Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. On that I request a recorded vote.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Let me conclude by saying that I have been listening to what has been said, and I think I have got a compromise we can all accept. What if we pass an amendment that increases the number of COPS by 6,500? There are none in the bill now. We make it 6,500, and we still give a $300 million plus up, an increase of 10 percent in the President's moon and Mars initiative, give an increase in space exploration and COPS program? Sound like a deal? Well, this is the amendment. That is what the Weiner-Ramstad amendment does. It gives an increase to both. This notion that we are eviscerating a program is just not true. We are taking a program and giving it a 10 percent increase and funding another program that has done this much good around the country. This is the number of police officers around the country.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I disagree with very little of what has been said on both sides. I think the chairman and ranking member have done a remarkable job balancing the equities, but it is simply not fair that the COPS program gets zero. To keep saying that State and local enforcement has got additional funds, let us not forget that we authorized the COPS program at $1 billion. This amendment doesn't seek to fund it at that level, but it seeks to put some money in. And if you think we are going to lose the edge in space exploration because we have the audacity to give it a 10 percent increase this year, I just disagree. It is a matter of trying to find a way that we can do both. We do not gut the space program. We give it a 10 percent increase with the Weiner amendment. But what we do is we make sure that we don't have this. This is what the bill presently has in the number of new cops under the COPS program. None. Zip. Zero. Crime rates around the country are creeping back up. I heard at least one gentleman over there say, at least he is being honest, he believes that cops deserve no credit for the reduction in crime. It is an unusual position to take. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Associations, and every law enforcement group nationwide supports the Weiner amendment. What we are seeking to do here is to say, you know what, we can't in the Federal Government be at the sidelines in the fight against crime. We need to be in the game. We need to participate. The COPS program was a success. Congressman Sensenbrenner said it. Attorney General Ashcroft said, and I quote, ``Let me say that I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments if you put additional people, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and people would be safer.'' He is right. I am sure if he were here today he would say support the Weiner amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WEINER. Apparently, the gentleman from Florida is unfamiliar with the rhetorical question which is so commonly used in New York and frequently in Washington. Florida got 7,400 police officers under the COPS program. The COPS program was reauthorized in this body for additional hiring. We reauthorized it. Now I am saying, put a few dollars in there. And I am not saying, do not go to Mars; I am not saying, do not go to the Moon. How about this? Let's make a deal. Let's have a 10 percent increase in that program that is so important. That is a pretty healthy increase. And if we do that, then we do not go from 7,400 cops in Florida to what the bill proposes, which is zero cops in Florida. That is what voting against the Weiner-Ramstad amendment would propose. We are saying that this is a successful program. When Tom Ridge said that homeland security starts in our home towns, when John Ashcroft said this has been a remarkable program, you know, frankly, it has been a bipartisan, across-the-board success. We have reauthorized it in this body. All I am saying is, breathe new life in it. I would just remind the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, that large increase that you described still is zeroing out, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia, the hiring component. What the Department of Justice has done is put a whole lot of programs in this one line. The hiring component is zero, none, kaput, despite the fact that we reauthorized. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with Mr. Ramstad and other Members of this body. It is very simple. It takes perhaps the single most important anticrime program of the 1990s and the early part of this decade, the COPS program, and restores the hiring component, which is the portion of the program that puts cops on the beat. It has been zeroed out in this budget. We are not going to restore it completely to its authorized level, but we at least are trying to put a little more funding in that would allow us to hire about 6,500 additional cops. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the COPS program, this is perhaps the most democratic, with a small ``D,'' program, anticrime program Congress ever envisioned, from coast to coast, State by State. West Virginia got 692 officers, Virginia got 2,400 officers, Texas got 600, big towns, small cities, all across the country. This bill zeroes out the COPS program. What we seek to do is to authorize an additional 6,000 or so police officers. The offset that we seek is in the space exploration, the Mars program. We do not zero it out by any stretch of the imagination. We still ensure a large increase in it, about a 10 percent increase. But this would be a way to take this single crime fighting program, and, frankly, an antiterrorism program, and breathe some life into it. We have already said in this body that we believe the COPS program should live. We reauthorized it. Now this is an effort to put some funds in. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all of the discussion about China, I am curious, is the crime rate high in China? Is the crime rate high on Mars? No one is saying to zero out the program. I am saying give it a 10 percent increase.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just acknowledge that I agree with much of what the gentleman says, except the part about us gutting anything. What we did is we took the space exploration program and limited the increase to 10 percent. We by no means cut it to last year's level. We by no means slashed it to the bone. What we did is we took a program that grew the most and said, we are going go allow it to grow only 10 percent in the alternative. I want to point out the program that did get slashed to the bone, which was the COPS hiring component. You know, if you have a COPS program which put 117,000 police officers on the street and you say, we are going to reauthorize it but we are not going to provide any funding to do the hiring component, then we are going to start seeing what we are seeing now, which is, nationwide the seven index crimes are starting to creep up again. We saw the single best Federal program against crime perhaps in history was the COPS program, and despite the protestations of some of the folks who were here at the time, it was distributed throughout the country. Now the COPS department at Justice in the hands of the Republican party fervently says, you know what, having a COPS program without having hiring in it is like having no COPS program at all. Also, in the reauthorization, we acknowledged in a bipartisan way some of the weaknesses of the program. Some departments said, you know what, the way it was structured was too limited. They wanted flexibility. We acknowledged that. The chairman, to his credit, and this House, to its credit, overwhelmingly reauthorized that program, but it is a hollow victory if we have the COPS program and no money. So the offset admittedly is not ideal. I think you and the gentleman from Virginia do yeoman's duty each year trying to squeeze more and more into a smaller bag.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their hard work shepherding through the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, and to express my strong support of the bill. It authorizes $8.7 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal 2006, which will be used to perform the essential duties of the U.S. Coast Guard in the areas of homeland security, maritime safety, law enforcement, environmental protection, and emergency response: a mission area in which the Coast Guard led the pack in responding to Hurricane Katrina. To support these activities, the conference report authorizes $500 million in additional emergency funds for Katrina response. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight a provision that I offered and was accepted by the Committee last July and is included in this conference report. It directs the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study of the pollution in Newtown Creek caused by underground oil spills in Brooklyn, N.Y. The study is to be fully funded through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. As outlined in section 410 of the conference report, this study is to be completed no later than one year after enactment of this law. Newtown Creek is a 3.5 mile long waterway that flows from the East River and separates the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. The State of New York has ruled that the Creek does not meet water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. It is the single most polluted waterway in New York City, and its banks are home to the largest oil spill in the United States. The spill is 150 percent the size of the Exxon-Valdez spill. In 1978, a Coast Guard patrol detected petroleum on the surface of Newtown Creek and identified a spill that spreads from the banks of the Creek through the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn. Evaluations at that time identified a spill totaling 17 million gallons attributed to refineries operated along the banks of the Creek by the predecessors to ExxonMobil, BP/Amoco and Chevron-Texaco. To date, 8.7 millions gallons have been cleaned but estimates indicate it will take at least 25 more years to finish the remediation, primarily conducted by ExxonMobil under a 1990 consent agreement with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that sets no timetable for completion and includes no meaningful criteria for compliance. Even though it has been over 25 years since the oil spill was detected, the public health and safety risks associated with the oil spill are still unknown. The legislative intent of the amendment that directs the Coast Guard to study Newtown Creek (Creek) is for the Environmental Protection Agency to revisit the findings of the U.S. Coast Guard's July 1979 report entitled ``Investigation of Underground Accumulation of Hydrocarbons along Newtown Creek,'' and address the following issues: The actual current size of the Greenpoint Oil Spill (Spill) and the extent to which oil from each refinery site contributes to the Spill. The extent and severity of surface water pollution and sediment contamination from the Spill, and methods to prevent further seepage into the Creek. The Spill's impact on existing conditions in the Creek including but not limited to low levels of dissolved oxygen and high levels of bacteria. The interaction between pollution from the Spill and pollution from other sources in the Creek including but not limited to Combined Sewer Overflow Pipes and the Newtown Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. The extent to which oil and contaminated sediments in the Creek disperse into New York Harbor. The extent to which the Spill has affected aquatic species in the Creek and Harbor, and methods to prevent further harm. The extent to which the Spill has affected groundwater in the surrounding area, and methods to prevent further harm. The extent and severity of contaminated soil in the area affected by the Spill, and methods to prevent further harm. Any public health issues raised by the Spill and the current remediation efforts, both independently and in interaction with other pollutants in the Creek. Any safety issues raised by the Spill and the current remediation efforts, both independently and in interaction with other pollutants in the Creek. The extent to which the current remediation efforts are sufficient, and any new technologies or approaches that could accelerate product recovery and/or improve the scope of the remediation. I would like to express my thanks to Chairman Young, Mr. Oberstar, Chairman LoBiondo, and Mr. Filner for their willingness to work with me on this very important yet often overlooked Issue. The country will benefit from renewed Federal attention on this oil spill, the largest in the country. Furthermore, I would like to thank my Democratic colleagues in the New York City delegation, all of whom signed a letter to conferees urging that this study be included in the conference report. I would especially like to commend Mrs. Velazquez, who represents the people of Greenpoint. She and I have worked together closely on this initiative. Additionally, I would like to thank both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Transportation Committee and the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. In particular, Ward McCarragher and John Cullather of Mr. Oberstar's staff and Fraser Verrusio and John Rayfield of Mr. Young's staff were very helpful.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today, there is no way to argue that this war in Iraq was not badly undermined by bad planning based on bad intelligence and an abject failure to organize the international community in a meaningful way. In short, the American people and Congress would clearly answer this question in the same way. If we knew then what we know today would we have done everything the same? Certainly not. This is a common sense message despite the fact that the Administration is reluctant to see it. I would suggest that there is another thing that we all agree upon: the extraordinary work of the men and women who are over there fighting on our behalf, and the remarkable heroism they've shown in the face of a mission that seems to constantly change and the hostility of many Iraqis. Yesterday, we mourned the 2,500th fatality. There have been 18,000 injuries and those of us in New York have lost 118 of our neighbors. I believe the military mission in Iraq has been completed and our troops should be redeployed in a way to preserve the accomplishments that they've achieved and to further our objectives of defeating terrorism and stabilizing the region. At the outset of the war the President articulated and many of us agreed that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. Our military achieved that. And there have been elections in Iraq that our military helped make happen. Standing up of the infrastructure has been painfully slow. A Brookings Institution study that came out today showed that we still have not reached pre-war levels of oil production or available electric power. Yet to the extent that roads and bridges and infrastructure have been created or restored in Iraq, it was through the good work of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. There have been reports of over 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, clean water is scarce, and unemployment hovers above 50 percent. The question we have today as inartfully and politically posited as my friends on the other side articulate it, is how do we honor the work that has been done so far and how do we adapt to the situation that we've found? This notion of barreling ahead while our troops become the target of so many attacks is misguided. The number of daily attacks by insurgents in May of 2003 was 5; in May of 2006 it was 90. The total number of insurgents has increased from 3,000 to 20,000 during the same time period. And Iraq has become a training ground for jihadists, with an increase in the number of foreign fighters from 100 in May 2003 to 1,500 in May 2006. I support the position of Congressman Jack Murtha and General Anthony Zinni, and agree with General George Casey, who said in September 2005 that, ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a driving force behind the insurgency.'' Now the burden lies with the Iraqi people, and our troops standing in the middle of this battlefield have become targets rather than a force for stability and peace. As Mr. Murtha has observed, 100,000 Shi'as fighting 20,000 Sunnis amounts to civil war, even if we choose to call it ``sectarian violence.'' Incidents between warring Iraqi factions are up from 20 in May of last year to 250 in May of this year. We should redeploy our troops to the horizon of the battle, out of harm's way, but close enough to ensure that in the future the insurgents and terrorists do not take hold in Iraq. It is time for our military presence in the Middle East to be converted to a powerful quick-reaction force outside of Iraq. 80 percent of Iraqis want us out of their country and 47 percent say killing Americans is justified. Then, we should reallocate the funds being spent in Iraq, which dwarfs the combined budgets of all other programs in place to fight terrorism, and re-engage with the countries around the world that rallied behind us in the wake of 9/11 but were alienated by our conduct in Iraq. Some have suggested that taking the target off the backs of our troops by removing them from the center of this conflict would lead to chaos. Implicit in that critique is the suggestion that we don't have chaos today. Our troops' presence there, I believe, is allowing Iraq's citizens a convenient excuse for failing to take responsibility for their destiny. The Iraqi people clearly would like us to leave and permit them to govern. Our troops have expressed the same sentiment. And it is clear that if we are to reclaim our place on the world stage as a unifying force for democratic values and the ideals of our country, the way to start is to redeploy so we can be ready for future challenges.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Patrick K. Dowdell, upon his graduation from West Point as a second lieutenant. Patrick K. Dowdell is a resident of Breezy Point, Queens, who has been a volunteer with the Point Breeze Volunteer Fire Department, Habitat for Humanity and Meals on Wheels. Along with his father Kevin Dowdell, a lieutenant at Rescue Company 4 of the New York City Fire Department, Patrick contacted my office in 2000 to request a nomination to West Point's Class of 2005. Despite my nomination, and a valiant effort by Lt. Kevin Dowdell to hand deliver the required documents for his son's application to West Point admissions officials, Patrick was waitlisted and instead attended lona College. Patrick K. Dowdell proved to be both resilient and determined, and sought admission to West Point the following year while he excelled at lona and was elected as Freshman Class Representative in the student government. Supported by teachers, neighbors and friends offering praise and letters of support, Patrick again asked for my nomination, with his father leading the charge. When the dust of September 11, 2001 settled, Patrick Dowdell and his family learned that Lt. Kevin Dowdell was last seen entering the burning towers to help his fellow citizens and had been lost. Patrick Dowdell, as determined as ever to serve his country and make his dad proud, volunteered in the clean up efforts and continued to pursue his dream of attending West Point. Patrick K. Dowdell was designated as my principle nominee in 2001 and was a member of the 2006 West Point graduating class. In President Bush's commencement speech last month to the first class to enter the academy after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Patrick had the honor of being the only cadet singled out for praise by the President. In the words of the President, ``We live in freedom because young Americans like Patrick and all the cadets here today have stepped forward to serve.'' Patrick is now looking forward to serving his country and continuing to honor his father's memory. He also serves as a source of encouragement to his younger brother James Dowdell, who has followed in their father's footsteps by joining the New York City Fire Department, serving in Ladder 174 and providing support to his proud mother, Rose Ellen Dowdell. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate Patrick K. Dowdell upon the completion of his studies at West Point and upon his commission as a second lieutenant.

Mr. WEINER

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

Mr. WEINER. I have no further speakers, so I will use this time to wrap up. The chairman of the subcommittee deserves an enormous amount of credit for through the years crafting excellent bills that have unified this House. Three hundred of us said last year, enough is enough, we are not going to provide aid to Saudi Arabia. The fact that we still have it back this year makes you wonder why it is. But he posits the wrong question. He says what is so bad about having a 2,000 percent increase in the amount of funds we are going to provide Saudi Arabia? My colleagues, we should be asking a different question when we provide foreign aid. The question should be: Why should we? Why should we provide aid to a country that has systematically exported terrorism? When Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for the caves of Afghanistan, he did so with what some people think was close to $1 billion of cash in his pocket, Saudi blood money. When Wahabism is spread worldwide, this virulent form of Islamic teaching that is outside anyone's realm of understanding about why you would teach young people to hate, as I showed from this textbook from this year, the Saudi government is doing that. When we look at the numbers of Saudi citizens that are being exported around the world and committing acts of terror, when we look at the fact that the Saudis said again and again we are going to shut down these bank accounts that fund terrorism, and again and again it has been proven that they haven't done it, the question should be: Why are we providing any aid to them? Never mind a 2,000 percent increase from last year, why provide any aid? And this legislation is very simple. It says let us have a good foreign aid bill, but not a 2,000 percent increase to the Saudis when they have lied to us. They said they were going to close down ``Account 98'' used to fund terrorism. As of today, it is open. They said they were going to change their teachings to make them more tolerant. As of today, they have not. They said they were going to stop exporting Wahabism. As of today, the World Association of Muslim Youth is still being funded by them and exporting the worst type of terrorism. My colleagues, I urge you to support the Weiner-Burton-Crowley- Ferguson-Berkley amendment. Let's make this a good foreign aid bill that doesn't include foreign aid to people who have lied to us and exported terrorism. Let's not provide a 2,000 percent increase in aid to the Saudis. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer the Weiner-Burton-Crowley-Ferguson-Berkley amendment to prohibit all aid in this bill from going to the Saudi Arabians. You might be asking a couple of questions. First, you might be asking why we would be offering any aid at all to the wealthiest nation on Earth; why we would be offering any aid at all to a nation that exports Wahabism, exports terrorism, has done nothing to help us in Iraq, and has, frankly, not been constructive. And on top of all that, why are we offering it when consistently, every single year, this House says we are not going to support it. Well, we are back here again because we here in this House did not heed the admonition of President Bush after September 11 when he said, you know, nowadays, we have to not look at what nations say, we have to start looking at what they actually do. And the fact is that despite the great rhetoric of the people of Saudi Arabia and their government, they continue to be a force of hate in the world and continue to be a force that exports terrorism in the world. Let me give you an example, just since we passed this bill last time. This is a quotation from the Saudi Ambassador from an ad in the New Republic on the back cover of September 12, 2005. It says: ``Modernizing our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow, Saudi Arabia has vowed to fight evil with justice and challenge extremism with moderation and tolerance.'' That is what they say. I am holding in my hand the government-sponsored textbook of the people of Saudi Arabia, Mr. Chairman. I am holding a book that is in classrooms today. Let me tell you some of the things they are teaching in the eighth grade from their textbooks today: ``The apes are Jews, the keepers of the Sabbath, while the swine are the Christian infidels of the communion of Jesus.'' That is what this textbook says the children in the eighth grade in Saudi Arabia are being taught today. And if we are to pass this bill as is, we are going to pass funding for Saudi Arabia from the U.S. taxpayers. Let me show you what they are teaching in the ninth grade. This is the Saudi Ministry. This is the textbook that is issued by the government of Saudi Arabia: ``The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.'' This is in a part of the world where we in this House, we in this country are trying to seek moderation and trying to seek tolerance. This is what they are teaching this year. You know, I could read some other quotes, and among the quotes I can read are yours, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Chairman, who has done a terrific job with this bill by and large and have served this House with great distinction. Every single year we say, well, the reason we are putting money in this bill is the Saudis are getting better. Sure, 15 of the 19 homicide bombers on my city were Saudis; sure, 70 percent of the most wanted international terrorists are Saudis; sure, according to the State Department, 60 percent of all the funding exported is coming from the Saudis. But, still, they are getting better. They are getting better. Mr. Chairman, this is what they are saying today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of the sponsors of this amendment, Mr. Burton.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. But, Mr. Chairman, that is not what they are traveling around the world to do. They are traveling around the world, in the words of our own Department of Treasury, with the World Association of Muslim Youth. What are they doing? They are exporting Wahabism. They are setting up madrasahs all around the world. They are exploiting the kind of teaching that you and I do not agree with them, and we are giving them in this bill a 2,000 percent increase from what they got last year when this House said we had had enough. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I understand. The motion to recommit that we are voting on today that we are seeking to have an up or down vote on, I would say, would give us an opportunity to hear this. You don't need to raise the point of order. If you want to simply go vote to sustain this ridiculous formula, vote on the Lowey amendment in an act of good faith that we showed by entering into the unanimous consent. That is why the point of order should be withdrawn.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I am seeking to do that.

Mr. WEINER. Certainly. That is what I am doing, Madam Speaker. What happened was during the intervening period, after the unanimous consent was entered into, this formula was issued giving Members no opportunity other than this motion in order to make this point, that in order to have funds allocated where they are needed most, the Lowey motion is the only way to do it. If you vote yes on tabling this motion, you are voting to essentially sustain this allocation.

Mr. WEINER. I certainly am, and, if I were permitted to finish, you would see that.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order. Madam Speaker, a fundamental element of the rules of the House is that Members get an opportunity to debate and have their views heard on issues. We have lost the opportunity to have an amendment such as this because of a unanimous consent that was entered into before these events happened. We, in good faith, entered into a unanimous consent agreement on limiting the number of amendments we offered to this bill. Then in the intervening period, news happened. The Department of Homeland Security issued a formula and issued a distribution of funds that gave less money to places that were at the highest need. What happened was we entered into a unanimous consent agreement to limit the number of amendments that were offered.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of long time community activist, Brian L. Gotlieb, upon his completion of service as Chairman of Community Board 13 in Brooklyn. Brian L. Gotlieb has proven himself to be a tireless fighter on behalf of his neighbors and our community. While Brian's service to Community Board 13 started long before his appointment as chairman, serving as a member of the Board's Youth Services, Education & Library, and Housing, Zoning & Land Use committees, he never limited his community activism to just one organization. Brian L. Gotlieb founded Shorefront Toys for Tots, to distribute toys to needy children during the holiday season, served as a member of the Community School Board for District 21, and as President of the Brighton-Atlantic Unit 1671 of B'nai B'rith helped that unit expand their outreach effort to other religious, ethnic and civic groups. Brian L. Gotlieb was taught civic responsibility by example, and I am sure his mother Myrna, of blessed memory, would be proud of his accomplishments, which include being honored by many of the organizations he has served or supported as well as being a practicing attorney. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate Brian L. Gotlieb upon the completion of his service as Chairman of Community Board 13 in Brooklyn and thank him for his many years of hard work on behalf of my constituents and the City of New York.