr. Kumar was 50 years old he undertook another pilgrimage, once more with no money, he walked the holy sights in Britain, Glastonbury, Canterbury, Lindisfarne and Iona. In 2000, Mr. Kumar was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Education from the University of Plymouth and in 2001 an Honorary Doctorate in Literature from the University of Lancaster. Mr. Kumar continues to teach, lecture, and run workshops on ecology, holistic education and voluntary simplicity and authors books on the same subjects. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join in honor, gratitude and recognition of Satish Kumar. His neverending quest to encourage and teach serves as an inspiration and his messages of world peace and simple living continues to affect the lives of many. I wish Mr. Kumar, his wife June Mitchell, and son, Mukti Kumar Mitchell, an abundance of health, peace and happiness as he continues his journey onward from here.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Student and Teacher Safety Act. Two days after celebrating the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, this House comes to the floor to debate a bill to limit the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment to students in our Nation's schools. This bill purports to make schools safer for our children and the employees of those schools. Instead it adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that protects no one. We make a mistake when we rely on randomized searches to prevent the abuse of drugs by children and ensure the peaceful resolution of conflict. Instead of focusing our efforts on educating our children about conflict resolution and engaging them in the decisions about their lives and futures, random searches assume all youth are the same. Searches of students' property may be right and entirely necessary in situations with reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. But randomized searches render all youth suspect and treat them as criminals. High expectations for our children may reap great rewards, but what will we sow with the expectation of deception? We should rather focus our time and energy on equipping students with the tools and skills necessary to make responsible decisions about their lives. Our guidance must not be based on suspicion and an expectation of poor choices. An environment of distrust will not encourage students to seek out teachers or administrators when they are in trouble or need advice. It will not help students to develop strong character or stand up to negative peer pressure. Instead, it will only further isolate them from the teachers and advisors they see every day. This bill will not make students and teachers safer. It will only create new divisions between them, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and Chairman Shuster, Mr. Shays, and Mr. Lantos for your support of this bill. What is noteworthy is that in the last few days, this Congress has had three pieces of legislation in front of it that have a similar theme: The tribute that we paid to the Dalai Lama, and yesterday our support for the one day of peace, and today our support for the PETS Act, all are about compassion and the recognition of the importance of compassion in the life of this Nation. I think it is important for us to reflect that this is a strong capacity that we have that when we touch it, it touches people's hearts everywhere. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation Transportation Standards Act. Passage of this bill is essential to the safety of all citizens and their pets in emergency and disaster circumstances. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will long be held in our collective conscious. It has been just over 1 year since we saw the terrified and helpless faces of the victims these natural disasters claimed, displaced, and horrified. The unbearably inadequate response to these disasters exacerbates the shame, the heartache and insecurity that has resulted. The images haunt us; and it is not just the images of our fellow human beings, but that of our gracious household pets and service animals. Among the injustices incurred in the gulf coast were citizens forced to choose between their own safety and that of their pet or service animals. And the example that Mr. Lantos gave of the 9-year-old boy who had to part with his beloved dog is an example of the heartbreak that all of us can relate to. Some chose to compromise their own safety, unwilling to evacuate without their pet, despite the great risk to themselves and their families. Others were forced to leave these important friends behind, abandoned and alone. Animals were left to survive on their own with little hope of survival, causing the very understandable human emotions of pain and agony that accompanied this choice. Some, dependent upon a service animal for their own safety and survival, were made to leave their companions behind, a direct threat to their own security. It is estimated that well over half of U.S. households include a pet or vital service animal as a member of the family. In the Kucinich household, we have three dogs, two beagles and one cocker spaniel, and anyone who has a pet understands how it would tug at your heart to have to be separated from that pet in a time of emergency. We know that the gulf coast region affected by the hurricanes had as many as 600,000 pets and service animals. Most of these animals could not be saved, and few have been reunited with their original owners. H.R. 3858, the PETS Act, will ensure that emergency preparedness for the safety of our own citizens includes the proper protocol to identify, evacuate, and shelter people, pets and service animals in times of emergency evacuations. Natural disasters are unavoidable; compromising the safety of our citizens is not. That is why I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3858, the PETS Act, to ensure that in times of disaster no citizen is forced to compromise their own safety or well-being for that of their service animal.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Tom McCaffrey, beloved husband, devoted musician, and teacher to so many. Mr. McCaffrey dedicated his life to encouraging and inspiring Clevelanders and brought them that which they had never felt and taught them the joy, warmth, power and strength of Irish traditional music. Mr. McCaffrey was born in 1916, in Mohill, County Leitrim, Ireland, where he worked on the family farm until coming to America in 1955. Mr. McCaffrey was unable to resist the allure of music and at 10 years of age he took up the fife and flute. After a year of flirtation with the woodwinds, Mr. McCaffrey found his true love and calling in the fiddle. For knowledge Mr. McCaffrey turned to his father, also a teacher and player of the fiddle, and sought all musicians who traveled through town. It was not long before he mastered the fiddle and with his fine, strong voice, Mr. McCaffrey was requested at local festivals and dances. In Cleveland, he teamed up with Tom Byrne, a master flute player and fellow inspirer, to record the album Irish Music From Cleveland. Mr. McCaffrey and Mr. Byrne had a lifelong friendship full of music and laughter. At the age of 83, Mr. McCaffrey found his other great love, Alice Kelly. Mr. McCaffrey was known to always have a smile and story ready and never hesitated to share his wealth of knowledge or his music. Recorded at the Smithsonian Institute, Mr. McCaffrey's music will truly live on in those whom he taught and in the hearts of all that have heard him play. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Mr. Tom McCaffrey, whose smile, charm, wit, and Irish wisdom will be remembered and shared and whose memory will live in the tunes and tales. I offer my deep condolences to his wife, Alice, to all his family and friends, and to the many who have been inspired and touched by all that he has given.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his work on this resolution, and I ask the gentleman with his consent that I could be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Once again, I am grateful to the gentleman from California for the opportunity to offer a slightly different perspective. While I continue to associate myself with my good friend Mr. Lantos in the celebration of the imperative of human rights globally, I have specific concerns about the tenor of this resolution and its relationship to the administration's policy of ramping up for a war against Iran. Again, I want to state that this is the third resolution that has been brought before this House this evening. You have to read it in the context of administration actions, which have been documented in published reports, that relate to an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran by sending elements of the Department of Defense inside of Iranian territory; number two, by planning a bombing, targets inside Iran; number three, by planning a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz where 40 percent of the world's oil flows through. We have to look at this in a broader context of an administrative foreign policy, which is really aimed at creating not stability, but instability in the region. You can look at the July 2006 Vanity Fair article, which goes into detail about the unfortunate administration escapade of tricking up a case for uranium from Niger with respect to Iraq. One of the administration's key advisers in that article basically made the case for chaos, which is an administration, I believe, policy. Now we are looking at Iran. Now, this resolution, 976, in the third article, expresses its unity with all the Iranian people, shares their desire to see Iran become a free country with transparent democratic institutions and equal rights for all. I pointed out earlier in debates that Iran had a democratic government under Mossadegh; that in October of 1951, under Mossadegh, Iran sought to nationalize its oil industry. That then resulted in a draft resolution submitted to the United Nations by the United Kingdom, and supported by the United States and France, as depicting Iran then as a threat to international peace and security. Then we saw a coup d'etat that was organized by the U.S. and the U.K. Yes, we ought to stand for democracy. We ought to also stand for truth with respect to the historical unfolding of what we say we stand for. Where does this resolution lead? Does it lead to a continued insistence that the Government of Iran restore human rights to everyone in Iran? If it does, wonderful. We all ought to go along with that. But if his resolution is just another brick on a path towards war, look out. This looks like Iraq all over again, and that is what my concern is. If this resolution sets us on a path to war, how many of us in the Congress are prepared to see this administration borrow money from China and Japan to go to war against Iran, as they have borrowed money from China and Japan to go to war against Iraq? We have to look at what we are doing here. While this resolution, I am sure, will pass overwhelmingly, we have to see that circumstances are being set in order which could lead us towards a path of war against Iran. We have to ask ourselves, is that what we really want? I can stand here with my colleagues and say, absolutely, I support the religious freedom of the Baha'i. I do. Absolutely. I support human rights for all people in Iran, and I do. Absolutely. I support democratic principles in Iran and every other country in the world, and I do. But I am not for war against Iran. I don't believe the American people want war against Iran. I don't think they wanted war against Iraq, but they were dragged into it. I am just offering these remarks as a cautionary note to make sure that we have our eyes open as we walk in the days ahead with respect to policy and Iran. Yes, we need to make sure that Iran has peaceful uses of its atomic energy. We have an obligation to do that. But, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that we should begin first with direct negotiations with Iran. Second, we should assure Iran that we are not going to attack it. Third, we should demand that Iran open itself up to inspections once again by the IAEA. Fourth, we need assurances, and they are fair, that Iran is not going to be developing nuclear weapons. There is a way out of this, and I am hopeful that in our stand for human rights, we are not paradoxically beginning a process that would deprive millions of Iranians of their human right to life. I thank the gentleman from California for his friendship and also for his willingness to see debate in this House of the people. You have always done that, Mr. Lantos. Whether we have agreed or not, you have always been willing to see the debate continue.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from California, and I appreciate your commitment to constitutional democracies. My statement here today, while I can certainly agree with the sentiment that was expressed and the spirit of this resolution with respect to hoping for constitutional democracies, I think we need to look at the letter of the resolution and put it in the context of the administration's policies. First of all, this particular resolution expresses its profound hope that the people of Iran will once again enjoy a democratic government in the spirit of the Iranian Constitution of 1906. I would like to read from some research that is available on the Web, Recent Iranian History from Wikipedia. It says that: with the rise of modernization in the late 19th century, desire for change led to the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905 to 1911. In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty. During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The allies of World War II forced the Shah to abdicate, in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive. In 1951, a pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, rose to prominence in Iran. Now, Mossadegh was elected its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of an Anglo-Iranian oil company that was later named BP, which controlled all the country's oil reserves. Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of British Intelligence Service approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to join them in Operation Ajax, a coup against Mossadegh. President Eisenhower agreed and authorized the CIA to assist the BIS in overthrowing Mossadegh. The Shah at first attempted to formally dismiss Mossadegh, but this backfired and Mossadegh convinced the Shah to flee to Baghdad. Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing conducted from the U.S. embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. Agents were hired to facilitate violence, and as a result protests broke out across the nation, anti- and pro-monarchy. Protesters violently clashed in the streets leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days pro- Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered and was arrested on the 19th of August 1953, tried for treason, and sentenced to 3 years in prison. Now, keep in mind that on March 8 of 1951, Mossadegh submitted to the Iranian mullahs his proposal to nationalize Iran's oil. According to the Cornell University library, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, most of whose stock was owned by the British Government, had been paying Iran much less than the British Government took from the company in taxes. Mossadegh's nationalization bill scared the company into concessions that were made too late. The Premier was committed to nationalization. Much to the surprise of the British, he went through with it right down to the expulsion of British technicians without whom the Iranians could not run the Abadan refinery. Results? The West lost the Iranian oil supply, and the Iranian Government lost the oil payments. When we are talking about democracy in Iran, Iran had a democratic government which was overthrown because of oil. So let's celebrate democracy and not try to at the same time praise a process that resulted in an overthrow of democracy. I think when we look at this particular resolution, you have to read these resolutions to the letter to get an idea of what is going on here. Here we are expressing the profound hope that the people of Iran will once again enjoy a democratic government in the spirit of the Iranian Constitution of 1906. They had a democratic government. The U.S. helped overthrow it. One of the last resolutions, we talked about initiating an active and consistent dialogue with other governments in the European Union in order to persuade the Government of Iran to rectify its human rights practices. We should be talking to the Government of Iran if we object to their human rights practices. Resolution 415 says human rights will be considered a significant factor in the foreign policy of the United States with regard to Iran, but we are not stating that with the other countries that have violated the human rights of their citizens. My concern is that while these resolutions in and of themselves may have elements that are salutary, at the same time you have to put them in the context of the administration's policy, which is a buildup to war against Iran. That is why I am raising a note of caution here. You have to see why we have three resolutions on the floor of the House dealing with Iran on the same day our President is before the United Nations making a statement which characterizes Iran in much the same way that Iraq was characterized before the United Nations in another visit by the President. I think we have to be very cautious about the path this country is taking. We can stand for democracy and human rights in Iran. We can do all of those things without taking steps and letting our efforts, which might be in good faith, by the way, without letting those efforts be used as a buildup towards war. I am saying look at all of this in the context in which it is occurring. Look at Time magazine this week and look at the stories that have been published in The New Yorker. Watch the development of this administration with respect to covert activities in Iran. Madam Speaker, you might be interested to know that our House Subcommittee on Government Operations, which has jurisdiction over national security and international relations, we were supposed to have a classified briefing by the State Department and by the Department of Defense on this issue on what is going on in Iran. They refused to appear. They still refuse to appear. They are not accountable to Congress. I am raising this issue so my colleagues know that you have to look at the context in which these resolutions are being offered. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for the opportunity to present these observations.