Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to be resolute, and for us to act. As the leader of the free world, the United States of America must no longer stand by idly as accomplices to a carefully planned and savagely executed genocide by Serbian war criminals. We must act now to allow the Bosnian people to assert their right to self-determination and their right to self-defense. The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a member of the United Nations. As a U.N. member Bosnia has an inherent and internationally recognized right to defend itself against armed aggression. Let us not deny the Bosnian people the right to fight their own fight. The United Nations Protection Force [UNPROFOR] no longer protects anyone. It is no longer a force for the protection of the innocent, but an object for our pity. The U.N. safe havens are no longer safe but sitting targets for more brutality. How much more blood will we allow to stain our hands? Let us not deny the Bosnian Government the right to protect their defenseless women and children. That is all that we propose here today--nothing more and nothing less. But this is not only about Bosnia's defense. This is about America's pursuit of her national interests. International peace and stability is most certainly in America's national interests. The Balkan crisis has threatened the viability and the stability of the international system. Who would have predicted that just a few years after its historic victory in the cold war, the credibility of NATO would be threatened as it is? Well, it need not be that way. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Adviser to President Carter, could not have put it better when he wrote recently: The character of the international order is also at stake. A world unable to make the distinction between victims and aggressors, and especially a world unwilling to act on that distinction, is a world in which the United Nations becomes an object of derision--on the part not only of the aggressors but of all free peoples. World peace will be the ultimate casualty in Bosnia. Let us enter the new millennium with the confidence of victory in the cold war and the Persian Gulf; with the moral authority that distinguishes between the victims and the aggressors--not with the insecurity of inaction in the Balkans. Let us enter a new millennium where world peace is the ultimate victor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will consider the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I think Americans need to be aware of provisions that were inserted into the bill that would severely curtail advocacy by organizations that receive Federal grants. The bill currently sharply limits the amount of private money a Federal grantee may use to lobby elected officials, the reason being, ostensibly, that money is fungible. In other words, the award of Federal dollars makes it possible for an organization which gets a grant to use more of its own money for advocacy, instead of having to use it to provide services. However, Mr. Speaker, that argument is not enough to warrant placing unprecedented restrictions on what Americans may do with their own money, and certainly not enough to warrant fiddling with first amendment rights. Who would be subject to these limitations? Church groups that receive Federal funds through their city to run a homeless shelter, small businesses that receive loans from the SBA, low-income nursing mothers and infant children who use the WIC Program to supplement their diets, farmers who utilize federally funded irrigation projects, children who receive subsidized school lunches, students who receive a college loan. The list is endless, and the answers to the questions are unclear, because the bill is so ambiguous as to what qualifies a grant. In fact, the bill says that the term ``grant'' includes the provision of any Federal funds or other thing of value, something of value. Are not WIC benefits or food stamps things of value? Is not an irrigation system a thing of value? Is not a school lunch a thing of value? The sponsors of this language believe they are not, but the bill makes absolutely no distinction. It would be up to the courts to decide whether a thing of value is a grant or not under this confusing and wide-open definition. A person may be getting a so-called grant and not even know it, and if so, he will soon have to file reports to the IRS telling them now much he got and detailing how much money he spends writing to his Congressman to express his opinions. It is his right as an American, but he had better be prepared to report it to the Government. How ironic. How ironic it is, in an age when we are supposed to be shrinking the Federal bureaucracy, that the solution to the imaginary problem of federally subsidized advocacy is to require thousands and perhaps millions of people to file new forms with the IRS, reporting what they said to their elected representatives, and how frequently they said it. Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting an amendment to remove these provisions, because I do not believe they have been well thought out, and they certainly have not been examined thoroughly enough, given the sweeping changes the bill would make to the rights of Americans to petition their elected officials on issues of concern to them. Remember, we are not talking about using Federal money to lobby. That is already prohibited under the law. We are talking about the use of private money. We are talking about stopping advocacy by groups on behalf of, for example, the mentally or physically handicapped, if they receive a grant in their organization; by a college or university, if they receive a grant; by an antipoverty agency, if they receive a grant; by a woman's group if they receive a grant. The list is endless. I believe there is a conspiracy to silence voices in America that some do not want to hear from. However, Mr. Speaker, if the House wants to insist on going ahead with this ill-conceived plan and if we cannot strike the provision, then I intend to offer an amendment that will put more people on a level playing field. The bill seeks only to control lobbying or advocacy by groups which receive Federal grants. That ignores a whole host of other benefits which the Federal Government provides, all of which makes it possible for the recipients to spend more money on lobbying. All of these benefits are every bit as fungible as grant money, yet there is no attempt to address them. We have newspaper accounts of tax-exempt organizations paying for flying politicians around the country, paying for their television ads or distributing materials promoting a certain political agenda. They are more than abundant. Meanwhile, the Federal Government is allowing it to go on tax-free. That is a benefit that is not only fungible, it is worth more than all of the grants that this bill tries to deal with. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if my amendment is passed, any politician that accepts tax-exempt dollars to promote his or her political agenda loses their Federal salary. The group that provides the money has to pay taxes on it. That is lobbying reform with real teeth. If the issue is fungibility of money, let us not give the high and mighty who have certain access to nonprofit organizations an opportunity to have their voices heard, but have the voices of Americans across the country silenced.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, all Americans need to be aware that the upcoming Labor-HHS appropriations bill could severely curtail their rights to lobby their elected officials, and silence the voice of a majority of Americans. The bill limits the amount of private money that Federal grantees may use to lobby, arguing that money is fungible. In other words, the Federal money makes it possible for grantees to use more of their own money to lobby. That argument is not enough to warrant these unprecedented restrictions of our first amendment rights. Meanwhile, Americans have seen countless newspaper stories about tax- exempt groups paying to fly politicians around the country, for political advertising, or promoting their political agendas--and all this lobbying goes on tax free. I will be offering an amendment that will end this skirting of the law. Any politician accepting tax-exempt dollars to promote his political agenda loses his Federal salary. That is lobbying reform with teeth. Let us not silence voices of average Americans and their organizations, and let the high and mighty take a free ride on tax exemptions. Since the issue is the fungibility of money, we must consider all fungible Government benefits. When we vote on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, let us look at the whole problem.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. If you followed this issue for some time, you concluded, as I have, that some Members simply have a fixation with doing everything they can to eliminate everything with Cuba broadcasting, and I think there is only one person who has greater desire of eliminating this service, and that is Fidel Castro himself. Let me tell you what our colleagues to not hear in this debate. You do not hear a good-faith attempt to fix something and make it better. you have not heard one suggestion in that regard, just simply eliminate, eliminate, eliminate. The fact of the matter is I think we should have an investigation as to how the inspector general's not report, because it is not a report, because I called the inspector general. I said, ``Where is this report?'' And she said, ``It is not a report. I have it to some Members. I gave them the work product to date, but it is not a report.'' Imagine coming to the floor and painting it that way. We should be defeating this. This is not in the best interests. We should have the opportunity to focus the board, that focuses on these moneys that we are spending, and we should ensure that we do not permit what is said in a newspaper that is not, in fact, truthful, because in fact, we do not have a final report, and we should have an investigation as to how that report was released and how it got to the press. It is inconceivable to me to come to the floor and use that type of information which is incomplete and which does not serve the best interests of this institution. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. If you have followed this issue for years you may have concluded as I have that some Members simply have a fixation with eliminating TV Marti. Only the brutal dictator, Fidel Castro may have a stronger fixation with eliminating this service. Let me tell my colleagues what we do not see in the debate on TV Marti. We do not see a good faith attempt to fix something and make it better. I have not heard one--not one--suggestion that the service be improved from any of the Members cosponsoring this amendment. Instead, what we see is a big attempt to do Fidel Castro's dirty work for him. Castro is desperately afraid of TV Marti because it broadcasts the truth to the Cuban people, which he denies them every day. He is so afraid of that TV signal that he spends millions of dollars, 15 to 20 fixed jammers, mobile land jammers, 40 full-time soldiers, and even helicopters he can scarcely afford, to jam its beam. Money he could use to feed a hungry people, he uses to deny them the truth. We have the technology to get TV Marti to penetrate the dictator's airwaves. That is what we ought to focus on here. The Report of the Advisory Panel on Radio TV Marti has spoken clearly on this issue. More than 100 experts and individuals with relevant expertise were interviewed. The panel and its staff reviewed several thousand pages of written material. And here is what it said: The time has come to convert TV Marti from VHF to UHF transmission. The effort to probe this new approach will require approximately one year and one million dollars. But savings elsewhere during the year will more than offset this investment. Let me add that money was already obligated. Just last week, the House voted nearly unanimously to require the USIA to begin a new Radio Free Asia service to Communist China. Today, we simply ask you to continue an already existing TV broadcast to Communist Cuba. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have spoken clearly about the need to support their vital broadcasting services to Cuba of Radio and TV Marti. In a letter President Clinton stated: By strongly supporting Radio and TV Marti I want to send a clear signal to those everywhere who struggle against tyranny. Radio and TV Marti make genuine contributions to the cause of human rights and democracy in the hemisphere. Both help promote short and long term U.S. foreign policy goals. As I suggested earlier, we have been through this exercise before. Those of us with a strong interest in this issue agreed two years ago to a compromise which established an Advisory Panel on Radio and TV Marti. The members of the panel were agreeable to all involved, including the Members offering this amendment. The Panel was asked to assess and report on the ``purposes, policies, and practices of Radio and TV broadcasting to Cuba.'' In March 1994, out came the verdict, and it was clear: now more than ever we must maintain intact the services of both Radio and TV Marti. These are but some of the more important conclusions of the report: First, an overwhelming number of Cubans clearly consider Radio Marti to be the most authoritative source of news and information in Cuba'' (this is from a USIA in-country assessment on Cuba broadcasting; see Appendix I of the report). Second, Cuban Government officials and elites regularly listen to Radio Marti and tune in to TV Marti. Third, TV Marti can be an instrumental means for the United States to communicate with the Cuban people during a transition in Cuba. Fourth, South Florida will be immediately affected by change in Cuba and so eventually will other locations in the U.S. State Department contingency plans envision a major role for Radio and TV Marti during a transition. Moreover, eivdence suggests that in times of severe crisis, people turn first to TV. Fifth, were TV Marti terminated, it would be very expensive and take several months to initiate a new TV service during the transition. So, this amendment is not the cost-cutter its proponents claim. Sixth, America has never responded to a recipient country's jamming of U.S. Government broadcasts by giving in to a dictators' wishes that those broadcasting services be terminated. But that is precisely what this amendment would have us do. America should not succumb for the first time in history in the case of Cuba. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Marti all overcame jamming; so should and can TV Marti.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for withdrawing his objection, and I have, in every way along the way, attempted to cooperate. As a matter of fact, I came the other day to speak on something, and even though I had asked prematurely to speak, I was not given time, so I have tried to cooperate, but I appreciate the gentleman's withdrawing his objection. Mr. Chairman, I do not have enough time in 2 minutes, but let me just briefly say for those who say this is a cold-war relic, I say someone should tell Fidel Castro that it is a cold-war relic. We just had four ex-political prisoners from a generational difference, one who was just here a year ago, just came here a year ago, others who spent more time in Castro's jail than any other political prisoner in the world, Mario Chamas, in excess of 30 years. He saw his son born outside of jail and his son die while he was still in jail. He said tonight here in the House of Representatives in one of our offices where we were having an open meeting for Members to come, ``Don't cut Radio and Television Marti. Give the opportunity for the people in Cuba to have an open window, the only window of information that, in fact, we have,'' and this report which was authored by those who have the capacity, the intellect, and the technological background say we can do so, we can fix Television Marti to insure that in fact it is available to all the people of Cuba. Lastly let me just say that the fact of the matter is this House just approved to transmit into China and into a Communist country. All we ask our colleagues to do is to keep the opportunity for information to continue to flow to the people of Cuba for an item that already exists. The fact of the matter is that 90 miles away from our shores there is a society that is closed, that has not been awoken to the waves of democracy that have come throughout the world, and whose only information comes from this great country as to what is happening in the rest of the world. Do not close that window on these people. Vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. Let me just say, had I been here, I would have objected, or I would have sought to at least insure this. It is interesting the only Cuban- American Democrat cannot get a unanimous-consent request from his own colleagues to be able to speak for 2 minutes for the second-largest concentration in the country. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman would reconsider his objection.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the Committee for 2 minutes on this vital issue in my district.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, since I was reprimanded the last time for not being here to object, I would ask if through my objection I could ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] whether he has any time available.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a former mayor who started a community policing program, I strongly support the Mollohan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Mollohan amendment to restore funding for the COPS Program. The COPS Program is responsible for 95 new cops and the redeployment of 44 other cops in my congressional district along. But as I understand it, this bill guts the COPS Program and instead appropriates $2 billion for a law enforcement program that does not even exist. That's right, it does not even exist. The fact is that, H.R. 728, the Local Governments Law Enforcement Block Grant Act, which this bill provides $2 billion for, has not even been considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee nor does the committee even have plans to hold hearings on H.R. 728. But let me tell you what this fictional law enforcement program would do. It would allow communities to use their funding for nonlaw enforcement purposes, including hiring secretaries and purchasing new uniforms or new cruisers. Secretaries, uniforms, and cruisers that will not lower the crime rate in your district or mine. The Mollohan amendment restores funding to put more cops on the streets of every congressional district, Democratic and Republican, and to make those districts safer. The COPS Program works. How do I know? I know because their are 139 more cops on the streets of my district and I know because in communities nationwide, these cops are walking their beat protecting our homes, protecting our schools, and protecting our children.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest support for striking the bill rider that destroys collective bargaining rights unilaterally and does so outside the normal legislative process. If we do not adopt this amendment, we will drive down wages and bust unions. The premise of the 13c repealer ingenuously represents that without it--transit systems will be forced to cut services and routes. Make no mistake about this, the cuts in this bill will force the reductions, not the working people struggling to make a decent living wage and support their families. The cuts in this bill will cut the throats of the transit agencies, while making 13c repeal the flimsy gauze to staunch the financial hemorrhaging of mass transit programs. This ruse will not fool the workers of this Nation who depend on mass transit for their jobs and for getting to their jobs. If there are legitimate problems with 13c fix them in the sunshine of an open legislative process. Mend not end. The legislating on this appropriations bill cannot withstand the scrutiny of the normal legislative process, let us not resort to stunts to pass hidden agendas. Strike this assault on honest working people. Reform, do not wreck 13c. Make no mistake, if you are for working men and women you will vote for the Coleman-Ney amendment. Vote ``no'' on Wolf.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have heard about pork barrel. Let me say, this amendment is sound bite politics. Virtually every program the gentleman wishes to strike has broad bipartisan support. I think my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, will be saying the same thing. I received a call from the office of Republican Governor Christine Whitman saying, ``Look, you need to speak against this ill-advised amendment.'' In my State, this amendment would destroy more than a dozen years of hard work and bipartisanship that created universal support for an essential transportation program that has been a model for the Nation. The discretionary grant section of this bill includes New Jersey's urban core project, which is of major importance to New Jersey, both in terms of jobs created and for the improvement in our mass transit system. By linking several of New Jersey Transit's existing rail lines and modernizing equipment and facilities, the New Jersey urban core project is designed to make travel on the State rail network quicker, safer, and more convenient for thousands of current and potential riders. The passage of the Smith amendment, as Governor Whitman's office says, would be devastating to New Jersey, and for that fact, other forward-looking States' transportation systems, and to the employment of hundreds of thousands of workers nationwide who depend on public transportation. We talk about empowering people, Mr. Chairman, but the fact of the matter is that one of the major ways we do this is to create a transportation system that can get people to where there is work, or to shopping centers that create economic opportunities for the host communities to realize rateables and create jobs. This is knee-jerk, uninformed, and I would suggest it is posturing at its worst. Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman, is this the amendment with reference to the 40 percent under ISTEA available for construction of new fixed guideway systems?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the new starts fiscal year 1996 appropriations, as well as the entire section 3 obligation limitations, is consistent, to the chairman's credit, with section 3006 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. This section provides that section 3 of Federal transit administration discretionary grants shall, shall be available as follows: ``Forty percent shall be available for construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions to fixed guideway systems.'' The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] would lower the ISTEA authorization percentages by virtue of the reduction in funds, in which the gentleman does that specifically on letter B on page 172 of ISTEA, specifically reducing this 40 percent available for construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions to fixed guideway systems, and, in doing so, takes away the authorizing language of the 40 percent that shall be available for construction of such guideway systems. This would alter the authorized percentages, and thus would constitute an authorizing change on an appropriations bill, violating rule XXI.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, in furtherance of the point of order, I would have the Chair note that the reality is that last year's bill, which also tried to reduce the authorization, needed special language in order to accomplish that, because it could not be done strictly by reducing the amount. So, therefore, while it is the amount that it is being reduced, it, in fact, goes against the grain of the authorizing mandatory language in ISTEA which suggests that 40 percent shall be available for such construction.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, will he yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me just say in some respects we are together, in some respects we are apart. My point is simply this: I say the reform of 13(c), and I think even the transit unions recognize that the way to do it is not through this process. It is through the authorizing committee. I think that is where the determination should be made, not unilaterally striking down the rights of collective bargaining for these people. Second, I believe the gentleman when he says he is protransit, and I want to have a transit vote, too, very important to my district, but we are cutting already $310 million for mass transit subsidies. That is not protransit.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly say I would have liked to have joined the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] in the ranks of those who have been fighting for a pedestrian bridge to give affordable access, but that time was when we had the rescissions vote. That vote, unfortunately, took away the possibility for a pedestrian bridge to go ahead and make sure that lower-income Americans do not have to pay Circle Line, with its exclusive opportunity to bring passengers to the island. So, Mr. Chairman, this unfortunately, does not do the job that I hoped it would, but the National Park Service has said simply that it will not. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Mr. Zimmer to the ranks of those fighting to establish a pedestrian bridge from Liberty State Park in Jersey City to Ellis Island. I say that I'm welcoming him, because there have been precious few of us who have been out front about making access to one of our most important national historic treasures easy and affordable, and who have worked for legislation that would make that possible. In fact, aside from myself, Senators Bradley and Lautenberg, and Congressman Frelinghuysen, nobody has really shown much interest at all in helping the millions of families who visit this historic landmark get there easily and safely. As the Representative of the district in which the bridge lies, I'm pleased Mr. Zimmer has finally joined the effort. We have done all we can to get Governor Whitman to join us, but she still shows no interest in doing so. This amendment would prevent funds in the bill from being used to demolish an existing bridge to Ellis Island, or being used to prevent pedestrians from using that bridge if it is deemed safe for such use. The bridge is currently used by construction and maintenance vehicles for access to the island. When I saw Mr. Zimmer was offering this amendment, I asked people at the Park Service what they thought about it. Their response was most interesting. They told me that they have no intention whatsoever of demolishing the bridge. In fact, they would like to keep the bridge permanently in use for their vehicles, since without it, the cost of transportation for Park Service employees, equipment, trash, and so forth would approach $700,000 annually. It clearly makes little sense to demolish the bridge, and therefore even less sense to bother amending an appropriations bill to prevent a demolition which no one seeks. Because the Park Service intends to keep the bridge indefinitely for vehicular traffic, there is no hope of its being converted for pedestrian use. This renders the amendment almost entirely moot. I say almost, because there is still some value to the amendment. Despite its glaring weaknesses, it is one of the best arguments I have seen yet for the construction of a new bridge, exclusively for pedestrian use, which I have been fighting for since my arrival here nearly 3 years ago. Originally, we had wanted to build a pedestrian bridge nearby, because families visiting the island currently must wait in line, sometimes for hours under the summer sun, and then buy tickets from the Circle Line ferry, which has a commercial monopoly on visitor access to the island. During their long wait in the ticket line, these families can all see clearly that there is a bridge linking the island to the shore. Still, they are forced to pay $7 apiece, $20 for a family with two children, for a ferry ride to an island less than a quarter mile off shore. For many of my constituents, who ironically live so close to Ellis Island, the price is a luxury they cannot afford. But, Mr. Chairman, should visiting a treasure of our national heritage be considered a luxury? Certainly it should not. Unfortunately, the Zimmer amendment provides no funding for the improvements necessary to make the bridge safe for pedestrians, nor for the construction of a new one. Without funds to upgrade the bridge, it will remain permanently unsafe. Permanently, because not only is there no money to improve it, but the amendment prevents us from demolishing it, too. So we are to be eternally stuck with an unusable bridge. That is one effect of the amendment. The original purpose of the bridge, to provide access for construction vehicles involved in the restoration of the remaining historic buildings on the island, is further defeated by the bill itself. Language appearing on page 18 prohibits the use of Park Service funds to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the southern end of Ellis Island. The adoption of this amendment and the passage of the bill would leave us with a construction bridge, but no construction. A bridge which we will then maintain for pedestrians, but which is unfit for pedestrian use. A bridge which some argue supposedly damages the historical integrity of an island, an island full of collapsing historic buildings, but which we can neither improve, replace, nor tear down. There are funds available for the construction of a footbridge, but the project will be killed in the Republican rescissions bill, if it passes the Senate. In fact, if the new version of the bill isn't passed, I understand that it is the intention of Chairman Wolf to kill the project in the Transportation appropriations bill, even though the Park Service's draft environmental impact statement shows that a new bridge is the most preferable method of providing affordable access. The real battle to provide affordable access to Ellis Island was fought months ago. My colleague from New Jersey could have been much more effective if he had joined us in supporting the bridge during the rescissions process. With the passage of this amendment and the Interior Appropriations bill, however, it will only be a matter of time before even the most casual observer will see plainly the absurdity of what we will have done here today, and be compelled to seek a real solution such as the one we have advocated for years, but which has been consistently frustrated by political gamesmanship.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to all the people who make Project Children a great success. Project Children is an organization that brings together children from Northern Ireland and American host families. These volunteers give up their time to dedicate themselves to providing these children with a peaceful and fun-filled summer. There are many heroes involved with Project Children. John and Joan Hughes coordinate the Project Children in New Jersey and I am grateful for their devotion. The Hughes' have dedicated much of their time to raising funds that make it possible for these children to travel. They are assisted by many others, including Carolyn Malizia, Maryanne McAdams, Patty Moreale, Kevin Ferrick, Joe Masterson. They have all dedicated their time and resources to provide a summer away from the troubles and pain of Northern Ireland. I have singled out some of the people responsible for Project Children, but there are many other volunteers, too numerous to mention here, who also deserve our thanks. Every year I hold a luncheon for these young children and their host families. For the past 2 years Mr. and Mrs. Liam Benson, owners of O'Donohues Pub in Hoboken, NJ, have been gracious enough to donate their services. Project Children is an organization founded by Denis Mulcahy and his brother Pat Mulcahy. Through the years, the organization has grown and has provided thousands of children many wonderful summers in the United States. It is an opportunity for these children to experience a different type of life, a life away from the threat of violence with which they live daily. Project Children aims to touch each individual child and imprint in their heart and mind the memories of a lifetime. This year there is new hope for Northern Ireland with the recent signing of a ceasefire agreement. Hopefully, this will mark the dawn of a new era. These children can, perhaps now, return to a Northern Ireland that is free of bloodshed. May they return to a country united by a common cultural heritage and accepting of its religious diversity. Please join me in honoring all those responsible for this summer of peace. Let us hope that the cease-fire agreement will be the first stepping stone to a peaceful resolution. We hope that next year these children will enjoy a wonderful summer in a peaceful Northern Ireland.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to vehemently oppose this misguided amendment. I believe the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities provide a valuable service both to groups and individuals in the artistic community, but also to the American people. Annually, New Jersey receives $2.7 million from the NEA to conduct programs like the cultural diversity initiative, folk art apprenticeships, and arts education programs for teachers and students. NEA grants are made to the Jersey City Museum, the American Boychoir School, the New Jersey Ballet Company, the Newark Museum, the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra, and the Paper Mill Playhouse. NEH grants have supported projects for the New Jersey Historical Society, Rutgers University, New Jersey Institute of Technology and the Foundation for New Media in Hoboken. [[Page H 7038]] If the NEA and NEH were privatized, large institutions would survive, but many community-based programs, touring exhibits, and mid-size and smaller institutions would be crippled by the cuts. The Endowments provide access to the richness of our culture for the poorest of our people. In supporting artists and writers they open the door for all of us to learn and experience their work. In New Jersey each year, 8.5 million people visit museums, performances, or art exhibits; 3.5 million New Jerseyans view or listen to broadcast programs; and 3 million school children visit cultural attractions on field trips or participate in school-sponsored art in education programs. Wealthy communities will always enjoy the generosity of art patrons. But national programs sponsored by the Endowments disseminate resources for these activities throughout the Nation, in every community. Thanks to the Endowments, the creative energy once confined to a few cities is finding expression in the minds and hands and voices of a diverse people in every community. The NEA is able to generate $11 of activity for every 1 dollar of Federal funding and the NEH requires many grants to have $1 to $4 dollars in non-Federal funding for every $1 of Federal funding. To highlight just how effective funding is, consider the fact, that the annual budget for the Lincoln Performing Arts Center is greater than the total Federal funding received by the NEA. The limited funding received by the Endowments is carefully regulated. Since becoming Chairperson, Jane Alexander has successfully implemented steps to tighten and strengthen the Endowment's grant and reporting procedures. The NEA has made a concerted effort to assure that grants are artistically meritorious. To assure adherence, if the NEA finds that a grantee has failed to meet congressional or Endowment requirements the Endowment may suspend payments, terminate a grant, recover grant funds already awarded, and declare an applicant ineligible for any future funding. The arts also generate important economic activity. The arts provide over 1.3 million full-time jobs to Americans nationwide paying $25.2 billion in salaries, wages, and entrepreneurial income. Local governments receive $790 million in taxes and fees, State governments receive $1.2 billion, and the Federal Government receives $3.4 billion in income tax revenue. These returns are far greater than the $167 million operating budget for the NEA. Perhaps, most importantly, the arts revitalize downtown business areas attracting conferences, conventions and increased tourism, and boosting the value of commercial and residential real estate. The elimination of funding for the arts will have a definitive economic impact on our communities. While I share the belief that we need to balance the Federal budget, we must consider the benefits of modest Federal funding for the Endowments, the ability it has to generate private funding, and the income it generates for local economies. Lastly, we must not forget the unique ability of the Endowments to touch the minds and hearts of those who benefit from their endeavors.