Floor Statements

In a few short days, this Congress will make a momentous decision as to whether or not to fund the continuation of the war in Iraq. And yet, at this time, the American people clearly want our troops brought home. Funding the war will keep the troops there. Stopping the funding will enable us to bring them home.

Barbara Lee has an amendment that will fund the orderly return of our troops. I have offered H.R. 1234, which is compatible with the Lee amendment. The money is there right now in the pipeline to bring the troops home. Once we bring the troops home or a plan is put forth to bring the troops home, we have to have a plan to stabilize Iraq. That's what H.R. 1234 will do.

This Congress cannot stand by as the casualties pile up. We have to remember that the families of the troops are waiting for us to take action. Let's act now. Support the Lee amendment and support H.R. 1234.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act, is designed to help communities with current or impending water shortages. I support the bill.

We know that such shortages can have many causes. For example, global warming is likely to cause or exacerbate water shortages in the U.S., especially in the Southwest. Under those conditions, alternative water sources will be more important than ever, but communities all over the United States are also fighting to protect their water supplies from overpumping by bottled water companies, who are making billions of dollars from this public resource. My amendment would remove from consideration for these Federal subsidies those areas where bottled water companies are contributing to the demise of the water supply.

According to the International Bottled Water Association, the volume of water privatized has increased between 8 and 12 percent every year since 2001. In 2006, bottled water companies enjoyed $11 billion in revenue from the United States alone. It is estimated that about 25 percent of the bottled water consumed in the United States comes from municipal water supplies.

The effects of the excessive influence of the bottled water industry can go beyond the regional confines of water source depletion and environmental destruction. It codifies a preference for corporate access to water over public access.

I represent the Cleveland area, that, like many cities nearby, relies on Lake Erie for drinking water. A few years ago, there were two instances in which a company received a permit to privatize Great Lakes water in bulk.

In both instances, the projects were abandoned because of the public outcry. In response, the Great Lakes States, with assistance from Canadian Premiers and other stakeholders, attempted to negotiate the conditions under which water could be withdrawn from the lake.

As the negotiations closed, bottled water companies managed to wedge their language into the final agreement. The language also allowed virtually unlimited withdrawals for bottled water companies, while attempting to protect against other privatization attempts.

Such unprecedented favoritism can actually represent a giant step backwards for the notion of water as a public trust. The loophole leaves the entire agreement open to commerce clause challenge or to a challenge in the World Trade Organization. If such a challenge were successful, there would be no limits to privatization of Great Lakes water. It would open the water of the Great Lakes to use by the growing and increasingly thirsty regions where they are having water shortages and where water shortages make it financially viable to pipe water across several States. We would not just be back to square one; we would take a giant step backwards.

This is a classic example, Mr. Chairman, in which greed of the bottled water companies is garnering profits at the expense of the public. I have not even talked about the overeffect of pumping, like the increased cost of finding a replacement source, the loss of connected streams, lakes and rivers, the land subsidence, the salt water intrusion near coasts that render the water undrinkable, and the loss of wildlife habitat.

Another example is emblematic of conflicts between communities and bottled water companies all over the United States. In two small towns in New Hampshire, Nottingham and Barrington, a company called USA Springs is attempting to drill wells that would pump 310,000 gallons a day in an area populated with homes that get their water from small private household wells. The community is worried about a loss of water supply, loss of water quality, and degradation of nearby wetlands.

A very conservative estimate said that USA Springs is looking at about $303 million per year in revenue from this site alone. With that kind of revenue potential, it can be expected they will spend big to make this project happen. This is exactly what they are doing. The result is that USA Springs

is now dangerously close to winning a battle that started in 2001.

The basic building blocks of life, like water, must be accessible by people before corporations, period. When access to the essentials is threatened by outside excessive private gain, I will stand firmly in defense of the public every time.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to explore this issue deeply as Chair of the Domestic Policy Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I ask the chairman, my good friend from Minnesota, to work with me as Chair of Transportation and Infrastructure on the broader issue of water privatization and its effects on quality and access.

I yield to Mr. Oberstar.

I want to thank the chairman for his comments and his dedication to the public good. I look forward to working with you on this to protect public water supplies and to protect the public's right to access.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago we heard King Abdullah of Jordan declare the imperative of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians as central to assuring peace not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

Speaking not only of Israelis and Palestinians but of Lebanese and Iraqis and of people all over the world, King Abdullah said, ``Let them have a life of peace.''

Indeed, it is our responsibility as leaders of the United States to respond to such an eloquent call by creating a restart of the peace process, which brings security, justice and peace to both Palestinians and Israelis.

When our brothers and sisters are killing each other, it is for us to use the power of compassion and love so that all may survive and prosper in security and peace.

This is a good moment for us to make a restart. This is a good moment for us to create a new context. This is a good moment for us to join with King Abdullah in speaking of people in the Middle East and throughout the world and saying, ``Let them have a life of peace.''

Madam Speaker, it appears that Congress, in the name of supporting the troops, will soon give President Bush the money he needs to continue the war in Iraq even though we don't take care of the troops when they come home.

If Congress funds the war, what will happen next? More troop casualties; more innocent civilians die; more destruction to Iraq; more destruction to our budget here at home; cuts in health care and education and job creation and housing and, yes, in veterans care.

Unless Congress cuts off funds and brings our troops home, we will be in Iraq for years to come. And for what?

I have introduced H.R. 1234, a bill to bring our troops home and stabilize Iraq.

Congress must take the first step and stop funding the war. Support the troops. Bring them home. Support H.R. 1234

Mr. Speaker, in a few short days the Congress of the United States will have an opportunity to end the war in Iraq if it so pleases, or we will vote to approve the supplemental and give the President of the United States the money that he is asking for to continue the war possibly through the end of his term.

In the next 5 minutes, I would like to discuss the implications of Congress's action and a plan that would enable us to take a new direction in Iraq, to bring our troops home, to stabilize Iraq, to close our bases, to end the occupation, and to end the war.

Last week, I submitted to this Congress such a plan embodied in H.R. 1234. H.R. 1234 is a plan to end the war, and it contains a number of elements which were arrived at with the help of people who have long experience at the U.N. in peacekeeping missions and security missions, experts in international relations, and military experts.

Two days ago, the administration said that it has no plan B for Iraq. As a matter of fact, a senior general said, ``Plan B is plan A,'' which means that the administration is committed to a course of action which would keep our troops in Iraq through the end of its term. That is simply not acceptable.

In November, the American people voted for a new direction. In November, the American people changed the leadership of the Congress, voted to turn both the House and the Senate from Republican control to Democratic control, and I submit the issue was the war.

All across this country there is a great concern about the rising number of casualties; about that even when our troops serve and they come home after being injured, they are not being cared for; about the costs of the war, how we are seeing our budgets for housing and health care, for education, for seniors services, and, indeed, for veterans affairs reduced.

America is losing not only the lives of our soldiers, not only are we going into a great financial debt borrowing money from Beijing to fight a war in Baghdad, but we are losing our moral position in the world, continuing to prosecute a war that is simply based on lies. Let's face it, every assertion made that took us into Iraq has been ripped away as being a lie.

So what are we to do? H.R. 1234 does the following: It is predicated on Congress taking action to end the war, stop the funding. At that point, the administration will go to the world community and say, ``Look, the money is no longer here for the war. We are going to close our bases, we are going to end the occupation, we are going to bring our troops home.'' Only by asserting that we will end the occupation will we be in a position to be able to get help from the world community, which really doesn't want anything to do with this war absent the United States taking a new direction.

The insurgency is fueled by the occupation. It is well understood. So we end the occupation. But then that is not enough. We need the international community to help us build a peacekeeping and security force that would move in as our troops move out.

The elements of the plan embodied in H.R. 1234 are the following: Not only do we end the occupation and bring our troops home and get the international community involved, but we also create the context for a program of reconciliation between the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. Right now there is no movement towards reconciliation, because with the U.S. occupying, the Shiites don't have any incentive at all to do that. We need to move out so that we can set in place a program of reconciliation and a program of honest reconstruction. No more theft from the American taxpayers or the Iraqi people by these contractors whose performance has been absolutely abominable, who have stolen billions of dollars. Give the Iraqi people a chance to have their own reconstruction program, with the jobs going to the people of Iraq so they can feed their families. In an economy with 50 percent of the people unemployed, we need to take a new approach and end the reconstruction program as it exists and start a new one.

In future presentations to this Congress, I intend to lay out the rest of H.R. 1234, which is the plan to end the war, bring our troops home, stabilize Iraq, and take a new chapter in America's relationship with the world.

Offered by: Mr. Kucinich

Amendment No. 4: Page 2, after line 5, insert the

following:

(a) Eligibility.--Section 220(c) of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(c)) is amended by

inserting before the period at the end ``and the entity does

not permit the use of its water for retail sale of water in

containers of 5.7 gallons (20 liters) or less''.

Page 2, line 6, before ``Section'' insert ``(b)

Authorization of Appropriations.--''.

I am totally opposed to any attack on Iran. It would have disastrous consequences for Iran, the U.S., the region and the world. It would put 140,000 U.S. troops in great jeopardy. It would expose Israel to maximum peril. Even the talk about such an attack should be subject to a review not only by Congress, but by an international tribunal. Iran has neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States, yet the administration has been preparing for some time for an aggressive war against Iran.

Congress must insist the administration come forward now with facts, not fiction, regarding Iran. We must not allow the President to remain unchallenged while he continues to use the media to create a pretext for an illegal war.

Congress must insist the President come to the full Congress for permission to take any action against Iran. If the President proceeds to attack Iran after an express congressional authorization under article I, section 8, both he and the Vice President should be subject to impeachment.

We must take a stand against aggressive war or we will lose our democracy.

Madam Chairman, I am sure the American people may find it ironic to see a drumbeat here for a secret ballot in the very House of the people where we depend on having our votes for all the world to see.

Workers rights are human rights, and the fight to broaden and increase workers' rights is a fight to bring economic justice and dignity to those who have created the infrastructure, the wealth and the prosperity of our Nation.

In this fight, no tool is more fundamental than the right of workers to organize. Organization is power, and when wielded effectively, the results are obvious. Union members' weekly wages are 30 percent higher than the wages of nonunion members. Sixty-eight percent of union members have a guaranteed, fully insured pension, while only 14 of nonunion workers can say the same. Over three-fourths of union members receive health coverage from their employers. Less than a majority of nonunion workers have that same coverage.

Despite protection in Federal law by the National Labor Relations Act, the right to organize has increasingly come under attack. This is a chance to stand up for the right to organize.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Vietnamese New Year: Tet, 2007--Year of the Boar. To celebrate this joyous event, the Vietnamese Community in Greater Cleveland, Inc., will gather at Bo Loong Chinese Restaurant to rejoice with family and friends and enjoy Vietnamese culture and performances.

The Tet celebration will include recognition of volunteer leaders, Vietnamese culinary offerings, dancing and entertainment by Vietnamese youth of Cleveland. Tet is the time of

year to pay homage to ancestors, reconnect with friends and family, and celebrate the hope and possibility within the rising of a new year.

This year also marks the 32nd anniversary of the establishment of the Vietnamese Community in Greater Cleveland, Inc.--reflecting more than three decades of this agency's superior commitment, service and community outreach to Americans of Vietnamese heritage. The Vietnamese community in Cleveland reflects a vibrant layer within the colorful fabric of our culturally diverse city and plays a significant role in preserving and promoting the ancient cultural and historical traditions that spiral back throughout the centuries--connecting the old world to the new, extending from Vietnam to America.

Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Le Nguyen, President of the Vietnamese Community in Greater Cleveland, Inc., and all members, past and present, for their dedication and support of Americans of Vietnamese heritage within our Cleveland community. As we join in celebration of the Vietnamese New Year, the Year of the Boar, may every American of Vietnamese heritage hold memories of their past forever in their hearts and find happiness and peace with the dawning of each new day.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Richard E. Pinkston for his 25 years of federal service to this country, and to celebrate the expertise and enthusiasm he has brought to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Cleveland Hopkins Air Traffic Control Tower, and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

Richard began his federal career as an Air Traffic Control Specialist with the Federal Aviation Administration in 1982, and in June 1982 he started working for the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. After a year, he transferred to Grand Forks Air Traffic Control Tower in Grand Forks, North Dakota, before he started working for the Cleveland Hopkins Air Traffic Control Tower in 1988.

Richard is a highly valued colleague due to his multiple skills and personality. His vast knowledge and experience in air traffic skills, management style, leadership skills and problem resolution has made him an invaluable asset to the Cleveland Hopkins Air Traffic Control Tower,

Throughout his career, Richard has been an outstanding team player. He has been elected the union facility representative and has served on numerous national, regional and local committees, as well as work groups for both the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. During his career he has received numerous performance awards, letters of commendation, and incentive awards.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Richard E. Pinkston for his 25 years of federal service. His expertise and team spirit is an inspiration to all who cross paths with him.

Mr. Speaker, the administration now says it wants to talk to Iran. At the same time it is making plans to attack Iran. By saying it wants to talk to Iran and Syria, the administration appears to be reversing course after spending 2 months pumping the media full of anonymously sourced articles reporting to link Iran to the Iraq war.

Now it says it wants to talk. Making it appear that it wants to avoid another war. Right. Think about it. Aircraft carriers to the region, mine sweepers to the Persian Gulf, arming neighboring countries with Patriot missiles, ordering an increase in a

Strategic Petroleum Reserve, anticipating an oil embargo. When this administration puts the guns on the table and says let's talk, chances are it is going to shoot first and ask questions later, just like in Iraq.

Wake up, Congress. This administration is planning an attack on Iran with or without the permission of this House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Ronald G. Jonila, and to celebrate his lifelong commitment to the American worker. As the president of the United Auto Worker's Local 1005, Ron was an active proponent for worker's rights and served his union with integrity and honor.

For years, the American workforce has been confronted with numerous challenges from our economy and our world. Through it all, Ron was a model of constancy, devoting all his efforts to protecting workers' rights, fighting for workforce protections, and ensuring that Local 1005 thrived in an environment increasingly inhospitable to the American worker.

Ron never shied from a battle when his brothers and sisters of Local 1005 stood in harm's way. Whether the issue was jobs, health care, pensions, or working conditions, Ron always led the charge, and Local 1005 was well-served by his leadership.

Ron's devotion to the labor movement was exceeded in intensity and passion only by his commitment to his family. Ron was a generous and caring husband to Patricia; a loving father to Anthony, Nicholas, Thomas and Christopher; and the proud ``Papa'' of Jason and Thomas.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory of Ron Jonila. On February 20, 2007 we lost a wonderful husband, father, grandfather, friend and brother, but his unwavering commitment to family as well as the American workforce will serve as a model for us all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Reverend Robert Drinan. Father Drinan was a great humanitarian that showed the world that being a servant of the people was not a conflict of interest when serving the Lord.

Father Robert Drinan effortlessly assimilated pious servitude with politics, showing that the purpose of both was oftentimes the same. He was an active and prominent voice when it came to civil rights, and as the Dean of Boston College Law School he called for and supported desegregation. He also challenged the students of Boston College Law School to be active in the civil rights movement.

Father Drinan was the first Roman Catholic priest to be elected to Congress. In 1970, Father Drinan ran for Congress on an anti-war

platform after a visit to South Vietnam, where he discovered that the number of political prisoners was increasing despite claims from the State Department. He later urged the Catholic Church to condemn war as ``morally objectionable.'' Father Drinan continued to serve faithfully as he represented the constituents of Massachusetts in the House of Representatives for ten years.

His attention was not reserved to Vietnam or civil rights. Father Drinan also was an outspoken advocate for the underprivileged and, after leaving his Congressional office in 1980, he maintained his commitment to the poor and the marginalized. He served as the president for Americans for Democratic Action, and traveled the country giving speeches on hunger and the dangers of the arms race.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory of Reverend Robert Drinan, whose fierce devotion to the most vulnerable among us serves as a model for all of us who continue to serve those in need.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Tom Mooney and his accomplishments as a champion of public education, the labor movement and social justice. A sudden and tragic loss for education advocates, Tom's December 9, 2006 passing also marks a sad day for the State of Ohio.

Tom began his career as a teacher in 1972 in Cincinnati. Quickly, though, his natural leadership brought him to represent his fellow educators as the president of the Local 1520 of the American Federation of Teachers between 1979 and 2000. During that time, he forged a reputation as a tireless and outspoken proponent of ensuring funding for public schools. Through his work with the Federation, he eventually rose to become the vice president of the national organization and served on its executive board.

A man of candor and American moxie, Tom's aggressive and enthusiastic public defense of teachers was an ongoing testament to his dedication to the idea that education is a fundamental and essential human right. Tom firmly believed that the success of the public education system rests on the will of the people to uphold its standards. Often, this meant challenging the status quo. Tom was not afraid to push forward and vehemently fight for higher standards and a higher quality of education. His strength, conviction, and outright courage to stand up steadfastly for the rights of educators have led to vast improvements in the field of education for the State of Ohio and the country.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the life of Tom Mooney for his exemplary dedication to public education and the labor movement. Tom will be missed.