Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, President Bush told the Nation, ``You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.'' That assertion was one of the key justifications for the war in Iraq.

At the appropriate point in the debate, I shall enter into the Record 16 similar assertions by leading members of the administration and several other relevant documents.

Those assertions have, like the White House's other claim that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, not found substantiation in fact. I quote 27 top-level U.S. diplomats and military commanders who have said, ``The administration . . . justified the invasion of Iraq . . . by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda . . . The evidence did not support this argument.''

One week ago, the 9-11 Commission published staff statement number 15 entitled ``Overview of the Enemy,'' which found no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The staff statement was the product of professional people, all of whom were jointly appointed by both the Republican chairman and the Democratic vice chair of the Commission. Included among these staff people are former analysts with the intelligence agencies, investigators and academics.

Instead of accepting the finding of this Commission, which Congress and the President established in order to find the definitive answer to this and other questions, the Vice President went on national television to question the credibility of the Commission. He repeated the assertion that the administration has made so many times, and he said he ``probably'' has more information than the Commission about ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Does the administration have more information than the Commission, or does it not? Is the White House informing the public of substantiated facts, or is the White House engaged in what could be called a cynical campaign to disinform the American public?

As the St. Petersburg Times editorial of yesterday stated, ``We don't know what information the Vice President is referring to, but we do know this: Every important public charge that the White House and its supporters did make against Iraq in the months leading up to war, such as the purchase of nuclear weapons materials from Africa, meetings between al Qaeda and Iraqi operatives in Prague, and mobile biological weapons labs in the Iraqi desert, have been discredited . . . The bipartisan Commission's credibility isn't in question. The administration's is. That is the most important reason for the Vice President to come forward and produce the evidence he alluded to.'' That is the question the Kucinich-Tauscher amendment seeks to answer.

Submission by Dennis J. Kucinich in Support of the Kucinich/Tauscher

Amendment to H.R. 4548, June 23, 2004

The Kucinich/Tauscher amendment has been endorsed by:

Admiral Stansfield Turner, former DCI 1977-1981;

Greg Thielmann, former State Department Intelligence

official;

Coleen Rowley, in her personal capacity, former FBI

official;

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst;

Gene Betit, former Army Intelligence official;

Ray Close, former CIA chief of station, Saudi Arabia;

David MacMichael, former National Intelligence Council

analyst;

Mel Goodman, professor at National War College;

Col. Patrick Lang, retired U.S. Army Special Forces;

Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, at DIA;

Larry Johnson, former CIA and State Department intelligence

analyst;

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs),

Steering Committee;

Center for American Progress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for helping to demonstrate the very reason why it is important to have an Inspector General's audit because of all the conflicting information. So I appreciate his presenting his side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), our ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to thank all my colleagues for their perspectives as to why

this is a necessary amendment and comment that today that Admiral Stansfield Turner has also endorsed this amendment. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4613, the Defense Appropriations Act of FY 2005. The bill spends $418 billion--including $25 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress could spend tens of billions less and still easily protect our nation. And continued funding of military operations in Iraq keeps the US in the long running quagmire.

If the administration's request of more than $447 billion, including military construction and energy spending, is approved, overall defense spending, in real terms, would be about 18 percent higher than the average Cold War budget. Moreover, if current long-term administration plans are realized, defense spending would increase by 23 percent from 2004 to 2009, or about 23 percent above average Cold War levels. None of these figures include additional FY 2005 funding expected for operations in Iraq.

The bill provides $9.7 billion for national missile defense programs (NMD); $632 million, 7 percent, more than the current level. The NMD has not completed its development tests, much less its critical operational tests performed under realistic combat conditions. As a result, there is no way of knowing if the system will be successful. Thomas Christie, director of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, confirmed in a March 11 hearing that there is no way to determine if the system will work. In an April 2004 report, the GAO stated: ``As a result of testing shortfalls and the limited time available to test the BMDS [Ballistic Missile Defense System] being fielded, system effectiveness will be largely unproven when the initial capability goes on alert at the end of September 2004.''

NMD provides no defense against the most likely future attacks on U.S., which would not be delivered by missiles. The methods of delivery have already been demonstrated at the World Trade Center in New York, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the U.S.S. Cole, the U.S. embassies in Africa, the trains in Madrid and the subway in Tokyo. A nuclear weapon is much more likely to be delivered on a truck than a ballistic missile.

The bill wrongly spends $3.6 billion on the controversial 24 F/A-22 Raptor fighter, the most expensive jet fighter every built. The F-22, continues to be plagued by cost over-runs, technical problems, and questions about whether the Air Force should be directing its resources to expensive aircraft when newer strategies might be more effective and less costly. The aircraft also continues to be plagued by technical problems, including a weak horizontal tail, perpetual overheating and overly complex avionics software that has often failed during testing. The F-22 is now 10 years behind schedule and is over four times more expensive than the F-15 and F-16 it is meant to replace. Shifting to the F-22 means a smaller airforce that is paradoxically more expensive to procure and maintain.

The bill permits the Pentagon to proceed with its wrong-headed plan to lease or buy 100 KC-767A refueling tankers for the Air Force. The plan represents an enormous subsidy for Boeing and delivers planes the Air Force does not need. Last month, a report by the Defense Science Board found no ``compelling material or financial reason'' to buy or lease 100 of the aircraft. The report followed a study released last month by the department's inspector general claiming that alternatives to the current plan should be re-examined.

Among the many other objectionable provisions, the bill funds an increase of 13,000 active-duty Army and Marine Corps personnel. And the measure provides for an average pay hike of 3.5 percent for military personnel, but only 1.5 percent for civilian Defense Department employees.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, it seems that there are a number of people on our side here who are prepared to speak to this, and I think that before we agree to a unanimous consent, it would be good to poll to see how many Members we have so we are not going to be denied an opportunity to present our concerns about this and our support for this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard). The Department of Homeland Security should be prevented from undertaking its privatization review of the investigation and adjudication of applications for immigration rights and benefits. It is simplistic to assume that privatization automatically leads to savings and efficiency. Sometimes it does not, and this case is one that clearly does not. Consider that.

The Department of Homeland Security, that part of the Department of Homeland Security which is formally known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, does not keep track of its existing contractors, according to the General Accounting Office.

Specifically, GAO said the INS, which is now the Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services, does not have the basic infrastructure, including oversight, information and an acquisition workforce in place to ensure that its contracting activity is effective. INS has not consistently ensured that acquisition personnel are adequately trained to do their jobs, and this is from a GAO report less than a year ago.

Number two, independent parties report that the Department's recent contract for similar, but much simpler, work has had disastrous results. According to dozens of civil rights advocates, recent experience with the national customer service center offers another example of the negative impacts of contracting out immigration functions and the differences that result from using an outside contractor rather than a trained CIS employee. The contrast has been profound, and the resulting problems ranging from the frustrating and time-wasting, to truly damaging errors.

Before the June changeover, existing government personnel readily solved the majority of these problems. Operators who now answer the calls know nothing about the subject of the call and rarely provide assistance. So much for contracting out. These operators who work from scripts frequently cannot even identify which script they should be using and are rarely able to provide meaningful assistance. In fact, they often provide answers that convey a clear misunderstanding of the subject matter with which they are dealing.

Number three, the Department, according to internal documents, has failed to heed warnings from its own staff and consultants that this particular privatization review is ill advised, because it is poorly structured, unlikely to generate efficiencies, and inspired in order to meet a privatization quota that has been prohibited by Congress and repudiated by the administration.

I have some familiarity with an example of privatization through the A-76 process and would like to share it with my colleagues. During 2000, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service conducted an A-76 competition for its Military Retired and Annuitant Pay functions, most of which are performed in my district in Cleveland. A private contractor, ACS Government Solutions Group, was awarded the contract on the basis of a very small cost advantage, over $1.9 million over the entire 10-year contract period.

In March of 2003, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense reviewed this A-76 award. It determined that the award to a private contractor in 2001 was erroneous. According to the IG, an error committed by the private company hired by DFAS to prepare its in-house bid resulted in an erroneous high bid by the government. The error was compounded by the audit division of the DoD IG, which served as the independent review officer and which failed to discover the error. As a result, the higher bidder actually won the competition.

Now, in spite of these findings, DFAS has renewed its contract in each succeeding year with the higher bidder. Now, what is the lesson we should learn?

First, privatization does not necessarily equal efficiency. Second, privatization does not necessarily lead to savings in cost, and third, privatization wastes taxpayers' funds and degrades the performance of government work. Vote ``yes'' on the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and prevent a waste of taxpayer funds.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, I had the opportunity to visit Yellowstone a couple of weeks ago and to meet with groups of citizens who are actively involved in trying to protect the wild and free-roaming buffalo of Yellowstone National Park; and it is their position, and having been on the site and seen where buffalo follow migration patterns, it is their position that everything should be done to make sure that these free- roaming buffalo are protected for future generations.

One of the things that has not been brought up in the debate that I would like to add at this time is the importance of protecting these buffalo as a genetically unique herd.

I enter into the Record of this discussion here remarks that were made by a Texas A&M professor in the Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, who said ``The so-called random shooting at the Montana borders is actually eliminating or depleting entire maternal lineages; therefore, this action will cause an irreversible crippling of the gene pool. Continued removal of genetic lineages will change the genetic makeup of the herd; thus it will not represent the animal of 1910 or earlier. It would be a travesty to have people look back and say we were idiots for not understanding the gene pool.''

The so-called random shooting at the Montana borders is

actually eliminating or depleting entire maternal lineages,

therefore this action will cause irreversible crippling of

the gene pool. Continued removal of genetic lineages will

change the genetic makeup of the herd, thus it will not

represent the animal of 1910 or earlier. It would be a

travesty to have people look back and say we were ``idiots''

for not understanding the gene pool. Bison have developed a

natural resistance genetically as long as they have enough to

eat, limited stress and are not consumed by other disease.

There is no magic bullet in wildlife disease, therefore

management is important. Vaccines are one management tool and

one component, but genetic structure is necessary for future

management. Every animal which is removed from the breeding

population can no longer contribute to the genetic

variability of the herd.

So there are genetic implications to this action as well. We have to understand that what is happening here is that buffalo in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, according to the Save the Buffalo National Petition, are not protected on traditional winter habitat to the north and west of Yellowstone National Park.

The park does not provide sufficient winter range, except during mild winters, for the resident herds of buffalo; and buffalo leave the park to forage on lower grasses critical for winter survival. That is not because the park is overgrazed, but because forage is unavailable due to winter conditions. Thus the buffalo follow their instinctual migration routes to lower elevation and unwittingly enter a conflict zone where their survival is undermined by politics.

Now, this petition, which is available on the Web, points out that one of the solutions is that the U.S. Government recognize the importance of traditional buffalo grazing and calving lands and migration quarters to the future of wild herds.

The Hinchey petition would protect the status of the free-roaming buffalo.

They also go on to say that the Forest Service should close grazing allotments to settle and reallocate them to the last wild buffalo.

This is something that we need to keep in mind, because on the 7th of June, the Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife and Parks released a draft environmental assessment to analyze the possibility of a sport hunt of buffalo that cross the borders of the Yellowstone National Park into Montana.

We have to see that what is happening here is that buffalo are being hazed with helicopters. Once they go off lands, and sometimes they are on Federal lands, they are subjected to not just hazing but eventual capture and elimination.

I think that we need to see that we have a national obligation here. It is part of our national obligation. This is not about East versus West. This is about who we are as a country.

One of the iconic songs of another generation, ``Home on the Range,'' begins, ``Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam.'' It did not go on to say, and let us capture them and kill them. It talks about an image of America, which still resides in the hearts of many Americans today.

There are many young people who are working in the area of Yellowstone National Park to save the buffalo, and we ought to be joining their efforts. We ought to be joining it, because this is part of who we are as a Nation, this is a part of America's heritage; and while we need to be concerned about the cattle ranchers, we also need to take into account that according to science there has been no demonstration after transmission of brucellosis from a buffalo herd into cattle.

So we have to go on the facts, but we should also remember who we are as a Nation. Let us protect the buffalo, and let us vote for the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

The Sanders amendment is something that I believe that people on both sides of the aisle will be able to support, and let me explain why. If I may quote from something previous that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has actually presented to this House, he pointed out that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the past under both Democratic and Republican administrations has, in fact, lowered the price, lowered the price of gas and crude oil.

When President Clinton ordered the release of 30 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2000, the price of gas fell by 14 cents a gallon in just 2 weeks. And, when President George H.W. Bush released 13 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1991, crude oil prices dropped by over $10 per barrel. So those are Democrats and Republicans out there alike who are getting socked by these high prices for gasoline.

So it is up to us to be able to stand up for both Democrats and Republicans alike who are suffering from high gasoline prices.

The Sanders amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, is a win-win for consumers and for the Federal Government. It is going to reduce the price of gas. People want to know, Congressman, what will you do to reduce the price of gasoline? The Sanders amendment. It will reduce the price of gas and reduce the deficit at the same time.

Expenditures for gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas in 1999 accounted for about $1,400 per year of total household expenditures. Price increases over the past 4 years for these residential items added about $350 per household per year, meaning that domestic energy price shocks have increased household energy bills by 25 percent.

The driving motivator of these energy price shocks is the monopolistic energy industry. The industry has been concentrated in the hands of a few vertically integrated companies that have shut down refineries, reduced stocks, and exploited markets when they became tight. Since these price

increases were about padding the corporate bottom line, not about responding to increased costs, petroleum industry profits have risen to record highs over the period. Domestic petroleum companies have stuck U.S. gasoline and natural gas consumers with about, get this: $250 billion in price hikes since January 2000, resulting in an after-tax windfall profit of $50 billion to $80 billion to the industry.

So the next time someone goes to the pump, they have to understand they are subsidizing windfall profits for the oil companies, and all of these families in America that are suffering from the high cost of gasoline, the Sanders amendment is the solution to do something about it.

Now, this amendment will suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve effective to March of 2004 when several Members of Congress wrote to President Bush calling for a halt of oil deliveries into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to maintain more than 647 million barrels of oil. We can always swap it out if there is a problem with the numbers.

At the present time, there is 661.4 million barrels of oil in that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Bush administration is to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its capacity of 700 million barrels, regardless of price, and that is the policy that is keeping the prices higher. At a time when the price of gas still averages about $2 a gallon, it simply does not make any sense to continue to put more oil into that Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is the policy that keeps gas prices unnecessarily high, and my constituents in Ohio and all across the country, they are paying the price at the pump.

The quickest method to reduce gas prices is to send a clear message to the oil industry that the Federal Government is not going to tolerate further price increases and profiteering. The Sanders amendment will do that.

Further profiteering is only going to hurt our weak economy. It is time for Congress to protect our constituents' pocketbooks and improve the economy. We must prod the oil companies into compliance rather than subsidize them.

This amendment is good for consumers, it is good for this country, it is good to stop the rising inflation that the increased costs of gasoline is contributing to, and it maintains an adequate level of crude oil in Federal stockpiles. It is time for Congress to take action on this, and again, this is a bipartisan amendment. People on both sides of the aisle can support it. I represent Republicans as well as Democrats, and I am proud to say that, and I am proud to say that people, both Democrats and Republicans, I believe, in my district support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection, provided that the gentleman wants to share that time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Grace Szubski--admired attorney, devoted worker's advocate, friend and mentor, as she was recently honored with the Distinguished Service Award for Worker's Compensation from the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Today we celebrate Ms. Szubski's professional contribution as a dedicated advocate of employment justice and legal rights for countless workers within our Cleveland community. Ms. Szubski's significant work lends a strong voice to countless workers whose pleas would otherwise not be heard. Her exemplary work consistently reflects integrity, expertise and heart, and is also a testament to the success and fairness of America's judicial system.

Ms. Szubski has worked as an attorney with Garsen & Associates for the past twenty years. She continues to focus her law practice in the areas of workers' compensation, probate and social security disability. Beyond her significant legal contributions, Ms. Szubski volunteers her time and talents on behalf of several civic and humanitarian causes. She serves as a trustee for the Dioceses of Cleveland Catholic Charities Corporation and also serves on its Executive Committee. Since 1986, Ms. Szubski has journeyed to Kentucky and Tennessee's Appalachian mountain region, as youth leader and participant, to focus on the housing and ministry needs of some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, recognition and gratitude of the professional and personal work of Ms. Grace Szubski-- the 2004 recipient of the Distinguished Service Award for Worker's Compensation from the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. Her outstanding work and accomplishments as a dedicated attorney and, most significantly, her integrity, support and concern for others has served as an inspiration to her clients, colleagues, and countless residents of Appalachia and our own community. We wish Ms. Szubski continued health, happiness and peace throughout her professional and personal journey. Her outstanding service on behalf of the rights of others truly makes a difference, and serves as outstanding example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Mr. John Rees--Award-winning journalist, devoted family man, and friend and mentor to many, whose life touched the lives of countless people, including my own.

Mr. Rees' 45-year career in journalism reflected honesty, ethics, and a real connection to the people he wrote about. His ability to pierce through the murky waters of a complex story and uncover the truth of the matter set him apart from most reporters. He was honored numerous times with prestigious awards for excellence in journalism, including a Cleveland Press Club Award, and a resolution of honor passed by Cleveland City Council in tribute to his significant career. Additionally, Mr. Rees was inducted into the Cleveland Journalism Hall of Fame in 1989.

Though his work was held in high esteem within the Cleveland newspaper circuit, accolades and awards did not impress Mr. Rees; honesty, ethics and writing the straight story did. He understood the power of the printed word and upheld his unbreakable personal and professional ethics with every word he wrote.

The exceptional person reflected the exceptional writer. Mr. Rees gained the confidence and trust of people from all walks of life. His respect and concern for others was demonstrated consistently throughout his life and he extended himself beyond the bounds of where most people dare to go--reaching out to others in need, literally saving the lives of two individuals while on the beat.

Directly following graduation from St. Francis Commercial High School in Cleveland, Mr. Rees began working as an office boy at the old Cleveland News. Bolstered by natural born talent, true grit and keen observation skills, Mr. Rees worked his way up from office boy, to reporter, to eventually becoming the paper's city editor despite being told by a superior that he would not amount to anything.

Whether covering crime stories, the political scene or labor issues, Mr. Rees forged strong connections of trust and respect with people throughout all facets of our Cleveland community. He offered everyone the same respect and interest, regardless of their social status, and people loved him for it.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of my friend, John Rees. Today we mourn his passing and celebrate his life. I offer my condolences to his daughter; Rosemary; sons, Jack and Richard; his grandchildren and great-grandchildren; and also to his extended family and many friends. I also acknowledge the memory of his beloved wife, Freda. John Rees' journalistic talent, unwavering ethics and genuine kindness consistently framed his exemplary career and defined his life. His legacy will live on within the hearts of those who knew and loved him well, today, and for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Jimmy Deane, Business Manager of the Laborers' Union, Local 310 of Cleveland, Ohio, as we celebrate his retirement following more than forty years of advocacy, commitment and leadership within this significant union of workers.

Mr. Deane journeyed to America from Ireland in 1962, with the promise of honest work and hope for a new beginning. He began work as a laborer in the construction trades and became a member of the union in 1962. In 1991 he was appointed to the position of Field Representative, and in 1995 he accepted the appointment of Business Manager. Throughout his union tenure, Mr. Deane remained focused on workers' rights, benefits, and safety. As a result of his concern, expertise and leadership, Laborers' Union, Local 310 reflected fiscal responsibility, integrity and effectiveness in representing and protecting its members.

Mr. Deane's activism extends throughout our local labor and political landscapes. He is a member of the Laborers District Council of Ohio, an Executive Board Trustee of the Ohio Laborers Training Fund, and has also served as delegate to the AFL-CIO. Though his Irish homeland lives forever in his heart, Mr. Deane wholly embraced all that is America. His activism within our democratic processes and support of local candidates serves to strengthen our community and, corresponding with the union, illuminates the foundation of America--a foundation of equal representation and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, gratitude and recognition of my good friend, Mr. Jimmy Deane--Business Manager of the Laborers' Union, Local 310, as we reflect on his significant service and dedication to working individuals and their families. Mr. Deane's integrity, conviction, and exceptional ability to bring people and ideas together for the common good, has served to raise the bar on all levels within the union, the workplace, and within our community. His steadfast commitment to the laborers of our community is a guiding force for all union members and leaders to emulate--today, and for generations of workers to come. We wish Mr. Jimmy Deane and his entire family many blessings of happiness, health and peace--today, tomorrow and in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Dr. Joseph and Betts Skrha, as they celebrate fifty years of devotion to each other, to their family, and to their extended family--the people of their beloved North Broadway community.

The union of Dr. and Mrs. Skrha represents a shared love and commitment not only for each other, but for their family, and their community. Their unbreakable bond continues to embrace and elevate the lives of their children--Joseph Ray, Betsey and John. The memory of their beloved son, Paul, remains eternal within their hearts, and within the hearts of countless residents along Broadway Avenue and beyond.

A united team, Dr. and Mrs. Skhra continue to serve as each other's confidant and advocate. A couple of doors down from the family home, where they continue to live today, Mrs. Betts Skrha supported and worked with Dr. Joseph Skrha throughout his medical practice. Their steadfast convictions and willingness to help others is reflected in the lives of hundreds of families and individuals, some of whom, like the Skhra's, still live in the old neighborhood. Moreover, they have inspired their children and many others--including myself--to reach out in service to others.

Dr. Joseph Skhra, an ordained Roman Catholic Deacon, was the Director of the Family Medicine Department and Director of Pastoral Care for many years at the now-closed St. Michael's Hospital. Betts Skrha, a scholar and leader in her own right, holds two degrees in nursing, worked within the field for many years, and was the long-time chairperson of the St. Michael's Community Board. Moreover, Betts Skhra is a founding member of Broadway School of Music and the Arts.

Their collective faith and deep sense of spirituality has healed, and continues to heal, the bodies, and more importantly, the heart and soul of the working class people of this neighborhood. They both continue to provide spiritual guidance to the elderly at Lourexis, Alexia Manor and Mead House. Additionally, the Skrha's continue their advocacy on behalf of University Settlement, The Broadway School of Music and the Arts, Our Lady of Lourdes Church and School, and the Cleveland Sight Center.

The Skrha's community service and heart are an inextricable facet of the light that brings comfort, hope and possibility along the streets and within the homes of our North Broadway community. Their leadership and dedication has made a permanent, positive difference within the lives of countless individuals and families--including mine.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition to Dr. Joseph and Mrs. Betts Skhra, for creating a symphony of love and strength that continues to resound within the hearts and minds of their children, grandchildren and the countless individuals whose lives they've touched along their journey. I offer to both of them my gratitude and admiration for being invaluable role models for many of us whose paths have crossed with theirs as they continue to inspire us all to reach for our dreams, to live in service to others, and to never forget where we came from.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rahall amendment. In the last few years, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to tour this country and visit many Indian reservations and to discuss with Native Americans their concerns about the protections of sacred sites. I have talked to Native Americans who have been very taken with the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall) support for their interest and particularly the work that he did to protect the Valley of Chiefs in Montana.

I want to say that what we often have here in this Congress is a collision of cultures until we understand that the broad interests of the American people are always connected with things spiritual. Our Native Americans gave to this country an understanding of the connection between the spiritual and the material world, and this discussion here today needs to reflect once again the Native American spiritual values.

There is a lot of discussions in this House about spiritual values. Let us talk about the spiritual values which connect people to the privacy of the air and the water and the protection of the land, about the sacredness of it, the essential sacredness. These discussions here which the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has continued to bring to this House is absolutely at the root of some of the most important questions facing this Nation.

Do we respect the spiritual dimensions which our Native American brothers and sisters depend upon for continuing a celebration of their cultures or are we going to auction it off to oil and gas companies and let their leases in effect desecrate sacred sites.

Now, people on both sides of the aisle have celebrated spiritual values in this House. This is not a material question here as much as it is a spiritual one. And we have to be sensitive to the spiritual values of America's natives, of those who were here before any of us; and when we forget that we pay a spiritual price, I would submit.

Literature is replete with what happens when anyone violates the spiritual space of Native Americans. We should not ignore that there are deeper themes at work here. That is why what the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has done in asking for Executive Order 13007 to be brought into more powerful effect is absolutely essential. It is not only essential with respect to protecting Native American interests, it is essential with respect to helping to heal this Nation because we have hundreds of years of neglect that have resulted in not only the expropriation of the lands of Native Americans, but also what it has done is it has demeaned this country's spiritual basis.

So I salute the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for his efforts here. This is a broader discussion that needs to be brought into this House. Essentially this becomes about the healing of America, and one step we take towards that is reconciling with our native brothers and sisters on this question of respecting their sacred sites.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) very much for the time, and it is a pleasure to work with him on the committee to protect the rights of workers and also to speak to the concern of unemployed Americans.

I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 444, the Worker Reemployment Accounts Act of 2004. I would like to begin with a reflection here.

Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently appeared in Washington to talk about unemployment and about unemployment insurance, and he said ``that when unemployment is created, through no fault of the workers' actions, then I think it is clearly to our advantage to find ways of creating support in our system, and as a consequence, in times like this, I have supported the issue of extension of unemployment insurance.'' That is Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Now, there is an urgency about this issue about unemployment, and I would submit that the solution that is being offered today by our friends in the majority is a false solution. We have the chairman of the Federal Reserve ready to recognize the urgency of unemployment insurance. It is obvious that we ought to be providing for an extension of unemployment insurance to meet the needs of those millions of Americans who are desperate today for Congress to take action. Why are they desperate? Well, let us look at what happened.

The economic record of this administration will show that over a period from January of 2001 to April 2004, there has, in fact, been a substantial increase in the unemployment rate from 4.2 percent in January 2001 to 5.6 percent in April of 2004. Let us look more closely at this.

What we have here is of great consequence to millions of Americans because in this period, from January 2001 to April 2004, we have seen long-term unemployment nearly triple. In other words, there are not only more people unemployed, but more people are unemployed for longer periods of time, which means a tremendous adverse economic impact on their families.

In January 2001, there were approximately 680,000 people in this country who were unemployed more than 26 weeks; but now, in April of 2004, under the economic policies of this administration, the unemployment rate for those who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks has gone to 1.8 million, nearly three times. This, of course, means that there is real desperation on the part of many American families to get some help.

Now, let us put this in a historical context. How do we take the economic policies of this administration with respect to job creation and with respect to the lack thereof and put it against all administrations over the last 70 years? This comparison is noteworthy because what we see here is that going all the way back to the time of Herbert Hoover, there has not been a worse condition where we have seen an actual decline in private sector jobs. In this whole arc of a 70- year period, we see in one administration after another, Democrat and Republican alike, this administration has failed to meet the tests that all other administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, have met; and, in fact, we have here an actual decline in private sector jobs, only in this administration.

So what should be the solution right now with so many people suffering? We have been told this by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Our unemployment system is very well structured, and it has worked the way I think we wanted it to work. Alan Greenspan again said that on March 11 of this year.

So we should be here talking today about an extension of unemployment benefits. Not only is it important in terms of recognizing the abysmal failure of an administration in dealing with the creation of jobs, but with knowing the suffering of working families who are not getting any relief whatsoever at a time when the fund, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) pointed out, keep building up and up. What are we going to do with all this money? Instead, we have a bill which apparently those who crafted it believe that left to their own devices the 8.2 million unemployed workers in America would prefer to simply remain jobless.

With that analysis and thus the theory that underlies, this bill is absolutely wrong. Unemployed Americans are unemployed not because they want to be, but because they cannot find jobs. Since the recession began 37 months ago, 2.2 million private sector jobs have disappeared, a 2 percent contraction in the job market. In every previous episode of recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs fully recovered to above the pre-recessionary peak within 31 months at the start of the recession. This time, however, it has not happened. In fact, if employment had grown by the 2.2 percent rate that occurred in the past three recessionary cycles, today's labor market would have 5.2 million more jobs. Instead, we can all point to lost jobs, and that is all we can point to and more lost jobs.

Well, the administration has responded to the situation by refusing to extend Federal unemployment benefits, an action that is already paid for by the unemployment trust fund; 1.5 million workers remain without a paycheck and without an unemployment check. The number of individuals who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding work is at the highest level ever recorded.

This bill ought to be defeated. It is a nonsolution. It is time for Congress to act in bringing unemployment insurance extension to the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the increasing pressure rising gas prices are placing on the constituents of Ohio's tenth district, and consumers around the country.

Today, I received a petition, presented to me by WEWS Television Station in Cleveland, Ohio, from those in the Cleveland area who are being harmed by the recent spikes in gas prices. This petition, with over 14,000 signatures, is evidence of the strains placed on consumers in an already bleak economic market. To address these concerns, I, along with 67 other members of the House of Representatives, am sending a letter to President Bush expressing my concerns.

Effectively addressing high gasoline prices will take six steps--none of which are included in the energy legislation.

First, require oil companies to expand gasoline storage capacities, require them to hold significant amounts in that storage, and reserve the right to order these companies to release this stored gas to address supply and demand fluctuations.

Second, block mergers that make it easier for oil companies to manipulate gasoline supplies, and take steps, such as forcing companies to sell assets, to remedy the current highly concentrated market.

Third, re-regulate energy trading exchanges that were exploited by Enron and continue to be abused by other energy traders.

Fourth, discontinue filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while prices are high and conduct a study of building crude and product reserves that can be used as economic stockpiles to dampen price increases.

Fifth, reduce oil consumption by implementing strong fuel economy standards. Substantially improving CAFE standards over a ten-year period would reduce the oil used by one-third in 2020 and save consumers $16 billion at the gas pump.

Sixth, request the Federal Trade Commission conduct a study of the reasons why the market forced the closure of over 50 predominantly small and independent refiners in the past 10 years and assess how to bring fair competition back to the refinery market and thus expand capacity.

By employing all six of these strategies, substantial reductions in the price of gasoline are attainable.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in supporting these strategies to lower gasoline prices for consumers. I want to thank WEWS for their public service of bringing these signatures to Washington. The people of Ohio have spoken. It is time for Congress and the Administration to respond to meet the people's needs.

Mr. Speaker, today, we honor the men and women in uniform who have lost their lives in military service to our nation. Memorial Day is for that reason a very solemn occasion. It is not a day to celebrate our military glories. Rather, we remember our losses: lost lives and the lost futures of our fallen soldiers. When the nation's political leaders commit our country's citizens to war, it is a concomitant that the lives of our soldiers are put at risk. Some will not come home alive and undamaged. Our leaders have an obligation to the citizens of the nation to know that and to take heed. My thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of our fallen soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Kathleen Kellums, as she is named President of the Business and Professional Women of Ohio. Since 1919, Business and Professional Women-USA, has served to support, promote and advance opportunity and equity for all women, in and out of the workplace.

Light years ahead of their time, the Ohio Federation of Business and Professional Women was instated in 1920, the same year that women finally won the right to vote. Today, as in 1920, this agency continues to build on a strong and brilliant foundation of support, education and guidance, focusing on women who were previously denied any opportunity to advance themselves personally or professionally. And even today, as women continue to rise above the stormy waters of gender inequality in the workplace, the Business and Professional Women exists to provide safe passages for women--pathways and bridges of support that help connect professional dreams to professional accomplishments.

A consummate professional in her own right, Kathleen Kellums continues to reflect accomplishment, leadership and tenacity throughout her professional endeavors. Her professional background includes executive positions in both the public and private sectors, and also includes significant community outreach contributions as a committed activist with many organizations, including the Parent Teacher Association and local Jaycee's. Ms. Kellums became a member of the Berea Business and Professional Women (BPW) in 1992, and currently holds the position of President. Her activism and leadership within the BPW has made a significant impact on the lives of many women by opening doors of opportunity and offering guidance, assistance and tangible support.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Kathleen Kellums, as she evolves from President of the Berea Business and Professional Women to President of the Business and Professional Women of Ohio. Her work as a state leader will serve to uplift the lives of countless Ohio women of all ages, as they journey toward advancing their professional and educational dreams--thereby advancing the progression of our entire community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of John Drotleff--admired conductor, musician and friend, as he celebrates his Twentieth Anniversary of performing, leading and conducting the West Shore Chorale and Orchestra.

Beyond his exemplary work with the West Shore Chorale, Mr. Drotleff has taught music at several local colleges, middle schools and high schools throughout Ohio--consistently inspiring our youth to attain their personal best and allow their natural musical talents to shine through. Mr. Drotleff was Chairman of Fine Arts at Lakewood High School, and has been a faculty member with Hiram College for the past 6 years, where he conducts the Hiram College Choir and Hiram College Madrigal Singers. At Hiram, Mr. Drotleff teaches choral conducting, music theory and secondary choral methods.

Mr. Drotleff's college ensembles have performed in New York, Boston, Chicago, and Detroit, and most notably, they, have performed at the Kennedy Center and the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. Mr. Drotleff has also conducted the Youngstown Symphony Chorus and has served as a guest conductor for many musical groups throughout the northeastern United States.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, recognition and gratitude to Mr. John Drotleff as he celebrates 20 years of leadership, inspiration and guidance as conductor of the West Shore Chorale and Orchestra. His remarkable ability to connect, inspire and uplift every member of his orchestra has significantly raised the level of musical offerings and has significantly increased public interest in every performance of the Chorale. An outstanding conductor, teacher and musical scholar, Mr. John Drotleff's love of music and strong confidence in his charges serves to draw the highest level of excellence from within the heart and soul of each performer. The lyrical and joyous concerto that personifies Mr. John Drotleff's life is a brilliant and treasured gift within our community that connects us through the universal language of music--uplifting our entire community on the wings of a song.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the FY 2005 Defense Authorization bill. The bill continues to fund an ineffective and wasteful defense strategy based on the Cold War. The bill authorizes $422.2 billion for the Department of Defense and the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy. However, the 2001 Defense Authorization bill was $310 billion, revealing that we have increased nominal defense spending 36 percent in just four short years.

The FY 2005 bill also authorizes $25 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This increases the total funding to $447.2 billion. The running total for emergency supplementals has now reached $191 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the Republican led Congress continues to refuse its Constitutional role of oversight.

The bill funds several weapons systems as well as a war in Iraq that will provide little additional security for Americans. For example, the Ballistic Missile Defense is slated to receive $9 billion for a system that does not work, but will be implemented this year as an election year boost for the President.

The F/A-22 ``Raptor'' Fighter is a cold war fighter plane without an enemy to fight. Yet, the bill will spend $4.5 billion to purchase 24 aircraft. The bill authorizes the purchase of 11 V-22 ``Osprey'' Tilt rotor for $1.6 billion, yet the plane is terribly unsafe. The bill also authorizes more research dollars for the DD(X) Destroyer, wasting $1.2 billion on a boat the Navy does not need. I also object to the Boeing airborne tankers lease/purchase program. This is a classic example of corporate welfare.

I am greatly disappointed that the Republicans have sought to block consideration of two amendments I would have offered. These amendments would have provided the House of Representatives the opportunity to help bring resolution to the ongoing crisis in Iraq.

My first amendment would require that the President develop criteria for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The war that we are fighting in Iraq at this time is an unconventional war. We have already deposed the leader of the country, and now we now fight both an unknown enemy and a new enemy that was not there before we invaded. There is no exit strategy and every six months or so the American people are faced with a new bill. The leaders of our country have given them no indication that they even know how to get out of Iraq, much less an idea of when their sons and daughters will come home.

The amendment that I would have offered today would require the Administration to provide Congress with a list of criteria for the withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq.

This amendment is useful because it provides America and the world with the answers to the question: What are we still doing in Iraq and what must happen so that we can leave?

These questions are simple and they are necessary.

After all, what are the goals that this Administration hopes to achieve before the withdrawal of troops can commence?

At the very beginning of the war, the ultimate goal was to disarm Iraq from weapons of mass destruction. But there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and our troops are still there.

At another point, the goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Well, that's been done too, and our troops are still there.

So now what? What are the next criteria?

Will troops come home after we've established the largest embassy in the world inside Iraq? Or will they come home after the oil starts flowing in to the right pockets? Or will it be when the defense contractors get billion more of American taxpayer dollars? Or when there are permanent military bases in Iraq so that we can extend an American empire to the Middle East?

Or is it when we've brought ``democracy'' to the people of Iraq? But what constitutes a democracy? An interim government was set up and a constitution was drafted, but we're still there. Will we pull out after an election, or two elections, or three? What happens if the Iraqis elect a leader that we don't like? Will we stay inside until the person of our choosing is running the country?

Is the criterion for leaving Iraq complete ``pacification'', in that we won't leave Iraq until all the fighting has stopped and the country is secure? What will that mean? Will it mean a slow down to one attack per day or week or month?

My amendment is a modest amendment because it requires the Administration to think about all these questions and then tell the American people what exactly it will take to bring the troops home.

And we should all want the answers to these questions. I know that my constituents elected me to ask these questions. After all, it's their money that we're committing.

My feelings about the war are known here. I have been against the war and the occupation. But since it appears as if the Administration does not care to volunteer the details of their objectives in Iraq, we should then ask them.

My second amendment would offer a sense of Congress that would disavow any intention for permanent United States military presence in Iraq. As we all know, many people across the globe have accused the United States of imperial thoughts and actions. To ensure the global community we have no such notions; we must publicly declare our intentions not to establish permanent military bases.

A month after the United States began military operations in Iraq, the New York Times (April, 21, 2003) printed a story indicating that the United States was considering the establishment of four permanent military installations in Iraq. The bases identified are the Baghdad international airport; the Talil airbase near Nasariyah; a base known as H-1 in the western desert near Syria; and Bashur airfield in the Kurdish region near the convergence of the borders of Turkey, Iran and Iraq. On the very next day the Secretary of Defense denied that the United States was seeking permanent military installations in Iraq.

But, neoconservatives are openly talking about the benefits of such permanent bases.

Given that the Turks had been truculent about access by

ground before Operation

Iraqi Freedom, that the use of Saudi Arabia has been a

delicate matter for the past decade, and that Iraq is ideally

situated for operations throughout the region, there is a

compelling case for siting U.S. bases in Iraq. (There's No

Place Like Iraq . . . For U.S. military bases. Tom Donnelly

Weekly Standard 05/05/2003)

More recently in the Inter Press Service News Agency:

But Qatar and even Kuwait, which has acted as a de facto

military base for Washington since 1990, could not substitute

for the kind of strategic depth and flexibility offered by

the four bases identified by the Times as those to which the

administration wants permanent access. (Jim Lobe, Nov. 28,

2003)

I believe the Arab world would take great comfort in hearing a declaration by the United States to disavow permanent military bases in Iraq. The United States must state without exception that it does not seek to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq. Such a declaration will reduce anti-American sentiment in the region and, I believe reduce the attacks upon our troops.

So it is greatly unfortunate that the leadership of the House has not seen fit to debate these amendments.