Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Peace Corps, and the wonderful volunteers who enable this great institution to provide invaluable humanitarian service throughout the world.

Forty-five years ago this week, President John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps to ``promote world peace and friendship.'' That message has never been more important than it is today. At a time when America's image abroad needs all the help that it can get, the Peace Corps provides us with the magnificent opportunity to demonstrate to the world that we are not only a nation of great prosperity, but great generosity as well; not only a nation of incredible might, but tremendous compassion.

Since 1961, more than 182,000 volunteers have served in 138 countries. Peace Corps volunteers serve as community leaders, business advisors, ecological conservationists, information technology consultants, health and HIV/AIDS educators, agricultural workers, and school teachers. President Kennedy said of these fine women and men:

``For every young American who participates in the Peace Corps--who works in a foreign land--will know that he or she is sharing in the great common task of bringing to man that decent way of life which is the foundation of freedom and a condition of peace.''

Today there are nearly 8,000 volunteers serving in 75 different countries. I would especially like to recognize the eight current volunteers from New Jersey's Ninth district: Julie Castner, Lucia Chan, Adam Kaufman, Suzanne Lee, Joseph Maggio, Reuben Man, Domenick Piccinich, and Troy Wolfe. You have made me and the people of New Jersey very proud.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me today in commending the thousands of Americans who serve and have served as Peace Corps volunteers. They are I a great credit to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize all of the Olympic athletes who competed last month at the Winter Games in Turin, Italy. The Olympic Games have always sought to bring people together in peace to respect universal moral principles. They give the finest athletes in the world the chance to compete with pride and honor. I am proud that three of my constituents from East Rutherford, New Jersey, in my Ninth Congressional District, competed among the world's best at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Brian Gionta, Scott Gomez, and Brian Rafalski were all members of the Men's United States Olympic Ice Hockey Team.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to especially honor these three young men who have distinguished themselves in the sport of ice hockey, and proudly represented the United States at the 2006 Winter Olympic Games in Turin, Italy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Frank Cutrona, a resident of the Ninth District of New Jersey and the San Ciro Society's Man of the Year for 2006.

The San Ciro Society, located in Garfield, NJ, is an organization comprised of New Jerseyans of Italian-American descent that makes contributions to many worthy charitable causes each year. Locally, it provides students with scholarships to continue their education. On the international level, the society has sponsored foster children in Africa.

Frank Cutrona was born in Marineo, Italy on February 18, 1956. At the age of 13, his family moved to America to realize the American dream and settled in Garfield, NJ. Frank grew up in Garfield and worked as a truck driver for Dorwin Manufacturing, located in Elmwood Park, NJ, for 26 years. He now lives in Carlstadt with his beautiful wife, Rosa, where they run their own deli and where Frank works part-time for the Carlstadt Board of Education. The couple has two wonderful children, Joseph and Christina. Frank has been a devoted member of the San Ciro Society for 15 years and has served as its secretary of finance for 7 years.

Today, I would like to recognize Frank Cutrona's dedication to the San Ciro Society and send the Garfield, NJ's San Ciro Societa Religiosa my best wishes for their upcoming 97th annual Dinner Dance. Viva San Ciro.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on all these issues and for yielding me time. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) for all of her support for reforms at the U.N., as well as support for the State of Israel, what is right, and my dear friend and colleague on the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who has worked with me on a number of issues relating to reforms at the U.N. and various other issues that we hold very near and dear to our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, what if I were to ask you the following question? Maybe would you possibly guess what is the answer. As you know, the United Nations has about 190 countries in it, 190 countries in the United Nations. What if I told you that over the last 30 years, about on average one-third of each of the resolutions each year at the United Nations for the last 30 years, about one-third of the resolutions relate to criticizing one country, every year, one-third of the resolutions of the General Assembly of the U.N.

You would say, wow, one country gets one-third of the resolutions at the U.N.? What country deserves the attention, the energy, the money, the hot air of the U.N. and the condemnation of that world body? Well, you would say, maybe had to do with the slaughter in the Sudan, the genocide in Rwanda or Cambodia or Bosnia, or the actions of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Maybe those nations. Well, we are only talking about one, so it cannot be all of them. Would one of those be the one that for 30 years has gotten one-third of the resolutions condemning a country?

What if I told you that the country that for the last 30 years was condemned with 30 percent of the resolutions at the U.N., the only country, was the State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East? They get one-third of the resolutions of the U.N. addressed to it, the State of Israel, condemning it.

You would say, wow, what did Israel do to deserve that? Is it because Israel is a democracy and the world does not like democracies? The U.N. is against democracies, so they attack the only democracy in the Middle East? Or maybe you are more cynical and you say, ah hah, the Arab world does not like the State of Israel, so since the Arab world has all the oil, maybe that is why the U.N. devotes one-third of its resolutions every year to criticizing Israel, because they have no oil and the Arabs do not like Israel. Or maybe it is because Israel is America's best friend in the Middle East, its most reliable and trusted ally in the Middle East, and maybe that is why the U.N. does not like Israel. Or maybe you might say maybe it is because Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. Maybe that is why the U.N., of the 190 nations, singles out Israel for one-third of its resolutions a year, every year, for the last 30 years.

The 5 million Jews in Israel deserve castigation and condemnation, out of the 6 billion people on the planet, and

we pay American taxpayer dollars to finance the U.N. to do that? It is absurd. It is immoral. It is shameful.

Yet just last week, the United Nations again passed six more resolutions condemning the State of Israel. And if it is on target for each of the last 30 years, this year the United Nations will expend one-third of its resolutions criticizing one nation in the world, the tiny state, the only democracy in the Middle East, the only Jewish state in the world, the State of Israel.

Something is terribly wrong, Mr. Speaker, and this resolution that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and I have put together, with the help and support of the leadership of both parties, on the IR Committee and in the House, simply says to the United Nations that they should stop supporting these resolutions, wasting their money attacking America's best friend, the only Jewish state in the world, and instead use their energy, if they want to focus on the Middle East, how about the slaughter going on in all the dictatorships in the Arab world?

Why does the U.N. not spend its money more constructively if they want to be a legitimate help in resolving issues in the Middle East? Maybe they want to introduce some pro-democracy movements in all of the Arab dictatorships in the Middle East, or maybe they want to introduce some resolutions about the torture in Arab nations around the world, or the genocide going on in every continent of the world.

But I must tell you this: The American taxpayers are sick and tired, as are the Members of this House of Representatives, of the United Nations wasting our taxpayer money to attack our best friend for no reason with double standards. It is shameful, it is fraudulent, it is slanderous. There is no way to describe their lies being offered up as truths. And we are paying for it as a member nation of the U.N.? That is wrong.

The U.N. must stop its double standard against the State of Israel, wasting one-third of its resolutions for the whole year attacking Israel, or they are going to have to deal with the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, during this debate on the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, I want to call attention to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's (CPB) obligation to ensure unbiased and objective programming.

The U.S. Congress provides the CPB with approximately $400 million each year. CPB then allocates these funds to the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio, and other recipients. It does so, as the Telecommunications Act makes clear, with the responsibility to ensure that recipients demonstrate ``strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.'' CPB also must see to ``maximum freedom of the public telecommunications entities and system from interference with, or control of, program content or other activities.''

These two obligations do not contradict each other. Rather, together they circumscribe the lawful activity of tax-supported public broadcasting programmers and program providers. Public broadcasting should enjoy ``maximum freedom'' from outside ``interference or control'' so long as it simultaneously demonstrates ``strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.''

Mr. Speaker, there should be no confusion. These obligations reinforce each other. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting must implement both on behalf of Congress and the taxpayers.

I commend CPB for creating a new unique office, the Office of Ombudsmen, as a step towards ensuring that these standards of fairness and independent reporting are upheld. Guaranteeing that basic journalistic requirements of objectivity and balance are maintained in public programming is hardly interference. In fact, I strongly believe that the public's trust in public broadcasting rests on just such standards and I will continue to fight to see that they are maintained.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a courageous American hero, Rosa Parks. Mrs. Parks passed away on Monday evening at the age of 92 in her home in Detroit, Michigan.

On February 4, 1913, Rosa Louise McCauley was born in Tuskegee, Alabama. The daughter of a carpenter and a teacher, Rosa was home schooled until the age of 11 when she attended Industrial School for Girls in Montgomery. She obtained her high school diploma from Alabama State Teachers College, while caring for her ailing grandmother. Rosa married Raymond Parks in 1932 and volunteered for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP from 1943 to 1966 while she worked as a seamstress and housekeeper. She and her family eventually moved to Detroit and joined the staff of Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) in 1965, where she worked for 23 years.

Mrs. Parks' finest hour occurred on December 1, 1955, when four black passengers on a bus were asked to give up their seats for a single white man. Three of the passengers complied, one did not. It was at that moment that Rosa Parks changed the course of history forever. What seemed like a simple gesture made a huge impact on the character of our Nation then--and continues to affect our lives now. Following Mrs. Parks' brave gesture, residents of Montgomery then began a boycott of the city's bus system, in order to protest the treatment as second class citizens that African-Americans were subjected to on segregated buses.

Her courage, and the 380-day Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott that followed her heroic stand, culminated in the United States Supreme Court decision in Browder v. Gayle, which declared segregation on buses to be unconstitutional. Her refusal to ``move to the back of the bus'' ultimately helped spark the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which achieved stronger civil rights guarantees for Americans in all areas of life, including housing, employment, schools, and places of public accommodation.

One of Mrs. Parks' main concerns was her desire that Americans understand their rights. The day she refused to give up her seat, she was fed up with being treated as an inferior human being and simply wanted to be treated with dignity. She taught us that we must always defend our rights. We must continue the great work spurred on by Mrs. Parks. As she said later in life, ``[W]ithout courage and inspiration, dreams will die--the dream of freedom and peace.''

On May 21, 1983, as Mayor of the City of Englewood, New Jersey, I had the distinct honor to meet Mrs. Parks and personally bestow upon her a key to that city. In addition, two of our Nation's highest honors have been awarded to Rosa Parks. In 1996, President Clinton bestowed upon Mrs. Parks the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which recognizes meritorious service and outstanding contributions to American life. Three years later, I had the privilege to vote for the bill that awarded a Congressional Gold Medal, our Nation's highest civilian honor, to Mrs. Parks on June 15, 1999 for her ``quiet dignity [that] ignited the most significant social movement in the history of the United States.''

I have also supported two recent pieces of legislation that pay tribute to Mrs. Parks. I voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 208, a resolution which commemorates the 50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on the bus and the subsequent desegregation of American society. This resolution was unanimously approved by the House of Representatives on September 14, 2005. Another resolution that I support, which will be introduced this week by my colleague, Congressman Mike Rogers, will honor the 50th Anniversary of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which resulted from Mrs. Parks' heroic actions and ultimately led to the Supreme Court decision in Browder. It is my hope that this bill will also be unanimously approved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today as our Nation has lost a cherished historical figure and civil rights hero. However, we can all take comfort in knowing how much Rosa Parks changed the course of history and, by doing so, improved the lives of us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center in Secaucus, New Jersey. I take great pride in knowing that my constituents have access to some of the best hospitals and health care in the country. I am delighted to announce that the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations has recently inspected the Meadowlands Hospital and found it to be in superb condition and in need of no improvements. This is an incredible accomplishment in the current age of medicine. This great achievement gives validation to what we in Northern New Jersey have always known--that the Meadowlands Hospital is in the top tier of hospitals nationally.

The Meadowlands Hospital has also received a ``Five Star'' rating for its Obstetrical Services from Health Grades, an independent agency that rates the quality of programs in hospitals around the country. Health Grades shows that the obstetrical services at the Meadowlands Hospital ranks in the top 5 percent of programs nationally, when it comes to positive outcomes and lower complication rates. In addition, the hospital's acute inpatient rehabilitation unit, the Liberty Rehabilitation Institute, is rated among the highest in patient satisfaction in the Northeast, based on surveys of its patients performed by Press Ganey, Inc.

The Meadowlands Hospital will soon be celebrating its 30th anniversary. I'm sure that all of my constituents will join me in recognizing the great services that the hospital provides to our community and congratulating them on their recent accomplishments. We all look forward to celebrating their third decade of service and working to expand the hospital so it can continue providing superior health care to Secaucus and all of Northern New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005. This legislation could not come up for our consideration at a better time. We have all seen the phenomenal rescues made by the United States Coast Guard during their efforts to save the lives of thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina. I am sure that the more than 23,000 people who have been rescued by the Coast Guard and all Americans join me in thanking and commending the approximately 3,300 Coast Guard men and women who have been working around the clock to locate, rescue, and assist their victims of this natural disaster.

Over the past few weeks we have seen the Coast Guard at their very best, but the Coast Guard's daily operations should not go unnoticed. We rely on the Coast Guard to patrol and protect our nation's waters everyday. They help to secure our nation's ports, harbors, and seaways and ensure the safety of our waterways. The Coast Guard, however, does not just have a domestic role. Many members of the Coast Guard have been deployed overseas to fight in the War in Iraq.

From the Jersey Shore, to the waters in Alaska, to the Gulf Coast, to Iraq, the men and women of the Coast Guard serve our nation with bravery and honor. We must provide them with the resources they need to ensure that they can continue their multifaceted mission. I once again thank every member of the Coast Guard for their service and sacrifice for our nation. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 889.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and bring attention to the illegal Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus. It was 31 years ago today that Turkey invaded Cyprus. During the invasion they expelled 200,000 Greek-Cypriots from their homes and neighborhoods, making them refugees overnight. Turkish troops killed 5,000 Greek-Cypriots, of which 1,500 are still missing. There have been 30,000 Turkish troops occupying the island nation of Cyprus ever since.

It is the proper role of the Members of the United States Congress to not only condemn the brutal Turkish invasion of 1974, but also to urge the next step in addressing the issues of the past. We must promote a plan for reunification that addresses the serious concerns of all Cypriots. We must encourage Turkish-Cypriot leaders and their Greek- Cypriot counterparts to negotiate in good faith. We must show the world that the reunification of Cyprus is a priority for the United States.

On the 31st anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, we grieve for those killed during the invasion, and we lament the lost opportunities for reunification over the years. We urge both parties to continue to work toward a reunited and peaceful Cyprus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act. I want to thank and commend Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson and Committee Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member James Oberstar for reporting this bill.

This is a very important bill for the American public. The bill reauthorizes the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers for studies and for the development of projects vital to our nation's water resources. This bill will result in better flood control, improved water navigation, the prevention of beach erosion, and environmental restoration.

I have personally seen the positive effects of some of the environment restoration projects funded by the bill. The Hackensack Meadowlands in my district, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the State, is a beautiful, natural wetlands area. But unfortunately, for decades it had been used as a place to dump garbage and toxic waste. Since the remediation authorized by the Water Resources Development Act began in the Meadowlands 10 years ago, water quality has improved and wildlife has been thriving. In this 8,400-acre environmental park just minutes outside of Manhattan, there are more than 50 species of fish and shellfish in the Meadowlands, and there have been notable increases in populations of white perch, Atlantic silverside, and gizzard shad. Two hundred fifty species of birds can be seen in the Meadowlands, and more than 65 species of birds nest there. Migratory birds are in the Meadowlands during their migration cycle in growing numbers, which has made the area an important part of the American ecosystem.

The improvements that the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act have made possible are truly amazing. The remediation that has taken place so far in the Meadowlands is a wonderful example of what can be accomplished when concerned citizens, environmental advocates, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers work together. But there is still much work to be done. This important bill will reauthorize the funds to continue the vital efforts to clean up the Meadowlands, as well as to fund numerous other projects that will improve our nation's water resources.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, I inadvertently voted ``yea,'' when I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the remarkable achievements of Donna Regan, a high school teacher from New Jersey.

Today, The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers honor Ms. Regan with a 2005 Spotlight Award for Teaching Excellence.

Ms. Regan comes to Washington, D.C., to accept her award with one of her former students, actor and co-president of The Creative Coalition, Joe Pantoliano. Mr. Pantoliano was a student in Ms. Regan's 12th grade English class at Cliffside Park High School in Cliffside Park, New Jersey, a public school that serves over 1,000 students. Ms. Regan's teaching inspired Mr. Pantoliano, both as a student and later as he pursued his career in acting.

I join Mr. Pantoliano as well as Ms. Regan's family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating her today on her award and on her many years of enthusiastic teaching.

The Creative Coalition is the leading nonprofit, nonpartisan, social and public advocacy organization of the arts and entertainment community. Founded in 1989 by prominent members of the creative community, The Creative Coalition is dedicated to educating and mobilizing its members on issues of public importance, primarily public education, the First Amendment, arts advocacy, and keeping film and television jobs in America. Headquartered in New York City, The Creative Coalition also has offices in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The Creative Coalition's partner in presenting this award, The American Federation of Teachers, represents 1.3 million teachers, paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel, higher education faculty and staff, healthcare workers, and state and local government employees.

I commend both of these organizations for their dedication to the promotion of public schools. Public education is one of the most important foundations of this country, bringing together children from all walks of life and giving them the tools they need to succeed in the future. As such, I applaud The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers for their support of public schools and for honoring the achievements of educators like Ms. Regan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette-Oberstar-Menendez amendment which would restore funding for AMTRAK.

As a member of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and District of Columbia Subcommittee, I want to thank Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for their work on this legislation.

I also want to acknowledge both the Majority and Minority staff for their dedication to the difficult task of crafting this legislation that incorporates such a broad spectrum of different agencies of our government.

Chairman Knollenberg was given a difficult task with what I believe was an inadequate allocation. I have appreciated his willingness to work with both sides of the aisle to make sure that all members of the subcommittee had input into this final product. Mr. Knollenberg has done the best job he could with what he was given.

I especially want to thank him for his help with Teterboro Airport in my District.

Unfortunately, though, I disagree with the allocation for AMTRAK in this bill. That is why I support this amendment.

The $550 million provided for AMTRAK will certainly bring an end to passenger rail service as we know it.

Furthermore, this bill only funds the Capital Improvement Program for the Northeast Corridor line, which runs from Washington DC's Union Station to Boston's South Station, at $50 million.

This amount is hundreds of millions of dollars below what is needed to keep the Northeast Corridor in good repair.

Just maintaining the tracks and making needed safety improvements in my home State of New Jersey will cost $90 million. If AMTRAK where to uphold their agreement with the State of New Jersey to provide matching funds of $45 million for track maintenance, that would only leave $5 million left for the maintenance of the rest of the Northeast Corridor line.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore funding for AMTRAK to continue the stated goal of this bill to provide viable passenger rail service in the United States.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first allow me to thank my subcommittee chairman and his staff for being so extraordinarily cooperative and bipartisan in word and deed when it came to the needs of everyone on our subcommittee, Republican and Democrat. We on our side of the aisle believe there was not a sufficient budgetary allocation to our Subcommittee on Transportation. But within the confines of what we were given under the budget resolution, I believe that our chairman and his staff, my ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and his staff put together a wonderful bill, which needed help on Amtrak, which both sides of the aisle fixed about an hour ago.

So it does pain me somewhat to find out that there is an effort now to undo the solution that would have helped us keep intact a national rail system. A national rail system. Is that some wild idea that we just have here in America? No. They have it all over the world. All over Europe. China is investing tens of billions of dollars in their rail system, their infrastructure. Japan. Talk about rail system. They have the bullet trains. Where we here in the United States of America are struggling along with trains whose brake systems failed on these antiquated rail beds, et cetera. We are the greatest country in the world, and we are not keeping up with our infrastructure needs. That is wrong.

They say we are falling behind in education to all kinds of countries, India, China, other countries around the world, because we are not investing in the education infrastructure needs. And now there is this amendment to take away money that would have helped us try to keep some of our transportation infrastructure.

My colleagues, if you cannot move people, if you cannot move goods around your country, you are going to be a second-rate country. And how we got to be the first-rate country that we are is because our parents and grandparents did what it took to build an infrastructure, a world- class infrastructure of transportation. Now the majority party wants to destroy our national transportation infrastructure when it comes to passenger rail?

We have an airline system that the majority wants to subsidize, and has subsidized. So has the minority. Both sides of the aisle. We subsidize the roads and highways, superhighways all over America. Why can we not then subsidize passenger rail in America as they subsidize passenger rail all over the world?

Because they want to privatize it. They want to privatize Social Security. They want to privatize rail. They want to privatize the Federal Government workforce. They want to privatize Medicare prescription drugs. They want to privatize the IRS. Did Members know that? They are contracting out the IRS to collect money from taxpayers. Private companies they are hiring, when the solution is simply: Give our chairman the power, the ability to reform our system. Maybe we need a separate capital account to maintain the rail beds and improve the stations, as well as an operating account. Make the reforms necessary, but we cannot do it on the cheap.

It is like you have three houses: One for airplanes, one for roads, and one for rail, and people live in those houses.

The house for roads, we pay the mortgage and provide money to fix the roof and keep the sewer system alive.

The same with airlines. We pay for the mortgage and keep the roof up and all of structures and systems intact.

But when it comes to the rail, the house of rail that the Republicans want to build, yes, they will pay most of the mortgage, but not all. But no money for the roof that is falling down. No money for the water system that is decaying and bringing lead-filled water into the home.

They say, if you managed your home budget better, rail system, that would be enough. Yes, maybe the rail system does not manage their money 100 percent as well as we would like, and that is why we need reforms; but we have to give them the money to fix the roof. We have to give them the money to fix the trains, fix the stations, and fix the rail beds, and have enough money to operate the trains safely, especially when there are threats of terrorism facing our railroads, and especially given the real world possibility of horrible incidents occurring.

Mr. Chairman, we need three different kinds of national transportation systems in America: Airlines; highways for cars and trucks; and rail for freight and passenger service.

That is only if we want to be a first-class country. That is only if we want to be a first-class country, because we could give up that status and be a second-rate country, and then this amendment would fit right in. Just toss our national rail transportation network into the garbage. We do not need it because we want to be a second-class country.

Not on my watch, not without my objection. Reform, yes. We have Members on both sides of this aisle, people of goodwill and intentions who want reform, but we cannot starve the patient and expect it to live and run a marathon. We cannot tell the homeowner, We will give you almost as much as you need for your mortgage, but nothing for the roof falling down. It cannot be done.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

Let me just say at first that this bill is a well-crafted bill that I support within the confines of the amount of money that the majority has chosen to give us to work with.

I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary bipartisan work that has taken place here, and I want to thank our chairman and his staff for reaching out to us in the minority to include our priorities as well. I think this is a real bipartisan effort, and I am grateful for that.

I also want to acknowledge the support of our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for all their support of the foreign operations bill this year and over the years.

Mr. Chairman, most Americans believe that America spends 10 to 15 percent of its budget on foreign aid. That is simply not the case, though. We only spend about 1 percent of our budget on foreign aid, and that 1 percent is very well spent.

We use that money, that foreign assistance, to help fellow democracies stay strong and secure. We help struggling democracies who are undergoing tough times because of the neighborhood they live in or because of their own economies. We also help people who want to be free and live in a democracy help create democracies.

Why do we care about democracies, other than being Americans and we believe everyone has a right to live free? Because we know that democracies are good trading partners and they do not go to war against one another. So there is a very practical reason for our foreign assistance program.

Beyond that, of course, is the humanitarian obligation, the moral obligation that we have to help people in need. Virtually every major religion in the world acknowledges our moral obligation to help poor people and those in need of charity and compassion.

So for all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe this foreign aid bill is important. I do regret that the Global Environmental Facility is not being funded under this bill, and I look forward, as the chairman suggests, to that money perhaps being included in conference. That would make this bill complete. Then, of course, if there were as much money as the other body is designating for this foreign assistance, that would be even better.

But this is a good, bipartisan bill, because foreign assistance is in America's vital national interest, and also because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me. I want to first thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for leading this wonderful effort that serves a lot of different purposes, not just to acknowledge the life and works of Peter Rodino but, as I will mention in a few moments, really sets an example, shows Peter Rodino as an example of the kind of heroic action that any human being is capable of but, in particular, any new American is capable of, or any American from humble circumstances.

After all, Peter Rodino was the child of immigrants, living and growing up in poverty in New Jersey and, as was said before, his ascension to chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary was not something that people might have guessed would happen when he was born in Newark.

But what did he do with that historic opportunity and what came forth? What came forth from Peter Rodino was a gentleness, but firmness, scholarship, great intelligence; I believe, having grown up around many Italian-Americans in my life, a reflection of

the Italian-American culture and heritage for honoring one another, respecting one another, living by a code of fairness and decency, and that is the way he approached the great task that was set before him; whether or not this sitting President of the United States was going to be impeached, with a Committee on the Judiciary equally divided, with a country uncertain as to what the consequences would be if the President was impeached.

Yet, because of his extraordinary ability, his extraordinary dignity and fairness, and capacity to bring people together and to touch people, he achieved consensus.

It was a unanimous decision ultimately to impeach Nixon. I had the unique opportunity, well, when I first saw him was on television when I was in college, and I watched the Watergate hearings, the impeachment hearings. And I was so incredibly proud to be an American, to see how this gentleman, a true gentleman was going to lead this committee step by step in the most fair and judicious process to find the truth. And that is what they did. And that is what he did.

Who would have thought that several decades later, the grandson of immigrants would make it to Congress, and find myself on the House Judiciary Committee faced with a sitting president being brought up on charges that would have called for his impairment and removal?

But, that is what happened in the effort to remove President Clinton from office. I called Congressman Rodino, asked if I could speak with him. He was incredibly gracious, as you might imagine. And he said, ``Sure, come on over to my office.'' He had an office in the law school in Newark.

And he showed me some of his memorabilia and we went over some of the allegations. And we were in some agreement about what the Constitution meant when it said that the only elected official elected by the people of the United States, all of the people, the President, could only be removed by an act of treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor.

And when we weighed the allegations against President Clinton, we kept in mind all that we thought those words meant when they were written by the founders of our country and the drafters of our Constitution. But in the end he said, Steve, be fair, keep an open mind, and do what you believe is right. And I did.

And it was a once in a lifetime experience to have been in his company, because as I mentioned earlier, he was one of those people, you know, they say one person can change the world, one person can make a difference in the world. He really was that kind of a person. True of humble origins, but with a dignity and intelligence and a wisdom and a courtesy and kindness that had him rise above even in the difficult circumstances to lead his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what was right.

And I think it is an example for everyone in America, whether your family has been here for a long time or your family just got here, that there is a place for everyone in America. And there may come a time when you will be called upon, maybe not in the impeachment hearings, but in your own home, in your own neighborhood, in your own town, in the States in this country to be ready to lead the way Peter Rodino led, with courage and with wisdom, and that you too can make the world better as one human being like Peter Rodino.

I want to extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to Chairman Rodino's wife, Joy, and his children and grandchildren, his legacy will live on. His example will live on. And I believe, thanks to the gentleman from New Jersey (Congressman Payne) and the others who have spoken, and I hope that his example will inspire every American to rise to the highest levels of their own ethics and integrity, even when faced with partisan issues of the most challenging sort, just like Peter Rodino.