Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Inspector Henry Kaden on his retirement from the Union City Police Department after 27 years of serving and protecting the public.

Inspector Kaden began his career with the Union City Police Department in 1976. In 1984, he was promoted to detective in the Crime Prevention Bureau, where he served until he became sergeant in 1985. In 1988, Inspector Kaden became commander of the Crime Prevention Unit, and, in 1989, he was promoted to lieutenant. After serving as lieutenant for eight years, he was promoted to captain in 1998, and finally, earned the rank of inspector in July, 2002.

Before his service with the Department, Inspector Kaden served in the United States Army from December 1966 to December 1968. From May 1967 until May 1968, during the Tet Offensive, Henry Kaden served in Vietnam.

Inspector Kaden has been the recipient of a number of awards and recognitions for his outstanding service to the public. In 1989, he received the McGruff Award for the National Night Out Program; in 1990, he was named Police Officer of the Year by the Knights of Columbus; in 1991, he was named a National Night Out ``All Star''; and, from 1991 to 1993, his National Night Out Committee was awarded National Honors for representing a top state in the country for neighborhood safety.

Inspector Kaden has received four Medals of Valor and two Life Saving Awards from the Union City Police Department; seven Excellent Police Service Awards; two Honorable Service Awards; a Wound Medal, and two Unit Citations for his work on the Crime Prevention Bureau and as Detective Bureau Commander. The State of new Jersey awarded him with a Distinguished Service Medal and the Vietnam 25th Anniversary Commemorative Medal in 2002.

Inspector Kaden is a graduate of Emerson High School in Union City, New Jersey.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Inspector Henry Kaden for his 27 years of service with the Union City Police Department.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Carmen Valenti for his years of dedication and service to the citizens of New Jersey as a tireless housing advocate. He was honored on August 20, 2003 at a luncheon at Don Pepe Restaurant in Newark, New Jersey.

As the Director of the New Jersey Office of Public Housing for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the last twelve years, Mr. Valenti has worked relentlessly to implement public housing programs, and has fought for adequate and affordable housing for New Jersey residents across the state.

Mr. Valenti first came to New Jersey in 1973, where he began working with the Somerset Department of Planning. In 1978 he began working as a planner for HUD in the Newark's Community Development Office and served in that capacity for thirteen years until becoming Director in 1991.

Originally from Utica, New York, Mr. Valenti earned his bachelor's degree in History and Sociology from Concord College in West Virginia, and his master's degree in Public Administration from Golden Gate University in San Francisco. He also holds a master's degree in Urban Planning from New York University.

From 1969 to 1973, Mr. Valenti served in the intelligence division of the United States Air Force. He earned the rank of staff Sergeant and was honorably discharged in 1973.

A true public servant, Mr. Valenti's efforts to provide better housing for New Jersey residents have improved the lives of many across the state. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Carmen Valenti for his tireless advocacy and dedication to serving the public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Monsignor Edward F. Wojtycha for his 65 years of service to the people of New Jersey and to the Catholic Church.

A native of Jersey City, New Jersey, Reverend Monsignor Wojtycha has dedicated his life and work to helping the people of Jersey City and Bayonne. The Reverend Monsignor began his career in 1938 as a priest at St. Vincent's Church in Bayonne. During his 25 years at St. Vincent's, he served as administrator for 7 years and oversaw the ordination of 20 new priests. In 1963, he was appointed pastor of the newly-formed Our Lady of Mercy Church in Jersey City, where he helped build a new church facility, school, and convent. He then served as pastor of St. Andrew's Church in Bayonne until 1970. Reverend Monsignor Wojtycha retired in 1985. Since 1990, he has continued his service by volunteering at the Most Precious Blood Church in Monmouth Beach. He was honored on June 11, 2003 by the Catholic Community of St. Andrew's Church to mark the 65th anniversary of his priesthood.

Reverend Monsignor Wojtycha continues to be a great inspiration to the people and the cities he has served. He was a founder of the St. Vincent's Drum and Bugle Corps, which has won 10 National Championships, 22 State Championships and had the honor of marching in all presidential inaugurations from Truman to Kennedy.

The Reverend Monsignor has been named ``Man of the Year'' by the State and National Junior Chamber of Commerce, the Knights of Columbus Fourth Degree, the Disabled War Veterans, the American Legion, and others. He was a recipient of the Governor's Award and the VFW National Youth Award, and is in the National Drum Corps Hall of Fame and the New Jersey Drum Corps Hall of Fame. There are two streets named after the Reverend Monsignor, one in Jersey City and one in Bayonne.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Reverend Monsignor Edward F. Wojtycha for his exceptional service and dedication to the people of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer legislation to honor my great friend, the music icon, Celia Cruz, who lost her courageous battle with cancer on July 17, 2003.

Last night, during the Latin Grammy's, Americans were mesmerized by an emotional and wonderful tribute to the great Celia Cruz. Today, in the People's House, I am joined by my colleague, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, to introduce legislation that will posthumously award Celia Cruz the Congressional Gold Medal.

Celia de la Caridad Cruz Alonso was born on October 21, 1924, in Havana, Cuba. Her career blossomed when she left Cuba for the United States in 1960, where she eventually made Fort Lee, New Jersey her home.

Over a five decade career as an entertainer, Celia Cruz became known as the ``Queen of Salsa,'' and claimed the calling card cry of ``Azuuuucar!'' Celia's passion, boundless energy, and charisma transfixed generations of salsa fans and musicians. She recorded more than 70 albums and her collaborative efforts with other performers including the legendary salsa artist Tito Puente, pop star David Byrne, and hip-hop producer Wyclef Jean helped break down ethnic and cultural barriers. She was one of the few bridges that crossed cultural and racial divides.

Celia's musical talent earned her hundreds of awards worldwide, including five Grammy's, two Latin Grammy's, and the National Medal of Arts, the highest honor bestowed on an artist in the United States. She was a Hispanic Heritage Awards Lifetime Achievement recipient, and has a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame. Her music was a unifying force, and her passion for a free Cuba was evidenced in both her music and her words.

Celia touched the lives of millions. More than 100,000 individuals mourned her loss at her wake in Miami, Florida and 75,000 people lined the streets of Manhattan to pay their respects as her funeral procession made its way through the streets of New York City.

Celia Cruz made countless contributions to American society and the world as an entertainer, and she was an ambassador of Latino culture and a voice of freedom. Her music, her words, and her love of freedom live on. This legislation would make Celia the first Latina to receive the Congressional Gold Medal.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge the leadership to bring it swiftly to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, to introduce The National Minority Media Opportunities Act. And I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue and for introducing the companion bill in the Senate.

This bill would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hold public hearings, with notice and opportunity to comment, before approving the transfer of a license for a station serving a minority- language audience. It also requires the FCC to report to Congress on issues involving the concentration of ownership and control of minority-language broadcast media and the effects of excessive concentration on competition and diversity in these minority-language markets.

The need for this bill has become crystal clear as Chairman Powell continues to try to ram through a huge Spanish-language media merger between Univision and HBC, with no opportunity for public input, with no public deliberation, and with no regard for the impact this mega- merger will have on Hispanic consumers or the Spanish-language media market.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed the FCC's new Media Ownership rules, which Chairman Powell has espoused as providing more protection for minority consumers. So why is it that he is now ramming through a decision on the Univision/HBC merger under the old rules, with no public hearings, and without even a public vote? The only obvious explanation seems to lie in an analysis of political contributions filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Otherwise, there is simply no reason to rush this controversial merger through without adequate public review and without a public vote by the

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

I rise in support of the Norton amendment, in opposition to vouchers as is evidenced also by support of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the largest national Hispanic organizations in the country in opposition to vouchers.

Mr. Chairman, here we go again. School districts across our Nation are burdened with large unfunded No Child Left Behind Act mandates at the very same time when school budgets are being cut because of the weakness of the national economy. And what is the Republican plan to solve this? Vouchers.

That is right; the Republican leadership is in effect using the District of Columbia as a testing ground for a policy that they dare not test on their own constituents.

And they're doing this against the will of the majority of the city's elected officials and residents, who argue that vouchers violate home rule and siphon much-needed funding from D.C.'s public schools.

Like most of our districts, D.C. is experiencing huge cuts in its public school budgets because of the weak economy. In fact, this year the District's schools are facing a $40 million cut. If Congress imposes vouchers on the city, an additional $25 million in federal and local per pupil funding will be lost. That is a heavy price to pay for unwanted and unnecessary vouchers.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all of us here can agree that all students in the District of Columbia's public schools deserve a quality education, but voucher plans most certainly do nothing to accomplish this. Instead, voucher plans constitute just one more drain on public funds--away from the public schools where they are really needed. Even Mayor Williams conditioned his support for vouchers on providing more money for public schools, which this bill does not.

Earlier this week, I sent to my colleagues a statement by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) opposing private school vouchers and highlighting their belief that more funding for public schools is needed. As Rick Dovalina, the National President of LULAC, stated, ``As it is, we don't believe current resources will be enough to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's goals.''

Instead, vouchers will send these much needed funds to schools that do not have to meet the accountability standards established by the heralded and greatly under-funded No Child Left Behind Act.

As some of you may know, D.C. officials and residents already have their own options to traditional public schools, including a large number of charter schools, transformation schools, and out-of-boundary school attendance.

Mr. Chairman, we would all insist that the decision of our districts concerning our own children and schools should be respected. The decisions of the majority of elected officials and residents in the District are entitled to the same respect. I urge all my colleagues to vote against the imposition of vouchers and in support of Congresswoman Norton's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the distinguished ranking member's amendment for a critical part of the Nation's transportation infrastructure. There are so many ways in which one could look at the preservation of Amtrak in terms of national interests. I would like to talk first about one of those, and that is on security.

After September 11, we learned very clearly on that fateful day, and my district sits right across from midtown Manhattan, that it was the redundancy of different transportation modes when everything else was shut down that ultimately allowed people to escape from that tragedy, because we had a redundancy of transportation modes.

We saw that again very recently again in the blackout; that but for the redundancy of transportation modes, people would not have been able to get home and to be safe.

So, at a time in which corporate America looks to have redundancy in their corporate headquarters and operations, we as a government should be looking at how do we have a redundancy of transportation modes in order to ensure the vitality of our country and the safety of its citizens. Amtrak is one of those elements of that vitality and of that redundancy, and we need to ensure that it is preserved.

Now, under the appropriations bill that is before the House, if it were to become law, in essence that would result in the immediate shutdown of Amtrak, which would be catastrophic for rail passengers that rely on Amtrak's operation in the northeast corridor, as well as those passengers who use Amtrak for long-distance intercity travel. The Nation faced that prospect during the summer of 2002, and it was narrowly averted by a Federal loan and supplemental appropriation. We do not need to suffer such a needless transportation crisis again.

The long-term effects of Amtrak's demise would be just as severe. The States and municipalities who benefit, for example, the northeast corridor service, would have to scramble to replace it at a time when those States are in fiscal distress. The communities only served by Amtrak's long-distance trains would lose service altogether, with no realistic chance of that service's restoration.

Put simply, the shutdown of Amtrak is something that cannot be allowed to happen, and the way that this bill funds Amtrak clearly would lead to that reality if it became law with this appropriation.

Now, in addition to security and having different modes of transportation to get people to their destinations in a time of heightened security concerns, we also look at, as we are trying to languish with coming up with a highway bill, a major transportation bill, the toll that the lack of such rail passenger service would have on our highways, on our bridges, on our roads. The consequences would be enormous. That is not factored into the value that Amtrak provides us; the commerce that takes place by those who travel through passenger rail, to be able to conduct commerce and research and development as those companies along the northeast corridor participate throughout the corridor and visit and do business; for those in the financial services community; and the consequence on the environment as well from adding all of those other forms of transportation that would have to take the place of passenger rail, the more cars, and that which is produced through Amtrak that may in fact have to be carried by trucking.

So, ultimately, this has a series of effects on the Nation's economy, on the Nation's security, on the environment and the quality of life for people who are served by Amtrak.

Mr. Chairman, we have those Members who just simply do not understand that this is as crucial as subsidies are to agricultural parts of the country, as dams may be to some parts of the country. This is crucial to significant elements of the country for its security, for its transportation needs, for its commerce, for its environment.

That is why the gentleman's amendment makes eminent sense. He moves an amount just sufficient to keep Amtrak alive in doing so, and he does so by taking from those who already have so much and who were given so much more, taking a small amount to ensure that the many who need this transportation service can achieve it.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this restrictive rule and to the bill.

I can respect and agree with the intentions of the bill's sponsors in wanting our seniors to have access to more life-saving, life-enhancing prescription drugs; but this bill could actually endanger the health and safety of millions of seniors. And I think the worst tactic, and I have heard what some of the worst tactics supposedly are, is to suggest that there are no safety issues here whatsoever. Under this legislation, the Food and Drug Administration would no longer be able to adequately ensure the safety of our Nation's drug supply because of the dramatic influx of foreign pharmaceuticals flooding our market from countries with drug regulatory policies inferior to ours.

This bill would authorize the importation of prescription drugs not from Canada but 25 different countries, including some which have rampant drug counterfeit problems and substandard drug safety enforcement measures. By creating an expansive inlet for counterfeit drugs and other second-rate pharmaceuticals to enter our borders, this bill poses a clear and considerable threat to the security and safety of our Nation's drug supply.

Now, the reason we will have so many Republicans come down here and argue in favor of this bill is because they want seniors to be diverted from the real issue. Instead of debating this bill, we should be considering the real issue of providing a guaranteed universal Medicare drug benefit for our seniors so that they have access to affordable and safe medicine.

Mr. Speaker, bring a real Medicare drug benefit to this floor where prices will be forced down because of the purchasing power of 40 million seniors so that they will not have to worry about the affordability or the safety of their medications. That is why this bill should be opposed. That is why we should get to a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare, universally guaranteed. And that is why many, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, say that this bill should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, today, I mourn the death of my great friend, the music icon, Celia Cruz, who lost her courageous battle with cancer yesterday afternoon.

In fact, today, the entire world mourns.

After 50 years of her presence, influence and music, her loss is shocking to all of us, her dedicated fans.

Celia Cruz, whose music crossed ethnic, racial and cultural lines and earned her five Grammy's and two Latin Grammy's, was a true trailblazer. Her music was a unifying force, and her passion for a free Cuba was evidenced in both her music and her words.

Her commitment to a free Cuba went so far that, during a performance at the Summit of the Americas, she worked the following unforgettable lines into one of her songs: `Mr. President, please make sure that my homeland Cuba is free once more.' Poignant and heartbreaking words that describe her love for Cuba, her commitment to a free and democratic Cuba, and her affection for her adopted homeland, the United States.

Celia Cruz mesmerized audiences for five decades with her exceptional singing talent and her wonderful charisma. She has been one of the single greatest influences on salsa music, recording more than 70 albums, and receiving more than 100 awards.

She was honored with a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame, and with streets named after her in New York, Mexico, Costa Rica and Miami, on the famous Calle Ocho. Celia has received honorary degrees from Yale, Florida International University, the University of Miami, and received the National Medal of Arts, the highest honor bestowed on an artist by the United States.

Celia Cruz was born and raised in the Santa Suarez neighborhood of Havana, Cuba. As a young girl, she spent much of her spare time entertaining her peers, friends, and neighbors by singing lullabies and melodies. In the 1940's, she officially began her musical career by singing on numerous Cuban radio programs. After studying at Havana's Conservatory of Music from 1947 to 1950, she joined

the legendary group La Sonora Matancera, and after several successful recordings, the group's music was in demand beyond the borders of Cuba.

When Celia left Cuba for the United States in 1960, her career blossomed and she became a household name. During her first decade in the United States, she recorded several albums with the great Tito Fuente, and together, they captured the hearts of nontraditional fans of salsa, a phenomenon known as `the Salsa of the 70s.' Celia has also collaborated with other great Latin artists, including Johnny Pacheco, Willy Colon, and la Fania All Stars, as well as great American artists, such as Dionne (DEE-ON) Warwick, Patti Labelle, David Byrne, Gloria Estefan, and Wyclef Jean.

Celia Cruz's boundless energy transfixed generations of salsa fans and musicians. The powerful presence of music in her life could not have been expressed any better than in her own words: in an interview, she once said that she was `born with the music inside of her.' And, by God, she expressed the music `inside of her' until the very last day of her battle with cancer.

I was introduced to Celia Cruz's music at an early age, and enjoy her work and dance to her music now, more than ever. As the former Mayor of Union City, New Jersey, I was honored to recognize her achievements and contributions during an awards ceremony almost two decades ago.

On that day, and until her death, Celia Cruz, the Queen of Salsa, the music icon, the star, remained down-to-earth, people-oriented, and was loved by everyone for her music, her passion and her style. She was one of the few bridges that crossed cultural and racial divides.

Celia Cruz's death has left a void in the lives of so many, but her music and words live on, as she leaves behind a legacy on so many levels. I will never forget the famous lines from a recent song, 'La Vida es un Carnaval--No hay que Ilorar,' which means, life is a carnival, you don't have to cry. So simple and so true.

And just like Celia would end her songs with the impulsive and unique AZUCAR! or sugar, I end tonight by saying our memories of you, Ceilia, are as sweet as sugar. You will never be forgotten, and you will always be missed.

Mr. Speaker, we can hear all the spin and diversion that the majority wants to lay there, but this is the point: this morning in the People's House, the heart of our great American democracy, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means called the police, the police, in an attempt to break up a meeting of House Democrats.

Why did he call the police? Because he did not like what Democrats were meeting about and that Democrats as the minority availed themselves of what little protection they have under the rules. This is what Republicans have come to in the running of this House. If they do not like what we say, even in a private meeting, they will try to have us arrested. If we object, and they do not like it, they will try to have us arrested. Does that sound like America to you? Or does that sound like some sort of police state? Our distinguished Speaker should be in the chair and alarmed that this happened under your watch. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. An example of that is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) calling the Department of Homeland Security to track down Texas legislators. Where does this end? This institution cannot and must not tolerate this sort of abusive and intimidating behavior. And this one will not be swept under the rug until justice is done.

Some of us come from families that fled this kind of persecution. I never thought that I would see that persecution take place right here in the people's House, the very place where people are sent to the greatest democracy in the world.

Some claim that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) had the police called in response to a disturbance, but why was the majority chief of staff escorting the police back to the library where the Democrats were meeting? The answer is obvious. The chairman was annoyed and wanted to break up that meeting of Democrats, and he was willing to use the police to do it. As the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I want you to know that our Members will not be silenced on behalf of the 136 million Americans we represent in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Louis E. Kelly on his retirement from the Elizabeth, New Jersey Fire Department, and to congratulate him for 33 years of dedicated and courageous service to his community.

Chief Kelly's impressive career began in November, 1969, as a Probationary Firefighter in Ladder Company 3 of the Elizabeth Fire Department. In 1977, he became Fire Captain of Rescue Ladder 1, and in 1986, Battalion Chief. After being promoted to Deputy Fire Chief in 1993, he served as Acting Chief from 1995-1996, and was appointed to Chief of the Department in April, 1999. For the last nine years, Chief Kelly has also served as a Deputy Mutual Aid Coordinator for Union County.

Over the years, the Elizabeth Fire Department and Chief Kelly have been the recipients of many commendations, recognitions, and awards. Chief Kelly is a three-time recipient of the Valor Award from the 200 Club of Union County, and has received two Heroism and Community Service Awards from Firehouse Magazine for his heroism and dedication. The Elizabeth Fire Department has awarded him three Class 1 awards, four Class 2 awards, and four Unit Citations. He is the twelfth chief of the Elizabeth Fire Department, which began officially in 1902 and replaced the volunteer fire department.

Under the leadership of Chief Kelly, the Elizabeth Fire Department gave its all in the recovery efforts after September 11, 2001, an event which Chief Kelly noted, ``proved no entity can handle every situation on its own.'' The tragic events of that day demonstrated the Department's commitment and courage, which will never be forgotten.

Chief Kelly will be remembered for his love for and dedication to his community, both as a coach for Elmora Youth League and for the Saint Genevieve's Parish, and his many other community activities.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Chief Louis E. Kelly for his years of service to the Elizabeth Fire Department and the City of Elizabeth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.

I am outraged that particularly two amendments which I sponsored and which passed with bipartisan support in the Committee on International Relations will be stripped from this bill by legislative tricks designed to protect Republicans so the American public cannot see their anti-Mexican and anti-environmental beliefs. Let me emphasize that these amendments passed the Committee on International Relations.

With their treatment of my Mexican migration amendment, Republicans have once again shown the real feelings of their party towards Hispanics. My amendment simply called on the United States to stop waiting and to support the President's own commitment in September, 2001, to ensure that migration is ``safe, orderly, legal and dignified.''

While we waited, 19 migrants from Mexico and Central American, including women and children, died this May from asphyxiation and heat stroke in a truck crammed with people. Over the past 5 years, more than 2,000 migrants have died crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. This is not a story of numbers and statistics. This is a story of real human beings literally dying.

As the President mentioned, it is in the economic and national security interests of this country to conclude, not to begin, we have been debating this and the administration has been negotiating this for 2 years, to conclude a migration agreement with Mexico.

My amendment recognized that Mexican immigrants make an invaluable contribution to this country, as immigrants have done throughout the history of the United States. Mexicans pick the fruit and vegetables that end up on our tables. They work in the service industry on the East and West Coast, they pluck chickens in Arkansas, and let us not forget that some who died in the war in Iraq were originally undocumented immigrants.

However, my amendment was gutted by the Ballenger amendment, which should be called the Halliburton amendment since it cynically links migration policy to oil. In fact, it says that any migration accord between our countries should also include an accord to open Petroleos Mexicanos, or PEMEX, to investment by U.S. oil companies. What, in God's name, does that have to do with migration policy?

But guess what? The Republicans finally figured out that their amendment was a huge error and made in order an amendment to strike the Ballenger provision and replace it with a watered-down version of my original amendment.

Imagine the reaction of the Republican leadership, not to speak of the diplomatic consequences faced by this administration, when it realized that my simple amendment using the President's language to advocate for a conclusion of a migration accord with Mexico was hijacked by Republican extremists and turned into a ``migration for Mexican oil'' agreement.

The callousness of that so-called Republican compassion equated U.S.- Mexico migration policy with U.S. access to Mexican oil, and Republicans were unable to spin their way out of this outrage but instead quickly provided another amendment that did away with this embarrassment but provided no further incentive to conclude, not convene, but conclude a migration accord.

Now I would like to turn to my amendment on global climate change and tell a similar story about an amendment that passed the Committee on International Relations in a bipartisan vote and was removed from this bill by bipartisan tricks designed to hide the Republicans anti- environmental stance on global climate change.

My global climate change amendment simply says that the United States should take the lead in the world in the fight against global warming, not Kyoto, not anything else, a lead in the world against global climate warming. This is not a new idea. This is an amendment which previously passed in the House. Both sides of Congress have supported it. This very amendment unanimously passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, this year. And last week it was sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce so it could be stripped from the bill. The real goal is to save Republicans from taking a public stand on global climate change.

What is the Republican leadership afraid of when it thwarts the bipartisan will of the Committee on International Relations or of any committee? Only through its procedural, back-door dealings was it able to reverse a decision made by this committee; and by doing so, it has staked out its opposition to the majority will of the committee, the American people and the world community.

In this Chamber of democratic ideals, the House of Representatives is supposed to be the place where we take a stand on the issues. If Members disagree with my amendments, that is fine. Then stand up and vote against them, but do not sneak them out of the bill. The American people should be able to find out where Members of this House stand on global climate change, stand on concluding a Mexican migration agreement. The truth is that Republicans are so embarrassed by their own policies they will not let these two provisions remain in the bill or even allow a vote on the floor, the marketplace of ideas, the greatest democratic institution in the world. That is fundamentally shameful. Therefore, this undemocratic rule, this unfair rule should be voted against, and I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so so we will have an opportunity to vote on global climate change in a real amendment or resolution on Mexican migration accord.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would be here lauding and applauding your initiative on the Mexico migration agreement if in fact you would have a single but very powerful difference in your wording; and that is, instead of, after 2 years of significant talks and negotiations, speaking about a commencement, that we would be

talking about a conclusion. Then I would be here supporting your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for all his work and cooperation, and I rise to speak on some of the positive elements of this bill.

This bill includes my amendment on Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons and is particularly relevant given recent developments in Iran. Iran continues to claim that its nuclear research program's only goal is to promote peaceful activities. Last week, however, Iran confirmed that it had successfully tested its mid-range missile, the Shahab-3, which can reach Israeli soil. And last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency stated Iraq has secretly processed nuclear material. Iran continues its game with the IAEA over signing the new nuclear safeguards protocol. Iran is a country with huge oil and natural gas reserves and clearly does not need nuclear power for its energy consumption.

My amendment, as incorporated in this bill, therefore, calls on the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is used only for peaceful purposes and urges the United States representatives to the IAEA to help develop guidelines for early identification of any Iranian noncompliance with the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. And, finally, Iran should sign and ratify the new nuclear safeguards protocol to this treaty.

While I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) on pursuing the Millennium Challenge Account, I am concerned that this initiative ignores the majority of the desperately poor in Latin America and the Caribbean. The initiative launched in Mexico will not contribute a dollar to the poor in the Mexican state of Chiapas. Two hundred million citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean earn under $2 a day, 100 million live on less than $1 a day, and yet these poorest of the poor in our own hemisphere will not qualify for assistance under the Millennium Challenge Account.

I look forward to seeing the Kolbe amendment, which is similar to the one that I proposed, to see if we can move some of those countries forward; and, in the absence of that look, I forward to working with the committee to see what we are going to do about our neighbors here in our own hemisphere, if we are concerned about health care, immigration, and biodiversity.

Lastly, I want to salute the leadership of the committee for incorporating the minority recruitment efforts. The State Department has had the worst record of all of the Federal Government. Our State Department must look like America. It must also have the diversity of thought that makes America great. The State Department shows our face to the rest of the world, and we should bring the synergies of people from different backgrounds to focus on American diplomacy. If the State Department is to make progress, minorities must have a seat at the table.

So, Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning, this bill has a number of positive components, but I am concerned that my Mexico and climate change amendments were stripped from the bill; that the Millennium Challenge Account hopefully moves closer to helping the people of the Western Hemisphere; and, finally, I look forward to the success of certain amendments to improve this product. I thank the distinguished ranking member for all his help in trying to make it an even better bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment and rise in favor of it. It is similar to an amendment that I offered in the Committee on International Relations.

I believe this amendment helps create economic stability in the Western Hemisphere which will then create political stability, stem the flow of undocumented workers, improve health care and biodiversity, and ultimately create a growing market for American products and services.

Now, 200 million citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean earn under $2 a day, 100 million live on less than $1 a day, and yet these poorest of the poor in our hemisphere will not qualify for assistance under the MCA. Experts tell us that only 15 to 25 million of those 200 million of the poorest of the poor would benefit from the MCA.

Without this amendment, only 3 out of the 34 democracies in the Western Hemisphere would be included in the first year. That is not in the national interest of the United States. That ultimately undermines the problems we are having in the Western Hemisphere where there is a serious concern by leading analysts and experts on our hemisphere who say that, in fact, the march for democracy and free markets is being undermined. Latin Americans believe that march towards democracy and free markets is not bringing good things to their life.

I applaud what is being done generally with the Millennium Challenge Account, but we need to bring the countries of Latin America and the Western Hemisphere into this as well. I applaud the gentleman's amendment. I believe it is limited in its scope, and I urge support of it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment is premised on an unfortunate situation that has arisen in the state of Tamil Nadu, India, involving several American companies that are currently attempting to conduct business there.

In seeking to provide additional electrical generating capacity, several years ago the Tamil Nadu government sought to induce foreign companies to design and build power plants there. Five American companies accepted this proposition and constructed four projects that generate approximately 800 megawatts of electricity in Tamil Nadu at a combined cost of about $1 billion. Each company entered into a long- term contract for the purchase of the electricity generated at these plants at an agreed-upon price.

After getting these plants up and running, the Tamil Nadu government then began a systematic underpayment of the contract terms, sufficient to keep them running but providing no return on the initial investment. Technically, the projects are in a state of default; and, as far as we know, the Tamil Nadu government owes these American companies approximately $150 million under the terms of these contracts.

Now, India has been a strategic ally and trading partner of the United States. Unfortunately, the state of Tamil Nadu has lagged behind the rest

of that country in terms of maintaining a strong commitment to the rule of law and providing for these types of open, transparent transactions. So we simply, through our amendment, seek to create an opportunity to ensure that, while we will not certainly affect India as a country, that the state of Tamil Nadu cannot have the good deal and resources of this country if it continues to unjustifiably hold American companies hostage in this way.

We do nothing to affect any foreign assistance that deals with human rights or nutrition or any of those things, but we do deal with all other issues that are not humanitarian, health-related, or justice sector relief initiatives designed to help those citizens of Tamil Nadu. So this is a way to stand up for U.S. companies who make legitimate investments and do the right thing and at the end of the day do not have the transparency and the opportunity to have their investments honored in a way in which we want to see throughout the world.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his comments.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for his support.

Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we will have a resolution and will not have to pursue it much further than this. But I appreciate the opportunity to at least have these companies have their chance to have an opportunity for their investments to be upheld under international law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the en bloc amendment and certainly recognize the wisdom that has now been included in the en bloc amendment of my original amendment in the Committee on International Relations calling for a conclusion of a migratory agreement between the United States and Mexico in the national interests of both countries. It certainly is in the national interest of the United States to regularize the border between Mexico and the United States, to make sure that the human capital that helps fuel our economy here at home can be had but in a way that is dignified on both sides.

And certainly I am happy to see the removal of the Mexican oil from the migration agreement that was not only offensive but outright wrong as far as our foreign policy is concerned. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I am pleased to see that we are headed now in the right direction. I am very pleased that Democrats have led on this issue and that our Republican colleagues have joined us on it in this en bloc amendment.

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

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, this amendment may seem by the way it was just described rather innocuous, but it is rather outrageous. It is a thinly veiled attempt to end something called the matricula consular.

To start with, this amendment could create a negative boomerang effect on the United States. The amendment tells other countries' consulates what they can and cannot do above and beyond existing law. Do we want other countries to do the same to us? Do we want other countries to tell our consulates how we can relate to our own citizens abroad? This is an unprecedented attempt to change how a country can relate to its own nationals in a host country. I think it is a patently improper interpretation of the Foreign Missions Act and the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs. The amendment would set a dangerous precedent for our embassies abroad.

But let me get to the core issue. This amendment is another anti- immigration tactic designed to get rid of the

matricula consular. Basically, they have loaded this amendment with requirements that are unreasonable for workers in this country to be able to achieve. How can migrant workers be expected to notify their own mission within 30 days every time they move? And we expect poor people from rural areas to produce all of the records that they suggest. This makes no sense. And then in a final attempt to completely get rid of the matricula consular, they included a punishment so strong that many countries might simply stop using it. If a country fails to comply with these onerous provisions, the United States would stop issuing immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. What country could take that risk?

I do not quite understand it. I thought we had a victory collectively in moving into the right way in our bilateral relations with Mexico. This amendment takes us another step back. Over and over again, Members on the other side of the aisle have shown their true feelings about some of the issues on the Hispanic community, the immigrant communities; and this amendment is no exception.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this outrageous and dangerous amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the chairman's concern. I resent the constant surge of amendments that confront particularly a single community.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), senior member of the Committee on International Relations who has worked on these issues.

(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who resides and deals with the border all the time.

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.