Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, there could be no spending bill more important than the one before us today. We need the full resources of our government behind the challenges that lie ahead. And this has to be a multi-front effort. We need to be relentlessly pursuing and punishing those who committed these crimes. As the Representative of New Jersey's 13th Congressional District--right across the river from Manhattan--I can tell you my constituents are going through enormous hardships. About 50 percent of the people who worked in the Twin Towers live in New Jersey. Families who have just lost their sole breadwinner may now face losing their homes; people who survived, who worked anywhere in lower Manhattan, face uncertain employment futures and what for some will be staggering medical bills--all this in addition to the emotional and psychological trauma. Lives have been turned upside down. It is critical that while we fight our enemies abroad, we make sure that all the needed funding and attention also goes to the families in crisis here at home.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In times of tragedy, America pulls together and America gets stronger. We defeated the forces of evil in World War II, we turned economic crisis into economic opportunities and beat the Great Depression, and we can and will defeat these forces too. Every war is different. No challenge is the same. This will be a battle unlike any other, fought with new tools and methods; fought with intelligence and brute force, rooting out the enemies among us and those outside our borders. This war may be different, but we have the capabilities to win; and we will not rest until we have wiped the evil of terrorism from the face of the Earth. There is nowhere they can hide where we will not hunt them. There is nowhere they will be safe from our wrath. We will consider any person or nation who harbors them or aids them or authorizes their activities to be just as guilty. If you harbor our enemy, then you are our enemy. If you help our enemy, then you are our enemy. Our resolve has no end. Our commitment is total. In times of tragedy, America pulls together and America gets stronger. That is what we are here to do today: to stand united, to say to the world there are no partisans here, only patriarchs. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, between the Congress and the President. We are speaking with one voice. The resolution we are supporting tonight authorizes the President to use the full range of force available from our military not only to respond to the terrorist acts on Tuesday but also to prevent future acts. And we will not be alone in our battle. The enormous evil of these acts is uniting the civilized world behind a common cause because the attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon were attacks not just against the United States but against humanity itself. The civilized world is uniting in this common fight because there are only two sides in it: right or wrong, good or evil. You are with us or against us. No civilized nation can be allowed to sit on the fence. I just came back from the site of the tragedy in New York City with my colleagues. I saw the horrendous results of the terrorists' unspeakable deeds. And as I stood at ground zero, I was reminded of the scenes of devastation and bombings from World War II. But what cannot be seen in that rubble are the broken families and the fatherless and motherless children left in its wake. We will not let this stand, because to let this stand would be to let civilization itself perish. To let it stand would be to let evil prevail. To let this stand would be to lay down our values of liberty, justice, and freedom. It has been said that in the long history of the world only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. Tonight, we do not shrink from this responsibility, we embrace it, and in doing so we send a beacon of light to the rest of the world.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the victims of the Katyn Forest Massacre, sixty-two years after the horrible tragedy. Memorial Services will be held on September 16, 2001, at the Katyn Monument site in Jersey City, New Jersey. Following Nazi Germany's unprovoked attack on Poland on September 1, 1939, Polish troops stood up to a better-equipped and larger army, eventually succumbing to the incredible odds several weeks after Soviet troops viciously attacked from the East. While Polish forces were vastly outnumbered and overextended, they fought vigorously and valiantly on two fronts. Following its defeat, Soviet and Nazi victors immediately placed Poland under their harsh and brutal occupation. In the Spring of 1940, Soviet-led forces brutally killed and tortured over fifteen thousand Polish men, women, and children. One of the sites of these barbaric and inhumane acts was the Katyn Forest, where four thousand bodies were later discovered. Today, I honor the victims of the Katyn Forest Massacre. I commend their courage and sacrifice. They stood strong in the face of genocide and appalling brutality. I ask that my colleagues join me in remembering the victims of the Katyn Forest Massacre, and I ask that we honor their sacrifice for freedom.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001, is the second day of infamy in our history; and it was without a doubt an act of war. It was also a crime against humanity and the civilized world, an attack against innocent, unsuspecting, defenseless civilians, against women and children, many from my own State of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the terrorists may have appeared to strike the symbol of American capitalism; but what they really struck was mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. The terrorists may have appeared to strike a symbol of American military might, but what they really struck were sons and daughters, friends and families. The terrorists have shown themselves as the cowards they are, as we are showing the world the great Nation that we are: strong, resilient, resourceful and freedom loving. The Congress is here, the President is at work, Americans are lining up waiting hours to donate blood or volunteer in the rescue. People from my district across the river from New York City are helping the wounded, our hospitals are filled with doctors, nurses and staff working around the clock. Brave fire fighters, police officers and rescue crews continue to risk their lives to save others; and we are pulling together, as Americans always do in times of tragedy, as we will pull together to hunt down and find those who committed these crimes against humanity. There is nowhere these terrorists can hide where we will not find them, and no Nation that should believe that they can aid, abet, or give shelter to these terrorists without feeling our wrath. If nations harbor our enemies, then they are our enemy. If nations help our enemies, then they are our enemy. Mr. Speaker, we will not stop until all those responsible are found and punished severely. Today America stands ready for the challenge ahead. We stand as one united against our enemies, united for the things we believe in as a people: liberty, freedom and justice. May God bless all those who perished in this tragedy, the rescue workers who sacrificed their lives and the children and families who today are missing a cherished love one, and may He bless this great country of ours.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. What happened yesterday is beyond words and beyond comprehension. The act was unconscionable. The loss is immeasurable. Many, many people in my district, which is right across the river from New York City, have lost someone they cared about, a friend, a family member, or just someone they knew. To my friends and neighbors and constituents back home in New Jersey, let me say we will get through this together. That spirit is demonstrated by the hundreds right now back at home seeking to give blood and volunteer. To my fellow countrymen and women from every part of our great land, because there is no doubt that this was an act of war against all of America, let me say we stand as one, united against our enemies, united for the things we believe in, liberty, freedom and justice. May God bless us and help us through these difficult times.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to re-introduce the Children's Lead Screen Intervention Act. This important legislation will strengthen federal mandates designed to protect our children from lead poisoning--a preventable tragedy that continues to threaten the health of our children. Childhood lead poisoning has long been considered the number one environmental health threat facing children in the United States, and despite dramatic reductions in blood lead levels over the past 20 years, lead poisoning continues to be a significant health risk for young children. CDC has estimated that about 890,000, or 4.4 percent, of children between the ages of one and five have harmful levels of lead in their blood. Even at low levels, lead can have harmful effects on a child's intelligence and his, or her, ability to learn. Children can be exposed to lead from a number of sources. We are all cognizant of lead based paint found in older homes and buildings. However, children may also be exposed to non paint sources of lead, as well as lead dust. Poor and minority children, who typically live in older housing, are at highest risk of lead poisoning. Therefore, this health threat is of particular concern to states, like New Jersey, where more than 35 percent of homes were built prior to 1950. In 1996, New Jersey implemented a law requiring health care providers to test all young children for lead exposure. But during the first year of this requirement, there were actually fewer children screened than the year before, when there was no requirement at all. Between July 1997 and July 1998, 13,596 children were tested for lead poisoning. The year before that more than 17,000 tests were done. New Jersey has made some progress since then. In the year 2000, New Jersey screened 67,594 children who were one or two years of age. But that is still only one-third of all children in that age group. At the federal level, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has mandated that Medicaid children under 2 years of age be screened for elevated blood lead levels. However, recent General Accounting Office (GAO) reports indicate that this is not being done. For example, the GAO has found that only about 21 percent of Medicaid children between the ages of one and two have been screened. In the state of New Jersey, only about 39 percent of children enrolled in Medicaid have been screened. Based on these reviews at both the state and federal levels, it is obvious that improvements must be made to ensure that children are screened early and receive follow up treatment if lead is detected. That is why I am introducing this legislation which I believe will address some of the shortcomings that have been identified in existing requirements. The legislation will require Medicaid providers to screen children and cover treatment for children found to have elevated levels of lead in their blood. It will also require improved data reporting of children who are tested, so that we can accurately monitor the results of the program. Because more than 75 percent--or nearly 700,000--of the children found to have elevated blood lead levels are part of federally-funded health care programs, our bill targets not only Medicaid, but also Head Start, Early Head Start and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Head Start and WIC programs would be allowed to perform screening or to mandate that parents show proof of screenings in order to enroll their children. Education, early screening and prompt follow-up care will save millions in health care costs; but, more importantly will save our greatest resource--our children.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. My colleagues, make no mistake, this bill is a special deal for special interests. The patients' bill of rights went into the White House emergency room with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and it came out as an ``HMO Bill of Rights,'' an ``Insurance Bill of Rights,'' a special set of rights no other industry in America has. And speaking of rights, this bill kills State rights in protecting patients. Just this week in New Jersey, a Republican governor signed a bill passed by a Republican legislature which would provide for enforcing our patients' bill of rights. This bill we are debating today destroys New Jersey's patients' protections, and California and Texas and every other State's right to protect patients, by superceding it. This bill is a huge step backwards in patient protections. This bill will not guarantee the care patients deserve and need but it will guarantee HMOs' abuses. Let us vote for patients, for people, for our constituents, and against the special interests. Vote against the rule and the bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major Ricardo Montero Duque for his efforts to fight the communist threat, and later communist dictatorship, in Cuba, and his commitment to Cuban immigrants throughout America. Ricardo Montero Duque was born in Matanzas, Cuba on July 4, 1925. In 1950, he graduated from the Military Academy of the Cuban Army with the rank of Second Lieutenant. As a result of his hard work and dedication, he quickly climbed through the ranks of the military hierarchy, eventually assuming the rank of Major. Major Duque's extensive military career can be traced to battles against the guerrilla forces of Fidel Castro. In 1956, Major Duque was instrumental in leading the Cuban Army against Fidel Castro and his rebel forces in the province of Oriente. During the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, he commanded the No. 5 Infantry Battalion of the 2506 Brigade, was captured by Castro's forces, and later imprisoned for 25 years. On June 8, 1986, Major Duque was released from prison in Cuba and reunited with his family in Union City, New Jersey. Over the past two decades, Major Duque has remained actively involved in the Cuban American community. Former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman appointed Major Duque to serve as a member of the ``Cuban Task Force'' of New Jersey. He has served as Director and Editor of the newspapers ``El Cuba Libre'' and ``La Semana.'' In addition, he has twice been elected to serve as President of the Union of Former Cuban Political Prisoners. Beyond his services to the community, Major Duque has been a real estate agent since 1987. He is happily married to Esther, his wife of fifty years. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ricardo Montero Duque for his unfaltering commitment to fighting the terror and repression of communism in Cuba, and for his outstanding contributions to the Cuban American community.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Two points on the gentleman's comments. Number one, we simply cut nonpersonnel administrative expenses. Number one. And, number two, even EPA's own justification to Congress shows that there will be dramatic reductions in their staffing, in their ability for enforcement, in their civil and criminal penalties that they will be able to pursue. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. MENENDEZ. May I inquire if the gentleman from New York has any speakers at all?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are not taking money from the States, just a particular earmark. Nothing can stop the EPA administrator from using those monies for State programs if that is where they are most needed. What we are doing is what I hear my colleague from the other side suggest that they want, which is more flexibility. We have greater flexibility here. But it is foolish to suggest that, in fact, we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. And, secondly, it is also from the EPA's own estimate submitted to the Congress, not my words, the Republican- appointed administrator submits to the Congress this information, that, in fact, this is 270 or so full-time employees less than compared to the actual number of inspections done in fiscal year 2000 to the one under this request, we would have 5,000 less inspections, that we would have about 70 some-odd less criminal investigations, that we would have a serious number of decline in civil investigations, over 400 from fiscal year 2000. That is not in any sense justified by saying that there is an increase. There cannot be an increase when we dramatically drop the number of people in the department, when we dramatically drop the number of civil and criminal actions, when we dramatically drop the number of inspections by EPA's own words. So this simply cannot be categorized anywhere, in fact, as an increase. Again, we are taking our monies for this purpose from nonpersonnel administrative functions and not out of veterans and not out of EPA. Lastly, EPA remains the only enforcement authority for many Federal laws. Under the existing program as it is, 15 to 25 States would not get anything under the provisions that the chairman continues to seek to have. So, Mr. Chairman, the question is simple. Do we want to leave a legacy of clean air and water for our children and grandchildren or do we want to take the environmental cop off the street? A vote in favor of the amendment is a vote to keep the environmental cop on the street. It is a vote to ensure that the number one agency for all Americans in terms of their quality of their air, their water, their rivers, their streams, their lakes being protected is the EPA. If we do not pass this amendment, we will have degraded the ability to enforce. This is a real cut to the EPA. That is why we need to restore the enforcement capacity the EPA must have for all Americans in all States across the Nation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman. I ask two questions. First, what is the time on each side?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the second question I have is who has the right to close in this debate?

Mr. MENENDEZ. He has the right to close on my amendment?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would ask of the gentleman then, since the time is lopsided, what does the gentleman intend to do in terms of speakers? It would be unfair to have a long list of speakers come at the very end.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I do not know if the gentleman should characterize it as ``less frugally.'' We have Members who feel very passionately about this.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset, I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the subcommittee ranking member, for all their hard work and cooperation on this amendment. This amendment which I am sponsoring with my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) would restore critically needed funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Compliance and Enforcement, which is responsible for enforcing America's most important and effective environmental laws. To do so, we cut $25 million from nonpersonnel administrative costs from other parts of the bill except EPA and veterans' programs. Spread out over this bill, this will require very modest cuts in administrative expenses. Mr. Chairman, I stand before the House today because I believe America's environment is under attack. Not too long ago, as a Presidential candidate, George Bush spoke strong words about protecting the environment, but today his promises to the American people ring hollow. In only a few short months, the Bush administration made its priorities clear to all of us, and environmental protection is apparently very low on the list. While I am not surprised at the actions of President Bush or of EPA administrator Whitman, given her shoddy record of environmental enforcement in my home State of New Jersey, I am surprised that the committee went along with this dangerous course of action. The bill before us today, at the direction of the administration, irresponsibly cuts $25 million from the EPA's enforcement budget, specifically targeting compliance, monitoring, civil and criminal enforcement, and Superfund enforcement. If this bill passes in its present form, 270 positions would be eliminated from the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, which will result in 2,000 fewer inspections, an 11 percent reduction in criminal actions, and a 20 percent reduction in civil actions. These reductions would be devastating to EPA's ability to enforce clean air, clean water, and hazardous waste laws. These are not just numbers we are talking about here. This is the water our children drink, the air they breathe, and the legacy we leave to the next generation. It is because of Federal enforcement officers that we have made so much progress in cleaning up our air and water. Experience tells us the difference a strong EPA can make. Civil enforcement activities have resulted in real improvements in environmental quality. In fiscal year 1999, EPA's civil enforcement actions achieved over 6.8 billion pounds of pollutant reductions, but the bill before us would cut 6 percent of the staff positions from the Superfund hazardous waste cost recovery efforts, this from a program that in fiscal year 2000 recovered $231 million from responsible parties at Superfund sites. This is pennywise and pound foolish because the cut in Superfund enforcement would reduce cost recoveries by over $50 million in fiscal year 2002, a reduction in revenue that greatly exceeds the funding necessary to fully restore the enforcement efforts. The administration's budget also proposes to transfer $25 million to the States for environmental enforcement. While States could use additional help in ensuring compliance with environmental laws, that help should not come at the expense of EPA's successful enforcement programs. Federal and State resources combined are not enough to fully enforce our Federal environmental laws as it is. Transferring scarce Federal resources to State programs when both compliance programs are underfunded is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The fact is, the air and water quality in one State impacts the air and water in another State. There are no borders when the goal is a clean environment. That is why a clean environment should be a national priority. Big polluters would like nothing more than to see a major reduction in Federal, civil, and criminal enforcement by the EPA, so cutting EPA's enforcement budget is sending the wrong message at a time when over 60 million Americans live in areas of the country that still fail to meet air quality standards. We can do better, but this bill takes us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it is the right thing for the environment and it is right for America. Let us leave a legacy of clean lakes, clean rivers, fresh air. Let us leave a clean environment for our children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a cosponsor of this amendment.