Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their hard work shepherding through the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, and to express my strong support of the bill.

It authorizes $8.7 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal 2006, which will be used to perform the essential duties of the U.S. Coast Guard in the areas of homeland security, maritime safety, law enforcement, environmental protection, and emergency response: a mission area in which the Coast Guard led the pack in responding to Hurricane Katrina. To support these activities, the conference report authorizes $500 million in additional emergency funds for Katrina response.

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight a provision that I offered and was accepted by the Committee last July and is included in this conference report. It directs the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study of the pollution in Newtown Creek caused by underground oil spills in Brooklyn, N.Y. The study is to be fully funded through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. As outlined in section 410 of the conference report, this study is to be completed no later than one year after enactment of this law.

Newtown Creek is a 3.5 mile long waterway that flows from the East River and separates the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. The State of New York has ruled that the Creek does not meet water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. It is the single most polluted waterway in New York City, and its banks are home to the largest oil spill in the United States. The spill is 150 percent the size of the Exxon-Valdez spill.

In 1978, a Coast Guard patrol detected petroleum on the surface of Newtown Creek and identified a spill that spreads from the banks of the Creek through the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn. Evaluations at that time identified a spill totaling 17 million gallons attributed to refineries operated along the banks of the Creek by the predecessors to ExxonMobil, BP/Amoco and Chevron-Texaco. To date, 8.7 millions gallons have been cleaned but estimates indicate it will take at least 25 more years to finish the remediation, primarily conducted by ExxonMobil under a 1990 consent agreement with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that sets no timetable for completion and includes no meaningful criteria for compliance.

Even though it has been over 25 years since the oil spill was detected, the public health and safety risks associated with the oil spill are still unknown.

The legislative intent of the amendment that directs the Coast Guard to study Newtown Creek (Creek) is for the Environmental Protection Agency to revisit the findings of the U.S. Coast Guard's July 1979 report entitled ``Investigation of Underground Accumulation of Hydrocarbons along Newtown Creek,'' and address the following issues:

The actual current size of the Greenpoint Oil Spill (Spill) and the extent to which oil from each refinery site contributes to the Spill.

The extent and severity of surface water pollution and sediment contamination from the Spill, and methods to prevent further seepage into the Creek.

The Spill's impact on existing conditions in the Creek including but not limited to low levels of dissolved oxygen and high levels of bacteria.

The interaction between pollution from the Spill and pollution from other sources in the Creek including but not limited to Combined Sewer Overflow Pipes and the Newtown Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.

The extent to which oil and contaminated sediments in the Creek disperse into New York Harbor.

The extent to which the Spill has affected aquatic species in the Creek and Harbor, and methods to prevent further harm.

The extent to which the Spill has affected groundwater in the surrounding area, and methods to prevent further harm.

The extent and severity of contaminated soil in the area affected by the Spill, and methods to prevent further harm.

Any public health issues raised by the Spill and the current remediation efforts, both independently and in interaction with other pollutants in the Creek.

Any safety issues raised by the Spill and the current remediation efforts, both independently and in interaction with other pollutants in the Creek.

The extent to which the current remediation efforts are sufficient, and any new technologies or approaches that could accelerate product recovery and/or improve the scope of the remediation.

I would like to express my thanks to Chairman Young, Mr. Oberstar, Chairman LoBiondo, and Mr. Filner for their willingness to work with me on this very important yet often overlooked Issue. The country will benefit from renewed Federal attention on this oil spill, the largest in the country.

Furthermore, I would like to thank my Democratic colleagues in the New York City delegation, all of whom signed a letter to conferees urging that this study be included in the conference report. I would especially like to commend Mrs. Velazquez, who represents the people of Greenpoint. She and I have worked together closely on this initiative.

Additionally, I would like to thank both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Transportation Committee and the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. In particular, Ward McCarragher and John Cullather of Mr. Oberstar's staff and Fraser Verrusio and John Rayfield of Mr. Young's staff were very helpful.

Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today, there is no way to argue that this war in Iraq was not badly undermined by bad planning based on bad intelligence and an abject failure to organize the international community in a meaningful way.

In short, the American people and Congress would clearly answer this question in the same way. If we knew then what we know today would we have done everything the same? Certainly not.

This is a common sense message despite the fact that the Administration is reluctant to see it. I would suggest that there is another thing that we all agree upon: the extraordinary work of the men and women who are over there fighting on our behalf, and the remarkable heroism they've shown in the face of a mission that seems to constantly change and the hostility of many Iraqis.

Yesterday, we mourned the 2,500th fatality. There have been 18,000 injuries and those of us in New York have lost 118 of our neighbors.

I believe the military mission in Iraq has been completed and our troops should be redeployed in a way to preserve the accomplishments that they've achieved and to further our objectives of defeating terrorism and stabilizing the region.

At the outset of the war the President articulated and many of us agreed that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. Our military achieved that. And there have been elections in Iraq that our military helped make happen.

Standing up of the infrastructure has been painfully slow. A Brookings Institution study that came out today showed that we still have not reached pre-war levels of oil production or available electric power.

Yet to the extent that roads and bridges and infrastructure have been created or restored in Iraq, it was through the good work of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. There have been reports of over 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, clean water is scarce, and unemployment hovers above 50 percent.

The question we have today as inartfully and politically posited as my friends on the other side articulate it, is how do we honor the work that has been done so far and how do we adapt to the situation that we've found?

This notion of barreling ahead while our troops become the target of so many attacks is misguided. The number of daily attacks by insurgents in May of 2003 was 5; in May of 2006 it was 90. The total number of insurgents has increased from 3,000 to 20,000 during the same time period. And Iraq has become a training ground for jihadists, with an increase in the number of foreign fighters from 100 in May 2003 to 1,500 in May 2006.

I support the position of Congressman Jack Murtha and General Anthony Zinni, and agree with General George Casey, who said in September 2005 that, ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a driving force behind the insurgency.'' Now the burden lies with the Iraqi people, and our troops standing in the middle of this battlefield have become targets rather than a force for stability and peace.

As Mr. Murtha has observed, 100,000 Shi'as fighting 20,000 Sunnis amounts to civil war, even if we choose to call it ``sectarian violence.'' Incidents between warring Iraqi factions are up from 20 in May of last year to 250 in May of this year.

We should redeploy our troops to the horizon of the battle, out of harm's way, but close

enough to ensure that in the future the insurgents and terrorists do not take hold in Iraq.

It is time for our military presence in the Middle East to be converted to a powerful quick-reaction force outside of Iraq. 80 percent of Iraqis want us out of their country and 47 percent say killing Americans is justified.

Then, we should reallocate the funds being spent in Iraq, which dwarfs the combined budgets of all other programs in place to fight terrorism, and re-engage with the countries around the world that rallied behind us in the wake of 9/11 but were alienated by our conduct in Iraq.

Some have suggested that taking the target off the backs of our troops by removing them from the center of this conflict would lead to chaos. Implicit in that critique is the suggestion that we don't have chaos today. Our troops' presence there, I believe, is allowing Iraq's citizens a convenient excuse for failing to take responsibility for their destiny.

The Iraqi people clearly would like us to leave and permit them to govern. Our troops have expressed the same sentiment. And it is clear that if we are to reclaim our place on the world stage as a unifying force for democratic values and the ideals of our country, the way to start is to redeploy so we can be ready for future challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Patrick K. Dowdell, upon his graduation from West Point as a second lieutenant.

Patrick K. Dowdell is a resident of Breezy Point, Queens, who has been a volunteer with the Point Breeze Volunteer Fire Department, Habitat for Humanity and Meals on Wheels. Along with his father Kevin Dowdell, a lieutenant at Rescue Company 4 of the New York City Fire Department, Patrick contacted my office in 2000 to request a nomination to West Point's Class of 2005. Despite my nomination, and a valiant effort by Lt. Kevin Dowdell to

hand deliver the required documents for his son's application to West Point admissions officials, Patrick was waitlisted and instead attended lona College.

Patrick K. Dowdell proved to be both resilient and determined, and sought admission to West Point the following year while he excelled at lona and was elected as Freshman Class Representative in the student government. Supported by teachers, neighbors and friends offering praise and letters of support, Patrick again asked for my nomination, with his father leading the charge.

When the dust of September 11, 2001 settled, Patrick Dowdell and his family learned that Lt. Kevin Dowdell was last seen entering the burning towers to help his fellow citizens and had been lost. Patrick Dowdell, as determined as ever to serve his country and make his dad proud, volunteered in the clean up efforts and continued to pursue his dream of attending West Point.

Patrick K. Dowdell was designated as my principle nominee in 2001 and was a member of the 2006 West Point graduating class. In President Bush's commencement speech last month to the first class to enter the academy after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Patrick had the honor of being the only cadet singled out for praise by the President. In the words of the President, ``We live in freedom because young Americans like Patrick and all the cadets here today have stepped forward to serve.''

Patrick is now looking forward to serving his country and continuing to honor his father's memory. He also serves as a source of encouragement to his younger brother James Dowdell, who has followed in their father's footsteps by joining the New York City Fire Department, serving in Ladder 174 and providing support to his proud mother, Rose Ellen Dowdell.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate Patrick K. Dowdell upon the completion of his studies at West Point and upon his commission as a second lieutenant.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer the Weiner-Burton-Crowley-Ferguson-Berkley amendment to prohibit all aid in this bill from going to the Saudi Arabians.

You might be asking a couple of questions. First, you might be asking why we would be offering any aid at all to the wealthiest nation on Earth; why we would be offering any aid at all to a nation that exports Wahabism, exports terrorism, has done nothing to help us in Iraq, and has, frankly, not been constructive. And on top of all that, why are we offering it when consistently, every single year, this House says we are not going to support it.

Well, we are back here again because we here in this House did not heed the admonition of President Bush after September 11 when he said, you know, nowadays, we have to not look at what nations say, we have to start looking at what they actually do. And the fact is that despite the great rhetoric of the people of Saudi Arabia and their government, they continue to be a force of hate in the world and continue to be a force that exports terrorism in the world.

Let me give you an example, just since we passed this bill last time. This is a quotation from the Saudi Ambassador from an ad in the New Republic on the back cover of September 12, 2005. It says: ``Modernizing our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow, Saudi Arabia has vowed to fight evil with justice and challenge extremism with moderation and tolerance.'' That is what they say.

I am holding in my hand the government-sponsored textbook of the people of Saudi Arabia, Mr. Chairman. I am holding a book that is in classrooms today. Let me tell you some of the things they are teaching in the eighth grade from their textbooks today: ``The apes are Jews, the keepers of the Sabbath, while the swine are the Christian infidels of the communion of Jesus.''

That is what this textbook says the children in the eighth grade in Saudi Arabia are being taught today. And if we are to pass this bill as is, we are going to pass funding for Saudi Arabia from the U.S. taxpayers.

Let me show you what they are teaching in the ninth grade. This is the Saudi Ministry. This is the textbook that is issued by the government of Saudi Arabia: ``The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.'' This is in a part of the world where we in this House, we in this country are trying to seek moderation and trying to seek tolerance. This is what they are teaching this year.

You know, I could read some other quotes, and among the quotes I can read are yours, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Chairman, who has done a terrific job with this bill by and large and have served this House with great distinction. Every single year we say, well, the reason we are putting money in this bill is the Saudis are getting better.

Sure, 15 of the 19 homicide bombers on my city were Saudis; sure, 70 percent of the most wanted international terrorists are Saudis; sure, according to the State Department, 60 percent of all the funding exported is coming from the Saudis. But, still, they are getting better. They are getting better.

Mr. Chairman, this is what they are saying today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of the sponsors of this amendment, Mr. Burton.

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

But, Mr. Chairman, that is not what they are traveling around the world to do. They are traveling around the world, in the words of our own Department of Treasury, with the World Association of Muslim Youth. What are they doing? They are exporting Wahabism. They are setting up madrasahs all around the world. They are exploiting the kind of teaching that you and I do not agree with them, and we are giving them in this bill a 2,000 percent increase from what they got last year when this House said we had had enough.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

I have no further speakers, so I will use this time to wrap up.

The chairman of the subcommittee deserves an enormous amount of credit for through the years crafting excellent bills that have unified this House. Three hundred of us said last year, enough is enough, we are not going to provide aid to Saudi Arabia.

The fact that we still have it back this year makes you wonder why it is. But he posits the wrong question. He says what is so bad about having a 2,000 percent increase in the amount of funds we are going to provide Saudi Arabia? My colleagues, we should be asking a different question when we provide foreign aid. The question should be: Why should we? Why should we provide aid to a country that has systematically exported terrorism?

When Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for the caves of Afghanistan, he did so with what some people think was close to $1 billion of cash in his pocket, Saudi blood money.

When Wahabism is spread worldwide, this virulent form of Islamic teaching that is outside anyone's realm of understanding about why you would teach young people to hate, as I showed from this textbook from this year, the Saudi government is doing that.

When we look at the numbers of Saudi citizens that are being exported around the world and committing acts of terror, when we look at the fact that the Saudis said again and again we are going to shut down these bank accounts that fund terrorism, and again and again it has been proven that they haven't done it, the question should be: Why are we providing any aid to them? Never mind a 2,000 percent increase from last year, why provide any aid?

And this legislation is very simple. It says let us have a good foreign aid bill, but not a 2,000 percent increase to the Saudis when they have lied to us. They said they were going to close down ``Account 98'' used to fund terrorism. As of today, it is open.

They said they were going to change their teachings to make them more tolerant. As of today, they have not.

They said they were going to stop exporting Wahabism. As of today, the World Association of Muslim Youth is still being funded by them and exporting the worst type of terrorism.

My colleagues, I urge you to support the Weiner-Burton-Crowley- Ferguson-Berkley amendment. Let's make this a good foreign aid bill that doesn't include foreign aid to people who have lied to us and exported terrorism. Let's not provide a 2,000 percent increase in aid to the Saudis. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of long time community activist, Brian L. Gotlieb, upon his completion of service as Chairman of Community Board 13 in Brooklyn. Brian L. Gotlieb has proven himself to be a tireless fighter on behalf of his neighbors and our community.

While Brian's service to Community Board 13 started long before his appointment as chairman, serving as a member of the Board's Youth Services, Education & Library, and Housing, Zoning & Land Use committees, he never limited his community activism to just one organization. Brian L. Gotlieb founded Shorefront Toys for Tots, to distribute toys to needy children during the holiday season, served as a member of the Community School Board for District 21, and as President of the Brighton-Atlantic Unit 1671 of B'nai B'rith helped that unit expand their outreach effort to other religious, ethnic and civic groups.

Brian L. Gotlieb was taught civic responsibility by example, and I am sure his mother Myrna, of blessed memory, would be proud of his accomplishments, which include being honored by many of the organizations he has served or supported as well as being a practicing attorney.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate Brian L. Gotlieb upon the completion of his service as Chairman of Community Board 13 in Brooklyn and thank him for his many years of hard work on behalf of my constituents and the City of New York.

Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, a fundamental element of the rules of the House is that Members get an opportunity to debate and have their views heard on issues. We have lost the opportunity to have an amendment such as this because of a unanimous consent that was entered into before these events happened. We, in good faith, entered into a unanimous consent agreement on limiting the number of amendments we offered to this bill. Then in the intervening period, news happened. The Department of Homeland Security issued a formula and issued a distribution of funds that gave less money to places that were at the highest need.

What happened was we entered into a unanimous consent agreement to limit the number of amendments that were offered.

I certainly am, and, if I were permitted to finish, you would see that.

Certainly. That is what I am doing, Madam Speaker.

What happened was during the intervening period, after the unanimous consent was entered into, this formula was issued giving Members no opportunity other than this motion in order to make this point, that in order to have funds allocated where they are needed most, the Lowey motion is the only way to do it.

If you vote yes on tabling this motion, you are voting to essentially sustain this allocation.

Madam Speaker, I am seeking to do that.

Madam Speaker, I understand.

The motion to recommit that we are voting on today that we are seeking to have an up or down vote on, I would say, would give us an opportunity to hear this.

You don't need to raise the point of order. If you want to simply go vote to sustain this ridiculous formula, vote on the Lowey amendment in an act of

good faith that we showed by entering into the unanimous consent. That is why the point of order should be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are a great many people who are watching with rapt attention what we do in this appropriations bill. There are many people watching, well, many might be a strong word, but there are some people watching on C-SPAN and many of our colleagues are very interested to see the outcome of this bill. But I can tell you there is a whole group of other creatures that really don't mind at all what we do here because they are going about the business of ravaging our economy.

I am talking about the invasive insects, the invasive species like the Asian longhorn beetle which because of the lack of funding in this budget and in past budgets are on course to do an estimated $268 billion worth of damage to the economy. It is insects like the Asian longhorn beetle that is eating away at Illinois and Pennsylvania and New York and New Jersey. It is insects like the emerald ash borer that my colleague Mr. Schwarz is so concerned about and folks in Indiana and Ohio. The sudden oak death disease in California and Oregon, all kinds of different insects are right now creating havoc in our economy.

We have over the course of time been frankly funding less and less and less for these invasive species. Sometimes it is a matter of surveillance like it is with the Asian longhorn beetle. You have to find it in order to stamp it out. Sometimes it is a matter of taking steps like we did successfully in Illinois to poison these pests before they do any more damage.

But I am going to tell you what the cost is if we do not pass the Weiner-Schwarz-Crowley-Maloney amendment today.

These insects will continue to move from neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, State to State. This very same insect, which has cost over 4,000 trees in New York City, yes, Mr. Obey, a tree does grow in Brooklyn; more than 4,000 trees have been eaten by the Asian longhorned beetle. It is on a path going north. Think of what is north of New York City. It is the Adirondacks. It is Vermont. This pest likes maple trees more than we like maple syrup. If it starts to infect that part of the U.S. economy, there will be no stopping it.

But we do have a plan now. If we provide about $23 million, it does not eliminate the problem overnight, but it does put us on a glide course to stopping this problem and these pests in their tracks.

This is a moment. This is kind of like a ripple in a pond. Right now, the problem is relatively concentrated. This is what it looks like in New York City. It started about 3 years ago, just in this neighborhood of Greenpoint, and now it is moving further and further and further out. At the same time that is happening, we have been reducing our funding, and the President has underfunded this bill appreciably.

My amendment is very simple. It would take $23 million from the common computing account and move it into this line which would help stamp out this bug and so many others. There is a list of States that this impacts, everything from the southern U.S. where the cactus moth is, all the way up to the northeast where the Asian longhorned beetle is, and Mr. Schwarz is going to talk about the effect it is having on Michigan.

Look, I want to upgrade the computers at the Department of Agriculture as much as anyone, but a slow computer is the least of our problems when up against this fellow. I want to tell you, as dangerous as this bug is, in all truth, this is not life size. It is a little bit smaller than this, but this bug will continue plowing away through our trees. They have already eaten 4,000 trees in New York City alone, and the only way to stop it after a while is just to raise entire forests. We simply cannot do that.

In conclusion, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman, we have shown that when the office of APHIS at the Department of Agriculture goes into a problem like they did with the boll weevil, jumps into a problem like they did with the Asian longhorned beetle in Illinois, we can stop this problem, and we can do it for relatively pennies on the dollar.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Am I allowed to reserve time?

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion then, this is a chance to spend $23 million to save us having to spend $268 million.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Weiner-Schwarz-Maloney-Crowley amendment and stamp out the Asian longhorned beetle and the other invasive species.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.

This was passed on a bipartisan level, a similar bump-up amendment, 2 years ago. I just want to respond to the chairman's suggestion.

There is no doubt about it, the chairman makes some very difficult choices and I think did a very admirable job, but he read a long list of programs we do not take the money from. It should be clear where it comes from.

It comes from computer upgrades, computer upgrades, infrastructure, Department of Agriculture, a very worthy thing to do, no doubt about it, but if we do not wipe out these invasive species, they are going to wipe us out. The vector is like this. It is a wider and wider challenge with each additional year.

I believe that we need to have the highest technology we can in all of our agencies, but it is a matter of waiting another year to upgrade computers rather than trees.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

There is some irony in the chairman of the committee raising a point of order against this bill, because the purpose of this amendment is to point out how badly out of order one part of our budget is.

What my amendment does is it requires that each and every State in the Union get a minimum amount of agriculture programs for cotton and rice, whether they have cotton or rice or not. New York, for example, has no cotton production and has no rice production. This amendment would guarantee that New York gets a minimum amount; .75 percent, of the budget for cotton and rice should go to New York. It guarantees that all States, and there are about 25 or 30 of them that have no cotton or rice subsidies, get a minimum guarantee of cotton and rice funding.

Now, why would I offer such a thing? Why would you propose such an absurd notion, that any program designed for a specific constituency, those that make cotton and rice, would get a minimum guarantee? Well, that is exactly the question those of us in high-threat urban areas ask about homeland security funding all the time. Yet, believe it or not, a minimum amount, .75 percent, of homeland security funds go to every single State in the Union.

What is the result? The result is the number one per capita recipient of homeland security funds isn't New York, it is not Washington, DC, it is not California or Orlando, where Disney World is. It is Wyoming. Wyoming, in fact, gets $18.33 per capita while New York gets only $2.60 because there is a minimum guarantee that every State get a certain amount of homeland security funds.

So I have often said to my colleagues, wouldn't it be ridiculous to do that if this was any other program? Well, let's see. I am offering an amendment here that would do just that, and I hope what it does is it serves to get my colleagues thinking a little bit about how government programs should be allocated.

I think all of us would agree that there is an appropriate place for agriculture programs. I would hope all of us agree that in a post-9/11 world there is an appropriate role for the Federal Government in distributing aid for homeland security. But certainly we should be able to agree that just as it makes sense for cotton farmers to get cotton subsidies, those in the greatest threat of a homeland security attack should get the greatest portion of those funds.

Having a minimum guarantee, as there is in the present law, of .75 percent for every single State for homeland security funds, creates the most distorting effect. Vermont gets $15.28 for homeland security for each and every man, woman and child in Vermont, while California and New York get in the low $2 range. It simply makes no sense.

So I would encourage my colleagues to think in terms of the farm program when we come up and talk about the homeland security program. I would encourage you to think about the idea that Mr. Bonilla and Ms. DeLauro worked so hard to make sure the people that need the aid get the aid, and we should do that type of thing when we are considering homeland security funds.

It is out of order to say every State should get a minimum guarantee of agriculture programs, but it is equally out of order to make that assertion about homeland security funds. So I would say to my good friends in agriculture States, I am a person from New York. What I know from agriculture, notwithstanding the little I know about pests, is I know that the agriculture community produces a breadbasket of food second to none, and we need to do what we can to make sure that our programs here in Washington support them.

We formed a coalition throughout time, frankly, between rural areas and urban areas around our needs. We used to, in the 1980s and early 1990s, when it came to transportation funding, you would vote for that though it might not benefit you directly, and we would vote for agriculture funding. But never, never did we say in these programs there should be an absolute minimum guarantee for a program, particularly one like the Department of Homeland Security, which goes according to risk.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Weiner amendment. Let us have a minimum guarantee, and maybe if we have every program by a minimum guarantee, we will realize it is absurd to have that formula for any program.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we are legislating on an appropriation bill, and I agree it is out of order to oppose or pass the notion that every State should have a minimum guarantee. It is exactly that ruling and exactly that language from the chairman that I would ask you to keep in mind when we consider other legislation.

Minimum guarantees are not the way we legislate around here. We legislate based on need; and, frankly, it is clear that we are not allocating homeland security resources. And just the way

this will be ruled out of order, I hope you keep that in mind when we consider those measures as well.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on September 11, like so many institutions of the Federal Government, everything came to a halt, including all the facilities of the national parks. Almost immediately thereafter, we began a process to reopen them. We reopened them literally but we also reopened them

symbolically to say, in the words of Secretary Norton from September 12 of that year, ``Even though atrocities such as those of September 11 can affect us, they cannot close us down.'' She said that while standing above Hoover Dam on September 12, 2001.

Today, after a period of a couple of months after September 11, all of the facilities of the national parks were reopened. Today these many years later, all of them are reopened except one, perhaps the most symbolic national park that there is, the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is still not reopened. Why? Well, it is not for lack of money. We in Congress have allocated more than $19 million to do security upgrades, to do improvements to the facility. In fact, there has been over $6 million that was raised privately. We all remember the Statue of Liberty Foundation, major companies lined up, people sent in their coffee tins. Boys and girls from around the country collected pennies and dimes and nickles to help reopen the Statue of Liberty. So it is not for lack of funding.

Frankly, the reason that the Statue of Liberty is still closed is the lack of imagination and will on the part of the Park Service. Over the course of years, we in this House have said in many different ways either open it or tell us why you cannot. And each time they said things like, well, we are still thinking about it, we are pondering it, we are trying to figure it out.

The final analysis is quite clear. They do not want to reopen it. They are concerned they cannot possibly make it safe. Some of us have suggested why not have no bags permitted? Why not say only a limited number of people can go in? Why not suggest that you have reservations in advance? Why not come to us and say maybe we need additional security? No. In fact, what they said is you can go to the part that was built here in the United States, but the iconic Statue of Liberty that all of us remember climbing up to when we were children is closed. It is the only national park that is.

It is a shame. In fact, in the words of the Daily News, it is worse than a shame. It says we need to break the ties that bind Miss Liberty and that continue to make her a laughingstock for al Qaeda. That might be strong, but I want to tell you something. It is hard to explain any other way how the one park that was closed after September 11 is still closed. Let us have it reopen. And if the Park Service says we cannot do it, we figured out a way to open the Capitol. We figured out a way to open the Washington Monument. We figured out a way to open Hoover Dam. We figured out a way to open up all of the other national parks. This one, we simply cannot figure it out.

Have them come to us. Have them come to Mr. Dicks and Mr. Taylor, who have shown great creativity in finding ways to help the Park Service do their job and let us reopen Statue of Liberty to her crown. Doing anything else is, frankly, to cower in the face of this challenge. This is not that difficult a challenge, but I can tell you this: It is certainly a symbolic one. To say that we simply cannot allow future generations of children to climb up through the statue, to peer out and to say, you know what, we are completely back on our feet after September 11, to make this of all the symbols the one that we refuse to open is simply a shame.

What my amendment does is simple. It does not say the words ``Statue of Liberty'' anywhere. It takes $1 million and moves it from a personnel account to the equipment account to help them provide security. But this is a chance and it is a chance for all of us in the House to go on record and say reopen Statue of Liberty. If you need to come back, if you need to say to us there are considerations that we need to take into account, we have never been shy in this House in a bipartisan fashion of accommodating the Park Service and every other agency of government.

If they have a legitimate concern, we are Americans, we can solve those concerns. This might be a difficult challenge to make because they are narrow. It is an old structure, it is a historic structure, it is a symbolic structure, it is an iconic structure.

To simply say, well, you can go visit the island and pat Lady Liberty's toes is not good enough. This is an opportunity for us to say reopen the Statue of Liberty, and all of those of you who go on record and say ``yes'' to this amendment, we will send a clear message not only to the Park Service that we mean business, but we will send a clear message to terrorists who think we are going to start closing down our icons simply because they attack us.

We were bowed on September 11. We lost over 2,800 of my neighbors. But I can tell you this: the closest national park to Ground Zero still being closed is an insult to their memory, and this is an opportunity for us to do something.

I want to thank in advance the gentleman from Washington and the chairman of the subcommittee for their indulgence. This is a chance for us to do the right thing and also do the symbolic thing.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the narrowness of the stairwell is such an inhibitor. We have some awful narrow passageways in this building. We have reopened the White House with very intricate security concerns.

Certainly, with all of us putting our minds together, with the resources that we have, certainly we can figure out a way. For example, we could say you can have no bags. We will have a second security check. We will limit it only to a few dozen people a day. The symbolism is so important, I can't imagine we are technically unable to secure this site.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee, the ranking member, and the chairman of the National Park Service Subcommittee regarding the National Park Service's extension of the current contract to provide ferry service to the Statue of Liberty/ Ellis Island National Monument, in spite of Congress's explicit instruction that concessions contracts be put out to bid upon their expiration.

Mr. Chairman, the current concessionaire, Circle Line, has held the contract to provide ferry service from Manhattan to the Statue of Liberty for decades. They provide what is less than enjoyable service for park visitors. The old clunky boats and temporary screening facilities they use when docking at the edge of a city park hardly do Lady Liberty justice.

In 1998, Congress passed, thanks to the leadership of the House Resources Committee, a bill that overhauled the National Park Service Concession Program and instilled for the first time competition into the contract process. Specifically, the preferential right of renewal for an incumbent that grossed more than a half a million dollars annually was eliminated. In section 403, subsection 2, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 says: ``Prior to awarding a new concession contract, including renewals or extension of existing contracts for concessions, the Secretary shall publicly solicit proposals for a concessions contract.''

It was clearly the intent of Congress to put an end to the Park Service's age-old practice of indefinitely renewing existing contracts to the detriment of each park's service, was it not, Mr. Chairman?

Certainly I will.

Reclaiming my time. However, when Circle Line's contract expired in 2004, the Park Service utilized language in the 1998 act providing the Secretary with extension authority and awarded Circle Line a 3-year extension, did it not, Mr. Chairman?

Certainly I will.

Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, now as we approach the expiration of the extended 2004 contract, I have been informed, as have my colleagues on the authorizing and appropriations committees, that the National Park Service will not have a prospectus on the street to solicit bids and award a new contract by the expiration of the current Circle Line contract in March 2007 when the 3-year renewal is scheduled to expire, meaning that the Circle Line contract will have been extended again.

I am happy to yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, would Chairman Taylor, Ranking Member Dicks and Chairman Pearce agree with me that the National Park Service has failed to heed Congress's direction that expiring contracts are to be put to bid on schedule, and that extending the Circle Line contract beyond March of 2007 should be called into question?

Would they further agree to work with me to ensure that those who are responsible for ignoring Congress's intent are held accountable?

I certainly will.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.

Certainly I will yield.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Dicks, and I also want to extend my gratitude to Mike Stephens of your staff, Deb Weatherly of Mr. Taylor's staff, and Rob Howarth of Mr. Pearce's staff for their cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following articles for the Record.

[From the New York Times, Aug. 4, 2004]

Liberty Is Open Again to the Masses, But Just to the Hem of Her Robes

(By Carolyn Curiel)

For anyone who has ever trekked up the spiral staircase of

the Statue of Liberty and peered through the crown's narrow

windows, the statue's reopening this week, for the first time

since the 9/11 attacks, is bittersweet. Its surrounding

grounds and facilities have been spruced up, and members of

the National Park Service gamely claim that the statue, an

international icon, is better than ever. But there's no way

to ignore the loss of what was the main attraction: tourists

can no longer knock themselves out by climbing those storied

354 steps.

It's perhaps an unavoidable result of the vigilance against

terrorism, but a sad one nonetheless. The new tour stops

short of the hem of Liberty's robes, at the top of her thick

concrete pedestal, in a room that holds only 30 people at a

time, or about 3,000 people a day who are quickly shuffled in

and out. While a guide gives a short talk and shows a video,

tourists are invited to look up at the ceiling, where a few

glass panels give a glimpse of a few feet of the interior.

Tourists can also step into the open air on a deck that lines

the pedestal. That's as good as it gets. And that's only

after each visitor is screened twice, by X-ray and metal

detectors before boarding a ferry to the monument, and then

on the premises by new scanners looking for explosives and

narcotics.

Throughout the statue's base are monitors showing the

routes to the nearest exits in case of an emergency, while

across the bottom scrolls a constant message: ``If you see

something, say something.'' Oddly enough, this antiterrorism

mantra, which appears in bilingual postings in city subways

and buses, is only in English at this symbol of America's

polyglot immigration.

Larry Parkinson, a deputy assistant secretary for law

enforcement and security at the Interior Department, says

greater access to the statue itself has not been ruled out.

But it isn't in the works right now, and the motives for

caution seem to stretch beyond security. There is concern

about wear and tear on the statue. The people who used to

climb the stairs were apparently not unlike those

unconscionable climbers of Everest who left behind proof of

their presence in the form of garbage--in this case, mostly

chewing gum and food refuse.

But it's hard to avoid the impression that the officials

who spent millions in private and public funds to restore and

fortify the statue don't want anyone to mess it up. With the

nonprofit charity that has been in charge of soliciting

donations under fire for paying its executives too much

money, this seems like a time when everyone should be trying

to make things as accessible as possible.

Obviously, security will have to come first, but visitors

to the Statue of Liberty, the symbol of American freedom,

shouldn't be constrained forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 75th anniversary of Floyd Bennett Field.

Floyd Bennett Field proudly served as New York City's first municipal airport, opening on May 23, 1931 with modern facilities and strong concrete runways. During the ``Golden Age'' of aviation, this airfield captured the imagination of the public and was the site of many legendary flights with spectators cheering on the accomplishments of aviators named Wiley Post, Howard Hughes, and Amelia Earhart.

In 1942 our country was at war, and Floyd Bennett Field was called into duty. Under the U.S. Navy, this airstrip served our country as a Naval Air Station which provided vital support to our troops as it recruited and trained pilots, tested planes, provided cargo transport, and performed sea rescues. Floyd Bennett Field became the first helicopter training facility in the world and is the longest continuously used law enforcement aviation unit in the world, currently housing the New York City Police Department Aviation Unit.

In 1972, after years of neglect and in the midst of municipal financial woes, Floyd Bennett Field as turned over to the National Park Service and again set records by becoming the first of the urban national parks. Since then, we have seen a resurgence in activity as the National Park Service finds new ways to invite in the public while preserving the history of the sites and tales of the past. Floyd Bennett Field now hosts an array of activities including hiking, cross- country skiing, camping, field sports, bird-watching, canoeing, and archery.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I recognize this anniversary milestone and challenge the National Park Service to maintain this field in a way that continues to benefit my constituents and the city of New York.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I won't take the full balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we create in this bill a port grant program which provides allocation to go to States and localities to take steps to ensure homeland security around ports.

But frankly without this amendment, we will not really have any good way of knowing how the moneys are being spent. We have learned through grant programs in other elements of the homeland security bill that we are finding that once States and localities get the money for these grants, they are not spending them in a very wise way.

For example, when Converse, Texas, got funds for homeland security, they used it to spend $3,000 for a trailer which was used to transport lawn mowers to lawn mower drag races in that county.

We found that in Columbus, Ohio, over $7,000 was used to purchase bullet-proof vests for dogs. In fact, when the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General looked at one State, Indiana, to try find out if the funds were being spent prudently, they found that the county emergency preparedness coordinator had purchased a $30,000 emergency hazardous material trailer truck that he was using as a commuter vehicle back and forth to work.

We found out about a lot of these things not because the process was transparent, but because often States and localities bragged about them. My amendment would simply say, once we give the money, we have to hear back from the States and localities how they spent it, allow transparency to be the best disinfectant for boondoggles.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues that under this legislation we are going to be considering, containers will continue to come under all of the bridges in New York and the New Jersey area unchecked, uninspected.

We had an opportunity in this House to have a discussion about whether or not that was a desirable state of affairs, and we chose not to have it. There is no reason, none whatsoever, why we should not have it as the law of the land: any container, of the millions and millions of containers that come here, should not be prescreened in their home country before they arrive here.

We chose not to do it. We made a decision. It is not because the technology does not exist. It is not because the desire does not exist. It is not because of anything except our decision in this House not even to have a discussion on it.

You know, there are concerns that have been raised. Is the technology ready? The answer is, yes. Is it overly burdensome in cost? The answer is, no. But that is what we have this Chamber for, to have a discussion of these issues.

If there is one thing that makes Americans scratch their head about port security, it is, are we leaving ourselves vulnerable to a contaminated container with fissionable material, with nuclear material, with just a bomb in there? And they say, check it. And we are saying here, not only will we not do it, we will not even have a discussion about whether we are going to do it.

And I think that is most regrettable. I think we should have had a chance here today to vote up or down, should we screen containers or not? And I think the answer would have been a bipartisan ``yes.''

But then again, the people who control this House say they will not even debate it. So maybe there were going to be people on that side. We have to assume then that they were going to vote ``no.''

But irrespective of that, this is too important an issue at least not to debate in the context of this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th Anniversary of the Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 of the Knights of Columbus and to offer my thanks for the continual dedication it has shown to the southern Brooklyn communities it serves. The Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 was founded in 1906 by Ambrose P. Rikeman, who became their first Grand Knight. It was founded on the principals of charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism, principals that have been ingrained in the hearts and minds of its members ever since. The Council is named for Baron Johann De Kalb, a courageous and loyal military leader whose spirit continues to live on in the leaders of this great Council.

The Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 has risen from it's humble beginnings, when a small band of men met in Grand Knight Rikeman's house, to its present day thousands strong membership that meets at the ``Baron-By-The-Sea'', a property purchased by the Council in scenic Sheepshead Bay in 1949. In 1969 members were devastated to learn that a fire had destroyed their ``Baron-By-The-Sea'', but no fire could destroy the members commitment, dedication and desire to reach ever greater achievements for their beloved Council. In 1973 Grand Knight Gus Rogers proudly led his members into the newly built ``Baron-By-the- Sea'', the structure on Nostrand and Emmons Avenues that continues to provide invaluable services to its members and our southern Brooklyn community to this day.

Therefore, on Behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate the Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 of the Knights of Columbus and all of its past and present members for 100 years of dedication and service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th Anniversary of the Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 of the Knights of Columbus and to offer my thanks for the continual dedication it has shown to the southern Brooklyn communities it serves. The Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 was founded in 1906 by Ambrose P. Rikeman, who became their first Grand Knight. It was founded on the principals of charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism, principals that have been ingrained in the hearts and minds of its members ever since. The Council is named for Baron Johann De Kalb, a courageous and loyal military leader whose spirit continues to live on in the leaders of this great Council.

The Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 has risen from its humble beginnings, when a small band of men met in Grand Knight Rikeman's house, to its present day thousands strong membership that meets at the ``Baron-By-The-Sea'', a property purchased by the Council in scenic Sheepshead Bay in 1949. In 1969 members were devastated to learn that a fire had destroyed their ``Baron-By-The-Sea'', but no fire could destroy the members commitment, dedication and desire to reach ever greater achievements for their beloved Council. In 1973 Grand Knight Gus Rogers proudly led his members into the newly built ``Baron-By-the- Sea'', the structure on Nostrand and Emmons Avenues that continues to provide invaluable services to its members and our southern Brooklyn community to this day.

Therefore, on Behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate the Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 of the Knights of Columbus and all of its past and present members for 100 years of dedication and service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we lost one of New York City's greatest champions and a pioneer in the world of urban planning when Jane Jacobs died at the age of 89.

Millions of people visit New York every year, and many are overwhelmed by its sheer size. The hulking skyscrapers. The bustling crowds. The bright lights.

But the dynamism of Manhattan during rush hour is just a piece of the story.

A more complete picture of the Big Apple is colored by the scores of local communities that are defined not by big business of the world's economic capital, but rather by the rhythm of parents walking kids to a local elementary school, families attending religious services at a local church or synagogue, and mothers and fathers shopping along the neighborhood shopping strip.

While the Manhattan skyline may spring to mind when someone mentions New York, the DNA of the City's everyday life is defined much more by each local neighborhood. Forest Hills in Queens. Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn. Throgs Neck in the Bronx. Stapleton on Staten Island. Jacobs' beloved West Village in Manhattan. There are so many others.

It was Jacobs' masterpiece--``The Death and Life of Great American Cities''--that argued that the health of the City as a whole depended on the vibrancy of its urban neighborhoods. At a time when grand visions of urban renewal were spurring planners to pave over entire communities, Jacobs stood at the forefront of a movement to preserve the City's most fundamental building blocks.

And today, as a result in part of Jacobs' efforts to preserve New York's neighborhoods, New York City is as vibrant as ever. We are a magnet for what Richard Florida has termed the ``Creative Class''--the highly-educated, highly-motivated young people who are key to economic growth.

And while scholars like Robert Putnam worry about the deterioration of social capital--afraid that Americans are interacting less and more likely to ``bowl alone''--the neighborhoods of New York City continue to have dynamic communities that interact on the street with a swirl of new and old faces.

In fact, today, Jacobs' successes have left New Yorkers with a new set of challenges. Because so many people want to live in New York, property values have skyrocketed, and tax bills along with them. Because so many people are using our public transportation systems to get to work, we're forced to invest in

building new infrastructure. Because so many young people want to raise families in the five boroughs, we are forced to foot the bill for building more schools.

Our new burden in New York is to manage the success of Jane Jacobs' vision of a vibrant, dense, growing, exciting city.

And for that, we owe Jane Jacobs a debt of gratitude.