Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mrs. Marilyn Ransom, the North Olmsted Community Council Citizen of the Year for 2012. A resident of North Olmsted, Ohio since 1967, Marilyn has been an active volunteer and activist in her community for more than four decades.

Marilyn became involved in volunteerism as a parent by supporting her children's schools and the Girl Scouts. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, she volunteered as a cadet assistant leader, leader and eventually Field Director for the Erie Shores Girl Scout Council as a recruiter for future leaders. Marilyn was also an involved member of the Parent- Teacher Association (PTA). She served as president of the North Olmsted Pre-School PTA and the Early Childhood Education chair for the Ohio

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4970 because it represents a missed opportunity to renew the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. VAWA exists because women have a human right to live in dignity without fear of criminal activity being perpetrated against them, and local and national law enforcement agencies must have specific tools to protect that right.

The bill before this House will undermine the progress our nation has made toward protecting and supporting victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. It runs counter to the intent of VAWA by cutting vital existing protections for battered immigrant women, and excludes important protections for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning, LGBTQ, victims, as well as Native American women. This bill fails to protect some of the most vulnerable victims and leaves them without access to essential services.

Three in five Native American women have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. Up to 33 percent of the LGBTQ community are victims of domestic violence. These are not merely statistics; these are people we represent and they need our support.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

This week, Congress is considering two pieces of legislation relating to Iran. The first undermines a diplomatic solution with Iran and lowers the bar for war. The second authorizes a war of choice against Iran and begins military preparations for it.

With respect to H. Res. 568, which eliminates the most viable alternative to war, the House is expected to vote on this. I would urge Members to read the resolution because section 6 rejects any U.S. policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons capable Iran. Section 7 urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with a nuclear weapons capability, and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to Iranian enrichment.

This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, and would guarantee that talks with Iran currently scheduled for May 23 would fail. Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H. Res. 568 draws the red line for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability--capability--a nebulous and undefined term that would include a civilian nuclear program.

Indeed, it's likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to prevent war would provide for uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes under the framework of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons treaty, with strict safeguards and inspections. This language in this bill makes such a negotiated settlement impossible. At the same time, the language lowers the threshold for attacking Iran. Countries with nuclear weapons capability could include many other countries like Japan or Brazil. It is an unrealistic threshold.

An associate of former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated:

This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got

us into the Iraq war.

Now, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, authorizes war against Iran and preparing the military for it. I want to point out how this happens. While H. Res. 568 undermines our diplomatic efforts and lowers the bar for war, H.R. 4310, the NDAA, begins military preparations for war. Members ought to read this. Section 1221 makes military action against Iran a U.S. policy. Section 1222 directs our Armed Forces to prepare for war. Now if you read these sections, you'll see that what I'm saying is true.

Now, under subsection A, it says that Iran may soon attain a nuclear weapons capability, a development that would threaten the United States interests, destabilize the region, encourage nuclear proliferation, and further empower and embolden Iran, and on and on. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the U.S. and Israeli intelligence, have all agreed that Iran does not currently have a nuclear bomb, is not building a nuclear weapon, and does not have any plans to do so. Both U.S. and Israeli officials also agree that a strike on Iran would only delay their nuclear program and actually encourage them to pursue nuclear weapons.

Sustained diplomatic engagement with Iran is the only way to ensure transparency and to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Rejecting or thwarting any inspections-based deal we are currently seeking with Iran, even when analysts are expressing guarded optimism that a near- term deal is achievable, makes preemptive military action against Iran more likely.

Now I just want to cite some provisions right from the bill.

In order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which they're not doing, the United States, in cooperation with its allies, must utilize all elements of national power, including diplomacy, robust economic sanctions, and credible--get this--``visible preparations for a military option.''

Under section 1222 where they talk about U.S. military preparedness, it talks of pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions. Under subsection B it talks about maintaining sufficient Naval assets in the region--get this--to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets.

Now come on, we're getting ready for war against Iran. Why? I mean, we ought to have a broad debate about this other than just burying this section of a bill in the National Defense Authorization Act. We have plenty of evidence there is no reason to go to war against Iran. We made the mistake in Iraq. Let's not make another one with Iran and set off World War III.

The NDAA authorizes war against Iran. It calls for a new policy--military action--which puts U.S. aircraft and munitions into position for air-and sea-based missions and the bolstering of U.S. capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets. It authorizes war under the pretext that Iran is threatening to launch a nuclear attack, even though Iran does not have nuclear weapons, does not have nuclear- weapons capability, and is not building a bomb.

Beyond the obvious political and military questions here, there is a profound spiritual question: What is happening to the spirit of America that we can embrace war or waging war so casually? What happens to our souls when we authorize an attack on a nuclear facility in another country? What happens to the souls of those who perish when radiation is released from such an attack?

The Golden Rule states: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It does not say: Do unto others before they do unto you.

To start the war in Iraq, Congress was lied to. To start the war in Afghanistan, Congress was misled. To start the war in Libya, Congress was ignored. To start the war in Iran, language has been hidden in the NDAA.

The NDAA prepares for war against Iran. It is a declaration of policy, which includes military action. It has a plan to pre-position aircraft, munitions, and fuel for air- and sea-based mission. It has a plan for maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets. This bill prepares for war.

Some will say, Well, it doesn't authorize for war. This bill prepares for war. Even if it's amended, it prepares for war. And we need to vote this bill down because it prepares for a war with Iran, which would be devastating to this country's interests.

Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letters:

May 9, 2012.

Re Workers and Nuclear Safety Protection in the Department of

Energy FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (HR

4310).

Hon. Howard McKeon,

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of

Representatives Washington, DC.

Hon. Adam Smith,

Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith: On behalf of

the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I write to

express CWA's strong concern with language

included in the House Armed Services Committee's FY 2013

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As introduced, key

sections of Title XXXI of the NDAA will weaken worker and

nuclear safety protections for affected employees and

community members living near facilities operated by the

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Section 3115 of the proposed legislation will transfer

responsibilities for worker safety and health enforcement at

DOE weapons complex sites from the DOE's Office of Health,

Safety and Security to the National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA). Unfortunately, this will result in

worker safety standards being limited to those issued under

Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).

Further, nuclear facility safety would be based upon ensuring

the safety and health of workers of NNSA and its contractors-

as well as the general public- are as low as practicable (as

opposed to achievable) and that adequate protection is

provided. This new standard will provide a lower level of

protection than that used by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission for commercial nuclear power plants. As such, this

weakening of workplace and worker safety and health

protections will result in today's workers becoming the next

generation of occupational disease victims.

Under the legislation, there would be a drastic shift in

the entire safety and health structure to a performance-based

oversight system based on Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) standards. Such performance-based

oversight will effectively eliminate the current DOE-specific

safety and health standards that provide the means for

adequate safety and health protections to be implemented at

covered facilities and remove the enforcement mechanisms

vital to ensuring worker and public safety. This change

represents a dramatic shift towards contractor self-

regulation and all but eliminates the government's role in

ensuring the protection of workers and members of the public.

CWA represents several thousand workers at three of the

targeted facilities, i.e., Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory, and Los

Alamos National Laboratory. Our members at these facilities

are exposed to a variety of radioactive and toxic materials.

Many work operations at these facilities are unique to the

DOE resulting in the issuance of specific worker safety

orders setting requirements for contractors to follow and

providing guidance helping workers to understand proper

workplace protections.

As noted, the proposed legislation would eliminate such DOE

safety orders including important provisions of DOE Order 850

which provides specific worker protections for beryllium

exposure. Beryllium is an extremely toxic, life-threatening

compound which causes a devastating lung disorder--Chronic

Beryllium Disease. Further, the DOE Order provides

significantly more protection than the OSHA beryllium

standard--including an exposure limit which is ten times less

than the OSHA standard.

In addition, the harmful legislation would eliminate

coverage of DOE Order 851 which requires DOE facilities to

have defined, proactive safety and health programs.

(Unfortunately, there is no equivalent OSHA rule); eliminate

DOE's current authority to order an employer to immediately

correct a workplace hazard. (OSHA has limited authority to

require such action of employers); and, as provided in the

OSHAct, allow employers to delay workplace hazard abatement

until lengthy legal procedures/appeals are exhausted.

CWA urges you to reject HR 4310 and any other efforts to

weaken critical safety and health protections for DOE

workers. As a stakeholder in this process, we are prepared to

meet with you and/or other members of the committee to

further explore and discuss this matter.

Sincerely,

Shane Larson,

Legislative Director,

Communications Workers of America.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

The administration's use of signature strikes raises the risk to innocent civilians or individuals who have had no relationship to attacks on the United States.

We know that the U.S. has made mistakes in who has been at the receiving end of its drone-strike program, and this was when we knew the identity of the person being targeted. A recent report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that at least 2,292 people have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. The bureau estimates that, of that number, over 350 are civilians. A July 2009 Brookings Institution report stated 10 civilians die for every one suspected militant from U.S. drone strikes.

Yet another study by the New America Foundation concluded that out of the 114 drone attacks in Pakistan, at least 32 percent of those killed by the strikes were civilians. Again, that was before we allowed drone strikes based only on signature behaviors.

We cannot deny that our drone strikes have resulted in the death of innocent people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

We're talking about the deaths of innocent people here. A recent article published in The Washington Post revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command have been given new authority that allows them to fire upon targets based solely on their so-called ``intelligence signatures,'' patterns of behavior that are detected through signal intercepts, human sources, aerial surveillance, and that indicated a presence of an important operative plot against U.S. interests. But allowing CIA and JSOC to conduct drone strikes without having to know the identity of the person they're targeting is in stark contrast to targeted strikes against suspected terrorists on lists maintained by the CIA and JSOC.

I yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of the amendment, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers of Michigan.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

As a matter of procedure, who has the right to close, the sponsor of an amendment or the opponent of an amendment?

I thank the Chair.

I am prepared to close. How much time do I have remaining, please?

In the absence of transparency and accountability for the drones program abroad, overreach is unchecked. The administration refuses to release the legal justification for permitting so-called ``signature drone strikes.'' The administration refuses to disclose whether and how there's any follow-up with the families of innocent civilians who died from a drone strike. The administration refuses to disclose whether civilian casualties are collected, tracked, and analyzed.

Our amendment, the Conyers-Kucinich amendment, recognizes that innocent civilians should not be collateral damage. It recognizes that sending an unmanned plane to drop bombs without knowing the identity of a target does not reflect American values. It recognizes that drones bombing people of unknown identity will generate powerful and enduring anti-American sentiment that prolongs and expands wars. It recognizes that Congress did not give the President an unlimited and unchecked power to expand our wars abroad, especially when it does not even bother to give Congress the legal justification to do so.

It became clear that the authorization for the use of military force is being interpreted, given carte blanche to circumvent Congress, and we ought to put an end to it right now.

I yield back the balance of my time.

This bill also authorizes a total of $642 billion for defense programs, including $88.5 billion to continue the Afghanistan war, on top of the more than $1.3 trillion we've spent thus far.

It contains dangerous language that would pave the path for a war with Iran. H.R. 4310 says the U.S. should take all necessary measures, including military action, to prevent Iran from having nuclear technology--this, despite the fact that Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have spoken out against a strike in Iran. What's Congress spoiling for another war for?

Now, we've spent trillions of dollars for war to wage violence thousands of miles away, and we've become anesthetized to the violence of war against millions of innocent women, children, and men abroad. It's no wonder that we're grappling with how best to deal with domestic violence.

Imagine if we took a fraction of the trillions of dollars we've spent for war and used it to deal directly with the root causes of domestic violence--spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools, gang violence, gun violence, racial violence, violence against immigrants, violence against gays. If we did that and looked at the root causes, we wouldn't even be arguing about spending money for war. We need to look at the issue of violence in America and do it in a consistent, comprehensive way.

I thank the gentleman.

Yesterday, we debated H. Res. 568, which draws a red line for military action at Iran's achieving a nuclear weapons ``capability,'' a nebulous and undefined term that could include a civilian nuclear program. As a result, the language in that bill makes a negotiated solution impossible.

Now, this bill, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, in section 1221 makes military action against Iran a U.S. policy. Right in the bill, it talks about deployments and military action. To create a plan, under article B of section 1222, it says that the Secretary of Defense shall prepare a plan for the Fifth Fleet to conduct military deployments. In section A of article II, it says that there should be prepositioning, sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions--bombs, fuel, and other materials--for both air- and sea-based missions against Iran. So that sets the stage for war. Then section B calls for an execution of the war, bolstering United States' capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets.

They're not threatening us. We're threatening them with this. Then we call for a showdown in the Strait of Hormuz in section C.

Now look. We've been through this before. I led this Congress in October of 2002 to challenge the Bush administration's march towards war against Iraq, and it proved that it was wrong to do that. There were no weapons of mass destruction. This is Iraq all over again, and we should at least have a separate debate on whether or not we should be recommending an attack on Iran without including it in this bill.

I thank my friend from California, but, unfortunately, I must disagree with him.

This resolution contains broad and dangerous language that would undermine any diplomatic solution regarding Iran's nuclear program. Without explicit language stating there is no authorization for military action, this could be interpreted as a blank check for war. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, stated:

This resolution reads like the same piece of music that got

us into the Iraq war.

Did not Congress learn anything from being hustled into a war based on misrepresentations?

At a time when the U.S. is engaging in its first successful direct talks with Iran in years, it is more critical than ever for Congress to support these negotiations. Even if language were added to H. Res. 568 to make it absolutely clear that this bill does not constitute an authorization for war and that only Congress can make such an authorization, it still puts Members of Congress on record as opposing a diplomatic solution, paving the way toward war with Iran. In the past, Congress has rejected its power to declare war, and now we want to tell the President that he can't declare diplomacy. Congress must reject resolutions that could lead the U.S. into yet another disastrous and costly war and tie the President's hands as he endeavors for a peaceful solution.

Have we not lost enough of our brave men and women to causes that are not in the interests of the U.S.?

H. Res. 568 lowers the bar for war by changing longstanding U.S. policy that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons by, instead, drawing the red line for military action at Iran's achieving a nuclear-weapons capability. The term ``capability'' is undefined in the underlying resolution, and it could be applied to any country with a civilian nuclear program, including Japan and Brazil. This resolution, therefore, sets a precedent which could cause us to stumble from one war into another.

And, what, we haven't had enough wars?

Not all enrichment is devoted to building bombs. This resolution marks a significant shift in U.S. policy that could threaten critical upcoming negotiations with Iran on May 23. It is likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran would provide for Iranian enrichment for peaceful purposes, under the framework of the nonproliferation nuclear weapons treaty, with strict safeguards and inspections.

I want to point out, in conclusion, that Yuval Diskin, the former Shin Bet chief, has stated that attacking Iran will encourage them to develop a bomb.

Meir Dagan, the former Mossad chief, echoed his sentiment by saying:

Attacking Iran is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

It will be followed by a war with Iran. It's the kind of

thing where we know how it starts but not know how it will

end.

I think our diplomacy is having an effect, said General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. Speaker, it's called a reconciliation act, but how do we reconcile more money for bombs while cutting money for bread? How do we reconcile our Nation helping oil companies, arms merchants, and war profiteers while cutting assistance to low- and moderate-income families?

My colleagues are worried about abuse of food stamps. I wish they would have additional concern and sympathy for the abuse of the middle class, for 10 million Americans out of work, for millions losing their homes, their retirement security.

Let's look to where the real fraud is in our government--in wars based on lies, over trillions of dollars, billions of U.S. money lost or stolen in Afghanistan. Just in the last week, $80 million for a consulate that they are not even going to use, they are going to close. And we blame poor people using food stamps?

The real deficit we're dealing with here is a moral deficit, and it's time that we face the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Larry Baldwin as he is celebrated for his dedicated work on behalf of the environment.

In 2001, Larry graduated from Shippensburg University with a degree in GeoEnvironmental Studies. While earning his degree, Larry worked as an intern with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation where he was also an active volunteer for more than a decade. He began working for the Neuse River Foundation (NRF) in North Carolina in October, 2002 as the Lower Neuse RIVERKEEPER'.

During his nine years with NRF, Larry worked to engage countless volunteers and raise educational awareness on the importance of a healthy Neuse River. He was instrumental in establishing the Neuse RIVERKEEPER' RiverKids program and mobilizing RiverWatch and Muddy Water Watch volunteers to help monitor the Neuse River and its tributaries.

Today, Larry serves as the North Carolina Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Coordinator for Waterkeeper Alliance. He is focused on training and educating Riverkeepers worldwide on CAFO pollution. Additionally, his expertise has given Larry the opportunity to educate not only the public, but the government on environmental issues. Just last month, Larry was in Washington, D.C. educating Congress on the public health and environmental hazards created by factory farm facilities.

He is also active with numerous environmental groups including the Waterkeeper Alliance, America Rivers, River Network, North Carolina Conservation Network and the Eastern Carolina Coastal Caucus. He is a member of the Craven County Water Use Reduction Committee, Emergency Planning Committee and the Crystal Coast Disaster Coalition.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Mr. Larry Baldwin, an outspoken advocate for environmental protection.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4133, the United States-Israeli Security Cooperation Act expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. take actions to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge with advanced missile defense systems and ``specialized munitions'' to protect Israel in a time of significant change in the region, as well as to respond to the threat posed by Iran. I strongly support Israel's security and believe that the United States has an important role to play in ensuring regional peace. I am concerned that the language in this bill could pave the path for war with Iran.

At a time when the United States and Iran are making significant progress in their first direct negotiations in years, legislation that draws the line at a nuclear capable Iran undermines the talks. Indeed, as Trita Parsi, a leading expert on Iran points out, it is likely that a negotiated deal with Iran under the framework of the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty will allow for enrichment for peaceful purposes on Iranian soil under strict inspections. Preventing a disastrous war and a nuclear-weapons free Iran will require that the United States and the international community fully support such negotiations.

Many experts agree that a preemptive military strike on Iran would only delay their nuclear program. Top U.S. military officials such as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have plainly stated that Iran has not acquired a nuclear weapon. Even former Israeli intelligence officials, including the former heads of the Shin Bet and the Mossad, have joined the chorus of top U.S. military brass in opposing a preemptive military strike against Iran.

Sustained, diplomatic engagement with Iran is the only way to achieve transparency and a nuclear-weapons free Iran. Any Congressional effort to limit or undermine the President's authority to pursue diplomacy with Iran and to encourage the use of military force against Iran must be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Mobile Turkish Coffee House, currently touring the East Coast to promote friendship between Turkish and American people. Led by Gizem Salcigil White, this all-volunteer, non-profit project has decorated a food truck with images of Turkey and is travelling to Washington D.C.; Baltimore, Maryland; New York City; New Haven, Connecticut; and Boston, Massachusetts to share free Turkish coffee with Americans in order to facilitate ``coffee conversations'' between Turkish and American people.

The United States of America and the Republic of Turkey have close diplomatic ties and they cooperate on many issues. The Mobile Turkish Coffee House project is promoting awareness of this friendship through fun cultural events. In addition to sharing free coffee, the Mobile Turkish Coffee House is hosting educational events throughout the East Coast. The events feature expert lectures and free tastings followed by short role-plays that reflect Turkish traditions and values.

Turkish coffee is world-renowned. This unique coffee was recently submitted to UNESCO's World Heritage list by the Republic of Turkey's Ministry of Culture and Tourism as a cultural inheritance that should be protected. The Ottoman Empire brought coffee to Europe, from which it made its way to the United States. Both Americans and Turkish people enjoy coffee; through this project both peoples can learn more about our shared history.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Gizem Salcigil White and all the volunteers who have made The Mobile Turkish Coffee House a reality. As they spread their message of good will, we recognize their spirit of friendship and commend them for their efforts to promote peace and international camaraderie.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Olga 'Betty' Dougherty, a dedicated civic activist in Lakewood, Ohio, and a volunteer to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates in Northeast Ohio.

Born on October 8th, 1917, in Ashtabula, Ohio, Olga Tratnik, was known as Betty. In her early 20s, Betty worked as a housekeeper before landing a job at General Electric until she retired.

Betty was a passionate volunteer, working with many different organizations to improve the world around her. She was with the St. Clair Superior Coalition for 20 years. She was a longtime member of the Lakewood Democratic Club. Following her retirement, in the early 1990s, Betty became more politically involved and began volunteering for Democratic Cleveland City Council candidates in her ward. She eventually worked her way into larger races and was an avid volunteer for Ohio State Representative Mike Foley, Ohio State Senator Michael Skindell and myself.

In 1997, during my first term in Congress, Norfolk Southern announced its plan to triple the number of freight trains along the track through Lakewood as part of its acquisition of Conrail. Betty was then living in the Westerly apartments near my Lakewood District Office. She was active in opposing the merger because of the effect the increased freight levels would have on the safety of the people of Lakewood and surrounding communities. Betty and several other seniors who lived in the Westerly began a daily count of the number of trains, contradicting NS's contention that there were only 13 trains a day as there was in 1995. Known as the ``Senior Monitors,'' Betty and her colleagues reported their train counts at every meeting of the people organized to oppose to the merger. Often the Senior Monitors' numbers were much higher than Norfolk Southern's, in the 20 24 range. The Senior Monitors' data was significant in helping me and the local communities negotiate the historic cap on the number of trains at the 1995 level, rather than a higher number based on 1997 numbers. Thanks to Betty's help and so many others working with her to protect safety in Lakewood, that cap of 14 trains per day on the Nickel Plate Line through Lakewood, Rocky River and Bay Village, is in effect today.

Betty was also a world traveler and joined travel groups where she would be paired up with another single lady on adventures all over the world. Throughout her travels she collected hundreds of recipes and enjoyed hosting her friends and neighbors for dinner parties.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the great life and achievements of Betty Dougherty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of former state representative, Reverend Michael DeBose.

A lifelong resident of Cleveland, Ohio, Rev. DeBose graduated from Urban League Street Academy and Cleveland State University. He also studied at Myers College and the Moody Bible Institute. He began his professional career with the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority and City of Cleveland. He eventually went to work for the Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer Department as a building and grounds superintendent and vehicle maintenance supervisor.

In 2002, Rev. DeBose began serving as a Member of the Ohio House of Representatives from the 12th District, representing the areas of Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, Cleveland Wards 1 and Ward 2, as well as part of Cleveland Ward 3. He was an avid advocate for raising the minimum wage and promoting cancer screenings. He served as State Representative for four consecutive terms until he reached the term limit at the end of 2010.

In addition to his civil service, Rev. DeBose was an active member of the Greater Cleveland community. He was a member of the Cleveland School Board and was essential to the establishment of the Cleveland School of the Arts' parent-teacher association. Rev. DeBose was also an associate pastor at Zion Chapel Missionary Baptist Church and served as chaplain for the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus.

I offer my condolences to his wife, the former Cheryl Ann Andrews; children, Shalimar Keyhan DeBose, Michael Kareem DeBose II and Krystal Keyhan DeBose; three grandsons; four brothers and four sisters.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering the late Reverend Michael DeBose.