Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for holding this Special Order, and I thank my other ``Maine man,'' the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). I like to call them my ``Maine men,'' but they have been outstanding in their efforts to highlight what is wrong with this free trade bill. I just really want to thank, in particular, as I just said, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for organizing this Special Order this evening. I have been a strong supporter of trade, and as many of my colleagues know, I have been an outspoken leader on the Democratic side of the aisle during the past two trade agreements which passed with the support of a Democratic majority, those two trade agreements being the Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement. And I happily helped pass those agreements here on the floor of the House of Representatives. As I have spoken about free trade agreements in the past, I have always been clear that I look at each free trade agreement on its individual merits. Since the USTR began negotiations in January of 2003, I have closely followed the negotiations leading up to the signing of CAFTA in August of last year. In my experience, this has not been the norm for this administration. Usually, after negotiations have concluded, they make a very strong push for passage within an average of 55 days. It is now May 4. While the target date for a vote on the floor is said to be before Memorial Day recess, I seriously doubt the Republican leadership will bring up this bill when they know they do not have the votes to pass it. Like many of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans in the House, I remain concerned about many of the provisions contained in this agreement. I hope now that we have Mr. Portman as our new UST representative, he will take into account the strong views my colleagues have on free and fair trade. This agreement weakens workers' rights and environmental standards in six countries, but it also does not take into account the rising trade imbalance that our country faces globally. Instead of pushing free trade agreements down the throat of Congress, the President should start to work on lowering the enormous deficits that he has created for our country. Our country needs to create the next sector of our economy so we can finally stop the joblessness and work towards job creation. Our workers are not only being killed by high prices at the gas pump but also in our general living expenses. Wages continue to go down as the cost of living continues to skyrocket. In my colleague's own home State of Maine, paper mills have closed and shoe and apparel manufacturing is all but eliminated because of free trade. While it is good to say that the next generation of jobs will be of higher value and will raise the wages of employees of the future, I am sympathetic to a lot of my friends in rural America who say they just do not see it. My wife, Casey's, family is from Montana, and they do not see it either. They do not see it when the administration continues to fight country-of-origin labeling for meats. The administration allows Canadian soft wood lumber to flood our market and other anti-worker proposals of this administration. It is time for this administration to focus on how they can end the middle-class squeeze and bring prosperity back to our working class. While I have the floor, I would like to discuss an article that appeared in today's Congress Daily, which I read this morning. In the article, one source said that Democrats, specifically my fellow new Democrats, and I quote, ``are sewing the seeds of our own irrelevance.'' I take offense to that comment. We clearly see that we are relevant. We are very relevant. If we were not, do you think the Republican leadership would still be waiting to bring this agreement to the floor? This late push by the administration to try to win over pro-trade Democrats has lacked any real compromise. Unfortunately, I cannot be there for the CAFTA agreement in its current form, but my sincere hope is it can be renegotiated to meet the requirements of free, fair and balanced trade; fair to the people of the Dominican Republic and Central America that raises their wages and their standard of living; but, more importantly, fair to the people of the United States who feel that they are competing in a world economy where the odds are just simply stacked up against them. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), for holding this Special Order this evening.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scott amendment and in opposition to H.R. 748. I commend the work of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in the work on this bill as well. Here we go again. The party that talks about States rights is stepping on the rights of States. The party that talks about family values wants to put Grandma and Aunt Jane in jail. Supporters of this bill argue that it will help reduce the number of abortions in this country or protect the health and well-being of our Nation's youth and families. But while these types of bills may look good for politics for some, they make very bad policy for all. It is sad that the U.S. has the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the western civilized world, and I think everyone here agrees that we should take steps to counter that. That is why we should support programs that improve the health of our young people, improve communication among families, prevent teen pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions. Fortunately, these programs like those under Title X do exist. Unfortunately, these programs are not what we are focusing on here today. Congress should work to find common ground on real solutions to problems of unintended pregnancies and abortions. Funding for programs like Title X is one way to reduce abortions. Passage of H.R. 748 is not, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. This is both a somber and encouraging day for both myself and many of my constituents, who are survivors or ancestors of survivors. Somber in memory of the millions who lost their lives, and encouraging in the success of the Armenian American community of building new lives in the U.S., as well as an independent Armenia. April 28, 1915 will live as a day of infamy in the lives of all Armenians, all over the world. It was this day that the Turkish government ordered the deportation of 2.5 million Armenians out of the Ottoman Empire. Within hours, Turkish forces had rounded up over 300 Armenian scholars, and deported or killed them. Over the next year, 1.5 million Armenians were killed or deported to concentration camps to await certain death. I have always supported the Armenian American community. However, my support for the community does not only stem from the size of the Armenian Community in Queens, but also because I see the strategic importance of the Caucasus region for the United States. In 2003, I had the opportunity to visit Armenia and to plant a tree at the Genocide memorial. The independent country of Armenia is a living testament to honor the memories of the survivors. I believe that by failing to recognize these barbaric acts, one becomes complicit in them. Let us never forget the 1.5 million Armenians who perished in 1915 and 1916. Mr. Speaker, again I commemorate the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, and hope that April 28th, 1915 will never be forgotten. I also ask that the New York Times story focusing on survivors of the genocide be inserted into the Record. Their words and memories speak louder than any speech we will hear today. [From the New York Times, Apr. 23, 2005] Armenian Immigrants Recall a 90-Year-Old Tragedy (By Corey Kilgannon) A cheery sign in the New York Armenian Home in Flushing, Queens, yesterday informed its elderly residents in colorful letters of the current date, season and weather. And of an anniversary: ``Remember April 24, the Armenian Genocide.'' A framed proclamation by Gov. George E. Pataki hung nearby, declaring April 24 as Armenian Remembrance Day to commemorate the Turkish massacres of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians beginning in 1915. It called the killings ``the 20th century's first such calculated effort to destroy people on a massive scale'' and added that ``the Armenian Genocide led academics to coin and utilize the very term genocide.'' It is doubtful that even with failing memories, any residents at the home needed a reminder. ``This time of year, they all get disturbed and remember,'' said Jenny Akopyan, assistant director of the home. Tomorrow, thousands of Armenian-Americans from across the Northeast are expected to gather in Times Square to mark the 90th anniversary of the murders of their relatives and forebears by Ottoman Turks during World War I. On April 24, 1915, Turkish soldiers arrested hundreds of Armenian leaders in Constantinople, then tortured and executed them. The mass slaughter of Armenians over the next several years is often called the first genocide of that century and a precursor to the Holocaust. The Armenian Home, on 45th Avenue in Flushing, opened in 1948 and has long housed many genocide survivors who escaped by playing dead, fleeing or other means. Most of the residents are from families decimated by the genocide, but only a half dozen--all in their 90's--actually escaped it as children. The most recent death of a survivor was in August: Lucy Derderian, age 103, who ``only survived the genocide because her mother was smart enough to hide her under the dead bodies during a massacre,'' said Aghavni Ellian, the home's executive director. Ms. Ellian walked into the home's day room, where about two dozen elderly Armenian immigrants sat watching ``The Price Is Right'' on a large television next to an ornate Christian shrine bedecked in crimson and gold. She carried a lamb dish that had been delivered for later: madal, a roast blessed by a priest and traditionally eaten on April 24. The residents had just finished small cups of thick, strong Armenian coffee. Few survivors could offer completely lucid recollections, but each had some snippet of horror seared into memory. Gulumya Erberber, 93, said that Turkish soldiers had beheaded her father, a wealthy academic, and seized his riches and several houses. She was 3 years old then, and her mother fled with the five children to a mountain village where the townspeople did not speak Armenian but did help the family. Israel Arabian, 99, leaned on his cane and related how he was forced to work for a Turkish officer who took Mr. Arabian's teenage sister ``as a wife.'' He ran away and grew up in a Greek orphanage before eventually coming to New York and settling in Queens. Many Armenians bitterly denounce the Turkish government for denying that the killings constituted genocide. In an interview yesterday, Tuluy Tanc, minister counselor for the Turkish Embassy in Washington, said the accusation of genocide was ``unfair and untrue,'' a legal ploy to gain reparations. ``We don't see what happened as genocide, quote-unquote,'' Mr. Tanc said. ``Unfortunate and tragic events took place during World War I and bad things happened to Armenians, and Muslims and Turks also.'' ``The number killed is much less than they say--it's more like 300,000 Armenians who lost their lives,'' he said, adding that Turkish leaders had recently asked Armenia to set up a commission to study the killings. Onorik Eminian, 93, said she was a young child living in the city of Izmir when the Turks killed her parents and other relatives. She said she has never stopped having nightmares about it, especially in April. ``I saw plenty, sir, plenty,'' she said. ``I saw them go in and they broke our churches. They took old ladies, old like me now, and shot them one by one. This I saw in front of my eyes. They chopped the arms off our schoolteachers and hung them from the trees in the street to teach us a lesson. We watched our priest come delivering food, and they killed him and threw the food into the street.'' ``Are you sure you want to hear my sad story?'' she asked. ``I was playing in front of our house when they came on horses. My grandmother pulled me in. The Turks grabbed my father--he was hiding Armenians in his coffee shop--and I cried, `Daddy, Daddy, don't go' and I held onto his leg. Then one soldier told me to shut up and hit me right here with a rifle. Look, I still got the mark.'' Weeping, she pointed to a bump on her forehead between her eyebrows and dabbed her eyes with a tissue. ``I said, `Where's my father?' and they said, `Here's your father,' and they held up his jacket and pants.'' She grew up in an orphanage, and eventually came to New York, lived in Astoria and had two daughters who never saw any mention of Armenian genocide in their history books. ``If you write this in the newspaper,'' she said, ``will the Turks come here and kill me? I'm still afraid of them.''

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the former Co-Chair of the Caucus on India and Indian Americans and the representative of one of the largest concentrations of Indian Americans in the United States, I have seen firsthand the contributions my friends from India have made. I commend my colleague and good friend Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) for introducing this legislation and talking about the contributions of Indian Americans. Representing the second highest concentration of Indian Americans in the country, I have seen for myself on 74th Street in Jackson Heights, Queens how successful and industrious Indian Americans are. That recipe for success starts with institutions like the Indian Institute of Technology, which we recognize today, and the far-reaching success of their graduates. The Indian Institute of Technology (lIT) has had a long history of grooming fine minds that have gone on to achieve incredible success in India and around the world. The first IIT was established in 1950 in Kharagpur and now 50 plus years later they have a total of seven institutes, with the newest one established by recognizing University of Roorkee, one of Asia's oldest engineering institutions, as IIT Roorkee. Many of the top Indians in industry have graduated from India's prestigious Indian Institute of Technology, like Vinod Khosla, founder of Sun Microsystems, to Rajat Gupta, the first non North America born head of the venerable consulting company McKinsey & Co. I have had an opportunity to meet many graduates of IIT and all have spoken about the benefits of attending the institute. I believe in today's current educational environment in the United States we can learn from the history of how the Indian government went about establishing this institute. After the Indians gained their independence from the British, they formed committees to explore ways of creating an educated class of people to move the country forward. What they found was that to be competitive in the world they needed to excel in technology and engineering, which is where we in the United States find ourselves to be lacking today. We need to follow the example of our Indian friends and the example we set in the 1960's and create a national strategy to make the way we teach our children in the United States more focused on the math and sciences so we are not left behind. Instead of fearing India as an economic competitor, we should be embracing India as an economic and political ally. The over 1 billion consumers in India and the market for U.S. goods and services in India allows for unprecedented opportunities for American companies, and job growth for Americans. I want to thank Mr. Davis for introducing this resolution and urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Solis amendment to the energy bill. This amendment ensures that the Federal laws and regulations that pertain to ensuring clean air and water and a solid quality of life for our constituents are not stripped out just because they or their community is facing some economic distress. Specifically, the Solis amendment would strip out language that cynically allows refineries to move into economically distressed communities, override Federal environmental laws, trample on local zoning laws and ignore community opposition to set up shop. The fact that this bill allows the oil companies to ride roughshod over those communities facing tough economic times is a travesty. Urban and rural communities facing tough times cannot and should not serve as dumping grounds for the oil industry. Just because a community is facing an economic downturn is no reason to say that population can now be exposed to refineries and their byproducts in their community--and that these people do not deserve the protections of the Clear Air Act as just one example. The House has the opportunity to strip out the special rights and ensure equal rights for all of our constituents. While I represent New York City and do not see any oil refineries planning to set up shop there any time soon, this amendment is an attack on all communities facing tough times and will lead to greater victimization of people suffering. Please support the Solis amendment and strip out the damaging special rights for refineries in this bill.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, this debate comes down to Fact v. Fiction. Fiction--The other side argues that drilling in pristine areas will lower gas prices. Fact--The President's top counselor Dan Bartlett said this week that there is no magic wand to reduce gas prices. Fiction--Opening ANWR will relieve the U.S. from turning to foreign sources. Fact--This bill makes our country more dependent on fossil fuels from places like the Mid-East as scientists of all ideologies have stated that the limited amount of oil will not result in a lessening of oil dependency for the U.S. Fiction--Opening ANWR will weaken OPEC and strengthen the U.S. Fact--The Bush administration's own Department of Energy contradicts this point, when it determined last year that if world oil markets continue as they currently do, OPEC could ``countermand any potential price impact of Arctic Refuge production by reducing its exports by an equal amount?'' Fact--Drilling in ANWR will not lower gas prices at the pump; will not protect our national sovereignty, and will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Fact--Vote for Markey-Johnson.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, the ethics of this House, the people's House, and this leadership have been questioned. Madam Speaker, the leadership of the majority is being investigated by no more than 15 newspaper investigative reporters. And while all this happens, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, stands silent, locked tighter than a drum, deadlocked. This time, the majority cannot blame anyone but themselves. They cannot blame the Democratic Party. The majority threw out the rules and House ethics. They removed the former Chair because of his independence and changed the rules to make delay and denial easier and facts harder to find. The ethics issues that are being investigated need to be addressed, and where they should be addressed is in the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The Republicans need to break this logjam and make the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the most respected committee in the Congress, instead of the partisan political tool that it has become.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I will give the Republicans credit, they have made a lot of noise over the past few years about lowering taxes, lifting the burden off of working and middle class families and improving America's tax structure for businesses and households. But this is blatantly untrue. I salute Mr. Hoyer for organizing this discussion tonight to let the American public know the truth about the Republicans and their tax schemes. For too long Democrats have allowed the Republican deception to continue . . . until now. Just as the previous speakers have stated, the American tax code and the tax policies have failed this country, they have failed working people, middle income families, the working poor. I also want to mention how these flawed Republican tax policies have also weakened the competitiveness of America's small businesses, entrepreneurs and corporations. These are the people that create the jobs that keep America working. The business community, which represents the true job creators of America, has had to deal with ever constant changes to the tax code, and so-called temporary fixes at the last minute. These leave American businesses and employers not able to plan for the future as they have no idea what the tax code will look like. Rather the Republican's business tax code plan is not about reform or simplification but rather can be summed up as the ``Full Employment for Accounts Act.'' Republican leaders repeatedly have talked about the need to make the tax system simpler and fairer. In fact, Speaker Hastert himself stated in December that America's tax system is quote ``too complicated; it also hurts our Nation's competitiveness.'' He is right--but his Republican caucus has done nothing to address this issue. In fact, their actions show just the opposite. The Federal income tax code has grown from 500 pages in 1913 to 45,662 in 2001 when Mr. Bush was elected to 25 volumes today. The 2001 tax law added 214 million hours alone to the paperwork burden for small business people. They should be creating and investing and producing not figuring out their more and more complicated tax forms. Individuals, businesses, tax-exempt public and private entities spend nearly 6 billion hours complying with the tax code. And they call this simplification and reform. And this burden falls heaviest on our small business people and self-employed. IRS estimates that the average taxpayer with a self-employed status has the greatest compliance burden in terms of preparation--59 hours. Small businesses overpaid their taxes by $18 billion in 2000 and 2001 because of return errors, a GAO report found in 2002. Tens of thousands of farmers overpaid taxes by an average of more than $500 because they failed to take advantage of income averaging, according to a Treasury Department report in March 2004. Despite repeated promises, no action was ever taken on fundamental reform of our tax system. Instead, the Republicans enacted legislation that dramatically increased the complexity of our income tax system. The Republican tax legislation used budget gimmicks, such as phase-ins, temporary provisions and overall sunsets, to hide the cost of their tax legislation. Today, while the Republicans hail their so called ``estate tax'' victory--in fact, what they have done is increase the estate tax for hundreds of thousands of small businesses by repealing the ``step up in basis'' and substituting in ``carry over basis'' rules that preserve the tax on increases in value of estates before death--hence making recipients now pay a capital gains tax on inherited materials, that people are now exempt from. So the death tax actually grows stronger under the sham Republican bill they passed today. And today not only will make their lives more difficult and their taxes more complicated, but it also makes their taxes Increase. As a result, we have a tax system that is quite unstable, leaving taxpayers uncertain about the law in the future. Business cannot plan for the future. Congress must end these gimmicks. It is time for Congress to make permanent the Research and Development Tax Credit. We must immediately provide a permanent tax credit for the health insurance expenses for the self-employed. We must end these tax loopholes, gimmicks and temporary tax solutions--as these are actually not helpful to businesses and entrepreneurs. We need real tax reform and real tax simplification. Something that the Republicans haven't been able to deliver 10 years. It's time for a real change in our tax law, by providing a real change in American leadership.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and would like to thank my good friend from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, for introducing this resolution. As the former Co-Chair of the Caucus on India and Indian Americans along with my colleague Mr. Wilson from South Carolina, we worked with Tom Udall at the end of the 108th Congress to recognize the contributions that Yogi Bhajan (YO-gee BUH-jin) made to India and to the United States. Due to the time constraints of the end of the session work, we were unable to bring this before committee, but I am grateful we now have the opportunity to honor a man whose words and deeds affected countless people all over the world. During his life, Yogi Bhajan introduced thousands around the world to Sikhism, a religion that carries the message of truthful living and fundamental unity of humanity and reaches out to people of all backgrounds to work together. Yogi Bhajan also applied his grass-roots approach to peace in the business and non-profit organizations he founded. He was a trusted management consultant for 14 corporations worldwide, representing service industries as diverse as health food manufacturing), computer systems and security services. This resolution recognizes a wise teacher and mentor, an outstanding pioneer, a champion of peace and compassionate human being, and extends condolences on his passing. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution honoring Yogi Bhajan.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and I would like to give a special thanks to the sponsor of this resolution, my good friend from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. Like several of my colleagues on the House International Relations Committee, I had the opportunity to meet with many of the men and women of our Armed Forces, the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development operating in the tsunami affected region. My trip to the region began in Singapore, where I met with members of our Armed Forces who were using the Singapore Air Force base as a staging ground for missions into the hardest hit area of the tsunami, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. They were running operations out of the base 24 hours a day thanks to the support of our Singaporean friends. While I was at the base I met with a Marine who was injured just days before in a helicopter crash but he remained in high spirits and was eager to get back out to help the survivors of the tsunami. Singapore has been such a strong ally and a solid supporter of our relief mission; I want to publicly thank the government and people of Singapore for their role in the assistance to the tsunami affected region. After Singapore, I traveled to Sri Lanka and went south of Colombo to Galle, a tourist town, which was ravaged by the tsunami. During my day in Galle, I visited a maternity hospital that had been badly damaged and is now unusable, but I met with a doctor who told me about a c-section he was performing when the wave hit the hospital. This doctor was able to finish the surgery by flashlight and saved the mother and child. These are some of the stories we may never have heard. As I traveled on the road back to Colombo stretching the length of the shore I saw more affects of the Tsunami, train tracks were turned into corkscrews and buildings were totally destroyed. But within all this rubble was American Marines and USAID Disaster Assistance Relief Teams working hand in hand with the Sri Lankan's clearing destroyed homes. I asked one of the marines about his daily activities and he told me what brought him the most joy was playing with the local children who had lost their families and homes and that just making them smile and keeping them active brought him so much fulfillment. As those children grow up they will always remember that marine who brought a little sense of normalcy back to their lives. Also, during a meeting with the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, I met the director of the U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, OFDA, covering South Asia, which with the help of this committee; I was able to establish this branch. I was caught off guard when William Berger, the director of the OFDA, thanked me for establishing this office and told me that the funding I was able to secure has saved thousands of lives and will continue to. It's a real testament to the effect our committee has on the lives of those living so far away. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of my friend, Scott G. Kaufman, who will celebrate his 40th birthday on March 16, 2005. Scott, a graduate from CUNY Law School in Queens, has lived a successful life serving his community with great honor. Scott, shortly after graduating Law School, became an Assistant District Attorney with the Queens District Attorney's office in 1994. A few years later, Scott took a position with the Surrogate's office and handled a myriad of estate matters in the district. Soon after, Scott ventured out and became a solo practitioner before rejoining his classmate and friend, Sean Crowley, in the law firm Crowley & Crowley LLP, in 2001. While tending to his very impressive career, Scott met the lovely Guila Haddad. Before long, Scott was impressing Guila with his famous Rigatoni Alla Vodka and Fileto d' Pomodoro. Nine years later, Scott and Guila are married and have two beautiful children, Jacob and Isabel. With so many accomplishments in his life, he has yet one more to celebrate--his 40th birthday. Again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Scott, a husband, father, and my friend, on the occasion of his 40th birthday.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. I would like to commend the efforts of Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar as well as Subcommittee Chairman Petri and Ranking Member DeFazio for their tireless efforts on crafting a strong bipartisan bill. As we all know, this legislation has been a long time coming and I would like to extend my gratitude to these four men for the work they have done to produce such a strong bipartisan bill. In today's current environment in the House, it is really a testament of how Chairman Young and Mr. Oberstar run the committee and put the needs of United States infrastructure before partisan issues. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation for me because of the benefits it will provide to my district. Without the leadership of Mr. Young, Oberstar, Petri, and DeFazio and the incredible staff they have on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee our Congressional Districts would still be waiting for the much needed funding to repair and improve of roadways. I would like to thank you on behalf of my constituents for all the work you have done.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution introduced by my friend from California Congressman Issa. I am honored to speak in support of this legislation to honor the life and achievements of former Congressman Dalip Singh Saund. Congressman Saund was the first Asian American to be elected as a full voting Member of Congress and the first Indian American to be elected to U.S. Congress. While I am proud to have the privilege to serve with the second Indian American in the U.S. Congress, we cannot forget that almost 50 years ago this glass ceiling was broken by Congressman Saund and the people of southern California who put their trust in him to represent them in the U.S. Congress. Congressman Darrell Issa now represents parts of the district that Congressman Saund represented. Congressman Saund was elected to the House of Representatives in 1956, just 6 years after his work to secure citizenship for Indian Americans. He served as a distinguished Congressman from California for three terms before he suffered a stroke during his campaign for a fourth term in the House. His book ``The Congressman from India'' tells the remarkable story of how he became the first Indian American member of the U.S. House of Representatives. As cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans during the past 108th Congress, I had the honor of highlighting the accomplishments of Congressman Saund and the trail he blazed for young Indian Americans today. From New York to Iowa to New Jersey to Minnesota to the U.S. House of Representatives the accomplishments of Indian Americans in politics today is because of the trail blazed by Congressman Saund. I am proud to join my friend Darrell Issa in recognizing the life of this great American.

Mr. CROWLEY

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

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today we begin the 109th Congress in earnest, and we do so by considering a bill that we do not need to act on for a problem that, in our view and in the view of many of my colleagues, simply does not exist. We considered this bill today not in the spirit of openness and bipartisanship that should categorize the democratic debate in the House, but with a restrictive rule that did not allow us to have a debate on a key issue: whether one of the highest honors that can be bestowed upon citizens of our country for their extraordinary deeds, a Congressional Gold Medal, can be awarded to one individual or more for their collective honorable or heroic actions. Mr. Speaker, if this bill passes in its current form, not only would it limit medals to two per year, but it would prevent the House of Representatives and the Senate from awarding medals in the future to any group of individuals for their collective heroic deeds, such as those of the hundreds of first responders that perished in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I am puzzled why we would act to impose such limits on our own ability to recognize the accomplishments of the citizens that we are elected to represent. And I am even more puzzled that we would fix a process that is not broken, that is bipartisan in nature, and that works remarkably well for all Members. The bipartisan process we have in place has allowed us to honor the Reverend Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King; Nancy and Ronald Reagan; Betty and Gerald Ford; Pope John Paul II; the Little Rock Nine; the leaders of Brown v. The Board of Education; Jackie Robinson; civil rights leader Dorothy Height; the Navajo Code Talkers; General Henry Shelton; Charles Schulz; John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York; Father Theodore Hesburgh; Rosa Parks; Nelson Mandela; Mother Teresa; Frank Sinatra; Ruth and Billy Graham; Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew; British Prime Minister Tony Blair; and others. But under this bill, Mr. Speaker, we may not be able to honor Nancy and Ronald Reagan jointly, nor Betty and Gerald Ford jointly, nor Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King jointly, nor the Little Rock Nine, nor the Navajo Code Talkers. And under this bill my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), will be prevented from honoring the fallen astronauts from the space shuttle Columbia. In the 108th Congress the gentlewoman from Texas worked hard to gain the requisite two-thirds cosponsorship of the House for a bill that would honor these fallen American heroes posthumously with the Congressional Gold Medal. It is only right that the rule of the House be honored and that her hard-won efforts be not undone by this bill. Since the majority party gained control of this House in 1995, 20 gold medals have been enacted into law either to an individual or a group of individuals. Using the process we currently have in place, 10 gold medal bills out of 20 were sponsored by Republican Members, and 10 were sponsored by Democratic Members. How can anyone possibly argue that the existing process does not work? We are fixing something that simply is not broken. Unfortunately, the bipartisan spirit that has characterized the House's consideration of gold medals in the past has not carried over to the debate on this bill. Not only did we do not have an open rule, but today represents the first time this House is debating this issue in any form. The committee responsible for legislation on this bill, the Committee on Financial Services, on which I serve, has not held a single hearing on this bill, let alone a markup. The limited debate over this bill on the House floor may culminate in the passing of a bad bill, unless my colleagues join me in voting in favor of sending this bill back to committee, where we can have a meaningful debate, and where we can determine whether limiting gold medals is truly in the interest of the public and in the interest of the House. Mr. Speaker, the House has become the 109th Congress on a bad note: We are considering a bill with almost no meaningful debate, and it proposes to represent a solution to a problem that simply does not exist, a problem the record shows does not exist. Does this action foretell what lies ahead in terms of the existence of bipartisanship throughout this Congress? I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing, to vote in favor of my motion to recommit this bill back to the Committee on Financial Services and to allow this House to take a closer look at this legislation to determine whether it really meets the interests of the American people.

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. CROWLEY

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague on the other side. It is the pay grade issue I am concerned about, as the gentleman mentioned, as to who makes these decisions and as to why some individuals are successful in garnering a gold medal for an individual or group, and maybe another is not. There is some political judgment that is made as well, I believe. As the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) said, there is a process that will begin after this legislation is passed, nuances that Members will work through. I would just offer, if this amendment were to pass, they would work through these nuances. As I mentioned before, if two gold medals were enacted into law by Democrats and I had a third that I wanted to get passed, I would go to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and say, Mike, we do not have any more room on our side. Here is an opportunity; someone is deserving. Would you consider sponsoring this and passing it? I think, quite frankly, if there was a compelling argument, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) would say, Certainly, Joe Crowley. We will do it. That is a nuance to work through as well in terms of working in a bipartisan way. This simply ensures that both Republicans and Democrats are working in a bipartisan way, beyond the two-thirds vote; that medals are not being used for political purposes, but are being given because the individuals deserve them. That is what we are trying to do with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Unfortunately, I think that in the past there may have been some politics involved. I understand that one of my colleagues on this side had achieved the requisite number of signatures for a commemorative gold medal for the Columbia 107 in the last Congress, in the middle of the last Congress, and that was never awarded. So I do not know why. I do not know if there was any reason for that, when the requisite number of signatures were given, that that bill was not taken up in the committee and that Member was not successful in getting that award to the Columbia 107. Why that was not done, I do not know. I do not know if politics was part of that. Maybe someone can answer that question. But therein lies the problem, that from time to time, quite possibly there is politics involved as to why some individuals receive the gold medals and others do not. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the rules will have changed once we pass this bill, whereas right now it is unlimited. Granted, where it is unlimited, there has not been this rush to introduce bills. As the gentleman mentioned before, this is not done in a very quick fashion. This is done in a bipartisan way. But when we limit it to two per year, we are putting a cap on it, I think we can in the future find ourselves in a situation where, all right maybe five on each side is a little much, maybe two on each side. Then which of the four? Who makes that decision as to which of the four gets the medal? And therein lies the politics. Unfortunately, I think you are creating more politics in this bill. I do not think that is your intent. I think you are doing this because you want to enrich the value of the gold medal. I understand that. But I think inherently by the changes being proposed, you are bringing more politics into the decisionmaking as to who obtains this medal. That is what I am trying to in a sense, avoid by evenly dividing between Democrat and Republican, majority, minority, the ability for both sides to equally participate in this process.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I know that the gentleman does not approach this in any other fashion but a bipartisan fashion. But the question I have is if we are going to limit this to two per year, it could be that five Members on our side of the aisle have five individuals they want to recognize. There could be five individuals on the Republican side of the aisle who have five individuals they want to recognize. That is 10 people, 10 bills, 10 instances where Members have garnered two-thirds. Who then will decide who gets the medals? It then becomes a very political decision as to who gets each of the medals. Will it be the five on the majority side? Will it be two from the majority side? Will it be two from the minority side? Will it be one each? Who of the 10 deserving will get it, and who will not get it?

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

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the chairman of the committee. Just to add that, yes, we do work in a very bipartisan way. If the chairman and I were making decisions as to who would receive the gold medal, I think we would work it out amongst ourselves to make sure that it was done in a very bipartisan way. That, unfortunately, has not been the history of the House, and I just point out, for instance, as I mentioned earlier, back when we created the commemorative coin legislation in 1999, out of the 16 coins that have been created, 15 have been introduced by Republican Members, only one by the minority. The majority has had 15 of the 16. The minority has had one. I do not think that is a very fair and balanced way in which we can collectively and bipartisanly recognize those who have made tremendous sacrifices or achievements or contributed to this country. And I believe that we are limiting it to, in this case, this legislation, if passed the way it does, four congressional gold medals that we in the minority may very well find ourselves in a very difficult position in that we may not have any of our honorees awarded the medal even though we go through the process of collecting the two- thirds. It then becomes a political decision as to which honorees will get the gold medal in that particular year and which will not. For instance, if there are 16 individuals who are sponsored by Members of the House and those individuals get two-thirds of the signatures required, which of the 16 will get the four medals? Which of those 16? That decision will be made based on a political decision that is made within the House, and I dare say that outside influence would also come to bear on that decision that was made as well. That is why I am asking for this fair and balanced approach; that if we are going to limit it to just four, that it will be two per year. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that it is done in this way. Quite frankly, if there is someone that the Democratic side of the aisle, if we have used up our one per year and we have another extraordinary person, I think we can work with each other to ask a Republican Member of the House to sponsor that bill. And vice versa. If we somehow find we have run out of opportunities on our side to introduce legislation, I do not think it is unusual to ask a Member of the other side of the aisle to sponsor the bill. That is the spirit in which I think we can work in a bipartisan way to ensure that every person who receives this gold medal, besides getting a two-thirds vote, it is done in a bipartisan way. I do not think this is frivolous, and I do not think this trivial. That is why I offered the amendment, and I hope we pass it.