Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I understand the nature of the gentleman's concern and effort, but I am concerned about the potential consequences that he may unintentionally have by virtue of the amendment. In essence, the crux of the amendment is to make it very clear that the Department of Defense should change its priorities to raise the priority of, and therefore, the resource allocation to, counterdrug activities, and that is an admirable goal. However, it seems to me that when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who I think are eminently better positioned to determine what in essence are the needs of the Nation's defense, they need to analyze risks to the national security of the United States, and it seems to me that they, not the Congress, are the individuals who ought to make this decision. In that respect, I am concerned. I look at the nature of the amendment, and the amendment talks about placing this as a priority above that established under the provisions of the global military force policy, which talks about missions of military operations other than war that might involve contact with hostile forces. Now, my understanding is that includes, for example, the efforts of the military under counterterrorism. We equally believe, obviously, that counterterrorism is an incredibly important function. Are we to say that using the military second only after war for drug intervention is more important than counterterrorism? I do not know. I do not think that we should be in that position. So I think the amendment is somewhat arbitrary. It is not based on any factual assessment of the Department of Defense's needs, nor does it take into consideration the Department of Defense's priorities that this policy would have. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we give flexibility, particularly in dealing with this grave threat, but I am not sure that we are in a position to analyze the threat to the national security at any given point in time better than those who have all of the intelligence resources and who have all of the readiness and understanding of what our military forces are capable of at any given moment. Our military confronts threats around the world, doing more with less as they confront increasingly sophisticated and complex enemies. It seems to me that the experts and the proven military leaders who we put our faith and trust in in terms of the Nation's defense need to make these assessments. I do not know that we can make those decisions from this chamber on where our troops are needed in terms of equipment and resources. It appears to me that our military leaders ought to do that. Now, certainly we want to be able to have the armed forces of the United States play a greater role in interdiction, but the amendment in essence says that it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should revise the priorities for the Department of Defense, and that this would be equal to or higher than the priority for the mission of military operations, other than war, that might involve contact with hostile forces. Well, if that includes counterterrorism, as I understand that it does, I am not sure that we can make those statements. We have seen the vulnerability that the United States has, or for that matter any country in the world: recently the bombings in Africa. I am not quite sure, while we want to make an important statement, that the goal of the gentleman is best achieved in the manner in which he has offered it, and I think that there are some serious concerns in that regard.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4300, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. However, I want to caveat my support by noting my deep regret and the frustration with this measure in that it circumvented the committee process, including the Committee on International Relations on which I sit, and the four other committees to which it was referred. All five ranking Democrats requested consideration and made clear that they were willing to work expeditiously in order to see H.R. 4300 reach the floor. These requests were ignored. We have reached out to the majority over the last 2 years to work out a bipartisan policy that has received meaningful input from General McCaffrey. I do not understand why the majority did not work with us over the last 2 years to pass a bill and why it has sprung it on us in the last minute. By using this approach, our ability to get the funding to fulfill the promises in this bill is seriously diminished. So, what we have before us is a rushed measure that makes many important policy changes and funding allocations with regard to a key U.S. national interest, sending it to the House Floor without consideration by the committees of jurisdiction. We have a bill that provides a highly detailed blueprint for equipping and training a number of countries, for establishing counterdrug centers and significantly revamping the process for making policy and assistance decisions in the counternarcotics area, but the legislative committees have been entirely bypassed in making these important decisions. Second, the open attacks on the administration in the findings section are, I believe, intentionally incendiary and unhelpful. Our counternarcotics policy is something to be taken seriously. It is irresponsible to play partisan politics with such an important issue. All Members of Congress, Republican and Democratic alike, share the desire to rid the plague of narcotics from our schools and streets. This is not a way to conduct U.S. foreign policy or U.S. drug policy. Some may believe it is good politics, but it does not serve the American people well. Mr. Chairman, on the substance of the bill, having spoken about process, I want to say that I have long said that we needed to get serious about what we continuously call a war on drugs. In essence, to put our money where our mouth is. This bill does make an important step in that direction. The bill authorizes extraordinary amounts for counternarcotics programs. The bill provides unprecedented funds for drug interdiction and eradication, including enhanced air and seacraft coverage to combat drug transiting, crop substitution, which is crucial to the long term success of any policy, and enhanced international law and drug enforcement training. I would like to note that I find it unfortunate that we have to spend $10 million for research into mycoherbicides when a potent and reliable source exists, Tebuthiuron, better known in the United States as RoundUp. I learned of this product and its effectiveness on coca crops in Colombia last year touring those areas of crop elimination and saw the success of. Yet it turns out that Tebuthiuron's producer, DowElanco, has refused to sell it to Colombia or make it available to the State Department for drug eradication for reasons I do not believe are particularly valid. My sole reservations about this bill, other than process, are whether it is implementable and where we will be taking the funds from to fund this $2.3 billion measure. I certainly hope that in the process of doing so, that remind ourselves that we cannot bankrupt those domestic programs geared to reducing drug demand at the same time that we seek to do interdiction. This is clearly an effort that needs to have various aspects to it to be successful: Interdiction, reducing demand, and dealing with education and drug treatment. Mr. Chairman, while I have some concerns with the bill, I fully agree with the sentiments and with the goals behind it. We must be aggressive in working to shut off the supply of illegal drugs. Supply reduction is an important component of a comprehensive drug policy and demand reduction. In addition to the measures taken in this bill, we need to enhance our domestic efforts on reducing drug addiction and fund programs to provide children with alternatives to a potential life of crime, such as some of our afterschool programs, and we need our partners in the Western Hemisphere to join with us in a meaningful assistance. I am a strong supporter of working with and supporting professional, honest, and effective law enforcement forces throughout the hemisphere. We must give the President the tools that he needs to effectively and comprehensively address illegal drugs and the havoc drugs wreak in the community, in the United States, and throughout this hemisphere. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I intend to vote for the bill. I hope to work to improve it as it moves through the legislative process so that this bill will serve as a realistic, effective, and comprehensive blueprint for U.S. supply reduction efforts. Mr. Chairman, I submit for inclusion into the Record the statement of the administration's position which we received only moments ago, which basically says it supports the objective of the bill but has a series of concerns with reference to the bill and unless those concerns are addressed, opposes the bill as currently drafted. Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC, September 16, 1998. Statement of Administration Policy (this statement has been coordinated by omb with the concerned agencies.) H.R. 4300--Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. The Administration supports the objectives of H.R. 4300 and shares the Congress' commitment to reducing the supply of drugs coming into the United States from other countries in the Western Hemisphere. However, the Administration opposes H.R. 4300 as currently drafted. Some of the Administration's concerns include: Funding enhancements that are not tied to a coherent strategy. The bill simply enumerates a series of specific procurement and funding actions without indicating how they relate to one another or to existing drug interdiction activities. The Administration has proposed a comprehensive and integrated approach to reducing the flow of drugs into the Untied States in its National Drug Control Strategy. Proposing authorizations that are far in excess of expected appropriations and the President's Budget without specifying where these funds will come from. H.R. 4300 would authorize $2.6 billion to appropriations in addition to those already authorized for FYs 1999-2001. To date, Congress has not appropriated funds for many of the Administration's anti-drug abuse requests. As one example, the House has provided the Coast Guard with approximately $82 million less than requested for FY 1999 to maintain current operating levels. Infringing on the authority of the President and the Secretary of State. H.R. 4300 would infringe on the President's appointment powers and the Secretary of State's flexibility in personnel matters and intrude upon well established procedures for providing foreign military assistance. Suggesting the transfer of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) from the State Department to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The clear assumption of Section 207 is that certain foreign assistance activities of the State Department could be better carried out by a law enforcement agency. This assumption is neither substantiated nor soundly based. INL is a central and highly- regarded component of the interagency counter-narcotics effort. Imposing inflexible requirements that could quickly become useless. The bill would authorize funds for two mobile x-ray machines to be placed along a specific highway in Bolivia. The locations of such machines should not be specified by statute but left to the discretion of the commanders on the ground. Reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies by consolidating joint interagency task forces (JIATF). Consolidating all JIATFs would reduce Defense Department support to law enforcement agencies attempting to disrupt the flow of drugs from Asia and the Southwest Border. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to implement a drug control strategy that is realistic, comprehensive, coherent, and flexible. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor the memory of two brave police officers, Casper J. Buonocore, Jr., and John J. Bracken, who were killed in the line of duty twenty-five years ago. They are being honored today at the New Jersey Central Railroad Terminal at Liberty State Park. The City of Jersey City is celebrating the dedication of the Buonocore-Bracken Memorial Building at 60 Collard Street. P.O. Buonocore, an NTF officer assigned to the West District Scooter Unit, was leaving the scene of a routine arrest on Armstrong and Ocean Avenues on September 12, 1973, when he was shot by a man on a roof and died at the Jersey City Medical Center the same day. The incident was triggered when another man refused to move a car that was double parked. During his tenure of almost three years, Buonocore was the recipient of a Commendation for Armed Robbery award and a Special Letter Class C Award. P.O. Bracken, an NTF officer assigned to the East District Motorcycle Unit, was struck by a drunk driver who had run a stop sign on September 1, 1973. He died at the Jersey City Medical Center on September 12 of that year. Bracken was responding to a priority call on his motorcycle with lights and siren on when the accident occurred. Also a veteran of almost three years on the force, Bracken won two Commendation Awards. I know my colleagues will join me in saluting the memory of these two brave officers, Casper J. Buonocore, Jr. and John J. Bracken.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sister Alice McCoy, Margaret Murtha and Maria Nolan for winning the United Way's Congresswoman Mary T. Norton Memorial Award. The award, which was initiated by the United Way of Hudson County in 1990, recognizes those who exhibit a deep commitment to human service as exemplified by Congresswoman Norton in her 13 terms in the House of Representatives (1925-1950). The Congresswoman was a forward-thinker who advocated for government action to help address issues we are still grappling with today, such as day care, fair employment practices, health care for veterans and the inclusion of women in high levels of government service. Sister Alice McCoy, a member of the Sisters of St. Dominic, has served Hudson County as an educator, counselor and advocate for the needy for twenty-five years. She has been a teacher at the primary, secondary and collegiate levels. In 1980, as a Pastoral Associate at Our Lady of Sorrows Parish in Jersey City, she helped establish an emergency food and clothing program to aid needy families. Sister McCoy helped found Hudson Hospice, a program which helps the terminally ill and their families by providing emotional support, financial aid, bereavement support, information and referral assistance. In 1994, she became co-producer and host of a cable television program called ``Oasis.'' The program features people from all walks of life and is designed to help inspire others to serve the community. Margaret Murtha has spent her life advocating for a better quality of life for the mentally ill, HIV/AIDS patients and needy children. Currently, she is the Director of the Hudson County Division of Catholic Community Services (CCS), the social services agency of the Archdiocese of Newark. In this capacity she administers the CCS's homeless shelter system, juvenile crisis intervention, and the Mentally III Chemical Abuser (MICA) and HIV Outreach programs. Margaret graduated from Caldwell College and received her masters degree in social work from Fordham University. She holds many certifications and professional memberships in the areas of marriage and family therapy, alcoholism counseling, social work and elementary education. For the past 23 years, Maria Nolan has been one of the nation's best high school volleyball coaches for Secaucus High School, compiling an outstanding record of 420-68 and capturing 12 state championships. In fact, she was recently chosen as Disney's National Coach of the Year. She was chosen out of a field of 15,000 coaches in all sports. Maria has developed successful teams by helping her players build their self- confidence, work as a team and develop strong character. In 1983, Maria founded and became President of the Hudson County Volleyball Coaches Association. She is married to Tom Nolan and is the mother of two children, Joe and Andrea. These three deserving recipients embody the life work of Congresswoman Mary T. Norton. They have dedicated their lives to the needy, the mentally ill, the terminally ill and to the education of children. On behalf of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I congratulate Sister Alice McCoy, Margaret Murtha and Maria Nolan for their outstanding service to the community and for carrying on the work of Congresswoman Mary T. Norton.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in temperate support of H. Resolution 392, and I am happy that we were able to come to agreement with the distinguished ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) on the language. However, I think that the events of the past week are evidence of how very little has changed in Cuba since the Pope's January visit. Following a religious procession through Havana, the government launched its most repressive crackdown on political dissidents this year. Thirteen individuals were detained and held by the regime for political activities related to the religious procession and the sentencing by the regime of political prisoner Reynaldo Alfaro. The resolution accurately reflects the sentiments of Pope John Paul II's visit to Cuba and commends him for a visit that took far too many years to come to fruition. But most importantly, the resolution recognizes the historic significance of the Pope's visit, something each of us can agree with. Now, while his visit was successful in opening a window of opportunity for the Catholic Church, as we stand here today that window is slowly closing. The absence of world attention on Cuba since his visit is largely responsible for allowing the window to close. Even the Pope has expressed concern and frustration that the initial opening for the Church provided by his visit is quickly receding. Since January, the Cuban Government has continued to block Church access to mass media, limited public Masses and denied permits for Masses, expelled American priest, Reverend Patrick Sullivan, and forced others to flee under harassment, continued to deny autonomy to Caritas, the Church's humanitarian relief agency, restricted visas for clergy to enter and preach in Cuba, and has severely limited the ability of Cuban Protestants to worship in Cuba. On January 31 of this year, Ricardo Alarcon, President of Cuba's National Assembly, announced that the regime will, quote, not permit the reopening of Catholic and parochial schools. It is evident to me that Castro is seeking to undo the progress made by the Pope during his visit and return Cuba to the status quo it has lived under for almost 4 decades. As a recent article in the New York Times pointed out: Efforts to ease the admittance of foreign priests and nuns have made no apparent progress, nor have pleas that the government scale back controls on Catholic social service agencies that could deliver badly needed food and medical aid from abroad. Permits for religious processions have been denied as often as they have been granted, church officials said, and hopes that the Pope's visit might open up space for religious groups and the State-controlled news media have been mostly dashed. Without continued calls for democratic change by the international community and the media spotlight on these issues, the opportunity for further change will be lost. I think it is appropriate that we commemorate Pope John Paul's visit to Cuba and celebrate the religious opening in Cuba created as a result of his visit. But, most importantly, it is essential that the church and the international community build on his visit by refusing to allow the Cuban regime the opportunity to close that window that was open. I hope that we will not let this historic opportunity, the visit of Pope John Paul II, disappear for lack of attention. The people of Cuba deserve this long-awaited opportunity, and we can take advantage of that opportunity. But right now, people in Cuba are still suffering the very realities they were suffering before the papal visit, and while he inspired hope and opportunity, Fidel Castro is quickly closing and snuffing out that hope.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we want our children to learn English. Immigrant communities know that without English proficiency, there is no upward mobility, no chance to succeed in our society. We want our students to be able to comprehend and learn the language thoroughly so they will not be left behind academically. But, at the same time, with increased international commerce and global competition, we need our students to master multiple languages so they can provide a cutting edge advantage for America in Asia, in Europe, in Latin America. Those who have advocated for greater trade on this floor will agree with me that we not only need to be ahead in product and technology development, but also in our capacity to have a work force that has the ability to effectively communicate worldwide. Ask Chevrolet, when they tried to sell the Chevy Nova in Latin America. ``Nova'' means ``does not move, won't go.'' I do not care what type of marketing program you have, language in that context made a big dent in Chevrolet's success. This bill is not designed to empower or limit English proficient students to succeed. It does not provide more resources or more language teachers to deal with the growing number of today's students who require extra help to learn English. Rather, it in effect stunts our students' growth academically while they learn English as quickly as possible. In today's global economy, the ability to be bilingual or multilingual is a precious commodity. Let us not destroy our country's bilingual education policy, one that is locally controlled and federally enforced, a policy that promotes civil rights and fights discrimination. Let us not undermine what is in our Nation's academic and economic interests. We should be voting against H.R. 3892.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor BAISAKHI-1999, which is the Tercentenary Celebration of the birth of Khalsa. BAISAKHI-1999 is where Indian-Americans, the government of Punjab, and the people of India will celebrate the rich Khalsa heritage of the last three hundred years. It will offer everyone an opportunity to reflect on Sikh values and traditions. Punjab, India, is the land where the soul of Kabir found its resonance in the inspirational hymns of Guru Nanak, and the grandeur of Guru Gobind Singh's spirit inspired countless people. Punjab has always been known for the rich heritage of Sikh culture. BAISAKHI-1999 represents the culmination of extensive planning, and has come about only through the remarkable efforts of devoted people whose commitment to the project should be commended. I would like to personally recognize the Chief Minister of Punjab Prakash Singh Badal and his council of ministers; members of the Legislative Assembly; Members of the Parliament; Serv Shri Surjeet Singh Barnala, Union Minister of India; Sukhbir Singh Badal; Jathedar Bhai Ranjit Singh; Jathedar Bhai Gurucharan Singh Tohra, M.P.; Bhajedra Singh Haumdard, M.P.; Didar Singh Bhens; and the founder president of the Ambedkar International Mission U.S.A., Hardyal Singh. To further mark this auspicious occasion, the Honorable Chief Minister of the State of Punjab, Mr. Prakash Singh Badal, has proposed the development of Anandpar Sahib, a city in Punjab to reflect the rich heritage of Sikh culture. Included in the proposal is the Khalsa Heritage Memorial Complex, the Khalsa Memorial Academic Institute, a gallery of paintings, and a Sikh military museum among other things. Also planned is a Khalsa heritage memorial which will be three hundred feet high to mark this Tercentenary Celebration. Once again, I would like to send my best wishes for this event, and my personal congratulations on this joyous occasion.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the Saxton amendment. We clearly gave the right to victims of terrorists to sue foreign entities for compensation as a Congress. That is what the Congress passed in the law. And it is right for us to do so, to give a victim with a court-ordered judgment, to be allowed to enforce that judgment against any and all assets of a country in the United States. It is offensive, in my view, that any department or entity of the United States Government would actively seek to inhibit such a judgment. This amendment would allow the family of Alysa Flatow, who is someone who in fact died at the age of 20, a resident of the State of New Jersey, a young, vibrant woman who had a lifetime of opportunity ahead of her. Her life was cut short and her family devastated by a bomb which exploded on the bus she was traveling on in Gaza. She was absolutely innocent. They have a court-ordered judgment. The judge actually gave them a writ to go ahead against property. We should not be interfering. We should be standing up on behalf of the rights of United States citizens to be able to pursue such a judgment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me the time. As a representative of one of the Nation's largest ports in the Ports of Elizabeth and Newark within the context of the Port of New York, I had opposed ocean shipping before in the last Congress, but I rise in support of S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. I do want to express, however, some concerns. We clearly should not underestimate the importance of this topic. Ocean shipping is the very means that our Nation trades with the world. Ocean-going vessels move more than 95 percent of all the international trade, and small businesses account for the majority of all export and import trade. Unfortunately, small business did not end up being part of this compromise which produced the current version. In my district, small businesses have made it clear to me that S. 414 is not perfect. While S. 414 is an attempt to introduce more competition, and that is good, in the ocean-shipping industry, freight forwarders, nonvessel operating common carriers, shipper associations and independently owned businesses, all important and vital elements in the international ocean-borne commerce community, have reservations about the bill. I have sincere concerns for the many ocean freight forwarders and NVOCCs that are active in New Jersey. I want to reiterate the thoughts of my Democratic colleague, Senator Breaux, who called upon the Federal Maritime Commission to actively monitor how this legislation impacts small businesses and freight forwarders in the areas of ocean freight forwarder compensation and whether confidential contracts will undermine the forwarder's place as an integral service provider to smaller business active in the international trade community. I am glad to hear that the chairman of the subcommittee as well as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary are going to continue to pursue these concerns. Let me reiterate my support for the bill, which represents careful negotiation by labor groups and shippers. It was clearly no small task to reach the agreement that we will be voting on. However, I hope that we will continue to examine the effects of the bill to ensure that unintended consequences do not take place.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, I would venture to say that the gentleman, with all due respect, and I know this is a passionate issue for him and he has pursued it year after year, that what the gentleman comes to the floor and suggests is also not based on any scientific survey. I do believe that Mr. Duffey, who is a director of the United States Information Agency and oversees Voice of America, World Net TV, and others, has a greater ability than the gentleman or I, sir, to determine whether or not something is effective in the context of surrogate broadcasting from the United States throughout the world. In that context, I am willing to listen to the expert in that context. He clearly believes that this makes sense.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding from Mr. Duffey, who is the USIA director and who ultimately oversees all of Cuban broadcasting as part of the broadcasting that the United States Information Agency does in terms of surrogate broadcasting, that that 1.5 percent is a valid share of the audience.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Skaggs and Moran amendments. Year after year we have defeated the attempts to eliminate funding for TV Marti, and to deny over 40,000 Cubans viewership of this important independent news. Even those who disagree with our policy on Cuba, and that is not what is in debate here, must believe in the opportunity for an open window of information to the Cuban people. If they do not believe in that, then they must take the same position on a whole host of other TV broadcasting that we do to other parts of the world that cannot meet the audience share that TV Marti meets. Supporters of the amendment would have us believe that no one in Cuba is seeing TV Marti. Quite the contrary. The Broadcasting Board of Governors reports that Cuba has a 1.5 percent audience share in Cuba. That is greater than the audience share in 37 other countries where we have broadcast through VOATV and World Net TV. What are some of those countries? China, North Korea, Pakistan, Somalia, Indonesia, parts of Africa. If we accept this standard that a 1.5 share is not enough, then clearly, for all of those other countries for which we have an interest in sending a message from the United States about our intentions vis-a-vis those countries, about our position vis-a-vis those countries, about what we stand for in our foreign policy, then we must also seek to eliminate those, because if not, we have a double standard in the process. Mr. Chairman, that means that 1.5 percent more people in Cuba are watching TV Marti broadcasts than there are viewers in China, in North Korea, in Somalia, in Turkey, in Cameroon, and 30 other nations. In fact, audience share in North Korea is less than 1 percent, and the audience share for Cantonese broadcasts in China is a mere .1 percent. Why do we not see amendments eliminating funding for broadcasts to those? By this standard, these broadcasts should be eliminated forthwith. The question that I think some have failed to ask themselves is why does Castro seek to abolish TV Marti? Why does he care if TV Marti does not penetrate Cuba? Because it does. TV Marti does penetrate Cuba and it does reach some Cuban households. If we think about that, if we think about the messages that go to the Cuban government and the Cuban military who do have access to TV Marti and our ability to send messages at that level of the government, if we think about the ability to be ready in a time of transition when jamming may not done, when there is a movement internally in the country, our ability to talk to those people by the power of images, such as CNN, it will be important. We will not be able to do that transmission if we do not have TV Marti at that time. In our own interest section, TV Marti is played. Over 75,000 Cubans enter our interest section every year. What are they doing while they are waiting to see a counselor or officer? They are seeing TV Marti and the broadcasts that are recorded. Yes, Cuba does jam TV Marti some of the time, but America has never responded to a recipient country's jamming of programming by simply giving up. That is the standard the Members will set. If jamming is the reason why Members will not permit TV Marti to go forward, then understand that if any other countries are jammed, we do not have the audience share, and the same situation will be sought to apply for others. The Cuban people have not given up on their hope of democracy. I do not think we in America who are a fountain and beacon of light to people throughout the world in terms of information, that we should be giving up on them and creating a different standard. Even Joe Duffey of the United States Information Agency, the director, in letters to the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), and others have said that they in fact believe that TV Marti can be effective. We need to make sure that at this point in time we in fact stand with the free flow of information. Let me close on that. So many of my colleagues who have a disagreement about our policy talk about a free flow of information. We have heard in the past both Radio and TV Marti attacked on this floor. Now it is limited to TV Marti. Forty thousand Cubans; the ripple effect: 75,000 who see it at the U.S. intersection, the government officials, the military officials who have satellites. All of them make a dramatic impact, and the ripple effect of that can flow into the mightiest walls of oppression.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Democrat on the Committee on International Relations for yielding me time, even though I know he does not support my bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for both calling the bill up for consideration as well as for his support here today. First let me say that as the sponsor of the bill, I recognize the importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency and its role in ensuring the safety of nuclear sites around the world. In recent months we have witnessed their struggle to carry out inspections in Iraq. This bill, however, will not affect the IAEA's safeguard program. The bill does not seek to withhold any funds to IAEA's safeguard programs in Iran or elsewhere. The only funds affected by this bill are voluntary, not assessed, contributions to the IAEA's Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund for Iran. Prior to 1994, U.S. law required the withholding of proportional IAEA voluntary funds to all countries on our list of terrorist states, and, despite the change in the law, the administration continued to withhold those funds for two more years, until 1996. What this bill does is require the administration to reinstate proportional withholding of IAEA's voluntary funds for Iran. It also requires our Secretary of State to undertake a comprehensive review of all IAEA programs and projects in other states which sponsor international terrorism to determine if the IAEA is sponsoring any other projects which conflict with U.S. nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals. As it is, since the IAEA's inception more than $52 million for the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund has gone to countries on the U.S. list of states which sponsor terrorism. The United States is the largest supporter of the IAEA. We provide them with more than 25 percent of their annual budget. In the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund we contribute in addition 32 percent, or $16 million annually, in voluntary funds, and it is from those funds that the IAEA intends to provide $1.5 million to assist in the development of the Bushehr power plant between 1997 and 1999. Now, the Clinton Administration has publicly stated its opposition to Iran's development of nuclear reactors and its concern about the development of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. In Senate testimony last year, Deputy Assistant Secretary Bob Einhorn explained, In our view, this is a large reactor project. It will involve hundreds of Russians being in Iran, hundreds of Iranians or more being in Moscow being trained, and this large scale kind of project can provide a kind of commercial cover for a number of activities that we would not like to see, perhaps much more sensitive activities than pursuing this power reactor project. It also will inevitably provide additional training and expertise in the nuclear field for Iranian technicians. In our view, given Iran's intention to acquire nuclear weapons, we do not want to see them move up the nuclear learning curve at all, and we believe this project would contribute to them moving up that curve. In essence, this technical cooperation assistance is in fact helping them move up that learning curve that the Assistant Secretary spoke about. Given Iran's historic support for terrorism, coupled with the fact that Iran boasts immense oil and natural gas reserves, and the seismic activity near Bushehr which just recently took place, we must question Tehran's motives for constructing expensive nuclear reactors. Moreover, the development of the nuclear reactors has been an economic nightmare for the Iranians. Clearly Iran does not need additional energy sources, nor is nuclear energy an economic choice for Iran. So we need to ask a few basic questions. Given Iran's test last week of a medium range ballistic missile and reports that Iran is seeking technology for a long range missile, is it responsible to take Iran's word that it is also not developing nuclear weapons? Despite the IAEA's presence in Iraq, we were surprised to learn of that country's extensive chemical and biological warfare programs. Why do we trust Iran? Given the recent trial and imprisonment of the Mayor of Tehran, a political ally of President Khatami, do we really think President Khatami can control extremist elements in Iran? And, lastly, does it make sense for the United States and U.S. taxpayers to provide any kind of support for the construction of a nuclear reactor which we clearly and justifiably oppose, or any type of technical assistance in the operation of such a plant that we do not want to see? The answer clearly must be no. This bill seeks to protect the U.S. taxpayers from assisting countries like Iran who sponsor international terrorism, denounce the United States, and seek to develop weapons of mass destruction which may be used against us or our allies. It is ludicrous for the United States to support in any way a plant, even indirectly, which could pose a threat to the United States and to stability in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. First of all, I respectfully clearly disagree with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), although I respect fully his thoughtful, as always, analysis of the issues from his perspective. I do want to not let a few things go unbalanced. Number one is it has been said that the safeguards are at risk here. Our contributions, our mandatory contributions to the IAEA is about safeguards, and those go untouched, untouched by this bill. So whatever we are providing by way of safeguards we will continue to provide. What we do not want to see, and I think even the administration would agree with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, in his analysis of maybe we should permit nuclear reactors for civilian use, we have the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mr. Einhorn, saying that this is not a project that we want to see built. This is not a project that we want to see built. He talks about the learning curve. In essence, this is more than about sending a message to Iran. This is about slowing down, in any possible way, that learning curve that gets them to the point to put this reactor project online. Also, we cannot believe that when the United States provides over 25 percent of the IAEA's budget, and 32 percent in addition, of its funds, that $1.5 million is going to make a dramatic difference to the IAEA, and that the IAEA is going to collapse, or that the U.S. role in the IAEA is going to be significantly diminished. I do not believe that that is possible. We cannot have it both ways. Either this assistance is of value to Iran, in which case we should be looking not to provide assistance that is of value, or it is of no value, in which case we should not be spending our money on it. The fact of the matter is that President Hatemi may be the hope we have for an Iran that is democratic in the future. He may be the hope that we have for a democratic Iran in the future, but he does not have the power. Recent analysis, statements by the administration, in fact say that whether or not he continues in power, that the missiles that we talked about today and that were recently tested in Iran will be in fact consummated. The question is, do we want those missiles, as dangerous as they already are, to carry a nuclear warhead, have the potential to carry a nuclear warhead? Do we in any way want to assist those countries that are on our list of terrorist states in helping them in that learning curve? I would suggest we clearly do not want to have U.S. taxpayer dollars for that purpose. This is not about safety. Safety is part of our regular program. We will continue to provide safety. This is still continuing to have a major U.S. role in the IAEA, but it is an attempt to slow down the learning curve, not have any U.S. assistance, involuntary assistance to what the administration witnesses before the committee, when I questioned them, said, yes, we are providing assistance that in fact helps in an operational nature. Why would we provide assistance in an operational nature to something that we do not want to see operate, to something that the administration has testified against? If this is unsafe, then why did the administration after 1994, when it was no longer the law, continue to withhold funds for 2 years? Clearly, during that period of time, if the argument is true, it could be said that it was unsafe to withhold funds. This is not about safety. It is about having the United States not participate with its taxpayer dollars to assist a terrorist state that we may have hopes for that will be democratic in the future but that is not now, and having a learning curve that permits a nuclear reactor to be developed.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a special group of people, the sponsors of Project Children '98 who have distinguished themselves with selfless dedication to the promotion and ultimate accomplishment of peace in Northern Ireland. Project Children is an organization that provides young people from the north of Ireland a respite from the violence which for too long has been a part of their lives. Through their generosity of spirit, the children's sponsors serve as a vivid illustration of the best we, as Americans, have to offer: respect for individual freedom. This year, the 52 families from my home state that have been kindhearted enough to open their lives to these young people include George and Victoria Amaratis, Rodney and Linda Bialko, Matthew and Mary Beth Bigley, Garry and Janet Baker, Gary and LInda Bardzell, Charles and June Bray, Edward and Carol Blakeslee, Kevin and Patricia Comer, Robert and Barbara Comito, James and Aljean Brennan, Philip and Kathleen DiCicco, Donald and Irene Diverio, Robert and Brianna Donohue, Al and Ellen Dorso, Peter and Robin DuHaine, Thomas and Cynthia Evison, Sr., Rick and Arlene Faustini, Ken and Arleen Ferguson, Robert and Elizabeth Gamble, Margaret Gilsenan, Michael and Pat Goodwin, Brian and Elizabeth Burdzy, Diane Capizzi, George and Margaret Hughes, Steven and Annette Carbone, Nicholas and Patricia Kaminskj, Keith and Karen Kirby, Jeffrey and Carol Carlisle, John and Linda Camey, John and Louise McGlinchey, Raymond and Donna Flannery, Robert and Dyan Moore, Thomas and Michele Flynn, Anson and Patricia Grover, David and Cathleen Quinn, Raymond and Isabell Kayal, Kevin and Linda Kearney, James and Mary Ellen Ruitenbeg, Andrew and Lynne Klosowki, Gilbert and Sharon Mai, Robert and Linda McGee, Stephen and Catherine Simpson, Michael and Laura Sims, Cheryl Stone, Douglas and Susanna Stroud, Dan and Debbie McGovern, Robert and Denise Thompson, Jr., Elliot and Jean Scheps, Hoby and Joyce Stager, Keith and Barbara Stiehler, Kenneth and Makala Zollo/ McQuiston, and Joseph and Barbara Wells. The 57 Children we are privileged to have visit New Jersey are Darren Stirling, Michelle Donnelly, James Scullion, Gerald O'Reilly, Lesley Black, Steven Orr, Oriaith McKenna, Ryan Corbett, Kevin Nellins, Michaela Doyle, Charlene McWilliams, Lindsey Todd, Louise McVeigh, Natalie Porter, Claire McKinley, Joseph Doak, Ryan Groves, Tanya Hughes, David Butler, Leonna O'Neill, Shauna O'Toole, James Addley, Seamus Nellins, Michael Duffy, Sean McKee, Karin Larkin, Daniel Lynch, Louise McConville, Leeanne Cahill, Hugh McKibbin, Robert Watson, Seamus McDermott Gemma Johnston, Jason Curran, Joanne Kerrigan, Emma Campbell, Mark Kennedy, Danielle Gorman, Richard Cunningham, Luke McKibben, Christopher McCrory, Gillian Millen, Lisa McCloskey, Michael Rankin Hannah Ganley, Jennifer Dixon, Nicola McCabe, and Kenneth Murphy. I would also like to pay special tribute to John and Joan Hughes, Area Coordinators, Liam Neeson of O'Donoghues on First for hosting our annual luncheon, and Committee Members Carolyn Malizia, Patti Morreale, Mary Ann McAdams, Joseph Masterson, Edward Phillips, and Dennis Collins. It is an honor to applaud the outstanding benevolence of the Project Children '98 sponsors. Their efforts to further the cause of peace have served as a beacon of hope for the countless others throughout Northern Ireland and the world. These compassionate individuals are truly local ambassadors of peace.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for bringing forth this amendment and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) for his work on the census and my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). The fact of the matter is that the Mollohan amendment made in order by the rule will affect the future of everyone living in this country. We can either choose to miss the 8.4 million people residing in the United States, as we did in 1990, or we can make the best effort possible to count them. That is the choice that will be presented to us after the rule. Five percent of Latinos, 4 percent of African Americans and 2.3 percent of Asian Americans were not counted in the last census, and that is simply not right. The Census Bureau wants to do the best it can to count every American, but this bill, as it exists, does not allow it. Instead, it ties the Census Bureau's hands and renders them ineffective. When some Americans are not counted, all Americans are diminished. Undercounts affect the decisionmaking of 100 Federal programs that dispense over $100 billion in funds to our communities. Undercounts negatively affect economic empowerment and the decisions that flow from that undercount. Undercounts negatively affect political enfranchisement and political empowerment. Undercounts negatively affect business decisions, where to invest, what markets to pursue. The lasting effects of undercounts to communities, to Hispanic Americans, to African Americans are devastating in the long run. So let us count every American in the new millennium. We do that by providing the appropriate resources to the census and by adopting the Mollohan amendment. That is why it is important to vote for the Mollohan amendment. We want to ensure that every American gets counted in this next census, the next census of the new century. It will be important to all of our communities.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Again, the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) has nothing to do with campaign finance reform. Mr. Chairman, Republicans have a great idea to improve democracy: let us hold an election, but make sure some specially singled out voters do not have the chance to read fully about what the issues are, or who they are voting for. Who do they seek to single out? True to form, they single out immigrants who fled political persecution or economic repression, who encourage their children to study hard, who attend weekend classes to improve their English skills, all the while holding down two jobs to support their families. These are people proud to be American citizens. Yes, there is an elementary language provision under the immigration law to become a United States citizen, but there are also exceptions for those seniors who are elderly and who are exempted. They would be not having the access to understand what they are voting for. Think about the ballot questions that come forth and the complexity of those ballot questions. These are people Republicans want to punish. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, people who use bilingual voting materials are people who want to participate in the process, who want to be informed about the issues, who want to know where the candidates stand. Otherwise, they would not be using these materials in the first place. Come November, I believe these hardworking Americans who pay their taxes, serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and are Americans in all other respects, will remember the contempt this amendment treats them with. We should vote down this amendment and at the same time keep Shays- Meehan free from anything that is not campaign finance reform.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank him for all of his hard work on this issue. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my friend, says that in America people govern, and that is true. All of the people govern, including those who have surnames such as mine, and who were born in this country. And they do not deserve the right to be discriminatorily applied against, which is in essence what this amendment does. I heard before the suggestion of the fact that what is wrong with the pilot program? Well, nothing is wrong with a pilot program, but even abridging rights in a pilot program does not make it constitutionally firm, it makes it constitutionally infirm. I also heard the discussion about cancelling out of a vote, but what happens to the American citizen who, through your process, is denied the ability to vote because of some problem with the INS, some problem with Social Security; is not their cancellation of their vote equal to the cancellation we are so worried about? For members of my family who live in Cuba and others throughout the world who do not have the right to vote for this, basic freedom is only a cherished dream. Well, what the author of this amendment, however, forgot about is that in America, voting is not a dream, it is not just another government benefit or program to be means tested, it is a constitutional guarantee, what all who came to this Chamber were sworn to uphold. Americans should not be subjected to a government background check when they register to vote. But that is just what this amendment does, it turns the ballot box into an interrogation zone, where Americans are guilty until they have proven themselves innocent. Imagine going to vote, myself going to vote, having been born in this country, a member of the United States Congress, and having to be interrogated at the ballot box to try to prove that I should be able to vote. Particularly, I would urge some of my colleagues to look at the history of what has happened in different States where ballot security squads were created to disenfranchise minority voters. The application at that table by those election judges will be discriminatorily applied, if they wish to do so. What will be the guarantee? How will Members ensure that my vote is not annulled, as the gentleman is concerned about his being annulled? And to show they are citizens, Republicans want the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to run background checks and share private information on American voters. If it is not to be discriminatorily applied, everyone who seeks to register would have all of their private information given to electoral officials. Is that what they want, Big Brother? I have heard so many of them rail against that. Now, where is this test going to take place? This test of this security checkout program will take place in California, Florida, Texas, New York, and Illinois, States with large minority populations, especially Americans with Hispanic descent. We already know the problems with identical names and dates of birth, especially among minority voters, that caused many legal voters to be targeted by what is now the discredited Dornan investigation. If this new program goes forward, many, many other innocent Americans may find government officials targeting them, too. Clearly, the right to vote in this Nation should not be subject to government intrusion, and I say specifically that Hispanic American voters will not forget Members' continuing persecution of their rights. Vote against the Peterson amendment and keep Shays-Meehan in order.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that, after midnight, we raise the question here that goes not to the heart of the transportation bill before us but to questions of the implementation of the immigration bill. I am very concerned when I hear some of my colleagues who I think very much would like to see a national ID card raise the specter that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking, which is pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, is in fact that they are concerned about that, when they are raising the rules based upon the mandate that the legislation had. Now, what does a mandate do? It says that a State-issued driver's license and comparable identification document provides that a Federal Agency may only accept as proof of identity a driver's license or identification document that conforms to specific requirements in accordance with regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Transportation. Now if the Department of Transportation, under the act that was passed and offered by the majority, can never issue the rulemaking to give the standard, then the person who is a permanent legal resident of the United States does not have a vehicle by which, in fact, to show identification and, therefore, be able to give themselves the opportunity to access whatever it is governmentally that they wish, whether it be a program or otherwise. So I would like to ask, if I may, the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), if he would be willing to respond to a question. My question is, is not the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration just doing the rulemaking that the legislation which I believe you and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) supported?

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