Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of my good friend Senator Eugene McCarthy, former member of the United States Congress, presidential candidate, political activist and author. Senator McCarthy is a well-known and respected anti-war activist. His voice rose above the crowd against the Vietnam War due to his power and influence in politics. In 1968, Mr. McCarthy garnered an unprecedented number of college students opposed to the Vietnam War to campaign for the Presidency against the incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson. College students supported Mr. McCarthy because he believed that America should end its involvement in Vietnam. Students from around the country campaigned door to door promoting the slogan ``get clean for Gene,'' referring to the students shaving off their beards and cutting their long hair. While his views sparked many to campaign for him, he still had a disappointing defeat in the Democratic primary. Although he lost this race, he won a much bigger one. He stood up for what he believed in and would not back down, even in the face of adversity. Senator McCarthy left politics in 1971 after a distinguished career as United States Congressman and Senator from Minnesota. He spent time writing his memoirs and other books and poems on politics. Senator McCarthy remained active in politics throughout the rest of his life, including running for different offices and supporting other campaigns. Keeping involved in politics, Senator McCarthy stated his opposition for campaign finance laws argued in the Buckley v. Valeo case. In 1980, he wrote the introduction to the campaign book of Libertarian Presidential candidate Ed Clark. Senator McCarthy continued participation in progressive politics with the Consumer party in Pennsylvania and the Minnesota Progressive party. He returned to the Democratic Party in 1992 as a Presidential candidate in the New Hampshire primary. More recently he was a strong and influential supporter of Ralph Nader's 2000 Presidential campaign. After his political career ended, Senator McCarthy became a prolific writer and poet. He authored 30 books and multiple poems about the decline of American politics. Senator Eugene McCarthy passed away on December 10, 2005, at the age of 89. He will be remembered as an influential and respected politician. More importantly, his contributions to the anti-war movement and influence on college students' political activism will live on in future campaigns and protests. His service as a Representative of Minnesota in Congress will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to, for the record, state that I am a vegan. I do not consume pork.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Mayor Jane L. Campbell, for her unwavering dedication, diligence, vision and integrity that defined her leadership as Mayor of the City of Cleveland. Mayor Campbell's vital focus on lifting the lives of the poor and disenfranchised, starting at the neighborhood level, framed her every professional and political endeavor. She began her service to our community as the founding Executive Director of WomenSpace, and later as the Executive Director of the Friends of Shaker Square. During her 12-year tenure as State Representative, Mayor Campbell introduced and enacted legislation protecting the rights of children, families and seniors. As a Cuyahoga County Commissioner, she advocated for women and children, chairing the Violence Against Women Act Committee, and the Children Who Witness Violence Committee. Throughout her journey from County Commissioner to the Mayor of Cleveland, Mayor Campbell continued her unrelenting focus on behalf of all Cleveland residents, especially children, families and seniors. During her term in office, she implemented numerous health and human services programs that provide guidance and support for our most vulnerable citizens who struggle daily to elevate their lives above the raging cycle of poverty and homelessness. Mayor Campbell's vision to raise the City into the promise of restoration and renewal is also reflected in the commercial and residential structures of Cleveland's neighborhoods, from Detroit-Shoreway, Cudell and Old Brooklyn, east to Slavic Village, Union-Miles and Buckeye-Woodland, where commercial redevelopment, storefront renovation and housing restoration has become a reality. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, gratitude and recognition of my friend, Mayor Jane L. Campbell, whose unwavering commitment, steadfast integrity and vital accomplishments have raised the City of Cleveland above the shadows of financial crisis 4 years ago, onto a solid foundation today, where urban renewal and the hope of a better tomorrow for all citizens continues to rise. Mayor Campbell's legacy of service and concern for her constituents will be remembered and recognized for generations to come. I wish Mayor Jane Campbell and her family many blessings of peace, health and happiness as they journey onward from this day.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Wake up, America. In addition to giving away the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to the oil companies, the Defense appropriations bill is rumored to contain a massive holiday gift to the pharmaceutical industry in the form of liability immunity for pandemic vaccines. The liability is not the reason for vaccine shortages, especially in the case of avian flu. This giveaway will not result in increased vaccine production. Why does Big Pharma want these liability exemptions? Because there is reason to doubt the safety of at least one of these vaccines. Chiron, the same company which allowed contamination of half of last year's flu vaccine supply, is hoping to use MF59 in an avian flu vaccine. MF59 is a compound that contains squalene, which is on the short list of potential causes for the chronic debilitating illnesses experienced by our veterans of the first Persian Gulf war. At a minimum, this issue must be debated in front of the American people, not slipped in behind closed doors into this large bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this liability immunity.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this resolution mentions the word victory six times, but victory is not defined. We are assured this administration will know victory when they see it, just like they knew WMDs when they did not see them. Supporters of this bill point to yesterday's election as victory, but many were drawn to the polls by their overwhelming dislike of U.S. occupation. They like us all right; they would like us to get out of their country. This fantasy victory resolution means more occupation, more war, more civil war, more deaths of our troops and innocent civilians, more waste of taxpayer money, while this House is reduced to a bunch of cheerleaders in a bloody ``Baghdad Bowl'' sponsored by Halliburton. Congressman Paul and I have a resolution which will let Iraqis, through their new representatives, decide whether the occupation ends or not. Do you want sovereignty, do you want self-determination, or do you just want occupation, deception, fake news, fake policy and next year's fakeout, partial troop withdrawals while a permanent U.S. presence is being built? These fake resolutions keep this Congress in a stupor, almost a trance-like denial of conditions in Iraq and how we got there. Wake up, Congress. Wake up America. Get out of Iraq.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Today, the U.S. House will debate a so-called Victory in Iraq resolution, and vote on whether or not the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is desirable by the U.S. Government. Today, Congressman Ron Paul and I have a resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that the new permanent Council of Representatives of Iraq should debate and vote on whether the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is desired by the Government of Iraq. According to the Iraq constitution, the Iraq federal government has exclusive power over foreign policy and negotiation, national defense policy, and the Council of Representatives specifically has the responsibility of creating new law and certifying treaties and international agreements. The continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is a matter for the elected Government of Iraq, a sovereign nation, to decide. If we define victory as Iraq's self-determination, then we ought to encourage Iraq to make its own decision about further U.S. occupation. But if victory is just a cover for endless U.S. occupation of Iraq, then that is just not going to be acceptable to the American people or to people of the world.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Alex Humel McCann, cherished son, brother, grandson, cousin, nephew and friend to many, whose unexpected passing has saddened our entire community. Although he will be greatly missed, Alex's young life had a profound impact upon the lives of countless individuals, in Cleveland, Ohio and around the world, and his inner light will shine on forever. When Alex was in kindergarten, he journeyed with his parents and brothers to Botswana, Africa, to participate in a three-year mission with Habitat for Humanity International. In his 17 young years, Alex traveled to 17 countries and 5 continents. With an open heart, Alex absorbed the colorful offerings of every new culture and developed a profound sensitivity to human injustices and struggles that exist around the world. An independent thinker and adventurous soul, Alex's passion and joy for life paralleled his passion for helping others. As a student at St. Edward High School, Alex was an active member with the Council on Human Relations, the Free Thought Society and his most cherished activity, the St. Edward Wilderness Retreat Program. His diagnosis of epilepsy at age thirteen did not lessen his enthusiasm and energy for living. He was an avid cyclist, golfer, hiker, and camper. He was a talented young actor who graced the stages of the Beck Center, St. Ed's and St. Joseph Academy. His energy and talent were consistently matched by his unique sense of humor, quick smile and kind heart. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Alex Humel McCann. I extend my deepest condolences to his mother and father, Joyce Humel and Michael McCann; his brothers, Nick and Aaron; his extended family members and many friends. Alex Humel McCann's young life reflected limitless joy and love and he will live forever in the hearts and memories of those who loved him most--his family and friends--from Cleveland, Ohio to Botswana, Africa, and he will never be forgotten.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Taking back my time, Mr. Speaker, you see, we have a right as a Nation to defend ourselves, but we do not have any right to shred the Constitution or to nullify the role that Congress has as a coequal branch of government or to nullify the right we have to give motions to instruct. We have an absolute right to do that. Now, this all goes back to 9/11, where all the fear has been created; and we have people now more concerned about leaks and more concerned about open discussion exposing secret prisons than they are in exposing those prisons. People want to deny congressional oversight and deny the power of coequality. I mean, the facts are that there is a real body of evidence suggesting that secret prisons do exist; that there has been rendition; that people have been basically taken off the streets, moved to countries that use torture, and violations of human rights. I mean, what is happening to our country? Let us look at our Constitution. We have habeas corpus, people have a right to be told what crime they have committed, they have a right to an attorney and to a fair and speedy trial. Now, why do we have those things? Because in America we stand for something. So we are, in effect, permitting the shredding of our Constitution. The violation of international law. What has become of our Nation when we do not challenge that or at least have the opportunity to support Mr. Skeleton's motion to instruct, which is our right to do, to go along with what has already been approved in the Senate, and to say, look, we think that there ought to be a role for the Director of National Intelligence to give a report to the Intelligence Committee setting forth the nature and cost and otherwise providing a full accounting on any clandestine prison or detention facility currently or formerly operated by the United States Government regardless of location. Look, let us remember what we stand for as a Nation. We are losing sight of that here. We are becoming something that could be called in another era un-American. Let us stand for our American values here and support the Skeleton motion. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert for the Record the following articles relating to my comments: [From the Free Republic, June 6, 2005] U.S. Running `Archipelago' of Secret Prisons: Amnesty International Washington.--The U.S. government is operating an ``archipelago'' of prisons around the world, many of them secret camps into which people are being ``literally disappeared,'' a top Amnesty International official said Sunday. Amnesty International executive director William Schulz criticized the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush for holding alleged battlefield combatants in ``indefinite incommunicado detention'' without access to lawyers in an interview with Fox News Sunday. Schulz was pressed to substantiate Amnesty's claim in a May 25 report that the U.S. prison camp at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba naval base--where hundreds of foreign terror suspects are being held indefinitely--represents the ``gulag of our times.'' The gulag claim, referring to the notorious prison camp system of the Soviet Union, has drawn withering criticism from the U.S. president, who called it ``absurd.'' Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have also slammed the rights group's claim. Russian 1970 Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the Soviet prison camp system in his best-selling book ``The Gulag Archipelago.'' Schulz said the gulag reference was not ``an exact or a literal analogy.'' ``But there are some similarities. The United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared--held in indefinite incommunicado detention without access to lawyers,'' Schulz told Fox. Asked how AI could compare the detentions of millions of Soviet citizens in the gulag system to purported anti-U.S. combatants captured on the battlefield, Schulz said some of those held in Guantanamo ``happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. ``We do know that at least some of the 200 some prisoners who have been released from Guantanamo Bay have made pretty persuasive cases that they were imprisoned there, not because they were involved in military conflict but simply because they were enemies of the Northern Alliance,'' he said. Schulz called for an official probe into the alleged rights abuses at U.S. detention centers around the globe. Amnesty refers in the May 25 report to Rumsfeld and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as alleged ``torture architects.'' The United States ``should be the one that should investigate those who are alleged at least to be architects of torture, not just the foot soldiers who may have inflicted the torture directly, but those who authorized it or encouraged it or provided rationales for it,'' Schulz said. According to Amnesty, Rumsfeld provided ``the exact rules, 27 of them in fact, for interrogations, some of which do constitute torture or cruel, inhumane treatment,'' Schulz said. The Guantanamo Bay camp and U.S. detention practices have been the subject of renewed debate in recent weeks, sparked by a Newsweek magazine report--since retracted--that Guantanamo interrogators flushed a Koran in a toilet to rattle Muslim prisoners. Amnesty is not the only rights group to have called on Washington to investigate alleged abuses at the camp--Schulz pointed to released FBI documents that also raised concerns about Guantanamo interrogations. U.S. officials insist such concerns are unfounded, and that the ``war on terror'' detainees are treated as humanely as possible. U.S. soldiers have been tried and punished for abusing detainees--notably at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, where at least one captive died--but U.S. officials say those are isolated incidents. The furor sparked by Amnesty's claims shows no signs of abating. The New York Times said Sunday that the Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed down, saying it had become ``a national shame'' and a ``propaganda gift to America's enemies.'' ``What makes Amnesty's gulag metaphor apt is that Guantanamo is merely one of a chain of shadowy detention camps that also includes Abu Ghraib in Iraq, the military prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and other, secret locations run by the intelligence agencies,'' the Times said. The Washington Post, whose editorial page has been more critical of Amnesty's gulag claim, reported Sunday--citing Schulz--that Amnesty's donations have quintupled and new memberships have doubled in the past week since it released its report. (Wire reports)

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend if he would yield to a question, because I am looking here at the motion that he has, and it basically refers to the majority's bill and instructs them, according to their bill, and it is within our jurisdiction to do that. And it gives them the jurisdiction to follow up, does it not?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Rita D. Lynch, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, dedicated public servant, community activist, and dear friend to many, including myself. Mrs. Lynch's passing marks a great loss for her family and friends, and also for the people of Cleveland's west side neighborhood, whom she served with the highest level of commitment and integrity. For nearly 30 years, Mrs. Lynch volunteered her time and talents as a member of the board of the directors with Cudell Improvement, Inc., a non-profit neighborhood organization, working on projects and implementing programs focused on uplifting all aspects of the community. Her dedication to the organization and to her neighborhood is reflected throughout Ward 18 in the City of Cleveland. Family, friends, faith and community were central to her life. Mrs. Lynch and her late husband, Robert, often worked together on issues of neighborhood concern. Her grown children, John and Maryann, were instilled with the values of hard work, kindness and giving to others. Mrs. Lynch's service to others continues to illuminate the hope and promise of a better day for the people of this diverse Cleveland community. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Rita D. Lynch. Mrs. Lynch lived life with a generous heart and great energy for life. Her legacy of activism and spirit of volunteerism will be remembered always, forever reflecting along Detroit Avenue, Edgewater Road and Clifton Boulevard, and she will never be forgotten.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Mrs. Lucille Crisafi, devoted wife to her late husband, Ralph Crisafi, devoted aunt and great aunt, and dear friend to many. Let us celebrate her life as her friends and loved ones gather in tribute to her 100th birthday. Mrs. Crisafi grew up in Cleveland's Clark-Fulton neighborhood and later moved to Parma. In 1927, she married Ralph Crisafi. Their shared values of work, faith, family and community were reflected throughout this Westside neighborhood. For many years, Mr. and Mrs. Crisafi owned and operated an appliance store, located on the corner of Clark and Fulton Roads. Although they never had children, they were devoted to their nieces, nephews and the children of the neighborhood, all of whom affectionately referred to them as `Aunt Lu' and `Uncle Ralph.' Mrs. Crisafi remained in her home 25 years after her husband passed away. Her life-long spirit of activism and volunteerism with St. Rocco's Catholic Church continues to uplift all aspects of the parish. She has been an active member of the Holy Family Sodality of St. Rocco's for 72 years and served as the Financial Secretary for nearly 20 years. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Mrs. Lucille ``Aunt Lu'' Crisafi, as we join her in celebration of her 100th birthday on December 13. At 100 years young, Mrs. Crisafi's sharp intellect, quick wit, kind smile and spirit of love and generosity for others shine brighter than ever and continues to illuminate the hearts of friends and family along Clark Avenue, throughout St. Rocco's parish, in Parma, Ohio and far beyond. I wish Mrs. Crisafi a joyous birthday and many blessings of peace, health and happiness today and always. Cent' Anni, Aunt Lu.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Julian M. Earls, upon his retirement as Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Earls' service at NASA Glenn reflects 4 decades of leadership, accomplishment and discovery. Dr. Earls' exemplary service and expertise within the ever- transforming frontier of space aeronautics began at NASA Glenn in 1965 and is a legacy that spiraled from a brilliant academic foundation. He earned a bachelor's degree in physics from Norfolk State University, a master's degree in radiation biology from the University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, and a doctorate degree in radiation physics from the University of Michigan. His exceptional standing at NASA Glenn was framed by integrity, vision, innovation and accomplishment. His incredible intellect was equally matched by his congenial nature and his ability to form vital bonds with staff members and with local, national and international leaders in the field of aeronautics. Dr. Earls' work included the development and direction of programs necessary to accomplish the missions of the Center. His work spanned the scope of research, technology, and systems development programs in aeronautical propulsion, space propulsion, space power, space communications, and micro-gravity sciences in combustion and fluid physics. Dr. Earls has written for 28 educational and technological journals and he wrote the first health physics guides for NASA Glenn. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. Julian M. Earls, whose integrity, expertise, commitment and leadership has infused energy and possibility throughout all operations at NASA Glenn Research Center. His 40-year legacy of achievement and leadership will continue to exist as a foundation of learning and exploration, where the promise of dreams, discovery and hope take flight. I wish Dr. Earls and his family an abundance of good health and happiness, today and always.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. When Croatia was struggling for its independence and survival, I was one of the American political figures who challenged my own government for its lack of support for Croatia at a critical hour. Here I take great pride in asking my government in the House of Representatives as a Member to support the integration of the Republic of Croatia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I take great pride in my Croatian heritage. My grandfather John Kucinich came from what is now part of Croatia. My father made sure that we stayed close to the Croatian culture and language while we were growing up in Cleveland, and greater Cleveland has a very large Croatian community. I take great pride in the achievements of my Croatian brothers and sisters in the United States as well as in Croatia and those around the world. And I agree that Croatia ought to be fully integrated into the European Union as well as NATO. I want to at the same time, though, make sure that I make Congress aware of the conduct of the Croatian television network, HRT, which has, unfortunately, denied an American filmmaker access to documentary film footage so as to frustrate the commercial release of her production. This is not a routine matter, Mr. Speaker, because this film by Ms. Brenda Brkusic, ``Freedom From Despair,'' has received great critical acclaim. She has won many awards, including the CINE Golden Eagle Award, which has previously been awarded to international filmmakers Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. She has been recognized by her peers as an emerging talent in the film industry. The Croatian National Foundation has agreed to be her fiscal sponsor; and Amnesty International, the largest human rights organization in the world, has endorsed her film for its strong human rights advocacy. I believe that the Government of Croatia is sensitive to human rights issues, as has been stated by my friend Mr. Gallegly and also by my friend Mr. Lantos. However, we need to make sure that HRT, which is the state-owned television station, does not escape its responsibility to be sensitive to human rights. So, I am using this opportunity while I celebrate the support for Croatia, I also believe that it is important to continue to point out wherever there are questions relating to human rights, whether they be in freedom of expression, in telling the truth about the past or in trying to lay the groundwork for a bright future that Congress needs to be the proper forum to make those statements. Croatia desires to be in NATO to protect itself from outside forces. I want to make sure Croatia is protected from threats to freedom of expression inside the country of Croatia. When Croatia was struggling for its independence and survival I was one of the American political figures who challenged my own government for its lack of support for Croatia at a critical hour. I take great pride in my Croatian heritage. My grandfather was born in what is now Croatia. I take pride in the achievements of my Croatian brothers and sisters in Croatia, America and around the world. However, I want to make the Congress aware of the conduct of the Croatian television network HRT, which has deliberately denied an American filmmaker access to documentary film footage, so as to frustrate the commercial release of her production. The Croatian television network, HRT, initially gave Ms. Brenda Brkusic rights to film footage for student use in the production. Once she asked for commercial rights, HRT refused to cooperate. HRT has refused to answer her questions about the specific price for rights to the footage, giving her general, estimated quotes much higher than are quoted to other people who have inquired for footage rights, and they have suggested unreasonable limitations on those rights. Most recently, when she sent HRT a list of archives she was given by HRT for student use, HRT then informed her that they do not have the right to sell her that material. Ms. Brkusic asked HRT where she must go to get the rights, yet HRT refused to answer her questions. Furthermore, HRT has on other occasions sold that same material that Ms. Brkusic requested to other individuals for broadcast on television. This is not a routine matter about a routine film. Ms. Brkusic's film, ``Freedom from Despair,'' has received great critical acclaim. She has won many awards, including the CINE Golden Eagle award, which was previously been awarded to the internationally acclaimed filmmakers Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. She has been recognized by her peers as an emerging talent in the film industry. The Croatian National Foundation has agreed to be her fiscal sponsor, and Amnesty International, the largest human rights organization in the world, has endorsed her film for its strong human rights advocacy. The fact that numerous media outlets have agreed to donate their footage to her film at no cost is noteworthy. They include: ABC 7 Chicago, NBC 5 Chicago, CBS 2, WGN 9 Chicago, and Greater Chicago Broadcast Ministries. They all granted her worldwide rights to their footage in perpetuity for free, within a few weeks of her request. HRT, on the other hand, has not only been uncooperative, but obstructive. This distresses me. Given the high profile on this film and the extraordinarily fast rising stardom of its director, a young Croatian-American, HRT's antics will damage the reputation of the Croatian government in the international community. Croatia desires to be in NATO to protect itself from outside enemies. But who will protect Croatia from threats to freedom of expression inside the country?

Mr. KUCINICH. First of all, I want to thank my friend for reviewing the history of commitment. I want to thank my friend for pointing out that Croatia has worked toward fulfillment of commitments on human rights. I would agree with that. At the same time, I would ask my friend to assist me in helping Croatia continue that commitment in an area that is really important, and that is freedom of expression. I would like to at some point after the debate share with the gentleman the specific concerns that I had that caused me to bring this up during debate. But I want to thank the gentleman for his sponsorship, for his commitment, and I join him in it.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Mr. Tim Taylor, award-winning television journalist, devoted family man, community volunteer and friend and mentor to many, including me, upon the occasion of his retirement that follows more than forty years of excellence in broadcast journalism in Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Taylor worked for ten years in radio. For seven of those years, he worked as the News Director at WHK Radio, where he covered stories ranging from everyday events to pivotal moments in history, including the Hough Riots, the Kent State shootings and live coverage of the splashdown of the aborted Apollo 13 mission. Mr. Taylor also conducted in-depth, one-on-one interviews with Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. His career in TV journalism began in the early 1970s at WEWS TV-5, when he became northeast Ohio's first TV consumer advocate as ``Action Reporter.'' For nearly thirty years, Mr. Taylor has led the news team every weekday at Fox 8 News. His tenure as Chief News Anchor reflects twenty- five years of talent, grace and professional integrity. His kind and humble nature consistently belied his sharp intellect and keen ability to extract reason, truth and a balanced perspective from news ranging from heartfelt human interest stories to complex national issues. Mr. Taylor was awarded three Emmys and was selected by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences as a member of the prestigious Silver Circle. He is only the second news anchorperson ever honored with the Cleveland Association of Broadcaster's ``Excellence in Broadcasting'' award. Mr. Taylor's unwavering dedication to his profession parallels his steadfast commitment to giving back to the community. Among his numerous volunteer efforts, Mr. Taylor's thirteen-year involvement with the annual Tim Taylor Golf Tournament to Benefit the Epilepsy Foundation has raised awareness and millions of dollars to assist families and individuals who suffer the devastating effects of epilepsy. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor, recognition and gratitude of my friend, Tim Taylor, whose unwavering integrity and talent has permanently raised the bar on broadcast excellence in Northeast Ohio and whose genuine concern for others has uplifted our entire community. I wish Mr. Taylor, his wife Cathy, children and grandchildren much health and happiness today and throughout all days to come.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say briefly that I think that our Nation would be much more persuasive in our attempts to try to change the behavior within Syria if we also acknowledged that there are the news reports about a covert war in Iraq that has expanded in recent months to Syria, and that bombing has been taking place along the Syrian border. I think it is going to be kind of difficult for us to engage Syria in discussions when they may be getting indications that we are attacking their country. [From the New Yorker, Dec. 12, 2005] Annals of National Security, Up in the Air Where is the Iraq war headed next? (By Seymour M. Hersh) In recent weeks, there has been widespread speculation that President George W. Bush, confronted by diminishing approval ratings and dissent within his own party, will begin pulling American troops out of Iraq next year. The Administration's best-case scenario is that the parliamentary election scheduled for December 15th will produce a coalition government that will join the Administration in calling for a withdrawal to begin in the spring. By then, the White House hopes, the new government will be capable of handling the insurgency. In a speech on November 19th, Bush repeated the latest Administration catchphrase: ``As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' He added, ``When our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned.'' One sign of the political pressure on the Administration to prepare for a withdrawal came last week, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News that the current level of American troops would not have to be maintained ``for very much longer,'' because the Iraqis were getting better at fighting the insurgency. A high-level Pentagon war planner told me, however, that he has seen scant indication that the President would authorize a significant pullout of American troops if he believed that it would impede the war against the insurgency. There are several proposals currently under review by the White House and the Pentagon; the most ambitious calls for American combat forces to be reduced from a hundred and fifty-five thousand troops to fewer than eighty thousand by next fall, with all American forces officially designated ``combat'' to be pulled out of the area by the summer of 2008. In terms of implementation, the planner said, ``the drawdown plans that I'm familiar with are condition-based, event-driven, and not in a specific time frame''--that is, they depend on the ability of a new Iraqi government to defeat the insurgency. (A Pentagon spokesman said that the Administration had not made any decisions and had ``no plan to leave, only a plan to complete the mission.'') A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the President's public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly strikes by U.S. warplanes are seen as a way to improve dramatically the combat capability of even the weakest Iraqi combat units. The danger, military experts have told me, is that, while the number of American casualties would decrease as ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of violence and the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase unless there are stringent controls over who bombs what. ``We're not planning to diminish the war,'' Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me. Clawson's views often mirror the thinking of the men and women around Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ``We just want to change the mix of the forces doing the fighting--Iraqi infantry with American support and greater use of airpower. The rule now is to commit Iraqi forces into combat only in places where they are sure to win. The pace of commitment, and withdrawal, depends on their success in the battlefield.'' He continued, ``We want to draw down our forces, but the President is prepared to tough this one out. There is a very deep feeling on his part that the issue of Iraq was settled by the American people at the polling places in 2004.'' The war against the insurgency ``may end up being a nasty and murderous civil war in Iraq, but we and our allies would still win,'' he said. ``As long as the Kurds and the Shiites stay on our side, we're set to go. There's no sense that the world is caving in. We're in the middle of a seven-year slog in Iraq, and eighty percent of the Iraqis are receptive to our message.'' One Pentagon adviser told me, ``There are always contingency plans, but why withdraw and take a chance? I don't think the President will go for it''--until the insurgency is broken. ``He's not going to back off. This is bigger than domestic politics.'' Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the President remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding. Bush's closest advisers have long been aware of the religious nature of his policy commitments. In recent interviews, one former senior official, who served in Bush's first term, spoke extensively about the connection between the President's religious faith and his view of the war in Iraq. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that ``God put me here'' to deal with the war on terror. The President's belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that ``he's the man,'' the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reelection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose. The former senior official said that after the election he made a lengthy inspection visit to Iraq and reported his findings to Bush in the White House: ``I said to the President, `We're not winning the war.' And he asked, `Are we losing?' I said, `Not yet.'' The President, he said, ``appeared displeased'' with that answer. ``I tried to tell him,'' the former senior official said. ``And he couldn't hear it.'' There are grave concerns within the military about the capability of the U.S. Army to sustain two or three more years of combat in Iraq. Michael O'Hanlon, a specialist on military issues at the Brookings Institution, told me, ``The people in the institutional Army feel they don't have the luxury of deciding troop levels, or even participating in the debate. They're planning on staying the course until 2009. I can't believe the Army thinks that it will happen, because there's no sustained drive to increase the size of the regular Army.'' O'Hanlon noted that ``if the President decides to stay the present course in Iraq some troops would be compelled to serve fourth and fifth tours of combat by 2007 and 2008, which could have serious consequences for morale and competency levels.'' Many of the military's most senior generals are deeply frustrated, but they say nothing in public, because they don't want to jeopardize their careers. The Administration has ``so terrified the generals that they know they won't go public,'' a former defense official said. A retired senior C.I.A. officer with knowledge of Iraq told me that one of his colleagues recently participated in a congressional tour there. The legislators were repeatedly told, in meetings with enlisted men, junior officers, and generals that ``things were fucked up.'' But in a subsequent teleconference with Rumsfeld, he said, the generals kept those criticisms to themselves. One person with whom the Pentagon's top commanders have shared their private views for decades is Representative John Murtha, of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The President and his key aides were enraged when, on November 17th, Murtha gave a speech in the House calling for a withdrawal of troops within six months. The speech was filled with devastating information. For example, Murtha reported that the number of attacks in Iraq has increased from a hundred and fifty a week to more than seven hundred a week in the past year. He said that an estimated fifty thousand American soldiers will suffer ``from what I call battle fatigue'' in the war, and he said that the Americans were seen as ``the common enemy'' in Iraq. He also took issue with one of the White House's claims--that foreign fighters were playing the major role in the insurgency. Murtha said that American soldiers ``haven't captured any in this latest activity''--the continuing battle in western Anbar province, near the border with Syria. ``So this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only seven per cent.'' Murtha's call for a speedy American pullout only seemed to strengthen the White House's resolve. Administration officials ``are beyond angry at him, because he is a serious threat to their policy--both on substance and politically,'' the former defense official said. Speaking at the Osan Air Force base, in South Korea, two days after Murtha's speech, Bush said, ``The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. . . . If they're not stopped, the terrorists will be able to advance their agenda to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, and to break our will and blackmail our government into isolation. I'm going to make you this commitment: this is not going to happen on my watch.'' ``The President is more determined than ever to stay the course,'' the former defense official said. ``He doesn't feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage `People may suffer and die, but the Church advances.' ``He said that the President had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney. ``They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,'' the former defense official said. Bush's public appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to similar public forums. ``Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House,'' the former official said, ``but Bush has no idea.'' Within the military, the prospect of using airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused great unease. For one thing, Air Force commanders, in particular, have deep-seated objections to the possibility that Iraqis eventually will be responsible for target selection. ``Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame someone else?'' another senior military planner now on assignment in the Pentagon asked. ``Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of Al Qaeda, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?'' ``It's a serious business,'' retired Air Force General Charles Homer, who was in charge of allied bombing during the 1991 Gulf War, said. ``The Air Force has always had concerns about people ordering air strikes who are not Air Force forward air controllers. We need people on active duty to think it out, and they will. There has to be training to be sure that somebody is not trying to get even with somebody else.'' (Asked for a comment, the Pentagon spokesman said there were plans in place for such training. He also noted that Iraq had no offensive airpower of its own, and thus would have to rely on the United States for some time.) The American air war inside Iraq today is perhaps the most significant--and underreported--aspect of the fight against the insurgency. The military authorities in Baghdad and Washington do not provide the press with a daily accounting of missions that Air Force, Navy, and Marine units fly or of the tonnage they drop, as was routinely done during the Vietnam War. One insight into the scope of the bombing in Iraq was supplied by the Marine Corps during the height of the siege of Falluja in the fall of 2004. ``With a massive Marine air and ground offensive under way,'' a Marine press release said, ``Marine close air support continues to put high-tech steel on target. . . . Flying missions day and night for weeks, the fixed wing aircraft of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing are ensuring battlefield success on the front line.'' Since the beginning of the war, the press release said, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone had dropped more than five hundred thousand tons of ordnance. ``This number is likely to be much higher by the end of operations,'' Major Mike Sexton said. In the battle for the city, more than seven hundred Americans were killed or wounded; U.S. officials did not release estimates of civilian dead, but press reports at the time told of women and children killed in the bombardments. In recent months, the tempo of American bombing seems to have increased. Most of the targets appear to be in the hostile, predominantly Sunni provinces that surround Baghdad and along the Syrian border. As yet, neither Congress nor the public has engaged in a significant discussion or debate about the air war. The insurgency operates mainly in crowded urban areas, and Air Force warplanes rely on sophisticated, laser-guided bombs to avoid civilian casualties. These bombs home in on targets that must be ``painted,'' or illuminated, by laser beams directed by ground units. ``The pilot doesn't identify the target as seen in the pre-brief''--the instructions provided before takeoff--a former high-level intelligence official told me. ``The guy with the laser is the targeteer. Not the pilot. Often you get a `hotread' ''--from a military unit on the ground--``and you drop your bombs with no communication with the guys on the ground. You don't want to break radio silence. The people on the ground are calling in targets that the pilots can't verify.'' He added, ``And we're going to turn this process over to the Iraqis?'' The second senior military planner told me that there are essentially two types of targeting now being used in Iraq: a deliberate siteselection process that works out of airoperations centers in the region, and ``adaptive targeting''--supportive bombing by prepositioned or loitering warplanes that are suddenly alerted to firefights or targets of opportunity by military units on the ground. ``The bulk of what we do today is adaptive,'' the officer said, ``and it's divorced from any operational air planning. Airpower can be used as a tool of internal political coercion, and my attitude is that I can't imagine that we will give that power to the Iraqis.'' This military planner added that even today, with Americans doing the targeting, ``there is no sense of an air campaign, or a strategic vision. We are just whacking targets--it's a reversion to the Stone Age. There's no operational art. That's what happens when you give targeting to the Army--they hit what the local commander wants to hit.'' One senior Pentagon consultant I spoke to said he was optimistic that ``American air will immediately make the Iraqi Army that much better.'' But he acknowledged that he, too, had concerns about Iraqi targeting. ``We have the most expensive eyes in the sky right now,'' the consultant said. ``But a lot of Iraqis want to settle old scores. Who is going to have authority to call in air strikes? There's got to be a behavior-based rule.'' General John Jumper, who retired last month after serving four years as the Air Force chief of staff, was ``in favor of certification of those Iraqis who will be allowed to call in strikes,'' the Pentagon consultant told me. ``I don't know if it will be approved. The regular Army generals were resisting it to the last breath, despite the fact that they would benefit the most from it.'' A Pentagon consultant with close ties to the officials in the Vice-President's office and the Pentagon who advocated the war said that the Iraqi penchant for targeting tribal and personal enemies with artillery and mortar fire had created ``impatience and resentment'' inside the military. He believed that the Air Force's problems with Iraqi targeting might be addressed by the formation of U.S.-Iraqi transition teams, whose American members would be drawn largely from Special Forces troops. This consultant said that there were plans to integrate between two hundred and three hundred Special Forces members into Iraqi units, which was seen as a compromise aimed at meeting the Air Force's demand to vet Iraqis who were involved in targeting. But in practice, the consultant added, it meant that ``the Special Ops people will soon allow Iraqis to begin calling in the targets.'' Robert Pape, a political-science professor at the University of Chicago, who has written widely on American airpower, and who taught for three years at the Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, in Alabama, predicted that the air war ``will get very ugly'' if targeting is turned over to the Iraqis. This would be especially true, he said, if the Iraqis continued to operate as the U.S. Army and Marines have done--plowing through Sunni strongholds on search-and-destroy missions. ``If we encourage the Iraqis to clear and hold their own areas, and use airpower to stop the insurgents from penetrating the cleared areas, it could be useful,'' Pape said. ``The risk is that we will encourage the Iraqis to do search-and-destroy, and they would be less judicious about using airpower--and the violence would go up. More civilians will be killed, which means more insurgents will be created.'' Even American bombing on behalf of an improved, well- trained Iraqi Army would not necessarily be any more successful against the insurgency. ``It's not going to work,'' said Andrew Brookes, the former director of airpower studies at the Royal Air Force's advanced staff college, who is now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in London. ``Can you put a lid on the insurgency with bombing?'' Brookes said. ``No. You can concentrate in one area, but the guys will spring up in another town.'' The inevitable reliance on Iraqi ground troops' targeting would also create conflicts. ``I don't see your guys dancing to the tune of someone else,'' Brookes said. He added that he and many other experts ``don't believe that airpower is a solution to the problems inside Iraq at all. Replacing boots on the ground with airpower didn't work in Vietnam, did it?'' The Air Force's worries have been subordinated, so far, to the political needs of the White House. The Administration's immediate political goal after the December elections is to show that the day-to-day conduct of the war can be turned over to the newly trained and equipped Iraqi military. It has already planned heavily scripted change-of-command ceremonies, complete with the lowering of American flags at bases and the raising of Iraqi ones. Some officials in the State Department, the C.I.A., and British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government have settled on their candidate of choice for the December elections--Iyad Allawi, the secular Shiite who served until this spring as Iraq's interim Prime Minister. They believe that Allawi can gather enough votes in the election to emerge, after a round of political bargaining, as Prime Minister. A former senior British adviser told me that Blair was convinced that Allawi ``is the best hope.'' The fear is that a government dominated by religious Shiites, many of whom are close to Iran, would give Iran greater political and military influence inside Iraq. Allawi could counter Iran's influence; also, he would be far more supportive and cooperative if the Bush Administration began a drawdown of American combat forces in the coming year. Blair has assigned a small team of operatives to provide political help to Allawi, the former adviser told me. He also said that there was talk late this fall, with American concurrence, of urging Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shiite, to join forces in a coalition with Allawi during the post- election negotiations to form a government. Chalabi, who is notorious for his role in promoting flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction before the war, is now a deputy Prime Minister. He and Allawi were bitter rivals while in exile. A senior United Nations diplomat told me that he was puzzled by the high American and British hopes for Allawi. ``I know a lot of people want Allawi, but I think he's been a terrific disappointment,'' the diplomat said. ``He doesn't seem to be building a strong alliance, and at the moment it doesn't look like he will do very well in the election.'' The second Pentagon consultant told me, ``If Allawi becomes Prime Minister, we can say, 'There's a moderate, urban, educated leader now in power who does not want to deprive women of their rights.' He would ask us to leave, but he would allow us to keep Special Forces operations inside Iraq--to keep an American presence the right way. Mission accomplished. A coup for Bush.'' A former high-level intelligence official cautioned that it was probably ``too late'' for any American withdrawal plan to work without further bloodshed. The constitution approved by Iraqi voters in October ``will be interpreted by the Kurds and the Shiites to proceed with their plans for autonomy,'' he said. ``The Sunnis will continue to believe that if they can get rid of the Americans they can still win. And there still is no credible way to establish security for American troops.'' The fear is that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would inevitably trigger a Sunni-Shiite civil war. In many areas, that war has, in a sense, already begun, and the United States military is being drawn into the sectarian violence. An American Army officer who took part in the assault on Tal Afar, in the north of Iraq, earlier this fall, said that an American infantry brigade was placed in the position of providing a cordon of security around the besieged city for Iraqi forces, most of them Shiites, who were ``rounding up any Sunnis on the basis of whatever a Shiite said to them.'' The officer went on, ``They were killing Sunnis on behalf of the Shiites,'' with the active participation of a militia unit led by a retired American Special Forces soldier. ``People like me have gotten so downhearted,'' the officer added. Meanwhile, as the debate over troop reductions continues, the covert war in Iraq has expanded in recent months to Syria. A composite American Special Forces team, known as an S.M.U., for ``special-mission unit,'' has been ordered, under stringent cover, to target suspected supporters of the Iraqi insurgency across the border. (The Pentagon had no comment.) ``It's a powder keg,'' the Pentagon consultant said of the tactic. ``But, if we hit an insurgent network in Iraq without hitting the guys in Syria who are part of it, the guys in Syria would get away. When you're fighting an insurgency, you have to strike everywhere-and at once.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, 3,124 innocent civilians died in the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center, on the airliners and at the Pentagon; 2,151 U.S. soldiers have been killed in action; 15,881 U.S. soldiers have been wounded; 30,000 Iraqi civilian non-combatants, according to the White House, have been killed in Iraq; 500,000 tons of bombs have been dropped on Iraq by just one U.S. air wing. That is equivalent to 1 billion pounds of explosives, 2 million 500-pound bombs, nearly 400 pounds of explosives for every Iraqi man, woman, and child. Zero is the number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his eloquence on this matter. I have been to Russia many, many times, and I believe it is always in the interest of peace between our two countries for us to keep an active dialogue, even on matters that are very difficult. H. Con. Res. 312 urges the government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations and activities of foreign NGO's in the Russian Federation. I would agree that there are many NGO's that do great work in civil society and peace and human rights, in workers rights, in the environment and in health care, but there are also some bad apples in the bunch, and we cannot ignore that. If the Russian government were, for example, to be looking at the role that the National Endowment for Democracy played in the April 2002 coup of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Russian government would have good reason to oppose foreign NGOs in their country. The State Department's Richard Boucher acknowledged that the Bush administration provided ``funding to groups that promote democracy and strengthen civil society in Venezuela and around the globe.'' He further stated that the funds are ``for the benefit of democracy, not to support any particular political faction.'' According to the New York Times, the organization ``funneled more than $877,000 into Venezuelan opposition groups in the weeks and months before the recently aborted coup attempt.'' More than $150,000 went to ``a Venezuelan labor union that led the opposition work stoppages and worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who led the coup.'' That is from the New York Times. The National Endowment for Democracy, over the years, has actively worked to destabilize governments in Central America and Eastern Europe. According to a book by former State Department employee, William Blum, entitled, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, the NED ``played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy Project Democracy network, which privatized U.S. foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs, and engaged in other equally charming activities.'' So we in the United States have legitimate complaints about a variety of conditions in the Russian Federation and in other countries around the world, but I question whether we have the right to encourage the channeling of funds into NGOs who work as instruments of U.S. foreign policy. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to present this. I have been to Russia many, many times and I believe it is always in the interest of peace between our two countries for us to keep on active dialogue. H. Con. Res. 312, which urges the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations, and activities of domestic and foreign NGOs in the Russian Federation. While there are many NGOs that do great work in civil society, in working rights, in peace, in environment, in human rights, in health care, there are some bad apples of the bunch and we cannot ignore that. If the Russian government were to look at, for example, the role that the National Endowment for Democracy played in the April 2002 coup of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Russian government would have good reason to oppose foreign NGOs in their country. The State Department's Richard Boucher acknowledged that the Bush administration provided ``funding to groups that promote democracy and strengthen civil society in Venezuela and around the globe.'' He further stated that the funds ``are for the benefit of democracy, not to support any particular political faction.'' According to the New York Times, the organization ``funneled more than $877,000 into Venezuela opposition groups in the weeks and months before the recently aborted coup attempt.'' More than $150,000 went to ``a Venezuelan labor union that led the opposition work stoppages and worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who led the coup.'' The National Endowment for Democracy, over the years, has actively worked to destabilize governments in Central America and Eastern Europe. According to a book by former State Department employee, William Blum, entitled Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower the NED ``played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy Project Democracy network, which privatized U.S. foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs, and engaged in other equally charming activities.'' So we in the United States have legitimate complaints about a variety of conditions in the Russian Federation and in other countries around the world, we do not have the right to channel funds into NGOs who work as instruments of U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, you have sponsored a resolution here that, as I indicated earlier, the sponsorship moved some policy change. In light of that, would you have any interest in withdrawing the resolution and declaring victory?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues in standing up in support of the state of Israel and in demanding that the Palestinian Authority do everything it can to set aside all the statements made by people within its sphere that would call for the destruction of Israel. And they must take action to stop terrorists and their infrastructure. I would just like to respectfully suggest, however, that this resolution, as well intended as it is, has the potential to have an impact that would be contrary to what you are hoping for. Let me state how, that Congress passing this resolution could actually have a reverse effect in the streets of the Palestinian Authority and end up actually engendering more support for Hamas. I think that, as we are approaching the midnight hour and coming close to the 15th of December, the date when the elections are taking place in Iraq, it is kind of ironic that we are in this situation of, on one hand, encouraging the broadest participation in the Iraqi elections of people in some cases who have been shooting at our own soldiers and, on the other hand, saying that, in the Palestinian Authority, we are going to start to say, well, these groups cannot participate. No matter how much we object, and I do object, to their attacks on Israel; I would just again like to respectfully suggest that all of us who are here in support of a peaceful resolution of the conflict that is taking place in the Middle East, that maybe have a third way that we could proceed other than this resolution. Letter From Americans for Peace Now: Later today H. Res. 575 is scheduled to come to a vote on the House floor. This resolution deals with the participation of Hamas in the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary elections, scheduled for January 25, 2006. Americans for Peace Now (APN) rejects terror and has consistently called on President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to undertake meaningful, sustained action to stop terrorists and destroy terrorist infrastructure. APN agrees that the Palestinian Authority must establish ``One Authority, One Law, and One Gun.'' However, APN believes that this resolution misses the point on both democracy and Hamas. APN urges Members, whether or not they vote for the resolution, to speak out during the floor debate and to submit statements for the record drawing attention to the problems with this resolution. Nobody (except the terrorists) is happy with the prospect of Hamas and other terrorist organizations participating in Palestinian elections. Likewise, few people are happy that Hizballah is an active participant in Lebanon's political process, including a longstanding presence in its parliament and government. Likewise, few people are happy with the participation of armed militias in elections in Iraq. In the cases of Lebanon and Iraq, however, the decision has been to ``not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.'' The goal of eradicating terror and consolidating weapons in the hands of the legal government remains, but the elections were applauded and the process of democratization was not put on hold. Nobody argued that eradicating terror and establishing ``one gun'' should, in these cases, be a prerequisite for democratic elections, or threatened that if it was not made a prerequisite, the U.S. relationship with the resulting democratically elected body--and U.S. assistance to its people--would suffer. President Abbas is trying to do in the territories what the U.S. has encouraged the government to do in Iraq: absorb militias into the official armed forces in order to make them accountable to official command and control. Israel spent nearly three decades trying to defeat Hamas through military means alone, and failed. Since coming to power less than a year ago, President Abbas has made a very public commitment to take on Hamas and other terrorist organizations after elections--a strategy based on the reasonable assertion that, backed by a democratically-elected parliament, he will have the strength and credibility to move forward with this difficult task. He should be held to this commitment. The reduction of terror against Israeli citizens requires the containment and eventual dismantling of militias, including Hamas. Israeli General (Ret.) Ephraim Sneh, who served as military governor of the West Bank and Deputy Defense Minister of Israel, recently stated: ``Under current conditions in the Palestinian territories, especially given the Palestinian government's weakness, political containment should precede the dismantling of Hamas's military infrastructure. The urgent objective is to defeat it in the next parliamentary elections. Steps that could strengthen it in the elections should be strictly avoided. Attempts to postpone the elections yet again, or to prevent Hamas's participation, or Israeli disruption of the elections as `punishment' for the participation of Hamas, will strengthen Hamas in the Palestinian street instead of weakening it. The short time left before the elections must be used to empower all who oppose Hamas, first and foremost the supporters of the elected Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.'' (Washington Post, October 19, 2005) In the countdown to the elections, for the sake of democracy and peace in the Middle East--vital components to Israel's security--the focus should be on strengthening Palestinian moderates, including President Abbas. Actions that risk elevating the status of Hamas and other extremists should be avoided. After the January 25th election, Israel, the Bush Administration, and the international community--as well as the Palestinian people--should hold President Abbas to his commitment, and hold him accountable if he fails to take action.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this resolution to honor the four United States churchwomen who were murdered in El Salvador 25 years ago this month: Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and Maryknoll Lay Missioner Jean Donovan. Sisters Dorothy Kazel and Jean Donovan were both from my hometown of Cleveland. I was present at a neighborhood church during a reception for Sister Dorothy before she left on her last trip to El Salvador and have shared many moments with the Kazel family since then. These churchwomen, along with other martyrs, dedicated their lives to working with El Salvador's poor during the incredibly dangerous and devastating period of the Salvadoran civil war. What their lives were about was bringing the social Gospel to those most in need. More than 70,000 civilians were murdered during the 12 years of that war. The legacies of a history ripe with violence have lingered. Perhaps the best way to honor the four churchwomen is to do what they would do, to acknowledge the human rights offenses that have continued to this day. I would like to address such offenses: the continued operation of the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, under the new name of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation; and the ongoing threats to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman in El Salvador. I would like to urge support for Dr. Beatrice Alamanni de Carrillo, the Human Rights Ombudswoman of El Salvador. A crucial component of the 1992 Peace Accords that put an end to the Salvadoran civil war was the establishment of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, the principal human rights investigative and monitoring body in El Salvador. Dr. de Carrillo has received numerous accolades for her work strengthening human rights in El Salvador. Yet 25 years after the murders of the four U.S. churchwomen, threats against defenders of human rights continue. Over the course of the past year, the Ombudswoman has been the target of ongoing intimidation and harassment. The United States has the responsibility not only to recognize the work of the four churchwomen who we memorialize today but also to support those who are continuing to defend human rights in El Salvador. The murders of the churchwomen and countless others were executed by members of the armed forces of El Salvador. Three of the five officers involved in the 1980 rape and murder of four churchwomen were graduates of the School of the Americas. Other notorious graduates involved in human rights offenses in El Salvador have included: El Salvador death squad leader Roberto D'Abuisson; 19 Salvadoran soldiers linked to the 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter; two of the three killers of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador; and 10 of the 12 officers responsible for the murder of 900 civilians in the Salvadoran village, El Mozote. In supporting the resolution honoring the 4 churchwomen, I would like to urge for floor consideration of another bill offered by Congressman McGovern, H.R. 1217, the Latin America Military Training Review Act of 2005, which closes the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. Additionally, I would like to urge support for Dr. Beatrice Alamanni de Carrillo, the Human Rights Ombudswoman of El Salvador. A crucial component of the 1992 Peace Accords that put an end to the Salvadoran civil war was the establishment of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, the principal human rights investigative and monitoring body in El Salvador. Dr. de Carrillo has received numerous accolades for her work strengthening human rights in El Salvador. Yet 25 years after the murders of the four U.S. churchwomen, threats against defenders of human rights continue. Over the course of the past year, the Ombudswoman has been the target of ongoing intimidation and harassment, including anonymous death and other threats and public slander, at times even by high-ranking State officials. The United States has the responsibility to support the work of human rights defenders in El Salvador whenever we have the opportunity to do so. In memory of the four churchwomen murdered 25 years ago, I urge my colleagues to publicly support the work of Dr. de Carrillo and to pressure the State Department and the Embassy of El Salvador to also publicly support her work.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for pointing out to this House that the across-the-board cut which he speaks about is going to only exacerbate the underfunding, which already exists in this particular bill. And I thank the gentleman for that point. I also want to state that this House, at the request of the administration, over the last few years has passed massive tax cuts that have helped to accelerate the wealth of this country upward, while when it comes to social programs, we are looking at cuts. I want to speak to education. The education cuts brought before us today in this new conference report are not any better for students than those that were voted down by the House on November 17. Like that conference agreement, the bill before us today demonstrates that education is not a priority for this House's majority. This conference agreement provides a mere $11 million increase for Head Start. I will bet, Mr. Speaker, that there are some of our wealthiest citizens who are achieving tax breaks in the millions, who together, pooling their tax breaks, would exceed the amount of money being given to Head Start that they call an increase. The fact of the matter is that Head Start is a pivotal program for preschool age children in low- income families across this country. And at current funding levels, it, unfortunately, serves about only half of the children eligible for its services. Now, this is not adequate, and it is not right. This program, which has been repeatedly found to have dramatically increased the academic performance of students, deserves more than a piddling $11 million when you compare it to where the money is going in this budget and in the fiscal policies of this administration. This conference agreement cuts school improvement funding by 6 percent and flat funds teacher quality grants. These grants, which are used to recruit qualified teachers and support teacher development, are critically important to efforts to improve student achievement. Rather than strengthening the Pell Grant program and increasing access to higher education for low-income students, the conference agreement maintains the current maximum Pell Grant at $4,050. At this level, the maximum Pell Grant only covers 39 percent of the tuition of the average 4-year public college, making a mockery of its status as the foundation of student aid for the poorest students. What are our priorities? The votes Members cast today on this conference agreement will show our priorities. Our priorities ought to be education, and they ought to be doing something about adult training grants which, unfortunately, have been cut in this conference report, and youth training grants, which, unfortunately, have been cut in this conference report. What are our priorities? To continue the acceleration of wealth upwards in this country, or to make sure that all Americans get a chance to be recognized in this budget? It is time to say no to this policy.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the 59th Anniversary of the day that the civil rights movement was ignited. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, tired of following societal laws steeped in racism and degradation, became a reluctant hero of the civil rights movement when she refused to surrender her seat and her dignity to a white man on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Rosa Parks, a soft spoken, private and hardworking seamstress, was immediately arrested and convicted of violating segregation laws. The incident drew an immediate and passionate response. With the support of the NAACP and civil rights leaders, including Rev. Ralph Abernathy and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., African Americans in Montgomery boycotted the city buses and declared their refusal to ride the buses until the U.S. Supreme Court denounced the Jim Crow laws that continued to strangle the soul of America. Thirteen months later, the boycott ended when, in November 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional. The humiliation experienced by Rosa Parks was reflective of a long line of human injustices directed upon African Americans by the white ruling class since the dawn of our nation. Rosa Parks' simple refusal was a monumental act of courage and dignity that cast centuries of injustice, ingrained in the foundation of American culture, into the clear light of day. She knowingly sacrificed her own safety, the safety of her family and her privacy for the greater good. Rosa Parks' historic refusal to give up her seat on a city bus set the civil rights movement on fire and the power of her simple gesture is as significant and relevant today as it was 50 years ago. She remained dedicated to the civil rights movement and humanitarian causes until her recent death at age 92. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, recognition and memory of Rosa Parks, whose singular life forever changed the world by raising the human race into the promise of justice for all. Her quiet refusal to surrender represented a million acts of resistance that came before her and set a path for those who would follow. Rosa Parks became an icon of human rights and her voice joined with a chorus of millions demanding freedom from oppression, echoing from the isle of a city bus to the hallowed halls of the United States Supreme Court. Rosa Parks' quiet act of defiance awoke America from its centuries old slumber of ignorance and oppression and her journey will continue to bring hope and inspiration to those still fighting to walk in the light of human dignity and justice--in Montgomery, Alabama, across our country and around the world.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend from California who said there must be sacrifices and sacrifices have been made, I would remind Members of the words of Benjamin Franklin who once said that those who would give up their essential liberties to achieve a measure of security deserve neither. The tragedy of 9/11 led to the PATRIOT Act, and then it led to a war against Iraq. Fear and suspicion led the U.S. to roll back our civil liberties and attack a nation that did not attack us. We have become a Nation of leaders, some of whom who have condoned torture and illegal detentions. Fear and suspicion have driven us to that. We need a different type of leadership so the American people could have been spared the effects of 9/11. It could have been different. But, no. We are here today trying to appeal to people to let go of their fear and suspicion because an open, honest review of the FBI's use of the PATRIOT Act would surely find many areas in need of reform. A careful balance between national security needs and protecting American rights must be struck, but that is not what we have here. Today we are set to pass a whole new round of democracy rollbacks. American citizens are losing more of their free speech rights and privacy rights. The authors of today's bill inserted a very weak and loophole-ridden right to judicial review of government actions. The American public is not served by such minimal accommodation. Today, the House will ignore more than 400 local communities and seven States that have passed resolutions asking for PATRIOT Act reform. This legislation fails to provide reasonable sunset provisions that guarantee future congressional review. The bill retains 4-year sunsets for only two of the 16 PATRIOT Act provisions and only one of two expiring provisions in the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act. All other intrusive powers are either made permanent or remain permanent. This bill continues to allow roving wiretaps that permit Federal agents to tap communications of a target where neither the target nor the phone is identified. Criminal wiretaps require one or the other, and the 10-day after-the-fact notice requirement is no substitute for privacy safeguards in the criminal wiretaps. The bill continues to permit sneak-and-peak searches of a person's home or business to remain secret indefinitely. It drops a Senate provision supported by the Chamber of Commerce, conservatives, libraries, civil liberties organizations that set limits on secret court orders for library, medical, and other personal records. Instead, the bill establishes a false right to judicial review. A recipient must challenge before a preselected group of three court judges and go to the expense of hiring a lawyer with a security clearance who the FISA court agrees can appear before it. So people have to essentially fight for their rights to be free of the scourge of wiretaps and to be free of the scourge of having the FBI reach into their library records, their reading records, their medical records. Where are we going with this country? It is not the America it used to be. It has become something that is hard to recognize for many Americans. Vote against this bill.