Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 2005, I was in my district participating in the first meeting of the New Jersey Flood Mitigation Task Force. This Task Force is working to help prevent the devastating flooding that occurred for a number of my constituents earlier this year. Due to the schedule, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 363 and 364. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 363 ``aye'' and rollcall No. 364 ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns with the Water Resource Development Act of 2005.

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for authorizing projects that are important to my district in their bill. Water and infrastructure are important issues to the sprawling, populated area that I represent. Each of these projects is important to the residents of central New Jersey and will enhance the quality of life in my district.

Although I am pleased that this legislation includes important civil works projects that will better our nation, I am disappointed that this legislation does not include stronger reforms of the Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is charged with an important mission--operating our Nation's water resources and civil works projects. The projects they undertake provide our communities with clean drinking water, electric power production, river transportation, ecosystem restoration, and flood protection. Regrettably, the Army Corps has been plagued by mismanagement that has resulted in significant delays and distress to the communities that are in need of these projects.

Although Congress specifically authorizes projects, the Army Corps has repeatedly ignored these guidelines and set their own priorities. For years, I have personally been frustrated with the Army Corps handling of projects in the 12th Congressional District. The most egregious example of the Army Corps disregard for authorized projects in my district is the environmental restoration of Grover's Mill Pond. Located at the site made famous by Orson Well's ``War of the Worlds'' radio broadcast, Grover's Mill is not only a historic site, but it is a recreation destination and the pond is a vital link to stream corridors. Years of sediment build-up and runoff from the watershed have caused the pond to become overrun with aquatic weeds and algae.

In fiscal year 2003, Congress specifically designated $500,000 in funding for this project, but only a fraction of this amount has been spent by the Corps on Grover's Mill pond. This pond in its current condition is not only an eyesore for the community and the residents who live near it, but gives off an unpleasant smell in the summer. Completion of this project is long overdue and is just one example of how the Army Corps fiscal irresponsibility impacts projects across the Nation.

The Army Corps should be a leading environmental organization, but too often environmental protection seems to be a secondary consideration. One large deficiency is their dependence on a planning policy that was created by the Water Resources Council in 1983. More than 20 years later, these policies have seen little revision. In addition, I am concerned with provisions of this bill that would give the Army Corps new authority to limit dramatically the alternatives it will consider during project planning and the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, review process. This will undermine NEPA and allow the Army Corps to proceed with projects before evaluating a full range of reasonable alternatives.

The proposed plan for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway is another disconcerting provision in the bill. H.R. 2648 would allow the Army Corps to spend $1.8 billion to improve the water route and ease travel time. The Army Corps claims that this large project is necessary due to its projections that traffic will increase. However, both the National Academy of Sciences and the Congressional Research Service dispute this finding. Investing nearly 10 percent of total Corps spending into a project based on faulty predictions is simply unacceptable. I will support the amendment being offered by Representative Blumenauer and Representative Flake that will ensure that this project is economically justified by authorizing it only if the Army Corps meets their lowest projected traffic scenario.

Although I have strong concerns that this bill does not go far enough in reforming the Army Corps, I believe that the projects and programs in this bill are important and need to be reauthorized. Therefore, I will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation. I hope in the future that Congress will be able to enact reformative measure to address the Army Corps fiscal, environmental, and logistical oversights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest terms possible an ugly and xenophobic comment that recently came to my attention. Yesterday, a staff member who works for another Member of Congress responded to an e-mail inquiry regarding the upcoming visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with what can only be described as an insulting and bigoted attempt at humor. His comments were deeply offensive to Indians, Indian Americans, and countless others like me who do not tolerate such bigotry.

On one of my visits to India a few years ago I was able to meet with government officials, including Prime Minister Singh, then a member of the Rajya Sabha, India's Upper House of Parliament. I was deeply impressed by his intellect, thoughtfulness, and the success of his economic program, and I am proud to welcome him as he addresses a Joint Session of Congress this week. It is my hope that all Americans will listen to his words. We have much to learn from him regarding tolerance and acceptance of people of other cultures.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Washington, for this Special Order and for shining a light on this subject. The gentleman is right, this is something, it is curious. I have been trying for a couple of years to draw sharp attention to this, to this exposure of the identity of someone whom we have asked to undertake risky, dangerous, important assignments for quite a long time.

The press seemed very interested in this other issue of their ability to protect their sources, not an unimportant issue, but something apart from this critical issue of how we as a country collect intelligence, what we as a country ask of people who risk their lives to collect that intelligence, and what we do about protecting their ability to do it and protecting their lives and welfare.

This is a very important matter. Former President Bush, the current President's father, said that those who expose our human sources are ``the most insidious of traitors.'' Ten former intelligence officers signed a letter calling the disclosure of this particular officer's identity ``a shameful and unprecedented event in American history.'' It is an uncommon occurrence, and for good reason. Thank goodness, it is uncommon.

Intelligence is intended to save lives. Intelligence is intended to protect our national security. Intelligence is intended to be something that prevents us from going to war. But to collect that intelligence, people have to take great risks. Operating undercover, perhaps under an alias, dealing with people in out-of-the-way places is often a thankless job. We do not often acknowledge the people who do that. It is a terrible thing when their effectiveness is lost through some accident. It is even worse when they are exposed by the counterintelligence people in another country.

But worst of all, of almost unthinkable tragedy, is when a person would be exposed by his or her own government. Mr. Speaker, it is not just a matter of ruining a career, it is not just a matter of an affront to a person or her spouse, it is not just the loss of probably millions of dollars that goes into developing an undercover agent, providing the cover and all that.

No, it is more than the ruined career, more than the loss to our Nation of effective intelligence. It actually puts that person at risk. And anyone who ever had lunch with that person in a foreign country is now suspected by that country as having been fraternizing with a spy. We do not know what has happened to other people in other countries because of exposure of identities of intelligence officers. That an exposure should come from our own country is almost unthinkable.

So when we raise this subject today, it is not about political ``gotcha''; it is not to embarrass someone. No. It is because we as a Congress have a responsibility to look after these people whom we have asked to take great risks. And we have to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen. That is why we want to know what happened and how it happened. It is, well, like someone sending an e-mail to the enemy with a position of our troops on the map. You do not do that at wartime. That is treasonous.

Today, the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on which I sit submitted a letter to the President, again underscoring the importance of this matter, abhorring the disclosure of identities of undercover officers, and asking that the President take the step of removing the security clearance from anyone known to have any association with this. We certainly know that Karl Rove, as acknowledged through his attorney, that he disclosed the identity, maybe not by name, but he might as well have; the identity of an intelligence officer to a reporter of a national news magazine.

Because the officer was undercover, her identity could be known only through access to classified information. There is ample precedent for suspending the security clearances of people under suspicion of leaking classified information. So we formally and soberly asked the President to suspend any and all of Mr. Rove's security clearances, at least and until the Fitzgerald investigation is complete. That is just one step.

But we here in Congress have an important role beyond that, a role of oversight to make sure that we, as I say, look after the welfare, effectiveness, and safety of those whom we have asked to take risks for our country so that we can know what is going on around the world, so we can avoid war, so that we can save lives, so that we can advance democracy.

I thank my colleague from Washington for this Special Order; and I hope, now that the country's attention is focused on this subject, that we really can get to the bottom of it. The President said at first that he would find and fire this person. Then a little bit later he said, you know, it is going to be really hard to find the person.

This is the same President who said we will find Osama bin Laden, wherever he is in the world. But among the 5,000 people in the White House, I am going to have a hard time finding out who it was who leaked this. Well, we know at least one person in the White House now who was party to this. The President should take action so that this sort of thing will never happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I would say this goes beyond political punishment. We certainly could condemn his punishing the envoy who went to learn the truth about the uranium from Niger. But for whatever reason to disclose the identity of someone whom we have asked to take risks, life and death risks on our behalf is almost unthinkable.

And to do it for what appear to be gratuitous political reasons makes it all the more shameful.

I cannot imagine why this name would have been released, but for the sake of creating political embarrassment for someone. I call that a gratuitous breach of national security.

There does not seem to be any higher purpose here. I suppose you might be able to imagine some circumstances where for some higher purpose you probably could dream up something where releasing the identity of, you know, someone we have put in such a dangerous position might be justifiable, but this certainly is not it.

Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 2005, I was in my district participating in the first meeting of the New Jersey Flood Mitigation Task Force. This Task Force is working to help prevent the devastating flooding that occurred for a number of my constituents earlier this year. Due to the schedule, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 363 and 364. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 363 ``aye'' and rollcall No. 364 ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 739. It is part of a package of bills that we have before us today that serve no purpose that I can see but to gut the occupational health legislation record before this Congress.

Current law requires that employers challenge a citation or notice of a failure to abate a hazard within a 15-day time period. There is a reason that this is a short time period. It is because these are serious matters. The short deadline was enacted to encourage expeditious handling of cases and to ensure that the workplace hazards are corrected in a timely manner. The commission already has the ability to review specific cases of missed deadlines in a manner that protects the

rights of employers. In fact, my colleagues defending this legislation said what about unintentional missed deadlines or deadlines that are missed innocently. The commission can deal with that. What we are concerned about are the ones that are missed disingenuously: oh, I forgot; oh, I did not quite get around to taking care of that.

It is clear that H.R. 739 is designed to ease the burden on employers at the expense of the health and safety of workers. This is the dramatic change in policy. My colleague from Georgia said the dramatic change in policy is somehow OSHA has gained regulatory authority. No. OSHA has always had regulatory authority for the last 35 years. The real change is this dramatic change in policy that would delay the employers' responsiveness to the health hazards and increase the time that workers have to work in unsafe conditions.

These measures would make it more difficult for employees to seek redress and would impede the enforcement of worksite safety and health provisions.

Again, this is one of a set of bills that would serve to gut OSHA. It puts aside, really, the seriousness of the matter here. We do not want OSHA to become just an annoyance or a minor delay or an inconvenience or just the cost of doing business. No. OSHA should have teeth.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans, I do not know who they are, they do not know who they are, who today have their arms, their eyes, their health, even their lives because of OSHA; and they do not know who they are. But they can thank people like Senator Pete Williams from New Jersey and others, who 35 years ago realized that it is the appropriate role of the Federal Government to be involved.

I know there are those who think that it would be better if the Federal Government had never gotten involved in this. I suppose they would say, well, the employee could sit down with the employer and the employee could point out the unsafe working conditions and the employer will surely take care of it because no employer wants his employees harmed. It just does not work that way. It did not work that way for the century before OSHA was passed.

Let me repeat: there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have their eyesight, who have their arms, who have their health, who have their lives because OSHA has teeth, because OSHA requires prompt remedy to unsafe conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Two River Theater Company on the opening of a new, state of the art, performance center in Red Bank, New Jersey. The Two River Theater Company is in Monmouth County, New Jersey's leading professional theater.

Since the company first opened its curtains in 1994, the Two River Theater Company has used many venues for their productions. Starting at Monmouth College and traveling around Monmouth County, the Two River Theater Company has been innovative and resourceful in creating productions in borrowed spaces. With the opening of their new home, the Two River Theater Company will provide an excellent addition to the artistic and cultural makeup of Red Bank, Monmouth County and all of central New Jersey.

As a supporter of the arts, I cannot stress enough the importance of culture in our lives. The arts play a crucial role in our society, enhancing our creativity; promoting critical aspects of education; and providing Americans with the opportunity to view works of beauty and expression. I commend the Two River Theater Company for bridging together local groups and communities through their educational and cultural programming and providing individuals with access to many different forms of art.

The Two River Theater Company decision to locate their new theater on Red Bank's west side, easily accessible by car and train, is an example of the desire to contribute to the local community. The new space is comprised of a main theater, named for the cofounders of the Two River Theater Company, that will provide an intimate atmosphere for both the actors and audiences. A small box theater will provide a different type of venue for performances as well rehearsal space for productions on the main stage. The complex also holds costume and craft shops, lighting and sound shops and dressing rooms.

For more than ten years, the individuals involved with the Two River Theater Company have shared their love for the theater, arts and music with local schools. From educational programming to reduced admission for school groups to running a yearlong program for 25 exceptional high school juniors to teach them about all aspects of theater, the Two River Theater Company is committed to educating our youth and helping students gain a greater appreciation for the arts.

Kicking off their inaugural season, the Two River Theater Company held a gala fund-raiser and then hosted three free programs for the local communities including a Celebration for Educators on April 26, a Neighborhood Open House & Concert on April 28, and a Family Day on April 30. The theater season kicked off on May 7th with the Pulitzer Prize-winning comedy ``You Can't Take It With You'' by George S. Kaufman, which will run in the Robert ``Bob'' and Joan Rechnitz Theater and ``Suicide in B flat'' by Sam Shepard, a one act play that includes music, that will be performed in the Marion Huber Theater for a limited number of days in June.

I congratulate the Two River Theater Company for their hard work and dedication to achieving their dream of their own theater. Not only will the new venue provide an excellent place for audiences to enjoy the arts, but it has and will continue to bring cultural and new life to downtown and west side Red Bank. I applaud the achievements of the Two River Theater Company and may they break a leg during their inaugural theater season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this supplemental, but not of the process that brought it to the floor.

Last Friday, the Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration acknowledged that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year, despite repeated efforts by House Democrats to fund VA healthcare. In response, the Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to give the VA an extra $1.5 billion this year to cover the health care shortfall. But House Republicans today offered just $975 million, meaning additional work will have to be done to correct this serious problem.

But the problem we face is larger than dollars and cents. There is an emerging credibility gap, one that Secretary of Veterans Affairs Nicholson would do well to address and quickly. It simply strains credulity to suggest, as some in the House have this week, that neither the Secretary nor his staff could have foreseen this problem. Mr. Nicholson's predecessor, former VA Secretary Anthony Principi, who is currently chairing the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, certainly had no difficulty giving the Congress honest assessments on the VA's needs. Indeed, Secretary Principi was too forthright for White House officials, who were undoubtedly both embarrassed and angered by his candor during the last Congress.

You remember the story, I'm sure. At the annual VA budget hearing on February 4, 2004, in response to a question by my friend and colleague from Illinois, Mr. Evans, then-

Secretary Principi acknowledged that he needed at least $1.2 billion more to meet the medical needs of America's veterans than President Bush had requested in his Fiscal Year 2005 budget submission to Congress. My friend from Illinois showed his usual courage and tenacity, and fought to get Secretary Principi the money they both knew--the money we all knew--was needed to properly care for our veterans. And even if this supplemental funding is provided, there will still be at least a $600 million shortfall in VA funding this fiscal year.

What does this shortfall mean in human terms? It means not enough psychiatric nurses to care for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric disorders. It means some veterans will not get prosthetic devices they need to function in the real world. It means that hospital administrators will have to raid medical care accounts in order to pay for equipment repairs to keep air conditioners functioning and electrical systems working. It means longer clinic waiting times for veterans seeking appointments. All of these shortages are both unacceptable and avoidable.

If we can find the money to buy the hardware to send our men and women into battle, there's no excuse for us not to find the money to pay for their wounds of war after they come home. Shortchanging America's veterans on America's birthday is truly a manifestation of Tom Paine's sunshine patriotism. I urge my colleagues to not only support this supplemental, but to demand that the President and the House leadership provide the full funds the VA needs to care for our wounded warriors.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of funding for the Community Development Block Grant program. The proposed cuts to this vital program for individual community improvement growth must be withdrawn and full funding restored.

H.R. 3058 seeks to cut $251 million from the Community Development Block Grant program, a 6 percent slash in funding and another reduction in a long string of cutbacks for the program. I stand strongly opposed to any effort to reduce funding to the CDBG program.

The nature of CDBG--funds for housing, economic development, public facilities, social

services, and land acquisition, to name a few--incorporates a significant amount of flexibility to appropriate funds at the discretion of each community. What this means for each community is their ability to use Federal funds for a wide range of initiatives as well as to prioritize local needs while supporting national objectives. This great characteristic, leaving specific appropriations for local decision making, does not warrant reductions in the program, which would prevent Federal funds from being used where they are needed most.

In FY 2004, the Community Development Block Grant program provided $4.853 billion to communities across the Nation. In my home State of New Jersey, CDBG funds many important initiatives. In Trenton alone it supports childcare services, provides for job training programs, funds the food programs at local area soup kitchens, and is used towards building and repairing affordable housing in the city. Elsewhere, in Monroe Township the CDBG funds ``A Friend in Need,'' a program which provides homecare to the elderly unable to afford it. It also aids the South Brunswick Citizens for Independent Living (CIL), which builds affordable housing for the disabled and provides training programs on financial independence. These are only a few local examples of this vital Federal program.

The 31-year history of this program has proven to us that investment in communities continues to benefit lower income persons in need of assistance. Most of the CDBG-funded programs have proved to be small in scale, neighborhood-based initiatives. Expenditures through the CDBG program for lower income individuals have repeatedly exceeded the minimums set by Congress.

The 6 percent reduction for the Community Development Block Grant program included in H.R. 3058 is much more damaging than it seems: due to the small nature of many of the programs CDBG funds, it would result in the complete cutting of numerous and invaluable local community projects. I firmly believe that the absence of these programs would neglect many pressing needs of the American people, negatively impact many communities, and, most importantly, prevent Federal funds from reaching those who need them most.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to restore full funding for the Community Development Block Grant program as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette/Oberstar amendment that would restore funding for Amtrak. The Fiscal Year 2006 Transportation Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill that we are debating today cuts funding for Amtrak to $550 million, half of its current funding level. Without increasing the funding level to $1.2 billion, Amtrak will be unable to survive and will be forced into bankruptcy.

In recent years the Administration and some members of Congress have repeatedly proposed significant cuts in Federal funding for Amtrak. They seem determined to eliminate this vital transportation service, and justify these actions by demonizing and blaming Amtrak for all of its problems. These opponents of Amtrak often forget that the Federal government subsidizes our nation's airports, roads, sidewalks, and even its bicycle paths. Why should it treat our national rail system differently?

Like the 25 million people that rode Amtrak in 2005, I appreciate the essential public service Amtrak provides. I am a frequent rail passenger, as are many of my constituents in

central New Jersey. In fact, 4 million New Jersey residents rode Amtrak last year, and many New Jersey commuters ride Amtrak or use their infrastructure daily.

The loss of Amtrak would impact more than my constituents and other patrons across the nation who depend on its convenient service. Those customers that rely on Amtrak will be forced to descend on our already heavily congested roads and airports. These demands on our roadways will accelerate the loss of open spaces that will be paved over in order to construct new roads. The additional congestion will increase pollution in urban environments that already suffer from the ill effects of smog.

Furthermore, the economic impact of eliminating Amtrak should not be overlooked. In New Jersey alone, at least $200 million in annual revenues would be lost from the newsstands, convenience stories, cafes, and other retail businesses that are located near the rail lines and that count upon daily commuters for much of their cashflow. This economic dependence on Amtrak is similar along the Northeast Corridor, in cities across the Nation and in rural areas that depend on the train passing through their town.

I am disappointed that the Administration and some members here in Congress fail to recognize the benefits of Amtrak. I hope that the majority of my colleagues will appreciate the importance of Amtrak on America's transportation infrastructure and support the LaTourette/ Oberstar amendment that will keep Amtrak running.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act, which institutes a variety of measures to protect the Delaware and other American rivers from future oil spills and environmental disasters and which I am pleased to have voted for. As the longest un-dammed river east of the Mississippi, the Delaware is a crucial part of America's infrastructure, serving as a key route for commercial shipping, a popular area for recreational activity, and a vital water source for hundreds of counties and municipalities on or near its path.

In late November 2004, the tanker Athos I, accidentally hit an unmarked, submerged piece of iron pipe on the shore of the Delaware River near Paulsboro, NJ. The metal tore a hole in the ship's single hull, releasing roughly 265,000 gallons of crude oil into the river and soiling over 200 miles of coastline. Hundreds of birds became oil- covered and died; countless fish--including many endangered short-nose sturgeon--were sickened or killed. The Coast Guard estimated the cost of cleanup to be in excess of $200 million--that in addition to revenues lost when shipping routes along the river were forced to close and power plants along the river were forced to shut down. But under current law, the tanker's owners are responsible for less than $50 million of that cost; American taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for the rest.

For almost 15 million people--including much of the New York metropolitan area--the Delaware is a primary source of drinking water. Polluting such a valuable resource should be far costlier than it currently is, in order to encourage companies to practice the safest shipping possible. The Delaware River Protection Act would have just that effect.

First, the bill increases responsible parties' cleanup liability by nearly ninety percent for single-hulled vessels like the Athos I, and by over forty percent for double-hulled vessels, which are safer and more resistant to hull damage. The bill also requires any person with knowledge of submerged objects in U.S. waters to report those objects to the Coast Guard or be subject to civil and criminal penalties; prior Coast Guard notification of the iron pipe submerged in the Delaware's banks could have prevented the Athos incident entirely.

Finally, the bill proposes two programs. The first, established jointly within the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would be devoted to determining the environmental effects of submerged oil, and to developing methods to locate and remove it. The second, the Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee, would be devoted solely to recommending ways to improve prevention of--and reaction to--oil spills on the Delaware.

In all, this bill makes important strides toward the environmental protection that our planet, our region, and the fifteen million Americans who rely on the Delaware for drinking water need. Preventing future oil spills and related disasters on the Delaware River is a vital and necessary goal. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Delaware River Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, last week, House Democrats, led by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, convened a hearing to investigate the so-called ``Downing Street Memo.'' Because I am disappointed with the continued unwillingness of Congress to exercise an adequate level of oversight over the intelligence operations of the Executive Branch, I was therefore pleased to learn that someone was willing to pose questions that have for too long gone un-asked.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I believe that the Downing Street Memo, which is essentially minutes of a July 2002 meeting of the British Prime Minister and his cabinet, justifies exploring the underlying rationales for the Iraq War. It documents a loyal ally's assertion that the architects of the Iraq war used suspect evidence to support a pre- determined policy. Its authenticity has not been questioned. Such documentation deserves to be probed.

Because of prior commitments, I attended this meeting for about 20 minutes. I later learned through news reports that, after I left, one of the witnesses at the hearing, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Analyst Ray McGovern, offered repugnant personal viewpoints. Alleging that the war was the product of a U.S.--Israeli partnership to ``dominate'' the Middle East, Mr. McGovern's statements were insulting, unsubstantiated, and defamatory. There is no justification or excuse for implying that the war in Iraq was the result of any action on the part of the state of Israel, its people, or the American Jewish community. The decision to invade Iraq was the decision of President Bush and a majority of Congress. Ascribing such motives to the pro- Israel community is not simply defamatory--it is anti-Semitic. Mr. McGovern should apologize.

Mr. Speaker, I have been one of the more outspoken members of this body regarding the intelligence that this president used to justify using force against Iraq, how the war has been carried out, and the post-war occupation. I reject Mr. McGovern's statements. His remarks only encourage those who seek to blame Israel and Jews in general for all that ails them. His remarks shed no light on the issue. In fact, they undermined the values of community and equality, which all Americans hold dear.

Sixty years after the end of the Second World War, it is a shame that one of its most notorious sentiments--anti-Semitism--has yet to be eradicated. Each of us has a role to play in combating anti-Semitism whenever and wherever we see it. As a member of the Congressional Task Force Against Anti-Semitism, I ask each of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to confront anti-Semitism whenever it arises.

I hope that Mr. McGovern's offensive and misguided rhetoric does not obscure the purpose of the hearing on the Downing Street Memo. Congress should investigate the extent to which the Bush Administration used questionable evidence to justify a predetermined war. Failure to do so would be an abandonment of our oversight responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the proposed US-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).

Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick led the team of U.S. negotiators who concluded what they consider to be a good trade agreement in DR-CAFTA, and President Bush signed it the summer of 2004. This agreement will not take effect, however, until it is formally submitted to the Congress for a straight up-or-down vote, pursuant to the fast-track trade negotiating authority that Congress approved in 2002.

Fast-track trade negotiating authority was first approved by Congress when the Trade Act of 1964 was enacted. As a result the Congress cedes much of its power to amend trade agreements negotiated by the President.

I voted against giving the President a 5-year extension of fast-track trade negotiating authority in 2002. Fundamentally, I believe Congress ought not cede such open-ended, blanket trade negotiating authority to any President. Nevertheless, the DR-CAFTA agreement has been negotiated by the President's representatives and will come before Congress.

International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availabilitly is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in environmental matters, worker's rights, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them.

Each new trade agreement entered into by the U.S. should be very closely scrutinized. Each ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights and environmental safeguards attainable, like those included in the U.S.-Jordan agreement of 2000. Each should also include enforceable rules to protect intellectual property rights and guarantee access for U.S.-based corporations to foreign markets. This can be achieved in trade agreements if we enter negotiations with clear principles.

I voted against the Chile and Singapore trade agreements, for example, because the inadequate labor and environmental provisions included in them, in my estimation, failed to meet the negotiating objectives that Congress carefully spelled out in the 2002 law extending fast-track negotiating authority to the President. They did not provide, for example, that trade dispute settlement mechanisms within those free trade agreements afford equivalent treatment to trade-related labor and environmental protection as intellectual property rights and capital subsidies, and the impending DR-CAFTA fails in this regard, too. The agreement between the US and Jordan, on the other hand, is a fine example that good agreements are achievable.

I am troubled by the DR-CAFTA that the President has signed. The DR- CAFTA does not contain strong, enforceable provisions to protect internationally-recognized worker rights. Nor does it have any provisions for environmental safeguards. Such provisions are critical because they both preserve existing labor laws and environmental standards in the affected countries, and because they ensure that American companies will be competing on a more level playing field with our Central American neighbors. Without such provisions, U.S. companies and employees are forced to compete with countries that have no labor wage, working conditions, or environmental protections. The people of all countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom.''

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the DR-CAFTA when it comes to the floor of the House and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, Americans have long relied on the Pell Grant program to help pay for higher education. For decades, the program has supported students as they strive to reach their potential. Now, at a time when tuition costs are rising significantly every year, the Pell Grant program has become even more important.

This year it is projected that 1.3 million students will see their Pell grants reduced, and another 90,000 will become ineligible entirely due to the administration formula tax table changes. I was going to offer an amendment with my colleague Tim Bishop today which would have stopped future formula changes cutting more students. The amendment would have been ruled out of order.

Though the Bush Administration's change to the federal student aid formula was subtle, its effect is not. Just as states are raising the- price tags for higher education, the Bush Administration tells students and their families that they must shoulder a greater share of the burden. Due to the fact the Pell grant formulas effect the rest of student aid the Bush student aid reduction will force students and families to pay $3.2 billion more overall for college this year.

And these aid cuts come at a time when tuition is rising at double- digit rates. Even without these cuts, students and working families are straining to pay for higher education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at a 4-year public university costs an average of $11,354, which is $824 more than last year and $1,775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent each year. In fact, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey have increased by more than 40 percent over the past 5 years. In some states, the increase is more than 60 percent.

Given rising college costs, reducing eligibility for financial aid seems short-sighted at best, and at worst, insensitive and uncompassionate.

Five million students rely on these grants to help pay for college. However because of these changes 36 percent of the 5 million students who receive Pell will have their awards reduced. The Pell Grant program has long embodied what government can and should do: serve as a pillar to lean on for individuals working hard and using their talents to achieve their dreams. Unfortunately and inevitably, these cutbacks have priced students out of college, forcing them to postpone their education and put career goals on hold. And those who do go on to college do so only by taking on larger burdens, including private loans that must be repaid starting immediately after graduation.

We believe the current course is taking us in the wrong direction. At a time when the country faces international competition and outsourcing, at a time when education has never been more important, Congress should be expanding college opportunity, not shrinking it. More than just an individual accomplishment or a point of pride for a family, college education is a public good. Our economy, culture, and communities benefit from having more college graduates.

I ask my colleagues to work with us to ensure that no students see their student aid reduced.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my concern that this bill zeroes out funding for the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) within the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriation Bill. FLAP is currently the only federal program that supports foreign language education at the elementary and secondary school level. It is widely understood that early language education is the key to language proficiency later on.

In order to start addressing the pressing need for skilled linguists and other language

professionals that currently exist, forty of my colleagues and I sent Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey a letter requesting $30 million for this program.

In the past, FLAP grants have helped elementary and secondary schools create and maintain high quality language programs in areas such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and French.

Our Nation's language capabilities are underdeveloped because we have neglected to provide the language programs that currently exist. An increase in FLAP funding will pay large dividends in the future as new generations of Americans are exposed to foreign languages and cultures at a young age. Currently the demand for language services in the United States is greater than ever before. For reasons such as economic development, cultural growth and national security, Americans are learning that we need to have much better facility with all languages and dialects.

I understand that language education is one of the most pressing national security issues facing our Nation today. While the Defense Department, the State Department and our intelligence agencies have recently turned their attention to the language problem, their approach remains focused on immediate needs. However, programs such as FLAP are critical in addressing the long term problem by increasing interest in, and access to, language education.

The House has already gone on record this year in strong support of language education when it unanimously approved H. Res. 122, and established 2005 as the Year of Languages. I believe that an increase in FLAP funding would be an appropriate way to further show Congressional support for language education.

As this bill goes to conference I ask my colleagues to join me in demanding funding for foreign language education.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey-Lowey- Leach amendment, which restores the full, previously appropriated level of funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB. As someone who has contributed personally to both NPR and PBS, the committee's scant proposal for CPB funding comes as a supreme disappointment.

Public television and radio stations are locally controlled. The primary mission of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is to enable those local stations to remain independent and free of advertising by providing a guaranteed, content-independent source of funding. For this reason, the Corporation's funding is set 2 years in advance. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues can keep that in mind: the funding that the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment seeks to restore has already been passed. In 2003, I voted along with 241 of my colleagues to appropriate $400 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in fiscal year 2006. That the committee now seeks to override the will of the whole House is simply unfair to the stations and their viewers.

Each week, more than 80 million people watch PBS. Without even counting the 30 million who listen to NPR during that same period, that's a minimum of 80 million Americans who ask us each week to support this amendment. They may not leave their family rooms,

they may not pick up the phone, but make no mistake: they're voting with their remote controls. Each and every week, they're telling us how they feel.

Opponents of CPB funding regularly claim that Federal funding cuts will have no significant effect on public programming, and that public television can easily absorb any funding cut. But look at the facts: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides critical, irreplaceable support to some of public television's most popular programs. Had the proposed funding cuts been enacted for the current year, they would have caused a 20 percent drop in funding for Reading Rainbow. A 20 percent drop in funding for Sesame Street. A 54 percent drop in funding for Mister Rogers. A 27 percent drop in funding for NOVA, and a 27 percent drop in funding for the NewsHour, to which millions turn each night for balanced news coverage. And opponents call that ``no significant effect''?

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress established two public television programs designed to facilitate education and learning: Ready to Learn, and Ready to Teach. Together, these two programs requested a total of $49 million for the coming budget year, which they would use to support educational programming like Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and Clifford the Big Red Dog. Rather than meet their request, the Appropriations Committee chose to rescind all 2006 funding from each of these programs, which we established just 3 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, these cuts are unwise. Entire generations of children have grown up watching Big Bird and Snuffleupagus; entire generations have learned to love books while reading along with LeVar Burton; entire generations have been taught to follow their dreams by Mister Fred Rogers and his characters. In an age when more and more children are spending more and more time in front of the television, public TV is one of the very last cuts we can afford to make. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, and for all the reasons above, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment, and to restore full funding to the CPB.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. Just as everyone here today, I view the American flag with a special reverence, and I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol.

At the start of the town hall meeting I host in my district, I always try take a few moments to lead those in attendance in the pledge of allegiance. I think this is an important and valuable portion of my town hall meetings when I can express my support for and share my deep respect of both our flag and our system of government-which our flag represents.

What makes America a great and free society, is our system of government and our Constitution. Our Constitution is the document that provides the basis for our great country. It is our Nation's operating manual. For over two centuries, the Constitution--the greatest invention of humans--has allowed our diverse people to live together, to balance our various interests, and to thrive. It has provided each citizen with broad, basic rights.

The Constitution doesn't fly majestically in front of government buildings. We do not pledge allegiance to it each day. Yet, it is the source of our freedom. It tells us that we are free to assemble peacefully. We are free to petition our government; we are free to worship without interference; free from unlawful search and seizure; and free to choose our leaders. It secures the right and means of voting. It is these freedoms that define what it is to be an American.

As a Member of Congress, I took an oath of office in which I swore ``. . . that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' In fact, new citizens to our great nation make a similar pledge when they are sworn in as U.S. citizens. It is important to note that I am entrusted with the obligation to defend the Constitution, not the symbols, of our Nation. The Founders knew that it is our system of government that is essential to who were are as a people and what we stand for. While I deeply value the flag as a symbol of our Nation, what we need to ensure is that we protect the values and ideals of our country as contained within the Constitution.

In its more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times. With the exception of the Eighteenth Amendment, which was later repealed, these amendments have reaffirmed and expanded individual freedoms and the specific mechanisms that allow our self-government to function.

This Resolution before us today would not perfect the operation of our self-government. It would not expand our citizen's rights. Proponents of this constitutional amendment argue that we need to respect our flag. I believe that the vast majority of Americans already respect our flag, and I am unaware of a flag burning epidemic in America. To me this Resolution is a solution in search of a problem.

Let me be clear, it is wrong to desecrate or defile an American flag in any way. But making it unconstitutional will not prevent these incidents from occurring. What we should do, as a government and as American citizens, is promote civic values and a greater understanding of our democracy. We should encourage civic education in our schools and communities. People who value and understand the ideals of our country will also understand and value the symbols of our great Nation.

The issue before us is whether our Constitution should be amended so that the Federal Government can prosecute the handful of Americans who show disrespect for the flag. To quote James Madison, is this a ``great and extraordinary occasion'' justifying the use of a constitutional amendment? The answer is no; this is not such an occasion. I oppose this amendment because I believe that while attempting to preserve the symbol of the freedoms we enjoy in this country, it actually would harm the values and ideals that created of these freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of St. Dorothea's Catholic Church in Eatontown, New Jersey.

The one hundred year history of St. Dorothea's Church is rich in stories of individuals' commitment to community service and helping others. The congregation was first established on October 1, 1905 in the small Quaker village of Eatontown made up of farmers, merchants and some professionals. Before enough funds were secured to build an actual structure, Mass was celebrated in the private homes of the few Catholics in the neighborhood. The first recorded Mass was celebrated in the ``Buttonwood Cottage'' on Main Street, on October 10, 1905.

Over the years, many pastors have served the community of St. Dorothea's. Rev. James B. Coyle, who served the parish from 1960-1990, oversaw the construction of a new, modern church in 1965, which offered more space for worship as well as youth and adult, educational programming and community activities. With the creation of the new building, St. Dorothea's has provided to the local residents of Eatontown and the surrounding communities in Monmouth County.

In recent years, Rev. G. Williams Evans has developed greater outreach and community service for St. Dorothea's. Some of the many programs that he has established are ministries to several segments of the population, the Knights of Columbus chapter and a ``Prayer Garden'' located on the grounds of the church. Currently, Rev. Evans is supervising the publication of St. Dorothea's one hundred year history, written by parishioner Gordon Bishop.

Some of the many community outreach programs that St. Dorothea's runs are religious education classes, Vacation Bible School for young parishioners as well as a youth group that provides structured activities and events for teenagers. Also groups of volunteers provide pastoral and hospital care for the community's sick and elderly, giving spiritual care to those in need. The parish continues to organize important events for fundraising and special occasions, and soon is commemorating its centennial anniversary with a series of events, including a picnic, parish trip, concert, mass, and dinner.

Mr. Speaker, I join Eatontown Mayor Gerald Tarantolo and many others in recognizing St. Dorothea's Church for its rich one hundred year history and service to the people of Eatontown. From the hard work of the original 18 parishioners in 1905 to the dedication of the over 1770 parishioners today, St. Dorothea's has provided an outstanding ministry to the people of Central New Jersey.