Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Think of the voiceless, the poor for once, and not play and pray at the alter of the multinational corporations. I just talked to a group of folks that came back from Nicaragua, and that you have the nerve to stand before this House and talk about those six governments of purity is an insult to our intellect. Some of these politicians that run these countries are despised by the very people in their country. It is those leaders that made the deal, not the people of those countries. In every one of those countries, the majority of the people are against this deal. Trade agreements are not just tariff levels and quotas; they are human beings. By passing this agreement, Congress is giving up more of its authority under article I, section VIII. We have done that under three Presidents in a row. Our CAFTA becomes a legally-bound treaty. It will supersede any legislation passed by this Congress. And by the way, a slight detail: the CBO has told us that CAFTA will cost the American taxpayers $4.4 billion over the next 10 years. And since those in favor of CAFTA turn to this document, Mr. Speaker, this document shows that of the 14 agreements, the 14 agreements since Bush became the President of the United States, only three have been outrightly kept. He has as bad a record as President Clinton.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the gig is up. On both sides of the aisle, regardless of how trade bills, and this is trade day, I guess, on the floor of the House, regardless of how these bills go up or down, the American public knows who is exposing and who is extending and who is sending jobs overseas. Both parties. We have had two administrations now that have given the store away, one Democrat and one Republican administration, and you come on this floor and want us to believe that you are going to pass this legislation and teach China a lesson. I rise, and I rise to oppose this fig leaf, which is pathetic. The majority is using this fig leaf to cover the growing crisis of our trade relationship with China years after the horse is out of the barn. China is obviously not playing by the rules. You tell me whether they are or they are not. The American people want to know where you stand. They want to know in your district where they stand. It has nothing to do with Democrat and Republican. The resulting imbalance is destroying family wage production jobs here in this United States. This bill does not contain the answers. It should be defeated again. That it is even being considered on this floor to buy a few votes is an embarrassment to the House of Representatives. Let us look at the facts. Let us look at the data. Our trade deficit with China is rapidly growing. It reached $162 billion last year. It was $16 billion in the month of May alone. China is buying huge chunks of our Nation's growing debt. Do you know how much debt China owns of ours? Is that not embarrassing enough? Human rights abuses continue to be a problem in China. People from both sides of the aisle have stated on the record what those abuses are. They are not hidden. They are exposed. Yet God knows what we do not know. China continues its piracy of U.S. goods and products unabated. Unabated. Many factories in China still utilize child and prison labor. We cannot even get in to see what is going on in those factories. China has only made a minor change in disconnecting its currency from the dollar. Another fig leaf. It is on the front page of the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Who are those trade people kidding? They are not kidding the American people at all. Our Nation's manufacturing sector and the manufacturing capability throughout the world is being decimated by China's use of these low- wage, no-regulation, nonmarket conditions. This free trade gig is up. It is exposed. Just today, 9:30 this morning, I can report to the Congress of the United States in New Jersey where the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said, we are going to gain all of these jobs from this trade, we are going to gain all of these jobs from CAFTA. We did a survey of 180 small New Jersey manufacturers. One hundred four small manufacturing business owners told us they did not think CAFTA would have any impact on their business. One-quarter of the entire sample told us that CAFTA would have a negative impact and lead to job losses, and they were willing to document it. We will bring that up for another debate. I ask you, taking such minor action today like this bill and the resolution condemning the Unocal bid, ho-ho-ho. And the majority thinks it can show American manufacturers and American workers that it is concerned about China at this stage? You are not fooling anybody. This is a fig leaf, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I just heard a quote on the floor of the House of Representatives to send product to Central America or send troops. I have never heard anything more absurd or simplistic in my 9 years here in the House of Representatives. The people of these six countries oppose CAFTA. They say it is unfair. And it really is a corporate-inspired trade deal that hurts working people both in the United States and Central America. Stop the hemorrhaging of American jobs. Protect American sovereignty. Put some backbone into both sides of the aisle on the independence of the legislative body. CAFTA is not only a spear into the heart of American independence but a heavy blow to the integrity of this House under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Do we have the backbone to stand for the common good, the basis for the Judeo-Christian foundation of this Nation? Or do we just invoke these principles when convenient?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, Brumidi is alleged to have said, ``My one ambition and my daily prayer is that I may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one country on Earth in which there is liberty.'' And to all of those who do come through this Capitol every day and see the beautiful artwork, this is what we will be honoring and recognizing next week. This Capitol and the beautiful artwork and sculpture that is in it was done by immigrants. Most of them did not make much money and most of them died poor. But they had a deep love for America, America. And Constantino Brumidi was no exception. He was exceptional. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and the Committee on House Administration for bringing the resolution to the House floor. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for managing the resolution. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has been the foremost leader in the Congress in promoting Brumidi's prolific life and his extraordinary legacy. It reminds me a bit of a sculptor, a famous Italian-American sculptor, Gaetano Federici, who came from Italy, and his sculpture exists all through the metropolitan area in New Jersey and New York. Similar backgrounds, came here not to accumulate a tremendous amount of wealth but to reflect their love of America, and they showed it and communicated it in their art. So it is a personal honor for me to lead the House of Representatives in remembering Brumidi with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). The last time he was recognized in Congress was in 1980 at the 100th anniversary of his death. The late Congressman Peter Rodino, whom we eulogized just a few weeks ago at his passing, a great American, constituent, my friend, an inspiration, hosted the service. I know that Congressman Rodino is looking down on this ceremony today and will be here next week. Perhaps he is with George Washington in what Brumidi properly named in his most famous work, the Apotheosis of Washington. Twenty-five years later, I am humbled by the opportunity to continue a legacy that Congressman Rodino pursued with passion. Yesterday, I enjoyed a discussion with a roomful of Italian-American high school students from all across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, they traveled to Washington on a trip to explore the roles that people of their ethnic background play in the Federal Government. We discussed our grand Italian-American heritage. We discussed ways to advance its image. And when I fielded questions, one student asked, What is being done now to elevate the positive image of our ethnic community? I was happy to respond to this timely question. I told the students that today Congress would act to authorize a ceremony to honor Constantino Brumidi, the artist of the Capitol, an American immigrant of both Italian and Greek descent. I explained that we live in a Nation of immigrants, that Brumidi is one of the greatest that we ever welcomed. He left Rome under unfortunate circumstances, having been imprisoned in the great fight in Italy for independence with both the Vatican and the state. Rome's loss was America's gain. When the French occupied Rome in 1849, Brumidi was accused by the Church of being a revolutionary. The work he had been doing in the Vatican came to an end. He set out for America where he hoped our free way of life would allow his talent to flourish. He arrived in New York City. Think of that day in 1852. He was a proud citizen 5 years later. Hear me, 5 years later. In fact, he was known to sign some of his work ``C. Brumidi Artist Citizen of the United States.'' How fitting. After traveling the country for work, in 1855 Brumidi's unique style found its way to the empty walls of the United States Capitol. He was commissioned by the Congress. Brumidi soon provided a unique ability to apply a classical style to create American themes. Though paid handsomely at the start of his career, Brumidi was not inspired by financial gain. After 2 years of work, he never got a raise. But his work continued. It continued in the Frieze of American History, in the Brumidi Corridor, in the Senate Appropriations Committee, in the reception room and in the President's Room, just to name a few. And on February 19, 1880, exactly 25 years to the day after Brumidi began work at the Capitol, he died of a kidney failure. He died in poverty. And following his death, Brumidi's name and work slipped into obscurity. Much of his artwork was painted over, in fact. He was looked at as irrelevant. It was immaterial. It was not until 1952 that his grave site was recognized by the Congress, the Congress that he dedicated his life to physically enhance. It was not until 10 years ago that his work has truly begun to be restored. Brumidi was driven by enormous talent. He was driven by enormous patriotism. His passion allowed him to adorn the Capitol of his adopted country with the grand symbolism of a democratic Greco-Roman legacy. The event that this resolution will authorize takes a step to ensure that Americans will never forget one of our greatest historical figures. It will work to ensure that every American, Italian, Greek, or whatever, will recognize the name of Constantino Brumidi, one of the greatest immigrants to ever grace America. This is the 200th anniversary of his birth. This is the 150th anniversary of the beginning of his artistic career. And this is the 125th anniversary of his death. It is only fitting that Congress honor Constantino Brumidi in this showplace, in the Capitol Rotunda, on the bicentennial of his birth.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I do.

Mr. PASCRELL. I rise for a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the last 1- minute. My request is that the words of the former speaker at the podium, to associate those of us who have been on the front lines of civil rights, both parties, both sides, with Ortega, this character in Central America, is the most ruthless thing I have heard in a long time. I have no association with that character. He belongs in jail, but simply because he has spoken on this, sir, do not associate me or anybody else with him.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, point of privilege.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Chair to look into the words of the former speaker and see if any of his words should be taken down. I cannot be any more specific than that.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that we cannot just say anything that we wish to say on the floor of the House. I cannot, no one else can; and when you invoke the integrity of Members of this House who have spoken out, regardless of what position they take, I think that is something that needs to be looked at.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, let me offer my congratulations to Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, and Subcommittee Chairman Duncan and Congresswoman Johnson, for shepherding this Water Resources bill to the House floor. After 5 long years, we know this bill is well overdue. The bipartisan nature of this WRDA bill, and of the operation of our committee in general, should be a model for the entire Congress. It is a credit to this committee that the work of the Corps translates into a better economy, a cleaner environment, and improved livability for the people of this Nation. The Corps has a record of accomplishment that has enhanced communities across America. Every year, billions of tons of commerce move over the navigable waterways the Corps maintains. This creates jobs and assures our leadership in the global economy. We know that maritime transportation will become even more critical in the years to come as we grow and expand our congested intermodal system. Another key element of the Corps mission is flood control. Death and displacement due to severe flooding has reoccurred throughout our Nation's history. Today, many of our major cities in the United States are protected by Corps of Engineers flood control structures. Flood protection on average prevents $16 billion in damages each year, saving us $6 for every $1 invested. The Passaic River Flood Basin is located smack in the middle of my Congressional District. People in my district are up in arms about what is too often a matter of life and death. Like along the Acid Brook in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, it is important that the Corps has adequate authority to address and mitigate flooding issues. We know that Corps projects are sometimes described as pork barrel spending. Those who downplay the Corps' importance do not see the tangible benefit neighborhood by neighborhood. Members of Congress know their districts, we know what needs to be done, and by voting for this bill, we will reject the ``pork barrel'' label. That we have worked out bipartisan compromise on Corps reform, that we have agreed upon what the Corps needs to focus on in the years ahead, and that we are on the floor today is a huge victory for the American people. I would like to again thank the Committee leadership, especially the always fair-minded Chairman Duncan, for their strong and untiring effort to bring this bill to the floor. Let us urge the other body to complete its work as well, so we might finally renew our water resources program.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask either one of my colleagues what are the circumstances that allow us to vote for a bill where foreign investors and foreign firms are granted greater rights than U.S. citizens and United States firms? What is the rationale? I will listen very carefully. I have read the document. To those who are going to vote for it and do not want to read it, they do not know what is there, please read the document. How can they vote for a surrender of sovereignty? They took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. How can they surrender sovereignty of this Nation? Do my colleagues think folks understand that in this Chamber?

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the gentlewoman from Ohio that it is not the Congress that is making the trade agreements. I have pointed that out before. We have surrendered that right, that power. I do not even think it is the President. What do my colleagues know about that? We have surrendered to many multinational corporations. They are making the trade deals at our expense.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress must defeat unfair trade agreements until we start forming trade policy rationally and in our best interest. I am not afraid to say that I opposed both the trade policies of the former President, a member of my own party, President Clinton; and I oppose this President's trade policies, President Bush, and I do so not through perceptions but through facts. What has happened to these trade policies as was promised when they were passed and signed? The folks in my district did not send me to Washington to surrender my rights under the Constitution. article I, section 8 is very clear. It is the Congress that will declare war; it is the Congress that will deal with matters of commerce. We have surrendered that. This legislative body has surrendered that right to both Clinton and Bush. We say, we voted that way, I did not, the majority voted, that the President of the United States is solely responsible for the so-called free trade deals and that the Congress can either vote them up or down. Now this is what we have done. In diminishing the power of the legislative body, we have inflated the power under the Constitution, and this is not what our forefathers intended. If Members read what went into article I, section 8, it is very, very clear, very succinct. In New Jersey, we have lost in the last 14 years 241,000 manufacturing jobs. We have been told not only in New Jersey but in the New Jerseys across this greatest of all Nations, that those jobs will be replaced by service jobs, and we have seen what has happened. We have seen these jobs replaced by part-time jobs, filled with underemployed people, many times working with none of the benefits reflected in what was decent manufacturing, decent-paying jobs. So when one looks at the facts, the trade deals have not been fair, and they certainly have not been free. We want to help other countries grow, but not at the detriment and expense of the American worker. We are not opposed to trade. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is not opposed to trade. The Members of the other side of the aisle, the Republicans who oppose CAFTA like I oppose it and like many of us who oppose it on our side, are not against trade. Trade is a necessity. We live in a global village, but we want that trade to be fair. We want that trade to be a two-way street and not a one-way street. I give just two basic examples: the only trade deal that I voted in favor of was the trade deal with the country of Jordan. I did not vote for the Australian free trade agreement. Many of us opposed it. The Australian free trade agreement provided for countries enforcing their own labor laws. There is a history here. If you are going to enforce your own labor laws, you are not going to be able to deal in a free trade concept on the agreement you sign. It means nothing, in other words. This is unacceptable. In section 18.2 of the deal we made with Australia, very specifically it says: ``The parties recognize that each party retains the right to exercise discretion with respect to investigations, prosecutorial, regulatory, compliance matters, and to make decisions regarding the allocation of resources to enforcement.'' In other words, in the Australian so-called free trade agreement we signed, the President of the United States signed, signed on the dotted line and blinked and winked at the Australians as to how that deal would be enforced. It means absolutely nothing, and it will not be enforced because of the language. Yet in the Jordanian trade deal, very specifically article 6, The parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization, the ILO, and their commitments under the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up. The parties shall strive to ensure that such labor principles and the internationally recognized labor rights set forth in paragraph 6 are recognized and protected by domestic law. There is the teeth. That is the basic difference between the Australian deal and the Jordanian free trade agreement. Standards. We need standards in any trade agreement not only to protect the workers in the other country, but to protect the workers in the United States of America. We should not give up that sovereignty. We should not give up that ability to protect our own workers, and that is not what is happening. We become a Wal-Mart economy. These people are underemployed, regardless of what we hear on the plethora of TV and radio commercials. These people are underemployed with very few benefits. And the fact of the matter is that it is a rotating system. People leave in a very short period of time. The Catholic bishops got it right. The Catholic bishops got it right on CAFTA. They said we believe that in an increasingly interdependent world, it is essential that economic globalization be made more human by globalizing solidarity among people everywhere. If this is not done, and they quoted Pope John Paul II, the poorest appear to have little hope. If globalization is ruled merely by the laws of the market, applied to suit the powerful, the consequences cannot but be negative: ``We are concerned,'' the bishops wrote, ``about the ability of CAFTA to increase opportunities for the poorest and most vulnerable and to enhance the prospect that they will genuinely benefit from increased trade.'' Mr. Speaker, I intend in the coming days to show pictorially and narratively one example of what is happening in Nicaragua. This is an absolute disgrace. These countries have not told or shared with their citizens what is in the CAFTA agreement. In fact, the bishops point this out. Folks need to be educated before any two countries sign any kind of agreement. Do not keep folks in the dark. This is the multinational corporation agreement. This is not an agreement that is going to help the folks in that country or this country. And how many folks have come across the Rio Grande River from Mexico in just the last few years that NAFTA went into effect? The promise of NAFTA on this floor in 1993 was that it would stop the flow of illegal immigration that come across the Rio Grande into this country. We have doubled the amount of people because the companies that went to Mexico have now gone to China. We have participated in this vicious circle. I am glad the gentleman brought up that famous quote regarding the definition of insanity is doing something over and over and over again and expecting different results. Mr. Speaker, our policies are insane. They do not help the workers of this Nation. It is sad. But listen to what the bishops have had to say. They have had a lot to say. This is the time to stop these unfair agreements. We need a trade policy in this Nation that is fair before it is free. There are no free lunches here. We want a policy that the Members in the Congress of the United States are going to be able to vote upon and discuss and amend. I want my rights back under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. I demand them back or else we might as well go home and let us have a monarchy. The Forefathers fought this. They argued and debated one another. They said we should have three branches of government as a checks and balance. What checks and balances do we have on the trade agreements that both President Clinton and President Bush have put before the Congress with very little debate and we have given the store away? That is a fact of life. That is the truth. I ask anybody to come to this floor to deny it. Our current trade policy is not working, President Bush. It has not been functional for some time, I say to the past two Presidents. The Bush administration and the Clinton administration have only continued and increased its support for multinational imports over domestic industry. No wonder the containers come into this country filled, and they stay on the docks empty going nowhere. That is part of the trade deficit. Look at the empty containers. Congress must take the initiative and stop blindly approving free trade agreement after agreement. As we hemorrhage family-wage manufacturing jobs, how dare we say on the floor of this House that these trade agreements are going to bring better paying jobs, are going to sustain benefits to those workers, are going to sustain this economy. Our trade deficits grow and grow. Finally, Mr. Greenspan, in a moment of resiliency, has spoken out on this. Finally, we have two cups of coffee maybe instead of one. We cannot ignore that we live in a global economy. We must also use our strength to help improve the living conditions of those living in our partner nations and not just wink when we say it. This Congress must defeat unfair trade agreements until we start forming trade policy rationally and fairly. You look at what happened to the Mexicans who came across the Rio Grande, our brothers and our sisters who came across that river. The promise that was given to them in 1993 was that you would not have to do that anymore. You will have a job. You will have a job that pays. You will have a job that gives you benefits. Your family will be able to live. How come they have come here? Because the jobs are not there. Who made money? Not those people. The multinational corporations made the money. CAFTA as drafted is not an agreement to accomplish these goals. It needs to be renegotiated. We do not want to bury it. We want to renegotiate it so that it is fair, so that it does have teeth, so that it protects the sovereignty of the United States and every other country who wishes to participate. I intend to show pictorially, and I will keep my word, on what has happened in Nicaragua, that poorest of all poor nations; $2,200 a year they make. They are going to buy American products? Is this reality TV or is this reality? I see my other friend from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and I want to yield to her so that perhaps, when she finishes, we will have a triumvirate here.

Mr. PASCRELL. Trade agreements, as I learned about them through school and reading on my own, used to be about tariff levels and quotas. That was the basis of trade agreements. But the modern trade agreement is about much more than just importing and exporting goods. I agree that foreign policy and trade go together. This is very critical. These agreements, and specifically the one we are talking about now, include entire chapters on foreign investor rights. If I may, I want to talk about that just for a few moments, the ownership in domestic regulation of services and even how tax dollars can be spent on procurement, buying things. We have had debates on the floor of the House in the last 2 months which have centered upon the sovereignty, the independence of our country in the world. Just last month, we saw a comprehensive United Nations reform measure pass this House. In that debate, we heard about how the U.N., the International Criminal Court, and other global bodies can undermine policies set by this Congress and this Federal Government. How any of those same critics can support CAFTA is beyond me. These agreements include, as I said, whole chapters on foreign investor rights. Over the past 10 years, NAFTA, which is the model for this piece of legislation, has been a disaster for American sovereignty and has undermined the intent of our Constitution. The much reviled NAFTA chapter 11 was designed to grant special legal protection and new rights to corporations from one NAFTA country that invests in another NAFTA country. Again, we see multinational corporations winning out over the little guy. We have surrendered our independence as a nation. Extraordinarily, NAFTA chapter 11 provided for the private enforcement of these investor rights by the investors themselves outside of the nation's domestic court system and in a closed-door trade tribunal. How can you be so concerned about what the U.N. is imposing upon the United States and not look at what CAFTA is doing to the sovereignty of this greatest of all democracies? Secret tribunals have the ability to override our Federal courts. They have the ability to exact fines from the Federal Treasury. They have the ability to make new Federal policies outside the congressional process. In the 2002 Fast Track law, we attempted to add some assurances that trade agreements could no longer replicate this dangerous chapter 11 precedent outlined in NAFTA. We did not succeed. The language enacted in the final Fast Track bill was weak at best. The act did state that foreign investors should have no ``greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than U.S. investors in the United States.'' This is unbelievable. The investment provisions of CAFTA failed to satisfy even the modest congressional requirement. And I must say on this point, this CAFTA agreement provides greater rights to foreign investors and businesses than provided to the United States citizens and the United States businesses. Read it. Do not take my word for it. Go to the document. How anybody could stand on this floor, and I know those that did, and beg us to make sure the United Nations does not undermine the sovereignty of the United States and not have the same standard in looking at the CAFTA agreement and chapter 11 in the NAFTA agreement and not say we have surrendered. The United States has surrendered under this agreement.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, would it not be great if we put an end to it in this Congress on both sides of the aisle? The gentleman from Ohio knows better than anybody there are a number of people, I cannot count the ones and I am not taking them for granted, I never do that, but there are a number of people on the other side who see through this fantasy and are willing to stand up for it. We know that pressure is going to be put on them. Two administrations past, pressure was put on folks right here, right here. And I supported President Clinton on most of what he ever wanted. But on trade, I think the administration and the executive branch of government are selling our intellect short, and our responsibilities, I want those responsibilities back. I believe that Congress should be part of a negotiating team to negotiate these agreements and then bring them to the floor, we debate them, and we pass it. We need to do something to make these agreements fair. Up until now we have not.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, there is no question in my mind that we are surrendering the sovereignty of this Nation if we vote ``yes'' on this legislation. There is a legitimate debate in this Nation about what public interest functions are inherently governmental. Governments choose at what times and with what vendors they wish to procure goods and services. The procurement issue is a very central point in the CAFTA debate. The votes are there to outsource some tasks and not there for others. They are there to purchase locally made products in some cases, import services in other cases. On a State and local level, these same debates are considered every day as the Constitution properly allows them to be considered. Democracy lives. But under CAFTA, under CAFTA, whether a state privatizes its auto inspection program, whether we give preferences for a local construction firm, whether a city privatizes its water system, Nicaragua, is not necessarily a local decision. It is potentially an international case. How can we accept these conditions? Globalization is here. We do not and cannot deny that fact. But that does not mean we must give up the values we hold dear to us. That does not mean that we must take what we are given by this administration. Congress has rights too. I thank my friend from Ohio, my two friends from Ohio. Why is it that folks from Ohio are always there to protect the American worker? And I thank each of them for all they have done through all of these years. We are not going to take one step backwards on this deal. We are going to say this is the end of it.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to take this opportunity to salute the Slovak Catholic Sokol. On Saturday, July 9, 2005 the Sokol celebrated a very proud moment, its Centennial Anniversary. It is only fitting that the Slovak Catholic Sokol be honored, in this, the permanent record of the greatest freely elected body on Earth, for it has been a fundamental institution in the community; offering guidance and support to all in need. The Slovak Catholic Sokol was founded on July 4, 1905 by citizens who wanted to establish an athletic organization for Catholics of Slovak ancestry. It was not long after its creation that the group began to flourish. The year 1912 marked the first field meet or ``Slet,'' as it is called in Slovak. Since then, these Slets have attracted members and crowds by the thousands; all of whom gather to take part in an array of track and field events. The organization grew quickly; the 46 original founders from Passaic, N.J. has blossomed into 32,000 members located throughout the United States & Canada. This unprecedented expansion has allowed the group to become heavily involved with the youth movement. Every year, the Slovak Catholic Sokol awards an array of scholarship grants to college bound members as well as qualified members who attend Catholic High School. Over the years, nearly 1300 members have been fortunate enough to receive scholarship grants in order to further their education. In the most recent years, the Slovak Catholic Sokol entered its most ambitious stage of growth, especially in terms of volunteer work. As a Catholic entity, participation in parish life is obviously encouraged and support for both men and women of Slovak heritage is given. Therefore, donations whether monetary or perishable, are routinely sent to Catholic Bishops in Slovakia for distribution amongst their congregation. Working in conjunction with other reputable Slovak organizations, such as the Slovak League of America is also quite commonplace. In fact, together with four other fraternals, the Slovak Catholic Sokol established the Slovak Foundation at the University of Pittsburgh. Committed to the democratic way of life, the Slovak Catholic Sokol will continue to spread goodwill. The leadership and the members of this organization recognize the dedication it took to elevate this venerable institution to where it is today and will ensure that it remains untarnished. The work of a United States Congressman involves so much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing institutions like the Slovak Catholic Sokol. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, the City of Passaic, Passaic County, all of the members, and me, in recognizing the Slovak Catholic Sokol.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), ranking member, for the hard work they have done under this bill under very tight budget restraints. I think that this is a good piece of legislation, although I do have some concerns about cuts in particular programs. HOPE VI; the Empowerment Zone program; the Community Development Loan Guarantees; the HUD Brownfields program, a program close to my heart, which provides a second chance for reuse to many old industrial properties, all of which have been contaminated, we want to get them back on the tax rolls. But perhaps most surprisingly the YouthBuild program, which provides a crucial second chance for a good life to thousands of disadvantaged young people in our Nation's urban communities, has been zeroed out in the legislation that we are debating today. Mr. Chairman, I would like to describe to my colleagues today what I have learned about the tremendous success of YouthBuild in my years as mayor of the city of Paterson, New Jersey. In the work I have done with YouthBuild participants, I have heard scores of inspiring accounts from young kids who spent their lives struggling with poverty, dysfunctional or absent families, drug addiction and other forms of neglect and abuse. And be rest assured this program is not a handout. Through the challenging concrete task of building houses for the homeless, getting their hands dirty with demanding physical labor, these kids have been given the tools to begin to rebuild their own lives. This is a model program that both sides of the aisle should enthusiastically support, a program that helps young people gain the self-esteem, self-reliance that come with a hard day's work in the service of another human being. According to a recent study, an astounding 65 percent of the YouthBuild graduates say that they now expect to live an average of 32 years longer after YouthBuild experience than they expected to live before. Self-esteem is not the only thing that is raised through this program. Income potential and educational achievement have also soared. Seventy percent of YouthBuild graduates are either in post-secondary education or in jobs averaging $10 per hour. This program is unquestionably a winner for young people across our Nation. YouthBuild develops job skills, leadership potential, civic involvement, and creates a community of adults and youth committed to helping each other achieve success in life. And through the construction of affordable housing, it contributes to the revitalization of our poorest neighborhoods. It is hard to believe that a compassionate President and a Congress would want to wipe out any of these programs which epitomize our oldest and most sacred American values: hard work, self-reliance, and limitless optimism about the future. I urge the House to find ways to increase funding for the valuable community revitalization initiatives that have been cut from this legislation.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is the most discouraging part of this discussion that we have had this afternoon. Everybody has been civil. I think everybody has attempted to be nonpartisan, which is how it should be on such an important piece of legislation. Even if we eliminated all the long-distance routes in Amtrak, we would save $300 million. But these savings do not occur in the first year because these are expenses that are accrued. This is not acceptable. What is most reprehensible is to not only deal with the facts but make those who support this legislation of returning the $1.2 billion to its rightful place, that we somehow are going to be on the side of those depriving those who are homeless of necessary resources. That, to me, is despicable. I really want to say a different word, but I respect the institution and I respect the gentleman from Minnesota. But this is horrible. We ought to take a good look at ourselves. We ought to take a look at how many letters we sign, how many parts of the petitions over the years we have come back to this Congress with to say, ``Please restore the dollars for the homeless. Please restore the dollars for the downtrodden.'' Neither party is privy to virtue. Neither party is privy to who cares more about the homeless. But do not try to take it out of something that you know we have been fighting for that is necessary. Now, I have an idea. Why do we not do away with the long-distance route the Carolinian? That is 305,000 passengers. Let us wipe it out tomorrow. You tell those people in Raleigh and Richmond and Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia, you tell them we are taking the route off because we think there are more productive routes and that this is the least productive. You write the letter and put your signature on it and tell them that. You put your signature on that. We, as a body, must do for the homeless together, and we as a body must do for those who ride the trains all over this country. You have seen enough of the map. You have seen enough of those routes that go everywhere and every place. And if we are going to have a system of intermodal transportation in this country, we all have to pull together. No one denies there should be some changes in Amtrak. I have fought for them myself. But do not stand there and tell me that I am not responding to the homeless. I take exception to that. You are pointing at me. You are not making a general statement. I am not going to let you get away with making a general statement that those of us on this side of the aisle and those of you on this side of the aisle do not care about the homeless. So you have done, I think, a disservice to both sides of the aisle when you suggest that we can take a little off here and put it over there. This is not checkers. This is the real stuff. This is the real thing, and we need an intermodal system. We need a system of national transportation started by President Nixon in 1971. I will end on that note.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman and I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller). If there is any area that will positively affect, positively affect our cities, as a former city mayor, it is this piece of legislation. I drive by Paterson, New, Jersey and there are so many places that have been abandoned. Either the person could not keep up with the taxes, or he cannot clean up the property in the first place. If there is anything that fosters private-public partnerships, it is this legislation, because it brings together the local community, the developer, usually State officials who have their own brownfields legislation themselves. I want to commend the gentleman from California. I think that this is an excellent piece of legislation. I support the added $24 million. I think this is going to go a long way. This is something tangible and far from a lot of hot air we hear about helping cities from both sides of the aisle here. Congratulations. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-Johnson Amendment to increase the Community Development Fund by $24 million-- funding that will be allocated toward the HUD-Brownfields Redevelopment Program. There are an estimated 500,000 to 1 million brownfields sites nationwide--covering nearly 200,000 acres of land across the country. Indeed, there are over 1,000 brownfields sites in the 2 counties that make up my district alone. These sites are abandoned, often former industrial properties whose redevelopment can be an important ingredient in the economic recovery of urban areas. As a former mayor, I can tell you that redevelopment is the only type of growth that is possible any longer in our urban communities. Brownfields development can have a multitude of positive effects on our Nation's most troubled cities: they can help to create jobs, improve the quality of the environment, and spur smart growth and preservation of open space. My district in New Jersey has many brownfields redevelopment success stories to tell. The formerly abandoned Boris Kroll Mill in Paterson has recently been transformed into market-rate rental housing--creating 39 new apartments for residents and 10,000 square feet of retail and office space. With financial support from the Federal and local governments buttressing private support, the area surrounding the new redevelopment has been given new life. The buildings have retained their beautiful 19th Century architecture with brick fronts, high ceilings and grid windows. With the increasing commitment of Federal, State and local authorities to redevelopment, these success stories from our cities and suburbs are being heard around the country. In the past decade, Congress has made an impressive bipartisan effort, as we are demonstrating in this amendment today, to raise the profile of brownfields redevelopment projects and pass laws to streamline the process. Every member of the community benefits from increased Federal incentives for development: residents, land owners, developers, and businesses. Unlike EPA brownfields funds, the HUD brownfields grants are primarily targeted for use in economic development projects. This HUD program provides a powerful incentive for cities, developers and parties facing brownfields liability to convert dilapidated sites into engines of economic growth. These redevelopment projects enable certain distressed communities to experience a type of rebirth. They reconnect us to our historic past, renew our sense of pride in our cities, and infuse neighborhoods with the vitality and dynamism they once had in our great industrial past. Let us not take a step backward by zeroing out funding for the important Brownfields Economic Development Initiative at HUD right at the moment when we are beginning to see real progress. I urge the House to vote for the bipartisan Miller-Johnson amendment to add $24 million in funding to this important community renewal program.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Amtrak was there for America after 9/11. It performed beautifully. Its employees performed. This is delivering people, product, all over the United States of America. And if you look at the map, this is all wiped out, all in red. In red, mind you. It is inexcusable that we are only funding half of what is needed for Amtrak. There could be no more illusion about the administration's desire to destroy Amtrak. The Federal Government took on the burden of passenger rail from the freight railroads in 1971, in a bill signed by President Richard Nixon. Read my lips. These private companies were relieved to be rid of what they knew was inherently a nonprofit operation. Federal subsidization for other transportation modes is nothing new. Each year in New Jersey, 4 million New Jersey residents ride Amtrak. Pennsylvania, 5 million. And look at the investments in the many cities of Pennsylvania, and Amtrak, that they have invested capital improvements. We cannot accept half of a loaf. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment being offered by Chairman LaTourette and Ranking Member Oberstar which would give Amtrak a fighting chance to function next year. It is inexcusable that the bill before us today contains only $550 million for intercity passenger rail service, effectively bankrupting Amtrak. There can be no more illusions about the Administration's desire to destroy Amtrak once and for all. The Federal Government took on the burden of passenger rail from the freight railroads in 1971 in a bill signed by President Richard Nixon. These private companies were relieved to be rid of what they knew was inherently a non-profit operation. Federal subsidization for other transportation modes is nothing new. We have been subsidizing the money-losing airlines time and time again. This Congress properly provides tens of billions every year for highways, public transit, aviation, and maritime transportation infrastructure and operations. Passenger rail is just as deserving of our support as the rest. Each year, about 4 million New Jersey residents ride Amtrak. 200,000 commuters up and down the Northeast Corridor rely on Amtrak to maintain the NJ Transit system. Amtrak has tremendous impact on our regional economy in the Northeast. Amtrak relieves congestion throughout the Northeast on the roadways and airways. Like so many of our States, my home State of New Jersey already has a severely strained State budget. Passing the buck of rail operations and maintenance onto already struggling State budgets is not a solution based in reality. Funding Amtrak at last year's level is the very least we can do to keep the trains running that Americans count on nationwide. We must support the LaTourette/Oberstar amendment. We must defeat this ill-conceived proposal. The Congress must provide the dollars that Amtrak needs to run efficiently and effectively.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my brothers and sisters from both sides of the aisle that this was a national system envisioned by the President in 1971, President Nixon, who had the bipartisan support of the Congress of the United States. And why was it proposed? It was proposed because the private companies wanted out. They no longer could pay for a system that serviced America. Now, let me say what that system encompasses, I support this amendment by the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads. Just three of those routes in red that you want to dispose of, the Silver Service, the Silver Meteor and the Palmetto, from New York to Miami, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, all the way to Jacksonville-Tampa and Fort Lauderdale, services 738,000 people. No small potatoes. That is a lot of folks. Where are you asking them to go? How are they going to get between destinations? While I can accept that Amtrak must reform and while I can accept that we need to do away with any frivolous spending whatsoever, we need to sustain a system here, and we need to figure out on both sides of the aisle how to do it. The Crescent from New York to New Orleans to Philadelphia to Wilmington, to Baltimore, Washington, Greensboro, Charlotte, Atlanta and Birmingham, 256,000 people, 256,000 passengers. And the Carolinian from Charlotte to New York City, 305,000 passengers. That is why I support the Brown-Menendez-Rahall amendment to keep these Amtrak trains on track. I want to express in the strongest words here, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what one might expect, residents in my area of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, they travel rail to Florida. They do not only travel the northeast corridor, they travel by rail to the Midwest, they travel up to New England beyond just Boston, and they like using the trains, the very same trains that brought us from place to place after 9/11, remember, when we could not travel. Thank goodness that we had some semblance of a national system. Americans like the freedom to travel. They want to make choices. I believe it should be the goal of the Department of Transportation to expand transportation alternatives, not to cut back on those choices. It was Amtrak that I rode home from Washington on to be with my constituents to assess the damage at Ground Zero, as well as folks from both sides of the aisle. It is too important to the American people and the American economy to settle for anything less than a national system. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the presentations about reform. I have heard no explanations, no alternatives to in any way sustain those routes that are all in red. So if we took the red away, we have systems that are not interconnected, and many of those systems are connected to the intermodal part of transportation, which is what TEA-LU is all about, which is what TEA-21 was all about, intermodal transportation. The Amtrak system is part of it, whether we are talking about rail, whether we are talking about airlines, whatever we are talking about.