Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear concerns about an overreaching judiciary, and I asked a simple question. I will gladly yield to an answer. If not the judiciary interpreting the laws of Congress, then who does? Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have a response?

Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. WEINER. Certainly. Well, in that case, who is to interpret conflicts between the two State courts or 50 State courts?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this Member of the other body was in violation of the rules referenced on the floor. Let me just clarify the record there. It is perfectly legal to write into a piece of legislation that one goes to a certain place for a point of review but not another place. Nowhere in the Daschle legislation did it say one has no right to the courts or no right to the Supreme Court of the land. That is simply misstating the facts.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the over 100 students from around New York City who participated this year in the Constitution Education Engagement Project. The CEEP program, of which Carl Bonomo is the founder and Dorothy McCloskey is the director, takes secondary school students from around New York City and asks them to have hearings, discussion and debates and arrive at a piece of legislation for this Congress to consider. This year, the winner was from the Wadleigh Secondary School. Their piece of legislation, which addresses the inequities in education funding, I will be introducing in the Record following these remarks, as well as the list of students who participated to make this project such a success. The legislation that they have come up with addresses problems that affect over 41 States in the United States, and that is the inequity between funding among different school districts. In New York State alone, $17,000 is spent per student in one district compared to $6,000 per student in others. Since 1973, 45 different States have had to address the inequities in school funding. The students at the Wadleigh Secondary School are among our brightest and best. They are members of the CEEP program, which seeks to address the problems we have in our country through the legislative process. I hope this House joins in paying tribute to their successes.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the over 100 students from around New York City who participated this year in the Constitution Education Engagement Project. The CEEP program, of which Carl Bonomo is the founder and Dorothy McCloskey is the director, takes secondary school students from around New York City and asks them to have hearings, discussions and debates and arrive at a piece of legislation for this Congress to consider. This year, the winner was from Wadleigh Secondary School. Karen Watts, Wadleigh's principal, led a group of students that represents the City's best and brightest: Vanessa Reyes, Aaron Gardner, Evelin Valladared, and Victoria Bunn. In addition, I want to mention individuals who deserve special commendation at two other schools that participated in CEEP: principal Joseph Zaza at the Leon M. Goldstein School and Susan Getting and Maureen Longeran at the Townsend Harris School. The legislation that the Wadleigh team has come up with addresses problems that affect over 41 States in the United States, and that is the inequity between funding among different school districts. In New York State alone, $17,000 is spent per student in one district compared to $6,000 per student in others. Since 1973, 45 different States have had to address the inequities in school funding. The students at the Wadleigh Secondary School deserve our thanks for their efforts to address the problems we have in our country through the legislative process. I hope this House joins in paying tribute to their successes. Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA) To provide equal access to quality education to all United States Citizens and Residents Section 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS (a) This Act may be cited as EEOA of 2004 (b) Table of Contents. The table of contents for this act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short Title and table of contents Sec. 2. Abstract Sec. 3. The EEOA Title 1. Quality Education--Requirement to provide quality education to all citizens and residents. Sec. 101. Definition of Quality Education Sec. 102. Establishing a Uniform Standard Title II. Funding--Establish permanent funding source that will allow goals of act to be met. Sec. 201. Establishing special fund for act Sec. 202. Increasing education expenditures on an adjusted per student basis section 2. abstract We live in a time when only the educated are free. As we become more technologically advanced and information plays more of a critical role, only those individuals who have had a sound education will be able to compete and succeed in the global marketplace. This need for a quality education is most critical for those people who are on the lowest social and economic levels of our society. Now more than ever all must have access to a good education in order to have a fair chance in life. Sadly, those who are most in need of quality education have the least amount of access to it. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that every citizen will have equal protection of the law, but a Supreme Court decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) almost erased the protections provided by this amendment. The Plessy decision created the system of separate but equal and allowed for the legal separation of people based upon nothing but the color of their skin. This ruling allowed for the establishment of separate school facilities for white people and people of color. These facilities were anything but equal. Schools that served students of color were inferior in many important aspects. The physical conditions of the schools were poor, books and other materials were in poor condition, outdated or not available at all. The teachers were paid less than their white counterparts. The landmark ruling in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) ended the practice of legal segregation in public schools and struck down the Jim Crow laws that forced second-class citizenship on people of color. Despite this, American society in many ways remains as segregated as it was before 1954. Nowhere is this segregation more evident than in our public schools. Even though great people such as Charles Hamilton Houston the architect of the argument for the Brown case, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., dedicated their lives to ensure that there would be equal educational opportunities for all Americans, we have yet to see this become a reality. Recent studies show that the country's largest inner city school districts remain dramatically divided along lines of race and economic class. These studies find that the poorest school districts have a population that consists mostly of minority students while white students make up the majority of wealthy districts. The difference in the funding received by school districts is also very surprising. In New York State alone, $17,000 is spent per student in the wealthiest districts while only $6000 per student is spent in the poorest districts. This stark difference led to the creation of the Campaign for fiscal Equity (CFE), a group of parents, businessmen and politicians who sued the state of New York to get more funding for the poorer school districts. After a long battle that lasted for several years, the New York State Courts ruled that the state must provide equal funding to those poor school districts. But New York is not the only state where we see this type of inequality--41 out of 50 states in the country have a similar situation. Unequal funding has had a direct impact on the academic achievement of under funded schools and students. Students who attend schools located in districts that receive less funding also have lower scores on standardized tests and are more likely to be below grade level in reading and math. Students from these under-funded schools are also more likely to drop out of school and fewer students from these attend and graduate from college. Recently, the federal government has tried to address the problem by the passing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB requires all school districts to achieve minimum academic standards as measured by standardized tests. Those states whose school districts do not meet these standards would lose some of their federal funds. The NCLB Act has been criticized because it does not provide the funding that schools would need to meet the standards set by the law. In fact, those school districts whose students are the most in need of additional funding would likely be the first ones to lose funding if their students, who also have the greatest academic deficits, do not achieve satisfactory scores. Many parts are NCLB are good and should be expanded, but a couple of the things that the law does not do is provide funding that is substantial enough to achieve it's goals, and it does not require that states provide equal funding. It is the goal of the EEOA to address the problems that NCLB does not. section 3. the equal educational opportunity act Title I.--Quality Education For All Citizens and Residents. The federal government will be required to ensure that every child within the boarders of the United States is provided with the opportunity to receive a ``quality educational experience.'' Sec. 101. Definition of ``Quality Education''--For the purposes of this Act, a ``quality education'' will be defined as: (1) An education that provides each student the opportunity to develop the skills that are necessary to become a productive member of their local, national and global communities. (2) Developing the skills and knowledge necessary to effectively participate in the global marketplace. (3) Adequate physical facilities to meet the demands of the uniform distribution of funds. (4) Well- trained certified teachers who are paid at a competitive rate. (5) Providing a variety of learning experiences that include opportunities for extracurricular interests and social development. Sec. 102. Establishing a Uniform Standard--To ensure that each child receives a quality education this act shall establish a framework for the equitable distribution of funding to create the programs and curriculum necessary to meet the goals of a quality education as defined in Sec. 101 and to provide states and local school boards with the resources to address each school's unique challenges in meeting the requirement for a quality education through a flexible and equitable distribution of dollars so each school has an equal opportunity to shore up its curricular weaknesses as they define it in their local communities once the basic national, state and local requirements and standards have been met, a standard by which individual state education programs will be measured. Title II.--Funding. A special fund will be established to fully implement all aspects of the EEOA. Additionally a special committee will be created to develop a formula for per student expenditures that will result in equal spending for all students. Sec. 201. Establishing a Special Fund to Fully Support the EEOA--A fund will be created that will be used solely for the purpose of providing support of the EEOA. The fund is to be developed and established by appropriate legislation. Sec. 202. Increase in Per Student Expenditures--A commission will be created to determine per student expenditure required to support the provisions included in Title I of this act. Several factors will be taken into consideration when making this determination, including: 1) economic and social conditions that exist in a student's school district 2) the academic and social circumstances of the student 3) the ability of the student's school and community to raise funds independently. Taking these factors into consideration will insure that the schools and students who have the greatest need will receive the greatest amount of funding and support. School districts that have adequate spending for each student will not be required to reduce their expenditures. When developing the per student spending formula, the commission shall also consider external factors such as the cost of living in each school district, property values in the district and additional community resources. This will allow the amount distributed to each school district to be prorated according to these factors. (Building a school in Georgia does not cost as much as building a similar facility in New York City, therefore the actual dollar amount spent on a student in Georgia may be less, but the value received from the expenditure is equivalent).

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. My amendment is a simple one. It simply says that no money in this bill shall go to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To many of those watching this debate, they would be surprised to learn that any money goes to Saudi Arabia at all. It should not, and there are reasons it should not. First of all, the Saudis are shielding known terrorists. This is not a theory of mine; this is a fact. Just yesterday, the person who was standing to the right of Osama bin Laden as he presented a chilling videotape shot after September 11 showed up at a Saudi airport and gave credit to the Saudi Government for taking him in and offering him amnesty for his crimes. ``Thank God, thank God,'' he said. ``I called the embassy and we were very well received.'' Saudi security forces allowed kidnappers to escape after killing 16 Westerners at a Khobar residential compound on May 29 of this year. Al Qaeda terrorists who kidnapped and killed American contractor Paul Johnson say they used official police uniforms and vehicles received from sympathetic Saudi police. Saudi Prince Abdullah responded with a 1-month amnesty for any terrorist who surrendered voluntarily. In an October of last year interview in ``The Voice of Jihad,'' Abu Hajjer, an al Qaeda member ranking high on Saudi Arabia's most wanted list, commented with the following quote: ``It is true that we must use the country of Saudi Arabia, because it is the primary source of funds for most Jihad movements. It has some degree of security and freedom of movement.'' This is what members of al Qaeda say about Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have famously also failed to crack down on terror. Last October when I offered a similar amendment, I heard some of the opponents say, oh, they are getting their act together. As of last month, not a single arrest or prosecution had come from the U.S.-Saudi Joint Terrorist Financing Task Force, which is supposed to cut down on the financing of terror coming out of Saudi; not a single one. Since September 11, not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups has been publicly punished, despite Ambassador Bandar's assertion that Saudi Arabia would ``prosecute the guilty to the fullest extent of the law.'' Since September 11, not a single one. Last month's report by the Council of Foreign Relations on Terrorist Financing says: ``Saudi Arabia has not fully implemented its new laws and regulations and, because of that, opportunities for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persists.'' This is not some fringe element of Congress; this is the Council on Foreign Relations. The Saudis finally are exploiting Wahabism. This is not even a question that the Saudis dispute. In March of 2002, an official Saudi magazine, Ain al-Yaqueen, wrote that the royal family wholly or partly funded some 210 Islamic centers, 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2,000 schools in countries without Muslim majorities to spread Wahabism. So why is there any money in this bill going to the Saudis at all? Why is this amendment even necessary? The most telling is from the President's own budget request. In the President's budget request, they explain why it is necessary to keep a small amount of money for the Saudis in our budget, with taxpayer dollars. Here is what it says. The modest amount of IMET funds requested permit the Saudi Government to purchase military training in the United States at a considerably lower cost than is charged countries that are not eligible. And get this: it says, the President, while Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces increasing budget pressure. This is why the United States taxpayer is providing funds to Saudi Arabia. Well, they are not going to after tonight if we vote ``yes'' on the Crowley-Israel-Berkley-Weiner amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, and the hour is getting late and there are no further speakers on my side, I just want to once again clarify the record of the Saudis. Every time we have this discussion in this Chamber, we hear about how the Saudis have changed their ways, that they finally decided they do not want to fund terror, they do not want to export terror, they do not want to be terrorists themselves, that if only we in the House of Representatives allow them a few more years of funding, a few more years chasing the fantasy that there are moderate friends in that region, that maybe things would turn around. Well, the gentleman that is sitting here talking to Osama bin Laden shortly after September 11, it would be just great if somehow we can capture that guy, that guy who is laughing on the tape while Osama bin Laden took credit for the heinous acts of September 11. Well, this is a picture from yesterday's newspaper at a Saudi Arabian airport of that fellow being wheeled into Saudi Arabia under an amnesty program by the Saudis. If we think for a moment that U.S. authorities are going to have a chance to interview this person, think again. We learned from the explosion at the Khobar Towers years ago, when to this day the FBI has not been granted access to the crime scene, that we do not get Saudi cooperation. We learned from the Council of Foreign Relations, who just put out a report, that we do not get cooperation cutting down on the funding that the Saudis provide for terror. So this person, the right hand to Osama bin Laden, is now somewhere in Saudi Arabia, our so-called ally that we with taxpayer dollars are funding in this bill. Frankly, it is inexplicable. It is inexplicable. You can no longer live by the fantasy that somehow they are going to be helpful, that we are going to solve the problems of the Middle East if only we embrace the Saudis. We can no longer follow that fantasy thinking. Every year when I bring this amendment up, I hear the same protests from the distinguished chairman and those that support the Saudi regime. They say, this is the wrong time, things are getting better, things are getting better. Sure it has been hundreds of years of exporting terrorism, but now it is getting better. We are right on the precipice. If only we give them a few more dollars in taxpayer funds, things will get a little bit better. It is not happening. According to the United States Government, not a single arrest has come as a result of this vaunted U.S.-Saudi task force on the financing of terrorism; and this person, who is no doubt involved in the attacks of my city on September 11, the attacks in Pennsylvania and here in Washington, is now in the possession of what he calls his family in Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 came from Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence that, according to the State Department, more than half of every single dollar for terrorists comes from Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence, because that is what the Saudi government is all about. What is remarkable is that we keep going along with it. We provide funding, we embrace them, and we do not seem to learn. Let us make this the year that we finally say not a single taxpayer dollar will go to Saudi Arabia in this bill. Let us take the explanation in the budget request that this will allow them to save money on military training, because, ``While Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces increasing budget pressure.'' It is hard to even read with a straight face. Vote yes on the Weiner- Crowley-Israel-Berkley amendment. Finally end funding of U.S. tax dollars to Saudi Arabia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, it is for the purpose of a question. The gentleman talked about how the cooperation helps us in the war on terror. The Council on Foreign Relations issued a report recently that said that we are not getting that cooperation. The FBI has said that they are not getting cooperation in investigating crimes against U.S. citizens. Where does the gentleman derive the idea that we are getting cooperation with this money?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I will try to take less than that if possible. I rise in support of the Otter amendment. The question should be should we have any aid going to the West Bank and Gaza. That should be the question. Is it buying us pro-American values? No. Is it buying us less violence? No. Is it buying us a more transparent government? No. Is it buying us more democracy? No. And to make matters worse those receiving the aid are refusing now to sign a declaration saying that the money will not go to terrorists. There is no reason in my eyes that we should be providing any aid at all.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their fine work on this bill. This is an extraordinarily important bill each year. It is very easy to demagogue that we should provide the funding that we do; but, in fact, for relative pennies on the dollar, we get an enormous amount of benefit for our country. I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy to discuss the continuing humanitarian crisis in the Dominican Republic. This last May, as many as 2,000 Dominicans and Haitians were killed during flooding in the region surrounding the Haitian-Dominican border. In what was perhaps the worst natural disaster ever to hit the Caribbean, there are over 660 dead in the Dominican Republic alone, and tens of thousands lost their homes as entire towns were washed away. The flooding was a result of a confluence of two unfortunate circumstances. The first is obvious. It was hurricane season in the Caribbean and there were heavy rains. But the second, as the chairman knows, was that poverty in the Dominican Republic and Haiti has forced Haitians and Dominicans to raze entire forests. The wood they harvest allows them to just barely scrape by. Without trees to hold the soil firm, the beautiful hills of the Dominican Republic and Haiti were laid bare, and those living in the valleys below were made susceptible to the mudslides which have wreaked so much devastation. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and the ranking member have worked hard to provide assistance for both the Dominican Republic and Haiti in this bill, and they deserve to be commended for their efforts. Haiti, torn apart recently by a political crisis, has been provided an additional $50 million in an effort to jump-start their economy and stabilize the new government. The Dominicans are suffering as well. In the late 1990s, the Dominican economy was growing by 8 percent a year, a remarkable achievement. Last year, the economy shrunk and is expected to shrink another 1 percent this year. Inflation is near 30 percent, and unemployment is at 16 percent. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his continuing interest in helping the people of the Dominican Republic. I hope he will work in conference to provide additional aid to them. Before the chairman has an opportunity to respond, I will yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) to add her words.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. If I can further be heard, so the point in the bill we are at is not in issue? It is only whether it is budget and outlay neutral?

Mr. WEINER. May I be heard on the point of order? If the ruling of the Chair is that we have not yet reached that point, will I be free to offer it again when the time is more propitious?

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

Mr. WEINER. I think I have just about maximized my statement.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard on the point of order. We are at the chapter of the bill. We are at page 5. We are at the relevant paragraph of the bill. That is a matter of fact. And as far as the outlays, this has previously been scored for another amendment, and I am making a 6 percent reduction, and we are waiting for word from CBO, which hopefully will be coming momentarily which will clarify the other point.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I am asking is the point of order, does it make two separate points? One being we have not reached the page and the other being that it does outlays? Just so I understand what I am responding to.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, has this been cleared with our leadership here, Mr. Chairman?