Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Maria Nolfo for her 32 years of leadership and dedication to the students of Bayonne. Ms. Nolfo will be honored with the Italian-American Educator Award by the Bayonne Columbus Committee at the 2003 Honoree Dinner-Dance on September 27, 2003, at the Chandelier Restaurant in Bayonne, New Jersey. Since 1972, Ms. Nolfo has been an exceptional educator in Bayonne's public schools. She began her career in the school system teaching English as a Second Language, helping children adapt to a new language and new environment. Her dedication and gift for teaching led Ms. Nolfo to teach courses in conversational Spanish for fellow teachers in the Bayonne school district. In 1974, Ms. Nolfo became a teacher at Bayonne High School, where she remained until her retirement in 2002. In her final year, she was voted Bayonne High School Teacher of the Year by her students and peers. Born and raised in Bayonne, Ms. Nolfo attended the Academy of Saint Aloysius and received her bachelor's degree from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Ms. Nolfo received a master's degree from Rutgers University. Ms. Nolfo is not only an inspiration in the classroom but a leader in her community. A member of Our Lady of Assumption Parish, she is a mass lector and former director of the Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults program. Ms. Nolfo was also president of the Bayonne Italian American Committee for Culture and Education. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Maria Nolfo for her tireless work in educating the youth of Bayonne and leading them towards a brighter future.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of my friend and Jersey Journal political editor and columnist Peter Weiss, who passed away unexpectedly on Saturday, September 6, 2003. In the countless tributes to his life since his passing, Peter Weiss has been described as the chronicler of the political landscape and people of Hudson County and the State of New Jersey. In the three decades that I was fortunate enough to know and work with Peter Weiss, he abided by the highest journalistic standards and pursued his stories in Hudson County, New Jersey, with honesty and dedication. From my early start in politics when, as a 20-year-old, I ran for school board and hand-delivered my first press release to him, to the more recent race for House Democratic Caucus Chairman, Peter Weiss always kept a watchful eye on me. Those of us, who had the privilege to work with Peter Weiss, will miss his boundless energy, wit, and honesty in pursuit of the story behind the story. His sense of humor was of such an infectious nature that even the most serious matters could be discussed in a more relaxed and friendly environment. He lived and breathed Hudson County politics, understood the machinations of our world, brought to light the backroom dealings, the infighting and competition among New Jersey's powerbrokers, and helped us understand the historical context of present-day politics. He came to the Jersey Journal in 1970 after having worked at the New York Post and Long Island Press. In those 33 years, his institutional knowledge of Hudson County was second to none--with his death, we lost what amounts to the national archives for Hudson County. Throughout the recurring turbulence of Hudson County politics, Peter Weiss was always a reliable, steady, and, above all, honest force. And with every request for an interview from Peter Weiss, I knew we would embark on a new adventure. As his own paper described, ``He savored the scene as a chess player who took delight in anticipating the next moves. For him, though, it was the progression of the game that was most fascinating, not the end result.'' Peter Weiss, the Brooklyn native and graduate of Erasmus Hall High School and Long Island University, was a kind, warm, and selfless man, who will be missed dearly. As we all come to terms with this immeasurable loss, our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Margaret Schmidt, loved ones and the entire Jersey Journal family. We will always feel his presence in our midst, and will never forget him and the incredible void he leaves behind.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and we are working on a series of crucial issues in Latin America; but I have a fundamental disagreement with the gentleman certainly on the issue of Cuba and particularly on this amendment. My two points that I want to make, number one, we hear a lot about Cuban-American families and their families in Cuba, and those of us who are Cuban Americans struggle with this all the time, the desire to help our families, at the same time propping up a regime that oppresses them. But the amendment goes beyond that because the law permits remittances from non-Cuban Americans, from ordinary Americans who have no relationship to Cuba whatsoever, to make remittances into any Cuban individual inside of Cuba. Now that means that the potential for unlimited amounts of money by nonfamily members having no relationship with Cubans on the island to send monies into Cuba would be unlimited. And when we know of Castro's history of his support of terrorism, of his harboring fugitives from the United States, imagine those who support those who think about that in our own country being able to send U.S. dollars into Cuba without restriction as to amounts or process, not for Cuban families, but ultimately for those who wish us harm. That is the risk with the gentleman's amendment and that is the law of the land today. We, in fact, as Americans, can send money into Cuba, and you do not have to have any family inside of Cuba. To now permit unlimited amounts of that happening is against the national interest of the United States and the national security of the United States. Finally, I would point out that yes, this does help the regime because not only can nonCubans send money, but at the same time what does Castro do, in order to be able to grab those dollars and for him to control its use inside of Cuba, the only way those dollars work are at government dollar stores which are at inflated prices and in essence, gouge the Cuban people. He does get the money and resources, and he gouges the Cuban people in doing so, but it is their only remedy under this totalitarianism. So ultimately, yes, the regime gets the money we are sending. Sending unlimited amounts without limitation and sending it to dollar stores inside of Cuba does not make sense. The amendment does not make sense.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Flake amendment. I would like to make a series of points in response to some of what I have heard. First, what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) does is, in essence, invite lawlessness. It says that we will prohibit the Treasury Department from doing what the law says. It does not undo the law. It, in essence, prohibits the Treasury Department from enforcing the law. So this Congress would promote lawlessness. Yes, it is illegal to travel to Cuba under certain circumstances, but we will look the other way. We will not allow that element of law enforcement within the Treasury Department to enforce our laws. What a slippery slope that is when we begin a process that says the law is the law, but we are not going to allow it to be enforced. What a slippery process that is. To my dear friends who talk about the Soviet Union and how they fell because we went over there, the reality is the Soviet Union fell because they could not keep up with the arms race with the United States, and they decided internally on Glasnos and Perestroika. And when they unleashed those forces of opening, then the people of what was the Soviet Union began to move. But that crumbling began with from within, not from without. I hear about failed policy, let me tell you about a failed policy. The failed policy is millions of visitors, millions upon millions of visitors from Canada and Mexico and Spain and other part of Europe and Latin America in the last decade and what has happened? Not one positive action towards democracy and human rights has taken place. That to me is a failed policy. It is a failed policy when prostitution flourishes inside of Cuba so that foreign tourists can take advantage of Cuban women. That to me is a failed policy. It is a failed policy when we believe that by having millions of Americans go to Cuba and sun themselves on the beaches of Varadero, smoking a Cuban cigar, and sipping Cuban rum is the way in which we are going to liberate the Cuban people. What is incredible to me is the deafening silence of those who advocate these amendments, but when repression takes place in Cuba, they are virtually silent, and their silence is deafening. I say that a vote for this amendment, particularly at this time, flies in the face of all of those who languish inside of Cuba who risked their liberty and their lives to make change within their country. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to fund the Cuban economy and Cuban tyranny. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a regime that executed three men by firing squad after closed- door summary trials. A vote for this amendment is a vote to continue to fund the regime that brutally arrested and jailed over 75 activists this spring for doing nothing more than demanding human rights for their people. A vote for this amendment is to say to those who languish in Castro's jails, we will go visit the beaches of Cuba, we will smoke the cigars that were mentioned here, but you will continue to languish in Castro's jail. The Cuban government sentenced many of these innocent dissidents to 14 to 27 years in Cuban jails after holding one-day, closed-door summary trials. Our answer to that is, let us have a grand old time on Varadero Beach. That is our answer to all those who languish. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of these activists who suffer without clean water, edible food, sanitary conditions and who languish in Castro's jails. The tales emerging from their prison cells include allegations of beating, psychological torture, solitary confinement in jail cells infested with rats and scorpions. The prison conditions are so deplorable that 15 Cuban dissidents who were jailed in the crackdown started a hunger strike to protest the inhuman conditions. In a letter explaining the protest, family members said that the prison conditions had led them, the prisoners, to make the terrible decision to declare themselves on a hunger strike that compromises their health and, in many cases, even their lives. So let us recall Raul Rivero, Miriam Leiva, Gisella Delgado and others that, in fact, their suffering and their languishing in those jails are responded to by us having more tourism. Vote against this amendment. Vote against such an infamy and let us begin to speak up for those people who are risking their lives and liberty. Travel Ban Amendment To prohibit the use of funds to enforce the ban on travel to Cuba by U.S. Citizens. Congress has already passed the law that supports the travel ban. This amendment would only create sloppy legislation. The amendment doesn't change the underlying law. Instead, the amendment would prevent Treasury from supporting the existing law. The belief that Americans can change Castro through tourism flies in the face of evidence that millions of visitors from Canada, Mexico, Spain and other parts of Europe and Latin America visited Cuba in the last decade, without impacting one iota of positive change toward democracy and human rights. Cuba Travel restrictions are constitutional, according to the Supreme Court [Regan vs. Wald 1984]. Other courts: the 9th Circuit 1996, and the 11th Cir. 2000, agreed. Cuba has been on the list of state-sponsored terrorism since 1982 and remains on the list for supporting Foreign Terrorist Organizations, for providing safe haven to U.S. designated foreign terrorist organizations including the ELN and the FARC from Colombia. Cuba also continues to harbor fugitives from the U.S. justice system. Due to the end of Soviet Subsidies and his disastrous economic policies, Castro is bankrupt. His lack of cash restricts his ability to engage or support anti-American actions around the world. Castro has used American tourist dollars to take the place of Soviet payments. The money obtained from tourism is not invested to benefit the Cuban people. It is invested to reinforce a state security apparatus that is used in developing a tourism infrastructure which only benefits the government. The tourism infrastructure doesn't benefit average Cubans. Instead, Castro sets aside hotels, beaches, stores, restaurants, even hospitals for foreigners, prohibiting Cubans from staying in those hotels and patronizing those facilities. American tourism under current conditions would freeze in place Castro's tourist apartheid. The infusion of U.S. tourist dollars will provide the regime with a lifeline. Lifting the travel ban without securing meaningful changes in Cuba will: (1) Guarantees the continuation of the current totalitarian structures, and (2) Strengthen Castro's security forces. amendment to end the embargo Why would members of Congress even suggest ending the embargo at a time when we are seeing the worst wave of repression in Cuba since right after the Revolution? The State Department calls this new wave ``the most despicable act of political repression in the Americas in a decade.'' A vote to support this amendment is a vote to fund the Cuban economy and Cuban tyranny. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a regime that executed three men by firing squad, after closed door summary trials. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a brutal government which arrested and jailed over 75 activists this spring for doing nothing more than demanding human rights for their people. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support this massive crackdown and Cuban style justice, or more accurately, injustice. The Cuban government sentenced these innocent dissidents to 14 to 27 years in Cuban jails after holding one-day, closed door, summary trials. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of these activists who suffer without clean water, edible food, and sanitary conditions and who languish in Castro's jail. The tales emerging from their prison cells include allegations of beatings, psychological torture, solitary confinement and jail cells infested with rats and scorpions. The prison conditions are so deplorable that 15 Cuban dissidents, who were jailed in the crackdown, have started a hunger strike to protest the inhuman conditions. In a letter explaining the protest, family members said that the prison conditions, ``have led them (the prisoners) to make the terrible decision to declare themselves on a hunger strike, which compromises their health and even their lives.'' While the names of the dissidents on the hunger strike have not been published, the letter in support of the strike was signed by the wife of poet and dissident journalist Raul Rivero (sentenced to 20 years in jail), Miriam Leiva, wife of economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe (sentenced to 20 years in jail), and Gisella Delgado, the wife of activist Hector Palacios (sentenced to 25 years in jail). A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the government that has jailed Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe. Mr. Chepe, a Cuban economist and independent journalist, was sentenced to 20 years in jail for criticizing the Cuban government. At age 62 Mr. Chepe, according to the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, is suffering from a chronic kidney condition, a thoracic hernia, persistent hypertension, and severe weight loss. The Cuban government refused to provide him with medical treatment. Only when he was near death and only after intense international pressure, was he transferred to a hospital. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to allow funds to flow to the government that jailed Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet founded the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, one of the first independent civic groups in Havana. On February 27, 1999 he was arrested for hanging the national flag sideways at a press conference and was sentenced to three years in jail. After his release, he organized seminars on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Cubans. And he was arrested again in December of 2002 for organizing these seminars. In April of this year he was sentenced to 25 years in jail and sent to a special state prison. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello. She is an economist and director of the Cuban Institute of Independent Economists and is the only woman who was detained. She is the recipient of the 2002 Heinz R. Pagels Human Rights of Scientists Award of the New York Academy of Sciences. In April, she was sentenced to 20 years in jail for her opposition work. She is in acute pain, has nausea attacks and the left part of her body has become numb, according to the opposition news agency CUBANET. In spite of her pain, she must sit on a stool throughout the day since prisoners are not allowed to stay in bed during the daytime. I'll say again, a vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the tyranny and brutality of the Cuban government. The embargo is our strongest weapon against the Castro regime. Vote, ``no''' to this amendment. Show the men and women who suffer in Cuban jails for the right to freedom that we stand with them in their fight for human rights, justice, and a county free of dictatorship.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, to introduce The National Minority Media Opportunities Act. And I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue and for introducing the companion bill in the Senate. This bill would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hold public hearings, with notice and opportunity to comment, before approving the transfer of a license for a station serving a minority- language audience. It also requires the FCC to report to Congress on issues involving the concentration of ownership and control of minority-language broadcast media and the effects of excessive concentration on competition and diversity in these minority-language markets. The need for this bill has become crystal clear as Chairman Powell continues to try to ram through a huge Spanish-language media merger between Univision and HBC, with no opportunity for public input, with no public deliberation, and with no regard for the impact this mega- merger will have on Hispanic consumers or the Spanish-language media market. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed the FCC's new Media Ownership rules, which Chairman Powell has espoused as providing more protection for minority consumers. So why is it that he is now ramming through a decision on the Univision/HBC merger under the old rules, with no public hearings, and without even a public vote? The only obvious explanation seems to lie in an analysis of political contributions filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Otherwise, there is simply no reason to rush this controversial merger through without adequate public review and without a public vote by the FCC. The Congress has spoken on the Media Ownership rules, voting to repeal portions of the rule. And now the Congress has spoken on the process by which this ill-advised merger is being considered. Chairman Powell and the Republican Commissioners owe us some explanations. They owe Congress an explanation of why they have disregarded our requests for openness and public accountability in their decision-making process. They owe the Hispanic community an explanation of why they insist on approving a mega-merger that could have serious consequences for the diversity of information they receive. And they owe the general public an explanation of why they have made the decisions they have made, without any opportunity for meaningful public input and without even a public vote on the issue. Chairman Powell, you owe it to the Hispanic community to protect our interests. If you're not going to do that, then--at the very least--you owe us an explanation of why you've deserted us.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Monsignor Edward F. Wojtycha for his 65 years of service to the people of New Jersey and to the Catholic Church. A native of Jersey City, New Jersey, Reverend Monsignor Wojtycha has dedicated his life and work to helping the people of Jersey City and Bayonne. The Reverend Monsignor began his career in 1938 as a priest at St. Vincent's Church in Bayonne. During his 25 years at St. Vincent's, he served as administrator for 7 years and oversaw the ordination of 20 new priests. In 1963, he was appointed pastor of the newly-formed Our Lady of Mercy Church in Jersey City, where he helped build a new church facility, school, and convent. He then served as pastor of St. Andrew's Church in Bayonne until 1970. Reverend Monsignor Wojtycha retired in 1985. Since 1990, he has continued his service by volunteering at the Most Precious Blood Church in Monmouth Beach. He was honored on June 11, 2003 by the Catholic Community of St. Andrew's Church to mark the 65th anniversary of his priesthood. Reverend Monsignor Wojtycha continues to be a great inspiration to the people and the cities he has served. He was a founder of the St. Vincent's Drum and Bugle Corps, which has won 10 National Championships, 22 State Championships and had the honor of marching in all presidential inaugurations from Truman to Kennedy. The Reverend Monsignor has been named ``Man of the Year'' by the State and National Junior Chamber of Commerce, the Knights of Columbus Fourth Degree, the Disabled War Veterans, the American Legion, and others. He was a recipient of the Governor's Award and the VFW National Youth Award, and is in the National Drum Corps Hall of Fame and the New Jersey Drum Corps Hall of Fame. There are two streets named after the Reverend Monsignor, one in Jersey City and one in Bayonne. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Reverend Monsignor Edward F. Wojtycha for his exceptional service and dedication to the people of New Jersey.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Carmen Valenti for his years of dedication and service to the citizens of New Jersey as a tireless housing advocate. He was honored on August 20, 2003 at a luncheon at Don Pepe Restaurant in Newark, New Jersey. As the Director of the New Jersey Office of Public Housing for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the last twelve years, Mr. Valenti has worked relentlessly to implement public housing programs, and has fought for adequate and affordable housing for New Jersey residents across the state. Mr. Valenti first came to New Jersey in 1973, where he began working with the Somerset Department of Planning. In 1978 he began working as a planner for HUD in the Newark's Community Development Office and served in that capacity for thirteen years until becoming Director in 1991. Originally from Utica, New York, Mr. Valenti earned his bachelor's degree in History and Sociology from Concord College in West Virginia, and his master's degree in Public Administration from Golden Gate University in San Francisco. He also holds a master's degree in Urban Planning from New York University. From 1969 to 1973, Mr. Valenti served in the intelligence division of the United States Air Force. He earned the rank of staff Sergeant and was honorably discharged in 1973. A true public servant, Mr. Valenti's efforts to provide better housing for New Jersey residents have improved the lives of many across the state. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Carmen Valenti for his tireless advocacy and dedication to serving the public.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Inspector Henry Kaden on his retirement from the Union City Police Department after 27 years of serving and protecting the public. Inspector Kaden began his career with the Union City Police Department in 1976. In 1984, he was promoted to detective in the Crime Prevention Bureau, where he served until he became sergeant in 1985. In 1988, Inspector Kaden became commander of the Crime Prevention Unit, and, in 1989, he was promoted to lieutenant. After serving as lieutenant for eight years, he was promoted to captain in 1998, and finally, earned the rank of inspector in July, 2002. Before his service with the Department, Inspector Kaden served in the United States Army from December 1966 to December 1968. From May 1967 until May 1968, during the Tet Offensive, Henry Kaden served in Vietnam. Inspector Kaden has been the recipient of a number of awards and recognitions for his outstanding service to the public. In 1989, he received the McGruff Award for the National Night Out Program; in 1990, he was named Police Officer of the Year by the Knights of Columbus; in 1991, he was named a National Night Out ``All Star''; and, from 1991 to 1993, his National Night Out Committee was awarded National Honors for representing a top state in the country for neighborhood safety. Inspector Kaden has received four Medals of Valor and two Life Saving Awards from the Union City Police Department; seven Excellent Police Service Awards; two Honorable Service Awards; a Wound Medal, and two Unit Citations for his work on the Crime Prevention Bureau and as Detective Bureau Commander. The State of new Jersey awarded him with a Distinguished Service Medal and the Vietnam 25th Anniversary Commemorative Medal in 2002. Inspector Kaden is a graduate of Emerson High School in Union City, New Jersey. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Inspector Henry Kaden for his 27 years of service with the Union City Police Department.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Norton amendment, in opposition to vouchers as is evidenced also by support of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the largest national Hispanic organizations in the country in opposition to vouchers. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. School districts across our Nation are burdened with large unfunded No Child Left Behind Act mandates at the very same time when school budgets are being cut because of the weakness of the national economy. And what is the Republican plan to solve this? Vouchers. That is right; the Republican leadership is in effect using the District of Columbia as a testing ground for a policy that they dare not test on their own constituents. And they're doing this against the will of the majority of the city's elected officials and residents, who argue that vouchers violate home rule and siphon much-needed funding from D.C.'s public schools. Like most of our districts, D.C. is experiencing huge cuts in its public school budgets because of the weak economy. In fact, this year the District's schools are facing a $40 million cut. If Congress imposes vouchers on the city, an additional $25 million in federal and local per pupil funding will be lost. That is a heavy price to pay for unwanted and unnecessary vouchers. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all of us here can agree that all students in the District of Columbia's public schools deserve a quality education, but voucher plans most certainly do nothing to accomplish this. Instead, voucher plans constitute just one more drain on public funds--away from the public schools where they are really needed. Even Mayor Williams conditioned his support for vouchers on providing more money for public schools, which this bill does not. Earlier this week, I sent to my colleagues a statement by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) opposing private school vouchers and highlighting their belief that more funding for public schools is needed. As Rick Dovalina, the National President of LULAC, stated, ``As it is, we don't believe current resources will be enough to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's goals.'' Instead, vouchers will send these much needed funds to schools that do not have to meet the accountability standards established by the heralded and greatly under-funded No Child Left Behind Act. As some of you may know, D.C. officials and residents already have their own options to traditional public schools, including a large number of charter schools, transformation schools, and out-of-boundary school attendance. Mr. Chairman, we would all insist that the decision of our districts concerning our own children and schools should be respected. The decisions of the majority of elected officials and residents in the District are entitled to the same respect. I urge all my colleagues to vote against the imposition of vouchers and in support of Congresswoman Norton's amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer legislation to honor my great friend, the music icon, Celia Cruz, who lost her courageous battle with cancer on July 17, 2003. Last night, during the Latin Grammy's, Americans were mesmerized by an emotional and wonderful tribute to the great Celia Cruz. Today, in the People's House, I am joined by my colleague, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, to introduce legislation that will posthumously award Celia Cruz the Congressional Gold Medal. Celia de la Caridad Cruz Alonso was born on October 21, 1924, in Havana, Cuba. Her career blossomed when she left Cuba for the United States in 1960, where she eventually made Fort Lee, New Jersey her home. Over a five decade career as an entertainer, Celia Cruz became known as the ``Queen of Salsa,'' and claimed the calling card cry of ``Azuuuucar!'' Celia's passion, boundless energy, and charisma transfixed generations of salsa fans and musicians. She recorded more than 70 albums and her collaborative efforts with other performers including the legendary salsa artist Tito Puente, pop star David Byrne, and hip-hop producer Wyclef Jean helped break down ethnic and cultural barriers. She was one of the few bridges that crossed cultural and racial divides. Celia's musical talent earned her hundreds of awards worldwide, including five Grammy's, two Latin Grammy's, and the National Medal of Arts, the highest honor bestowed on an artist in the United States. She was a Hispanic Heritage Awards Lifetime Achievement recipient, and has a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame. Her music was a unifying force, and her passion for a free Cuba was evidenced in both her music and her words. Celia touched the lives of millions. More than 100,000 individuals mourned her loss at her wake in Miami, Florida and 75,000 people lined the streets of Manhattan to pay their respects as her funeral procession made its way through the streets of New York City. Celia Cruz made countless contributions to American society and the world as an entertainer, and she was an ambassador of Latino culture and a voice of freedom. Her music, her words, and her love of freedom live on. This legislation would make Celia the first Latina to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge the leadership to bring it swiftly to the floor for a vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the distinguished ranking member's amendment for a critical part of the Nation's transportation infrastructure. There are so many ways in which one could look at the preservation of Amtrak in terms of national interests. I would like to talk first about one of those, and that is on security. After September 11, we learned very clearly on that fateful day, and my district sits right across from midtown Manhattan, that it was the redundancy of different transportation modes when everything else was shut down that ultimately allowed people to escape from that tragedy, because we had a redundancy of transportation modes. We saw that again very recently again in the blackout; that but for the redundancy of transportation modes, people would not have been able to get home and to be safe. So, at a time in which corporate America looks to have redundancy in their corporate headquarters and operations, we as a government should be looking at how do we have a redundancy of transportation modes in order to ensure the vitality of our country and the safety of its citizens. Amtrak is one of those elements of that vitality and of that redundancy, and we need to ensure that it is preserved. Now, under the appropriations bill that is before the House, if it were to become law, in essence that would result in the immediate shutdown of Amtrak, which would be catastrophic for rail passengers that rely on Amtrak's operation in the northeast corridor, as well as those passengers who use Amtrak for long-distance intercity travel. The Nation faced that prospect during the summer of 2002, and it was narrowly averted by a Federal loan and supplemental appropriation. We do not need to suffer such a needless transportation crisis again. The long-term effects of Amtrak's demise would be just as severe. The States and municipalities who benefit, for example, the northeast corridor service, would have to scramble to replace it at a time when those States are in fiscal distress. The communities only served by Amtrak's long-distance trains would lose service altogether, with no realistic chance of that service's restoration. Put simply, the shutdown of Amtrak is something that cannot be allowed to happen, and the way that this bill funds Amtrak clearly would lead to that reality if it became law with this appropriation. Now, in addition to security and having different modes of transportation to get people to their destinations in a time of heightened security concerns, we also look at, as we are trying to languish with coming up with a highway bill, a major transportation bill, the toll that the lack of such rail passenger service would have on our highways, on our bridges, on our roads. The consequences would be enormous. That is not factored into the value that Amtrak provides us; the commerce that takes place by those who travel through passenger rail, to be able to conduct commerce and research and development as those companies along the northeast corridor participate throughout the corridor and visit and do business; for those in the financial services community; and the consequence on the environment as well from adding all of those other forms of transportation that would have to take the place of passenger rail, the more cars, and that which is produced through Amtrak that may in fact have to be carried by trucking. So, ultimately, this has a series of effects on the Nation's economy, on the Nation's security, on the environment and the quality of life for people who are served by Amtrak. Mr. Chairman, we have those Members who just simply do not understand that this is as crucial as subsidies are to agricultural parts of the country, as dams may be to some parts of the country. This is crucial to significant elements of the country for its security, for its transportation needs, for its commerce, for its environment. That is why the gentleman's amendment makes eminent sense. He moves an amount just sufficient to keep Amtrak alive in doing so, and he does so by taking from those who already have so much and who were given so much more, taking a small amount to ensure that the many who need this transportation service can achieve it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this restrictive rule and to the bill. I can respect and agree with the intentions of the bill's sponsors in wanting our seniors to have access to more life-saving, life-enhancing prescription drugs; but this bill could actually endanger the health and safety of millions of seniors. And I think the worst tactic, and I have heard what some of the worst tactics supposedly are, is to suggest that there are no safety issues here whatsoever. Under this legislation, the Food and Drug Administration would no longer be able to adequately ensure the safety of our Nation's drug supply because of the dramatic influx of foreign pharmaceuticals flooding our market from countries with drug regulatory policies inferior to ours. This bill would authorize the importation of prescription drugs not from Canada but 25 different countries, including some which have rampant drug counterfeit problems and substandard drug safety enforcement measures. By creating an expansive inlet for counterfeit drugs and other second-rate pharmaceuticals to enter our borders, this bill poses a clear and considerable threat to the security and safety of our Nation's drug supply. Now, the reason we will have so many Republicans come down here and argue in favor of this bill is because they want seniors to be diverted from the real issue. Instead of debating this bill, we should be considering the real issue of providing a guaranteed universal Medicare drug benefit for our seniors so that they have access to affordable and safe medicine. Mr. Speaker, bring a real Medicare drug benefit to this floor where prices will be forced down because of the purchasing power of 40 million seniors so that they will not have to worry about the affordability or the safety of their medications. That is why this bill should be opposed. That is why we should get to a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare, universally guaranteed. And that is why many, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, say that this bill should be defeated.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today, I mourn the death of my great friend, the music icon, Celia Cruz, who lost her courageous battle with cancer yesterday afternoon. In fact, today, the entire world mourns. After 50 years of her presence, influence and music, her loss is shocking to all of us, her dedicated fans. Celia Cruz, whose music crossed ethnic, racial and cultural lines and earned her five Grammy's and two Latin Grammy's, was a true trailblazer. Her music was a unifying force, and her passion for a free Cuba was evidenced in both her music and her words. Her commitment to a free Cuba went so far that, during a performance at the Summit of the Americas, she worked the following unforgettable lines into one of her songs: `Mr. President, please make sure that my homeland Cuba is free once more.' Poignant and heartbreaking words that describe her love for Cuba, her commitment to a free and democratic Cuba, and her affection for her adopted homeland, the United States. Celia Cruz mesmerized audiences for five decades with her exceptional singing talent and her wonderful charisma. She has been one of the single greatest influences on salsa music, recording more than 70 albums, and receiving more than 100 awards. She was honored with a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame, and with streets named after her in New York, Mexico, Costa Rica and Miami, on the famous Calle Ocho. Celia has received honorary degrees from Yale, Florida International University, the University of Miami, and received the National Medal of Arts, the highest honor bestowed on an artist by the United States. Celia Cruz was born and raised in the Santa Suarez neighborhood of Havana, Cuba. As a young girl, she spent much of her spare time entertaining her peers, friends, and neighbors by singing lullabies and melodies. In the 1940's, she officially began her musical career by singing on numerous Cuban radio programs. After studying at Havana's Conservatory of Music from 1947 to 1950, she joined the legendary group La Sonora Matancera, and after several successful recordings, the group's music was in demand beyond the borders of Cuba. When Celia left Cuba for the United States in 1960, her career blossomed and she became a household name. During her first decade in the United States, she recorded several albums with the great Tito Fuente, and together, they captured the hearts of nontraditional fans of salsa, a phenomenon known as `the Salsa of the 70s.' Celia has also collaborated with other great Latin artists, including Johnny Pacheco, Willy Colon, and la Fania All Stars, as well as great American artists, such as Dionne (DEE-ON) Warwick, Patti Labelle, David Byrne, Gloria Estefan, and Wyclef Jean. Celia Cruz's boundless energy transfixed generations of salsa fans and musicians. The powerful presence of music in her life could not have been expressed any better than in her own words: in an interview, she once said that she was `born with the music inside of her.' And, by God, she expressed the music `inside of her' until the very last day of her battle with cancer. I was introduced to Celia Cruz's music at an early age, and enjoy her work and dance to her music now, more than ever. As the former Mayor of Union City, New Jersey, I was honored to recognize her achievements and contributions during an awards ceremony almost two decades ago. On that day, and until her death, Celia Cruz, the Queen of Salsa, the music icon, the star, remained down-to-earth, people-oriented, and was loved by everyone for her music, her passion and her style. She was one of the few bridges that crossed cultural and racial divides. Celia Cruz's death has left a void in the lives of so many, but her music and words live on, as she leaves behind a legacy on so many levels. I will never forget the famous lines from a recent song, 'La Vida es un Carnaval--No hay que Ilorar,' which means, life is a carnival, you don't have to cry. So simple and so true. And just like Celia would end her songs with the impulsive and unique AZUCAR! or sugar, I end tonight by saying our memories of you, Ceilia, are as sweet as sugar. You will never be forgotten, and you will always be missed.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we can hear all the spin and diversion that the majority wants to lay there, but this is the point: this morning in the People's House, the heart of our great American democracy, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means called the police, the police, in an attempt to break up a meeting of House Democrats. Why did he call the police? Because he did not like what Democrats were meeting about and that Democrats as the minority availed themselves of what little protection they have under the rules. This is what Republicans have come to in the running of this House. If they do not like what we say, even in a private meeting, they will try to have us arrested. If we object, and they do not like it, they will try to have us arrested. Does that sound like America to you? Or does that sound like some sort of police state? Our distinguished Speaker should be in the chair and alarmed that this happened under your watch. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. An example of that is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) calling the Department of Homeland Security to track down Texas legislators. Where does this end? This institution cannot and must not tolerate this sort of abusive and intimidating behavior. And this one will not be swept under the rug until justice is done. Some of us come from families that fled this kind of persecution. I never thought that I would see that persecution take place right here in the people's House, the very place where people are sent to the greatest democracy in the world. Some claim that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) had the police called in response to a disturbance, but why was the majority chief of staff escorting the police back to the library where the Democrats were meeting? The answer is obvious. The chairman was annoyed and wanted to break up that meeting of Democrats, and he was willing to use the police to do it. As the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I want you to know that our Members will not be silenced on behalf of the 136 million Americans we represent in this House.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for all his work and cooperation, and I rise to speak on some of the positive elements of this bill. This bill includes my amendment on Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons and is particularly relevant given recent developments in Iran. Iran continues to claim that its nuclear research program's only goal is to promote peaceful activities. Last week, however, Iran confirmed that it had successfully tested its mid-range missile, the Shahab-3, which can reach Israeli soil. And last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency stated Iraq has secretly processed nuclear material. Iran continues its game with the IAEA over signing the new nuclear safeguards protocol. Iran is a country with huge oil and natural gas reserves and clearly does not need nuclear power for its energy consumption. My amendment, as incorporated in this bill, therefore, calls on the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is used only for peaceful purposes and urges the United States representatives to the IAEA to help develop guidelines for early identification of any Iranian noncompliance with the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. And, finally, Iran should sign and ratify the new nuclear safeguards protocol to this treaty. While I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) on pursuing the Millennium Challenge Account, I am concerned that this initiative ignores the majority of the desperately poor in Latin America and the Caribbean. The initiative launched in Mexico will not contribute a dollar to the poor in the Mexican state of Chiapas. Two hundred million citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean earn under $2 a day, 100 million live on less than $1 a day, and yet these poorest of the poor in our own hemisphere will not qualify for assistance under the Millennium Challenge Account. I look forward to seeing the Kolbe amendment, which is similar to the one that I proposed, to see if we can move some of those countries forward; and, in the absence of that look, I forward to working with the committee to see what we are going to do about our neighbors here in our own hemisphere, if we are concerned about health care, immigration, and biodiversity. Lastly, I want to salute the leadership of the committee for incorporating the minority recruitment efforts. The State Department has had the worst record of all of the Federal Government. Our State Department must look like America. It must also have the diversity of thought that makes America great. The State Department shows our face to the rest of the world, and we should bring the synergies of people from different backgrounds to focus on American diplomacy. If the State Department is to make progress, minorities must have a seat at the table. So, Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning, this bill has a number of positive components, but I am concerned that my Mexico and climate change amendments were stripped from the bill; that the Millennium Challenge Account hopefully moves closer to helping the people of the Western Hemisphere; and, finally, I look forward to the success of certain amendments to improve this product. I thank the distinguished ranking member for all his help in trying to make it an even better bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who resides and deals with the border all the time. (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment may seem by the way it was just described rather innocuous, but it is rather outrageous. It is a thinly veiled attempt to end something called the matricula consular. To start with, this amendment could create a negative boomerang effect on the United States. The amendment tells other countries' consulates what they can and cannot do above and beyond existing law. Do we want other countries to do the same to us? Do we want other countries to tell our consulates how we can relate to our own citizens abroad? This is an unprecedented attempt to change how a country can relate to its own nationals in a host country. I think it is a patently improper interpretation of the Foreign Missions Act and the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs. The amendment would set a dangerous precedent for our embassies abroad. But let me get to the core issue. This amendment is another anti- immigration tactic designed to get rid of the matricula consular. Basically, they have loaded this amendment with requirements that are unreasonable for workers in this country to be able to achieve. How can migrant workers be expected to notify their own mission within 30 days every time they move? And we expect poor people from rural areas to produce all of the records that they suggest. This makes no sense. And then in a final attempt to completely get rid of the matricula consular, they included a punishment so strong that many countries might simply stop using it. If a country fails to comply with these onerous provisions, the United States would stop issuing immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. What country could take that risk? I do not quite understand it. I thought we had a victory collectively in moving into the right way in our bilateral relations with Mexico. This amendment takes us another step back. Over and over again, Members on the other side of the aisle have shown their true feelings about some of the issues on the Hispanic community, the immigrant communities; and this amendment is no exception. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this outrageous and dangerous amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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 want to rise in support of the en bloc amendment and certainly recognize the wisdom that has now been included in the en bloc amendment of my original amendment in the Committee on International Relations calling for a conclusion of a migratory agreement between the United States and Mexico in the national interests of both countries. It certainly is in the national interest of the United States to regularize the border between Mexico and the United States, to make sure that the human capital that helps fuel our economy here at home can be had but in a way that is dignified on both sides. And certainly I am happy to see the removal of the Mexican oil from the migration agreement that was not only offensive but outright wrong as far as our foreign policy is concerned. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I am pleased to see that we are headed now in the right direction. I am very pleased that Democrats have led on this issue and that our Republican colleagues have joined us on it in this en bloc amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is premised on an unfortunate situation that has arisen in the state of Tamil Nadu, India, involving several American companies that are currently attempting to conduct business there. In seeking to provide additional electrical generating capacity, several years ago the Tamil Nadu government sought to induce foreign companies to design and build power plants there. Five American companies accepted this proposition and constructed four projects that generate approximately 800 megawatts of electricity in Tamil Nadu at a combined cost of about $1 billion. Each company entered into a long- term contract for the purchase of the electricity generated at these plants at an agreed-upon price. After getting these plants up and running, the Tamil Nadu government then began a systematic underpayment of the contract terms, sufficient to keep them running but providing no return on the initial investment. Technically, the projects are in a state of default; and, as far as we know, the Tamil Nadu government owes these American companies approximately $150 million under the terms of these contracts. Now, India has been a strategic ally and trading partner of the United States. Unfortunately, the state of Tamil Nadu has lagged behind the rest of that country in terms of maintaining a strong commitment to the rule of law and providing for these types of open, transparent transactions. So we simply, through our amendment, seek to create an opportunity to ensure that, while we will not certainly affect India as a country, that the state of Tamil Nadu cannot have the good deal and resources of this country if it continues to unjustifiably hold American companies hostage in this way. We do nothing to affect any foreign assistance that deals with human rights or nutrition or any of those things, but we do deal with all other issues that are not humanitarian, health-related, or justice sector relief initiatives designed to help those citizens of Tamil Nadu. So this is a way to stand up for U.S. companies who make legitimate investments and do the right thing and at the end of the day do not have the transparency and the opportunity to have their investments honored in a way in which we want to see throughout the world.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.