Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Father John J. Cregan, who ministered to parishes throughout our community, including Blessed Sacrament, St. Joseph's Church, St. Thomas More and Our Lady of Angels. Father Cregan also served as the Chaplain for the Cleveland Police and Fire, Greater Cleveland Police and Fire, Holy Name Society, Cleveland Office of the FBI, the Greater Cleveland Police Emerald Society, Retired Irish Police Society and the Anchor Club. Collectively, he held these roles for more than forty years.

Father Cregan had a long and distinguished history in Cleveland. Born on June 2, 1935, Father Cregan went to St. Vincent de Paul grade school and later graduated from Saint Ignatius High School. After attending St. Meinrad Minor Seminary, Borromeo Seminary, and St. Mary Seminary, Father Cregan was ordained at Saint John Cathedral by Auxiliary Bishop Floyd Begin on May 20, 1961.

Father Cregan was especially active with safety organizations such as police officers and firemen. He was an invaluable source of support, kindness and guidance for the women and men who bravely serve in the line of duty. His service led to him being honored with numerous awards, including becoming the 12th inductee of the Cleveland Police Museum Hall of Fame.

Father Cregan's joy and strong faith were apparent after listening to any of his sermons. His kind spirit and good nature has brought countless people to his church. His dedication, generosity, and love to his members was like no other. He truly cared for all people. We, as a community, were blessed to have Father Cregan.

I offer my condolences to his sisters, Sister M. Theresine, Rita Joyce, and Florence Schwind and his 15 nieces and nephews.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the life of Father John J. Cregan who served his community selflessly with love and talent.

This year marks the Diamond Jubilee--the 60th year--of Queen Elizabeth II's reign as Monarch of the United Kingdom. As our closest relation, it's only fitting that we join the United Kingdom in celebrating the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

Queen Elizabeth II's coronation as Queen was on June 2, 1953--when she was just 25 years old--following the death of her father, King George IV.

Her Majesty is the second-longest-serving Monarch in British history. She has conducted regular meetings with every British Prime Minister since Winston Churchill. She serves as a patron of over 600 charities. Over the last 60 years, she has conducted 261 official visits to 116 different countries. Her Majesty has received eight Presidents of the United States and made five State visits to the U.S. Last year, she became the first British Monarch since 1911 to visit the Republic of Ireland, a significant and historic move for peace and reconciliation.

Throughout decades of change, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, has served as a constant and steadfast presence in the United Kingdom and the world. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating and celebrating Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

My amendment would put a moratorium for fiscal year 2013 on any new loan guarantees under what is now known as the section 1703 loan guarantee program. To offset the loss of administrative revenue that would no longer come to the Department of Energy if the amendment passes, the amendment cuts $33 million from administrative costs that will not be necessary if the program is suspended. This program, originated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, offers a guarantee for the loans that finance an energy project. With that kind of guarantee, the risk for the loaning entity is considered lower, which means they can charge a lower interest rate to the people initiating the energy project. In other words, it saves the project money. But it also puts the taxpayers on the hook if the project defaults.

Section 1703 projects cover nuclear, coal, and even renewable energy. The closer we look at the guarantees, the less they seem like a worthwhile investment for the American taxpayer. Let me give you an example.

Some of the biggest guarantees are for nuclear power. One of the first and biggest loans the Department of Energy is considering is one that is not necessary. That's not my assessment; it's the assessment of Kevin Marsh, the president of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, which is attempting to build a new nuclear power plant. He said on a call to analysts and investors:

We're confident in our ability to finance this project without a loan guarantee.

This program stands to give him and his project, which could be in the $8 billion to $11 billion range, a preemptive bailout that is not even needed.

Here's another example. A loan guarantee that is most likely to be awarded is for a new nuclear plant called Vogtle. That loan guarantee is for $8.3 billion. For those of you who displayed a great deal of concern about Solyndra's loan guarantee, this one is 15 times the size. With a project that big, it makes sense to look closely at the odds of this project going into default, leaving the taxpayers with the price tag. Well, Vogtle already has $913 million in cost overruns, and their SEC filings indicate more overruns can be expected. That, of course, is not at all unusual for a nuclear power plant

project. Construction cost overruns are the rule, not the exception.

Maybe that's why the CBO had this to say about nuclear loan guarantees:

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high--well above 50 percent.

Or maybe they said that because there is another reason to expect nuclear power plants will continue to struggle financially: that reason is the low cost of natural gas that makes it far more attractive than taking multiple risks by going with nuclear power. Dale Klein, a former chairman of the NRC, cautioned that nuclear plants will not move off the blackboard and into construction, not as long as natural gas remains as cheap and plentiful as it is today.

Nuclear power is not the only recipient of government largess under the section 1703 loan guarantee. Even if you are a nuclear power plant supporter, there are plenty of other boondoggles that are covered by this program that I don't have time to go into. That's why Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle can get behind this amendment, which is supported by a bipartisan coalition of groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, National Taxpayers Union, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. It is for those who are concerned about wasteful government spending. This program alone will cost the taxpayers over $500 million--not including any defaults the taxpayers may have to cover. This amendment is for those who have concerns about deficit spending. It's for those with free market concerns about an energy technology that is not financially viable even after tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and decades of opportunities to mature to the point where subsidies are not needed. It is for those who are concerned about the effects of these energy technologies on our drinking water, on clean air, on healthy soil, and on climate change. It is for those who have concerns as ratepayers that they'll get stuck holding the bill when an energy project fails and their electricity rates go up. It is for those who found the Solyndra default to be outrageous.

There's a little something for everyone with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

My amendment would put a moratorium for fiscal year 2013 on any new loan guarantees under what is known as the Section 1703 loan guarantee program. To offset the loss of administrative revenue that would no longer come to the Department of Energy if the amendment passes, the amendment cuts $33 million from administrative costs that will not be necessary if the program is suspended. This program, originated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, offers a guarantee for the loans that finance an energy project. With that kind of guarantee, the risk for the loaning entity is considered lower, which means they can charge a lower interest rate to the people initiating the energy project. In other words, it saves the project money. But it also puts taxpayers on the hook if the project defaults.

Section 1703 projects cover nuclear, coal, and even renewable energy. The closer we look at the guarantees, the less they seem like a worthwhile investment for the American taxpayer. Let me give you an example.

Some of the biggest guarantees are for nuclear power. One of the first and biggest loans the Department of Energy is considering is one that is not necessary. That is not my assessment. That is the assessment of Kevin B. Marsh, the President of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, which is attempting to build a new nuclear power plant. He said on a call to analysts and investors, ``[W]e are confident in our ability to finance this project without loan guarantee . . .'' This program stands to give him and his project, which could be in the 8 11 billion dollar range, a preemptive bailout that is not even needed.

Here's another example. A loan guarantee that is most likely to be awarded is for a new nuclear power plant called Vogtle. That loan guarantee is for 8.33 billion dollars. For those of you who displayed a great deal of concern about Solyndra's loan guarantee, this one is 15 times as big. With a project that big, it makes sense to look closely at the odds of this project going into default, leaving you and me with the price tag. Well, Vogtle already has $913 million in cost overruns and their SEC filings indicate more overruns can be expected. That, of course, is not at all unusual for a nuclear power plant project. Construction cost overruns are the rule, not the exception.

Maybe that is why the Congressional Budget Office had this to say about nuclear loan guarantees; ``CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high--well above 50 percent.'' Or maybe they said that because there is another reason to expect nuclear power plants will continue to struggle financially; that reason is the low cost of natural gas that makes it far more attractive than taking multiple risks by going with nuclear power. Dale Klein, a former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, cautioned that nuclear plants will not ``move off the blackboard and into construction . . . . Not as long as natural gas remains as cheap and plentiful as it is today.''

Nuclear power is not the only recipient of government largesse under the section 1703 loan guarantee program. Even if you are a nuclear power supporter, there are plenty of other boondoggles covered by this program that I don't have time to go into.

That is why Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle can get behind this amendment, which is supported by a bipartisan coalition of groups including Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, National Taxpayers Union, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. It is for those who are concerned about wasteful government spending. This program alone will cost the taxpayers over 500 million dollars--not including any defaults the taxpayers may have to cover. This amendment is for those who have concerns about deficit spending. It is for those with free market concerns about an energy technology that is not financially viable even after tens of billions of dollars of subsidies and decades of opportunities to mature to the point where subsidies are not needed. It is for those who are concerned about the effects of these energy technologies on our drinking water, on clean air, on healthy soil, and on climate change. It is for those who have concerns as ratepayers that they will also get stuck holding the bill when an energy project fails and their electricity rates go up. It is for those who found the Solyndra default to be outrageous.

There is a little something for everyone here. I urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich amendment.

Potential Questions

You are targeting nuclear loan guarantees. This is an anti-nuclear amendment.

The Section 1703 loan guarantees will be awarded to a range of energy projects, including some which I wholeheartedly support like renewable energy. I firmly believe that renewables deserve to have aggressive subsidies to help them compete with the fuels of yesterday that have been so heavily subsidized for decades. But I am looking at the big picture here. This program, on balance, is bad policy.

It is bad for our energy portfolio, bad for taxpayers, bad for clean air and water, and bad fiscal policy. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voiced concerns over government picking winners and losers. This qualifies. They have expressed concern about government spending. This is a half billion program at a minimum, probably many times that. They have expressed concern about deficit spending. This is it. They have expressed concern that the free market should reign. This program does the opposite.

This is an anti-renewable amendment,

This is a 32 billion dollar loan guarantee program, of which only between 1.2 billion and 4 billion dollars is dedicated to renewables. The rest goes to unsustainable energy. Still, I don't take the renewable money lightly. I am a major supporter of the solar industry. In fact, I think the rapid and full throated deployment of solar energy should be one of our top priorities in Congress. But I am looking at the big picture here. This program, on balance, is bad policy.

It is bad for our energy portfolio, bad for taxpayers, bad for clean air and water, and bad fiscal policy. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voiced concerns over government picking winners and losers. This qualifies. They have expressed concern about government spending. This is a half billion program at a minimum, probably many times that. They have expressed concern about deficit spending. This is it. They have expressed concern that the free market should reign. This program does the opposite.

This is a limitation amendment so you will not save a half billion dollars.

We will not save the half billion all in one year. But if we hit the pause button on this program to consider it a little more carefully, we won't spend any of that money this year.

Nuclear is viable/a good investment/financially sustainable.

In reaction to Southern Company's investment in new nuclear reactors in 2010, Moody's downgraded its rating of Southern Company's.

The Economist magazine declared in its March 10th issue that nuclear power is ``the dream that failed'': the plants are too costly and uncompetitive with alternatives.

How will this amendment work?

The CBO determined that budget authority would be increased by this amendment because administrative revenue from the loan guarantee recipients to the Department of Energy would be foregone. CBO estimated that

amount to be $33 million. My amendment offsets that cost to the federal government buy cutting administrative expenses dedicated to running the program this amendment would suspend.

What kind of energy is covered in the loan guarantees?

$18.5 billion for nuclear power plants.

$4 billion for uranium enrichment plants.

$8 billion for non-nuclear technologies; probably coal.

$2 billion for unspecified projects.

$1.183--$3.0 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Taxpayers for Commonsense, Action,

June 5, 2012.

Dear Representative: Together we urge you support the

amendment offered by Reps. Kucinich (D OH) and McClintock (R

CA) amendment to stop the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan

Guarantee Program from issuing any new loan guarantees in FY

2013. Created in Title 17 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the

DOE Loan Guarantee Program has received increased scrutiny

with the recent default of a loan guarantee to the solar

start-up company, Solyndra. Taxpayers stand to lose $500

million on the failed solar project and billions more could

be lost if the program continues in its current form.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the DOE

Inspector General, and many others have been critical of the

existing loan guarantee effort. Recently the GAO found that

DOE could not even provide comprehensive information on the

current loan guarantee applicants and commitments, and a

recent review commissioned by the White House found the

program was not proactively protecting the taxpayer or

providing for a reasonable prospect of repayment.

A recent audit of the Loan Guarantee Program by the Office

of the Inspector General found that the program, ``could not

always readily demonstrate . . . how it resolved or mitigated

relevant risks prior to granting loan guarantees.'' This

creates serious concern for taxpayers that the financial

terms of the loans are not being judiciously decided.

Furthermore, loan guarantees provided under Title 17

guarantee 100% of a loan for up to 80% of the project cost--

leaving taxpayers to shoulder far too much of the project

risk. Adding insult to injury, the little protection

taxpayers did have in the event of project default was

undermined in 2009 when DOE weakened the original statute.

With hundreds of billions in bailouts already on the

shoulders of US taxpayers, the country cannot afford to

continue a program that could easily become a black hole for

tens of billions in new defaults. We urge you to support the

Kucinich-McClintock amendment to stop new loan guarantees

from the troubled DOE Loan Guarantee Program!

Sincerely,

Taxpayers for Common Sense Action,

National Taxpayers Union,

Americans for Prosperity,

Friends of the Earth,

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center,

Competitive Enterprise Institute,

Freedom Action,

Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Kucinich

Amendment No. 23: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Gore Vidal called it ``Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.''

The administration's unrestricted use of drones has taken us into undeclared wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and who knows where else, destroying not only alleged militants, but making a direct hit on international law and the U.S. Constitution.

Drone strikes are killing militants now identified as males of fighting age. What are the rules? Trust us. What are the legal justifications? Trust us. Haven't 350 civilians been killed, innocents? Trust us, we're told.

No transparency, no accountability--until now, no Congress.

The Constitution requires Congress to weigh in and demand information and legal justification for drone strikes. That's in my letter to the administration. Drone strikes, absent a constitutional basis, sanctions the wholesale slaughter of innocents. One nation's drones over another nation's airspace is an act of war. With 50 nations exploring the development of drones--a $100 billion business--we cannot permit this Nation to further incite perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers. And I want to thank the chair as well for accepting the amendment, and I rise in support of the amendment.

I think that Chairman Rogers' concerns are well stated. I know that the security of this country is something that you're committed to, as am I. This amendment, I think, will help slow down the rush towards war by asking those who are involved in our intelligence gathering to focus on just what a war with Iran will mean.

I've been studying this in terms of the effects because we had a discussion a few years ago in Congress about the potential of bunker busters being used, and I looked at that and consulted with medical scientists who told me that a bunker buster would cause radiation to go hundreds, even thousands, of miles not only through Iran, but outside the country and into other countries, as well. It would be a major health catastrophe with a lot of innocent people killed.

We have to think of the broad impact here of a potential attack. And I think that it's good that you're including this in the bill.

Offered By Mr. Kucinich

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. The legislation contains damaging cuts to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and to the Legal Services Corporation. It also contains provisions that would further weaken the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the protections that the agency provides to unionized workers.

H.R. 5326 contains a nearly $227 million cut to NASA's top-line, putting it at $1.15 billion below its FY2010 funding level. Thousands of private-sector jobs at NASA centers across the country have already been lost as a result of austere budget reductions. The cuts included in this legislation will result in the loss of hundreds more. NASA must be given adequate funding to ensure that the agency can accomplish its assigned missions, to maintain and grow investments in America's global competitiveness in aerospace technologies, and to preserve the United States' world leadership in space exploration.

This legislation contains a $20 million cut from FY2012 levels to the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The LSC provides vital legal support to the most vulnerable populations, including veterans, victims of domestic violence, and those who would not otherwise be able to afford legal representation. The cuts included in H.R. 5326 would force the LSC to lay off over 100 staff attorneys at a time when an increasing number of Americans are experiencing poverty.

This bill includes an amendment that would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from protecting American workers seeking exercise their right to form collective bargaining units by prohibiting funds from being used by the NLRB to litigate conflicts that arise out of secret ballot union elections. When workers attempt to form a union, they must often rely on the support and expertise of the NLRB. This amendment would take that assistance away. This provision further weakens the nation's only agency dedicated solely to protecting workers' rights in this country.

Another amendment to this bill effectively prohibits the Department of Justice from enforcing the most fundamental of civil rights: the right to vote. According to a recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice, in the past year alone, fourteen states have enacted voter identification laws or imposed executive orders about voting or voter registration which have resulted in numerous documented instances of American citizens being denied the right to vote. The Department of Justice's inability to exercise critical oversight of such laws and executive orders will continue to result in the disenfranchisement of racial and ethnic minorities, low-income voters, seniors, and students.

H.R. 5326 puts American jobs, basic rights, and our global leadership in the aerospace sector at risk. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. The proposed cuts in this bill directly attack low and moderate-income Americans while protecting an excessive defense budget.

More than 40 percent of the cuts in this legislation come from programs that support low-income families. The bill abandons millions of Americans who rely on food assistance programs by making drastic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Free School Lunch and Breakfast program, and Meals on Wheels. The bill slashes funding for the Social Services Block Grant Program, which provides more than 20 million children and seniors services ranging from protection from abuse to transitional housing. Simply put, H.R. 5652 disproportionately cuts assistance targeted to low- and moderate- income families and will only deepen the poverty that they experience and leave more of them hungry.

H.R. 5652 cuts the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and restricts any unused funds for deficit reduction. Though initially flawed, my efforts and those of my colleagues to improve HAMP have helped to make it is an essential response to the foreclosure crisis. Rather than completely eliminate it, as H.R. 5652 would do, the program should continue to be revamped to better serve the needs of the American people.

This legislation includes provisions to require that all current and future federal workers pay an additional 5 percentage points of their salary toward their federal pensions. This cut in benefits would result in an annuity that is worth approximately 40% less than is the case under existing laws. Federal workers have already endured pay freezes and large programmatic budget cuts. Congress should not be playing politics with the pensions of the thousands of hard-working federal employees that are dedicating their lives to public service.

In addition, H.R. 5652 weakens Americans' protections in the event of another financial crisis like the one that started our current recession. The bill prevents the FDIC from intervening to slow the chain reaction of investment bank failures that happens when one of the firms begins to fail, bringing the others with it because they are so closely tied together. The bill also eliminates the ability of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to fine law-breaking financial entities under its jurisdiction.

The premise behind this legislation is that we should go back on the agreement that was reached and codified in the Budget Control Act by preserving a massively bloated Defense Department with funding from Americans of greatest need. I strongly oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you want peace, you prepare for peace. If you want war, you prepare for war.

The NDAA prepares for war against Iran. It calls for pre-positioning planes, bombs, ships, munitions, and for naval maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz. This is not about defense; this is about offense.

I was a third-string quarterback on a not-very-good varsity football team, and I knew the difference and know the difference between defense and offense.

We're preparing to go on offense against Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons and has no intention or real capability to attack the United States. We're about to make the same disastrous mistake we made against Iraq.

This bill does not explicitly authorize war, perhaps, but that's beside the point. It's licensing it. It sets the stage for it in an election year.

Wake up, Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Ohio Norsemen as they celebrate Syttende Mai in recognition of Norwegian Constitution Day.

Every year May 17th, or Syttende Mai, is observed by people throughout the world in recognition of the National Day of Norway. This date marks the anniversary of the 1814 signing of Norway's Constitution which declared the nation's legal independence and established a government dedicated to the freedom and equality of the Norwegian people. The document was inspired by and embodied the ideas of other early independence movements, marking a major victory for democracy in early 19th century Europe.

The holiday is celebrated with a prominent display of the nation's flag as well as a focus on parades featuring the children of the community. Processions are traditionally led by marching bands with some participants dressed in traditional Norwegian attire and often include speeches by young and old alike.

The Ohio Norsemen continue the tradition of celebrating their proud Norwegian ancestry by holding celebrations, parades, and potlucks replete with the foods of Norway. The celebrations held by the Ohio Norsemen are in line with a long held American tradition of honoring one's cultural ancestry while highlighting the shared democratic values embodied by the constitutions of these two nations.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the Ohio Norsemen as they celebrate and share the culture and heritage of all our citizens of Norwegian descent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Margaret Terry, who is retiring after 40 years of dedicated service with the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.

Legal Aid Society of Cleveland is a law firm for low-income individuals and provides services in the areas of consumer rights, domestic violence, education, employment, family law, health, housing, foreclosure, immigration, public benefits, utilities and taxes. It was founded as a nonprofit in 1905. Until 1966, it operated primarily with volunteers. In 1966, staff attorneys were hired; today there are 53 attorneys, 40 staff members and more than 1800 volunteers that serve Cleveland's low-income individuals. Legal Aid's mission is to secure justice and resolve fundamental problems for those who are low income and otherwise vulnerable by providing high quality legal services and working for systemic solutions.

Ms. Terry graduated from East Carolina University in 1967 before enrolling in the University of North Carolina Law School. Upon graduating in 1970, she joined Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) and relocated to Cleveland, Ohio. Margaret was placed at the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, working in the Juvenile Unit during her second year of service with VISTA. She was permanently hired by the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland in January 1973. Throughout her career, Ms. Terry handled a wide range of cases. She developed knowledge in a variety of aspects of the law led to her becoming a supervising attorney for Legal Aid's Intake Unit.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Margaret Terry on retiring after 40 years of unparalleled service to the underprivileged who sought her help through the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Judge Robert E. Feighan.

Judge Feighan was born on September 4, 1927 to Edward and Catherine Feighan. He was a lifelong resident of Euclid, Ohio and long-time member of the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Holy Cross Church. He attended St. Ignatius High School for three years before enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps. He served in China for a year before returning to graduate from Euclid Shore High School. He went on to John Carroll University and the Cleveland State University's Cleveland Marshall Law School, from which he graduated in 1955.

Judge Feighan first gained notoriety as an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor; a position he held from 1961 until 1981. He made headlines for convicting a man who committed a stabbing at Higbee's Department Store. In 1980, Judge Feighan was elected as a Cuyahoga county Common Pleas Court Judge and served until 1988. Uninterested in furthering his career politically, Judge Feighan neglected to run for another term and began a twenty year stint as a visiting judge. He retired in 2008.

I offer my condolences to his sister, Patricia Feighan and his many nieces and nephews.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Judge Robert E. Feighan, who dedicated his life to serving the Greater Cleveland community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Fortuna Family, who is being recognized by the Slovenian National Home (the Nash) at their annual Persons of the Year Recognition Dinner.

The Fortuna Family began on November 21, 1953 when Joseph and Virginia Fortuna were married. In 1958, the couple opened the Fortuna Funeral Home in Cleveland's Slavic Village. Throughout their fifty-two year marriage, Joseph and Virginia raised four children, Joseph, Mary Ann, John and Jane.

The eldest, Joseph, was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1980 and today serves as the Pastor of Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church in Euclid, Ohio. Mary Ann married James Trzaska; the two are licensed funeral directors working at Fortuna Funeral Home. Mary Ann and James also have two children, Sheryl and Anthony, who are both attorneys. John Fortuna works at the family funeral home and has been a licensed funeral director for 33 years. John and his wife, Roberta, have three children, Joseph, Katherine and Kristen. The youngest of the Fortuna children, Jane, married Phil DeMattia and they have raised two children, David and Rebecca. Jane works as a nurse at the Cleveland Clinic.

The entire Fortuna Family has had a long connection to the Nash. In addition to Joseph and Virginia's wedding reception being held at the Nash, each of their children's wedding receptions were also hosted at the venue. Father Joseph's ordination was also celebrated at the Nash. Additionally, Joseph and Virginia began a long lasting family tradition of volunteerism at the Nash. Joseph served as President of the Board of Slovenian National Home and was named ``Man of the Year'' multiple times.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating the Fortuna Family as they are honored at the Slovenian National Home's Persons of the Year Recognition Dinner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the dedication of the bust of Father Alexander Duchnovich in the Rusin Cultural Garden on June 24, 2012.

The 254 acre piece of land that constitutes Rockefeller Park was donated to the City of Cleveland by John D. Rockefeller in 1896. The gardens were founded in 1926 to create a memorial area for the diverse ethnic groups that shape the region, and to serve as a space of reflection on peace, cooperation and understanding. The Cultural Gardens are currently a collection of 26 gardens which include African- American, American Indian, British, Chinese, Czech, Estonian, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Polish, and Slovenian gardens, among others.

The Rusin Cultural Garden was dedicated in 1939. In May of 1952, the then leader of the Rusin Cultural Garden Association, Reverend Joseph Hanulya, unveiled a bust of Alexander Duchnovich. Alexander Duchnovich, a Greek Catholic priest, wrote the Rusin national anthem. His writings sought to unify Carpatho-Rusins. Unfortunately, the bust disappeared from the garden sometime during the 1970s.

Decades later, John Krenisky, a Clevelander and member of the Carpatho-Rusyn Society began fundraising for a replacement bust of Father Duchnovich. On November 21, 2011, after more than ten years of work, a bronze replacement bust designed by Wawrytko Studios & Light Sculpture Works was installed in the Rusin Cultural Garden. A celebration to dedicate the bust and efforts of Mr. Krenisky will include a performance by the Living Traditions Fold Ensemble and banquet at Holy Spirit Church.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognition of the dedication of the bust of Father Alexander Duchnovich in the Rusin Cultural Garden.