Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the staff and volunteers of the Westside Vet Center of Parma, Ohio. Their dedication to providing quality health care services to the men and women who have sacrificed for our nation deserves the deepest gratitude.

The lives of many veterans and their families have been improved by the outreach efforts of the Westside Vet Center. The Center provides vital resources, including services and assistance focused on their emotional, psychological, medical, financial, and employment needs.

The quality support provided by the Westside Vet Center is the least that can be done for the veterans in our community--our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers--thousands of whom have suffered great personal loss resulting from their service.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and tribute of the staff and volunteers of the Westside Vet Center as they celebrate the Westside Vet Center's Annual Freedom Celebration. Their service and sacrifice will always be remembered and honored.

There are some numbers that bear reflection right now that came out of the marketwatch.com report today that the Labor Department estimates 3.3 million people could lose extended unemployment benefits by the end of July if they're not renewed. And all together, 9.2 million people were collecting some type of unemployment benefits in the weekend of June 12.

It goes on to say that the 4-week average of initial claims rose by 3,250, to 466,500, the highest level in almost 3 months. And then it says the claims data, however, had little impact on the U.S. stock market.

So there's a separation between Wall Street, which is still doing well, because the taxpayers bailed out Wall Street, and Main Street, which, in many places across the country, is falling apart.

Now, I've traveled my district at countless meetings and events, parades and church services, festivals; and I hear the same thing. People are calling out from crowds asking for help. And this unemployment compensation issue is huge because people are having trouble putting food on the table.

We're going to give them a lecture about the budget? Who among us, if our brother asks for a loaf of bread, we give him a stone instead?

This Congress this afternoon is due to appropriate $33 billion to keep the war in Afghanistan going. And yet the amount of money we're asking here for the unemployed workers of America, for those who are trying to support their families, almost an identical amount, about $34 billion. And we're saying, well, we can't afford that. But you don't hear many people saying we can't afford the war, because the truth is we can't afford the war. We have to afford to put people back to economic sustenance and pass the unemployment compensation bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In Cleveland, where I come from, unemployment is devastating our community. People are demanding that their government, our government, recognize the suffering of families who have lost jobs and can't find work. Will Washington tell my constituents and people like them all over America: We have money for war but no money for the unemployed? We have money for military contractors but no money for the unemployed? We have money--billions--for corrupt foreign governments but no money for our unemployed in the United States? We have money for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans but no money for the unemployed? Hundreds of billions for Wall Street but no money for the unemployed? Instead, the out-of-work poor and middle class, they get lectures on balancing the budget, lectures on pay-fors.

But what else are people supposed to do when they don't have budgets because they don't have money, when they can't pay for food, shelter, clothing? Yes, we need jobs, but people out of work can't find a job, and they have to survive. People need unemployment benefits because they have to pay for their mortgage, their rent, their utility bills, because so many Americans are hanging on by their fingertips.

Some exhort our constituents, Pull yourself up by your boot straps. What if you don't have money to buy boots?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the base text of funding the war originated in the Senate and that article I, section 7 of the Constitution says: all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

Now, one of General McChrystal's top aides was quoted as saying, ``If Americans started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.'' The question is, when will Congress finally begin paying attention to this war, which is being waged with our consent; when will Congress realize that we've lost more than 1,200 troops too many; that we've spent $300 billion too much; that the deaths of our brave soldiers cannot be justified, that their service is sacred but the mission is not; that the death of every innocent Afghan citizen is a blot on our national conscience.

When will Congress cut off funding? When will the requirements of our failing domestic economy of unemployment, factory closings, business failures, foreclosures, loss of savings, bankruptcies, failing infrastructure, and failing energy policy cause us to look homeward?

Or should we cut social and economic programs to balance the budget to pay for the war?

We went to war in Iraq based on lies. More than 1 million innocent Iraqis have died. We've lost more than 4,000 of our troops. The long- term cost will be close to $3 trillion.

Our presence in Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster. The war is a cesspool of corruption. Billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars are being stuffed into suitcases and flown out of Kabul. The counterinsurgency strategy is a failure. U.S. tax dollars are going to support warlords who end up shooting at our troops. Security contractors bribe insurgents to shoot at our troops to demonstrate the U.S. needs more security services. Professional killers from Blackwater are now contracted to guard our embassy in Afghanistan. Drug production has skyrocketed during the U.S. occupation. U.S. tax dollars are going to build villas in Dubai, and our country is falling apart with a failing economy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the Obey amendment, amendment No. 2 to H.R. 4899, Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2010. However, I do so with significant reservation because of the $9 billion in nuclear loan guarantees that have been inserted into this bill of otherwise badly needed funding.

The nuclear power industry has already received $51 billion in loan guarantee authority. The guarantees leave the taxpayer on the hook for energy policy so fiscally irresponsible, it has attracted bipartisan opposition. Indeed, private investment in new plants is nearly impossible to come by because the investment is so unattractive. The Congressional Budget Office characterized the risk of default on such projects as ``well above 50 percent.'' Even plants under construction are being abandoned. If private firms won't invest, should we be putting taxpayers on the hook?

Energy from wind and solar makes more financial sense and creates many more jobs when compared with nuclear power sans massive subsidies. But the loan guarantees for clean energy sources, which were added to make the nuclear loan giveaways easier to swallow, are not an industry priority. They need more direct subsidies to get started with the urgency required to address global warming.

This amendment also contains otherwise valuable funding for teacher's jobs, Pell grants, and Gulf Coast oil spill clean-up. I voted for this amendment because of the dire needs in these areas and others. But slipping in $9 billion in nuclear loan guarantees when we struggle to find money to extend unemployment compensation and create new green jobs is not acceptable.

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?

(By Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, Institute for

Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School--June 2009)

Just a few days before his dismissal, General McChrystal wrote what has been described as a devastating report on his mission. He pointed out that he faced a resilient and growing insurgency with too few troops, and he expected no progress in the coming months. Why are we continuing to send our troops into a mission impossible? Why are we committing our troops to a situation which is certainly bound to bring about more casualties, both of our troops and innocent civilians?

General Petraeus is promising an escalation of the war which will put more American lives on the line and more innocent civilians killed. Do we support our troops? If we do, and if we really paid attention to what's going on in Afghanistan, if we really supported our troops, we'd bring them home. And that's exactly what the Barbara Lee amendment is designed to do, and that's why we should support it.

As related by William Polk in his recent article in ``Counterpunch''--Just a few days before his dismissal, General McChrystal wrote what has been described as a ``devastating report on his mission.'' He pointed out that he faced a ``resilient and growing insurgency'' with too few troops and he expected no progress in the coming months.

Why are we continuing to send our troops into a mission impossible? Why are we committing our troops to a situation which is certainly bound to bring about more casualties, both of our troops and innocent civilians? General Petraeus is promising an escalation of the war which will put more American lives on the line and more innocent civilians killed.

Do we support our troops? If we do, and if we really paid attention to what's going on in Afghanistan, if we really supported our troops we would bring them home. That's exactly what the Barbara Lee Amendment is designed to do, and that's why we should support it.

What Now?

Afghanistan Sitrep

(By William R. Polk)

On June 24, the International Herald Tribune published an

editorial from its parent, The New York Times, entitled

``Obama's Decision.'' Both the attribution--printing in the

two newspapers which ensures that the editorial will reach

both directly and through subsidiary reprinting almost every

``decision maker'' in the world--and the date--just before

the appointment of David Petraeus to succeed Stanley

McChrystal--are significant. They could have suggested a

momentary lull in which basic questions on the Afghan war

might have been reconsidered.

That did not happen. The President made clear his belief

that the strategy of the war was sound and his commitment to

continue it even if the general responsible for it had to be

changed.

The editorial sounded a different note arising from the

events surrounding the fall of General McChrystal: Mr. Obama,

said The Times, ``must order all of his top advisers to stop

their sniping and maneuvering'' and come up with a coherent

political and military plan for driving back the Taliban and

building a minimally effective Afghan government.''

In short, Mr. Obama must get his team together and evolve a

plan.

Unfortunately, the task he faces is not that simple.

First, consider the ``team.'' It has two major components,

the military officers whom McChrystal gathered in Kabul. As

they made clear in the Rolling Stone interview, they think of

themselves as ``Team America'' and hold in contempt everyone

else. Those who don't fully subscribe to their approach to

the war are unpatriotic, stupid or cowardly. Those officers

are not alone. Agreeing with them is apparently now a large

part of the professional military establishment. They are the

junior officers whom David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal

have selected, promoted and with whom they take their stand.

The other ``component'' is not a group but many groups with

different agendas and constituencies. The most crucial for my

purposes here are the advisers to the President; they were

dismissed out of hand as ``the wimps in the White House.''

Most, but not all, were civilians. Other senior military

officers, now retired, who are not part of ``Team America''

and its adherents were also disparaged. Famously, General Jim

Jones, the director of the National Security Council staff,

was called a ``clown.''

These were the comments that forced Mr. Obama's hand and

were what the press latched upon to explain the events. But

many missed the point that McChrystal had just a few days

before his dismissal written a devastating report on his

mission. Confidential copies of it were obtained by the

London newspaper, The Independent on Sunday, which published

it today, but of course

the President had seen it earlier. Essentially, its message

boiled down to failure.

McChrystal pointed out that he faced a ``resilient and

growing insurgency,'' with too few troops and expected no

progress in the coming six months. Despite expenditures of at

least $7 billion a month, his politico-military strategy

wasn't working. Within weeks of the ``victory'' over the

Taliban in the agricultural district of Marja, the Taliban

were back and the box full of government he had announced

proved to be nearly empty. As the expression went in the days

of the Vietnam war, whatever happened during the day, the

guerrillas ``owned the night.'' As he described it, Marja was

the ``bleeding ulcer'' of the American campaign.

Behind McChrystal's words, the figures were even more

devastating: Marja, despite the descriptions in the press is

not a town, much less a city; it is a hundred or so square

miles of farm land with dispersed hamlets in which about

35,000 people live and work. Into that small and lightly

populated area, McChrystal poured some 15,000 troops, and

they failed to secure it.

To appreciate what those figures mean, consider them in

context of Petraeus's counterinsurgency theory, on which

McChrystal was basing his strategy. As he had explained it,

Marja should be taken, secured and held. Then an

administration--McChrystal's ``government in a box''--should

be imposed upon it. Despite all the hoopla about the

brilliant new strategy, it was hardly new. In fact it was a

replay of the strategy the French General Lyautey called the

tache d'huile (the oil spot) and applied in Indochina over a

century ago. We also tried it in Vietnam, renaming it the

``ink spot.'' The hope was that the ``spot,'' once fixed on

the Marja, would smudge into adjoining areas and so

eventually spread across the country. Clear and simple, but

unfortunately, like so much in counterinsurgency theory, it

never seemed to work.

Petraeus's counterinsurgency theory also illuminated how to

create the ``spot.'' What was required was a commitment of

forces in proportion to native population size. Various

numbers have been put forth but a common number is about one

soldier for each 50 inhabitants. Marja was the area chosen

for the ``spot.'' The people living there, after all, were

farmers, wedded to the land, and so should be more tractable

than the wild warriors along the tribal frontier. Moreover,

it was the place where the first significant American aid

program, the Helmand Valley Authority, had been undertaken in

the late 1950s. So, if an area were to be favorable to

Americans, it ought to be Marja. But, to take no chances,

General McChrystal decided to employ overwhelming force. So,

what is particularly stunning about the failure in Marja is

that the force applied was not the counterinsurgency model of

1 soldier for each 50 inhabitants but nearly 1 soldier for

each 2 inhabitants.

If these numbers were projected to the planned offensive in

the much larger city of Kandahar, which has a population of

nearly 500,000, they become impossibly large. Such an attack

would require at least four times as many U.S. and NATO as in

Marja. That is virtually the entire fighting force and what

little control over Marja and most other areas, perhaps

even the capital, Kabul, that now exists would have to be

given up or else large numbers of additional American

troops would have to be engaged. Moreover, in response to

such an attack, it would be possible for the insurgents

also to redeploy so the numbers would again increase.

The more fundamental question, which needs to be addressed,

is why didn't this relatively massive introduction of troops

with awesome and overwhelming fire power succeed. Just a few

days before he was fired, as I have mentioned, General

McChrystal posed, but could not answer, that question. I hope

President Obama is also pondering it.

For those who read history, the answer is evident. But, as

I have quoted in my book Understanding Iraq, the great German

philosopher, Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel, despaired that

``Peoples and governments never have learned anything from

history or acted on principles deduced from it'' and,

therefore, as the American philosopher George Santayana

warned us, not having learned from history, we are doomed to

repeat it. Indeed, it seems that each generation of Americans

has to start all over again to find the answers. Who among

our leaders and certainly among college students now really

remembers Vietnam? So, consider these simple facts:

The first fact, whether we like it or not, is that nearly

everyone in the world has a deep aversion to foreigners on

his land. As far as we know, this feeling goes back to the

very beginning of our species because we are territorial

animals. Dedication to the protection of homeland permeates

history. And the sentiment has never died out. Today we call

it nationalism. Nationalism in various guises is the most

powerful political idea of our times. Protecting land,

culture, religion and people from foreigners is the central

issue in insurgency. The former head of the Pakistani

intelligence service, who has had unparallelled experience

with the Taliban over many years, advised us that we should

open our eyes to seeing the Afghan insurgents as they see

themselves: ``They are freedom fighters fighting for their

country and fighting for their faith.'' We agreed when they

were fighting the Russians; now, when many of the same people

are fighting us, we see them only as terrorists. That label

does not help us understand why they are fighting.

Instead of asking why they are fighting, counterinsurgents

think they can overcome aversion to foreign invaders by

``renting'' the natives. In Marja, we not only put in a large

military contingent but, as Rajiv Chandrasekaran reported

this month in The Washington Post, we offered to employ

virtually the entire adult population, some 10,000 people.

Unquestionably such efforts do persuade some of the people

for some of the time. But not all or permanently. In Marja,

only 1,200 people signed up for the jobs we offered.

Why so few? After all, the Afghans, as I wrote in an

earlier article, have suffered through virtually continuous

war for thirty years. Many are wounded or sick, with some

even on the brink of starvation. More than one in three

subsists on the equivalent of less than 45 cents a day,

almost one in two lives below the poverty line and more than

one in two preschool children is stunted because of

malnutrition. They are the lucky ones; one in five dies

before the age of 5. Obviously, the Afghans need help, so we

think they should welcome our efforts to aid them. But Marja

shows that they do not. Nation-wide, independent observers

have found that attitude is common: most do not want us

there, even giving them aid. And even those who do are fairly

easily dissuaded by the insurgents.

Threats or attacks by the insurgents have brought them into

our gunsights. In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, we have tried

to so weaken the insurgents that they cannot effectively

block our programs. Our ``body counts'' in Vietnam showed

that we killed off the entire Viet Minh several times over

and today we are told that the ranks of the Taliban have been

severely depleted. But, because the motivation that energized

the first group of insurgents is widely shared, and is

usually intensified by foreign military action, which by its

nature is regarded by many of the natives as unjustified and

brutal, new insurgents as well as supporters of the

temporarily evicted insurgents will emerge from among the

inhabitants of the oil/ink spot. Outsiders may have come in,

but, according to U.S. military intelligence about three in

four insurgents fight within five miles of their homes. They

were ``home'' and taking up arms within a month in Marja.

Indeed, the campaign may have been, to use that cumbersome

locution of governmentese, ``counter-productive.'' According

to the former British counter-terrorism chief and current

head of the U.N. monitoring mission, Richard Barnett, as

cited in The Guardian/The Observer last week, ``Attempts by

British and American forces to expand their control over

Afghan territory over the past 12 months have been counter-

productive and led to a worsening security situation.''

The second fact is that those insurgents who don't get

killed are the ones who have learned three simple ways to

defeat the counterinsurgents.

The first of these ways to defeat counterinsurgents is to

use appropriate tactics--never stand and fight. Insurgents

can see that their enemies outgun, and usually far out-

number, them so they should hit and run--lay mines, ambush

patrols, disrupt logistics but never get caught. Drawing on a

Kenyan fable, this has been termed ``the war of the flea and

the lion.'' The flea bites and jumps away. The powerful lion

swats, occasionally hits, but eventually tires and moves

away. Lions don't defeat fleas.

The second way insurgents can defeat the counterinsurgent

is a form of jujitsu--using his strength against him. His

strength is his superiority in weapons. So the insurgent

seeks to incite him to use them. Inevitably, caught in the

middle, the people--who are after all the ``spoil'' in

insurgency warfare--get hurt. And when they get hurt, they

naturally come to hate those who fire the weapons. In

Vietnam, insurgents would sometimes enter a ``neutral''

village, shoot at an American airplane and then steal away.

The attacked airplane would call in troops or gunships. The

villagers would suffer and would be confirmed in their hatred

of the Americans. It was brutal but very effective.

Counterinsurgents think they can avoid this problem by

withholding as much as possible of their lethal power. But

doing so is very difficult. Their soldiers also get hurt and

angry. And they come to hate the locals--wogs, gooks, rag

heads, untermenschen--who appear to them dirty, slovenly,

corrupt and cowardly. No one can be trusted when even

children act as spies or carry bombs. Soldiers make bad

neighbors to civilians in the best of circumstances and

insurgency is not one of those circumstances. As I have

pointed out in my book, The Birth of America, it was the

presence of even superbly disciplined British troops in

Boston that touched off the American Revolution.

The third way insurgents can defeat invaders is by

destroying their local puppets. Ruling another country is, of

course, expensive and difficult so foreigners have almost

always and everywhere enrolled willing natives to help. In

the American Revolution we called those people ``the

Loyalists.'' In Vietnam, they were the government of the

South. In Afghanistan they are the ``Kabul government.''

So the insurgents regard collaborators--``Quislings'' as we

called them in the Second World War--as their prime target.

In America, the colonists threatened, tarred and feathered,

lashed, imprisoned, hanged or drove away tens of thousands of

the Loyalists. In Vietnam, French police records show

that in the 1950s, the Viet Minh virtually wiped out the

administration of the southern government, murdering

policemen, postmen, judges and other civil servants as well

as teachers and doctors. And today in Afghanistan, as Rod

Nordland reported in The New York Times on June 10, ``The

Taliban have been stepping up a campaign of assassinations in

recent months against officials and anyone else associated

with local government in an attempt to undermine

counterinsurgency operations in the south.''

One Afghan told Nordland, ``I know many people who are

afraid to take jobs with the government or the aid community

now. It's a very effective and very efficient campaign; the

armed opposition are using this tool because it works.'' Even

from a nationalist perspective, this is very rough justice.

But many Afghans appear to believe it is both ``justice'' and

Afghan justice.

To validate their actions, the insurgents must themselves

supply what the foreigners and their local supporters offer.

We have full records of how insurgents did this in Yugoslavia

and Greece during the Second World War. The records are not

so open for Afghanistan as yet. But, we know from a study by

the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the

Taliban has set up a ``widespread paramilitary shadow

government . . . in a majority of Afghanistan's 34

provinces.''

One of the things these shadow governments do is administer

the law. For years, I have read reports contrasting what

happens in a government court and a Taliban court. In the

government court, cases languish for months or years while

bribes are collected. A U.N. study found earlier this year

that officials shake down their fellow citizens for an amount

that is nearly a quarter of the country's gross domestic

product. In a Taliban court, there is no bribery and no

delay: Islamic law as defined by Afghan custom is immediate.

From our point of view, this too is very rough justice, if

justice at all, but in insurgencies, people appear willing to

put aside the niceties of peaceful life. In our Revolution we

did too.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Albert and Vera Sgro as they celebrate their platinum wedding anniversary on June 29, 2010.

Seventy years of marriage is a truly remarkable accomplishment; in this time they have raised two sons, been grandparents to four children and now have four great-grandchildren. Except for eight years on a farm in Medina, Mr. and Mrs. Sgro have always lived in Cleveland. Mr. Sgro's parents emigrated from Italy and Mrs. Sgro's ancestors hail from Bohemia. They attended Cleveland schools, met at a dance, and have been inseparable ever since. They continue to be the hearts and souls of their family and remain active in the lives of their children, David and his wife Louise, Jerry and his wife Heather; their grandchildren, David, Shelly, Max and Anthony; and their great-grandchildren, Brittney, Jeremy, Alex and Nicholas.

Mr. and Mrs. Sgro live life with great energy, enthusiasm and joy. They are kind, generous, outgoing and have a great sense of humor. Like any couple of seventy years they also share many interests: gardening, traveling and reading to name a few. Every year, Mr. and Mrs. Sgro grow enough fresh vegetables and flowers for themselves, their children, friends and neighbors. Mrs. Sgro is an excellent cook and baker; she is well known locally for her pies--especially her rhubarb pie, which she makes with rhubarb straight from their garden.

Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring, recognizing and celebrating Albert and Vera Sgro as they reach their platinum wedding anniversary. Their ongoing love for each other, and for their family and friends, acts as a beacon of hope. I wish Mr. and Mrs. Sgro continuing health, happiness and peace.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the Consul General from the Republic of Slovenia, Mr. Jure Zmauc, and his wife, Mrs. Janja Zmauc, on the occasion of Slovenian Statehood Day celebrated annually on June 25th.

In 2009, Mr. Jure Zmauc, Mrs. Janja Zmauc, daughter Nika and son Aljaz moved from Slovenia to Cleveland. Mr. Zmauc served there for four years as a foreign diplomat representing the largest Slovenian population in the world outside of Slovenia. Mr. Zmauc's responsibilities in the United States include developing educational, business and tourism ties for Slovenia and supporting Americans of Slovenian heritage throughout Northeast Ohio.

The twenty-fifth of June is Slovenian Statehood Day, an annual celebration of Slovenia's independence and the sovereignty it gained in 1991. It is a commemoration of the struggles and triumphs of the people of Slovenia. It also serves as an opportunity for residents of Northeast Ohio to celebrate the customs, traditions and contributions of Slovenian Americans to our community.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognition and welcome of Consul General Janja Zmauc and his family. Their representation of Slovenia in our community connects our communities and our nations--from the shores of Lake Erie to the Adriatic Sea.

In a little more than a year, the United States flew $12 billion in cash to Iraq, much of it in hundred dollar bills, shrinkwrapped, loaded onto pallets. Vanity Fair reported in 2004 that at least $9 billion of the cash had gone missing, unaccounted for. Nine billion.

Today, we learned that suitcases of $3 billion in cash have openly moved through the Kabul airport. One U.S. official quoted by the Wall Street Journal said, ``A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen.'' Three billion dollars. Consider this step as the American people sweat out extension of unemployment benefits.

Last week, the BBC reported that the U.S. military has been giving tens of millions of dollars to Afghan security firms who are funneling the money to warlords. Add to that a corrupt Afghan government, underwritten by the lives of our troops. And now reports indicate that Congress is preparing to attach $10 billion in State education funding to a $33 billion spending bill to keep the war going.

Back home millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes, losing their savings, their pensions, their retirement security. We're losing our Nation to lies about the necessity of war.

Bring our troops home. End the war. Secure our economy.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the DISCLOSE Act.

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill would extend an existing ban on campaign contributions by

government contractors to also include independent expenditures and electioneering communications by contractors.

My amendment would clarify that this provision applies to companies with leases with the Federal Government allowing them to drill for oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. If we ever needed a stark reminder of one of the many problems that arise from our addiction to oil, we have it now, as many as a half-million gallons of oil is erupting from an underwater volcano of oil into one of the most fragile ecosystems on Earth every single day from the Deepwater Horizon drilling site alone.

This disaster was preventable. We had a warning of the consequences of our dependence on oil in the 1970s; we ignored it. We could have built upon the increased awareness to continue on a path of weaning ourselves off oil, but we squandered it. There can be no doubt that the oil industry has strategically and brilliantly used its powerful influence to maintain or even worsen the addiction.

They are not entirely to blame, though. Blame does rest with Congress for being addicted to oil company contributions. We have to begin to break the addiction and do it now. According to opensecrets.org, the oil and gas industry has given close to a quarter-of-a-billion dollars to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle. In the 2008 cycle alone, the oil and gas industry donated $36 million. In the 2010 cycle, they are on track to exceed that with $13 million donated so far. The mere perception of undue influence by the companies whose products are so profoundly destructive to our water, air, and health is toxic to our democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I am urging a ``yes'' vote for the Kucinich amendment that relates to the Outer Continental Shelf leaseholder status.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I ask the Chair how much time is remaining.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I would let my friend from California know that there is no First Amendment right to drill for oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. There is no constitutional right that anyone has to a government contract. This provision relates to the Outer Continental Shelf leases, and not all oil and gas leases, because these leases in the Outer Continental Shelf are inherently more dangerous, more risky. It's especially true as we have seen with deepwater drilling. It's true of all drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. These spills are impossible to clean up.

We are still living with the effects of the Valdez catastrophe. We will be living with the effects of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe for generations. We are not just talking about mopping up the shores and spreading toxic dispersants and then everyone goes home happy. This oil is going to be in the water column, on the sea floor for a very long time, ramifications for our delicate ecosystem, forcing a lot of persistent toxic compounds like metals into our food supply. These oil companies could conceivably intervene in our political process, using money that they are getting from leases with the Federal Government to place our environment at further risk.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

To my good friend from California, the Buckley v. Valeo decision equated money with free speech. The oil and gas industry, over a period of 20 years, has contributed close to a quarter of a billion dollars to the political process. There is no question of the influence they have had. There is no question of the incestuous relationship between the oil industry and the regulators which led us to this deepwater drilling catastrophe.

What this legislation aims at doing is curbing the influence of these oil companies on our political process so they can't get a lease, use the revenue from that lease, put it back in the political process, and ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. We can't let the oil companies do that anymore. We have to protect our government here; we have to protect the Constitution of the United States, and we can't give them the ability to usurp the Constitution, trying to do it in the name of free speech.

I would like to conclude by saying this: The language that is in this amendment is the same language as that for TARP recipients, so there is nothing special about the language. It's the same one for TARP recipients, saying that someone that gets Federal money, they shouldn't be able to use their position to go back to the government and get people elected who are going to give them more money.

I yield to my good friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the oil companies, let us stipulate, are not eleemosynary or charitable organizations. They make huge profits at the expense of the taxpayers. And they are making even more profit because the fact of the matter is we now have to monetize the cost of all the pollution that's coming out of the gulf. No matter what BP pays, we will be paying for generations to come.

Support the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. Despite the inclusion of provisions in this legislation that would improve internet access and target violators of human rights, the bill will inflict severe economic hardship on the Iranian people and have no impact on the Iranian government. I oppose nuclear proliferation for military purposes for all countries and believe that sanctions have proven to be a failed policy.

The stated purpose of this legislation is to persuade the Iranian government to halt their nuclear program. Broad sanctions can only serve to further isolate Iran from the international community and cause them to be increasingly secretive. The sanctions play directly into the hands of the Iranian government

and directly undermine the efforts of the Iranian people who have courageously challenged their government--often at the cost of their lives.

The United States was unable to come to a resolution with Iran over its nuclear program, partly due to the fact that during negotiations, Iran was threatened with sanctions regardless of negotiations. At the core of the failure of negotiations was mistrust. Turkey and Brazil accomplished something the United States was unable to do in their diplomatic negotiations with Iran over a nuclear fuel swap--broker a deal based on trust. Unfortunately, the Administration missed the opportunity to capitalize on this significant breakthrough in negotiations.

It is my hope that it will not take the impending suffering of the Iranian people at the hands of U.S.-imposed sanctions to wake us up to the need to significantly change our diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 51st Annual Dinner of the Cleveland Chapter NAACP. The Cleveland Chapter and all NAACP Chapters were a driving force behind our nation's civil rights movement. Founded in 1912, the Cleveland Chapter continues to serve as a source of support and strength on behalf of the rights and freedoms of minorities.

While the Cleveland Chapter began as a small group, they quickly grew to 1,600 members by 1922. The population of African Americans in Northeast Ohio increased during the 1920s and 1930s, allowing political leadership to organize and emerge. In 1923, supported by the Cleveland Chapter of the NAACP, Thomas W. Fleming was elected the first-ever African American to Cleveland City Council. A few years later, three more African Americans were elected to serve on the Cleveland City Council. In 1927, Harry E. Davis was elected to serve on the Cleveland Civil Service Commission and Mary Martin Brown was elected as a member of the Cleveland City School Board. They too were the first African Americans to hold these positions.

During its first few decades, the Cleveland Chapter of the NAACP fought fiercely against racism. Chapter leaders and members rallied and organized for fair housing, educational and job opportunities, and an end to segregation. The Cleveland Chapter of the NAACP filed lawsuits against theaters, restaurants and other establishments that discriminated against African Americans. Chapter members also worked diligently behind the scenes to persuade white business owners to stop discriminatory practices.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of the members and leaders, past and present, of the Cleveland Chapter of the NAACP as they gather to celebrate their 51st Annual Dinner. Since their formation in 1912, members have risked their lives and their livelihoods to fight for equality and tear down the walls of racism. In their quest for freedom they paved the way for a society where equal opportunity and justice exist for many as never before and where someday, will exist for all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the contribution of the Cleveland Chapter of the Order of the Knights of Rizal and to honor Dr. Jose Protacio Rizal on the occasion of the 149th anniversary of his birth.

A hero of the Filipino Independence movement in the 1800s, Dr. Rizal continues to inspire. His heroic and poignant writings and efforts focused on freedom from oppression and liberty for all. He inspired and energized people beyond his native Philippines.

A young and idealistic doctor, Dr. Rizal wrote of freedom and independence from Spain. His writings soon struck a chord and he went on to found the Filipino independence movement, Luga Filipina, in Manila in 1892. By 1898, an armed struggle for independence had begun, and government officials accused Dr. Rizal of leading the charge. On the evening of December 30, 1896, Dr. Rizal was executed by firing squad in what is now known in Manila as Rizal Park. The night before his scheduled execution, he wrote the poem `Mi Ultimo Adios,' a heart- rending and poignant expression of his love for country and people of the Philippines.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring and celebrating the life of Dr. Jose Protacio Rizal, and in recognition of the members of the Order of the Knights of Rizal, Cleveland Chapter. Dr. Jose Rizal's story is the embodiment of the innate human quest for freedom, justice and liberty.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of George and Clara Zaborowski, as they celebrate sixty-five years of marriage and devotion to one another. On this special day, they also celebrate their family and many friends throughout the community.

George Zaborowski grew up on Cleveland's eastside and worked at White Motor Company for nearly forty years. Clara Sokolowski grew up in the Tremont neighborhood in the apartment above her parents' restaurant, the Sokolowski's University Inn. Established in 1923, the Sokolowski's University Inn remains one of Cleveland's most beloved culinary landmarks. Mr. Zaborowski joined the Marines and served his nation during World War II.

George and Clara, both of Polish heritage and fluent in Polish, met in 1941. On June 23, 1945, they wed at St. John Cantius Church in Cleveland, Ohio. Together, they lovingly raised their children--Thomas and Christine. Their shared love for each other has extended through each new generation. Their family continues to be the center of their lives, as they are close to their grandchildren, Lisa, Maureen, Kim and Jessica, as well as their great-grandchildren, Joshua, Craig, Kyle, Malcom, Cassy, Alex, Spencer and Henry.

To this day, Mr. and Mrs. Zaborowski continue to honor Polish traditions and customs, especially during the holiday season. They have instilled within their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren a sense of their family heritage.

Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Mr. and

Mrs. Zaborowski, as they celebrate sixty-five years of marriage. I wish Mr. and Mrs. Zaborowski an abundance of health, happiness and peace in all of their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the veteran and auxiliary members of Strongsville Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 3345, as they celebrate the Post's 75th anniversary and dedicate a Veterans Memorial on June 19, 2010.

Strongsville VFW Post 3345 was chartered on June 22, 1935 with only three members in attendance. Today, it is one of the largest VFW posts in the state with nearly 1,200 members.

Strongsville VFW Post 3345 has a legacy of community outreach and volunteer service throughout the western communities of Greater Cleveland. The members of Post 3345 have reached out to veterans and the families of military personnel, providing support and assistance wherever possible. Post 3345 provides numerous college scholarships and sponsors an annual Teacher of the Year Award. Members also volunteer thousands of hours annually for charity and at local Veterans Administration hospitals.

Members of VFW Post 3345 raised funds to construct a Veterans Memorial to publicly honor and commemorate the lives of all American soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our nation.

Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring the members of Strongsville VFW Post 3345 and all veterans for their contributions to community and country.