Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that the Committee on Rules did not make my amendment in order. Our amendment on global climate change, which passed both the House and the Senate in a previous version, simply says that the United States must lead the world in the fight against global warming. In this Chamber of democratic ideals, the House of Representatives is supposed to be the place where we take a stand on the issues. If one disagrees, for example, with my amendments, fine. Then stand up and vote against them. The fact is that global warming exists and is fully acknowledged by the scientific community. The fact is that a report which President Bush himself commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences says that human activity causes global warming. The truth is that the United States should lead on climate change, not avoid it. Let me be clear. I was not advocating for the Kyoto Protocol. Other countries took the lead when we backed out, and it entered into force earlier this year. But just because we rejected Kyoto does not absolve us from working with other countries on climate change. Actually, it means that we have to take the lead, be creative and find a solution. The G-8 statement on climate change is a start, by acknowledging that climate change is a serious challenge that human activities are contributing to. Unfortunately, the administration reportedly exerted a considerable amount of pressure to water down the G-8 statement and the document falls far short of making a call for strong and immediate action. The truth is that the world's future depends on our actions today. Global warming could devastate our environment and our economy. President Bush's administration, in a report to the United Nations, said that global climate change could mean greater storm surges on the coasts, reduced snowpack and water supplies in the West, declining water levels in the Great Lakes, stronger hurricanes, more extreme weather events, and greater risk of both flooding and drought. If that is not an incentive for the administration to act, nothing will be. Finally, I am also concerned that the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) amendment on the demobilization process in Colombia was not made in order. The current Colombian demobilization framework, as discussed in the bill, does not provide minimal guarantees on at least three basic points. First, terrorist leaders who are under standing indictments in our country for serious crimes can escape extradition to the United States. Second, the bill does not require that these terrorists provide complete information on their networks so they could be dismantled. And, lastly, the law does not build in adequate monitoring mechanisms to ensure that those who have forsworn violence do not return to their terrorist activities. We must address these issues before we authorize assistance to a process that could cost the U.S. taxpayer an estimated $80 million over 3 years. The Colombia and global climate change amendments should have been made in order so that Members would have had the opportunity to debate and vote on these important issues. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his gracious comments. I rise to support H.R. 2601 in its present form and to comment on some of the positive elements of this bill. Iran's nuclear program continues to threaten the world, the United States, and Israel. For nearly 2 decades, Iran has pursued a clandestine nuclear program while claiming it had to keep this program hidden from the international community because of the sanctions against it. Let us be clear. Iran is a country with huge oil and natural gas reserves. They do not need nuclear power for energy consumption. That is why I am glad the bill includes my language that makes it clear that Russia needs to stop helping Iran develop nuclear energy plants. This bill also includes language I offered on the religious freedom and rights of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Turkey. The Ecumenical Patriarch is the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world. Yet the Government of Turkey has refused to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch's international status and its significant status and its significance to Orthodox Christians. That is why my language states that Turkey must immediately eliminate all forms of discrimination, particularly those based on race or religion. This bill also provides funds to make sure that the State Department looks like the rest of America. As was mentioned in the report language in the bill, Kean University in New Jersey runs a model program which is specifically designed to increase the number of minorities in the foreign service. Finally, I believe the Hyde U.N. amendment will not solve the real problems at the United Nations. Instead, this amendment sets the United Nations up to fail by creating a series of requirements that will be almost impossible to meet and then requiring mandatory withholding of 50 percent of the U.S. dues. This bill is medicine that may kill the patient rather than cure a specific disease. I am particularly concerned that the bill keeps the United States from supporting any new peacekeeping mission until far-reaching reforms have been implemented, even in extreme cases. That amendment could very well condemn us to lose only American lives, shed only American blood, and spend only American capital instead of having the world share this responsibility with us. As I said in the beginning, this bill has many positive components, but we should not attach the U.N. amendment to this bill that undermines that world body and undermines our ability to participate and have others participate with us in global security and other initiatives. If we reject that, then we can be on our way to a very good State Department authorization.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment is going to be accepted by the committee so I will keep my remarks brief. This is an amendment that would authorize the Army Corps to perform environmental restoration activities at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, provided a favorable report is issued by the Chief of Engineers. Liberty State Park is one of the crown jewels of the State of New Jersey. It is an oasis in an urban setting right by the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island, a gateway to a lot of America's history, but at the same time there are the remnants of the history of industrial use in the vast interior section of the park which is currently fenced off from the public because of residual contamination. There is a restoration plan that would return 230 acres of the park to a state of ecological health. It is vital not only to the people of my State, but to literally tens of thousands of Americans who visit the park as a portal to the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island. I thank the leadership of the committee for working with me to clear up some confusion between our district corps office and headquarters, and I commend the leadership of the committee for putting this bill together. I look forward to working with the committee as we go to conference and as the bill is signed into law. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would authorize the Army Corps to perform environmental restoration activities at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, provided a favorable report is issued by the Chief of Engineers. This amendment is very simple and straightforward, and I thank the leadership of the committee for working with me as we cleared up some confusion between our district Corps office and headquarters. Liberty State Park is one of the jewels of the State of New Jersey. A reclaimed rail yard in the shadow of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, the Park is rich in both history and scenic beauty. For over 60 years, the Central Railroad of New Jersey train terminal was the first stop for immigrants after passing through Ellis Island. It was from this historic terminal that they caught trains that would bring them throughout the country to begin their new lives. In more recent times and under a less joyful setting, the park hosted thousands of evacuees from Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001. As railroad traffic declined in the middle of the 20th Century, the area fell into disrepair. But through a tremendous amount of hard work, Liberty State Park was born, and has become an oasis in the heart of a densely packed metropolitan area, visited by over 4 million people each year. The residents of my district don't have a lot of open space to enjoy, but at Liberty State Park they have miles of walkways and bike paths, educational centers, over 100 acres of green space, and sweeping views of the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan. However, the remnants of a history of industrial use remain over the vast interior section of the park, which is currently fenced off from the public because of residual contamination. The Army Corps is currently finishing the study of a restoration plan that would return over 230 acres of the park to a state of ecological health. New tidal wetlands will be created, invasive species will be removed, and the Park will become a prototype for ecological restoration in an urban environment. Liberty State Park is just one example of why the Army Corps is getting a good reputation in my district for their environmental protection and restoration work. Their work on the Lower Passaic River, the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, at Minish Park and elsewhere has the potential to make a major difference in the quality of the land and water throughout New Jersey. This bill will help them continue and expand their environmental restoration work, and I appreciate the chairman and ranking member including so many projects that are important to my district. This bill is also about economic growth. The ongoing deepening project in New York Harbor and Newark Bay will ensure that the world's largest container ships can continue to dock at the east coast's largest port. These ships carry far more than just products for store shelves. They bring jobs and economic growth, and help fuel an economic engine whose power is felt up and down the eastern seaboard, and deep into the nation's heartland. There are a number of provisions in this bill that will be very helpful for the Harbor Deepening project, particularly in the handling and use of dredged material. The bill includes new financing tools for non-Federal agencies to create dredged material storage and handling facilities, and expands the allowed beneficial uses of that material to include environmental protection and restoration projects. New Jersey has thousands of sites--particularly Brownfields sites--that could benefit from this provision. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I commend the chairman and ranking member for their work on it. I also thank them for their willingness to accept this amendment which is so important to my district, and look forward to working with them to move this bill forward through what I hope will be an imminent conference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we need to ask, why did Karl Rove, the President's Deputy Chief of Staff, reveal the identity of a CIA agent? The Republican National Committee has issued furiously spun talking points that suggest that Karl Rove was merely trying to keep an inaccurate story out of the paper. That is absolutely preposterous. Should the government start giving out secret information to reporters as background information? Of course not. No, the real reason Karl Rove outed a CIA agent was because the administration did not like the story. They did not like that they were being caught perpetuating a false story about nuclear materials from Niger in order to justify their run-up to war, so they tried to change the subject. Karl Rove only knows one way to change the subject, attack the messenger. Normally these are just despicable political dirty tricks, but in this case it was a threat to national security by deliberately outing a CIA agent. Karl Rove has demonstrated that he is not beyond using classified information to further his political agenda, and it is time for him to be stripped of his security clearance and shown the door.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the House voted on H. Con. Res. 191, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the war in the Pacific and honoring veterans of both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the Second World War. On rollcall vote 379, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote. As a cosponsor of this resolution, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, raising questions about national security is not partisanship; it is patriotism. Now that we know that Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House outed a CIA agent, Republicans have begun to try to forgive the unforgivable, to explain the unexplainable. And to suggest that Karl Rove was simply trying to set a news story straight as a reason for outing a CIA agent is unacceptable. CIA agents operate in secret so they can protect America from its enemies, from terrorism here at home. When their identity is revealed, not only are they put at risk, but America is also put at risk. Whether Karl Rove violated the law or not is a question for the special prosecutor; but the White House said they had a higher standard, and it is the standard that should be enforced with Mr. Rove. Former CIA agents have said that if this is not treacherous, it might very well be treasonous. Either way, it is time for the White House to clean up its house.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, now that we know Karl Rove was one of the White House officials who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, it is time for President Bush to hold his right-hand man accountable and ask for Rove's resignation. This is, after all, what members of his own administration stated would happen when the President learned the identity of those responsible for the leak. In September of 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland told reporters, ``If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.'' Pushed further a reporter asked him if the leaker should be fired. And he answered, ``If a source leaked information of this nature, yes.'' Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said, I do not believe it would be hard for President Bush to ask the person to walk the plank. The fact that Karl Rove remains at the White House speaks volumes. It is certainly not the way the White House should operate. The White House should not aid and abet those within it in exposing CIA agents who work for this country and defend it to danger, and therefore it is time for Karl Rove to walk the plank.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Caregiver Assistance and Relief Effort (CARE) Act. This bill addresses the needs of families that are making sacrifices to care for their loved ones by making long-term care more affordable. It would provide tax credits to those caring for ailing family members and loved ones, and encourage individuals to plan and invest in their own long-term care by offering a tax deduction for long-term care insurance. In addition, it would double the funding for the existing National Family Caregiver Support Program, which supports a wide range of important services for older persons. There are an estimated 44.4 million caregivers in the U.S., which is 21 percent of the adult population. My home state of New Jersey has over 830,000 caregivers, ranking it 9th in the country. To respond to the needs of our country and my state, I am introducing legislation that will help all American families and all New Jersey families afford to provide the care that their loved ones need and deserve. As the father of college-age children and the son of a mother with Alzheimer's, I understand first-hand the challenges of putting children through college while providing long-term care for a loved one. Caregiving families face unique strains. They are burdened with additional costs and often caregivers must sacrifice their job or cut back on their hours at work. Almost 6 in 10 caregivers either work or have worked while providing care and 62 percent of caregivers report having had to make work-related adjustments ranging from going in late and leaving early to having to give up work entirely. Their compassion, dedication, and selflessness come at a price. This legislation is aimed at addressing their hard work and sacrifice. The challenge of caring for our aging population will only increase as the baby boom generation grows older and our life expectancy increases. We need to work now to address the challenges of providing affordable long-term care, encourage future retirees to plan for their own long-term care, and strengthen our existing programs to address this growing need. Please join me in supporting this legislation and helping all families afford to care for the ones they love.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues in introducing the Healthy School Bus Act, which calls attention to a serious but overlooked health threat that our children face every day that they ride to school in a bus. Congress passed the Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments because we recognized the tremendous health risks of breathing polluted air. Children are particularly at risk because their lungs are still developing and they breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults do. Nearly 4.5 million American children suffer from asthma, and air pollution is believed to be a serious contributing factor in asthma attacks, bronchitis, and emergency room visits. One of the most insidious forms of air pollution is diesel exhaust, which contains over 40 potential carcinogens, as well as fine soot particles that can get lodged deep in the lung. The Clean Air Task Force recently released a report which found that fine particle pollution shortens the lives of nearly 21,000 people each year, and leads to lung cancer, heart attacks, and asthma attacks. For New Jersey's children alone, the report linked diesel pollution to over 540 emergency room visits due to asthma and nearly 1,300 cases of acute bronchitis each year. Although school buses are far and away the safest way for children to travel to school, the diesel exhaust from school buses puts our children at unnecessary risk. A number of programs already exist to try to cut down our children's exposure to school bus exhaust, such as New Jersey's ``Stop the Soot'' initiative to reduce bus idling, and the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean School Bus campaign, which provides grants for school districts to purchase new, cleaner buses, or to retrofit old buses with pollution control equipment. These programs are doing an excellent job reducing the amount of pollution our children are exposed to while they're waiting for the bus or just playing outside. But some recent studies have made it clear that our children have more to worry about inside a school bus than just who to sit next to. Researchers from Yale University, the University of Connecticut, the University of California, and Purdue University have found that the concentration of air pollution inside school buses can in some cases be far higher than outside the bus. And the evidence suggests most of the pollution is coming from the bus' own exhaust. One study published in March of this year suggests that in some cases the amount of exhaust inhaled by children on a school bus is greater than the amount of that bus' exhaust inhaled by all other people in a metropolitan area. We know a lot about how to control emissions from the tailpipe. But we don't know a lot about how to control emissions inside the bus. We don't know how the pollution gets into the bus, and we don't know the best ways to stop it. That's why I'm introducing this legislation, which will direct EPA to do a comprehensive study of air quality inside school buses, and come up with the most effective strategies for keeping the pollution out. This bill also greatly increases the authorization level of EPA's Clean School Bus program, and makes sure that school districts can use grant money from that program to implement the strategies that fight in-bus pollution. Mr. Speaker, this bill calls attention to an overlooked aspect of our fight for clean air, and it is targeted at those people who are most vulnerable to air pollution--our children. It creates no new requirements on school districts or municipalities; it simply gives them the tools necessary to make their school buses as healthy for children as possible. I ask my colleagues to join in me supporting this legislation, because dirt in a school bus should mean mud in the aisles, and not soot in the air.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on this last roll call vote. Had I been here to vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I was attending my daughter's graduation from Harvard and I regret missing rollcall votes 230-240 on June 8 and 9, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 230, on Agreeing to the Weiner amendment to H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006; I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall vote No. 232, on Agreeing to the Hinchey amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall vote No. 233, on Agreeing to the Sweeney amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall vote No. 234, on Agreeing to the Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall vote No. 235, on Agreeing to the Chabot amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall vote No. 236, on Agreeing to the Hefley amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall vote No. 237, on Agreeing to the Garrett amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall vote No. 238, passage of H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006; I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall vote No. 239, passage of H.J. Res. 27, withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization; I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall vote No. 240, on Motion to Table H. Res. 310; I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arizona's amendment is very dangerous. Let me tell you why. Read the amendment. It says none of the funds made available in this Act can be used to amend this section relating to religious activities. If the administration or any future administration, if this amendment were adopted, wanted to increase the flow of religious activity into Cuba, which is permitted under existing law by license, is permitted under existing law by license, if there came a point in time in which the floodgates wanted to be open, the gentleman from Arizona's amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from doing so. That is a prohibition that is not in the national interest, security or in the foreign policy of the United States, and it is very clear that religious institutions right now have all the wherewithal and have been traveling to Cuba.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Florida's amendment. A year ago I too had concerns about the changes in the regulations on family travel when they were first introduced, and I voted with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) because I believed that Cuban Americans had virtually no notice that the regulations were about to be changed and they could not plan their travel to Cuba accordingly. But a year later my view of these concerns no longer applies. So now the question becomes the focus on the impact of travel to Cuba, and I would like to share with Members of the House a letter that many of us recently received from the leading Cuban opposition leaders: Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, Rene de Jesus Gomez Manzano, Felix Antonio Bonne Carcasses. These are the same opposition leaders who, on May 20 of this year, organized an historic Assembly to Promote Civil Society on the 103rd anniversary of Cuban independence. This event brought many civil society organizations together for the first time to discuss democracy in Cuba. And as we learned in a hearing earlier this year in the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, of which I am the ranking Democrat, the organizers and the participants in this event risked their personal freedom for the freedom of the Cuban people. In fact, these leaders have already suffered in Castro's jails for speaking out on behalf of the Cuban people. And it is the same group of leaders who risked their lives for democracy in Cuba, not those here in the diaspora, but those who are inside of Castro's Cuba, who ask this Congress in their letter not to adopt any changes, any changes, which would either partially or totally change the nature of the embargo. In fact, they clearly state that any such change would be interpreted as a new policy of compromise with the Castro regime and cite that nothing has been done by the regime to move forward to an accommodation with that element of civil society that ultimately seeks to change the fundamental basics of human rights that we seek to promote throughout the world. And I think we have to heed the warning that they are sending, and we must send a clear message to the Castro regime that we will not compromise when it comes to human rights, freedom, and democracy in Cuba; that we will not dilute the embargo in any way and that we must respect the voices of those very same Cubans who suffer under the regime. And, finally, let me just say that one cannot seek political asylum from a country and then constantly travel back to it. One is either a political asylee or one is not. One cannot keep traveling back to a country from which they are a political asylee. And, lastly, we all know the great difficulties, those of us who are not only Cuban Americans but who represent 99 percent of all Cuban Americans in the country; and they have one voice, and that voice is to do everything we can to end the suffering of the Cuban people. We hear those voices from Cuba. We should listen to them.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, we have had sanctions in different parts of the world: Jackson-Vanik with Soviet Jewry, disinvestment in South Africa. There are those who would seek disinvestment and sanctions in the Sudan and many other parts of the world, so we understand that these are ways that we can ultimately bring the end of totalitarian regimes and democracies to those people, yet we hear no voices in opposition to that. After 2 million people visit Cuba every year, spending $2.3 billion, this regime has become more repressive, not less repressive. Let us not add to that repression.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is a sad day when I am rising in support of an amendment that would provide only $60 million for this critical program. But this is the situation in which we find ourselves with this bill, when priorities of the Republic budget are focused elsewhere and we are sent a budget that puts the future of our Nation's housing programs in jeopardy. While I am relieved to see the Committee has rejected the extremely unsound proposal to rescind the funding we appropriated for this current Fiscal Year, I find it hard to comprehend that this bill still provides no funding for Hope VI. Just to provide some perspective, we should realize that HOPE VI funding for the last two fiscal years combined is only roughly half of the funding level provided in 2003. I think part of the problem my colleagues have is trying to quantify the success of this program. Mr. Chairman, I understand it is very hard to see the accomplishments of this program on paper. There are not clear numbers of statistics that make it easy to put it in a bureaucratic category that proves it is ``demonstrating results.'' But Mr. Chairman, I can tell you personally of the success this program has brought, not only to communities in my district, but across the country. HOPE VI has successfully transformed some of the nation's most dilapidated public housing into revitalized mixed income communities, providing a second chance for neighborhoods that often had little or no hope of improvement. I have seen the transformation HOPE VI funds have brought to communities in my district and around New Jersey. I have stood at communities that have been completely rebuilt, where renovated townhouses replace crumbling buildings, where senior centers and new playgrounds invite the community in, instead of shut it out. Because cycles of poverty and crime are likely to be concentrated at the most distressed and run-down public housing structures, there is often little chance for changing the surrounding community without providing a clean slate for the site. HOPE VI proves neighborhoods with that chance. What I think many have forgotten today is that this program was born out of strong bipartisan support. HOPE VI began in 1992 with the express goal of demolishing and revitalizing 86,000 units of distressed housing. Mr. Chairman, I have heard arguments that there is no longer a need for the HOPE VI program. Are we really saying there are no more crumbling housing structures that are in need of repair? Are we telling our communities struggling to find some hope of a better future that their neighborhood has no chance of revitalization? That their children will not get a safe playground, that their family will never have a home they are proud to live in because the goals of HOPE VI have been accomplished? Mr. Chairman, while we may have surpassed the original goal of transforming those 86,000 units, the program has not lost its need or effectiveness. The fact remains that there is an ongoing need for fundamental revitalization in communities across the country that HOPE VI makes possible and which is currently unmatched by any other program. HUD itself has noted the effectiveness of HOPE VI in affecting positive change beyond the housing structures and well into the community. Perhaps most importantly, however, HOPE VI funds have become a critical source for localities to leverage private funds. HOPE VI is thus not only a mechanism to bring about change, but it is a mechanism for drawing in critical investment. Without HOPE VI as the incentive, communities will lose out on sources that are essential to ensuring true revitalization. This program is a promise to people that if they live in a building that is unsafe, dilapidated, and beyond disrepair, we will not abandon them. And it is a promise to our communities that our commitment continues far beyond the public housing structures we provided years ago--that we will be there to help all of communities be neighborhoods where we would be proud to raise our families. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to abandon our communities. This program has provided many families and communities throughout the country hope of a better quality of life and we should not deprive additional communities of that chance. Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis, which would restore funding to the Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere program, more commonly referred to as HOPE VI. The HOPE VI program is one of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's most successful programs, and it is a shame that it is one of the many valuable and worthwhile Federal programs that the Bush administration has targeted for elimination. HOPE VI allows public housing authorities to revitalize neighborhoods affected by blighted public housing districts, and transform them into showcases of urban renewal and redevelopment. For over 15 years, first as Mayor of the City of Alexandria and now as a Member of Congress, I have been involved in the revitalization of the former Samuel Madden public housing project, in the area known as the ``berg.'' While Samuel Madden was once a well-intentioned effort to provide affordable housing for those in need, it had become mired in controversy and the focal point of criticisms and problems synonymous with troubled public housing programs throughout the nation. In 1999, the Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority received $6.7 million dollars in HOPE VI grant funds to redevelop the 100-unit Samuel Madden public housing site. This new project, Chatham Square, is a 152-residential unit development, 52 of which will be affordable rental homes operated as public housing units, and 100 of which will be market-rate townhouses for sale to the public. This former public housing site has now become an inclusive community that is a mix of market-rate and subsidized public housing and continues to serve the needs of moderate and low-income residents. Last year, I was proud to stand with representatives from the Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority and other City of Alexandria leaders as we attended the celebration and ribbon-cutting ceremony of this new development. The cornerstone of the event was the presentation of house keys to the first residents to move into the development: one who bought a market-rate townhouse and one who receives assistance with housing needs. The Chatham Square project serves as a model for what public housing should become and identifies a successful mechanism through which this transformation can occur. I have already shared with you a successful HOPE VI program from my congressional district, and there are thousands more all across the nation. While the Bush administration may be critical concerning the HOPE VI program, it does not deserve to be gutted in next year's budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Brown- Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment to save the 18 Amtrak routes that would be cut in this bill represented with these red lines across the country. This is a mode of transportation for millions of Americans who have chosen it as their form to get connected to other parts of this country. Now, if the language in the bill stands, notwithstanding that the previous amendment added money to Amtrak's overall budget, but if we allow the rest of the language in the bill to stand, Amtrak would be eviscerated as a national rail passenger service, as a national rail passenger service from coast to coast, one country, the United States of America, the United States of America. The map shows it all very clearly. All long-distance routes would be gone. The 23 States in yellow would lose Amtrak service. However, nearly every State would be affected by the loss of some of these routes, including my home State of New Jersey. And even if Amtrak were still able to run its short-distance trains, States with Amtrak service would still suffer. And there are a lot of places, we keep hearing about these air traffic ticket fares. Well, they are very selective and they also do not speak to the volume that there are a lot of places in the country where you cannot get to that location through a direct flight or even sometimes through a connector flight. Amtrak brings the Nation together. And you cannot starve a horse and ask it to run like a thoroughbred. That is exactly what has happened to Amtrak time and time again. Those who starve it then come here and say how inefficient it is, but it cannot function if it does not get the right resources in the first place. Now, these long-distance routes are not just a lifeline for people in rural towns out west, although certainly Fargo, North Dakota; Minot, North Dakota; Cut Bank, Montana; Elko, Nevada; Trinidad, Colorado; Needles, California; Yazoo City, Mississippi; Newton, Kansas, and many more are what you are seeking to eliminate by eliminating these routes. Those people in America, small-town America, rural America, they deserve the opportunity to be connected to the rest of the country as well, because these long-distance routes are not just the lifeline for people in the rural town out west who depend on trains like the Empire Builder and the Southwest Chief to be able get around the country. This is about thousands of people, for example, in New Jersey who take the train to Atlanta or Florida each year. It is about tens of thousands of people who take the train from New York to Chicago. It is about maintaining the critical redundancy of our intercity transportation system, the importance of which we saw the days after September 11 when our airplanes were grounded, and it was Amtrak that was still connecting the Nation together. Eliminating the long-distance routes will not solve Amtrak's financial problems. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General estimated that getting rid of all of these routes would only save Amtrak about $300 million, but because of mandatory labor severance payouts, it might be several years before Amtrak actually saves a single dime. In the meantime, the severance payouts would strain Amtrak's finances, starve good areas like the northeast corridor of essential maintenance money. This is about ultimately degrading a national passenger system, a system that is critical after September 11. The amendment is about our fundamental commitment to a national rail passenger network, a commitment that is an essential lifeline for people throughout the country, enhances our national security, eases congestion on our highways and our airports, and gives small and mid- size businesses the chance to sell their products and services at different points throughout the country. Vote for the Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment. Make sure we stay together as one country.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to save Amtrak, and that is what this bill is about: $550 million within the bill shuts down Amtrak entirely. It is not a scare tactic. It is not an exaggeration. It is a matter of hard financial truth. Amtrak would have nothing left basically to run its trains when it pays out its debt and its interest on its debt and its mandatory labor severance pay outs. And without Amtrak, for example, in the northeast corridor, 80,000 daily commuters in New Jersey and thousands more throughout other States would be stranded because many transit systems in those States, your States, my colleagues, depend upon Amtrak to run their trains for their commuters and their citizens. This is about small and mid-sized businesses having intercity rail service to sell their goods and services, to send their sales forces. This is about putting the country and linking it together, the United States of America. And after September 11, my God, if we do not understand that this is about national security, we are waiting for the next disaster like in Madrid. Vote for Amtrak. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the LaTourette- Oberstar-Menendez amendment to save Amtrak. We've heard the facts about what this appropriations bill would do. We know that 550 million dollars will shut down Amtrak entirely. This is not a scare tactic. This is not an exaggeration. This is a matter of hard financial truth. With the interest it pays on its debt and the mandatory labor severance payouts for discontinued routes, Amtrak would have nothing left-- nothing--to run trains. And without Amtrak maintaining the Northeast Corridor, 80,000 commuters in New Jersey and throughout the Northeast would be stranded, because many transit systems depend on Amtrak in order to run their own trains. As I said, we've already heard these facts. But I want to focus on the fundamental problem: a combination of unrealistic expectations and insufficient support that Amtrak has struggled with since its creation. I hear these complaints all the time: We keep pouring money into Amtrak, and it keeps getting worse. So we give Amtrak barely enough to get by. And then Amtrak gets worse. It's a vicious cycle, and it does nothing to improve passenger rail in this country. We cannot have an Amtrak on a starvation diet. Do you want to see an efficient, effective intercity rail system? Give it the money that it ultimately deserves. There are some other facts about Amtrak that people tend to forget. First, we spend more money on highways in this bill alone than we have on Amtrak in its entire history. Second, Amtrak was created when the railroads begged the government to take the passengers off their hands. The freight railroads didn't want the burden of these unprofitable lines, so expecting Amtrak to be profitable on these same lines with bare-bones funding levels is totally unrealistic. In addition, no mode of transportation pays for itself. Not aviation, not mass transit, and not highways. We subsidize them because they improve the quality of our lives. And that's what transportation is about. It's not just getting from one place to another. It's about creating jobs, revitalizing neighborhoods, stimulating commerce, redeveloping underutilized land, and making us more secure. Amtrak is part of all of that. It is a crucial link for businesses up and down the Northeast Corridor. It provides mobility options for rural communities that don't have airports or inter-city bus service. And as we saw on September 11th, it is a crucial element of our transportation system when the airlines are grounded. Mr. Chairman, people ride trains in this country when you give them good service. What we've seen in California in the past few years is that when you run more trains, more often, and you run them on time, people flock to the trains. We should be arguing seriously about how to improve Amtrak. We should be making the commitment and the investment that we're willing to make for transit, highways, and aviation. We should be here talking about how to build a world-class intercity rail system, instead of trying to scrape together enough money so Amtrak can survive another year. If you want to have a discussion about how to reform Amtrak, you have to have an Amtrak. This appropriations bill would kill it. Our amendment would save it. But it is still just enough to scrape by. Amtrak will continue to defer maintenance, and service will suffer. So we'll be back here again next year fighting the same fight. But we can do better than that. We can give Americans the intercity rail system they deserve. This amendment keeps Amtrak on life-support, but we need to start talking about rehabilitation and regrowth. I look forward to that discussion and urge my colleagues to support the LaTourette- Oberstar-Menendez amendment and keep Amtrak alive.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the Nadler-Velazquez amendment. And I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Knollenberg) attempt to protect Section 8 in the bill. I respect his support for the program, but we are here about a debate in large respect about our values. That is what the budget process is. That is what the appropriations process is. We speak to the different issues that we care about in this country and our personal values, and the total values of both our parties as well as our country are reflected in this national document that we call the budget and the appropriations process that fulfills that budget. Now, when we think about values, what more values are there than of having a home, a place to call home, a place to bring your family, a place to bring your newborn child, a place where in fact that child is nurtured, a place where that child is going to study, a place where there will be celebrations, a place where difficult moments will be met together by family, a place that is secure and safe and warm and comforting and nurturing. That is a value when we talk about families because a family that does not have a home finds it very difficult to sustain itself as a family. So this amendment strikes at the very heart of what we want to see, the ability of families to sustain themselves together in a nurturing environment that we call home. For too many people in this country, there is simply not a place for them to call home, and many times families are not even together because they are living with other family members. They are separated and apart. So, ultimately, this is about creating an opportunity for more families to call someplace home, and I wish we were discussing an amendment that would be providing far more than $100 million for Section 8, but still, this move, this is a critical one towards fulfilling the gap that the bill leaves open. At a minimum, we should be able to meet the President's request which recognizes the shortfalls in the program last year. Section 8 is our Nation's most successful Federal low-income housing program, but it has been the victim of continual underfunding, sweeping structural changes and last-minute policy changes. I have seen that firsthand in my district the havoc that it wreaks on the lives of people who are in it, and the millions who are waiting throughout the country and certainly thousands that are waiting in my own district as they wait on the list, and they are told after waiting so long, oh, we are still further underfunded; we are not going to get to that list. Without warning or rationale, HUD has changed the formulas, capped funding, established policies retroactively, making it harder and harder for housing authorities to keep up. Last year's appropriation left a shortfall of 80,000 vouchers. What will it be this year, 100,000? The ongoing shortfall comes at a time when the administration has also put forward a proposal that dramatically threatens the future of Section 8, and finally, at a time when the cost of living is rising, when rented housing prices are increasingly out of reach, particularly in high cost areas like New Jersey, the answer to these obstacles should not be weakening the very program that provides assistance to those who depend on it most. If home is where the heart is, let this Congress not be heartless and not make more people homeless at the end of the day.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, last year I joined the chairman and the ranking member here on the floor to send a clear and, I thought, bipartisan message that it is not in the national interest, nor in the national security interest, of the United States to slash our development funding to our neighbors in our own front yard here in the Western Hemisphere. Yet, I find myself here once again to send the same exact message. To be frank, it makes me question whether the administration was listening to what Congress said last year. As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and as a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and as an American, I was outraged when the President, in his proposed fiscal year 2006 budget, slashed core development funding to Latin America by over 12 percent. In his fiscal year 2005 budget, Latin America was the only region in the world, the only region in the world, to be cut in both total economic and development aid, and total narcotic and military aid. In his fiscal year 2006 budget, the President once again broke his pledge to the people of the Western Hemisphere. So much for looking southward, not as an afterthought, in U.S. foreign policy, an integral part of a forward-looking vision we were promised, this certainly is not it. So much for being an amigo, a friend of Latin America. And, if we look below the broad 12 percent cuts, we find even more disturbing trends. Under the administration's proposed budget, basic education funding would be cut by over 20 percent and adult literacy funding would be cut by 28 percent, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 budget. In the midst of the debate on CAFTA, the President cuts development assistance funding to El Salvador by over 30 percent, and child survival and health funding to the Dominican Republic by over 18 percent. This will only exacerbate the gap between those who have and have not. At a time when Latin American presidents are being toppled left and right by crowds frustrated with the failure of government to provide them with adequate education, housing, and health care; at a time when anti-Americanism is on the rise throughout the hemisphere; at a time when our hemisphere is growing smaller, when infectious diseases move throughout the hemisphere, when crime penetrates borders, when terrorists may use failed States as safe havens, these cuts are the wrong policy for the United States of America. Let me be clear: a stable, safe, and prosperous neighborhood is in the national interest and national security interest of the United States. It is in the national interest of the United States to increase demand for U.S. goods in a region of 500 million people by enhancing economic development. It is in the national interest and national security interest of the United States to create greater economic growth in Latin America so that people will not seek to leave their homes out of despair. It is in the national interest and national security interest of the United States to increase stability in our hemisphere, because chaos and insecurity creates unwanted opportunity for terrorists and criminals throughout the region. That is the reality. So I want to take this opportunity, as I express these frustrations and these criticisms, at the same time to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ranking Member Lowey) for their bipartisan effort on this issue, particularly for including language which restores funding specifically to Central America directly in the bill text, since similar report language in our statements on the floor have been ignored in the past. I also hope our friends in the administration understand that the report language disagrees with the deep cuts to development assistance for the entire hemisphere. I believe that we should restore all development funding that was cut to the hemisphere, not just to Central America. It has been static for so many years, and then we cut it in addition to that. It is woefully inadequate for the national interest and security interest of the United States. But I do not believe that restoring funding to fiscal year 2005 levels is enough. In fact, that would be an overall decrease, even then, since there is no increase that accounts for inflation. So I hope that we can move in a different direction. I know that Hispanic Americans in this country are increasingly paying attention to this issue. We are going to hear a lot of debate about Central America and the Central America Free Trade Agreement at the same time we are eviscerating the very programs that can help create stability and opportunity within the hemisphere.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)