Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

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

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that offers to bolster the COPS program. The hiring count is zeroed out in this bill, and it takes the funds of the National Science Foundation, reduces the NSF not back to the level it was before its deep cuts, but puts it back to where it was in 2004 before those big cuts began. First, let me say that a consensus is emerging in this House. We have had amendment after amendment that has been offered to take the COPS program back from the scrap heap, back from a point at zero, and try to restore the hiring component. We saw it done from Census, a proposal to do it from the FBI, and a proposal now to do it from the NSF. Let me be very clear, I think the NSF should be higher than my amendment and higher than the level provided by this House, and I believe the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) would both like to have more than they have allocated. The issue is this: we have reached consensus in Congress that the COPS program should not be zeroed out. We reached that consensus because in the reauthorization for the Justice Department we included a billion dollars to reauthorize the COPS program. We reached consensus yesterday on the floor when overwhelmingly an amendment was adopted to increase the COPS program. We just adopted an amendment to restore funds to the COPS program. The COPS program should not be zeroed out because it has been arguably the most successful Federal law enforcement program ever created, and it is also the most democratic. I have a map showing cities all around the country and the number of officers that have been funded since 1995 and the level that crime has gone down, whether it be Jackson, Mississippi, 347 officers funded, a crime rate drop of 12 percent; San Antonio, Texas, 100 officers funded, a drop of 9 percent; Boston, Massachusetts, 139 officers funded, a 28 percent crime rate reduction. Yet in this bill, we zero out the hiring component. It is mysterious why the COPS program has become such a target, but I can tell Members it is not because the program does not work. A broad coalition, bipartisan as we saw yesterday and in the sponsorship of my effort to reauthorize the bill, shows that just about every law enforcement group and just about every Member of this House believes in the COPS program. This is another demonstration of the same point. Look at how evenly distributed the number of new officers is: Texas, 6,074 police officers on the street. When John Ashcroft spoke about this during his confirmation hearings for Attorney General, he said, ``Let me just say, I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put additional police, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and people would be safer and more secure. We believe the COPS program demonstrated that conclusively.'' That is John Ashcroft. When Tom Ridge was sworn in as the Secretary of Homeland Security, he said homeland security starts in our home towns. Yet what we have done, the last 4 years, since September 11, we have had a steady decline in the COPS program to where it is zero. The hiring component is at zero. We are actually taking cops off the street rather than putting them on. I have complete confidence that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) understand the value of the COPS program. In the district of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), over $1.1 million has been awarded to add school resource officers. In the district of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), over $26 million in the State of West Virginia. So what does this amendment do? First of all, before my opponents stand up, let me do the argument for them. The NSF is a valuable agency. We are not saying it is not valuable. We are saying that dramatic increase they are going to get this year be limited to bringing them back to where they were in the 2004 budget before we slashed it down. Not that it should be cut, not that it should be reduced. It should be flatted out, increased rather, but only to the point where it was in 2004 before we had the reduction last year. I think it is fair and reasonable. We also have to be careful about something else. We are in the unpleasant circumstance of having to take from Peter to pay Paul. But I would argue that Members should listen to the voice of this House. We overwhelmingly reauthorized the COPS program in the Justice Department reauthorization bill. The will of this House is to have a COPS hiring component. Yesterday's amendments showed it. So before we get into this argument about what is better, science or police, I say they are both very, very important. What is more important, Census or police; they are both very, very important. What is more important, the FBI or the police on the beat; they are both very, very important. This amendment seeks to balance two ideals.

Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) made this characterization as well. The COPS program hiring component is zero. Not a little, not a medium amount, not cut back. Zero.

Mr. WEINER. Just for the purpose of clarification, under my amendment we are not reducing the budget of the NSF. It is going up. It is going up. I just want to make that clear. What we are doing is we are saying it should rise back to the level it was cut back to.

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

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Polytechnic Preparatory Country Day School. The school is a pillar of academic excellence in Brooklyn, New York. It is a true privilege to acknowledge the great strides Poly Prep has made over the years since it first opened its doors in 1854. Since its inception as the Brooklyn Collegiate and Polytechnic Institute, the Polytechnic Preparatory Country Day School has immersed its students in outstanding academic programs and provided a strong, supportive community. Like New York City, the school has opened its doors to students from all over the world, representing an array of cultures, languages and traditions. That commitment to diversity speaks volumes about Poly Prep's illustrious history. The school's 150th anniversary provides a hallmark for reflection on Poly Prep's tireless efforts to provide a diverse and educationally sound environment which has led its students to academic success. Therefore, on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I congratulate the Polytechnic Preparatory Country Day School on the occasion of its 150th anniversary--its Sesquicentennial--for its efforts toward educational excellence and providing an environment that is as diverse and rich in experience and tradition as New York City itself.

Mr. WEINER

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

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

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask the author of the amendment that would increase by $1 million, does he intend to support the amendment that was just passed that would increase the account that he wants to solve the problem in by $19 million?

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, I commend the gentleman for acknowledging what I think we all should in the last amendment, that we are not giving funding, sufficient funding to this APHIS account. Now the gentleman's amendment does not speak to plum pox because that would be legislating, so I would encourage the gentleman to support my amendment which we just voted on here because it would permit plum pox. That was one of the many pests on the list that would be increased in that case. But I commend the gentleman. He is exactly right. Just like in the gentleman's district, in the gentleman's State, just like in New York, just like in Louisiana with imported fire ants, just like in Texas with the Mexican fruit fly, just like in California with the Mediterranean fruit fly, this is an underfunded area. We will never get it what they probably should ultimately get, but at least we should give them a little more, and I think the gentleman is exactly right. Plum pox, Asian long horn beetle, this is another reason why I hope all of my colleagues will support the amendment that we just voted down and will be having a recorded vote on later.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, pictured on this chart is an Asian long- horned beetle. This is one of the many pests that are under the responsibility of APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. This is an insect that bores its way into trees, primarily in Illinois, in the northeast, and kills them. There is no way to stop this pest except by cutting down the tree. And we in New York and in New Jersey and Illinois have had to chop down a lot of them. What my amendment will do is to increase the funding for APHIS, to bring it up to the level that the Bush administration proposed in their preliminary budget. It is estimated that the amendment that we are offering today with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) and my colleagues from New York and others around the country, by increasing by $19 million, we will wind up preventing more than $700 billion worth of damage to trees throughout the country. This is not just a problem that will be solved for the Asian long- horned beetle. If you have the emerald ash borer in Indiana, Ohio or Michigan, or in the Pacific Coast, or suffer from sudden oak death in California or Oregon, or are dealing with the glassy-winged sharpshooter in California, or of course boll weevils throughout the South, all of these are pests which are having a dramatic impact on our economy, or is having a budget cut in this round to an unacceptable level. First let me say of the chairman and the ranking member, they are doing a lot with less and less. The staffs of both the minority and majority side should be commended for taking a very small allocation and trying to make it as best they can. However, what my amendment will do is it will take a program that essentially does the computing and data processing part of the Agriculture Department and moves it into dealing with these pests. Obviously, I would like not to have to cut any part of the Agriculture Department, but this is an offset that works. We found, when this House weighed into this debate in the past and increased funding through an amendment on the floor, we wound up having a substantial positive impact. When the Asian long-horn beetle was first kind of discovered in 1999 here in the east coast, there were 2,500 trees that were affected. It was down to just 66 in 2004. Unfortunately, that downward trend has recently been reversed. This, the House bill that we are considering today, allocates $22 million less for APHIS than President Bush had requested. The Nature Conservancy, which studies the impact of pests like the Asian long-horn beetles, says that we really need a $44 million increase. We are not going to be able to get a $44 million increase in this bill. What the amendment does is try to reach a point that we at least start to win the battle again, start to lead to a reduction in the amount of trees that are infected, not only by the Asian long-horn beetle, but by the emerald ash borer and others that I mentioned. There is hardly a State in the Union that has not found its trees impacted by these pernicious insects. APHIS has been an effective way to reverse the course. A combination of research and remediation has proven that the dollars spent on these things turn out to be extraordinarily helpful. Whether it is the cactus moth or the gypsy moth in Washington-Oregon, I would urge my colleagues in virtually every State of the Union to look to see if you have an insect that represents a pest that is impacting not only the trees in the abstract sense of our environment, but also our economy. There is hardly a State in the Union that would not benefit from this amendment. As I said, I believe that the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), deserve great credit for how they have done more with less. We are making a minor change to increase the funding for APHIS by $19 million to allow even more work. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), who is sponsoring this amendment with some of us in the New York and New Jersey delegation, is detained. He is expected on the floor shortly, but he represents, as so many other Members do, a bipartisan effort to make sure that insects like this are vanquished once and for all.

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

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

Mr. WEINER

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I think this represents the final amendment on the bill and gives me another chance to offer my thanks to the chairman and ranking member for doing well with a bill that provides far too little funding for the important agriculture programs of this country. What does this amendment do? My amendment would require that every State in the Union, all of the States, get at least .75 percent of the funding provided for cotton, tobacco, and rice in this bill. Every single State should get .75 percent. Even though 24 States in the Union have no cotton, have no rice, have no tobacco, this amendment would require that .75 percent of the funding be reserved for those States. Before the chairman has a chance to say it, I will say it for him: It is a preposterous concept. It is a mind-boggling concept, in fact. Why would we allocate funds in an agriculture bill for places like I represent in New York City that have no agriculture programs? But I say to my colleagues, that is exactly what we recently did in the homeland security bill. We said that we are going to allocate a fixed amount of money in the homeland security bill, notwithstanding the fact that there might be little or no homeland security needs. Did this create a wise funding formula? Well, only if one thinks that Wyoming should have the highest per capita funding in the country for homeland security grants, and California and New York will be one and two for the least per capita. Now, of course, one would not want to leave Wyoming unprotected, but I believe that having a minimum guarantee in that bill was simply foolish. After all, New York City had been the target of actual terrorism six times between 1993 and 2001. Twice the World Trade Center was attacked. Efforts were foiled to destroy the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and the GW Bridge. We were a target in the Anthrax attacks, a subway bomb plot and, of course, a mission that was disrupted to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge by al Qaeda in 2003. I am not saying that we should not find a way to make every city and locality safe. But are we really better off because of this formula that has .75 percent going to every State? Have we not perhaps reached a point that now cities and States are trying to figure out, how the heck do we spend this money? Well, the answer is, yes, we have reached that point. Madisonville, Texas, population 4,200, I understand one of the nicer places in Texas, used a $30,000 homeland security grant to buy a custom trailer, and I am not making this up, a custom trailer that will be used during the annual October Mushroom Festival for people who are overheated or injured; and it will double, forgive me, no disrespect to the people of Madisonville, Texas intended, it will double as a command center during supposed emergencies should al Qaeda attack Madisonville, Texas. Now, Mr. Chairman, it would be absurd for my amendment to become law. It would be a mockery of this House to say that every State should get the same amount of tobacco funding even if there are no tobacco farms, the same amount of cotton funding even if there are no cotton farms, and the same amount of funding even if there are no rice farms. It would be absurd. Why, then, do we have other elements of the bill, other elements of our law, other appropriation bills that are allocated that way? It does not make any sense. Is it really the way it should be? I have to tell my colleagues something. I am going to be magnanimous. I am a representative from Brooklyn and Queens and the beautiful City of New York. We do not have tobacco farms. I will tell my colleagues what I am going to do: Keep your cotton and tobacco subsidy. Keep your agriculture subsidy. We are not farmers, and we are very grateful to the men and women of this country who are. They make it possible for all of us to eat at prices that are extraordinary. We are the envy of the world when it comes to agriculture. But can we not also agree that when it comes to things that are not so enviable, like the challenge that cities like New York face when dealing with homeland security, maybe, just maybe, my colleagues can be equally magnanimous? Maybe, just maybe, they can say, you know what? Where we have need, where we have threat, we are going to ask for money. Where there is no threat, where there is no need, we are not. So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Weiner amendment, but I would urge my colleagues to keep it in mind the next time we consider homeland security grants. Mr. Chairman, I, to the relief of everyone, I am sure, yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase a line from a movie, I am out of order; this whole House is out of order in the way it allocates homeland security funds. I do not dispute the point of order, and I will yield to the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives voted to urge the United Nations to take bold action against anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment. I commend my colleagues for keeping the U.N.'s feet to the fire on an issue of such great importance. And I thank Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for introducing this bill and for her continued vigilance in support of America's greatest ally in the Middle East. The U.N. is supposed to be a neutral authority working towards global unity. But in fact, it has helped the enemies of Israel internationalize their war against the Jewish state. Many people know about the 1975 U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism. Sadly, that is only 1 of the 322 resolutions condemning Israel that the U.N. has passed since 1948. The U.N. issued Resolution 476 in 1980 declaring Israel's claim to Jerusalem ``null and void.'' It passed Resolution 487 in 1981 to ``strongly condemn'' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility. And in 2003, the U.N. condemned Israel for building its security fences. These are the same fences that have cut suicide bombings by 75% and Israeli fatalities by 55%. The U.N. is routinely silent on deadly suicide attacks--like the Hamas Passover massacre that killed 30 people at an Israeli hotel. But it will loudly condemn Israel for its military response to such terror. Remarkably, the U.N.'s balance sheet defends countries like Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, while attacking Israel as a regional aggressor. This imbalance is unreasonable. But it is hardly the U.N.'s worst masquerading. The U.N. pretends to give a voice to all countries. But when it comes to offering countries a seat on the Security Council, only Israel is barred. And while 4 of the 7 stage sponsors of terror--Cuba, Libya, Sudan, and Syria--are members of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, Israel cannot even be a candidate. The commission spends 26% of its resolutions condemning Israel, yet Israel doesn't even have a forum to respond. The news gets worse. The U.N. has decided that its Commission on Human Rights is good enough for all the world's refugees, except the Palestinians. They get their own organization--the U.N. Relief Works Agency (UNRWA). And instead of being resettled like the rest of the world's 20 million refugees, the Palestinians are kept in camps. It is no surprise that the result has been a breeding ground for violence. More than 48 terrorist operatives have been educated in UNRWA schools. And this past January, the head of UNRWA acknowledged that members of Hamas are on his payroll. Since 1950, UNRWA has been bad for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and it is time the U.N. took responsibility for solving the problem. Earlier this year, Kofi Annan made a move towards accountability by publicly outlining a series of proposed U.N. reforms. Some of the suggested shakeups of discredited U.N. bodies like the Human Rights Commission are steps in the right direction. But it is hard to trust a Secretary General who spent part of a trip to the Middle East placing a wreath on Yasser Arafat's grave. And even harder to overlook 50 years of U.N. antagonism against Israel.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, sometimes events happen one after another and no one calls attention to a pattern. Today, alarm bells should be going off about the rising threat of anti-Semitism. When Arab countries practiced anti-Semitism, when textbooks made Jews out to be devils, commentators here said, Well, that is just the Israeli conflict; do not worry. When some countries voted against Israel in the United Nations as a matter of routine, the pundits said it is just to win favor with oil-rich nations: Do not worry. When synagogues are desecrated in France and Jews attacked in that country, the calm observers said: It is just peculiar to France, do not worry. On April 22, the British Association of University Teachers representing nearly 49,000 higher education professionals decided to boycott all relationship and exchanges with Bar-Ilan and Haifa University in Israel. Now what do the ``do not worry about anti- Semitism'' crowd say? The very citadels of civilization are experiencing a rising tide of anti-Semitism. Not only Britain but the academics and intellectuals of Britain. We must call it out, confront it. We have learned this lesson: the answer to anti-Semitism is not silence; it is not acquiescence. It is to call it by its name and fight. I call on the Bush administration to join me.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 2005 there was a military retirement ceremony for Major General Richard S. Colt, the Commanding General of the 77th Regional Readiness Command at Fort Totten, New York. He has served his country honorably for nearly forty years. While no statement could adequately recognize his achievements, Major General Colt's accomplishments in service of his country deserve our greatest admiration and thanks. Major General Colt received his commission as a Second Lieutenant in the Military Intelligence Branch in 1967 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps Program at Fordham University, in New York City. After completing the Infantry Basic Course at Fort Benning, Georgia, he served on active duty with the Military Assistance Command in Vietnam from May 1968 until May 1969. In November 1969, Major General Colt was honorably discharged from active duty, and in June 1978 he joined the New York Army National Guard where he served until September 1985. At that time, Major General Colt transferred to the United States Army Reserve where he served as: Deputy Commander, 94th Regional Support Command; Chief of Staff, 77th Regional Support Command; Commander of the 301st Area Support Group at Fort Totten, New York; Deputy Chief of Staff for Training and Chief of Unit Training, Headquarters, 77th Army Reserve Command; and Commander of the 5th Battalion, 5th Field Artillery at Fort Tilden, New York. On June 20, 2001, he was assigned as the Commanding General of the 77th Regional Support Command, which was restructured and renamed to the 77th Regional Readiness Command in July 2003. In addition to completing the Infantry Officer Basic Course, Major General Colt has completed the Field Artillery Officer, Military Intelligence Officer, and Quartermaster Officer Advance Courses, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the Army War College. He holds a BA in English from Fordham University, an MBA in Organizational Behavior, and a PMC in Information Systems from Iona College. General Colt has received countless military awards for his service: the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with two service stars, the Republic of Vietnam Honor Medal First Class, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Badge, a Meritorious Unit Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. Since July 25, 1967, Major General Colt has served the United States. He is a living example of honor, duty, courage, and service. I wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. There seems to be some misunderstanding, and I am waiting for some clarification on our side, if the majority side has clarification, because it might lead me to withdraw my amendment. If someone will stand up and say that a city of less than 1.65 million will be ineligible to receive these grants in the future, as has been articulated by the ranking member and implied by the chairman, then we are on to something. The language in the bill refers to the area which is this new thing that we are trying to do, I think, for good reason. The question is, will a city of 50,000 or 60,000 who does not form a coalition with four or five or six other cities or other regions, will they still be eligible? That is the problem. I think that what we have here is a very good bill that continues a bifurcated system. On one hand, you have every single corner of the country eligible for money based on threat, based on the Weiner language that was introduced in committee, and I am glad you accepted; on the other side, we have this thing that now only limits the area to 1.65 million. What I am trying to do is not say a city can be on or off but say, let us limit it to 50.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, in reaction to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, he is incorrect. The bill defines the size of a region at 1.65 million, but it leaves open cities of any type. We do not know, since the bill is silent on that distinction. You can have a city of 20,000 and be eligible for this. You can have a city of 10,000 and be eligible. The gentleman from Mississippi is correct that a region has to be 1.65 million, but nowhere does it restrict the size of the city. As for the chairman, the chairman, who has done an excellent job on this bill, regrettably is incorrect as well. There is nothing in my amendment that restricts this from going to cities or to regions. As I read from line 4 of the bill: ``may not award any more than 50 grants for any fiscal year.'' If the Department of Homeland Security, which by the way this issue is somewhat vague in the bill as drafted, it is silent on how this program is going to be divided. If the Department of Homeland Security says grants are available to areas, which they have been in the past, fine. Limit it to 50. If they say it should be cities, limit it to 50. If we take the chairman and the ranking member's argument to its logical extension, you could conceivably in this portion of the bill, which the language says ``shall be to exercise the needs of selected large, high-threat urban areas,'' it could be any city of any size. And I do not believe that was the intention of our legislation. I think what we are doing, and with all due deference to the gentleman from Mississippi, I am not just offering this because I am from New York. It could be that we add the 200 cities to this, 300 cities, 400, 500 cities, and we completely undermine the intention of this Congress when we created the program to begin with. Maybe you are right. In that case, do away with the program. It is not any longer going to be a high-threat, high-density urban area grant program. Then let us eliminate it. Put it in with the other pot of money. But if we are going to have it, let us preserve its integrity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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