Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district on Monday, May 21, 2001, and I would like the Record to indicate how I would have voted had I been present. For rollcall vote No. 126, the resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, I would have voted ``yea.'' For rollcall vote No. 127, the Section 245(i) Extension Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, you will forgive me for being short of breath. I was off the floor at the time my amendment was called. Mr. Chairman, the State Department has said in a rather comprehensive fashion that it is unsafe to travel to Israel. It is unsafe to visit there. It is unsafe for our personnel that are stationed there. This has had a broad and draconian effect on the economy of the State of Israel. Make no mistake, Israel is under almost constant state of siege from terrorists. The terrorists are the Palestinians. They take sniper attacks at small children. They blow up buses. Simply put, they are in a state of war, and terrorism is their tool. However, as we have often said in this Chamber, the way that you fight terrorism is to be wary, is to be vigilant, but you do not capitulate. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says to the State Department, let us have a sophisticated way for travelers to know where it is safe and where it is not; but we will not capitulate to terrorists by saying to school groups you should not visit there; saying to businessmen, if you travel there, your travel insurance will not be valid; to simply deal with the true effects of the status that Israel has. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that Israel is not a victim and that they are not cowering to the terrorism. It is a thriving country. It is the birthplace of the major religions of the world. It is a place that is joyous and historic to visit. This amendment asks the State Department to return to the drawing board and give us a comprehensive but fair assessment of where it is safe to travel in Israel and where it might not be. While we consider this, let us remember that this state of terrorism that exists in Israel should also be addressed by the State Department of why it is the Palestinians do not appear on the terrorism watch list and why it is we continue to believe that terrorism is a state of being rather than something perpetuated on the people of the State of Israel. I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member for their consideration of this amendment.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, and I would like the record to indicate how I would have voted had I been present. For rollcall vote No. 90, the resolution recognizing the important of increasing awareness of the autism spectrum disorder, I would have voted ``yea.'' For rollcall vote No. 91, the resolution supporting a National Charter Schools Week, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine and an icon in the music world who recently passed away. Joey Ramone, lead singer of the Ramones died after a long battle with cancer on Easter Sunday. Born Jeff Hyman in Forest Hills, Queens, he changed his name to Joey Ramone at age 23 and began stirring up the music world with what was to become known as punk rock. The Ramones were at the leading edge of the punk rock movement in the early to mid-1970s and spoke to a generation of adolescents looking to find their way through that decade. Many of my colleagues here in Congress may not be familiar with the music of the Ramones, or the impact they had on many in my generation and on music in general. The Ramones were everything a classic rock and roll band were not. They played short, simple songs. And they did it loudly. They abhorred convention but compared to many of the bands today, they did it with style. Irony, sincerity and humor ran through many of their simple lyrics. They poked fun at the latest fad, and often themselves, in a way that caused adolescents everywhere to nod their heads in agreement. The Ramones lasted an impressive 22 years. Their music helped spawn musicians who would go on to create their own styles of rock and grunge and rap-rock. At the heart of the Ramones was Joey, a notoriously shy, gangly, nice guy, who until his death, loved to visit the local clubs in New York and listen to the music he helped create. I would like to submit for the Record a story from the April 22, 2001 edition of the New York Times which summarizes well, the life of Joey Ramone: A Star of Anti-Charisma, Joey Ramone Made Geeks Chic (By John Leland) FROM his home in Queens last week, Monte Melnick remembered a time the Ramones stopped for gas in rural Texas. It was the early days of punk rock, and the woman at the gas station gave the band the once-over: matching leather bomber jackets and ripped jeans, dopey mops of hair, four guys taking the surname Ramone. Mr. Melnick, who was the tour manager, feared there might be trouble. Instead, the woman smiled at him indulgently. As Mr. Melnick, 51, recalled, ``She said, `It's really nice, you taking care of these retarded boys.' '' Joey Ramone, the gawky, geeky, lovable-loser singer of the Ramones, died last Sunday of lymphatic cancer, never to be underestimated again. His real name was Jeffrey Hyman; he was 49. As the music world celebrates the 25th anniversary of punk, the band's imprint--its goofy fury and delinquent humor-- echoes not just in the music of latter-day punks like Green Day and Blink 182, but in the strain of Mickey Leigh, Joey's younger brother, who played in a band called the Rattlers, described the Ramones as a reaction to the Queens streets where the band members grew up. ``The humor was inherent to Forest Hills, a Jewish neighborhood, and to the small circle of rejects and misfits that we were,'' said Mr. Leigh, who, like his brother, was bar mitzvahed. (Several other Ramones were not Jewish.) ``We were always on the outside, rejected by the girls--not by all girls, but by the pretty ones, who preferred guys with cars. Our protective shell was to shock people.'' Picked on in Forest Hills, Joey made himself a star of anti-charisma, fronting a band whose legend drew on failure as easily as success. When my friends and I heard the Ramones in the late 1970's, as underachieving college students, we formed our own band--awful, but even at our lousiest, always knowing. I like to think we were post-awful. A set by the Ramones was a furious race to the finish line, blurring bubble-gum riffs and cartoon pathologies: ``Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue,'' ``Teenage Lobotomy,'' ``I Wanna Be Sedated.'' What you came away with depended in large part on how you took the joke. ``We thought punk rock was going to be the biggest thing ever,'' said John Holmstrom, 48, a cofounder of Punk magazine, which coined the name for the music. ``We thought we were mainstream. It was a shock to everyone at CBGB when one by one it didn't happen.'' Charlotte Lesser, Joey's mother, always got the joke. Ms. Lesser ran an art gallery and is a commercial artist. At CBGB, the Bowery dive where the band got started, people used to call her Mama Ramone, she said, adding: ``CBGB struck me as too narrow, too crowded, and it had the worst bathrooms you ever saw. But I always saw the whole thing as a funny show.'' The Ramones emerged just when the radical thrust in pop music was turning in on itself Hip-hop whittled down disco; punk trimmed rock `n' roll to its loud essentials. Writing about the Ramones and CBGB in The Village Voice in 1975, James Wolcott observed, ``No longer is the rock impulse revolutionary--i.e., the transformation of oneself and society--but conservative: to carry on the rock tradition.'' For all their locomotive mayhem, the Ramones were preservationists. Even the name harked back, to the days when Paul McCartney, as a Silver Beatle, called himself Paul Ramon. I think the impulse had much to do with age. Lou Reed, punk's eminence grise, born in 1942, was able to sing of a girl whose life was saved by rock `n' roll. For Mr. Reed, whose childhood began before rock, the music bred transformation, both personal and societal. Joey Ramone, born in 1951, arrived as the shutter was closing on this perspective. Punk was a last loud call to embrace these moments of transition, when the world before rock became the world after. For later punks, these moments were only hearsay. By the time Kurt Cobain, born in 1967, took up the legacy of the Ramones, the music could aspire to be alternative, but not revolutionary. In his engagingly lurid memoir, ``Lobotomy: Surviving the Ramones'' (1997), Dee Dee Ramone observed, ``A Ramones story can't really have a happy ending.'' To the end, Joey lived in a one-bedroom apartment in the East Village, originally decorated by his mother but long since submerged in his accumulated clutter. On good days he walked around the neighborhood in an odd, obsessive-compulsive fashion, always walking past a curb, then back to touch it before moving on. He became fixated by the stock market; the last great song he wrote, said his friend Arturo Vega, the band's artistic director, was a love song to Maria Bartiromo, the CNBC business anchor. Last week, fans turned the doorway of CBGB into a shrine and filled Internet message boards with tributes--a testament not just to Joey but to the eternal loneliness of adolescence. Mickey Leigh continued to ponder the deceptive complexity of the Ramones' music. ``The intelligence was well disguised,'' he said. Then he paused. ``Maybe there wasn't that much intelligence.'' But there was, and warmth as well. And for a still-growing legion of misfits, there is community. As Joey sang, in a signature line culled from the movie ``Freaks,'' ``Gabba gabba, we accept you, we accept you, one of us.''

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this time. Mr. Speaker, it was helpful to have the original author of this bill on the floor to discuss it. In this debate, we have begun to discuss it with some platitude; that this is a bill about having two-thirds of the House and the Senate decide before we raise taxes. Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. See, it says that a bill, a resolution or a legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of all Members of that House voting and present unless that bill, resolution, or other legislative measure is determined at the time of adoption in a reasonable manner prescribed by law not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. Well, I guess, then, what we have got to have is a certain amount of litigation, I suppose, about what constitutes a de minimis amount. I think that is really what we need. We need a process around here that makes it even more difficult for us to come to a consensus about how it is that we are going to tax and spend the money that we have to do here each year. I think it is going to be actually an extraordinary constitutional battle if we pass a constitutional amendment that says it has to be decided by the courts how much a de minimis amount is that we are allowed to raise taxes in order to qualify under this constitutional amendment. Because let us consider what the scenarios will be. When we pass a budget, there will be a determination, well, it only raises taxes a de minimis amount. Then every interest group under the sun that has a problem with that budget will then have a standing to go into court and say, well, that is not a de minimis amount, it is actually more. Or some other group will come in and say, well, no, no, no, that is less than a de minimis amount, so you should be permitted to do it. We will have nothing but litigation over that point. Secondly, I think it is interesting to note in all of this discussion about whether or not we should have a higher burden to raise taxes, why is it no one is proposing that we have a higher burden to spend the money. To be intellectually honest about this debate, one should say, well, we should have two-thirds to spend any dollar of the money coming in, because both of those sides make the same argument that the previous gentleman made, that we have been out of control spending, taxing and building and everything else. If we are truly going to be consistent and want to be sure that we have it right, it should be a two-thirds majority to increase spending as well. So if one wants to make a philosophical point here, I guess one could. One does not like taxes or one likes taxes. From the point of governance, this thing is a disaster. That is why no one is taking it seriously perhaps outside those of us who get paid to debate these things. It is really and truly a cumbersome way to do things. I find it fascinating that my colleagues who rail against the overly litigious way that often our society operates should now open the door to a whole new area of constitutional law which is going to be defining de minimis. I think that would indeed be folly.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify one point I did not have the opportunity previously in response to the chairman. Unlike the 1st and 14th amendment, when one imagines the 1st and 14th amendments saying thou shall not abridge speech except to a de minimis amount or everyone has equal protection under the law except to a de minimis amount, one would never find that language in the Constitution of the United States because that is not the way constitutions are written, and thank goodness this one will never be part of it. I mean, the fact of the matter is, as litigious as a society as we have, can anyone recall any time in history that there was a budget resolution that was challenged on constitutional grounds around here? I do not think I have ever seen that. Has there ever been an opportunity where an increase in taxes was challenged on constitutional grounds? Frankly put, we are going to have, any time we have any change to the IRS budget, for example, if we have an increase in the number of people that the IRS puts on in their ability to enforce the different laws even, if it might increase the amount of tax collection, we are going to have a lawsuit. This notion that we are somehow are not going to have constitutional conflicts, that we do not have constitutional conflicts in the 1st and 14th amendment, so therefore we should not have done it is absurd. This is not language that goes into the Constitution, because it opens ourselves up to all kinds of litigation. But a second point is also important. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned this body, Congress, having the ability to make certain decisions about how monies are expended, about how taxes are raised, lowered, either. Do we really want to turn that over to the courts? Is that a desirable outcome to say, well, you think it is de minimis, fine by us. We do not want to be in that circumstance. I am quite certain the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary does not want to be in that position either.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, here is the difference. This is not a question about whether or not we are interpreting whether someone's speech is abridged. This is taking an inherent constitutional congressional obligation which is deciding these questions and having litigation over what a specific term of art means.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. On this day I call on my colleagues and on the President to remember the words of author, Holocaust survivor, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, ``. . . to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all . . .'' While few would disagree with these words, we in the U.S. Government have failed to heed the warning contained within. It is time for the Government of the United States to do what it failed to do 86 years ago and to officially recognize the slaughter of more than 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman-Turkish Empire from 1915 to 1923 as a deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy the Armenian people, their culture and their heritage, as genocide. It began with the killing of the community leaders and intellectuals 86 years ago today. That was followed by the disarming and murder of Armenians serving in the Ottoman-Turkish army. And this was followed by attacks on Armenian men, women and children, whom the Ottoman-Turks drove into the desert where they were left to either die of dehydration or starve. This deliberate and systematic assault on the Armenian population would continue for 8 years. Then-U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman-Turkish Empire, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., witnessed these events first hand and reported them back to Washington. Later he would write that ``the great massacres and persecutions of the past are insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' Despite reports such as this, the United States failed to intervene. As horrible as not coming to the aid of the Armenian people in 1915 was, what strikes me today is that the United States, 86 years later, still fails to recognize these events for what they were, genocide. Last year I joined with 143 of my colleagues in sponsoring H. Res. 398, which would have acknowledged the events in Turkey of 1915 to 1923 as genocide and called on the President to do the same. Yet this resolution was not allowed to come to a vote on the floor. Even today, when President Bush issued a statement to commemorate what he called ``one of the great tragedies of history,'' he did not use the word genocide. Mr. Speaker, if we fail to acknowledge these events for what they truly were, we are, as Elie Wiesel has said, ``committing the most dangerous sin of all.'' In Turkey, Germany, Yugoslavia and Rwanda, we have either acted too slowly or failed to act at all. How many more genocides are going to occur before we raise our own awareness of these events and condemn them for what they truly are. Mr. Speaker, finally I would like to thank Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. Pallone, the co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, for organizing this special order tonight. Recognition and acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide is an important step toward defeating that indifferent spirit which has allowed events such as these to occur again and again. I am glad that I am joined by so many of my colleagues who share this view tonight.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank the sponsors of this resolution, especially the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), our new colleague, who has shown such leadership on this issue. We have once again been reminded of a lesson about the nation of Israel: That she is alone in an ocean of monarchies and dictatorships; that she is a democracy. And we congratulate Ariel Sharon on his election. But we have also been reminded of some valuable lessons that we should keep in mind and remember about the Palestinians. The fact of the matter is that Yasser Arafat and his people have shown time and time again in recent months that they simply do not care about finding peace. They have shown no interest. As my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), pointed out, they were offered everything and then some and said no, and offered no proposals of their own. Instead, they turned to violence of the worst sort, the type of violence that showed not only the images we were led to believe about Israeli forces holding them down, pinned down; but, in fact, much of the violence that happened was outside of area A, outside of area B where Palestinians were looking for violence anywhere they could find it. And just to make a good graphic image, the Palestinians have been using children as the stones of their war against Israel. This is the button they choose to press at every alternative. When there is a button for peace or a button for war, the Palestinians have pressed the one for war. If there is any question about the truth of these things, we need only listen to what Yasser Arafat says not to the CNN audience, not to us, but what he says in Arabic to his own people, continually, again and again, preaching the notion of violence, preaching the voices of hate. When we hold this in stark contrast to the voice King Hussein used when he was trying to get his people to embrace peace, and what Anwar Sadat did at the same time in Egypt to try to get his people ready for peace, we see that Arafat is no peacemaker. This is also a time for us to be sending a message to the other Arab nations of the world, particularly Syria. We are not unaware that at this time the new president of Syria has within his control the ability to release the hostages that are being held. I refer to Binyamin Avraham, Adi Avitan, Omer Souad, Elchanan Tannenbaum, Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman, Ron Arad and Yehuda Katz. We must never forget these men who are held hostage by Syria and by Hezbollah. I would hope that President Bush, at the same time that he welcomes the new Prime Minister of Israel, presses for the release of these prisoners of war.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Dr. Harold Novog who will celebrate his 70th birthday on February 17, 2001. Dr. Novog is an outstanding member of the New York health community and a dedicated, caring physician. A native of New York City, Dr. Novog attended this country's premier science high school, Stuyvesant High School, graduating with honors in 1948. He entered Queens College where he studied until he was called to active duty in the U.S. Air Force. He served in a medical unity at Fort Ethan Allen in Vermont and later at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. After completing his military service, Dr. Novog returned to civilian life to finish his education. Graduating from Queens College in 1953, he went on to attend Downstate Medical Center where he received his medical degree in 1957. He completed a 1-year internship at Meadowbrook Hospital in Hempstead, NY, and a 3-year residency in Internal Medicine at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in the Bronx, NY. He was board certified in internal medicine in 1962. Dr. Novog maintained a private practice while serving on the staff at Jamaica and Booth Memorial Hospitals and at the Chapin Nursing Home in Queens, NY. During his tenure at Booth Memorial, he served on the staff of the hospital's first detoxification unit. As a result of his outstanding work at Booth Memorial, Dr. Novog, in 1984, was appointed the medical director of ``Alive and Well,'' a private treatment center for alcoholics. Dr. Novog left private practice to join the staff of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in 1987 remaining there until his retirement in July 2000. While at Columbia Presbyterian he became, in the truest sense, a ``doctor's doctor,'' responsible for the health care of the hospital's staff. Dr. Novog's exemplary service to the New York community is greatly appreciated. His dedication to medicine, his professional integrity and his commitment to the highest standards of patient care have earned him the acclaim and respect of staff and patients alike. As he commemorates this significant milestone, it is indeed an honor for me to join with Dr. Novog's family, friends and colleagues in conveying my warmest birthday wishes. Dr. Novog has my heartiest personal congratulations. I ask you to join me in honoring Dr. Novog for his distinguished career in serving others.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to commend this bill, and I commend the authors and sponsors of it: $435 million for debt relief, funds for peace in Northern Ireland, $2.9 billion for Israel, but not a penny for the Palestinian Authority. I, like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), believe that this is an opportunity to use this bill as an opportunity to pass along a message. For virtually the entire existence of Israel, Chairman Arafat has had at his desk two buttons, one button that read ``peace'' and one button that read ``war.'' At every major crossroads in our history, we have seen Mr. Arafat press the war button. When it was time to consider the partition plan at the very beginning of the creation of the State of Israel, a plan that, frankly, hurt Israel, did not allow her to control Jerusalem, it was the Palestinians that said no. Ever since then, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians have chosen war over peace. Today he is waging war. Let us not be romantic about what goes on there. Let us not allow the image of people throwing stones change the fact that Israel is surrounded by nations that are at war with her. We have to make the message clear from this House that enough is enough. Until Arafat is prepared to press the button that stands for peace, we will stand four square with our ally, Israel, in the Middle East.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 426. Today, when the U.N. issues resolutions faulting Israel, when the Arab world convenes a summit in order to condemn Israel, is the appropriate time for this House to speak with one voice on the side of our ally. Israel did not start the current violence, the Palestinian Authority did. And while each and every one of us hopes for a peaceful resolution to a conflict that has been ongoing for tens, if not thousands, of years, we must also use this opportunities to express our solidarity with the state and people of Israel. The Resolution before us states unequivocally that the Congress condemns the Palestinian leadership for encouraging the violence and doing nothing to stop it. It urges the Administration to use its veto power to stop biased U.N. resolutions from going into effect, and it encourages the parties to settle their grievances through negotiations. The time has come to stand with our friend Israel and to stand up against those who would lay the blame for the recent unfortunate events at her feet. Indeed, in many respects the Resolution does not go far enough. The American people continue to contribute to the Palestinian Authority in the form of foreign aid, and I would suggest that that aid be suspended pending a Presidential determination that the Palestinian Authority is doing all it can to stop the violence. But until that more significant step is taken, I welcome the House's passage today of H. Con. Res. 426. It sends an important message from the members of this body that while we stand on the side of peace, more importantly we stand on the side of Israel. I urge my colleagues to support the Resolution.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of China on Taiwan will be celebrating its National Day on October 10, 2000. Taiwan has many notable achievements, both economic and political. Today, Taiwan is an economic powerhouse, ranking 25th in the world in terms of per capita income and 19th in terms of GNP, impressive economic statistics for an island with only 22 million people. Politically, Taiwan has evolved from a closed society to a full-fledged democracy in less than a decade. In March of this year, ROC citizens freely elected Chen Shui- bian as their President. For the first time in 89 years, the ROC had a non-Kuo Min Tang candidate as head of state. Taiwan's accomplishments are due to the hard work of its leaders and its people. I am certain the leaders and people of Taiwan will reach even greater economic and political heights in the months and years ahead. As Taiwan prepares to celebrate its National Day, let me also take this opportunity to express my best wishes to the Republic of China's new representative in Washington, Ambassador C.J. Chen. Ambassador Chen began his duties here in Washington just two months ago. I am hopeful he will further strengthen the already secure bonds of friendship between the United States Congress and the people of Taiwan.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my colleagues it was almost before I learned the name of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) that I had learned to associate him with the idea and concept of livable communities. I want to thank him for taking this time. Mr. Speaker, I come from a community that one might think would embrace the idea of exploring any sources of energy that we can find, perhaps even including the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Nothing could be further from the truth. I represent an area in Brooklyn and Queens that has one of the largest urban national parks in the Nation. We have come to appreciate it. It is not all that we would like it to be, but we do see it as our little corner of the national park system. One would also think that, being from the Northeast where the demand for oil has been so difficult in that high prices have caused so much harm to many of the senior citizens and those on fixed incomes, one would think that any proposal to produce more oil might meet with favorable consideration. But, in fact, Governor Bush's proposal last night to take one of our most beautiful natural resources and drill for a few weeks' worth of oil and do irreparable harm to our environment is not being met with very much responsiveness. I will tell my colleagues one thing the Republicans should be credited for is the diversity of their ticket. They should be commended. The President and Vice Presidential nominees come from two completely different oil companies. I think that diversity of oil companies should not be confused with a real outlook and diverse outlook on the way we should deal with our environment. One does not have to look very far to see how Governor Bush would serve as President. In 1997, in Texas, there was a wide-scale review of the environmental laws and the protections for consumers in that State. So who did Governor Bush appoint to be on the panel to provide recommendations? Representatives from the oil and gas industry. They came back with proposals that might stun some in this Chamber. They said that the environmental protections in Texas should be optional for many of the largest polluters in Texas. Well, perhaps, that is why over 230,000 Texas children are exposed to pollutants every day because there is over 295,000 tons of air pollution each year just in the 2-mile radius around schools in Texas. So it is not at all unusual to hear a proposal that would say let us soil the environment in Alaska. He has been willing to do it in his home State of Texas as well. But this debate is not one that is just going on on the Presidential level. We here in Congress have been fighting it and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for longer than I have. There were calls in this Chamber over and over again to reduce the amount that we fund for renewable energy. In fact, George W. Bush on September 22 said that we should spend more for energy conservation. He would not have probably voted yes on any of his Republican colleagues' budgets that pass through here because conservation programs have been funded by over $1.3 billion under the President's request since 1995. In 1995, Republicans cut energy efficiency programs by 26 percent. For those who say we should see around the corner a little bit to see these problems coming, it is clear that that was not going on in this Chamber. If Republicans did not cut the weatherization programs in this country, over 250,000 more households today would have the benefit of those programs, reducing our dependency on oil and, frankly, energy of all kinds and increasing conservation. Repeatedly around here we have heard calls by Republicans that say do not do anything to support domestic producers when prices are low. It was almost comical to listen to the Republicans grind their teeth and gnash their teeth and wring their hands about the release of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Putting aside that George Bush, Sr. did a similar thing, and at the time he said it was to stabilize economic pressures, the idea that we have tried to encourage, especially those of us in the Northeast as a time when oil was inexpensive, was cheap, we did not seize the opportunity to increase the amount that we had in reserve. Why did we not do that? Because Democrats were proposing it and the Republicans were continually shooting it down. So as we watch this debate go on on the Presidential level, we have to remember that, in each and every one of our congressional districts, this debate should be happening on a smaller level. It is often said, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, every 4 years we hear our constituents say, ``You know what, every 4 years it seems like the candidates are getting closer and closer, and it seems like one giant party in this country. It seems like we are choosing the lesser of two evils.'' This year, even the most creative thinker cannot say that about these two candidates. They are very far apart. There are extraordinary differences. The issues that affect livable communities and choosing between having a picture like this of pristine mountains in Alaska or having an oil rig pulling into this part of the country, that is clearly what is at stake in this election. I commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for calling attention to it.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, we live in cynical times. We live in times when reams of newspaper are printed about our foibles, individual and collective; but there is scant recognition of the greatness of our country and its great people. Today we pay tribute to a truly great man, Liz Moynihan's husband. For more than a generation, Senator Moynihan has brought dignity to these halls, and during the push and pull of daily political discourse, there has been one voice which for more than 40 years has seen around the corner into the face of our future challenges. Mr. Speaker, this is my first term; and if I serve just this one term, or 20 more, I hope to display just one ounce, one thimbleful, of the dignity and grace and wisdom of the senior Senator from New York. Godspeed, Senator Moynihan.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, today I invite my colleagues to pay tribute to Donald Weber on the occasion of his retirement as Superintendent of Community School District 21. Donald Weber has long been known for his commitment to the children of Community School District 21 and to providing them with the finest educational opportunities that public education can provide. Donald Weber is truly representative of the best that our community has to offer. As Superintendent of Community School District 21 for the last seventeen years, Donald Weber developed numerous special programs including: Mark Twain Intermediate School for the Gifted and Talented, Project ADAPT (a model program that is an alternative to suspension), a strong parent involvement program as evidence by the activities of the District Parents' Workshop, the Brooklyn Studio Secondary School, a model inclusionary middle/high school and The Bay Academy For the Arts and Sciences, a magnet school for children interested in the sciences. Under the dedicated leadership of Donald Weber, standardized reading and math scores of District 21's students continue to rank among the highest in New York City and the number of students achieving at or above grade level continues to increase. In recognition of his stature as a dynamic educator and for his efforts on behalf of the students of Community School District 21, Donald Weber has received numerous awards including being named as the New York State Superintendent of the Year 1999-2000. Donald Weber is a lifetime resident of Community School District 21 and is a product of its schools. A graduate of Public School 177, Donald Weber has routinely demonstrated his commitment to community service and to enhancing the quality of life for all New York City residents. He is former member of Community Planning Board 13 and is a founding member of the Shorefront Friends For Hospice, Inc. Donald Weber has long been known as an innovator and beacon of good will to all those with whom he has come into contact. Through his dedicated efforts, he has helped to improve my constituents' quality of life. In recognition of his many accomplishments on behalf of my constituents and their children, I offer my congratulations to Donald Weber on the occasion of his retirement as Superintendent of Community School District 21.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Burton amendment. In these times of budget surpluses, and when we are working so hard to encourage emerging democracies, why are we debating an amendment today that proposes to cut aid to the largest democracy in the world? India is a nation with a great potential and tremendous opportunities, but with over 500 million people living at or below the World Bank's poverty line, India remains a nation with tremendous human needs. United States bilateral aid programs in India make a modest, yet important, contribution to the welfare of India's citizens. Cutting this assistance would be a deliberate attempt to not only torpedo our help for human welfare, but also to stigmatize India just as relations between the world's two great democracies are on the cusp of attaining a new and positive relationship. The Burton amendment, in effect, will undo all the progress that has been made in building a warm and productive relationship with India. India is the world's largest democracy. The Indian press corps is among the most active in the world and frequently investigates human rights abuses. India has a fiercely independent Human Rights Commission which has instituted a process to receive complaints, initiate investigations of all claims, and the country has passed laws and taken action against those officials and members of security forces who commit human rights abuses. Prime Minister Vajpayee has been outspoken in his condemnation of ethnic and religious violence in India. He has declared that his government ``is resolved that perpetrators of violence should be dealt with firmly and that exemplary punishments should be awarded to them.'' And in a recent visit to Vatican and meeting with the Pope, the Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to ``protect all minority communities and ensure an atmosphere of communal harmony.'' The best response to human rights violations in India is for us to help India promote democracy and encourage India to improve its human rights records. This cannot be achieve by cutting off aid, but it can be accomplished by engaging India in a positive and constructive dialogue. As the locus of international terrorism shifts from the Middle East to South Asia, India has become a critical democratic ally to the United States and has helped to protect our interests in the region. It would be wrong for us to turn our back on our ally, especially on a staunch democracy such as India. Mr. Chairman, President Clinton's historic visit to India last March established a new understanding between India and the United States, and has allowed the relationship between our two democracies to flourish. The Burton amendment will go great damage to the historic progress that was made in bilateral relations between our two nations. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Burton amendment.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to commend the leadership, particularly that of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). Lest we too dramatically rewrite the history of this bill, let us remember that this first came to the full Committee on the Judiciary, as my good friend from Pennsylvania just recognized, in the form of an amendment that was offered on the H-1B bill, where the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) was kind enough to object to its passage at that time but offered to see that it was handled expeditiously. And I too want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for taking up the cause on the Republican side. Let us not forget that these are real people in Brooklyn who are awaiting simple justice. I have to tell my colleagues that they are, in many ways, the classic American immigrant group, in that they came here freeing persecution. When they came here, they built synagogues on Ocean Parkway, they built yeshivas, they started businesses. Some of the clothing that we wear today was made by members of the Syrian Jewish community who have become such leaders in the apparel profession, among others. And they have, all that time, been tourists. Under the law, they have been tourists. They have been the longest present tourists in the history of the United States, arguably. They are the only tourist visas that the INS could tell me they have ever issued that had no end date. What we are saying is, their days as tourists are over. They are no longer visiting the United States. We have always known them to be American citizens at heart, and now they are American citizens on paper as well. I too am deeply gratified that we are reaching this point. We are hopeful that the other body will act quickly on this. I have received assurances that the President will sign this bill and, hopefully, the next cheers we will hear are not for the freedom of those persecuted Syrian Jews, but the citizenship of those formerly persecuted American Syrian Jews. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for his great work on this bill. I also want to particularly thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. I had originally offered a form of this bill in committee during the debate on the H-1B reform legislation, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) was kind in offering to help us make this issue a reality in some other form. I am glad that we are here on the floor to finally act on this. Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill today will finally begin to bring closure for a group of Syrian Americans who have been persecuted for over 50 years. In 1944, after Syria gained its independence from France, several of the first acts taken by the fledgling government were designed to persecute Syria's small 2,500-year-old Jewish minority. Jewish immigration to Palestine was prohibited. The teaching of Hebrew was severely restricted. Boycotts were ordered against Jewish businesses. When the partition of Israel was declared in 1947, mobs in Aleppo attacked the Syrian Jewish community; over 200 homes were destroyed. Scores of Jews were slaughtered and synagogues were literally torched. Thousands of Jews illegally fled Syria to go to Israel. In the years since 1947, the Jews' situation in Syria worsened. They were not permitted to emigrate. Jews who did temporarily leave the country were forced to post an onerous monetary deposit and literally to leave family members behind so as to assure their return. In the past, Syrian secret police engaged in 24-hour-a-day surveillance of the Jewish quarter in Damascus. They kept a file on every Jewish person, monitored all contacts between Jews and foreigners, and read the mail and tapped the phones of Syrian Jews. Members of the Syrian Jewish community have been arrested on the mere suspicion of their intention to leave that country. They have been imprisoned without trial and tortured. In 1992, the Bush administration made a diplomatic breakthrough in their negotiations with the late President Assad. Syrian leaders agreed to let Jews leave the country without the large deposit. Syria also allowed several complete Jewish families to leave the country. He still would not let Syrian Jews emigrate to Israel, but most of them went to the next best place, Brooklyn, New York, my district, and the district of the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Owens. Brooklyn is now the home to over 25,000 Syrian Jews. The names of the Brooklyn neighborhoods that they came to were chanted in the shoals in Syria when this deal was announced. Since the diplomatic breakthrough of almost 10 years ago, these Syrians have come to Brooklyn by the thousands and established themselves as model citizens. They are really part of the American dream. But there is a problem that survives to this day and a problem that we seek to resolve with this legislation. Assad would not let these departures be labeled emigration in any way. He needed to save face. He forced the Jews to buy round trip plane tickets, and the INS agreed, our INS agreed as part of this deal to admit these Jews as tourists. They were then granted asylum. As asylee tourists, Syria's Jews received temporary non-immigrant visas. Usually, when the United States admits members of a persecuted alien minority, it admits them as refugees. This is the critical difference under U.S. immigration law. It is very difficult for asylees to become permanent residents, and without permanent resident status, Brooklyn's Jews from Syria have been unable to travel freely, to apply for full citizenship, and to work in their chosen professions. If Syrian Jews had been admitted as refugees, as is often the case from other countries, as they certainly would be by any sense of the word, they would likely be full citizens today. Instead, thousands of them reside in a form of immigration limbo. They have escaped Assad's persecution, but most of them have been unable to become permanent U.S. residents. This bill changes that. It directs the Attorney General to adjust the status of these Syrian Jews to that of lawful permanent residents. Passage of this bill will signal the House's intention to close this awful chapter in Jewish persecution history. And when the President signs H.R. 4681 into law, these thousands of Syrian families will finally be able to fully participate in American life, a privilege they should have had years and years ago. One final note to my colleagues. The recent passage of President Assad in Syria has brought with it a good deal of revisionist history. While we are taught not to speak ill of the dead, we have to remember that with Assad's passing, we also have to close a chapter in what has been the improper way that these emigres have been treated. I want to commend the sponsors of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this historic bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not claim to be from an agriculture rich district. In Brooklyn and Queens we do not grow all that much, or at least all that much that is addressed here in this bill, but I can tell my colleagues that I have been someone who has supported agriculture bills in this House because I recognize that there is a confluence of interest that exists. But just the same way frequently those of us who advocate for urban programs are called to task to defend some things in the bills that we support that often are troublesome, such is the case here for my friends who support agriculture spending. Just so it is clear to those who are watching this debate, who are not as familiar with agriculture programs, like I am, this is essentially a program that pays for advertising for some of the biggest corporations in the United States. In the life of this program, to give some sense of context to this, McDonald's has received over $7 million. The Sunkist Corporation received nearly $7 million. Ernest and Julio Gallo received $5 million of taxpayer money to help, in essence, advertize their products overseas. The argument that has been made a couple of times on this floor is, listen, we have to do it because there are those in other countries who are paying to subsidize their products and advertize them as well. Well, we are not in other countries. We do not represent the taxpayers in those countries, and we can argue the efficacy of doing that at another time. But the question we have to ask is, is this the wisest way for us to form coalitions behind agriculture programs and help family farmers that we have heard so much about on the floor this past couple of weeks. Is the Pillsbury Corporation, the Wrangler Corporation, Burger King, Campbell Soup, General Mills, Hershey Foods, are these companies that really need our help with their advertising budget? This is an amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for offering it, this is an amendment that simply says let us have a strong agriculture policy. Let us have an agriculture policy that helps our farmers stay in business, that helps those of us in urban areas to continue to thrive because the agriculture sector is doing as well as possible. Let us try to help people from the bottom up. This is a classic case of going into the corporate boardrooms and saying here is a bag of money because that is essentially what the MAP program is. If my colleagues think that Tyson Food needs some help, then the MAP program is good; if my colleagues think the Ocean Spray Cranberries Company needs some help, then the MAP program is probably one my colleagues would support. In order to ensure that we are able to keep these coalitions together that help agriculture bills and help other bills pass, we have to weed out, no pun intended, some of the things that are truly weak in these programs, and this is such a case. I would urge my colleagues to support this reduction in the MAP program.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman's words. I think that there is legitimate disagreement about how to encourage these moderate voices that we have heard about to emerge. One thing we do have to keep in mind, though, as the gentleman points out, is that there are people whose lives quite literally hang in the balance at this moment in time. But I certainly think that being in support of this amendment someone can legitimately hold a position on either side. We are just saying let us take a symbolic deep breath, step back, and hope we can encourage the behavior we would like.

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

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