Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and commend the chairman for doing this. There is nothing that can bring back those brave heroes from September 11, but clearly for so many who lost their lives from Staten Island, Brooklyn, and throughout the city and region, this is one way that our country continues to honor them. I think it is fitting, appropriate and overdue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and friend from Kentucky for yielding me this time, and commends him and all for crafting an overall good bill.

It was brought up earlier how in this comprehensive bill there is time for honest disagreement, and I think later on this evening we will try to have a good conversation about that honest disagreement, and it relates to essentially how funding goes to what we will call high- threat areas as opposed to minimal guarantees for States and funding that some of us believe could be better spent in areas that can use it more and more effectively, like New York City.

By way of example, if we were to talk about enhancing our national security, and some Member suggested putting an aircraft carrier in the Great Salt Lake, somebody would probably think that is a little ludicrous, and we would say let us put the money where it is needed most.

While we are here trying to advocate more funding, bluntly for places like New York City, because that is where the funding is needed the most, Exhibit A for that clearly was September 11, and the Congress and the President and all united to help New York recover, but it still represents the terrorists' number one threat. The Federal intelligence community has confirmed this fact.

I think the President's budget also recognizes the need to prioritize funding in these areas by calling for $1.4 billion in the urban security initiative, $450 million more than the House bill. September 11 is not unique in New York. The first bombing of the Trade Center occurred in 1993. In between there was a conspiracy to destroy the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, the United Nations and the Federal Building in Lower Manhattan, as well as a plot to bomb the subway.

Attacks in high-threat, high-density areas have great national economic impact in those areas as well. A Milken Institute study concluded, ``Disaster in New York affects business confidence in every major city,'' unlike events elsewhere. The study estimates a GDP decline of 1 percent and a loss of 1.6 million jobs nationwide because of the September 11 attacks on New York. For example, the financial service industry lost 96,000 jobs nationwide due to the attacks in New York, home to most the industry's headquarters, but two-thirds of those losses occurred throughout the country.

Our areas require intensive police coverage. New York City has 1,000 police officers dedicated solely to homeland security missions. The police department spent $200 million last year for these efforts. Despite the large sum, the police department alone has identified an additional $261 million in training needs, equipment and supplies directly related to counter-terrorism.

Given the vital needs, we would argue for more funds because that is where it is needed the most. Let me underscore, and this is not to take away from the great work of all people and their considerations, but homeland security, this is one home, not 50 different homes but one, and we are talking about security and we just appreciate a little more funding where it is needed in New York and elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the words ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' under the heading ``State and Local Programs'' violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives prohibiting legislation on appropriations bills.

This provision would make over $3.4 billion available for State and local grants in a way that could contradict statutes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and other committees. The reason that we passed those statutes, obviously, is to ensure that money would be spent in a certain way.

In short, this language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House because it changes current law.

I therefore insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and, as has been stated repeatedly here and warrants repetition, is why this is the right thing, what we know and why this is right.

What we know is clear and obvious. What we know is that a terrorist seeks an area to destroy not just innocent people, but the morale of an entire Nation. And while it may be a couple of years ago, September 11 is alive and well here in this country.

In Staten Island and Brooklyn alone, almost 300 innocent people lost their life, lost their life. The terrorists knew that. They still do. It was not unique. In 1989 they attempted to blow up the Trade Center. They have conspired to blow up the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, and the United Nations as well. It is still real.

What is right is to send the money to where it is needed. If after September 11 we united as we did as a Nation, and we are grateful to the Congress and the President for coming through for New York City and New York State, if after September 11 we decided to go after the terrorists where they were, where the threat was, and Secretary Rumsfeld deployed the 101st Airborne to Switzerland, we would have laughed him out of Washington. Or, if he said, let us put an aircraft carrier in the Great Salt Lake, because we are going to protect the homeland; one home, not 50, one home, we would have laughed him out. If he said, let us get the Air Force deployed and launch a strike against Antarctica, we would have laughed him out.

So this notion that we have to send money everywhere for the sake of sending money everywhere really compromises the second component of what this committee is all about: our homeland, all of us together, and security. Let us not send money somewhere so we can say we cut the check.

The point is that it is not just New York City, it is not just the city residents, and it is not just the residents of New Jersey. It is the residents of Chicago, it is the residents of Los Angeles, it is the residents of Houston, Texas, and it is the millions of people who go to those cities: your families, our friends, our fellow Americans and, yes, people from around the world who come to these cities, New York, for example, who expect a level of security. We want them to visit for a few days and go home peacefully, spending money in the meantime, but let them come and enjoy it.

The fact is clear, I say to my colleagues. The right thing to do is to recognize that the City of New York, on a daily basis, incurs millions of dollars of expense to protect not just the residents of New York City, the people who work there every day and the millions of people who come. We need to reengineer this formula. We need to reengineer and do what is right, not just for the urban areas, but send the money where it is needed the most where the terrorists are looking towards, and they are looking towards New York again. Let us not look back in a year or two as my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) said earlier and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and others have said so eloquently, let us not look back in a few years and say, well, we should have done something better. We have the opportunity tonight to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on three rollcall votes earlier today, I was unavoidably detained. I would have voted ``nay'' on No. 224; on No. 225 I would have voted ``aye''; and on No. 226 I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today we pay tribute to the men who made up the greatest fighting force ever assembled. Their cause was just, and they carried the banner of freedom against the most fearsome and vicious enemy the world has ever seen. All the while, the courage of these American heroes never failed.

They were soldiers, sailors, marines--others served with great distinction in the Air Force, the Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine. We owe them all a great debt. Over 400,000 Americans died during the conflict. Today, roughly 4,300,000 veterans are still with us.

To understand the importance of what these men did, one must realize the magnitude of what they were up against. In the space of a few years, a great evil had swept across much of the world. It was the hand of several governments--all dictatorships--who had formed a bloodthirsty pact to swallow their neighbors whole.

The aggressors struck quickly and with ferocity impossible to resist. Many strong nations fell under their control.

The occupation was focused, deadly and vicious, and executed millions of the conquered peoples. One of the aggressor states in particular had developed an ideology so disturbed it led them to murder millions more of their own citizens, including many loyal ones. So perverse were the nature and scope of the deeds committed by Germany that, decades later, the mere name of its ruling political party is a curse word for the most vile--the Nazi party.

Meanwhile, Japan captured the Chinese city of Nanking in December, 1937, and the four months that followed have become known as the Rape of Nanking. It is estimated that the occupiers executed between 250,000 and 300,000 of the city's inhabitants, merely the most outrageous of a series of atrocities committed in the Pacific Theater.

Who could stand against these savage marauders? Who could stop them, as they savaged their way across the continents?

The answer came on December 7th, 1941. Japan attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, killing 2,409 Americans. The devastating attack, which nearly crippled the battlefleet and destroyed equipment and facilities, shocked the nation.

Americans, still groggy from the Great Depression, were jolted awake by the empires expanding across the oceans both to our east and west, and by the grim realization that it

was going to take America to do something about it.

We were fortunate to have strong leaders: President Franklin Roosevelt knew that a full-scale mobilization was needed, and that it was going to take the entire country pitching in to properly prepare our military for war. Army Chief of Staff George Marshall revamped the military and crafted overall strategy.

One who was watching the American reaction and knew what it meant was British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: ``To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! . . . Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.''

Thousands upon thousands of Americans answered the call to arms, flooding into enlistment centers. They knew the danger; news reports out of Europe and Asia made the mounting death tolls clear. Japan's assault on Pearl Harbor was of a piece with its strategy to dominate the Pacific, capturing nearly every outpost of significance. As they became entrenched, dislodging them would only be more difficult and cost even more lives.

American courage and commitment would prove superior to the great evil it confronted. Our sailors, marines and soldiers battled every step of the way, first at the Battle of Midway on June 6th, 1942, and then through the long slog of the Guadalcanal campaign (August 1942- February 1943).

Meanwhile, the American fighting men joined the European front, and our allies from Britain, Poland and many other nations. First in North Africa the German armies were confronted under Operation Torch in November 1942, which culminated in the defeat of Germany's greatest general, Erwin Rommel, by early 1943.

The war then moved to Sicily, then Italy--at each step our men giving better than they got. The Battle of Monte Cassino during the first half of 1944 led to the liberation of Rome.

The greatest single act of courage came on D-Day, the largest one-day offensive in history, on June 6th, 1944. Over 10,000 allies were killed that day in breaching Fortress Europe, and another 200,000 would die over the next two months during the Battle of Normandy. American fighting men, in concert with men from Britain and many other nations, stormed the beaches of northern France. They charged through a hail of machine-gun fire to gain the foothold they would use to liberate all of Europe.

The last major German offensive was the Battle of the Bulge, December 1944-January 1945, trying one last time to keep the war outside of Germany. American supply lines had been stretched since D-Day, and the 101st Airborne Division found themselves surrounded at Bastogne. A hundred miles from their nearest fellow units, the situation was grim, and the German commander demanded they surrender. The American attitude, here and throughout the war, was summed up by the response: ``Nuts.''

While many persevered in the belief that liberty would prevail, educated opinion was cynical. Many believed that the captured lands could never be freed, even assuming that the aggressors could be forced into a stalemate. What force could possibly stop them?

It was up to the American GIs to dispel the doubts and charge into the fire. Every step of the way they knew that many of them would never be coming home again. But they knew the importance of their task--as Dwight Eisenhower said: ``History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.'' Our fighting men were neither.

Today, at long last, we unveil the monument to those who saved civilization in World War II. We thank them for their sacrifice and pray that no struggle so titantic ever again need take place.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing H.R. 2771 to the floor. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for passing this bill to ensure the continued protection of our Nation's largest and most pure source of drinking water.

The overwhelming bipartisan nature of this effort was seen at the subcommittee hearing when New York Members of Congress from both parties, representatives from upstate and New York City, as well as the State Department of Environmental Commissioner Crotty all testified in support of the bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for their help in spearheading this effort through.

The unanimous vote passing this bill out of the full committee is yet another testament to this bipartisan initiative and backed by every single member of the New York delegation. H.R. 2771 reauthorizes the New York City Watershed Protection Program, as I mentioned, made possible through the landmark New York City Watershed Agreement. The accord resulted from the efforts of Governor George Pataki and his vision to bring together environmental groups, New York City officials, upstate communities and the United States Department of Environmental Protection in 1997.

It allowed for the continued and long-term protection of New York City's drinking water, while safeguarding the economic viability and environmental quality of Upstate communities in the watershed region. The agreement also saves, and this is important, State and Federal taxpayers $8 billion that would be necessary to build water filtration systems in its absence. With a relatively small amount of Federal funding, New York City and State have been able to implement an unprecedented water monitoring and surveillance program for the 1,900 square miles of the region.

This is the Nation's largest source of unfiltered drinking water, providing pristine water to 9 million residents in both New York City and its Upstate communities. Congress recognized the need to fund the New York City Watershed Protection Program in 1996 with the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. Since then, the Watershed Agreement has made unprecedented advances towards enhancing water quality in both New York and the country.

The $15 million in Federal funds authorized annually provides the seed money for groundbreaking programs and studies. These efforts are used as a nationwide model to improve drinking water for all Americans.

Building on this small base of Federal funding, the City and State of New York have shown a strong commitment towards implementation of the Watershed Agreement. To date, both have spent $1.6 billion on watershed programs. Unfortunately, authorization of Federal funding of the agreement expired on September 30 of last year, leaving its future in jeopardy. H.R. 2771 solves this problem. By reauthorizing the program through 2010, enhancing the protection of New York City's water supply will continue, along with the development of watershed protection models benefiting, again, all Americans.

Today, Congress will act to protect New York City's drinking water. Protect the watershed agreement's breakthrough innovations, protect Upstate farmers and communities and pass H.R. 2771.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to a remarkable citizen from my district, Sister Rosemary Ward. Sister Rosemary was recently presented with the Patrick Daly Memorial Award for her dedication to the care and education of children on Staten Island. For almost 55 years, she has been an exceptionally devoted teacher and principal in schools within my district. As do the truly great educators, she possesses a deep understanding and compassion for children. In combining this gift with her own values and ideals, she has created a holistic philosophy for education that has made her an invaluable asset to the community as teacher and principal. Her achievements are widely known and well sung by the innumerable citizens she's left a lasting impression upon. It is with pleasure and honor that I'd like to congratulate Sister Rosemary for this distinguished award, and on behalf of the citizens of Staten Island offer my most sincere gratitude for the extraordinary contributions she's made to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest condolences and sympathy to the victims of the tragic terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Turkey yesterday. Following the attacks last weekend on two synagogues in Istanbul, yesterday's attacks are further evidence of the war on terrorism our country and our allies are facing. I am pleased the House passed H. Res. 453 today expressing condolences to the families of the individuals murdered and to those injured in the terrorist attacks. We must continue to stand in solidarity with Turkey in the fight against terrorism.

In addition, on behalf of my New York Delegation and all my colleagues, I would like to express my profound regret to the more than 40 employees at HSBC who were injured. As of today, many of those employees are still in critical condition, while it has cost others their own lives.

Often referred to as the ``World's Local Bank'', HSBC employs people in over 80 countries, including 50,000 in the United States, with over 400 offices in my home state of New York and in Staten Island. While the headquarters was attacked as a symbol of global commerce, I take my hat off to the HSBC employees in Turkey for re-opening their office today and for their leadership in committing to stay in Turkey and not backing down in the face of terrorism. Again, I extend my deepest sympathies to the entire HSBC family on the tragic loss of their colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 645 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding section 1211 of the conference report, which adds a new section to the Federal Power Act, entitled, ``Electric Reliability Standards.''

Section 1211 provides for the establishment of mandatory reliability rules for transmitting electricity. The blackout of August 14 of this year clearly demonstrates the need for such rules. Following the blackouts of 1965 and 1977, New York implemented its own reliability standards for New York City.

Any disruption in electricity in New York City can have devastating effects, as we saw, not just on the daily lives of city residents, but for the economy of the entire Nation.

It is my understanding of the new section 215, subsection (i)(3) of the Federal Power Act is not meant to prohibit State or regional entities from adopting more stringent reliability standards, such as those in effect for New York City, as long as such action does not result in lesser reliability outside the State or region than that provided by the Electric Reliability Organization reliability standards. Is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the clarification and his leadership in developing this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall numbers 602 and 603. I was unavoidably detained and was not present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall numbers 602 and 603.

Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcalls Nos. 476 and 477. I was unavoidably detained and was not present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcalls Nos. 476 and 477.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the body, what do Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and other nations have in common, other than being oppressive, dictatorial regimes? Well, what they have in common is that at one time or another, they have served as Chair of commissions or organizations within the United Nations.

So what my amendment does, based on legislation introduced earlier this year, is it essentially blocks funding to organizations, commissions, or other bodies headed by nations on a terrorist watch list. Specifically, it would block U.S. taxpayer dollars from being disbursed to the United Nations if the money is used for committees headed by nations that have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

Now, by way of example, I think a vivid example, I should say, is essentially what happened earlier this year with the Commission on Human Rights, or the Conference on Disarmament. These very commissions are dominated by nations opposed to the very concepts by which those commissions are named. Last month's outrage was Cuba. The dictatorship's brutal crackdown included the execution of three men for trying to escape Cuba and imprisoned dozens of others for daring to speak out. They have a vital role on the Commission on Human Rights. The U.N. said nothing about the crackdown, but Cuba was then elected to another term to serve on the panel. Ironically, the chairman, or the Chair country of that Commission on Human Rights, is Libya.

At the beginning of the year, Iraq was going to head the Conference on Disarmament. Iraq did not take over, but remained on the commission, the Commission on Disarmament. Iran

chaired the conference instead. Also on the Disarmament Committee is North Korea. I just think that this is symptomatic of a lot of carelessness at the United Nations.

There are many who think that the United Nations can play a pivotal and vital role in securing the world's peace. But from time to time, the only language it seems they understand is the power of the purse.

So all this amendment does is if one of these nations, and I think everybody in good conscience can look at these nations and say they represent not only what the brutal regimes are all about, but really are inconsistent with fundamental universal values, I would suggest that the money is withheld. Very simply put, I think it is common sense. After all, the U.S. provides almost 22 percent of the U.N. budget, which currently stands at about $222 million; and what we are suggesting is that if one of these nations on the State Department list of terrorist nations is heading one of these commissions, the money is withheld.

With that, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Fossella

Amendment No. 16: Page 122, after line 2, insert the

following:

limitation on united states contributions to certain united nations

entities

Offered By: Mr. Fossella

Amendment No. 16: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

limitation on united states contributions to certain united nations

entities

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 368 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voter ``yea.''