Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This motion is an easy one and one that should be accepted by everyone in this Chamber, if they are serious about supporting our troops and supporting our Nation. This is where I say rhetoric meets reality. My motion would instruct the conferees working on the bill authorizing actions by the Defense Department to allow our Nation's reservists and National Guard members and their families to be eligible to receive medical coverage from TRICARE on a cost-share basis. TRICARE, as my colleagues know, is the U.S. military's comprehensive health care plan. Reservists have taken on a new and more active role since the 1991 Gulf War. Today, we see these brave young men and women risking their lives on a daily basis in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in this world. After September 11, the President signed an Executive Order authorizing the activation of reservists for up to 2 years of Active Duty, and up to 1 million reservists may be on Active Duty at any one time. Reservists have left their families, their friends and their jobs behind to serve our country, and they deserve health care for themselves and for their families. I am offering this motion today because in our Nation we are still facing the same problems we did during the first Gulf War call-up, poor medical care for reservists as they get ready to be deployed. We are seeing many people sent to the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq who may not always be at peak readiness due to a lack of access to medical care necessary to ensure maximum performance. We rely on these reservists so much now that it would be a mistake not to include them in TRICARE. Their health and their ability to fight should be of our utmost concern. Our reservists should be provided with health care so they can remain in good health while they are not in service so that they are always prepared for mobilization in our global war on terrorism. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of this program to be $460 million during the fiscal year 2004 and about $7.2 billion over a 5-year period. Some Republicans and the Bush administration say that this is too costly, and I just do not see how that argument holds water, as the Bush administration has sent Congress a supplemental bill for Iraq that proposes over $20 billion in reconstruction and rebuilding efforts in Iraq alone, $20 billion in reconstruction and rebuilding in Iraq alone. Yes, U.S. tax dollars are rebuilding the irrigation system of Iraq, and this administration and this Republican Congress refuse to fund medical care for our Reserves and National Guard members. This $460 million is a small price to pay to provide for our troops and to ensure their readiness when they are stateside. The U.S. will spend more to upgrade the housing of Iraqi citizens in the next month than we will on medical care for our Reserves and National Guard if we do not include this provision. In comparison to the tax cuts for the richest 1 percent given by this administration and this Congress and the enormous cost of military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, this should be, quite frankly, a no-brainer. Some might say we need to do studies on this to see if it is feasible. We have done enough studies on this subject. Americans want action, not more studies. Studies are nice, but providing for readiness for our guard and reserve is a necessity. In fact, in 2002, a GAO report recommended Tri-Care assistance be provided during mobilizations targeted to the needs of Reservists and their dependents. Another GAO report that dealt with Reservists being mobilized during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War came to similar conclusions. We cannot afford to do another study when 40 percent of our Reservists on active duty between the ages of 19 and 35, 40 percent of those people are uninsured. Tri-Care is only extended to active duty and not to Reservists, even though they are required to maintain the same standards. Mr. Speaker, with the war on terrorism and continuing military operations in Iraq, with no valuable contribution from our European allies to this effort in sight, U.S. Reservists are clearly being called upon more and more. In fact, after September 8, it was announced that the deployment of Reservists in the combat theater is being extended from 6 months to 1 year. This is in addition to the fact that about half of the active duty Army is currently deployed abroad, up from 20 percent before 9/11. Certainly our heavily stressed armed services and their families being required to make such extensive sacrifices deserve these health benefits. While many Reservists do have health benefits through their current employers, we cannot forget the 40 percent who do not. These are the patriots who make up the fabric of our communities and form the backbone of our defense forces. We cannot keep looking the other way when it comes to the Reservists of our armed services. The administration already refuses to provide concurrent receipt for our veterans who are protecting our freedoms abroad. Until just this morning we were charging people who got injured on active duty for their food at U.S. military hospitals. Now we tell people, the local hardware store owner, the local Realtor, the stay-at-home mom raising a family, that we would love for them to serve as a Reservist, but we cannot offer them the same health care as active duty servicemen and servicewomen. We continue to ask our Reservists to live up to their duties when we are not willing to provide them and their families with the proper health care that they need and that they deserve. We are creating a two-tiered military, with a separate set of benefits for Reservists than those offered active duty servicemembers. We cannot let this happen. Join me in urging the conferees to accept the Senate provisions. Anything else, in my opinion, is a slap at our troops on the front line in our epic war against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his statement. And before I recognize someone from my side, I want to point out for the record that according to the GAO report, from which I received this information, it says, and as the gentleman pointed out, 81 percent of the people in the Reserves are covered. If we take that between the years 18 and 65 years of age, we would have 81 percent coverage. According to the GAO report, right in front of me, only 60 percent of junior enlisted personnel, about 90 percent of whom are under the age of 35, as I said in my statement between 19 and 35 years of age, not all Reservists, but those under the age of 35, had coverage. Only 60 percent. That means, like a national average, that 40 percent have no coverage, just to clarify the point the gentleman made. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services and my good friend.

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

Mr. CROWLEY. I am referring to GAO report 02-829, Defense Health Care. Also, for the record, on page 9 of my statement, and I repeat, we cannot afford to do another study when 40 percent of our Reservists on active duty between the ages of 19 and 35 are uninsured.

Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate that.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). We have known each other for many, many years, and I respect the gentleman's work here in the House, especially as it relates to our Armed Servicemen and Women. I join the gentleman in his remarks about the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, and how much we respect the gentleman and his work, as well as how it pertains to our young men and women, and to those up to the age of 65. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) mentioned that 80 percent of Reservists have health care, 81 percent of those between 18 and 65 have health care. Officers and senior enlisted personnel are more likely than junior enlisted personnel to have coverage. Again, only 60 percent of junior enlisted personnel, about 90 percent of whom are under age 35, had coverage, interpreting that meaning 40 percent do not have coverage. That is lower than the similar age group in the general population. So our Reservists have even less insurance than the general population between those years of 19 to 35. That is what we are talking about. If there was a Band-Aid approach, I would support that as well, if we could. That is not before us right now. We have a measure by the Senate that is before us that we can include in this conference report. That is what this motion is about, to cover all those individuals. Right now, we are asking many of them to make the ultimate sacrifice. I am sure the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has been out to Walter Reed Hospital, as I have. Some have given their lives, and many have given limbs, many of whom are not even citizens. We are making efforts to do away with some of the ridiculous charges, charging fees for meals at these hospitals when some of these people do not have arms to even eat those meals. We are making progress, but here is an opportunity to take care of a segment of the population who are willing to sacrifice themselves and their families and the time with their families, and sacrifice their opportunities at work in defense of this country. I think the least we can do is make sure that not only they have the health care coverage they need in order to perform in the defense of this country, but that their children and spouses have that health care as well. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record, GAO 02-829 Defense Health Care, the paragraph that specifically pertains to what I was talking about. [From GAO, September 2003, Defense Health Care] Most Reservists Have Civilian Health Coverage But More Assistance Is Needed When TRICARE Is Used Until recently, DOD has administered a transitional benefit program that provided demobilized reservists and their dependents 30 days of additional TRICARE coverage as they returned to their civilian health care. The 2002 NDAA extended the transitional period during which reservists may received TRICARE coverage from 30 days to 60-120 days, depending on the length of active duty service. This change more closely reflects the 90 days that USERRA provides reservists to apply for civilian reemployment when they are mobilized for more than 181 days, and the change will provide health care coverage if they elect to delay return to their employment subsequent to demobilization. However, the 2002 NDAA did not provide any transitional benefit for dependents. Overall, the percentage of reservists with health care coverage when they are not mobilized is similar to that found in the general population--and, like the general population, most reservists have coverage through their employers. According to DOD's 2000 survey of Reserve Component Personnel, nearly 80 percent of reservists reported having health care coverage. In the general population, 81 percent of 18 to 65 years old have health care upon coverage. Officers and senior enlisted personnel were more likely than junior enlisted personnel to have coverage. Only 60 percent of junior enlisted personnel, about 90 percent of whom are under age 35, had coverage--lower than the similarly aged group in the general population. Of reservists with dependents, about 86 percent reported having coverage. Of reservists without dependents, about 63 percent reported having coverage.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about my commitment to an Israel that can live in a safe and secure environment. Over August I had the opportunity to travel to Israel with 28 of my colleagues. This trip was the largest congressional delegation ever to travel to the state of Israel. We had the opportunity to see the strength and resilience of the Israeli people as they face the threat of terrorism on a daily basis. The United States must not stand in the way of Israel protecting its citizens from terrorists who threaten them. Israel did not ask us to restrain ourselves when we acted against the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and we should not ask that from them. For a true and lasting peace to come about, the Palestinian Authority must act against the terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But before the Palestinian Authority can act against these terrorists, they must clean up their own acts. The first step is to remove Yasser Arafat from any position of power. Arafat has done enough to destroy the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Recently we all read in the paper how the IMF discovered that Arafat diverted $900 million of public funds to a special bank account under his control. Arafat is not a partner for peace. We know that. We need to convince our allies of that as well. The Palestinian Authority must rid itself of Yasser Arafat if it truly wants to bring about a peaceful coexistence with the state of Israel.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1588, the defense authorization bill. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Crowley moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1588 be instructed to agree to the provisions contained in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 1074a(f) of title 10, United States Code, as proposed to be added by section 701 of the Senate amendment (relating to health care for members of reserve components).

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank amendment. As we have heard, the base bill would allow every American access to a free annual consumer report upon request from the three national credit reporting agencies, and I salute the provision, as does the ranking member. But as we all know, while the Fair Credit Reporting Act deals primarily with credit-reporting agencies, the underlying statute we are amending today through the FAIR Act deals with all consumer reporting agencies. These include credit investigative medical tenant reporting agencies, among many others. Unfortunately, this bill inadvertently limits consumers to requesting and reviewing only one free credit report annually from the three national reporting agencies, meaning this bill does not permit consumers to obtain free reports from hundreds of specialized national consumer reporting agencies that compile information on consumers for noncredit purposes. This provision is necessary in order to correct this oversight and ensure free annual consumer reports from all entities covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, whether they be credit agencies or other information-gathering agencies. We need to ensure that this legislation lives up to the spirit of what all of its supporters intended, including myself, that of allowing Americans access to all consumer reports compiled on them by information-reporting bureaus, not just credit reports, but medical reports and other reports about people's personal information. I do recognize that the Medical Information Bureau, which I have worked closely with, for their agreement to provide these free annual reports upon request, but even with this agreement, there are too many information-gathering agencies which are exempt and will remain unresponsive from these provisions without passage of this amendment. These consumer-reporting agencies include but are not limited to companies that compile consumer information relating to medical records, employment background checks, tenant screening, driving records, insurance claims, criminal records and check-writing history. In fact, in recent years, it has become evident that two companies, only two companies almost dictate which consumers can open checking accounts based upon the reports and scores they provide to financial institutions. These information gatherers must be included under the obligation to ensure free annual reports to individuals upon the consumer's request. This will ensure greater accuracy and transparency, what I believe is the basic goal of the underlying bill today. Everyone should support this amendment. It does not change the bill, but rather clarifies the intent of all of its supporters, of which I am one. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, first I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), for their work together in what I believe is truly a bipartisan effort and manner to craft, in my opinion, a well-balanced bill, understanding that there is a deadline looming in the not-too-distant future as pertains to many of these issues. This bill ensures the continued flow of credit for American consumers by allowing for the permanent protection of credit availability. Our economy and our credit-granting industry should not have to continually look over its shoulder at potentially burdensome regulations, regulations that could hinder the availability of credit for millions of Americans. But this legislation is not just about protecting consumer credit options. It is about protecting consumers' identity and their health information. This bill strengthens the rules to protect consumers from identity theft. The Committee on Financial Services, which I am a member of, heard from a woman who originally lived in my district, someone who I grew up just seven doors away from. Her name was Maureen Sullivan. Now it is Maureen Mitchell. She grew up in Woodside, Queens, New York, who was a victim herself, and her husband, of identity theft. It cost her not only money but it cost her an enormous amount of time, not to mention mental anguish. This quite frankly happens all too often in this country. This bill addresses many of these issues and works for increased protections for honest Americans and honest people. Most importantly, this bill ensures the strict prohibition of medical and health information from being used in the credit-granting or denial process. No longer can the information used in hospitals and in doctors' offices be used to decide one's creditworthiness. I want to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Once again I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for all their good and honest work on what I think is a worthy piece of legislation.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Queens, for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Meeks-Crowley-Ackerman amendment to ensure that the St. Albans Veterans Medical Center is not closed by the VA this year. Queens County has the largest veterans population in the New York metropolitan area, with over 115,000 living veterans. St. Albans serves thousands of Queens County veterans. The facility provides inpatient extended care services, including skilled nursing, IV antibiotic therapy, and respite care. The campus also hosts an ambulatory care center that provides primary care and specialty care, including optometry, podiatry, audiology, and dental services. VA adult day care and home-based primary care programs, providing outpatient geriatric care, are present at the St. Albans campus, as are programs and services to benefit homeless veterans. I understand that as part of a cost savings measure the VA is contemplating the closure of St. Albans. This is not because of a lack of veterans but rather, in my opinion, misplaced priorities. We must keep this hospital and all of our VA hospitals and clinics open. I have had a conversation with the chairman, and I appreciate the situation he finds himself in at this time, and I know that we are waiting for the CARES Phase II proposal to be published. I hope that after that document is released, we will have an opportunity to really evaluate what it says and not close this particular facility as the VA, I believe, is suggesting may happen. There are just too many veterans in the City of New York. Many of these people have absolutely no one; they have nobody. If it were not for the St. Albans Medical Center and what this center provides for these individuals, there would be no one there to take care of these poor veterans.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Nadler-Velazquez amendment to provide decent, affordable housing to the working poor. While I salute the work of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) for making the best possible bill with the awful budget constraints they were given by the leadership of the House, the facts demonstrate that the Section 8 housing program is badly underfunded and, at this level, will lead to the possible eviction and homelessness of 85,000 families. Who are Section 8 families? They are the working poor who cannot afford housing in today's high-priced markets, in my district in such places as Queens and the Bronx. They contribute 30 percent of their income to housing, so it is not free housing we are talking about. Section 8 serves as a vital tool to help those families whose only other choice is the streets. In my district, I see a number of Section 8 houses threatened, such as the Seward Manor in the Bronx in New York, which I represent. I am working to save the homes of those families, but without Section 8 vouchers, this will be a losing battle. I can also just add to this that I know there are landlords in New York City who are refusing Section 8 vouchers as they exist right now. We should be enhancing this program, making them more lucrative to landlords to accept. In fact, the enhanced vouchers are threatened by landlords of being rejected. This is a real crisis, potential crisis in the City of New York. We see homelessness on the streets rising on a daily basis. We should not be contributing to that factor. These are hard-working people, working people, not just poor people. They are working poor people. They are people struggling each day to put food on their plates, to afford to buy prescription drugs and, at the same time, affording themselves the opportunity to have a roof over their heads, that are being threatened right now with the decrease in enhancement of vouchers in Section 8: So I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and give an opportunity of hope to people who desperately need that in Section 8 vouchers.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my encouragement on behalf and to the international community for their continued efforts at resolving the Cyprus crisis. Twenty-nine years ago, without justification, and against international law, Turkish armed forces invaded the nation of Cyprus and today because of a lack of willingness from the Turkish Cypriot leadership; the international community's goal of attained peace is yet to be achieved. I want to commend United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan for his committed efforts to resolving this issue. From the international community's perspective, on several occasions there has been an initiative to resolve this issue, and yet because of the unwillingness of the Turkish Cypriot leadership and specifically Mr. Rauf Denktash, negotiations have collapsed. The most recent negotiations held this past March shows a prime example of unwillingness on the Turkish side. During the negotiations, Republic of Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos, accepted the Annan Plan aimed at reunifying Cyprus. However, Mr. Denktash bluntly rejected the plan, therefore denying his own Turkish Cypriot citizens the right to vote on the issue. In early April, after the meeting, Secretary General Annan issued a report to the Security Council, firmly declaring that Mr. Denktash bears the sole responsibility that lead to the failure of the UN effort. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, there are several strong warnings in the form of protests for the UN peace process, that the Turkish Cypriot community does not support Mr. Denktash's obstructionist approach to governing their community. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Congress to support the continued efforts of the United Nations led by Secretary General Annan, to bring peace and the reunification of Cyprus, through talks between the International community and the Turkish Cypriot leadership. The world must hold the Turkish Cypriot Leadership and specifically Mr. Denktash responsible for their actions. If this issue is not resolved, the people of Cyprus will not be re-united. These are the same Turkish Cypriots who support the reunification of Cyprus and the same Turkish Cypriots who Mr. Denktash thinks he is leading. Let Mr. Denktash know, that if he does not endorse the UN peace process, he will be doing a great disservice to his own people. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to address the House today to express my concerns to my fellow colleagues regarding this issue.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking minority member and my good friend, for their work to craft a fair and balanced bill. Representing the most diverse congressional district in the country, I know how important U.S. foreign assistance is to nations around the globe, and I have seen the success of our foreign assistance firsthand. This is a fair and balanced bill. I thank the chairman and ranking member for supporting priorities of mine, including the Middle East Children's Association and increased money for the International Fund for Ireland, in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, but it could be a great bill. The President recently hopscotched around Africa talking about his global HIV/AIDS initiative, which this Congress passed. What he did not talk about, though, was that his request for funding for HIV/AIDS was $1 billion less than the authorizing legislation provided. Think about the lives $1 billion could save. This bill includes $25 million for the U.N. Population Fund, but we all know that the money has about as much of a chance of being released by this administration as the New York Mets do to win a World Series this year; and this bill continues to mandate the onerous global gag rule which keeps funding away from groups such as Bangladeshi Rural Advancement Committee, or BRAC, and their work to improve child and maternal health. Mr. Chairman, while the administration should fulfill its commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS, support UNFPA and remove the onerous global gag rule. There is much work in this bill, particularly to be done when we look at the Middle East. The selection of a new prime minister for the Palestinian Authority, along with the concerted effort of the European Union and Russia, along with Israel, shows that progress can be made in the Middle East. The support in this bill for Israel, as well as Jordan, a steadfast ally and proponent of stability, is worthwhile. I am encouraged by movements from countries such as UAE, Oman and Qatar to reestablish contact with the Israeli government, and I urge the government of Egypt to make the moves to take what is a cold peace with the Jewish state and turn it into a warmer and deeper relationship. I also want to take this opportunity on behalf of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who is unable to be here because of the death of her mother, to express the support she has in this legislation for the State of Israel.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the 50th anniversary of the American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellowship Program. Founded in 1953, the highly selective, nonpartisan Congressional Fellowship Program has ushered more than 1700 foreign and domestic scholars, journalists and Federal employees through legislative assignments on Capitol Hill. The APSA Congressional Fellowship Program, which is currently run by Dr. Jeffrey Biggs, provides fellows with a hands-on experience in Congress as they handle legislative responsibilities both on personal or committee staffs. In these positions, the American Political Science Association Fellows gain an invaluable inside perspective on the legislative process that no textbook can provide. In turn, they contribute significantly to the work of a congressional office as they add a new perspective and outside, real world expertise to crucial policy issues. Over the years, the Congressional Fellowship Program has gained prominence among those interested in the ways our unique democracy functions. I am currently serving my third term in the House of Representatives and have already hosted my third APSA Congressional fellow. Ms. Simone Stemmler from Germany spent her fellowship year in my office in 1999 working on a global health initiative. After a very successful year, my office was joined by Ms. Jodi Lieberman from the Nuclear Regulatory Agency who spearheaded a number of key legislative issues in my office, including founding and establishing the Bangladeshi Caucus. This year, I once again picked a German fellow--political scientist Marcus Menzel--who worked together with my staff and me on a number of foreign affairs, defense, and trade issues. In addition, he created the new role of grants coordinator in my office, working to ensure that Federal dollars are returned to worthwhile groups and organizations in my district of Queens and the Bronx, New York. Representing a multiethnic district and serving on the Committee on International Relations, I particularly appreciate the different perspectives and opinions that fellows from America's foreign allies bring to my office. They learn about our deliberate process and we in turn benefit from their unique perspective on global issues. The 50th anniversary is often considered the golden anniversary; and I can state without hesitation that the APSA Congressional Fellowship Program represents the gold standard of fellowship programs.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Interior Appropriations bill as it stands now. It is impossible for me to vote in support of this bill because it provides tremendous decreases in funding for critical programs, which benefit all Americans. Just a few weeks ago the Republican majority enacted a massive tax cut for the wealthy but today they cut funding and broke promises for important programs that people care about and depend on. This Republican bill recklessly abandons the historic, bipartisan conservation funding agreement that was made in 2000. With this 2000 agreement, the U.S. Congress made a bipartisan commitment to the America people for a $12 billion investment in conservation, urban parks, clean air and water over the next six years. This funding was intended to preserve and protect the great lands and natural treasures of our country--from savings endangered species to helping local communities with their conservation and recreation programs through creative partnerships that ensuring American families can visit and appreciate our national park for generations. Specifically, this bill seriously underfunds programs that create parks and open spaces, protect wilderness and wetlands, preserve wildlife habitat, and enhance recreational opportunities. In my district, we have the College Point Sport Complex, which provides 22 acres in sports fields and recreational green spaces for the diverse community that lives in the Queens. College Point Sports Complex is only one example of the thousands of urban parks throughout America that provide a break in the urban landscape. However, this bill provides no funding for the urban parks program--breaking the 2000 commitment to the people. The impact of breaking this commitment with America goes even farther by underfunding the Forest Legacy Program and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which help states preserve forest lands threatened by development and allow for the greater protection of open space. Unfortunately, this bill is a mere fig leaf which leaves the natural treasures of our great nation vulnerable to profit-hungry logging and timber contracts, developers, miners and others who do not care about the green space of your community. Additionally, this does not adequately fund the Department of Energy's low-income weatherization program. This program provides weatherization for families who live near or below the Federal poverty line. Each home that is weatherized will generate $275 in annual savings for a family that desperately needs the money for other essentials. However, this bill provides flat-funding for this program and leaves American families in the cold. In Queens and the Bronx, New York, we need this weatherization program, which keeps the low-income families and seniors warm in the winter. But again, if you are not a millionaire, you are forgotten by this Republican Congress and this Bush Administration. Finally, this legislation rejects the idea of providing modest pragmatic increases for the National Endowment for the Arts. One year ago roll call votes demonstrated favorable support for such increases and yet when push comes to shove, the NEA is funded thirty percent below the Fiscal Year 1994 levels. The NEA has implemented all of the reforms requested by Congress and its programs provided arts education and opportunities for communities throughout America, including a number of programs in my district such as the Bronx Council for the Arts. From Urban Parks and environmental protections to weatherization projects and arts and culture programs--this bill breaks the commitment Congress made to America. And for this reason I cannot vote for this bill. I cannot break my promise with a clear conscience.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I had an opportunity most recently to join a couple of Members from New York and other places around the country to visit the Tongass National Forest. What a treasure that place is. I saw clear-cutting. I saw the damage that has already been done to this most pristine area of the world. Can we not leave something to our children, our grandchildren, and their children that has not been touched or squandered? Can we not leave something to them that they can look back on and know that we looked out for their future? We have that opportunity. Let us not destroy our national forests. I do have concerns about this, because we have a national forest in New York State. I do not want to start down a slippery slope and have this administration opening this up in New York as well. I have reasons. I am not from Alaska or the West, but I love this country. I love the West. And I have been to Alaska. And I thank God I had the opportunity to go and see what I believe is the most beautiful part of this great Earth we live on.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the right to close. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I will close by just saying that I have enormous respect for the authors of this amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has a stellar record when it comes to the issue of human rights, and I applaud him for that. We just simply do not agree on this issue. If I believed that or any part of my body believed or my soul believed that the UNFPA was engaged in any form of forced abortion anywhere in the world, I would be the first person supporting their amendment. I just do not believe that to be the case. I have seen the benefit of UNFPA in the world. I have been to Africa. I have been to Asia. I have been to Bangladesh and India and China. I have seen the abuses in China, and I do not agree with them. I do not agree with China on just about anything, but that does not mean we should gut a program that has worked all around this world to save lives. Let me just say this in closing. Dr. Nafis Sadik, the former executive director of UNFPA, said, ``Any form of coercion is completely unacceptable, on practical as well as ethical grounds. Coercion is a violation of human rights. Although it is every country's sovereign right to determine its own policy, that right does not extend to coercive practices. The assumption behind coercion, that women are inferior, incapable of independent decision making, not to be trusted, are also those that undermine sustainable development.'' The choice is really clear. If you support family planning, you will oppose the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of the Millennium Challenge Account, I rise to speak in strong support of the Hyde/Lantos amendment. The MCA has the potential to do much good throughout the developing world and I commend Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos for working together to produce a strong bipartisan bill. This bill represents the largest spending increase in foreign aid by the United States in the past half century. The MCA will provide increased development assistance to the world's poorest nations. The MCA will not just give out this aid to the worlds poorest countries instead they will have to meet a set of indicators to be eligible for MCA funding. These indicators include the rule of law and good governance to name a few. When countries realize that meeting these standards not only enables them to receive aid through MCA but also puts them on the right path to economic and political sustainability. I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for including a priority of mine, language highlighting the role credit unions and other micro-enterprise development offers for economic growth. This bill will also enable a small amount of aid to near miss countries, these are the countries that demonstrate a commitment to development but fail to meet a sufficient number of performance standards. The MCA will not only help those countries that receive aid but will encourage countries who do not qualify to make the necessary changes to meet the required indicators. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.