Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a personal explanation. Today, I was unavoidably detained at Newark International Airport, due to the later arrival of an inbound plane, while traveling back for votes on Rollcall votes Nos. 521-523. Therefore, I was unable to vote on the Journal Vote (Rollcall No. 521) and H. Res. 457, a resolution recognizing the importance and positive contributions of chemistry to our everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week (Rollcall No. 522). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both of the measures considered by the House.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to rise and join my colleague, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Health Braintrust, in recognizing the third annual National Latino AIDS Awareness Day, which will take place on Saturday, October 15, 2005.

In my State of New Jersey, over 32,000 people are living with HIV or AIDS, and almost 7,000 of them are Latinos. Unfortunately, Latinos are suffering disproportionately from this disease. Latinos in New Jersey, like Latinos in the rest of the Nation, make up about 13 percent of the population, but 20 percent of the AIDS cases. Many are uninsured and unable to access adequate care due to lack of transportation, language and cultural barriers, or the fear of being stigmatized, among other reasons. Even more disturbing is the fact that 4 out of every 5 females living with HIV/AIDS are minorities.

National Latino AIDS Awareness Day is about educating our communities and increasing awareness. Too many Latinas in my State are not getting diagnosed until it is too late. With increased awareness and action, we can save lives.

National Latino AIDS Awareness Day is a chance to salute the AIDS survivors, and make sure they have the services they need. I urge my colleagues to reauthorize a stronger and fully funded Ryan White CARE Act, which provides critical support for those affected by HIV/AIDS, and is often what keeps those with HIV/AIDS from falling through the cracks. Through the help of the CARE Act, the incidence of mothers transmitting HIV to their babies has decreased ten-fold. Almost half of all CARE Act beneficiaries are minorities. Without a stronger commitment and increased funding, Latinos will be left behind and lives will be lost.

National Latino AIDS Awareness Day also gives us a chance to thank those dedicated to ending HIV/AIDS: the victims, the volunteers, the professionals, and the advocates. It is their tireless efforts and dedication that force our country to be honest with itself. The progress we have made so far would not have been possible without them, or the commitment of national and community organizations, that provide culturally sensitive information and services that are essential to helping Latinos who suffer from the disease.

But the battle against AIDS has not yet been won. Approximately 40,000 new cases of HIV are reported each year. Alarmingly, Congress has slashed critical funding for programs that provide a comprehensive response to the spread of the disease, and for years, our communities have been asked to do more with less. This must stop.

A renewed investment in the fight against HIV and AIDS is critical to the future of this country. Hispanic men, women, children, and families deserve better. On this National Latino AIDS Awareness Day, let us renew our commitment to the Latino community and to ending HIV/AIDS. Let us reauthorize and fully fund the CARE Act, and let us give our communities the resources they need to fight this disease.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is the discretion of the Chair or the abuse of the discretion of the Chair and the abuse of power subject to a vote of the House to continue this vote open? Because we have a history on this House floor of illegalities taking place to change people's vote. Is the discretion of the Chair and an abuse of the discretion of the Chair subject to a ruling and a vote by this House?

Mr. Speaker, this bill fails us on chemical plant security. According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency, there are 23 States, including my home State of New Jersey, which has seven such plants where a worst-case release of chemicals could threaten more than a million people per incident. And a part of my district, in northern New Jersey, is home to the area commonly referred to as the most dangerous 2 miles in America, an area between Newark Liberty Airport and Port Elizabeth that is home to a number of chemical plants.

The New York Times recently reported that one plant in this area that

possesses chlorine gas ``poses a potentially lethal threat to 12 million people who live within a 14-mile radius.''

Now, the attacks of September 11th made each of us realize that terrorism had entered a whole new realm, one in which our Nation's assets, infrastructure and people could be used against us. That is why the Menendez amendment to the House homeland security appropriations bill, which passed with the support of 224 of my colleagues, sought to improve the security of that area of chemical plants across the country by providing $50 million to State and local governments to enhance the security of those plants and the communities that surround them. This money could have been used to equip and train first responders, provide assistance and guidance to chemical plant officials to implement best management practices to improve security or to increase law enforcement presence and patrols around chemical plants.

As a matter of fact, just this past week, there was a chlorine incident in a pool plant that strangulated traffic in the New York-New Jersey metro area. Unfortunately, the Republican controlled conference committee chose to delete the amendment from the entire conference report.

Hurricane Katrina should have taught us the importance of addressing the problems we know we face before disaster strikes. The chemical plants that dot northern New Jersey are the Lake Ponchartrain of our region, and this Congress just decided to cut funding for the equivalent of levees that would protect our people.

And not only did the conference committee on homeland security delete that amendment increasing funding for chemical security, it also cut State and local preparedness grants by $585 million, a full 19 percent lower than the level in the last fiscal year.

This Congress had a chance to address a looming problem before it was too late. The decision to cut funding for chemical security is an astonishing abdication of Congress's responsibility to keep our families safe.

And just while New York City at this very moment has heightened transit security because of a critical threat of bombing on the subway system, this bill woefully underfunds transit security.

While my colleagues focus on undocumented immigration in this homeland security bill, they allow the Nation to be unprotected from attacks on our chemical plants, transit systems, ports and the ability of our first responders to respond. That is a Federal Government that is failing to secure its people.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House on Tuesday, September 27th, due to a previous and unavoidable commitment. Therefore, I was unable to vote on H.J. Res. 66, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after-school programs (rollcall No. 494); and H. Con. Res. 209, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Domestic Violence Awareness Month (rollcall No. 496). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both these measures considered by the House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill, H.R. 3824, which would substantially weaken the essential protections we have in place for endangered plants and animals. Since being signed into law over 30 years ago, the Endangered Species Act has protected over twelve hundred species from extinction. Only nine species listed under the act have gone extinct, and five of them were later determined to be extinct by the time they were listed. Meanwhile, thanks largely to the act's protections, we have fully recovered such species as the American alligator, grey whale, and peregrine falcon, and stabilized the populations of bald eagles, sea turtles, manatees, and hundreds more. And some species, such as the California condor and red wolf, would probably be extinct without the protections of the act.

From looking at the record of the Endangered Species Act, I would say that it has been a success. A study by the Congressional Research Service has shown that 41 percent of listed species have improved their status after being listed. The act certainly has not brought every endangered or threatened species to full recovery, but many of these have only been listed a few years. Rebuilding a species takes time. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that only 4 percent of species listed for less than 5 years have recovered by any appreciable amount. But that number jumps to 36 percent for species listed for over 10 years. The fact that so many species have yet to be fully recovered is a call for more endangered species protections, not less.

And yet less protection is exactly what this bill is giving us. It eliminates the designation of critical habitat, which is one of the most important provisions in the Endangered Species Act. A recent study showed that species with defined critical habitat are far more likely to be recovering than species without such habitat. The bill includes a number of other unfortunate provisions, but perhaps none are more unfortunate, or more mind-boggling, than the proposal to pay off developers for what they should be doing anyway--obeying the law. This bill says that if a developer wants to build something but can't do it because of the Endangered Species Act, the government must pay them for the loss of the income they would have received from the development, even when the development is economically unfeasible.

Think about this for a second. First of all, we are saying that the government will pay you for obeying the law. A power plant that doesn't install pollution control devices will be more profitable than one that does, but we don't pay off the cleaner power plant for obeying the Clean Air Act. And we certainly don't pay someone for not robbing a bank, even though it would be very profitable for them to do so. This has nothing to do with the government providing compensation for taking private land. This is about developers being encouraged to come up with incredible schemes, and then getting paid by the American taxpayer to not build them, because doing so would drive an endangered species to extinction. This is insane, and would ensure that all the money in the endangered species program would go to developer payoffs, and not species protection.

There are a number of reasons why we need to focus our resources on protecting endangered species. Wildlife means millions of dollars to local economies, both through tourism and outdoor recreation. Just in two counties in southern New Jersey alone, red knot watchers spend over $4 million a year. Nationally, sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts spend an estimated $100 billion each year on outdoor activities. But preserving species is about more than just economic value and being good stewards of the Earth. It is also about our health. A recent study by the National Cancer Institute showed that in the past 20 years, 78 percent of new antibiotics and 74 percent of new anticancer drugs were linked to natural products. Every species that goes extinct decreases our chances of finding the next miracle drug to fight infection, Alzheimer's, cancer, or AIDS.

The substitute amendment being offered by Mr. Miller, Mr. Boehlert, and others is a considerable improvement on the underlying bill. It eliminates payoffs to developers, puts more teeth into recovery plans, and ensures that scientific standards don't get watered down. It is not an ideal substitute, but it will certainly do much more for truly protecting endangered species than H.R. 3824.

The Endangered Species Act is something we should be proud of, and something we should look to tweak to improve species recovery, not gut to give egregious and unwarranted payouts to developers. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating H.R. 3824.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and I want to thank my good friend, Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, for introducing it.

I wish I could say I was surprised when the Castro regime again arrested members of the Cuban opposition this July. But I wasn't.

In Cuba, every opposition member, human rights activist, or citizen who takes any step towards democracy is deemed a threat to the Cuban regime. These opposition members must live under a constant threat of arrest and persecution for themselves, and their families.

In Cuba, we see a persistent, long-term, calculated, and strategic abuse of human rights aimed at keeping any opposition from succeeding in Cuba.

Cuba remains the only dictatorship in our Hemisphere, and Castro must repress the opposition to stay in power.

In July 2005, Castro arrested 24 human rights activists for simply remembering those who had been killed by the regime in 1994. And he arrested many more later that month who were simply planning on attending a peaceful protest--they hadn't even actually attended the event yet.

But this is not the only recent example of Castro's brutal repression. In March 2003, the Cuban regime conducted one of the most repressive and violent actions against dissidents in recent history. We all remember how, with no provocation, 75 political dissidents were subjected to a farcical judicial process and imprisoned for nothing more than expressing a point of view not sanctioned by the Castro regime.

In May of this year, Cuban opposition leaders organized an historic Assembly on the 103rd Anniversary of Cuban independence. When we had the opportunity to recognize that Assembly here in this committee, I specifically said that we opposed any attempt by the Castro regime to repress or punish the organizers and participants of the Assembly, as Castro has done with so many others who have spoken out against repression.

I also made it clear to the Cuban opposition witnesses in our hearing in the subcommittee in March that we expected no retaliation against them for their work on behalf of freedom or for their participation in our hearing.

Unfortunately, it is my understanding that all three of those witnesses were then arrested during the July crackdown. While Martha Beatriz Roque and Felix Bonne were subsequently released, I believe that Rene Gomez Manzano remains in prison.

Given the recent arrests, I am still deeply concerned for the safety of all those who participated in the May Assembly and those who testified before this Committee.

Hundreds of political prisoners remain in Castro's jails today, and the world has recognized these injustices.

In March 2005, Amnesty International released a report on Cuba called Prisoners of Conscience: 71 Longing for Freedom. In this report, Amnesty states that they believe that, ``the charges are politically motivated and disproportionate to the alleged offenses'' and specifically note reports of ill-treatment and harsh conditions suffered by the prisoners of conscience.

Unfortunately, my friends in the European Union appear to have been deceived by Castro's conditional release of a few prisoners last year. I cannot understand why else they would think there was a reason to soften their diplomatic approach towards Cuba.

Instead of rewarding Cuba for pretending to take steps towards upholding fundamental civil rights, we should call for the unconditional release of all political prisoners in Cuba. I certainly hope that the European Union will review its policy towards Cuba, as is called for in this resolution.

And I hope that other multinational organizations, such as the UN Commission on Human Rights, join the rest of the world in strongly condemning the most recent crackdown in July by passing a strongly worded resolution against these violations of human and civil liberties, as is also called for in this resolution.

I know Members do not always agree with one another on issues relating to Cuba. And I know that this is, for many of us, a very personal issue.

But I also know that every one of my colleagues should be willing-- and proud--to vote for this resolution, which simply states that the gross human rights violations committed by the Cuban regime are abhorrent.

Every one of my colleagues should be willing, and proud, to vote for the right of the Cuban people to exercise fundamental political and civil liberties that we enjoy here in the United States.

To my brothers and sisters who suffer in Castro's jails, to their families and friends both here in the United States and Cuba, and to the Cuban people, I say that Castro will not succeed in his vain attempt to suppress the spirit of the Cuban people. I look forward to the day, which is coming soon, when we will all celebrate a free and democratic Cuba. It is the spirit of the Cuban human rights activists and their courage that will ultimately be Castro's downfall.

So I ask each of you to join me in voting yes for this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time.

At a time when our country is grasping with how to deal with ongoing gaps in wealth, poverty, and education, we must recognize that Head Start is a critical component to helping those children at a disadvantage get on a more equal ground. As we know all too well, the achievement gap that continues to plague our country has early roots, and the sooner we can help young people gain valuable skills, get good nutrition, and provide them with a comprehensive early education, the better chance we have of improving their future.

While this bill does strengthen the program for the over-900 children served, there are still far too many children starting kindergarten at great disadvantage. In my State alone, nearly 20,000 students benefit from Head Start; but we know that over half a million children in New Jersey are eligible and never get a chance to get on that equal footing. It is those children we must think of as we seek to improve this bill.

I am relieved we are debating a bill that does not produce devastating effects on this program, but instead keeps it intact and provides a number of improvements. But I hope the end product will reflect those efforts and will not end up poisoning the bill by repealing civil rights and discrimination protections. If for over 30 years religious institutions have not had a problem providing Head Start services, why would the Congress of the United States now sanction and permit discrimination and violate civil liberties? It is simply not in the national interest, and it is the wrong action and the wrong lesson to teach our children.

In this bill we are asking more from our early childhood educators, yet we are not providing them with more. We must be realistic about the challenges this creates. The estimated cost for half of all Head Start teachers to earn a bachelor's degree by 2008, as the bill calls for, is an estimated $2 billion over 5 years. We need to work to attract talented individuals to continue to enter the field, not make it harder for them to stay in it.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House on Tuesday, September 20th, due to a previous and unavoidable commitment. Therefore, I was unable to vote on H.R. 3761, the Flexibility for Displaced Workers Act (rollcall No. 476), and H. Res. 441, a resolution to congratulate the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Discovery crew (rollcall No. 477). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both of these measures considered by the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this partisan resolution that spits in the face of the American people's call for a robust inquiry that is independent of politics.

Yesterday's report by the 9/11 Commission provides data to back up what every American learned by watching the government's dismal response to Hurricane Katrina: that 4 years after 9/11, our Nation is still not prepared to respond to a major crisis, in this case a disaster that had been predicted, game-played in an exercise run by FEMA, and which we knew about 24 hours in advance.

As the relief and recovery process continues and the rebuilding process begins, the American public must have complete confidence that their government is up to the task. Unfortunately, the Republicans have chosen to play politics and flaunt the will of the American people by instead proposing a select committee that is not bipartisan, that will not have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and will not have bipartisan subpoena power.

Let us be honest. How can the American people trust this Congress to not only investigate this administration but also Congress itself? Because the actions of the Congress are definitely one of the things that needs to be investigated. The Republican Congress was responsible for cutting the budget of FEMA and the funding for the levees around New Orleans. An outside evaluation of Congress's actions is needed, not an internal review.

Can the American public all of a sudden expect the Congress to investigate this administration after 4 years of basically no congressional oversight? Yes, the rules of the House have been used to stifle honest, robust inquiry. This is the Republican Congress that has not conducted true oversight hearings into the decision to go to war in Iraq, the lack of a success strategy in Iraq, the outing of a CIA operative, among many others.

So we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend the government has handled the recovery well and basically do nothing, or we can appoint a truly independent commission to help avoid these mistakes in the future. The vast majority of the American public supports the establishment of an independent, bipartisan commission so that the inquiry focuses on the facts instead of getting bogged down in partisan politics.

That is why the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I introduced legislation to establish an independent, bipartisan commission modeled after the successful 9/11 Commission to investigate the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and make recommendations for reforming the Nation's disaster response system.

The commission would be charged with evaluating what the government could have done to avoid the mistakes that exacerbated the crisis faced by hundreds of thousands of Americans along the gulf coast and caused untold loss of life. I mean, how is it possible, for example, that 4 years after September 11, our local first responders still do not have interoperable communications systems that can talk with each other as they carry out their lifesaving work? That is why the commission would have the full authority to question the government officials, examine government documents, and hold public hearings.

Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that despite overwhelming public support, it took months to overcome White House opposition and establish a 9/11 Commission, basically only getting the President and the Republican Congress to that point by dragging them along, kicking and screaming. We have heard all the same lame excuses we heard today as we did when we were trying to establish the 9/11 Commission.

Today, there is unanimous agreement that the commission had the courage to ask the tough questions that Congress did not and that developed reforms that, if implemented, would make our Nation safer. That is what we need to do. Let us create an independent commission. Let us not deceive the American people through this committee that will do absolutely nothing to get to the bottom of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, since Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, the Nation has gotten used to hearing an administration in denial. Two nights ago, Congress got a firsthand view when six Cabinet members came before the House of Representatives and described a picture-perfect Federal response to Katrina. But as Americans have watched the tragedy unfold on their television screens, they learned to differentiate rhetoric from reality. The sad, yet unmistakable, truth is that the Federal Government failed the people of the Gulf Coast, both in the years before the hurricane and in the days after it. The American people get it; but, unfortunately the administration does not.

This is not a time for finger-pointing or political posturing. Neither is it a time to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the government has performed admirably. It has not, and the administration should stop pretending otherwise.

The stakes are too high to continue heading along this road without asking how we got there. The President needs to explain to the American people why we can trust this same team to adequately deal with the crisis that continues to face millions and cost billions. Congress needs to establish an independent commission to ensure that the American people learn the truth. We simply cannot afford any more mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, today we remember the victims of one tragedy as we work to help the survivors of another.

In my district and in the State of New Jersey, we know the experience of tragedy personally and the sympathy of those in New Jersey extends at the deepest level to those who lived through Hurricane Katrina.

Four years ago on September 11th, 700 of our friends and neighbors from my state of New Jersey never returned home from work and never returned to their families. The smoking ruins of the Twin Towers were visible for my entire district to see and many of the police and emergency response people that responded so heroically to the attacks were from New Jersey.

I can't tell you how many memorial services I attended for people in my own district, nor describe in words the sympathy and sorrow I felt for family members who lost loved ones from all over the country.

That is why I committed that very day to taking every action to make sure that our Nation and her citizens never have to go through what we did on that terrible day four years ago. And since we know the enemy seeks to attack again, I have worked to ensure that our country is as prepared as we can be for a future attack and ready to respond once it does occur.

That is also why I support this resolution as an expression of my deepest sympathy to families and friends of the thousands of victims of that fateful day.

I support it as an expression of our Nation's gratitude and pride in our men and women in uniform who have performed with brilliance and valor in the war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. To date, almost 1,900 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice in support of our country, in Iraq, while many others have done so around the world in the fight against terror.

For me personally, I cannot walk outside into a crystal, clear, cloudless blue sky in September like we have today without remembering the very same sky on that tragic day in September. I cannot walk outside remembering the contrast between the beauty of that sky and the terror which came from it.

To those who survived and to the families who lost their loved ones, I know that four years has not taken away the pain.

To those who survived and to the families, I know that you will have to live with the consequences of that tragedy for the rest of your lives.

To those who survived and to the families, I say that we will never forget those innocent people who were murdered in cold blood and that we honor you for your courage, your will to survive, and for the strength you have shared with our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be joined by a number of my New Jersey colleagues to introduce legislation that will close a glaring loophole in current law that allows railroads to brazenly flout the critical Federal, State, and local environmental protections that keep our rivers clean, our air clear, and our families healthy.

In my district, a small railroad has recently begun operation of a solid waste transfer facility for construction and demolition debris. These sites are open to the air, polluting the surrounding neighborhoods with wind-blown debris, and have extremely poor stormwater controls, if any at all, allowing rain to leach through the trash piles and into sensitive wetlands. I have seen video of these sites, which

sometimes reach the height of a 3-story building, and they are horrible eyesores that make you wonder how this can all be legal.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, it really isn't legal. At least, it's not legal according to the State, which recently fined the operator of these sites $2.5 million, or the county and local planning boards, which have sent me impassioned pleas asking for help. But because of this loophole in Federal law, it may all be perfectly legitimate. The railroad claims that because of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board over railroad activities, they are exempt from all State and local regulations regarding the handling of solid waste. That is only partially true.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act in 1995, it created the Surface Transportation Board (Board) and gave it broad authority over rail transportation issues. The jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board was deemed to be ``exclusive'' over activities that are integral to rail operations. The intent of this was to allow railroads, which cross State lines, to avoid having to deal with a patchwork of State economic regulations that might hinder interstate commerce. Subsequently, the courts have ruled that this exclusive jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board preempts State and local regulations when it comes to permitting requirements. Hence, railroads are exempt from having to comply with local land use plans when, for example, they decide to lay additional track, although they are still required to comply with Federal environmental statutes such as the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)

However, despite the preemption of local regulations, Congressional intent was very clear at the time the ICC Termination Act was passed. The conference report states very clearly that the Board's exclusive jurisdiction does not generally preempt State and Federal law. The only restriction is that States do not attempt to economically regulate the railroads. The Surface Transportation Board concluded in 1999, in their decision in the dispute between the Borough of Riverdale and the New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad, that ``Congress did not intend to preempt Federal environmental statues such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.'' The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont recently affirmed that statement in the case of Green Mountain Railroad Corporation v. State of Vermont.

I believe it is quite clear that these waste transfer stations are threats to the environment, and that the railroad's claim of Surface Transportation Board preemption to avoid compliance with any environmental regulations is wholly without merit. However, it could take years to put that issue to rest. Meanwhile, the people of New Jersey would continue to get exposed to fouled air and water as a result of unregulated and uncontrolled solid waste transfer sites, and more people would be put at risk as these sites multiply across the State.

But that is beside the point. Because I also believe that the operation of a solid waste transfer facility is in no way integral to the operation of a railroad. This question has not been settled by the courts or the Surface Transportation Board, but it can be settled unambiguously by Congress. The legislation we are introducing today would explicitly state that the Surface Transportation Board does not have exclusive preemption over the operation of solid waste transfer facilities, and that these facilities would be subject to local zoning and environmental regulations. We can not stand idly by while some unscrupulous railroads exploit an unintended loophole in Federal law when the price is the health and well-being of our constituents and our environment. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a day that has been long in coming. I would first like to congratulate the distinguished chairmen and ranking members for getting near the end of this exceptionally long road to reauthorization, and I would like to thank them and the committee staff for the tremendous amount of work they've put in to make this conference report a reality.

For me, transportation is about far more than simply getting from one place to another. It's about creating jobs, stimulating the economy, revitalizing neighborhoods, cleaning our air, and making us more secure. And this bill is about more than just laying asphalt and pouring concrete. The tremendous increase in transit funding will help ease congestion, allowing all commuters to spend less frustrating time in gridlock, and more quality time with their families.

The conference report contains some very important language that will help advance the Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project, a series of improvements that includes a new set of passenger rail tunnels between New Jersey and Manhattan. When completed, this project will make it far easier for New Jerseyans to

get to New York for business or recreation, allowing the economy to grow on both sides of the river.

While the Trans-Hudson tunnel will help move people below the water, another major project in this bill will help keep things moving on the water. The Liberty Corridor leverages the strengths of the megaport of the East Coast, Port Newark and Port Elizabeth, to create an economic engine like no other in the country, where people can bring ideas, turn them into reality, and bring them to the world marketplace. As this bill recognizes, this is truly a project of national significance. The key to Liberty Corridor is transportation infrastructure, and the conference report contains a very generous amount of funding that will be used to upgrade the highways and railways in the Port region, allowing more cargo to flow, more jobs to be created, more brownfields to be returned to productive use, and a better quality of life for people throughout New Jersey.

There are a number of great provisions in this bill, but there is one that is conspicuously missing, and that is the Pay-to-Play protection amendment that New Jersey desperately needs. The House passed the Pascrell-Menendez-LoBiondo amendment that would allow New Jersey to combat corruption as it saw fit, but the amendment was stripped in Conference without even a vote. This is a sad statement to people who believe in clean government, and I will continue to fight to protect New Jersey's ability to restore the public's trust in the contracting process.

I look forward to working with the members of the committee to take these programs and projects that we worked so hard to turn into law and turn them into reality.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has submitted a rule for CAFTA that makes a mockery of our Democratic process. The restrictive rule is part and parcel of a Republican leadership strategy to win passage of CAFTA at any cost, whatever the price to the taxpayer, whatever the damage to the fabric of our democracy. The Republican leadership has shown that when it comes to CAFTA, they will cross any line and stifle any voice.

CAFTA will hurt workers here at home and devastate the lives of the rural poor in Central America, a region where the inequality of income is the leading economic and political challenge. It will widen the gap between the haves and have-nots, weaken labor and environmental standards, and set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements.

Carnegie Endowment points out that under NAFTA, the rural population in Mexico suffered the greatest consequences, losing 1.3 million agricultural jobs. Repeating that outcome in Central America will leave only more of the poorest in the region to migrate north, further exacerbating the challenges we face in securing our border.

It is appalling and inexcusable how President Bush has sold the CAFTA deal with one hand while busily cutting aid that helps the poor throughout Central America with the other. Not only is this agreement bad for Central America, it also undermines labor policy and workers around the world. Under this agreement, countries get paid for the abuses suffered by workers because the fines paid for violations go to the countries in which it was committed. Some justice.

Tonight will be a defining moment for this Congress. The American people are watching this debate, and they will not stand for waking up tomorrow to read that in the darkness of the night, the leadership of this House has passed yet another bill by holding a vote open for hours while the purveyors of threats and intimidation perform their work under the cover of darkness.

This ill-conceived measure is a bad deal for workers, a bad deal for America, and a bad vote.