Dennis Kucinich

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 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, 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. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. What the majority is seeking to accomplish here is another transfer of wealth from the great mass of Americans to a privileged few. This bill would raise taxes on 17 million American middle-class families by as much as $640. Millionaires get tax cuts as much as $32,000. People who bet on the market are going to see their taxes cut or reduced, while workers are not going to see that kind of relief because this bill is about a transfer of wealth upwards, a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. More than half of the American taxpayers will get less than $30 out of this so-called tax cut; yet that is what this administration's strategy has been all about. There has been no trickle-down benefits from their previous tax cuts of over a trillion dollars. Americans' savings have disappeared, credit cards are maxed out, home equity is exhausted, foreclosures have increased, pension funds are disappearing, health care benefits for many have been cut or eliminated. There are 45 million Americans without health insurance. The wealth in this country is being transferred upward, and as wealth accelerates upward, the quality of our democracy is deteriorating. This bill continues that trend with spending cuts suffered by college students, suffered by senior citizens and children and family farmers. My colleague Congressman Lewis asked what would Jesus do. We know his teachings. He said whatever you do for the least of the brethren, you do for the Lord. This bill does not do for the least. It does for those who have the most. There is a transfer of wealth to the great mass of Americans to a few as a matter of policy here. It is tax cuts, it is the war, it is all of the spending that is accomplished by our majority brothers and sisters goes to help those who are wealthy become wealthier. That is not how you can maintain a democracy. The tax system is central to making sure that we stay a democracy, and yet what we see here is the beginning of a plutocracy by continuing the acceleration of wealth upwards. We need to take stock and assessment of what these tax policies are doing to undermine people in this country, of what these tax policies are doing to make it impossible for a middle class to survive, of what these tax policies are ignoring in terms of trying to protect America's manufacturers. There are auto workers and steel workers who are looking for a way for businesses, their industries, to survive; and instead we are worrying about accelerating the wealth upward. We need to take stock of this. This is not only a fiscal question. It is a moral question, and the arc of our moral fiber here is going to be determined on whether or not we can stand up to this challenge about accelerating the wealth upwards.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Yesterday, the President gave his progress in Iraq speech. However, in Najaf, security is not being provided by the U.S.-trained Iraqi troops, but by the militia of radical Shiite Muslim Muqtada Al- Sadr. In Mosul, the President said 50 percent of the people voted. But 56 percent of those who voted, voted against the constitution that the Bush administration was promoting. On May 1 of 2003, the President stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and gave his ``mission accomplished'' speech. Last week he gave his ``secret plan for victory'' speech. Yesterday, he gave his ``making progress'' speech. I think I know the problem here. Whoever has been writing the President's speeches owes him an apology. They badly mixed up the sequence over the last few years. First, he was to give his ``plan for victory'' speech, then he was to give his ``making progress'' speech, then he was to give his ``mission accomplished'' speech. I have here a copy of his ``get out of Iraq'' speech.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Barbara Jacobs, whose joyous life was framed by family, community, culture and giving to others. Her passing marks a great loss for her family and friends, and also for the people of Cleveland, whom she served with the highest level of commitment, compassion and concern. Mrs. Jacobs shared her enthusiasm for community service with her late husband, David Jacobs, former owner of the Cleveland Indians. The welfare of her family and her community defined her life. Together, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs raised three children: Marie, David Jr. and John. They instilled within them the significance of giving to others and helping those in need. Mrs. Jacobs continued to carry the torch of philanthropy that she shared with her husband. Her unwavering support focused on uplifting the lives of others. Her generous donations will ensure that students have musical opportunities at the Indiana University School of Music; her spirit of giving will allow poor families and individuals to receive free medical treatment at MetroHealth Medical Center; and her focus on healing will continue to provide support and funding for the Ohio Cancer Research Center. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Barbara Jacobs. Her boundless spirit of giving and joy for living will continue to have a profound impact upon the lives of countless families and individuals, from Cleveland, Ohio to the University of Indiana. I extend my deepest condolences to her children, Marie, David Jr. and John; to her five grandchildren and great-granddaughter; to her dear friend and companion, Albert Werner; and to her many extended family members and friends. Mrs. Jacobs' kindness, energy and compassion will live on within every life she touched and she will never be forgotten.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute and recognition of Dr. Frank William Reis, upon his retirement that reflects 35 years of exemplary service as an educator and leader within the public school and college arena. Dr. Reis honorably served our country as a Vietnam war veteran. Following his service, he enrolled in college and earned a bachelor's degree in education, MBA and ME degrees, and a Ph.D. in Educational Policy and Leadership. Equipped with an unwavering commitment to raising the lives of children through the power of education, Dr. Reis brought his enthusiasm and concern for his students into the inner city classrooms of Rhode Island. In 1974, Dr. Reis was named the Rhode Island Teacher of the Year--a rare occurrence at that time for an inner city schoolteacher. For the past 16 years, Dr. Reis served in critical positions at Cuyahoga Community College, most recently as executive vice president for Administration and chief operating office. His leadership and expertise served to elevate operations throughout the areas of human resources, training and development, public affairs, staff advancement, public safety, information technology, telecommunications and government affairs. Additionally, Dr. Reis instituted the ``Jennings Scholar'' program that recognizes outstanding public school teachers, K-12, throughout Greater Cleveland. Beyond his abiding dedication to his professional vocation, Dr. Ries has volunteered countless hours as a member and leader within numerous civic organizations, including the Community Organization for Drug Abuse Control, Kidscope, Recovery Resources and the Governor's Regional Economic Advisory. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. Frank William Reis, whose retirement reflects 35 years of educational excellence and accomplishment. Dr. Reis's steadfast devotion as an educator and leader in education has empowered and inspired countless students, young and old. We wish Dr. Reis and his family an abundance of peace, health and happiness as he journeys onward from here.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of United States Marine Corporal David A. Mendez Ruiz of Cleveland, Ohio, who bravely, honorably and selflessly heeded the call to duty and made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country. Family, friends and service to others framed Corporal Ruiz's young life. He gained personal strength and faith from those who knew him best and loved him most, especially his father and mother, Maximiliano and Miriam; sisters and brothers, Sandra, Byron, Laura, Mynor, Zucely, Edgar and Nydia; grandmother, Elvia Ruiz; and his fifteen nieces and nephews. Corporal Ruiz was born in Guatemala City, Guatemala, on May 26, 1985. In 1991, at the age of six, Corporal Ruiz and his family immigrated to the United States and settled in Cleveland, Ohio. He quickly assimilated to American culture; his easygoing nature and generous heart easily drew others to him. One month after graduating from Greater Cleveland Christian High School in May 2003, Corporal Ruiz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, where he served with dedication and honor. In February 2004, he left for first tour of duty in Iraq. Corporal Ruiz left for his second tour of duty on July 4, 2005. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Lance Corporal David A. Mendez Ruiz. I extend my deepest condolences to his parents, brothers and sisters, grandmother, extended family members and many friends. Integrity, kindness, unwavering service to others and endless heart defined his young life and his spirit will live forever in the hearts and memories of everyone who knew and loved him best--his family and friends. Corporal Ruiz's courageous life and legacy of service will be forever honored and remembered by the Cleveland community and by our entire nation.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I spent 3 years making the case against the war in Iraq, working with other Members leading a nationwide opposition to the war, developing an exit strategy once we got in, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on plans to withdraw from Iraq, to bring our troops home, but I will vote against this resolution because it is a fraud. What more does anyone need to know but that the sponsor himself has called for defeat of his own proposition? If his real intention is to bring the troops home right now, why would he vote against his own resolution? Wake up, America. The American people are fed up with politicians who say one thing and do another. Everyone of conscience and intelligence knows the magnitude of withdrawing 150,000 troops requires a plan. The American people deserve a real debate on Iraq. Where are the WMDs? Where is Osama bin Laden? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? This Congress, which is a coequal branch of government, which has the war power, has the oversight responsibility and has a moral obligation to find out why almost everything of significance we were told about the war turned out to be false. Instead, those who raise questions have their military service or their honor impugned. They took John Kerry on a swift boat. We are not going to let them take Jack Murtha on a swift boat, nor are the American people. We have to stand up and expose the fakery when we see it. Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq by Dennis J. Kucinich The following is an analysis of the resolution which took America to war in Iraq. October 2, 2002. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against an illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; Key issue: In the Persian Gulf war there was an international coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq. Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Key issue: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; Key issues: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the U.S. continues to thwart (the Administration's word) weapons inspections. Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law 105-235); Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Key issues: There is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A ``continuing'' threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11. Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Key issues: This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force resolution enables the President to commit U.S. troops to recover Kuwaiti property. Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; Key issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The ``no fly'' zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution. Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Key issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida. Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Key issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; Key issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; Key issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions. Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677''; Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force. Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), `` that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688''; Key issue: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology of the international process, and contrasts the current march to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN resolutions. Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; Key issue: This ``Sense of Congress'' resolution was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it endorse assassination as a policy. Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable''; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 ceasefire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; Key issue: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the United States the support of the world community, adversely affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the United States does not have the authority to unilaterally order military action to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations; Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the events of 9/11. Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11. Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and Key issue: This resolution was specific to 9/11. It was limited to a response to 9/11. Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; Key issue: If by the ``national security interests'' of the United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the world. Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Reverend Dr. Roland H. Crowder, upon the joyous celebration of his 40th Anniversary as Pastor of Second Calvary Missionary Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio. Reverend Crowder was born in Cleveland in 1926, into meager beginnings, yet the promise of faith and family would raise his life into the light of leadership, accomplishment and service to others. Just an infant, Reverend Crowder was adopted by Emma and Reverend Edward Griggs. Tragedy struck shortly thereafter when his young mother died and his father became very ill after suffering a stroke. Young Roland was up for adoption again, yet his neighbors across the street, Mr. and Mrs. Will Crowder, opened their hearts and home to him and became his new parents. The family moved to Birmingham, where Reverend Crowder's parents taught him lifelong values that centered on integrity, hard work, family, faith and service to others. In 1950, following his honorable service in the United States Navy, Reverend Crowder heeded the call to the ministry. After his father passed away, he and his mother returned to Cleveland in 1965, where he began his ministry at the Second Calvary Missionary Baptist Church. Fortified with an undergraduate degree, graduate degree from Malone College and a doctoral degree in theology from the Ashland Theological Seminary, and most significantly, equipped with valuable life experience, Reverend Crowder set the foundation for his life long journey of restoring faith and hope within the hearts of people here in Cleveland and around the world. Reverend Crowder and his late wife, Doris G. Crowder, were married for forty-five years. Together they raised five children: Roland Jr., Lydia, Rosalind, Hiram and the late Phillip. Today, Reverend Crowder and his wife, Sister Ida B. Cook Crowder, continue to serve in faithful ministry and community outreach to the congregation of Second Calvary Missionary Baptist Church. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Reverend Doctor Roland Hayes Crowder, whose compassionate leadership and guidance has been reflected throughout the Second Calvary Missionary Baptist Church of Cleveland, Ohio, for forty years. His commitment, kindness and caring for people in need of emotional and spiritual restoration continues to lift the spirits of countless individuals, and will forever bring faith, hope and light throughout our entire community and far beyond.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Chairman Dave Hobson (R-OH) for his bold, principled stance to eliminate federal funding for the bunker buster bomb. It was a major victory for the United States and the world. This achievement means the United States will send the message of responsibility to other nations who are considering building nuclear weapons. The United States can continue to advocate for the Non- Proliferation Treaty, whereby the United States and other nuclear powers pledged to disarm in return for other nations not seeking nuclear weapons. Because nuclear bunker-busters would be seen as tactical nuclear weapons, the development of these weapons would make it more difficult to encourage Russia to dispose of its arsenal of over 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons. Chairman Hobson has given the United States more clout to pressure Russia to eliminate its tactical nuclear weapons. Again, I commend Chairman Hobson for his defense of our Nation. [From the Columbus Dispatch, November 13, 2005 Hobson Will Keep Busting Nuclear Weapon (By Jonathan Riskind) The battle of the bunker buster, round two, goes to Rep. David L. Hobson. But the Springfield Republican isn't so sure the Bush administration, especially Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others in the defense community, has given up on building a nuclear-tipped missile able to penetrate underground bunkers. This is a saga last visited in this space a year ago. Then, too, Hobson, as chariman of the House Appropriation Committee's energy and water subcommittee, successfully fought the administration's push to build a specialized tactical nuclear weapon. Pursuing new nuclear weapons when the United States is pushing nonproliferation around the world is wrong headed and dangerous, Hobson believes. And he's been told by scientists and candid members of the military that a nuclear bunker buster is likely to kill many innocent people and inflict such harm on the environment that no president would ``OK'' its use. So Hobson refused to include $4 million Rumsfeld wanted in the 2006 energy bill for bunker-buster research. Hobson's counterpart in the Senate is Pete Domenici of New Mexico, who chairs the Senate Appropriation Committee's energy subcommittee. Domenici favors going ahead with the research, but he told the Albuquerque Tribune that the administration has abandoned its plans for a nuclear bunker buster. He said that, however, after Hobson won the fight; the final 2006 House-Senate agreement on a $30.5 billion energy and water bill being sent to the White House reflects Hobson's views. So while it's ``over in my bill for this year,'' Hobson said, his attention is focused on whether the Defense Department will try to include bunker-buster money in the still-pending 2006 defense-spending bill. ``I have to watch in the defense bill to try and make sure they don't go around me,'' said Hobson, who is a senior member of the defense-spending subcommittee. This is one example of how public policy is enmeshed in the fabric of the annual spending bills. Hobson's measure, for instance, tackles the post-Katrina issue of improving the efficiency with which the Army Corps of Engineers spends the money Congress doles out to it, though part of the solution is making sure lawmakers don't tie the corps' hands with a plethora of pet projects. One tack seen in the energy and water spending bills is to limit the ability of the corps to take money intended for one project and spend it on another, only to later come back and request yet more money for the first project. Hobson also hopes the bill will force the corps to do more long-term planning and to do a better job moving projects along. He cites a dam on the Ohio River between Illinois and Kentucky that was authorized by Congress in 1988 at an estimated cost of $775 million over about eight years. Completion is now scheduled for 2015, at a revised estimated cost of $1.4 billion. ``We're trying to bring some business management to the way the corps conducts business,'' Hobson said. But the most far-reaching policy platform in Hobson's bill amounts to a nuclear nonproliferation stand that bucks the notoriously stubborn Rumsfeld. ``We had a meeting and he made his views known and I made my views known,'' Hobson said. ``He said there will be another day. I don't think they've given up.'' But Hobson vowed to defuse the bunker-buster proposals for as long as he's a committee chairman. He has three more years to head the energy subcommittee before chairman term limits set in, and intends to run for re-election to a ninth term next year and serve all three of those years. ``They aren't changing my mind,'' Hobson said. ``It is bad foreign policy to build a new type of nuclear weapon at the same time you are telling everyone else in the world, don't you do it.''

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Joan Didion, established author, wife and mother. Her current novel, The Year of Magical Thinking, traces her journey through one year after her husband's sudden death and her daughter's grave illness. Joan Didion was born in Sacramento, California and graduated from the University of California at Berkeley. Didion is the author of five novels and eight books of non-fiction. Her distinguished works and publications were collected into Slouching Towards Bethlehem released in 1968 and The White Album in 1979. These books established Didion's name as an author and observer of American politics and culture with deepening personal reflections mixed with analysis. Didion married John Gregory Dunne, also an established writer, in 1964 and together they had a daughter, Quintana. The family lived in California until moving to New York City in 1988. In 2003, their family was shocked to learn that Quintana had a fatal illness. Months after learning their daughter's bad news, John suddenly died. They had just returned home from visiting their daughter in the hospital. Joan later learned her husband died of a massive coronary attack. Unable to bear with the grief that settled in, Joan began writing what turned into her latest book, The Year of Magical Thinking. This book chronicles her feelings and memories after John's death and the sickness of her daughter. Sadly, even after a brief recovery, Quintana died months after Joan finished the book. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in recognizing Joan Didion on her accomplishments as a writer and her courage as a grieving wife and mother. Her unwavering strength during difficult times should be an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the vast education cuts brought before us today in this conference agreement and additionally in the budget reconciliation package that we may see today, are telling signs of the priorities of this Congress. These cuts demonstrate, far better than words ever could, that education is not a priority for this House. This conference agreement provides a mere $11 million increase for Head Start, a pivotal program for preschool-aged children in low-income families across the Nation. At current funding levels, Head Start serves approximately half of the children eligible for its services, a wholly inadequate proportion. This program, which has repeatedly been found to dramatically improve the academic performance of students deserves much more than an $11 million increase. The 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 of $4,050. At this level, the maximum Pell Grant only covers 39 percent of tuition at the average four-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 and the budget reconciliation later today, will show their priorities. Do we place more value on tax cuts for the wealthy or the education of our students? I urge my colleagues to join me in prioritizing students' well-being and vote no on this conference report and on the budget reconciliation package.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the budget bill attacks students and low- income and middle class families. It targets low and moderate income Americans with $70 billion in new tax cuts that will be included in the budget, and those tax cuts favor the super rich. The tax cuts for the rich are placed on the backs of students and their families. Under this bill, student borrowers, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, could be forced to pay up to an additional $1,500 for his or her college loans. The bill raises student loan interest rate caps, raises borrower interest rates and fees for consolidation loans, and raises student loan taxes, and puts billions of dollars in student aid at risk by cutting all the critical funds used to carry out and administer student aid programs. So we have more and more young Americans who will not be getting a college education, but they will be getting a political education. If you do not vote, the politicians in Washington will ignore you, shove you aside, cut your education funds. It is a call to young Americans to get involved, register, vote, and reclaim this country.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the united effort of United Way and Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless' (NEOCH) Bridging the Gap as they celebrate the newly available HousingCleveland.Org website. This is a vital source of information for individuals and families on the road to personal restoration as they search for safe, affordable housing in Cuyahoga County. This comprehensive Web site is free to both prospective tenants and property owners. The site currently lists more than 1,500 housing units in more than 20 local cities and villages. The site, available at no cost to property owners, includes a rental checklist, a rent calculator, information on tenant rights and responsibilities and information that includes details about each unit. Tenants can use the site to search by location, rent, number of bedrooms and special needs requirements. For individuals who do not have access to the internet, the information can also be obtained by calling 2-1-1/First Call for Help line. All information contained in the site is available in Spanish. First Call for Help maintains the site and daily updates are provided by Socialserve.com, a non-profit agency. SCK, a graphic design firm located in the Tremont neighborhood, donated a portion of their time and talents in creating the HousingCleveland. Org site. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of the leaders and members of United Way's 2-1-1 First Call For Help, NEOCH's Bridging the Gap, Cleveland Tenant's Organization, Cuyahoga County Office of Homeless Services, Cleveland Department of Community Development, Cleveland State University Center for Neighborhood Development, Cuyahoga County Department of Development, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, EDEN, Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry, Maximum Independent Living and the May Dugan Center. Let us stand in honor and recognition of the courageous spirit and heart of the children and adults in our community who, despite their struggle and hardship, strive to raise their lives into the realm of hope and possibility and ultimately, through the collaborative work and spirit of our entire community, are able to find their way home.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I sent the attached statement of support for the Gwich'in tribe on November 4, 2005. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. statement of support for A MORAL CHOICE FOR THE UNITED STATES: THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS FOR

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I sent the attached letter, along with my colleagues, in support of Gulf War Veterans Illnesses Research funding in the Conference Report of the Defense Appropriations Bill on November 10, 2005. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 10, 2005. The Hon. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, H-309 U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. The Hon. John P. Murtha, Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 1016 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha: As the conferees begin to work on the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations bill for the Subcommittee on Defense, we respectfully seek your support for retaining the House funding level of $10 million for Gulf War Veterans Illnesses research. The Congressionally chartered Veterans' Administration Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses found in September 2004 that fourteen years after the 1990- 1991 Gulf War, between 26 and 32 percent of those who served in that war continue to suffer from serious and persistent health problems--typically multiple symptoms that include severe headaches, memory problems, muscle and joint pain, severe gastrointestinal problems, respiratory problems, skin disorders and other problems. They also determined that the existence of these serious and often debilitating problems could not be scientifically explained by stress or psychiatric illness. We are only now starting to see the long-term effects. For example, ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, occurs in Persian Gulf veterans with twice the frequency of peer veterans that were not deployed. Yet a federal research program to better understand these issues that was once $45 million strong has been virtually eliminated. The FY 06 budget dedicates no funding to either the Department of Defense or the Department of Health and Human Services for Gulf War Illnesses research. The funding we are requesting is consistent with the VA Research Committee recommendations. The amendment to the FY 06 House Defense appropriations bill that added the research funding was well supported. It passed by voice vote, had bipartisan support and was backed by the American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Gulf War Resource Center, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Finally, research guidance was developed in consultation with top members of the VA Research Committee. We therefore request that the guidance, which is the same as that inserted into the congressional record during bill debate, be included in the conference report. The guidance text is attached for your reference. We expect this research to supplement the other promising research performed at Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation within the Department of Defense. Thank you for consideration of our requests. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich, Bernard Sanders, Frank Pallone, Jr., Jim McDermott, Lane Evans, Tammy Baldwin, Christopher Shays, Rob Simmons, Rush D. Holt, Barbara Lee, Albert R. Wynn, Carolyn B. Maloney, Lloyd Doggett, Joseph Crowley, Raul Grijalva, John Conyers, Jr., Jay Inslee, Dennis Moore, Collin C. Peterson, Betty McCollum, Ed Case, Members of Congress. Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Research Guidance for the FY06 Defense Department Appropriations Conference Report It is intended that the appropriation for research on chronic illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War be used for a coherent research program focusing on (1) identification of mechanisms underlying Gulf War illnesses, (2) chronic effects of neurotoxic substances to which veterans were exposed during deployment; (3) studies that expand on earlier research identifying neurological and immunological abnomalities in ill Gulf War veterans; and (4) identification of promising treatments. The primary objective of the research program will be to elucidate pathophysiological mechanisms underlying Gulf War illnesses, which may subsequently be targeted to developing treatments for these conditions. A further objective will be to identify and evaluate treatments which currently exist and which hold promise for treating these illnesses. The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command shall, in consultation with experienced research scientists in relevant fields, establish a list of research questions to address the above topics, and design a program of specific research studies that together constitute a coherent plan to answer these questions, each identified study to be conducted by the most qualified researcher, which may include consulted scientists. As part of this process, there shall be a public solicitation of research proposals (which may include concept exploration and pilot projects) on these questions and at least twenty-five percent of the program (measured by amount funded) shall be made up of proposals selected from this solicitation, as modified if necessary to increase the value of the proposed research to the overall program. At least twenty percent of the program (measured by amount funded) shall address the objective of identifying and evaluating promising existing treatments, such as observation and pilot studies. The program shall be submitted for determination of scientific merit through independent peer review.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I sent the attached letter, along with my colleagues, in support of compulsory licensing for Tamiflu on November 9, 2005. I submit a copy for the Record. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 9, 2005. Mike Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC. Dear Mike: Thank you for participating in the House Government Reform Committee hearing ``The National Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan: Is the U.S. Ready for Avian Flu?'' on November 4, 2005. We are writing to contest your stated justifications for refusing to issue a compulsory license for Tamiflu and to request, again, that you reconsider your stance. You mentioned that issuing a compulsory license would not hasten the manufacture of Tamiflu because it is a complex manufacturing process that incorporates a step requiring an explosion hazard. There is considerable evidence showing that the manufacturing process is not prohibitively complex or dangerous. Roche's own advertisement in several periodicals has said that they have ``received more than 100 requests from different parties interested in helping us meet production challenges.'' Indian generics manufacturer, Cipla has announced that they plan to start selling enough generic Tamiflu to treat 100,000 to 200,000 people by March of 2006. News reports indicate that Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Vietnam plan to initiate production, some as soon as February 2006. Taiwan appears to have made ``the drug in just 18 days, not including weekends and a bank holiday, using information from publicly available documents.'' They also report that Roche has admitted that it exaggerated the complexity of the manufacturing process. Ernie Prisbe, Vice President of Tamiflu inventor, Gilead Sciences, said of the Tamiflu manufacturing process, ``There's nothing that overwhelming in this kind of synthesis, or that formidable, that someone couldn't do it.'' Clearly, it is feasible to ramp up production swiftly to provide for the U.S. and the entire world. You also indicated that you did not wish to issue a compulsory license for Tamiflu because it would discourage pharmaceutical companies from investing in research into future anti-virals or other drugs. Please be reminded that whenever a government representative issues a compulsory license, the licenser gets a royalty in order to insure profits are not taken. Roche will undoubtedly continue to make healthy profits if a compulsory license is issued. You further indicated that an emphasis on Tamiflu is undue since it is not our strongest defense, nor is it guaranteed to be relevant to the virus strain behind a pandemic. I agree that Tamiflu is not a silver bullet. However, to our knowledge, it is the best pharmaceutical defense we have now. Our public health infrastructure is not ready and it will take years to make it so. Until there is a better alternative, and unless we have reason to believe the drug would do more harm than good, and until our state of readiness for a pandemic is stronger, we have an obligation to do all we can to shore up our weak defenses now. Bear in mind that the shelf life of Tamiflu is five years, which means stockpiles are unlikely to go to waste. If you are content to wait until 2007 to fill our stockpile needs, a deadline you claimed Roche would be able meet in your testimony, you are gambling with public health with the proceeds going to Roche. If the pandemic does not happen before 2007, Roche keeps their monopoly intact and the public is unharmed. If the pandemic strikes before Roche meets its promised deadline, and nothing has been done to ramp up production--like issuing a compulsory license--our stockpile will be inadequate. History will not be kind to those who could have saved lives but instead deferred to intellectual property rights. Please reconsider your willingness to issue a compulsory license for Tamiflu. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich, Member of Congress, Bernard Sanders, Member of Congress, Marion Berry, Member of Congress.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Mayor Paul L. Ruggles--devoted husband, father, grandfather, community leader, entrepreneur, veteran of the United States Air Force Honor Guard and admired friend and mentor. A life-long resident of the Village Newburgh Heights, Mayor Ruggles served as ``honorary Mayor'' for years before being elected as mayor in 2003. At his cozy restaurant/bar, the Ruggles Inn, Village residents sought out his opinion and advice on issues ranging from speeding cars to the future of economic growth and development for the Village. The friendly, welcoming atmosphere of the Ruggles Inn mirrored the character of its owner. Regular patrons enjoyed Mayor Ruggles' homemade pork chops, city chicken and good conversation. His easy-going demeanor, integrity and kind nature easily drew others to him. In just a short time in office, Mayor Ruggles forged strong bonds with local, county and State leaders, and began the process of renewed economic development--all focused on improving the lives of the people of the Village. Mayor Ruggles was appointed to serve on council in 2000, and was elected to serve as Mayor in 2003. He was also an active member of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party. Humble yet confident, Mayor Ruggles restored a certain grace and dignity to the Village Hall. His efforts on behalf of the Village ran the spectrum from major economic growth initiatives focused on bringing new industry into the Village, to hiring a new police chief, to restoring Village roads, to settling disputes between neighbors. Regardless of the issue, every concern that the Villagers brought before him consistently had his full attention, concern and commitment. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, gratitude and remembrance of Mayor Paul L. Ruggles. I offer my deepest condolences to his wife Judy; to his daughter, Laura; to his son, Paul; to his son-in- law, Brad; to his daughter-in-law, Jennifer; to his granddaughters, Alyssa and Samantha; and to his extended family members and many friends. Mayor Ruggles' integrity, generous heart and love for his family, friends and for the people of Newburgh Heights will be forever remembered along East 49th Street, Harvard Avenue, Washington Park Boulevard and miles beyond.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the Lesbian/Gay Service Center of Greater Cleveland, as they celebrate thirty years of support, outreach, education and advocacy on behalf of lesbian and gay individuals within our community. In 1975, founding members Ethan Ericsen, Michael Madigan and Arthur MacDonald embraced a collective vision of human rights for everyone; a vision they transformed into a haven of support and services, named the Gay Education and Awareness Resource Foundation (GEAR). GEAR began the work of community outreach programs, legal advocacy efforts and support programs focused on issues affecting lesbian and gay youth. The Center continues to build bridges with educational and social service organizations throughout the Cuyahoga County, with a strong focus on the youth of our community. The project, Safe Schools Are For Everyone, exists to provide safe social opportunities, support and leadership training for students, teachers and school administrators. Over the past thirty years, the Center's name has changed and the scope of services has expanded, yet the core mission has remained the same: To craft a kinship of all citizens, gay and straight, who stand united on a solid foundation of tolerance, acceptance and protection of the rights and freedoms of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of all leaders and members, past and present, of the Lesbian/Gay Service Center of Cleveland. Their collective effort, work, volunteerism and compassion serves to bolster the spirit of those still struggling against a tide of oppression. The Center's vital work offers the promise that one day, the shroud of societal ignorance and intolerance will dissolve into the light of freedom and justice for all.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I sent the attached letter, along with my colleagues, in opposition to the proposed privatization of Environmental Health Perspectives on November 10, 2005. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 10, 2005. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Dear Dr. Zerhouni: We write to express our strong opposition to the proposed privatization of Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP). Doing so places at risk the integrity and quality of one of the world's best independent journals covering the area of science that deals with the environment and health. We urge you to reject EHP privatization. EHP is one of the premier academic peer reviewed journals in the world. It ranks second among 132 environmental science journals, and fifth among ninety public environmental and occupational health journals. If it were considered among the general medical journals like the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, it would rank tenth. Early signs indicate that this year, all those rankings are likely to increase. Its value and uniqueness stem, in large part, from its status as a publicly managed journal. For example, EHP's independence directly enhances the quality of the work it publishes. Their conflict of interest policy is among the strictest of peer-reviewed journals. Such a policy might be compromised if the journal was privately published. In addition, its public funding source allows it to be an open access journal, which means anyone with Internet access can get any EHP article 24 hours after it is accepted for publication. That is essential because the vast majority of published research is available only through increasingly costly journal subscriptions, institutional license fees, or per-article purchases. This closed system leaves the American public--including physicians, public health professionals, patients and patient groups, students, teachers, librarians and scientists at academic institutions, hospitals, research laboratories, and corporate research centers--under-informed about important, timely research results they helped finance. Because EHP is publicly funded, important public health functions are performed that the private sector would be unlikely to support. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which runs EHP, provides free monthly copies to those in the developing world, where environmental health problems are, in many cases, the most severe. NIEHS also provides EHP classroom materials for universities and high schools. These non-revenue-generating programs have high public health value and would be at risk if EHP were privatized. The breadth of appeal and academic discipline that uniquely characterizes EHP would also be at risk of sustaining a narrowing of scope more in line with privately run journals. Finally, NIEHS does a highly efficient job of running EHP. In the last year, the EHP budget was $3.3 million, which is less than one half of one per cent of the NIEHS budget. In the last four years, they have reduced their budget by fifteen percent while they have become an open access journal, expanded their reach to other countries, expanded their educational programs, and dramatically increased the quality of the articles. Despite having this record that any private sector establishment would envy, NIEHS is considering still more cost cutting measures to further streamline. The impact of EHP on public health far surpasses its costs. Privatizing EHP is unnecessary and unwise. It would yield miniscule cost savings while exacting a large cost to public health. We urge you to reject privatizing EHP. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich, Hilda L. Solis, Bart Gordon, Mark Udall, Raul M. Grijalva, Jim McDermott, Brad Miller, Bernard Sanders, Robert Wexler, Barbara Lee, James P. McGovern, James P. Moran, Martin O. Sabo.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the Hunger Network of Greater Cleveland and Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, for their commitment to feeding Greater Cleveland's most vulnerable families during this Thanksgiving season. Since 1995, the Hunger Network has committed itself to the elimination of hunger in the Greater Cleveland area. Through public partnerships, volunteer mobilization and their own facilities, the Network feeds over 50,000 Greater Clevelanders every month, in the form of emergency food distribution and hot meal programs. Under the auspices of its Care for Others program, Thrivent Financial provides resources to community programs and local development throughout the Nation. On Friday, November 11th the Hunger Network, through the generosity of Thrivent Financial, will receive 6,200 chickens for Cleveland families. With the help of volunteers from Turkeys4America and Lutheran High School West, the Hunger Network will distribute full Thanksgiving dinners to hungry children and families in Cleveland and throughout Cuyahoga County. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of the Hunger Network of Greater Cleveland and Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, as well as efforts of members of Turkeys4America, Lutheran High School West, and so many other volunteers who are giving their time and resources to help the hungry of Greater Cleveland. Through their dedication and vision, they will provide a bountiful Thanksgiving for thousands of families who would otherwise go hungry. Their commitment to the elimination of hunger and the proper nutrition of Cleveland's most vulnerable families is inspiration for all.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the teachers, staff, administrators and students of SS. Cyril & Methodius Catholic School, in celebration of their newly appointed status from the U.S. Department of Education as a No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. This significant tribute, awarded to less than 300 schools nationwide, represents the highest levels of academic excellence, achievement and improvement. The Blue Ribbon School of Excellence recognition also honors schools in which at least 40 percent of students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Reverend Jerome Duke, Pastor of SS. Cyril & Methodius Catholic Church, turned down an offer to merge his school with three other local Catholic Schools. His decision mirrors his dedication to the east side neighborhoods of Lakewood and his true commitment and service to the families and children of SS. Cyril & Methodius Catholic School. Reverend Duke knew that if the school had merged, most families would have been unable to afford the tuition at the new school. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Reverend Jerome Duke, Principal Carol Shakarian and every student, teacher, pastor, staff member, volunteer and donor of SS. Cyril & Methodius Catholic School, as they celebrate their newly appointed status as a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. Their collective work and dedication focused on uplifting the lives of our youth with a strong foundation of education and personal achievement, serves to shine a light of hope and promise on a bright future for the children of the SS. Cyril & Methodius Catholic School. Moreover, the tenacity and heart reflected from these students who face daily struggles, inspires us all and offers our entire community the promise for a better tomorrow.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin our day here by quoting from the book of Deuteronomy, the 15th chapter, the seventh verse: ``If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God hath giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother.'' Remember this today when in the name of deficit reduction, you would vote to cut health care for poor children. Thou shalt not harden thine heart. Those who would today cut food stamps, school breakfast and school lunch benefits for the poor, thou shalt not harden thine heart. Those who would cut rental housing benefits for hurricane victims, there is a moral imperative about us being in this House. And we cannot just look at this as business as usual when we choose to just cut benefits for the poor and then turn around and give tax cuts for the rich.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Barney Kilian, affectionately known as the ``Mayor of Old Brooklyn,'' and beloved husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, community activist, expert gardener and friend to countless people in Cleveland's Old Brooklyn neighborhood and far beyond. Mr. Kilian lived life with great joy and energy and was always willing to offer assistance to anyone in need. His unwavering focus on the welfare of the Old Brooklyn neighborhood extended beyond the lines of ward borders. His life-long interest in local politics never subsided; Mr. Kilian was an active member of the Democratic Party and was elected to serve as Precinct Committeeman in Ward 15. In the Spring of 1980, at the age of 72, Mr. Kilian led a volunteer effort to clean up and restore the historic Benjamin Franklin Community Gardens. Neglected for decades, the Gardens had become overgrown with weeds, rocks and refuse. Though a daunting task, Mr. Kilian welcomed the challenge of renewing the site, which is the largest community garden in Cuyahoga County. Armed with a generous heart and quick wit, Mr. Kilian, with support from the Old Brooklyn Community Development Corporation, led neighborhood volunteers in transforming the seven-acre site into 220 plots of thriving, flourishing gardens. He restored the teaching garden utilized by adjacent Benjamin Franklin Elementary School and set aside several plots where produce was specifically grown to help feed Cleveland's hungry. For 21 consecutive growing seasons, Mr. Kilian kept a watchful eye on the Gardens. Making several trips a week, he loaded up his old car and delivered the produce to area hunger centers, including the Brookside Center, St. Herman's, St. Mary's and St. Augustine's. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor, remembrance and gratitude to Mr. Barney Kilian, whose life was framed by kindness, humor and devotion to his community. I offer my condolences to his daughters, June, Diane and Donald; to the memory of his late wife, Janet and late son, Raymond; to his son-in-law, Charles; to his grandchildren, Charlene, Christine, Cheryl, Lisa and Raymond Jr.; to his four great-grandchildren; and to his many friends. Although Barney Kilian will be deeply missed, his love for the people of Old Brooklyn and their love for him will rise every Spring with the first sign of radiant color rising from Benjamin Franklin Gardens along Spring Road, and far beyond.