Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose of this amendment is simple. First of all, let me say what this amendment is not. This amendment is not an effort to litigate again the conflict that has arisen in this House between urban Members and rural Members. It is not an effort to revisit the formula question about the minimums. I think that the committee has done a fairly good job on trying to manage that situation, although it is not perfect. My belief is that there should be no minimum guarantee. Money should be allocated based on threats. That is the way I think it should be done, but I understand the efforts of the ranking member and the chairman to address that problem; and they have done so, I think, better than we have up until now. The question still arises about whether or not we should have a portion of our homeland security funding stream that is dedicated for what we in Congress said we wanted in the 2003 omnibus, which is a pool of money that is designated to go, in the language of the legislation, to address the unique equipment, training, planning, and exercise needs of selected large high-threat urban areas. We have now, through the course of time, expanded that not just to be cities; it is literally the areas around cities, the cities and the suburbs, and in many cases it is also the ports authorities and the airports authorities of these major cities. What my legislation would do would be to address a creeping problem that was not created by this Congress but has been created by the Department of Homeland Security. These high-threat urban area grants, which started out going to six cities, have expanded over time to the point that now they are over 50 cities, and there are also additional areas and airports authorities and the like that get it. What my legislation would do would be to say, look, there are going to be times when we are going to want to take a city or an area, and they may be under less threat or we may want to add one, but we must not continue down the path for, I think, largely political reasons each year adding more and more and more cities to this pot. Here is what it is doing. We in the Congress are expressing our views to increase the funding for that pool of money; but the Department of Homeland Security, by administrative fiat, is adding the number of cities that are available, therefore actually reducing the amount and percentage that the larger cities and areas have to contend with. Now, for my colleagues who represent rural areas, my colleagues who represent suburban areas, my colleagues who represent areas that are not traditionally thought of as large urban areas, I want to assure you nothing in this amendment in any way limits your ability to get funds from this pot. Because under language written by the chairman and the ranking member, now areas can pool together. For example, if Kansas and Iowa and Nebraska want to get together and say we want to create a pool to protect against agro-terrorism, for example, they could be added as a group under my amendment very easily. This simply says one thing: we have to stop adding more and more cities when that was clearly not the intention of Congress to do. We said in our actions that we wanted this to be a select number of areas. If the Department of Homeland Security is going to continue to add to that list, until we essentially have every single eligible city up to the limit that is laid out in the law, what is the purpose of having the bifurcated system? Maybe we should not. I mean, I happen to believe that we were trying to address a legitimate concern that many have raised, including the 9/11 Commission, that said, look, there are some areas and cities that we want to have a distinct pot of money for. Before I reserve, let me just make another point. We are talking about approximately 25 percent of the overall funding stream for homeland security. We are not talking about 75 or 80 percent. We are talking about a discrete amount of money, a discrete percentage of money which would be held for these 50 or fewer cities. Now, I happen to believe 50 is a very high number. When you start thinking about the 50 largest cities, the largest metropolitan areas, there are cities on the list presently that do not even have minor league baseball teams, yet they are considered major urban areas. I am not saying that we should take all of the funds and just dedicate them to my hometown. I know that is not anything that we should do. We have a law here that is crafted to distribute money based on different types of threat, different types of ways. But we in the legislature here in Congress have said very clearly that we believe there should be a pot of money that is protected from the traditional political back and forth. Let us continue to protect that pot of money. If you vote for my amendment, it does not mean any of your constituents are not eligible for this money. It does not mean that. But it does mean if you are one of these cities either now, in the past, or in the future, you are not going to be on the list of 300 or 400 cities. It is going to be limited to 50 at most. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 100th anniversary of Lighthouse International. They are a leading organization that helps vision impaired individuals of all ages lead independent and productive lives. Founded in 1905, Lighthouse International is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping prevent the disabling effects of impaired vision. Their rehabilitation program teaches the visually impaired new skills to cope with their vision loss and accomplish the goals they have set for themselves. Lighthouse International has served approximately 5,000 residents in the New York City metropolitan area. Lighthouse International is New York State's foremost provider of comprehensive vision rehabilitation services for people of all ages. Their services include infant and toddler programs, a child development center, counseling, career services, low vision care, a music school, computer training, and instruction in independent living. The Lighthouse collaborates with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness (IAPB) to develop strategic plans that address and prevent vision impairment. They are a participant in the IAPB's ``Vision 2020: The Right to Sight'' campaign to eliminate avoidable blindness. There are 180 million people with vision impairment worldwide. Lighthouse International deserves recognition for its tireless work on their behalf. Their programs give hope to people who had once lost their faith in accomplishing everyday activities.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, April 24th marks the 90th commemoration of the Armenian genocide. On that day, Ottoman Turkish leader Talaat Paskha uttered the frightening directive to ``Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern.'' Between 1915 and 1921, more than 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered, approximately 80 percent of the population. Men were tied together with ropes, taken to the outskirts of their town and shot or bayoneted by death squads. Women were brutally raped and hundreds of thousands were starved to death. 75 percent of those who were forced into death marches perished, especially children and the elderly. And those who survived the ordeal were herded into the desert without water, thrown off cliffs, burned alive, or drowned. Ninety years after that first genocide of the 20th century, it is hard for many Americans to conceive of a tragedy on such a scale. An equivalent massacre on U.S. soil would claim the lives of 236 million Americans. That's every man, woman, and child in 48 of the 50 United States. Some mistakenly believe that recent events make the Armenian tragedy seem long ago. To the contrary, its relevance has a heightened importance today. One week before Hitler invaded Poland in the fall of 1939, he ordered his generals ``to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?'' That is precisely why we must still talk about the Armenians today. And we must still talk about the Jews, and the Poles, and the Russians, and the Catholics, and the Tutsis, and the moderate Hutus, and the Sudanese whose lives have been lost to genocide. That is why this week's commemoration here in the United States Congress and those events going on this week are so crucial. If the world fails to remember the Armenian genocide of the early 20th century, we will have abandoned the collective commitment to fight the evils that communities have unleashed upon another. In these early years of the 21st century, Armenians understand the War on Terror. It is a war they have now been fighting for ninety years. A war the world community still refuses to recognize. As we gather today to pay tribute, it is time for the U.S. Congress to finally designate what we all know to be a case of genocide. While tragically it may not be last, it is time to correct the history in the minds of many and finally declare the Armenian genocide the holocaust that it was.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with indignation over the situation in Tibet. In 1949, Tibet was invaded and occupied by The People's Republic of China. In the course of the invasion and occupation, an estimated 87,000 Tibetans were arrested, deported to labor camps, or killed. The situation has not much improved over the past sixty years. Tibetan freedom of choice is still not tolerated by the People's Republic of China and harsh punishments await any who diverge from Chinese mandates. Each year thousands of innocent people are thrown in prison or killed under a corrupt and cruel system. Even peaceful opposition is met with exacting penalties. In fact, Buddhist monks and nuns are regularly shipped to detention for exercising their religion. The people of Tibet live in constant fear they will be imprisoned, tortured, or killed for peacefully expressing their political and religious beliefs, or in the best case scenario, they will simply disappear in the dark of the night. We must help the Dali Lama and the people of Tibet in their quest to live free from oppression. We must all work towards a peaceful resolution to this situation so not one more Tibetan is carried off by the night.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of Yogi Bhajan, a leader and inspiration to more than 23 million Sikhs around the world. Born in 1929, Yogi Bhajan led his village of 7,000 people 325 miles to safety on foot when violence erupted between Pakistan and India in 1947. The 3HO organization he founded in 1969 has strengthened the spiritual and interpersonal ties of more than 300 communities in 35 countries. The Sikh faith was founded in India in the 15th century. Today, there are more than 175,000 Sikhs living in the United States and as many as 75,000 in the New York City metropolitan area. Like their founder Guru Nanak, Sikhs practice tolerance and equality for all humans. Unfortunately, Sikhs here in the United States find themselves the objects of just the type of discrimination and that Yogi Bhajan worked to combat. In the last 3 years, the Sikh's have been the victims of at least 62 hate crimes, 27 cases of racial profiling, and 22 incidents of employment discrimination. In a particularly public incident from my home town, a Sikh subway motorman in New York City lost his job when the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) said he could not wear his religious headgear to work. Today, in the spirit of our commemoration of Yogi Bhajan's enormous contributions, Congress should pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would require an employer to accommodate a worker's faith unless it imposes significant difficulty or expense on the employer. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act has the support of an incredibly diverse coalition of organizations including the National Sikh Center, Agudath Israel, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the National Council of Churches, the National Council of Muslim Women, and the Southern Baptist Convention. If the Workplace Religious Freedom Act were passed, a Sikh would be able to wear a turban at work unless it posed a serious health or safety concern. And a Jew or Seventh Day Adventist could arrange not to work on Saturday, in exchange for working overtime earlier in the week. We should take this opportunity to honor Yogi Bhajan by doing right by the community that survives him. Let's make sure the Sikh community in America lives in an America devoted to the spirit of tolerance and equality that Yogi Bhajan came to symbolize.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Amendments thereto, meaning to this.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, just so I understand, I can under this agreement be able to reserve time. Unlike the 5-minute rule, I would be able to reserve portions of my 5 minutes?

Mr. WEINER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WEINER. I would say to the gentleman from New York, this is just on this amendment.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a similar amendment that we have passed recently, as recently as July of 2004; and it restricts any money in this bill, not a single dollar, not a single dime going to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We have had the debate many times in this Chamber; and on a few occasions some of my colleagues have posited, oh, no, this is not the right time to do it, the Saudis are getting better, they are becoming more cooperative, they are not exporting Wahabism, they are not exporting terrorism, they are not funding terrorism, they are not restricting human rights as much as they had, they are on the path to reform. I am offering the amendment again today because in the last 7, 8 months since we have offered this amendment last to restrict moneys in the foreign aid bill, it has gotten worse and worse and worse still. Just in recent months, the State Department issued its annual country reports on human rights practices. Here is what it said about Saudi Arabia: ``There were credible reports of torture and abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detentions. The religious police continue to intimidate, abuse and detain citizens and foreigners. Most trials were closed.'' That was not years ago. That was just in the last couple of months. The State Department also issued its report on anti-Semitism on the 30th of December. Of course, it reports about how there is an explosion of anti-Semitism in Europe and throughout the world funded by the Saudi kingdom. Just in February of this year, Freedom House, an organization, sent Muslim volunteers to 15 prominent mosques in New York, from New York to San Diego, and collected hundreds and hundreds of books paid for by the Saudi Arabian Government that said things like, quote, any Muslim who believes that, quote, churches are houses of God and that God is worshipped therein is an infidel. Another quote from these Saudi publications: Be disassociated from the infidels. Hate them for their religion. Leave them. Never rely on them for support. Do not admire them and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law. And here is what these Saudi documents say about America: It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because it is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting their erroneous ways. Also, these documents published by the Saudis, this is what it says about war against America, not years ago but weeks ago: ``To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's army. It is the duty of every citizen and the government.'' Mr. Chairman, there should not be any money in this bill, and there is not presently any money that specifically says it can go to the Saudis; but we have seen again and again how money gets reprogrammed without a full vote of this Congress. If we vote today to say no aid to the Saudis, the President could not come back and ask for any of this money to be reprogrammed. I think that the time has come for us to start sending an unambiguous, clear message to the Saudis that we understand, particularly in the post-9/11 world, that we are going to judge people based on what they do, not on what they say, on their record, not just on their glossy public relations campaign. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just quote what the gentleman from Wisconsin said in the last debate: ``The government of Saudi Arabia has greatly increased its effort to root out terrorism. It has greatly increased its cooperation in intelligence matters and others with the United States.'' The facts that I read just now were within the last months. It is simply not true. Do not believe the hype. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will close by saying just two things in points of clarification. One, the gentleman, despite the best efforts of this House, is incorrect. Despite our amendment saying no money can go to Saudi Arabia, moneys were allocated to Saudi Arabia; so they are now entitled to discount on purchasing for our military. So our will was not followed. Secondly, to the previous speaker, this notion that they are not exporting Wahabism has been debunked by the State Department as recently as 1\1/2\ months ago. They are exporting terrorism, exporting Wahabism. I would say they are two-faced except they have so many members of the Royal Family, they are several hundred Fahds, and the time has come for us to start judging people on what they do, not what they say. I have 5 additional seconds to make my punchline point. This amendment will say that we believe that Saudi Arabia should be treated not as an ally but as an enemy in the War on Terror because that is what they have been.

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

Mr. WEINER

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the full committee for stalling a bit while I prepared. This amendment is very simple. It simply says that we should not allocate at this moment in time any aid to the Palestinians. We have a history in this Congress of lurching forward at the first sign of any optimistic sign, and I freely concede that this is such a moment in the Middle East. We, the taxpayers, are the first to put money on the barrel head: $612 million up to now, including $20 million in direct aid to Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. If the name sounds familiar, it is because the $20 million was not offered and proposed during this administration of Mahmoud Abbas. It was the last time. That money went in direct aid, and it is now gone. We have a tendency all too often to want to wish things to go well in the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and the way we express that wish as taxpayers is by essentially giving money and more money and more money. There is no doubt in my mind that we in the United States have an important role to play here in the peace that hopefully will ensue. But what we should be doing is offering money based on performance, money based on transparency, money based on democratization, money based on furtherance of U.S. interests. We are offering this money now, and it is tied to nothing. There does not have to be compliance with the road map. There does not have to be compliance with past agreements. There does not have to be any type of democratic reform, and there does not have to be any type of transparency. You know, I am not the first to say this. The IMF acknowledged in 2004 that $900 million, $900 million in funds that went to the Palestinian Authority were not unaccounted for. Now, the funds we provide do not go to the Palestinian Authority except for the $20 million I referenced earlier. They go to NGOs in the region. But I will argue to you that just the same way we would not fund an NGO in Iran or North Korea until we started to see some dramatic change in behavior, we should not do it here either. What we should do is we should pass my amendment. The committee should return to the administration and say look, we want to be participants in this peace process as well. Here is what we will do. Rather than $200 million now at the front end, we will say $25 million. At the end of the year, if you have complied with the road map towards peace that the President has laid out, we will put in another 50 or another $75 million. If after a year and a half there seems to have been 100 percent effort to cut down on violence, not the nonstop falling of Kassam rockets that is going on now, then maybe we do another $50 million or another $75 million, essentially using the money as a reward for the type of activity that the United States and our taxpayers want. Now, no one could argue that today, despite the changes in the Middle East, ones that, frankly, have me optimistic, no one could argue that Mahmoud Abbas has shown 100 percent effort to end violence. No one could argue that the Palestinians now have transparent government. No one could argue first and foremost that they can show us where the $900 million that the IMF said had been absconded, where it has gone. I am not saying do not provide aid. I am saying that this is the least beneficial way to do it. You give them $200 million. If tomorrow we learn that the Palestinian administration has not lived up to its commitments, then we will have lost the money. Now, let me conclude before I reserve my time with this thought. You know, this is not the first time we have been in this pattern. We can learn a little something. At the Wye River Accord we put in money. Wye River went away. The Israelis walked away from it because the Palestinians violated it. Our money was still going. The Oslo Accords the same way. U.S. dollars were going long after the Oslo Accords had run aground. The Tenet plan, the Mitchell plan, the road map to peace. You know, we forget that $20 million in direct aid went to the Palestinians and the same exact arguments that my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona, is going to make here today were made then. These are optimistic times. There is a new administration. We need to foster, we need to encourage it. I do not dispute that. The only question is do we put the money on the barrel head first, or do we wait till later. And one final point. You know, the Israeli position I do not really know on this issue. And frankly I do not care. Lobbying organizations on behalf of the peace process, that is not what this is about. This is about taxpayer dollars and how they are most wisely spent. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first of all say to the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, there are no two stronger supporters of Israel in this Congress; but I have to tell you, I can practically write your remarks, because I heard them after Wye River, I heard them after Oslo, I heard them after the Tenet Plan, I heard them after the Mitchell Plan, and I heard them after the road map. And I will summarize them this way: there is never a good time to change our policies on funding the Palestinians. It is always an optimistic time when we begin these negotiations. I do not deny it. And I am not saying do not engage in them. I am saying let us use the U.S. tax dollars in a smarter way. Let us say, why give them $200 million and then say, okay, go off and do the best you can. Why not say give them 10 percent now, 50 percent later on. We incentivize other activities in Congress. Why not do that one? By the way, I know all about the USAID restrictions. I know about them, because you wrote them last time, and they were very, very tough. They said you cannot get a single dime, a single shekel, unless you agree that you will not support terrorism. You know what? They would not sign. A lot of these NGOs would not sign that document until the gentlewoman from New York went back and said, well, you better believe you are going to have to sign it, and then the negotiations began. As to the notion that this one adds, well, now we are not just going to have restrictions, but we are going to have an audit, I have to tell you it is kind of like saying let us invest in Enron because there is a strong audit going on. Maybe the smarter thing to do would be to say this: let us have the audit. Let us see if the new finance chairman is up to snuff. Let us see if Mahmoud Abbas really can delivery, and then give them more and more incentives to continue to comply with their agreements. Why is that so counter to what we do around here? We demand that type of accountability everywhere else. It is not as if they have a good record. Every single time we have invested, we have looked back and said, well, that is another $100 million; oh, that is another $50 million. Well, we were so optimistic. I am optimistic too, but it is deja vu all over again. I am not saying do not be engaged. I am not saying do not have peace. I am not saying do not negotiate. I am not saying do not make concessions. I am not saying stay on the sideline and do not do anything. I am saying if we are going to spend United States tax dollars, let us not keep engaging in the same activity over and over again expecting to get a different result.

Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, first let me say, Sharon has his constituents, Abu Mazen has his and I have mine. My constituents, frankly, it is their tax dollars we are investing here. This is not Israeli policy we are talking about. They have to pursue it the best they can and hopefully it works out this time. I am not talking about the Palestinian allocation. I am talking about the fact that I have heard this song before. I have heard we have tough restrictions. As the gentlewoman knows, we thought we wrote the perfect ones in the bill last time, requiring them to sign. We will certify not a single dollar goes to a terrorist organization. We had to fight kicking and screaming to get these organizations to sign these documents. It is our money. And all I am saying is let us stage it. Let us phase it in. Let us make it based on incentives. It did not work any other way. By the way, I point out every negotiation that the Palestinians and Israelis have engaged in, that is the way they did it. In Oslo they did not say, here is everything. In Oslo they say, you do A, we will do B. You do C, we will do D. What do we do? We walk up to the plate. We are so eager for peace, and we all are, we are so eager to show that we are committed to it, we put the dollars out there without my incentivization on it. I think that nothing is more symbolic. With all the talk about the audit and the USAID restrictions, nothing is more symbolic. The headlines will read tomorrow, Congress allocates $200 million to Palestinian projects. I think what it says is, Congress allocates $25 million and says $175 million are there if things go well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have had this conversation about process here, but let us not ignore the realities on the ground. As much as Abu Mazen has said many of the right things, let us remember what happened in those elections in Gaza, 77 of 118 seats were won by Hamas, 77 of 118 seats were won by Hamas. Now why is that significant? Democracy, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you do not. But let us remember what Hamas has said. They have publicly announced they will not abide by any ceasefire negotiated by Abu Mazen. Now, Abu Mazen is the one that we have referred to here. Mahmoud Abbas is who we have referred to here as the new partner for peace. The gentlewoman who just spoke has said the Arafat era is over. The Abu Mazen period has just begun. Let us not make our investment a foolish one.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their hard work shepherding through TEA-LU, a bill that I will support despite its flaws. The Department of Transportation studied the Nation's infrastructure and prescribed a $375 billion solution. In the 108th Congress, I joined the leadership in endorsing the original version of this bill, which filled that prescription. Unfortunately, the administration is unwilling to come up with the support necessary to ensure that we are able to maintain and improve the Nation's infrastructure, and threatened to veto any bill that authorized more than $283.9 billion. As a result, we are today considering a bill that does not do nearly enough to improve the quality of life for individuals living in New York City and around the country. I look forward to working with the Committee leadership to see that this bill is improved in conference. Mr. Chairman, as this bill moves to conference, I want to highlight four issues that are of particular import to me and my constituents. It is my hope that the conferees will include these improvements in the conference report. First, this bill should ensure that resources are devoted by formula to states that require improvements. The minimum guarantee program shifts funding from states that have the greatest need--like New York-- to other States. Each year, New York provides $20 billion more to Washington than it gets back. New Yorkers ought not be punished for our efforts to conserve fuel, as any expansion of the minimum guarantee program would do. Second, this bill shortchanges New York on transit funding. Despite having almost half of the Nation's transit ridership, New York's share of transit funding leaves much to be desired. Transit funding should better reflect need. Third, I hope that conferees will ensure that States starved for a consistent funding stream for ferries and waterborne transportation can count on funding from the Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund. I am acutely aware of how much a guaranteed stream of funding would mean to improve both congestion and homeland security all across the country, and particularly in New York City, where roads are clogged on a normal day, and ferry transportation would provide not only congestion relief but another way to ensure escape from Manhattan in the case of a terrorist attack. At a minimum, New York should receive $5 million per year. I hope conferees will work with me and other Members who represent districts that would benefit from a guaranteed ferry funding stream. Fourth, I hope that conferees will work with me to ensure that the generous funding we have provided for Senior transportation in this bill is put to its best use. I believe that establishing a center for best practices and a technical assistance center, would provide an enormous service to this nation's elderly population. Nevertheless, Chairman Young, Mr. Oberstar, Chairman Petri, and Mr. DeFazio deserve the thanks and appreciation of every Member of this House for their tireless effort to ensure that the Nation's surface transportation systems receive the resources required to keep America moving. In particular, I would like to thank both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Transportation Committee, both of whom worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation, and who deserve the entire House's thanks. In particular, I would like to thank Ken House, Clyde Woodle, Eric Vanschyndle, Ward McCarragher, Kathleen Zern, David Heymsfeld, Dara Schleiker, and Sheila Lockwood of Mr. Oberstar's staff. Additionally, I would like to thank Jim Tymon of Mr. Young's staff for his willingness to work with me on the issue of Ferry Transportation. I would also like to thank Tom Kearney, Tom Herritt and their colleagues at the Albany Office of the Federal Highway Administration, Nancy Ross, Fred Neveu, Ron Epstein and their colleagues at the New York State Department of Transportation, and Andra Horsch and David Woloch and their colleagues at the New York City Department of Transportation.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Nevada for joining in commemorating what is truly a historic day, historic in many ways: historic in that this day arrives every 7 years, but also historic in that it is a celebration of the study of the Talmud, something that has gone back for over 1,500 years. In celebration of Daf Yomi, what we have is the ultimate egalitarian religious observance. We have, as my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), just mentioned, Jews from all walks of life, whether they be cab drivers or whether they be the owners of the big office buildings of Manhattan or Mexico City or Israel or anywhere in between. This is an opportunity where daily there is not the reading of a page a day, there is the intense studying of a page a day. There is the opportunity to learn the true meaning of the Talmud and to pour over the lessons we can bring to our daily lives. Today, on March 1, 2005, over 120,000 Jews from across North America will be joining together to celebrate the culmination of this, the 11th cycle. To give you a sense for what it means in my hometown of New York, Madison Square Garden will be filled, Nassau Coliseum will be filled, Continental Arena will be filled, the Javitz Center will be filled, all with folks who are studying, at the exact same time, the exact same final page of the Talmud. And also they will be learning the meanings. They will be learning what it means to our daily lives and why it is so important. Since 1923, hundreds of thousands of Jews worldwide have participated in the study of a daily page as part of a program that helps strengthen Jewish unity and communities. Today's resolution has received bipartisan support. I am grateful to acknowledge the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis); and his staff, Melissa Wojciak and Michael Layman; and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); and his staff, Tanya Shand and Zahava Goldman; the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); and 56 Democrats and Republicans, with cosponsors from 23 States. We have to understand that today, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Nevada, not only do we have the celebration of the culmination of the reading that lasts for 7 years, but immediately we begin to study the very next page starting the cycle again. This sense of renewal is something that brings the Jewish community together. It is a sense of renewal of our spirit, a sense of renewal of our values, and also it is hopefully the time that we renew our commitment to the next generation; that next year Daf Yomi will be even larger and more populated; we will need more stadia, more office buildings, and even more places to join in the celebration. This is, of course, a tribute to not only Rav Shapiro, who, as was mentioned, at the first World Jewish Congress at the Agudath Israel in Vienna began this program; but it is frankly a tribute to the Agudath Israel movement throughout the world today. We join in extending congratulations to all of the participants in this program. We join in acknowledging the work of the Agudath Israel of America in particular, and we join in wishing them all good luck, 120,000 students and teachers all across North America in over 40 United States cities. We in the United States Congress join and offer them congratulations, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution today.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the heinous acts in Darfur. To date, almost two and a half million people in Darfur and Chad have been affected by the atrocities and as many as 300,000 individuals have been killed. I commend the efforts already made to assist the people of Darfur. Millions in aid have been donated worldwide, including $550 million from the United States. Peacekeeping efforts are underway from the African Union, the United Nations, and other organizations. I applaud the Sudanese for their commendable efforts to end the violence by signing the Peace Agreement in January. Unfortunately it is not enough. Although the humanitarian aid and the peace agreement are steps in the right direction, it has not prevented people from being killed, raped, torn from their homes and left to starve. People are already fighting over water due to drought and a food shortage is imminent. The international community must take stronger action. I call upon the United Nations Security Council to pass a meaningful resolution in the coming weeks, a resolution that will be consequential in the lives of the people of Darfur. The UN has already described the situation in Darfur as ``the worst humanitarian and human rights situation in the world.'' It is time they treat the situation as such.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the time. Sometimes during these debates I like to step in to take a perspective of someone on the committee who is not a lawyer; but I have to tell my colleagues, the previous speaker, the gentleman from Virginia, went to great lengths to talk about the lawyers fees. There is nothing in this bill that limits lawyers fees, and there is not anything in the bill actually that argues for his point, which is apparently that there should be a minimum amount that wrongdoers pay to each individual aggrieved person, which is a novel argument, I have not heard it made by my colleague before, saying that the plaintiffs are receiving too little now. Let me explain very briefly why it is that we have situations like that. Those of us who are individuals of modest means, if we have been aggrieved by a major company, if they have done something that has harmed our health or our community or our family, we as individuals frankly do not have the ability to take on a major company to stop them from doing the wrongful things, to make sure they understand that there is a cost of doing it. So we join together as a community and we bring these actions as a group. We cannot, frankly, pay the lawyer up front so they are paid on contingencies, and that is the way these actions get taken. One thing the gentleman from Virginia did not say even once through that whole wheel of rhetoric was that any of those that were held accountable by juries of their peers were not guilty of those things. In those cases, those parties, each and every one of them, on the wheel of rhetoric actually was found by a judge or a jury to have done substantial bad things to the community. The system actually worked in those cases. We can quibble about the person, the individual that wound up getting a payment. There were so many of them, millions of people who had been harmed by those companies, that when they were done divvying up what seemed like a very large judgment, tens of millions of dollars, there was only left a 35, 40-cent coupon and the like. I stand perfectly ready to vote in favor of an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia to have minimum payments to people who have been harmed. If the gentleman thinks it is not enough that they get 35 cents, I am with him. Some of those companies did outrageous things to our community, and they should be held accountable. If my colleague thinks a 35-cent check is not enough, I am with him. Let us make minimum amounts that they pay for the injuries, that they have to get, because the harm is so great. I want to remind my colleagues and the citizens watching this why the system is structured this way. Imagine for a moment if someone who is making a shoddy automobile, who was not paying attention to whether sharp objects got into a cereal box, did not have to be concerned about lawsuits anymore. Do my colleagues think they would really say let us hire that extra safety precaution, that extra employee to keep an eye out for consumers? No. They would be less inclined to do that. The system works as it is intended. Are there abuses? I am sorry to say that there are some, and I wish we would address some of them in this legislation which, of course, we do not; but frankly to stand before the wheel of rhetoric, which really is a wheel of bad doers who got caught by the justice system, which we are trying to dismantle here today, and say this is evidence that the system does not work is entirely the opposite of the truth, unless my colleagues believe that a jury of people's peers cannot make these informed decisions, that we are the only people brilliant enough to make these decisions. I love these small government types who believe we have better judgment on these things than 12 men and women in a community, then we have to believe that the system in those cases worked. I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the Conyers/Nadler/Jackson-Lee substitute only puts lipstick on a fraud. It still leaves a very, very flawed bill; but at least we go from being completely destructive to only being moderately destructive, and we protect ourselves from some of the worst abuses. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the substitute, a ``no'' vote on the base bill, and I urge us to stop this drumbeat on the other side of blaming average Americans for being victimized by big corporations.