Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, even those members of this panel, these scientists that took a look at global warming, global climate change, 90 percent of them, a record level of consensus, say that human causes are to blame. We are not going to leave it to the Republic Party to solve this problem. They are in the minority. They are probably in the permanent minority if they are going to spend their time obsessing about security arrangements for the Speaker and disagreeing with the President of the United States' spokesman. But we are. Nancy Pelosi, this party is going to do something about global warming; we are not going to wait for the Republic Party to join in. Just the same way we said we were going to increase the minimum wage, the same way we said we were going to increase safety by implementing the 9/11 Commission Report, the same way we said we were going to reduce college costs for the American middle class and those striving to make it, that is what we are going to do. You can have this debate all you want about the security arrangements for the Speaker, but we are going to go about doing the job of the American people. That is why the Democratic Party is in charge, not the Republic Party.

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

Mr. WEINER. First of all, let me just say your eloquent explanation of this amendment, perhaps you weren't here for all the discussion. We accept the amendment.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I think it is a reasonable expectation, when we have open rules in the future and we are all done debating security arrangements for the Speaker, I do not know what our colleagues are going to be talking about. I mean, they had months and months and months of leadership in the Republic Party to generate virtually nothing but standstill. Many of the people that are here on the floor from the Republic Party were shot down continually when they came to the floor trying to cut out wasteful spending. More wasteful spending happened under their leadership than, frankly, anytime in history. The Republic Party showed such an inability to govern this country that they were vanquished into the minority arguably for the foreseeable future. The Republic Party was repudiated, but this is how they want to use their debate time, on a measure that we have accepted, on what protection to provide the Speaker. I doubt very much, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the American people are tuning in with rapt attention to see how we are going to provide security to the Speaker. But if that is really what they think we should be having this debate about, I for one, Mr. Tierney, disagree. I think we should be figuring out how to do the people's business. We have already lowered their cost of college. We have increased the minimum wage. We have put an ethics plan into place. We have shown again and again we are doing the business of the American people; and the Republic Party seems, based on this debate, to be obsessed with how we provide security for the Speaker.

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

Mr. WEINER. I have only been here a few terms. We are operating under an open rule, is that correct?

Mr. WEINER. Sure.

Mr. WEINER. I don't have any control over that. I think the gentleman is in scant position to protest when he himself was part of the leadership that said we couldn't have an open rule when we originally voted on this thing.

Mr. WEINER. I recall we were given an up-or-down vote without any opportunity for alternatives on the original war in Iraq, and I think we are going to have eight votes, and we have accepted this amendment, eight votes on various amendments to this bill. I think the lady doth protest too much.

Mr. WEINER. If I could just further answer your question, because you asked a good question about the schedule; the gentleman asked a good question about the schedule. I just want, on behalf of all of us on this side of the aisle, to express our apologies for making you all work so hard. It wasn't our intention to inconvenience anybody. We are just trying to get the people's work done.

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

Mr. WEINER. Certainly.

Mr. WEINER. Well, I have got to tell you something. I don't recall there being an open rule when we had the original vote on the war; do you, sir?

Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. WEINER. I thank the gentlelady. And I would also say that I am sure that we are all very concerned about the security arrangements for the Speaker; and I think we would all agree, we want to do whatever is necessary, the same way none of us had any concerns when Speaker Hastert got the protection. But frankly, there are people that are working on that right now, and I think, and maybe you do as well; I will ask you. Do you agree with the statement of the White House that this is a silly issue that people are making too much of and that we should get back to the job of the country?

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New Hampshire for yielding because she of all people understands, coming from New Hampshire, that these issues of global climate change are not something that we can simply choose to do, what the other side is saying, which is ignore them for generations more and just hope for the best. You were elected, and you came to this House saying that we are going to start getting things done. You said that we are going to reject the frivolous politics of the other side. We are not going to spend our time arguing over what the correct security protocols for the Speaker are going to be. We are going to focus on things that the American people really care about. And I just want to ask you, has anyone stopped you on the streets in New Hampshire and asked you, expressed concern about global climate change?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman further yield?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the President and the Republican Congress drastically cut funding for the highly successful COPS program. In 1999 Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for the COPS program, and funding has plummeted since. The President has zeroed out this program every year since taking office and Congress gave no funding for COPS in either fiscal year 2006, or in the House-passed SSJC bill for fiscal year 2007. While the Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services account referenced in section 20901 of the continuing resolution today includes other worthy programs, is it your preference that the additional funding be used for enhancement grants which can be used to hire additional police?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call upon my colleagues to address the very real threat to the security of rail passengers in America. I am a supporter of the 9/11 Commission Bill and commend the Speaker and Chairman Thompson for their leadership in at long last implementing the basic reforms directed by the 9/11 Commission. But the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were but a first step. Since the Commission completed its work, the evolution of terrorism has continued in countries around our planet, and we cannot turn a blind eye to the vulnerabilities that we face in this Nation--particularly those vulnerabilities that are being routinely targeted by terrorists in other parts of the world. Most notably, as demonstrated by the bombings in Madrid in 2004, London in 2005, and Mumbai in 2006--the passenger rail and transit system in this country is a high-risk target and we must address this critical security need immediately. We rightfully have devoted extensive efforts towards securing aviation, but now it is time to devote significant resources towards one of this country's most vital economic assets. Each weekday, there are 11.3 million passengers using some form of rail and mass transit. That's more than 5 times as many people taking air passenger trips. At New York's Penn Station alone--there are over half a million people passing through; that is more passengers than at our two busiest air hubs--Chicago and Atlanta--combined. And yet, on average, we have spent $9 per air passenger compared to 1 penny per rail and mass transit passenger. The Secretary of Homeland Security often states that it is the management of risk and not the elimination of risk that is the core principle for DHS--and the management of risk requires the prioritization of risk based on three key components: threat, vulnerability, and consequence. Passenger rail facilities have a high passenger density, which creates the potential for a spectacular attack that is intended to instill fear--we know this is what our enemies look for when planning attacks. We know that they have already mounted vicious attacks in Madrid, London, and Mumbai over the last 3 years, and even before 9/ 11--in Paris and Tokyo. This threat is real, it is serious, and it is not going away. We also know that if anything were to happen to disrupt our passenger rail system, the economic consequences and impacts on our way of life would be devastating. Finally, we know that most of our major passenger rail facilities are old, in some cases falling apart, lack modern security enhancements built into the station design, and would be unable to recover quickly from even a minor attack. They have not been retrofitted, reinforced, or rebuilt in ways consistent with today's threat environment. Thus, our passenger rail system is clearly at a high risk based on all three components--threat, vulnerability, and consequence. And this risk must be managed better. Now some people argue that because the rail system in our country is open and dynamic and therefore impossible to secure like other parts of the transportation system, that we should not spend a lot of money trying--that it becomes a ``slippery slope.'' To the contrary, to do nothing in the face of such demonstrated high risk is irresponsible. Rail and transit authorities have made efforts to improve security. However, authorities are having a difficult time identifying resources that can be used for capital improvements. In fact, between 2001 and 2003 over $1.7 billion was spent on security efforts for rail and transit by state and local authorities, but 75 percent was used just for overtime and other labor-intensive security operating expenses. While these measures are a key part of securing open facilities like rail stations, their costs leave very little money for the much needed capital investments in security. The American Public Transportation Association estimated that it cost State and local transportation authorities nearly $1 million a day during the 36 days of high alert status after the July 2005 London bombings--and this number does not even include the costs incurred in the additional efforts of New York and New Jersey's random searches. No matter what we may have planned, the fact is that we will end up devoting tremendous resources should there be a rail attack. I would rather see us be strategic in our investments than be reactive every time a new threat is evident. Targeted investments in capital security enhancements at our most critical, high-risk locations will serve us during normal and heightened alerts and can possibly reduce our operating costs by leveraging the capability of people on the scene. The Federal Government does not have to do this alone. We constantly hear about the importance of public-private partnerships, yet we have few positive examples to point at. The rail system has the opportunity to leverage the investments of private developers who seek to benefit from transit-oriented development. As we address capital security investments in passenger rail facilities, Congress should acknowledge and even encourage these public-private partnerships by providing a way for private developers to be guaranteed that the Federal Government's commitment to long-term projects is real. The current homeland security annual grant cycle is a road block for these larger projects, and it is critical to our Nation's security and fiscal well-being that we take advantage of such investment opportunities as they arise. From 9/11 through 2005 we have spent approximately $20 billion on aviation security, but only $500 million on rail and transit security. We can and must do better than this. I call on my colleagues to join me in this Congress to address the critical issue of capital investments in our rail passenger security. After Madrid and London, we can have no more excuses.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lantos and the sponsor of the legislation. Look, I fundamentally believe, and I have said for some time that aid to the Palestinians has not achieved any of our foreign policy goals. It hasn't been accountable, it hasn't gotten us a more peaceful administration there, and fundamentally I believe that it doesn't achieve what we seek to do in foreign aid. I commend the sponsors of the legislation. I agree with both of them that this doesn't go far enough. It allows far too many loopholes. Among other things, it permits the PLO, the last vestige in the throes of the terrorist organization that passed, to continue to have a mission in New York City, in my hometown. Let us not forget that we have provided $1.5 billion dollars in U.S. assistance to Gaza and the West Bank. We always lead this debate with our hearts rather than our heads. When Wye River was signed, the United States said its citizens and taxpayers will put dollars on the barrelhead. When Oslo was signed, we said we will put dollars on the barrelhead. Invariably, we the American people, are very generous in trying to live up to the aspirations we have for that region, despite the fact that every single time it proves to be for naught. So I believe that this is a very important first step. But I also think it is important that people understand that democratization in the territories is a good thing. I agree with President Bush that having democracies and free, open elections are good things. But they have consequences. Many people argue in that part of the world that because we had used foreign aid in support of so many organizations of Fattah, the Palestinian people were impelled to vote for Hamas. When you have a campaign based on the idea that we are going to continue terrorism, we are going to refuse to acknowledge the existence of our neighbors and the voters vote for that administration, there are consequences. One of the consequences is that the American people say we are not going to be involved. I also cannot take the floor at this moment without speaking particularly to one critic of note of late. Being a former President of the United States gives you a vaunted place in American and world life to be someone who speaks about the important issues of the day. Unfortunately, former President Carter has turned into a polemist on this issue and an irresponsible one to say the least. In recent appearances on television, he has gone so far, as to refer to the ``Jewish lobby'' as the reason we are not aiding Hamas and not doing more in the Middle East. He has had the audacity to suggest in a recent television appearance there has not been any Hamas terrorist attacks since 2004, ignoring the daily barrage of rockets coming into the south of Israel since Hamas took over. The missiles are being lobbed at schools and at hospitals. I believe that there is a responsibility that former President Carter has, and he dishonors himself and dishonors the role of former Presidents by continuing this polemic screed. We in this body and Americans who want there to be peace in the Middle East, overwhelmingly support a two-state solution. However, voters in that part of the world voted for terrorists. They have to understand there are ramifications. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as editorial pages are abuse with discussion about the tragic and sad events in the Middle East, and some people at coffee shops and at street corners around our country are asking some very basic questions about the conflict in that region and why it has reached the place that it has. I have heard some on this floor raise what are really foundational questions to make it possible to understand the conflict and the challenge facing Israel in their battle against Hamas on one front, Hezbollah on the other front, and their two nation sponsors, Iran and Syria. One question that frequently gets asked is how come we can't just let diplomacy take hold? And it is true. Whenever there are missiles flying, whenever there are guns ablaze, it is, by very definition, a failure of diplomacy. And it has never been the first choice of either the United States or Israel in that part of the world to choose violence. If you look through the entire scope of the Israeli lifespan, their entire existence has been marked with them extending their hand and saying yes to proposed diplomatic solutions to the conflict there, and their Arab nations saying no. In 1947, even before the nation was born, there was the famous partition plan that would have made Israel a fraction of what it is today, surrounded by enemy Arab countries. It was the Arabs that said no, not the Israelis. Since then, we have had the Oslo Accord, where the Israelis acknowledged the PLO as a partner for peace and were obviously burned; the Wye River Accord; the Camp David Accord with Egypt, which thankfully, still stands today; Camp David II, which was a concession of virtually everything that the Palestinians asked for in exchange for peace, and that was met with violence. We also should note that when they left Gaza on their southern border, left the parts to the Palestinians, that is the very spot that is now being used to launch missiles, Katusha rockets by the dozens, against their citizens. When they left Lebanon after occupying it because so many missiles were flying from Lebanon into their northern border, they left to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution and to set up universally and internationally accepted border that now Hezbollah has breached in Lebanon. So it is true diplomacy is the better option. But in every single circumstance where diplomacy was pursued by the Israelis, with the help of the United States, it has been her terrorist neighbors, her Arab neighbors, who have said diplomacy is not what we want; we want Israel not to exist. And that, by the way, still today is what Hamas has made their creed, Hezbollah has made their mission, supported by Syria and Iran. We have also heard a couple of times something that I wholeheartedly agree with, that there are many in Lebanon who are completely innocent in this. There are. Frankly, my good friend, Mr. LaHood, mentioned this during the debate on the floor on the resolution supporting Israel. It is true there is no group more innocent and more persecuted in that part of the world than the Lebanese Christians, who have been persecuted by their fellow Lebanese. There are many people in Lebanon who just want to live and be free, but they have been overrun by Syria and then by Hezbollah. But you are not an innocent victim of this if you go to bed at night with a Hezbollah rocket tucked under your bed. You are not an innocent victim if you went out and voted for Hezbollah to make them part of your government. You are not an innocent victim when you make Hezbollah part of the ministry in Lebanon. You cannot lay down with dogs and expect not to get up with fleas. The government of Lebanon has chosen to make partnership with Hezbollah, so when Hezbollah crossed an international border and takes prisoners, when they lob missiles into Haifa, the Lebanese government, unfortunately, has to decide which side they are on, and up to now they have said they are on the side of Hezbollah. The final thing I have heard is, from time to time, some, and it is even supporters of Israel, say, you know what, this is a difficult time since September 11. Maybe our true concern should not be about what goes on in Israel. Maybe it should be just worrying about the United States and our interests. Well, ladies and gentlemen, when the United States goes out and fights against terrorism around the world, arguably they have one ally. It is not our feckless friends in Europe. It is not the French. It is not even the British. Our only ally, who every single day is fighting terrorism, is Israel. When they fight against Hezbollah, they are fighting against the organization that was the number one terrorist organization killing Americans before September 11. That has to be part of our understanding. When Israel's soldiers go and fight and die against terrorists, they are fighting a war for all of us. So as we watch the newspapers and try to understand what is going on, we have got to understand diplomacy was tried by the Israelis, over and over and over again, and it will be tried again. We have got to understand that those in Lebanon, there are some innocent victims, but there are many people guilty as well. And we have to understand that when Israel fights for its freedom, it fights on behalf of the United States as well.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday the House of Representatives lost one of its own and New York City lost a great civil servant when Congressman Thomas J. Manton died at the age of 73. Mr. Manton embodied the American dream and his story is one of integrity, hard work and dedication to community service. The most important lesson we learn from our former colleague is that you don't have to be born into a political or influential family, nor do you have to have lots of money to succeed in politics. Mr. Manton's formula for success was honesty and coalition building. His parents, Thomas Manton and Margaret Manton emigrated from Ireland in search of a better life. On November 3, 1932, they had their first and only son, Thomas J. Manton in a Manhattan hospital. Mr. Manton's father supported the family working as a plasterer and the family moved from Manhattan to the borough of Queens where Mr. Manton lived until he passed away. Mr. Manton demonstrated his commitment to public service very early on hen he served our country as a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. Upon returning, he worked his way through law school, serving the city as a police officer with the New York Police Department. In the same spirit of service he was elected to the New York City Council and served there for 14 years. In 1984, the voters from the 7th Congressional District chose Mr. Manton, to represent their interests in Washington. He served with distinction on the Commerce Committee and as Co-Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs. As the son of immigrants, Mr. Manton never forgot what makes this country great. As Chairman of the Queens Democratic Party, he embraced the growing diversity in Queens and recruited candidates of all ethnicities, including from the Asian and Hispanic communities. Mr. Manton maintained his position as District Leader for the Anoroc Democratic Club in his home district until the day that he died, which further demonstrates his commitment to being accessible to the public and the value he placed on being in touch with the community. Over 2 million people are lucky enough to call the borough of Queens home. Queens is an exceptional borough largely because of Thomas J. Manton, and we can all only hope to do what he did--leave the world a better place than we found it. I, with the entire City of New York, mourn the loss of the honorable and distinguished Congressman Thomas J. Manton and send my heartfelt condolences to his beloved wife Diane, their four children, and four grandchildren.

Mr. WEINER

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