Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is some irony in the chairman of the committee raising a point of order against this bill, because the purpose of this amendment is to point out how badly out of order one part of our budget is. What my amendment does is it requires that each and every State in the Union get a minimum amount of agriculture programs for cotton and rice, whether they have cotton or rice or not. New York, for example, has no cotton production and has no rice production. This amendment would guarantee that New York gets a minimum amount; .75 percent, of the budget for cotton and rice should go to New York. It guarantees that all States, and there are about 25 or 30 of them that have no cotton or rice subsidies, get a minimum guarantee of cotton and rice funding. Now, why would I offer such a thing? Why would you propose such an absurd notion, that any program designed for a specific constituency, those that make cotton and rice, would get a minimum guarantee? Well, that is exactly the question those of us in high-threat urban areas ask about homeland security funding all the time. Yet, believe it or not, a minimum amount, .75 percent, of homeland security funds go to every single State in the Union. What is the result? The result is the number one per capita recipient of homeland security funds isn't New York, it is not Washington, DC, it is not California or Orlando, where Disney World is. It is Wyoming. Wyoming, in fact, gets $18.33 per capita while New York gets only $2.60 because there is a minimum guarantee that every State get a certain amount of homeland security funds. So I have often said to my colleagues, wouldn't it be ridiculous to do that if this was any other program? Well, let's see. I am offering an amendment here that would do just that, and I hope what it does is it serves to get my colleagues thinking a little bit about how government programs should be allocated. I think all of us would agree that there is an appropriate place for agriculture programs. I would hope all of us agree that in a post-9/11 world there is an appropriate role for the Federal Government in distributing aid for homeland security. But certainly we should be able to agree that just as it makes sense for cotton farmers to get cotton subsidies, those in the greatest threat of a homeland security attack should get the greatest portion of those funds. Having a minimum guarantee, as there is in the present law, of .75 percent for every single State for homeland security funds, creates the most distorting effect. Vermont gets $15.28 for homeland security for each and every man, woman and child in Vermont, while California and New York get in the low $2 range. It simply makes no sense. So I would encourage my colleagues to think in terms of the farm program when we come up and talk about the homeland security program. I would encourage you to think about the idea that Mr. Bonilla and Ms. DeLauro worked so hard to make sure the people that need the aid get the aid, and we should do that type of thing when we are considering homeland security funds. It is out of order to say every State should get a minimum guarantee of agriculture programs, but it is equally out of order to make that assertion about homeland security funds. So I would say to my good friends in agriculture States, I am a person from New York. What I know from agriculture, notwithstanding the little I know about pests, is I know that the agriculture community produces a breadbasket of food second to none, and we need to do what we can to make sure that our programs here in Washington support them. We formed a coalition throughout time, frankly, between rural areas and urban areas around our needs. We used to, in the 1980s and early 1990s, when it came to transportation funding, you would vote for that though it might not benefit you directly, and we would vote for agriculture funding. But never, never did we say in these programs there should be an absolute minimum guarantee for a program, particularly one like the Department of Homeland Security, which goes according to risk. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Weiner amendment. Let us have a minimum guarantee, and maybe if we have every program by a minimum guarantee, we will realize it is absurd to have that formula for any program. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I agree that we are legislating on an appropriation bill, and I agree it is out of order to oppose or pass the notion that every State should have a minimum guarantee. It is exactly that ruling and exactly that language from the chairman that I would ask you to keep in mind when we consider other legislation. Minimum guarantees are not the way we legislate around here. We legislate based on need; and, frankly, it is clear that we are not allocating homeland security resources. And just the way this will be ruled out of order, I hope you keep that in mind when we consider those measures as well.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Am I allowed to reserve time?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion then, this is a chance to spend $23 million to save us having to spend $268 million. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Weiner-Schwarz-Maloney-Crowley amendment and stamp out the Asian longhorned beetle and the other invasive species.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, there are a great many people who are watching with rapt attention what we do in this appropriations bill. There are many people watching, well, many might be a strong word, but there are some people watching on C-SPAN and many of our colleagues are very interested to see the outcome of this bill. But I can tell you there is a whole group of other creatures that really don't mind at all what we do here because they are going about the business of ravaging our economy. I am talking about the invasive insects, the invasive species like the Asian longhorn beetle which because of the lack of funding in this budget and in past budgets are on course to do an estimated $268 billion worth of damage to the economy. It is insects like the Asian longhorn beetle that is eating away at Illinois and Pennsylvania and New York and New Jersey. It is insects like the emerald ash borer that my colleague Mr. Schwarz is so concerned about and folks in Indiana and Ohio. The sudden oak death disease in California and Oregon, all kinds of different insects are right now creating havoc in our economy. We have over the course of time been frankly funding less and less and less for these invasive species. Sometimes it is a matter of surveillance like it is with the Asian longhorn beetle. You have to find it in order to stamp it out. Sometimes it is a matter of taking steps like we did successfully in Illinois to poison these pests before they do any more damage. But I am going to tell you what the cost is if we do not pass the Weiner-Schwarz-Crowley-Maloney amendment today. These insects will continue to move from neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, State to State. This very same insect, which has cost over 4,000 trees in New York City, yes, Mr. Obey, a tree does grow in Brooklyn; more than 4,000 trees have been eaten by the Asian longhorned beetle. It is on a path going north. Think of what is north of New York City. It is the Adirondacks. It is Vermont. This pest likes maple trees more than we like maple syrup. If it starts to infect that part of the U.S. economy, there will be no stopping it. But we do have a plan now. If we provide about $23 million, it does not eliminate the problem overnight, but it does put us on a glide course to stopping this problem and these pests in their tracks. This is a moment. This is kind of like a ripple in a pond. Right now, the problem is relatively concentrated. This is what it looks like in New York City. It started about 3 years ago, just in this neighborhood of Greenpoint, and now it is moving further and further and further out. At the same time that is happening, we have been reducing our funding, and the President has underfunded this bill appreciably. My amendment is very simple. It would take $23 million from the common computing account and move it into this line which would help stamp out this bug and so many others. There is a list of States that this impacts, everything from the southern U.S. where the cactus moth is, all the way up to the northeast where the Asian longhorned beetle is, and Mr. Schwarz is going to talk about the effect it is having on Michigan. Look, I want to upgrade the computers at the Department of Agriculture as much as anyone, but a slow computer is the least of our problems when up against this fellow. I want to tell you, as dangerous as this bug is, in all truth, this is not life size. It is a little bit smaller than this, but this bug will continue plowing away through our trees. They have already eaten 4,000 trees in New York City alone, and the only way to stop it after a while is just to raise entire forests. We simply cannot do that. In conclusion, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman, we have shown that when the office of APHIS at the Department of Agriculture goes into a problem like they did with the boll weevil, jumps into a problem like they did with the Asian longhorned beetle in Illinois, we can stop this problem, and we can do it for relatively pennies on the dollar. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. This was passed on a bipartisan level, a similar bump-up amendment, 2 years ago. I just want to respond to the chairman's suggestion. There is no doubt about it, the chairman makes some very difficult choices and I think did a very admirable job, but he read a long list of programs we do not take the money from. It should be clear where it comes from. It comes from computer upgrades, computer upgrades, infrastructure, Department of Agriculture, a very worthy thing to do, no doubt about it, but if we do not wipe out these invasive species, they are going to wipe us out. The vector is like this. It is a wider and wider challenge with each additional year. I believe that we need to have the highest technology we can in all of our agencies, but it is a matter of waiting another year to upgrade computers rather than trees.

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

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the narrowness of the stairwell is such an inhibitor. We have some awful narrow passageways in this building. We have reopened the White House with very intricate security concerns. Certainly, with all of us putting our minds together, with the resources that we have, certainly we can figure out a way. For example, we could say you can have no bags. We will have a second security check. We will limit it only to a few dozen people a day. The symbolism is so important, I can't imagine we are technically unable to secure this site.

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

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

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.

Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Dicks, and I also want to extend my gratitude to Mike Stephens of your staff, Deb Weatherly of Mr. Taylor's staff, and Rob Howarth of Mr. Pearce's staff for their cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following articles for the Record. [From the New York Times, Aug. 4, 2004] Liberty Is Open Again to the Masses, But Just to the Hem of Her Robes (By Carolyn Curiel) For anyone who has ever trekked up the spiral staircase of the Statue of Liberty and peered through the crown's narrow windows, the statue's reopening this week, for the first time since the 9/11 attacks, is bittersweet. Its surrounding grounds and facilities have been spruced up, and members of the National Park Service gamely claim that the statue, an international icon, is better than ever. But there's no way to ignore the loss of what was the main attraction: tourists can no longer knock themselves out by climbing those storied 354 steps. It's perhaps an unavoidable result of the vigilance against terrorism, but a sad one nonetheless. The new tour stops short of the hem of Liberty's robes, at the top of her thick concrete pedestal, in a room that holds only 30 people at a time, or about 3,000 people a day who are quickly shuffled in and out. While a guide gives a short talk and shows a video, tourists are invited to look up at the ceiling, where a few glass panels give a glimpse of a few feet of the interior. Tourists can also step into the open air on a deck that lines the pedestal. That's as good as it gets. And that's only after each visitor is screened twice, by X-ray and metal detectors before boarding a ferry to the monument, and then on the premises by new scanners looking for explosives and narcotics. Throughout the statue's base are monitors showing the routes to the nearest exits in case of an emergency, while across the bottom scrolls a constant message: ``If you see something, say something.'' Oddly enough, this antiterrorism mantra, which appears in bilingual postings in city subways and buses, is only in English at this symbol of America's polyglot immigration. Larry Parkinson, a deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement and security at the Interior Department, says greater access to the statue itself has not been ruled out. But it isn't in the works right now, and the motives for caution seem to stretch beyond security. There is concern about wear and tear on the statue. The people who used to climb the stairs were apparently not unlike those unconscionable climbers of Everest who left behind proof of their presence in the form of garbage--in this case, mostly chewing gum and food refuse. But it's hard to avoid the impression that the officials who spent millions in private and public funds to restore and fortify the statue don't want anyone to mess it up. With the nonprofit charity that has been in charge of soliciting donations under fire for paying its executives too much money, this seems like a time when everyone should be trying to make things as accessible as possible. Obviously, security will have to come first, but visitors to the Statue of Liberty, the symbol of American freedom, shouldn't be constrained forever.

Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will.

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time. However, when Circle Line's contract expired in 2004, the Park Service utilized language in the 1998 act providing the Secretary with extension authority and awarded Circle Line a 3-year extension, did it not, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, would Chairman Taylor, Ranking Member Dicks and Chairman Pearce agree with me that the National Park Service has failed to heed Congress's direction that expiring contracts are to be put to bid on schedule, and that extending the Circle Line contract beyond March of 2007 should be called into question? Would they further agree to work with me to ensure that those who are responsible for ignoring Congress's intent are held accountable?

Mr. WEINER. I certainly will.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee, the ranking member, and the chairman of the National Park Service Subcommittee regarding the National Park Service's extension of the current contract to provide ferry service to the Statue of Liberty/ Ellis Island National Monument, in spite of Congress's explicit instruction that concessions contracts be put out to bid upon their expiration. Mr. Chairman, the current concessionaire, Circle Line, has held the contract to provide ferry service from Manhattan to the Statue of Liberty for decades. They provide what is less than enjoyable service for park visitors. The old clunky boats and temporary screening facilities they use when docking at the edge of a city park hardly do Lady Liberty justice. In 1998, Congress passed, thanks to the leadership of the House Resources Committee, a bill that overhauled the National Park Service Concession Program and instilled for the first time competition into the contract process. Specifically, the preferential right of renewal for an incumbent that grossed more than a half a million dollars annually was eliminated. In section 403, subsection 2, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 says: ``Prior to awarding a new concession contract, including renewals or extension of existing contracts for concessions, the Secretary shall publicly solicit proposals for a concessions contract.'' It was clearly the intent of Congress to put an end to the Park Service's age-old practice of indefinitely renewing existing contracts to the detriment of each park's service, was it not, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will yield.

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, now as we approach the expiration of the extended 2004 contract, I have been informed, as have my colleagues on the authorizing and appropriations committees, that the National Park Service will not have a prospectus on the street to solicit bids and award a new contract by the expiration of the current Circle Line contract in March 2007 when the 3-year renewal is scheduled to expire, meaning that the Circle Line contract will have been extended again.