Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from New York's amendment. And I regret that I do not hear the voices of my colleagues, for example, who spoke very passionately on China about human rights, about labor rights, about democracy issues and who voted as I did in that context to deny MFN status to China because we believed that those issues were so tantamount, so important, that that trade should not be granted to that country. The fact of the matter is that what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) seeks to do in his amendment would not actually change existing law. In other words, the embargo would remain, but the ability supposedly to administer and enforce it would be gone, and, of course, this would not only create confusion but it would create lawlessness. Because what it would say to U.S. citizens is, ``Go ahead, break the law because the government can't catch you.'' What is even more important for those who do not believe in our policy is that the Treasury Department would be prevented from continuing to issue legal licenses for certain travel and food and medicine sales as is now allowed under existing law and the Department would be prohibited from providing that humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba. By the way, Mr. Chairman, it is the United States of America through nongovernmental organizations that is the greatest remitter of humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba over the last 5 years. It has sent over $2 billion over the last 5 years to help the people of Cuba. So what hurts my family that still lives in Cuba is not the embargo of the United States. What hurts my family that lives in Cuba is the dictatorship of Fidel Castro, his failed economic policies, his rationing of people. There is plenty of food for tourists, plenty of food for tourism. There are plenty of medicines for what they call health tourism. There are medicines to export to other parts of the world but they are not there for the people of Cuba. Therefore, we should vote against the Rangel amendment and preserve our policy in order to ensure freedom and democracy.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanford amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I take offense to the gentleman's statement that in fact three congressional districts, that supposedly we are working on behalf of our congressional districts, three congressional districts driving policy. That would be the equivalent of saying that Irish American Members of this House who promote peace and justice in northern Ireland are driving that policy, or that Jewish Members of this House are driving the policy on the Middle East, or that African-American Members of this House who believe very passionately about the need to invoke and engage in Africa are driving that policy. I reject that view. I find it distasteful. Let me say that I hope to hear from some of our colleagues about human rights, about democracy, about the hundreds of prisoners in Castro's jails. They are very eloquent in other parts of the world. They are silent as it relates to Cuba. Twelve types of travel are now permitted under existing law. Thousands are going to Cuba for legitimate media, cultural exchanges, academic, and religious purposes. This provision would actually create a set of circumstances where Americans, because the law would not be changed, Americans would have to otherwise travel to Cuba who can travel to Cuba legally; under these licenses, they would now have to choose between traveling illegally or not going at all. I do not believe that sunning one's buns on the beaches, I do not believe that sipping rum at the bar, I do not believe that smoking cigars or that the poor slave labor at the Hotel Nacional ultimately promotes freedom, democracy, and human rights. That is, in essence, what we are doing, throwing an economic lifeline to Castro.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas, and I want to state something. This is not about lifting the sanctions on food and medicine, because the law still will exist. And any sales to Cuba, other than those that are licensed, will still be illegal. So we will not be achieving what the gentleman wishes to achieve. Secondly, the amendment speaks of agricultural commodities and, as such, chemicals can be sold under that heading, including precursor chemicals, which I do not believe we want the Castro regime, which is still on our list of terrorist states and which harbors fugitives from the United States, to have access to. Voting for this amendment would prohibit the United States from enforcing the sale of precursor chemicals that can be used for weaponry, including bombs, biological and chemical weaponry. Lastly, the fact of the matter is that we constantly hear that our sanctions are affecting the Cuban people, even though we are the greatest remitters of humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba, $2 billion over the last 5 years, more than all the other countries of the world combined during the same time period. Yet it is Castro's failed economic system and his dictatorship that refuses to give the Cuban people what they deserve. He can buy from anyplace in the world. He has to have the money to do so. He does not have the money to do so. And I would note that this amendment, if we believe that it is going to accomplish lifting it, which it does not, lifting the sale of food and medicine, it says nothing about credits and, in fact, can be interpreted to permit credits and can be interpreted to permit government subsidies. Now, the last thing I believe that this body would want is to use subsidies to sell to a dictatorship that uses food and rations as a form of control, which is exactly what Castro does. He uses rationing as a form of control over his people. So this is not about selling to the average Cuban, which I probably would be for. This is about selling to the regime and then having the regime ration their own people, as they do today, as my family has to do, standing in line, because the regime does not give them the resources and opportunities in a free marketplace for them to purchase.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say, why does Castro have enough food for all the tourists that come to Cuba but not enough food for the people of Cuba. Why is it he has medicines that he can export from Cuba, Meningitis B vaccines and others, but he does not have enough for the people of Cuba? And is the food for the tourists, or is it for the people of Cuba? Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have to oppose the motion to recommit of the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and the reason I do so is I do not believe that this body should delegate to any entity its powers and its rights to have a bipartisan commission on any issue. We are the representatives elected by the people of the United States to make crucial policy decisions, including decisions in foreign policy; not some unelected group of individuals chosen maybe because of their economic interests in this issue. And the fact of the matter is I do not believe that we should abrogate our powers and our responsibilities as legislators to any unelected commission to determine foreign policy. Let us have a commission on the Middle East; let us have a commission on a whole host of other places in the world. The fact of the matter is that would not be the course of events that we should pursue, and I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee for yielding time, even though I find this one of those occasions where I have to disagree with him. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are people in the House who would want to paint this bill strictly about U.S.-Cuba relations. They believe it is a good time to do that. They believe it is propitious because of the set of circumstances that exists in the country and it would be easy to do so. But in my mind what this bill is about, it is about ending Cold War investments that Russia is still spending in Cuba. I know everybody talks about let us end our Cold War mentality. Let Russia end its Cold War mentality. If any people need peace dividends more than even our citizens do, it is the Russian citizens. And clearly, the expenditures of moneys that they expend at the Lourdes spy station is in fact not a peace dividend to the people of Russia but is in fact totally unnecessary for the purposes that they have. The Russian government's continued operation of its intelligence gathering facility at Lourdes, Cuba is used to spy not just against military and political targets but, many observers believe, against commercial and technological interests in America. Public reports reveal that Russia has, in fact, expanded and modernized the Lourdes facility in recent years. So it is not only just having something that it had, it is expanding it. And we continue to assist Russia. I have been one of those who have believed that in fact we have to assist Russia, and I have cast my votes on behalf of assisting Russia. But, my God, do we have to assist Russia to expand their spy facilities at Lourdes against the national interests of the United States, against the national security of the United States? I think not. Now, Russian government revenues are estimated to total about $20 billion annually. The $200 million or more in yearly rent paid to the Cuban regime for use of the Lourdes site, therefore, represents a significant amount of the Russian government's annual revenues. And it is an affront to be asked to support yet another rescheduling of Russia's government debt to the United States and other governments or outright forgiveness of all or part of that debt when Russia spends an estimated 1 percent of its budget to spy on American citizens from this facility alone in Cuba, just from this facility alone. Mr. Speaker, it is long past time that the Russian government close this spy facility which represents a clear threat to the country. I certainly urge support of the gentlewoman's legislation. I believe it is in the national interests of the United States to do so.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the sponsors of Project Children 2000, a program enabling children from Northern Ireland to temporarily escape the bitter conflict they have known all their lives, a conflict that has deprived them of their childhood, in a land where hatred and divisiveness have shaped the social climate. Project Children was established to provide a small window of simple childhood pleasures, a holiday of sorts dedicated to peaceful, happy pursuits--these children deserve nothing less, and so much more. The sponsors or host families of this outstanding program have opened their hearts and their homes to these often neglected victims of the conflict, and they have done so with a profound sense of duty and a rare display of generosity and compassion. I am extremely proud that so many families from my district have volunteered to participate in Project Children. I would like to thank the following sponsors: John and Diane Antonacci; Terrance and Linda Begley; Joseph and Nancy Caprio; Steven and Annette Carbone; John and Linda Carney; David and Patricia Cedrone; Saulle and Marge Critell; Daniel and Susan Davison; Phillip and Kathleen DeCicco; Mark and Lynn deRowen; Donald and Irene Diverio; Al and Ellen Dorso; Peter and Robin DuHaime; Thomas and Cynthia Evision; Rick and Arlene Faustini; Raymond and Donna Flannery; Thomas and Michele Flynn; Salvatore and Patricia Fontana; Jim and Ana Gilligan; Michael and Pat Goodwin; Michael and Stephanie Griffin; John and Veronika Hecker; George and Margaret Hughes; Nicholas and Patricia Kaminskyj; Andrew and Lynne Klosowski; Richard and Eileen Leahy; Brian and Elizabeth Lynch; David and Debra Stroehlein; Nicholad and Agnes Mangelli; Lorenzo and Debra Marchese; Harold and Janice Miller; Kevin and Lisa Miller; Bob and Dyan Moore; Craig and Sharon Parker; Alan and Jan Paul; Craig and Kerry Plokhoy; David and Cathleen Quinn; Timothy and Amy Quinzer; David and Sally Roche; William and MaryJo Sabbert; Jan and Karen Samowski; Scott and Maria Sim; Jeffrey and Eileen Simmers; Stephen and Catherine Simpson; Michael and Laura Sims; Hoby and Joyce Stager; Keith and Barbara Stiehler; Robert and Denise Thompson Jr.; Joyce Vargas, Joseph and Barbara Wewlls; Rodney and Linda Bialko. I also want to recognize the lovely children from Ireland who are gracing New Jersey with their presence this summer: Jeannette Bailey; Nicole Bennett; Nichola Boyd; Emma Campbell; John Clift; Marie-Theresa Collins; Stephen Coyle; Jason Curran; Wlliam Curran; Stephen Devine; Gemma Devlin; Anthony DiLucia; James Donnelly; Joseph Donnelly; Michelle Donnelly; Michael Duffy; Marie Sinead Flanagan; Caoimbe Marie Fox; Nathan Friel; Oria Gargan; Sean Paul Gorman; Kathleen Hall; Sinead Handley; Tomas Hull; Daniel Hutchings; Sinead Jackson; Jade Laird; David Lewsley; Gary Logan; Daniel Lynch; Laura Lyons; Martin Magennis; Jemina Maguire; Ursula McAteer; Nicola McCabe; Louise McConville; Samantha McConville; Jason McKernan; Claire McKinley; Luke McKibben; Sinead LcLarnon; Sonia McManus; Padraig McPartland; Elaine Murray; Caoimhin McVeigh; Louise Kayleigh McVeigh; Charlene McWilliams; Grainne Pelan; John Robinson; Adele Ross; Una Simpson; Clare Tallon; Lorraine Villa; and Gemma Weir. In addition, Project Children would not be successful without the hard work of dedicated committee members and other staff. I thank them as well. I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring Project Children and everyone who has contributed to making it a great success.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal, New Jersey's highest military commendation. Through extraordinary courage and patriotism, each of these recipients went beyond the call of duty during their military service. Because of their dedication and sacrifice, America succeeded in its fight against naked aggression, defeating the dark forces of tyranny, so that the world could continue its pursuit of democratic ideals. It is not difficult to comprehend the gratitude America feels for the sacrifices and contributions these veterans made to ensure our freedom; and the Distinguished Service Award is a wonderful way to show our appreciation. I personally want to recognize and thank the following individuals from my district for their distinguished military service: Salvatore F. Acerra; Thomas J. Beeh; Anthony J. Brescia; Joseph E. Callandrillo; Walter F. Camporeale; Harold E. Cerbie; Richard B. Clark; John P. Conlon; Anthony R. Costantino; John O. Coughi; John F. Dellaluna; Maximilian Desonne; Peter J. Di Stefano; George H. Edler; Max J. Elsasser; Craig J. Fallon; Sol C. Feith; Joseph T. Fitzgerald; Edwin H. Gaffney; John M. Habermann; Richard Hamilton; Sean Healy; John T. Hoey; Norman Holtzberg; Albert J. James; Edward K. Janiga; Robert J. Jones; John Keselica; George F. Kimball; Chester Latko; Harry Lazarov; John G. Le Pore; Patrick T. Lioi; Angelo Mack; Nelson Martinez, Emil A. Masciandaro; Anthony M. Melone; Robert Menzel; Conrad J. Minutillo; Augustine A. Monahan; Alphonso J. Mosca; Michael J. Napolitano; Donald T. Nevins; Vincent L. Ortizio; Robert V. Palmeri; Ralph C. Pasqua; John H. Phillips; Howard J. Plunkett Jr., Joseph A. Pona; Antonio Raffaele Jr.; James A. Robinson; Ivan Romero; Joseph E. Rooth; Richard F. Rush; William A. Sears; Granger W. Searvance Sr.; Francis H. Seidal; Anthony Sikora; Albert F. Skirpstunas; Joseph H. Skrocki; James W. Smith; Edward J. Stacy; Walter Suty; Francis P. Trench; Francis H. Vannucchi; Miguel Vazquez; Dominick J. Vitone; Frank B. Wasniewski; Sanford L. Weiss; Eugene J. Wickeresty; Joseph Wigodner; L. Harry Wolpert; Francis Woods; and Anthony F. Zucaro. Today, it is my honor to recognize there exceptional individuals. With courage, honor, and integrity they have each made invaluable and enduring contributions to America. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing them as well.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am glad to be on the floor to strongly support her amendment. This is a question not only of moral imperative but of national importance. The question is not a question of charity towards other countries. The question is what is in the national interest of the United States in the context of debt relief. This bill contains only $69 million of the $472 million of the administration's request for debt relief, and that amount of aid will not even provide enough resources to enable two countries, Bolivia and Mozambique, for example, who have met all the necessary conditions to obtain debt relief, to actually get it. The bill already shortchanges our friends and neighbors in Africa and Latin America and elsewhere and most significantly in that part which is the most significant program that offers highly indebted peoples the greatest hope for digging themselves out of the pits of poverty. Mr. Chairman, I have heard many of my colleagues here speak over the course of the last several years about illegal immigration. When people flee their countries, they flee because of civil wars or they flee because of poverty. We spent in Latin America, for example, in the decade of the 1980s well over a billion dollars to promote democracy. And once we believed that we achieved that, we abandoned those countries, and overwhelmingly in the hemisphere where 40 percent of the people live below the poverty level, what do we do? We have basically said that we no longer have a commitment to you. Yet when people cross that border, they are crossing because they are fleeing poverty or because they are fleeing oppression in their own countries. When people, in fact, are ill, that knows no borders. The diseases that have now begun to spring up here within the hemisphere know no borders. We are not immune as a country in that regard. When we talk about biodiversity issues and we are concerned about the quality of air here and we are concerned about the diminution of the rain forests throughout Central America, the Caribbean and into the rest of Latin America and we say, ``Don't cut down your rain forests,'' but by the same token we give them no relief so that in fact they will not face a mountain of debt in which they will seek to do whatever they need to do in order to meet their national needs. So this is not about them. This is about us. The gentlewoman's amendment is not a question of charity. It is not even in the context of the spirit of the religious orders of this country about the golden jubilee. It is about the national interest of the United States, whether you talk about in the context of immigration, whether you talk about in the context of disease, whether you talk about in the context of the environment, and how much more are we willing to spend for the meager amount that the debt relief would provide in terms of a beneficial consequence to those countries, how much more are we willing to spend when those countries turn, as we are seeing serious questions within the hemisphere, turn away from democracy and open markets and turn into a renewal of totalitarian governments? Then we will spend billions of dollars to defend democracy. But when we could spend just millions to preserve and promote democracy, we will not. It is not only shortsighted, it does not meet the moral imperative that we clearly have, it does not meet the national interest that we have. I urge my colleagues to join in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. It is an amendment that pursues the national interest of the United States, and I would venture to say within this hemisphere even the national security of the United States. And, lastly, our friends have spoken eloquently here about the pandemic that we see in the question of AIDS. That also knows no borders. It knows no color. It knows no gender. And in fact we have a serious consequence if we do not respond. We cannot silently sit by with our eyes closed believing that this major international health consequence will not ultimately come upon the shores of the United States and that there will be no consequence to us. Those who believe that despite all of their claims of internationalism in terms of trade are myopic when they are unwilling to give the type of debt relief as simple and as meager as it might be here but which is significant to these countries. I urge the support of the gentlewoman's amendment, in our interest, in average Americans' interest, in the national interest of the United States and ultimately so that we can meet the moral imperative and be the beacon of light to the rest of the world that we should be.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I believe his venue here is inappropriate. For those of us who are not privileged to sit on the Committee on Appropriations but who have ranking positions, as I do, on the Committee on International Economic Policy and Trade for which sanctions issue fall within the jurisdiction of our committee. We do not believe that the appropriations bill is the appropriate venue for the pursuit. I did not believe that the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) in the committee, which was legislating an appropriations bill, was appropriate. It deprives those of us who have jurisdiction over certain items, if that is allowed to move forward, to, therefore, nullify the value of our positions; therefore, I think that the amendment is not germane. I further think it is an attempt to legislate in an appropriations bill, because it talks about travel as well which has nothing to do within the appropriations part of this agriculture bill. On the merits, of course, I have a strong disagreement with the gentleman, but I believe his venue is wrong and I would urge that the Chair rule the amendment out of order.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order if I may.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan is a cruel hoax that fails my mother and seniors across the country. We have one of the largest budget surpluses in our Nation's history, and Republicans would prefer to give it away in tax cuts to the wealthy. But that is not going to help my mother, and it is not going to help the millions of other seniors struggling to buy medications with only their Social Security check for income. Vote against this unwise, unnecessary, and deceptive plan.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, as Republicans deny us a chance to offer real prescription benefit under Medicare, I think of my mother and the millions of seniors like her across this country who may not understand Washington politics, but know all too well the every day struggle to buy their medications. Like so many seniors, my mother relies solely on her Social Security benefit, and yet her drug costs totals more than half of her monthly income. Mr. Speaker, very simply stated, the Republican plan is the first step towards privatizing Medicare and denying Democrats the opportunity to provide the only real Medicare benefit.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Markey amendment, and I certainly believe that this is a step in the right direction. Exorbitant gasoline prices are clearly a problem as we begin the summer season. I am even more concerned about home heating oil costs for next winter. In fact, the current inventory for home heating oil on the East Coast is 40 percent lower than at this time last year. We Democrats have called for urgent action on several fronts. We have asked the Federal Trade Commission to expedite its investigation into price gouging on the part of oil companies. Major oil companies have nearly tripled their profits as a result of these price increases, from $4.5 billion in profits in the first 3 months of 1999 to more than $12 billion in the same period this year. Democrats have also urged the Republican leadership and Congress to show some leadership and renew the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is a key tool in our Nation's energy security, and the President must have the authority to release or exchange oil reserves from the SPR. Finally, we have called on the Congress to authorize the Northeast Oil Reserve. I am glad that we have finally gotten our colleagues in the majority to move in this direction, despite all of our previous efforts to get them to move in that direction. But we must also understand that the Republican leadership is also responsible and has failed to provide Americans with energy security. It has failed to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to date. It has failed to fund research and development into alternative fuels and energy efficiency. In fact, in the past 5 years, Republicans in Congress have funded only 12 percent of the administration's request for new investments in renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency initiatives. This measly and irresponsible level of funding has been nearly $2 billion short of the administration's request. When they were not funding the requests, they were out trying to get rid of the Department of Energy and selling off the reserve policy itself. That would have been extremely detrimental if carried out as proposed. So I am glad that we begin on a course tonight that works with the Democratic proposals that we have talked about and that clearly have been copied here in the context of the work of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and to begin to work on energy security for American families before we enter into a winter of discontent.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Patent and Trademark Office is important and worthy of support, but not by cutting the Census. The goal is worthy, but the method is not. Now, there is no question that Democrats and Republicans have had some very fundamental differences over the decennial census; but today many of us, on both sides of the aisle, are joining together saying that there can be no further cuts to the Census. I believe we must ensure the most accurate census possible, and I have fought very hard to make that a reality in the 2000 census. Others, on the other hand, have fought an accurate census every step of the way. Minorities, particularly Hispanics, have been disproportionately undercounted in the past, and I do not think this government should allow that to continue. Everyone deserves to be counted, every community deserves adequate and fair resources for its residents, and every American resident deserves full and fair representation. We have come a long way toward meeting these goals, and we are working hard to achieve the most accurate decennial census in recent history, despite strong opposition from various quarters at every step in the process. Today is apparently no different. We again face an unreasonable assault on the Census Bureau, which is the source of more, much more than just the decennial census figures. After all, the money we have invested in trying to reach one of the most accurate censuses ever, this amendment would completely undermine the ability of the Census Bureau to translate that data into statistics that all segments of this country, including America's major corporations, count on for planning and decision-making. The Census Bureau provides invaluable economic and demographic data covering employment, health insurance, and business activity. These figures have a broad range of users, in both the public and private sectors, and help decision-makers to most effectively and efficiently target our limited resources. Let us be clear about what is at stake here: despite the worthiness of the goal, voting for this amendment would jeopardize funding for health coverage data and employment data, both, for example, which disproportionately impact Hispanics and other minorities. Likewise, this amendment would jeopardize funding for the survey of minority-owned and women-owned businesses. This amendment ignores the needs of women, Hispanic and other minorities, and a vote against the amendment continues our fight for equal opportunity for all, whether it is fighting for health coverage for the working poor, creating new jobs for those who have been left behind in today's economic boom, or assisting those business owners who are struggling to compete in this high-tech economy. We cannot do that without the census data that is extrapolated by the experts; and having spent all of these resources to accomplish that information, it would be amazing not to give them the resources to be able to do the extrapolation, the statistical analysis that are incredibly important to billions of dollars of investment by the private sector, as well as by the public sector. This amendment would have a chilling effect on the Bureau's ability to continue to provide these invaluable resources to government agencies, to business analysts, to researchers and associations that promote trade and State and local growth. So it is much bigger than the 2000 decennial census; it is much bigger than the Census Bureau itself. This amendment takes away tools from the businesses, the very businesses that in one respect it is trying to help. This amendment takes away tools from businesses, businesses owned by all stripes of Americans, businesses owned by women, businesses owned by minorities who may be struggling to compete with domestic and foreign companies. It takes away tools from the trade associations who are trying to promote trade and improve our Nation's trade deficit. Finally, it takes away tools from the policymakers who are trying to address the present needs in our communities, needs that too many in this House are willing to ignore. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment, despite the worthiness of its goal, that we cannot afford, and I urge Members to oppose the Coble amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 60th Annual American Legion Flag Raising Day Parade cosponsored by the American Legion and the Joint Veteran's Affairs Committee of West New York, NJ, in cooperation with the townships of North Bergen, West New York, and Guttenberg. By honoring our veterans and our flag, the American Legion Flag Raising Day Parade expresses the enduring pride that we Americans feel in our country and our way of life; we can thank our veterans for both. The two veterans organizations sponsoring this patriotic parade are vital to the preservation and celebration of American heritage. They understand the power and value of our history: Yesterday, they served in the armed services to preserve America; today, they serve in our communities to preserve our heritage. It is important that we never forget our past and those who fought for our freedom and our future. That is why we remember and honor those who fought and died for our country--it is the least we can do for their sacrifice. Today, I extend my gratitude to those who have come together to honor America's veterans, and I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the 60th Annual American Legion Flag Day Parade.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard Di Bari on his retirement from the Jersey City Policy Department after 29 years of serving and protecting the public. Officer Di Bari began his career in 1971 as a foot patrolman. Since then, he has served with distinction and honor in a variety of positions, including scooter patrol, motorcycle radar instruction and enforcement, breathalyzer operator, grant writer, patrol officer, staff member of Support Services, Chief's office staff, and day tour desk assistant. For three decades, Officer Di Bari has worked tirelessly to serve his community. His career reflects the character and dedication police officers require to succeed at meeting the considerable challenges of police work. This degree of dedication is based on a simple truth: the police have an obligation to serve and protect; and a community only prospers when its citizens are enabled to work and live in safety. Officer Di Bari understands this truth, and he lives by it. He has received a commendation, a valor award FOP, a Motorcycle Unit Citation, and has been awarded four times for excellent police service. I ask my colleagues to join me as I honor Richard Di Bari for his distinguished 29-year career as a police officer.