Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in strong support of the Dixon, Jackson, Crowley, Jackson-Lee amendment to the CJS Appropriations Act to increase appropriations for international peacekeeping by $241 million. First, let me thank Representative Jackson for his strong leadership on this issue. It is a pleasure to work with him on such a worthy effort. I would also like to thank Representative Dixon for his strong leadership on this issue. He led the fight in committee on behalf of peacekeeping and the United Nations and I thank him for his efforts. I would also like to thank Representative Barbara Lee, Representative Serrano, and Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee for their support. Mr. Chairman, today we are forced to debate, again, an issue that was settled under the Helms-Biden legislation--the issue of our international peacekeeping contributions. As many of you in this body know, the Helms-Biden legislation includes a provision in which the United States unilaterally reduced our peacekeeping contribution by 5 percent. As I said, this was a unilateral move. We have not gotten agreement from the U.N., or even our allies at the U.N. We simply did this on our own. This year, the administration has sent a budget up to Congress, adhering to the Helms-Biden law and determined that it will cost approximately $738 million to fund our share of international peacekeeping at the congressionally agreed upon level of 25 percent. But that is not what was done in this legislation. Instead, the CJS bill has cut the administration's request by one-third, and provided funding at a level of $498 million. Additionally, a number of restrictions have been placed on this funding prohibiting support for U.N. peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tajikistan, Western Sahara, and in Ethiopia and Eritrea. This low funding level and the arbitrary restrictions are dangerous. Peacekeeping is an important foreign policy tool and vital to U.S. national security. To quote from the State Department's FY 2001 presentation and justification for funding: United Nations peace operations directly serve the national interests of the United States by helping to support new democracies, lower the global tide of refugees, reduce the likelihood of unsanctioned interventions, and prevent small conflicts from growing into larger wars. Failure to control conflict can result in the spread of arms trafficking, increased trade in narcotics, terrorism, increased refugee flow, increased instability, child soldiers, and the list goes on. Mr. Chairman, some regions of Africa are experiencing medical emergencies of biblical proportions due to the AIDS virus and other infectious diseases. Because of the conflicts in some areas of Africa, vital health care and other services are nearly impossible to administer. Peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone and the Congo and elsewhere would help change this and allow vital health care programs to reach civilians in war torn regions. Mr. Chairman, peacekeeping is inexpensive compared to the alternatives--war and instability. Any administration, including Presidents Reagan and Bush, would object to the restrictions and the low funding level in this legislation. Of current U.N. peacekeeping missions, at least 5 are less than 2 years old. To set an arbitrary cap now makes no sense. You are denying these missions even the opportunity to succeed. In the Middle East, the mission in Lebanon significantly increased this year with the Israeli withdrawal. By under funding peacekeeping, are we not implicitly sending the message that Middle East peace is not vital to U.S. national security? Yes, congressional oversight is important. That is why the State Department briefs Members every month on current peacekeeping operations. That is why Congress is notified 15 days before new or expanded missions are voted on in the U.N. Security Council, where the United States can veto any mission we disapprove of. That is why the appropriators are consulted before funding is reprogrammed. But under this legislation, the Congress is overreaching with the funding limitations. But this report goes further and sets international policy on peacekeeping by tying the President's hands and ignoring U.S. treaty obligations to fund these missions. As I said, our assessment is a little over 30 percent. Under Helms- Biden, we lowered it to 25 percent unilaterally. We then instructed the State Department to negotiate with U.N. member countries to get an agreement on the 25 percent level. Now, we are failing to even meet the 25 percent level under Helms-Biden. Last year, the United States began to rebuild its credibility and pay its financial obligation to the United Nations. Today, we owe the U.N. $1.2 billion according to our own State Department; $993 million of these arrears are due to our failure to pay our peacekeeping assessment. There is $56 million in prior holds--$612 million from earlier cuts-- $202 million for the legislative cap on peacekeeping (which is our unilateral cap of 25 percent and $123 in non-legislative categories. This does not even include what we are now withholding--about $93 million in past due bills for FY 2000; plus the peacekeeping supplemental request of $107 million for FY 2000 that are not approved. Plus $225 million in reprogramming holds. And now a $241 million cut in the administration's request. If we continue on this path, we'll be back in the same situation with our arrears as we were a year ago. As Ambassador Holbrooke said, ``not paying our assessments to these peacekeeping operations would be disastrous.'' Mr. Chairman, I know our amendment is subject to a point of order. But I would urge the chairman to accept this amendment or allow a vote on this issue. Let the Congress speak.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered by the gentlman from New York Mr. Hinchey. Congressman Hinchey has been a tireless crusader for the rights of our nation's veterans, and this amendment highlights this fact by forcing the VA to abandon its flawed funding formula for providing for the health care needs of America's veterans. Under the current system, VERA bases its resource allocation on sending more dollars to areas where there are more veterans--not where the needs are the greatest. While that may sound rationale--the result has been horrendous for areas of the country like Queens and the Bronx, where I represent. The facts bare out that increasingly more VA dollars are going to the South and Southwest portions of the country where more veterans live-- veterans who are often younger and healthier. The result is less resources in the areas of the country, like New York City, where the veterans are older, sicker, and in more desperate need of care. I held a recent veterans Town Hall meeting in my district at the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association office in Jackson Heights. There, a constituent informed me of a VA hospital he saw while on vacation in Florida. It was a state of the art facility, with plenty of doctors and nurses on call--and no patients. They informed me that the place was virtually empty--but they have the best money can buy. In New York City, meanwhile, we continue to see lay-offs of the professional doctors and nurses at our VA hospitals and clinics; long lines for care; and a far too high ratio of nurses per patient. I am not saying that we should deprive our veterans in the South and Southwest part of the country their fair share of resources--all we ask for this amendment is that the VA provide equal treatment and resources to all veterans regardless of where they reside. It is a shame that the VERA system has pitted veterans in one region of the country versus veterans in other regions. Therefore, I am supportive of the Hinchey amendment to prohibit any federal funds from implementing or administering the VERA system. I ask all of my colleagues from throughout the nation to support this amendment that has caused so much pain for so many veterans.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 90, which seeks to withdraw Congress's approval of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although I have come to this floor many times to oppose pieces of legislation that I believe would damage U.S. interests; few of them pose a greater danger than this one. Since the failure of the International Trade Organization (ITO) to gain recognition by key nations, such as the United States, the world has relied on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as a temporary measure to help liberalize international trade and promote world economic growth. This measure, although imperfect, remained in effect from 1948 until 1995 when the World Trade Organization effectively replaced it. Although the GATT was an effective tool for reducing tariff barriers, it was an ineffective instrument when it came to dealing with dispute settlement procedures and did not apply to services or intellectual property. Now, with the WTO, nations, including the United States, have an effective international regime in place to settle trade disputes and further promote trade liberalization, not just in tariff reductions, but in non-tariff barriers as well. The United States has played an extremely active role in the creation of the WTO and has been an active member. Since the creation of the WTO, the United States has won the majority of its cases that have reached a final decision. Additionally, the United States has filed almost half of the distinct cases considered by the WTO. Clearly, we are one of the most active participants in this organization and it is responding favorably to our concerns. Mr. Speaker, U.S. exports of goods and services accounted for one- third of U.S. economic growth in the past seven years. We need the WTO to safeguard the global trading system to ensure safe and predictable trading patterns. This is vital to our economy because it has created millions of new jobs for Americans. While I understand the concerns of many of my colleagues about some of the WTO rulings, such as the shrimp-turtle case, withdrawal from the WTO is not the answer. Rather, we must work with other nations to ensure our trade agreements consider issues such as the environment, worker rights and human rights. The WTO, like any international organization, has the ability to grow and adapt. In order to effect the future of the WTO in a positive way, as we have the past and the present, we must continue to play a leading role. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Shays, Mr. Horn, and Mr. Foley to offer an amendment to increase funding for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS by $18 million dollars. I know many of my colleagues will ask why this one program, out or many others that were cut or also ``level'' funded deserves an increase, and I hope we can effectively explain why. You have supported us in the past--by ensuring that HOPWA maintained its funding last year. And this past winter, you overwhelmingly voted for our amendment to increase the authorization amount for the HOPWA program. We need your support again now. We have made great strides in the treatment of AIDS. New medications have increased life expectancy by years, even after the onset of full- blown AIDS. Currently, there are about one million American living with HIV and AIDS. More than 200,000 of these currently need housing assistance. Additionally, 60% of people with HIV/AIDS and their families will need housing assistance at some point during their illness. The HOPWA program provides rental assistance, mortgage assistance, utility payment assistance, information on low-income housing opportunities and technical support and assistance with planning and operating community residences. These important services assist individuals and families financially--not forcing them to choose between housing and medicine. Currently, HOPWA benefits 52,000 people in 415,000 housing units. HOPWA is the only federal housing program addressing the housing crisis facing people living with AIDS. The housing provided by HOPWA allows people to improve the quality of their lives and access life-extending care. With a longer life span comes the need for more assistance, both in medical care and housing. Life-saving drugs are costly, forcing many people to decide between essential medicines and other necessities-- such as food and housing. No person should have to choose between extending their life or keeping a roof over their head. And the fact is, without adequate housing and nutrition; it is extremely difficult for individuals to benefit from the new treatments. Longer life spans mean less space in HOPWA programs. Additionally, since 1995, the number of Metropolitan areas and states qualifying for HOPWA formula grants has increased significantly. In fact, 4 new regions are to be added this next year. The result of these two factors means that level-funding HOPWA at $260 million will mean cutting the program. The current funds will need to stretch further. Let me give you an example from my home state. In Fiscal Year 2000, New York State received 3.25 million in HOPWA funding. In Fiscal Year 2001, with level funding, New York State will only receive $3.1 million. This will result in a loss of services. In fact, HUD informs me that 5,170 fewer people with HIV/AIDS will be receiving assistance. Let's make this real--this means the over 5,000 people and their families will be living on the streets. Housing is essential to help individuals with treatments for this disease. This year's appropriations limits make it very difficult to find an offset for any increase. My colleagues and I do not want to take money away from any program. But when confronted with the reality that over 5000 individuals and their families in New York State will be living on the street, we need to make a way. My colleagues and I have proposed an $18 million offset from the National Science Foundation's Polar and Antarctic Research Program. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to science research and understand the value it can have on our lives and the future of the human race. However, the Polar and Antarctic research program is coordinated by NSF but has 12 other federal agencies also contributing funds over $150 million. We ought to be farsighted in looking at problems in our global atmosphere and scientific research, but we must not be so shortsighted that we harm the citizens of this country in our efforts. I am not saying that NSF's programs are not worthwhile, but we need to have compassion for those people who struggle to live each day with AIDS. They need our assistance and we cannot leave them out in the cold. Let's show compassion. Vote for the Nadler-Shays-Crowley-Horn- Cummings-Foley.

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

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, the housing provided by HOPWA allows people to improve the quality of their lives and access to life extending care. With the longer life span comes the need for more assistance both in medical care and in housing. No person should have to choose between extending their life or keeping a roof over their head, and the fact is without adequate housing and nutrition, it is extremely difficult for individuals to benefit from the new treatments. Let us give the HOPWA program the necessary money it needs to provide those services. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the Nadler-Shays-Crowley-Horn-Cummings-Foley amendment.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders to provide funding for a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. Just last winter, our nation, and particularly the Northeast United States suffered a period of extremely cold temperatures. Coupled with the skyrocketing costs of oil, many Americans received a real sticker shock when they had to pay their energy bills. While only 12 percent of Americans heat their homes with oil, that number rises to 40 percent in NYS and 46 percent in my congressional district. On average, my constituents who heat their homes with oil told me they saw their fuel bills double overnight. These same people ended up paying more than $1,000 extra just to heat their homes for the winter. I refer my colleagues to one of my constituents from the Bronx. She tends to her 93-year-old father in the Williamsbridge neighborhood. She saw her bill jump from $246 to $346 in one month. Or Thomas Donohue of Woodside who saw his monthly energy bill double to $410.000 a month during this past January. On average, my constituents who use home heating oil witnessed an eye-popping increase of $1,000 to heat their home for just the 3-month period of winter. This is ludicrous. While the wealthy could afford this increase and the poor had some of the costs borne by assistance from such worthwhile programs as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP); it was the working and middle class, seniors on a fixed income and small businesses that suffered most. I had a small trucking company in my district tell me that they had to lay off workers because it became to expensive to operate the trucks--it was cheaper to not work at all. And I heard from far too many seniors who informed me that they had to wear a winter coat in their apartment because they could not afford to keep their homes warm. Due to this horrible reality, many here in Congress worked in a bipartisan manner to address this crisis. One solution was to call for the establishment of a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast. Acting somewhat like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, this home heating oil reserve would serve a storage place for millions of gallons of home heating oil, that could be released to the public in times of crippling high prices--as we saw this past winter. This would ensure that small business don't have to lay off workers in times of high gas costs; and that seniors do not have to wear their winter coats indoors during the cold winter months. The President supports the idea of this reserve, as does the Secretary of Energy. The House of Representatives also overwhelmingly supported this idea, included as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, on a vote of 416 to 8. Unfortunately, the bill we debate today does not include any funding for the creation of this reserve. If created this reserve would help soften the blow of any future price swings and provide much needed assistance to millions of Americans, including many of my constituents by providing a readily available, local, low-cost energy source to make it through the toughest parts of the winter. Anyone who has ever visited New York City in January knows that heat is not a luxury--it is a necessity. Unfortunately, I had a number of constituents who were forced to view heat as a luxury this past winter after seeing their bills double, and realizing they did not have the money to pay their heating bills. I had constituents who wore down jackets throughout the day in their homes--this is wrong Mr. Chairman. Today we have the opportunity to address their situation and I hope that all Members will support the Sanders amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease.) The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from New York, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter. As Chairperson of the Congressional Arts Caucus, she has done a remarkable job in educating her colleagues on the importance of the arts, humanities, history and literacy programs here in the United States. This amendment would restore $22 million of urgently needed resources to the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. These funds will be used to continue and expand upon a number of important programs at these agencies, including the arts education programs at the National Endowment for the Arts. Currently over 5 million American children benefit from the arts education programs including a number of my constituents in the Bronx. In my district, the BCA Development Corporation, which runs the WriterCorps project, recently received $30,000 to support the Youth Poetry Slam. The poetry program is designed to use teens' natural penchant for competition and self-expression to introduce them to the written and spoken word. It has been proven over and over again that children who are exposed to the arts remain in school longer, receive better grades, stay out of trouble, and hold themselves in higher self-esteem. Additionally, the NEA provides grants to cultural and folk institutions throughout our country to demonstrate and show respect for the diverse ethnicity's that make up our great nation. As an example of the importance of these funds, the Thalia Spanish Theatre in Sunnyside, New York received $10,000 to support a series of folklore shows of music and dance from Spain and Latin America. The music and dance shows include Argentine tango, flamenco, and classic Spanish Dance, and Mexican folklore. I am especially pleased at the funding award for the Thalia Spanish Theatre. I have worked very hard to make sure that the arts and cultural organizations cater to non-traditional and new audiences. That is why I am pleased that Chairman Regula and Congressman Dicks for again including my language into this bill to include ``urban minorities'' under the definition of an ``underserved population'' for the purpose of awarding NEA grants. My district, which is composed of a diverse swath of neighborhoods throughout Queens and the Bronx, has a number of ethnic groups that add to the tapestry of New York City. My language will open NEA funding to more local ethnic arts groups and more residents of Queens and the Bronx. It will also help fulfill the mission of the NEA to guarantee that no person is left untouched by the arts. So I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of all of their hard work. I want to ensure that all Americans have equal access to cultural programs. Projects targeted at urban youth will greatly help keep these young people off the streets, and away from the lure of drugs and crime. The arts also help to break down barriers, they bring communities together, and they offer hope. That is why Mrs. Slaughter's amendment today is so important. Additionally, this amendment will increase the funding for both the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. These two agencies both have strong reputations among both Democrats and Republicans for their wonderful work in restoring the folk, oral and written traditions of America. The NEH has been very active in providing seed money throughout the country, and particularly in New York City, to address the issue of electronic media in the classroom. A specific grant was given last year to assist in the training of teachers in new media techniques to communicate the humanities to our children. This type of project represents the best of the NEH and of our government working directly with local communities to advance the education of our young and train them for the future. The NEH and IMLS have led the way in working to build and strengthen relationships between our nation's libraries and museums and our children's classrooms to ensure that the knowledge, creativity and imagination of our great nation is at the fingertips of every young Einstein, Rembrandt, or Twain. This is an excellent amendment and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). As chairperson of the Congressional Arts Caucus, she has done a remarkable job in educating her colleagues on the importance of the arts, humanities, history and literacy programs here in the United States. This amendment would restore $22 million of urgently needed resources to the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. These funds will be used to continue and expand upon a number of important programs at these agencies, including the arts, education programs at the National Endowment for the Arts. Currently over 5 million American children benefit from the arts education programs, including a number of my constituents in the Bronx and in Queens. In my district, the BCA Development Corporation, which runs the WriterCorps project, recently received $30,000 to support the Youth Poetry Slam. The poetry program is designed to use teens' natural penchant for competition and self-expression to introduce them to the written and to the spoken word. It has been proven over and over again that children who are exposed to the arts remain in school longer, receive better grades and stay out of trouble, and hold themselves in higher self-esteem. Additionally, the NEA provides grants to cultural and folk institutions throughout our country to demonstrate and show respect for the diverse ethnicities that make up our great Nation. As an example of the importance of these funds, the Thalia Spain Theatre in Sunnyside, New York, received $10,000 to support a series of folklore shows of music and dance from Spain and Latin America. The music and dance shows included Argentine, tango and flamenco, and classic Spanish dance, as well as Mexican folklore. I am especially pleased at the funding award for the Thalia Spanish Theatre. I have worked very hard to make sure that the arts and cultural organizations cater to nontraditional and new audiences. That is why I am pleased to thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for once again including my language into this bill to include urban minorities under the definition of an underserved population for the purpose of awarding NEA grants. My district, which is composed of a diverse wealth of neighborhoods throughout Queens and the Bronx, has a number of ethnic groups that add to the tapestry of New York City. My language will open NEA funding to more local ethnic arts groups and more residents of Queens and the Bronx. It would also help fulfill the mission of the NEA to guarantee that no person is left untouched by the arts. Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula); the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for all their hard work to include that language. I want to also ensure that all Americans have equal access to cultural programs. Projects targeted at urban youth will greatly help keep these young people off the streets and away from the lure of drugs and crime. The arts also help to break down barriers. They bring communities together; and they offer hope, hope to struggling communities throughout our country. That is why the Slaughter amendment today is so important. Additionally, this amendment will increase the funding for both the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum and Library Services. These two agencies both have strong reputations among both Democrats and Republicans for the wonderful work in restoring the folk, oral, and written traditions of America. The NEH has been very active in providing seed money throughout the country, and particularly in New York City, to address the issues of electronic media in the classroom. A specific grant was given last year to assist in the training of teachers in new media techniques to communicate the humanities to our children. This type of project represents the best of the NEH and of our government working directly with local communities to advance the education of our young and train them for the future. The NEH and the IMLS have led the way in working to build and strengthen relationships between our Nation's libraries and museums and our children's classrooms to ensure that the knowledge, creativity, and imagination of every child of our great Nation is at the fingertips of every young Einstein, Rembrandt, and Twain to come in the future. This is an excellent amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Howard M. Feuer for his long and distinguished career of service to the Social Security Administration. Next week, Mr. Feuer will retire after 40 years of service to the Agency. In this era of frequent career changes, Mr. Feuer's 40 years of service should be duly noted. He is one of the most respected and experienced Area Directors in the Social Security Administration. For half of his 40 year career, Mr. Feuer has served as an Area Director. He oversees the operations of 26 field offices in Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties in New York State, including a staff of over 800 SSA employees. Throughout his career with Social Security, he has received many awards, including a Commissioner's Citation for his dedication to achieving the administration's goals of service to the public and value of its employees. Howard Feuer earned a BBA and an MBA from CCNY-Baruch College. He has held many positions in both Social Security offices and the New York Regional Office. Mr. Feuer has been an innovator, embracing technological enhancements and maximizing the efficacy of his Area's resources. He has been a mentor to many of the management staff in the Region and is a recognized leader among Area Directors throughout the country. For 25 years, he has been directly involved in labor relations activities, including contract negotiations on the regional and national levels. Howard M. Feuer is a man of incredible vision and foresight. His career has been dedicated to a level of service and efficiency that has no comparison. His commitment to the achievement of the goals of the Social Security Administration has been demonstrated in his unceasing efforts to improve the quality and productivity of his offices. Howard Feuer is now retiring from government service after a distinguished career. I know that his absence will be felt by staff nationally, regionally and locally. Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending Howard M. Feuer. With his retirement, the American public will be losing one of its most dedicated public servants.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for the electronic signatures legislation. As legislators, it is part of our job to help ensure a sound economy. Supporting the growing high-tech industry helps us accomplish this important part of our job. That is why I am proud to support the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act and the Conference Report. This much needed legislation will provide legal certainty and a national standard for business-to-business contracts and some consumer contracts that were agreed to on-line, as well as ensure important consumer protections. As anyone who has taken out a mortgage knows, courier and other fees can be a substantial cost to consumers. By allowing for on-line transactions, we can help bring down the costs associated with contracts for anything we can purchase on-line. Mr. Speaker, back in the 80's, pundits were predicting the paperless office. Well, it's the year 2000 and we're still not there. Part of the problem is our antiquated system of rules and differing state laws, which although important, can serve as a hindrance to interstate commerce over the Internet. With this legislation, we will be effectively removing one of the greatest roadblocks to Internet services. I was proud to cast my vote in support of this legislation in November, and I am proud to cast my vote in support of the conference report today. I would like to commend the conferees for agreeing to this balanced report and for all of their hard work. This is an important and complicated piece of legislation and I believe they deserve a great deal of credit for preparing this package. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources in support of the Wu- Smith-Udall amendment. Just a few short weeks ago, we all stood on this floor to debate the CARA bill, probably the most importance piece of environmental legislation to pass the House of Representatives this Congress. I was pleased to support that legislation, as it represented a solid and productive effort by the Congress to ensure the protection of America's delicate forest land, open space, waterways, and park lands. Today the Congress has another chance to go on the record of supporting our environment. This amendment boosts clean water efforts and improves the health of our national forest recreation and commercial users. The Wu-Smith-Udall amendment also redirects vital resources towards improvement of our drinking water and our fish and wildlife. This amendment reduces what is basically a subsidy for timber sales management and directs the Federal funds to desperately needed forest restoration projects throughout this country. As the Representative of the most urban district on the Committee on Resources, I know the value of green space and the need to protect these lands for future generations of Americans. By keeping ecosystems at a healthy level, clean air and water can be supplied to all communities throughout this land. Protection of our watersheds is important for making our communities more livable and making sure that we all have the safest and cleanest water available for drinking and for recreation. There is absolutely no reason to put the interest of the timber industry ahead of the health of our forests and drinking water, especially when both can peacefully co-exist. I strongly support this environmentally sound and fiscally responsible amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, in strong support, of the Lowey amendment. School renovation and construction is of the utmost importance to our children and to the future of our country. My colleague from New York has been a leader in the fight for Federal funding for school renovation and construction assistance. Schools, as part of our Nation's infrastructure, are in desperate need of repair and modernization. One-third of our Nation's schools were built prior to World War II. In the city of New York, the average age of a school is 55 years of age, and one out of five schools is over 75 years of age. I have the most overcrowded school district in New York City, School District 24, which is operating at 119 percent of capacity. Additionally, enrollment is increasing by 30,000 every 5 years. My colleagues from New York are seeing similar problems arise. How can we expect our children to work hard and care about their education and their future when they have classrooms that were formerly closets or bathrooms? That is not showing that we care about our children. I ask, would someone allow their child to attend a school that has a roof falling in or fire alarms that do not work? Congress is allowing their children to go to school under those conditions.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, since coming here last January, I have repeatedly asked: What have our children done to deserve the little faith and support this body gives them? Year after year we level fund or cut their education, job training, child care, and health programs. Class size reduction program funds are zeroed out and instead, rolled into a giant block grant to states, which they can use for other purposes. And most importantly, we sit back and say it is not our responsibility to help schools whose roofs are falling in and whose classrooms are bursting at the seams. The Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations is an injustice to our children. It freezes funding for Title I basic grants, safe and drug free schools, teacher quality enhancement and bilingual education. It eliminates the class size reduction program. Tell that to students at PS 19 in my district where the average class size is 26! And what about the students who use the new after school and summer programs in community School District 30? Well, 1.6 million students will not have after school programs since we are not investing in this worthwhile program. They can just go back to the streets where they are susceptible to drugs and gangs. Most egregiously, this bill eliminates funding for elementary school counselors. At a time where school safety is of paramount concern to American families, H.R. 4577 would deny needed intervention and violence prevention services to as many as 100,000 children. If there is one thing in this country that deserves an investment, it is our children. I believe it is unconscionable that we even consider a bill that will do nothing to help our children. Moreover, passage of this bill will harm our children as it denies desperately needed renovation assistance to schools across the country--schools that are failing inspections. Would you allow your child to attend a school that had a roof falling in or fire alarms that did not work? Congress is allowing that to happen to the children of America. Additionally, this bill increases funding for abstinence only education but level funds Title X funding. While an integral part of Title X goes towards family planning, this program also provides important basic health services to young and low income women. Oftentimes, it is the only time low income women see a doctor. To level fund this program harms women and children. Also included in H.R. 4577 is a restrictive rider that prohibits OSHA from implementing an ergonomics standard. Each year, 1.8 million workers experience work related musculoskeletal disorders, about one third of them serious enough to require time off from work. An ergonomics standard would prevent 300,000 injuries annually and would save $9 billion each year in workers' compensation and related costs. There has been extensive research conducted and there is no reason for further delay. I could go one, but overall, I urge you to vote against this bill and in support of our children, our workers and their future.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, along with Congressman Rothman, commending the member countries of the United Nations' Western European and Others Group (WEOG) for addressing four decades of discrimination in the UN and admitting Israel as a temporary, conditional member to that regional bloc. For those of my colleagues who are unfamiliar with this issue, this is an important milestone for Israel because it places them firmly on the road to becoming a fully participating member of the United Nations. In order to be a fully participating member of the United Nations, countries must serve in a regional group. Members of regional groups select member states on a rotating basis to serve on important United Nations bodies such as the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. Because of anti-Israeli sentiment, Israel has been denied the opportunity to serve in the Asian States Group at the United Nations, even though it geographically belongs in that bloc. Until such time as Israel can be an effective member of the Asian States Group, Israel has expressed a strong desire to serve on WEOG. WEOG consists of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Turkey, New Zealand and Australia. The struggle to gain Israel membership in WEOG has been a long and difficult one. And, until last week, one thought to be impossible by some. But, with Congressional support, dedicated individuals in the Clinton Administration, such as Vice President Al Gore and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, were able to raise this issue with the highest levels of WEOG member governments and make it a clear priority. I thank them for all of their efforts. Mr. Speaker, Congressional support for Israel's acceptance into WEOG is very strong. Last October, I led a letter to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke signed by over 60 members, requesting that he make Israel's membership in WEOG a high priority. Additionally, legislation introduced by Congressman Rothman calling for full equality at the United Nations for Israel has 63 cosponsors. I am proud to be an original sponsor of this legislation. So Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate, for we have achieved something truly notable. However, the struggle for Israeli acceptance continues. Israel's membership in WEOG is only temporary and must be reevaluated in four years. Additionally, Israel cannot participate as a WEOG member in meetings in Geneva, or on the Human Rights Committee at the United Nations. Although I have a great deal of respect for the human rights efforts of the U.N., they have been particularly unkind to Israel and it is a bitter pill to swallow to have them excluded from this committee. This legislation, ``Commending the member states of the United Nations Western European and Others Group for addressing over four decades of injustice and extending temporary membership to the state of Israel,'' also mentions the new hurdles that must be overcome to finally gain Israel status as a full member of the United Nations. It urges the WEOG member countries to admit Israel as permanent member, without conditions, until such time as she can play an effective part as a member of the Asian group. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all of my colleagues to give strong consideration to cosponsoring this legislation. It took four decades to get Israel this far; it must not take as long to reach the final goal of full membership for Israel. I would again like to thank my friend and colleague, Steven Rothman, for his help and leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Vice President Gore, along with Ambassador Holbrooke, for working so hard and keeping the pressure on the WEOG member countries. A copy of the legislation follows. Commending the member states of the United Nations Western European and Others Group for addressing over four decades of injustice and extending temporary membership in that regional bloc to the state of Israel. Whereas Israel has played an active role in the international community and within the United Nations; Whereas in order to be a fully participating member of the United Nations countries must serve in a regional group; Whereas members of regional groups select member states on a rotating basis to serve on important United Nations bodies such as the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council; Whereas Israel has been denied an opportunity to serve in the Asian States Group at the United Nations, even though it geographically belongs in that block; Whereas the Western European And Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations consists of Western European nations, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Turkey, and Australia and is the only group at the United Nations that is not geographically based; Whereas Israel was offered membership in the WEOG regional bloc at the United Nations on Friday, May 26, 2000, by the chairman of WEOG at the time, Ambassaor Peter van Walsum of the Netherlands; Whereas that offer was officially accepted by Israeli officials on Sunday, May 28, 2000; and Whereas Israel is a democracy and an ally and friend of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress-- (1) commends the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) members for extending temmporary membership to Israel; (2) congratulates Israel on its new-found role in the United Nations; (3) reaffirms Israel's right to be a full participating member and equal partner in the United Nations; and (4) urges the members of WEOG to extend full and permanent membership to Israel, without conditions, until such time as Israel can serve as an effective member of the Asian States Group.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, hard working Americans should not be forced to liquidate their holdings and sell off the businesses their fathers or grandfathers started in order to pay their estate taxes. The estate tax, while only affecting a relatively small number of people, does harm small businesses, family farms and ranches. I am not talking about the wealthiest Americans; I am talking about hard working Americans. This relief needs to be immediate. While I support the principles of H.R. 8, it does not help hard working families now, or even next year, it will not help 10 years from now. Additionally, it will take from our surplus that could be spent on shoring up Social Security, implementing a prescription drug benefit for seniors and improving education. H.R. 8 really helps the wealthiest Americans. In today's economy, one million dollars does not make a millionaire. On paper, a family business may be worth six million dollars with property and buildings, but the family is really struggling to survive. The Rangel substitute addresses the inflation in our economy while still being fiscally responsible. The Rangel substitute increases the special exclusion to the estate tax to two million dollar per person. It provides further relief and simplifies the estate tax for this group by allowing any unused portion of the exclusion to be transferred to the surviving spouse, making the total exclusion four million dollars to eligible farm and small business owning couples. Importantly, the Rangel alternative increases the general exclusion for the estate tax next year from $675.000 to $1.1 million. H.R. 8 would take ten years to make this increase. Additionally, we all agree the top marginal tax rate of 55% is too high--taking away more than half of any estate. The Democratic substitute lowers marginal tax rates by twenty percent across the board in combination with converting the federal estate tax credit for state death tax credit into a deduction. I believe the Rangel substitute will provide relief to the small businesses in my district as well as farms and ranches across the country. At the same time, it allows us to retain our budget surplus to help Social Security, Medicare and Education. I support the Rangel alternative. I oppose the fiscally irresponsible H.R. 8 and urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Democratic alternative.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, although I am for free and fair trade, as well as engagement with China, now is not the time for Permanent NTR. Like many of my colleagues, I look at all trade agreements on an individual basis and weigh their positives and negatives accordingly. For example, I support United States participation in the World Trade Organization and I supported annual NTR because I believe it is important to engage China. However, I opposed the Africa/CBI trade deal because it was bad for American workers and did not contain enough protections from potential trade related job losses to mitigate the impact it would have on American employees and my constituents in New York. For me, this debate is not about engagement or isolation. I am opposed to PNTR because it is the wrong time to make permanent China's trade benefits with the United States. China, has simply not matured enough politically or economically to have permanent normal trade relations with the United States. China has a record of gross human rights violations, including the use of prison labor and a lack of religious freedom and it still poses a danger to our national security. China also has a terrible record on the environment and has some of the most polluted cities in the world. Last year, 1999, was the worst year for religious freedom in China since the Cultural Revolution of the late 60's, according to the U.S. Commission on Human Rights. In China, numerous religious and human rights groups have suffered severe repression, including Catholics and the Falun Gong. No wonder religious leaders and human rights groups are opposed to PNTR, including the U.S. Catholic Conference. Even the State Department Report on Human Rights contains tough criticism of Beijing's increased repression of democracy activists and religious groups such as Tibetan Buddhists and Chinese Christians. The report states that religious services were broken up while church leaders were harassed, detained, beaten and tortured. Prison labor continues to be a problem in China as well. The Laogai Research Foundation has documented nearly 1,100 forced labor camps in China. In these prison camps, laborers receive no compensation for their work, conditions are appalling, and beatings are common. China also continues to pose a threat to our national security and the security of our allies in the region, especially Taiwan. We know that China sells weapons and weapons technology to countries like Libya, Sudan and Iran. It should come as no surprise that veterans groups such as the American Legion and the Order of the Purple Heart are against this agreement because of the national security implications. Economic arguments are another good reason to oppose this agreement. Despite what PNTR proponents are saying, the economic benefits of this deal are overstated. We already have Normal Trade Relations with China, which have resulted in a large and growing trade deficit. United States imports from China more than tripled in real terms between 1992 and 1999, and the United States trade deficit with China increased 256 percent to $68 billion in 1999 (in 1999 dollars). While China runs a huge trade surplus with the United States, it has a sizeable trade deficit with the rest of the world. The existing trade deficit with China is the product of current United States trade policies. The United States already accepts 40 percent of China's exports. By giving China PNTR status, Congress will be giving up America's most effective tool for changing those policies. Without the ability to negotiate directly with China, the deficit with China will surely grow and United States job losses as a result of the deficit will mount. The Chinese also have a bad track record when it comes to adhering to existing agreements. China has violated every trade agreement it has made with the United States over the last 10 years. The Chinese government has broken agreements on opening its markets, stopping the piracy of intellectual property and ending the export of slave labor-produced goods. The U.S. response, create a monitoring group. But, by creating a monitoring group the the Administration is undermining its own argument that, by joining the WTO, China will begin to comply with the rules. We already know that China has not and will not comply with their agreements. How will a powerless monitoring group help? Unless there is a mechanism that will punish China for its continued violations of human rights, its poor labor record, its environmental excesses and its religious persecution, it will not do enough to help the situation. A monitoring group, or the Commission created under this legislation is a nice idea. I commend my colleagues, Congressmen Sander Levin and Doug Bereuter, for their hard work on this Commission. They have made some promising steps and I encourage the Senate to retain this worthwhile addition. But it's only one step in a multi-step process. There is also no guarantee that the Chinese will cooperate with the commission. A commission will also not raise the issue in the public mind as much as the annual review process. Even the surge protections are a welcomed addition to the legislation, but its benefit is exaggerated. We have protections now, but under the agreement, if we use them, China can retaliate against us. Also, what guarantee do we have that the Chinese will accept our definition of a surge in imports and respect our decision? The real answer is maintaining the annual review process. The annual review process focuses attention on China's practices in a way that is unmatched with any other country. It brings awareness to China's practices on human rights and other issues to the highest levels. Because of China's record on human rights, the environment and compliance with international treaties, the American people should be making this decision every year. The administration's plan to set up a new rapid response team to monitor China's compliance with its market commitments under WTO reinforces the argument I've been making all along--China won't comply with the new agreement. Like some of my colleagues, I believe China must meet a set of benchmarks before we make these benefits permanent. First, they must recognize basic human and worker rights. Second, they must stop the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology and equipment. Third, they must promote environmental conservation. And fourth, they must comply with past and present international commitments. When China has proven itself politically and economically mature enough for PNTR, only then should we extend these benefits. Until then, we should oppose this agreement, vote down this legislation and maintain the annual review process. It is dangerous to give up the most important leverage we have in getting China to comply with its agreements, the annual review process and the carrot of permanent relations. You don't give away the carrot before you get the result you want.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, last year, the House of Representatives failed to consider reasonable gun control and safety measures as part of legislation to combat crime. Despite the support of a majority of the House for reasonable measures, the Republican leadership has consistently refused to debate the numerous gun proposals introduced in the House. Common sense gun control measures such as a three business day waiting period for background checks, closing the gun show loophole, requiring gun locks to be sold with firearms, and a ban on the importation of large capacity ammunition clips are all reasonable approaches to gun control and safety. However, more can and must be done. That is why I am being joined by Representatives Tom Campbell, Greg Meeks, Barbara Lee, Neil Abercrombie, Eliot Engel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Grace Napolitano, Jan Schakowsky and Louis Gutierrez in introducing bipartisan legislation, the ``Community Protection from Firearms Giveaways Act,'' to close yet another dangerous loophole in Federal gun control laws. As unbelievable as it may sound, our current gun control laws allow criminals to win guns at raffles without having to go through a criminal background check. This must be stopped. Our legislation will amend U.S. law to require winners in a lottery where a firearm is the prize to pass a background check at a licensed gun dealership. The gun dealership may charge a reasonable fee as prescribed under current law for this service. Additionally, the Community Protection from Firearms Giveaways Act has a carve out exempting the background check if the lottery winner has a current gun owners permit, or if the check takes more than 5 business days. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can all agree that giving away guns as prizes poses a serious danger to our communities. Requiring a background check on a lottery winner if a firearm is the prize is sensible and should be required under Federal law. Our communities deserve to be protected from criminals with easy access to guns. While gun safety measures will not stop violent crime, it must be a key component of any anti-crime strategy addressed by Congress. I would urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John Cifichiello from the Bronx. This Thursday, Mr. Cifichiello will be honored by Community Board #11 in the Bronx for his lifetime of service to God, country, and family. Mr. Cifichiello is a lifelong rsident of New York City. He was born on August 24th, 1906 to Italian immigrants Vito and Rosa in their Greenwich Village apartment. At a young age, his family moved to the Fordham section of the Bronx. Vito and Rosa, along with their daughter Josephine, sons John, Neal, and Fred worked hard and eventually bought their own home on Crotona Avenue. John worked in the printing trade and married Caroline Ciani of Pelham Parkway. During World War II, he served in the Navy in Ireland and England and upon his discharge began a career in the Postal Service while helping to raise a son John, and a daughter, Carolyn. Since the end of the war, Mr. Cifichiello has been a community and church activist. He is a past Commander of the Catholic War Veterans and, he has escorted veterans to mass each Sunday at the Kingsbridge Veterans Hospital. He has also been active in Mount Carmel's Holy Name Society and St. Vincent De Paul Society. Mr. Cifichiello continues to serve as a member of Community Board #11 and is a past president of St. Lucy's Senior Citizens Association. He was a long term member of the Red Cross, participating in numerous blood drives for St. Lucy's and is also a past member of the Catholic Guild for the Blind. He served with the Pelham Parkway Little League for over twenty years, first as a coach and then as president. Upon retiring from the Post Office in 1975, he began as a volunteer at the New York Botanical Gardens where he continues to serve. He continues to march in the Bronx annual Columbus Day Parade. Mr. Cifichiello is also the proud grandfather of Peter, Matthew, Michael, John Melissa, and Carolyn. Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending this volunteer and family man for his many years of service to his church, family, and his nation.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 331, commending Israel's redeployment from southern Lebanon. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), Committee on International Relations chairman; and the gentleman form Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), ranking member, for their leadership on this issue and for bringing this resolution to the floor so quickly. As a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 331, I am extremely pleased to see this legislation come before the House this evening. Israel has shown great courage in unilaterally withdrawing its forces from Lebanon. Israeli Prime Minister Barak is to be commended for keeping his word to the Israeli people and removing Israeli defense forces from southern Lebanon. This action clearly demonstrates that Prime Minister Barak is firmly committed to moving the peace process forward, despite the intransigence of the Syrians and the security risks associated with this withdrawal. I am pleased that the UN just yesterday endorsed a plan for verifying Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. The UN has also called for all parties to show restraint and cooperate with UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. UN officials must now verify that Israel has returned over the borders that it crossed in 1978. I urge them to do this quickly. In another positive move, the Lebanese government indicated that it was ready to delay pressing its claim, although tenuous at best, to the land in the Golan Heights. Unfortunately, Hezbollah guerrillas appear committed to continuing the war. Israel has withdrawn. The UN peacekeepers must now be allowed to do their work in that region. It is my hope that Hezbollah will show some restraint and restrain from attacks against Israel and the Israeli people. But if Hezbollah does not respect Israel's borders, then Israel has every right to defend itself. Israel has taken an enormous leap of faith to make peace with its neighbors, and I call upon Syria to resume its negotiations with Israel in good faith and broker a lasting peace with Israel. Finally, I would like to say that I am ready to work with the leadership of this House, the Committee on International Relations, and the government of Israel should assistance in settling the SLA and their families either here or in Israel be needed. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, although I am for free and fair trade, as well as engagement with China, now is not the time for permanent normal trade relations. China has simply not matured enough politically or economically to have permanent normal trade relations with the U.S. China still poses a danger to our national security, has a record of gross human rights violations, including the use of prison labor, and a lack of religious freedom. China also has a terrible record on the environment and has some of the most polluted cities in the entire world. I think it is dangerous to give up the most important leverage we have in order to get China to comply with the agreements, the annual review process, and the carrot of permanent relations. You do not give away the carrot before you get the results that you want. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose granting permanent normal trade relations to China. Although I am for free and fair trade, as well as engagement with China, now is not the time for Permanent NTR. China, has simply not matured enough politically or economically to have permanent normal trade relations with the United States. China still poses a danger to our national security, has a record of gross human rights violations, including the use of prison labor and a lack of religious freedom. China also has a terrible record on the environment and has some of the most polluted cities in the world. Additionally, China has violated every agreement it has made with the Untied States. Even the Administration doesn't trust them in this respect, which is why they've proposed a rapid response team to monitor China's compliance with this deal. I think it is dangerous to give up the most important leverage we have in getting China to comply with its agreements, the annual review process and the carrot of permanent relations. You don't give away the carrot before you get the result you want. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose granting China Permanent NTR until they have proven they can abide by their international obligations. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) The Chair announces that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 27\1/2\ remaining.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Sabo for including critical funding in this legislation for the Long Island Railroad's East Side access project. The LIRR's East Side access project is critical to the future of New York City and the surrounding region's economy and mobility, particularly for Manhattan, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. East Side access is one of the most important transportation ``new start'' projects in the country today. It will benefit 50,000 customers the very day it opens in 2010, saving each commuter who uses it nearly 40 minutes a day roundtrip. That's 3 hours a week and about 18 days of productive work time a year. Ultimately, the project will serve about 179,000 commuters daily. Over the past 3 years the project has received some $46 million in Federal ``new start'' earmarks and over $150 million in local funding. This year's $10 million appropriation will help move the project forward toward initial construction elements late this fall. The project also includes a new station in Sunnyside Queens, in my district, which will allow my constituents to travel more quickly in to and out of Penn Station in Manhattan. It will also provide a link from other parts of Queens and Long Island to the growing Long Island City business district. In addition, East Side access will bring with it many thousands of direct construction jobs to the district over the life of the project as well as many thousands of additional supporting jobs throughout the borough's and the region's economy. I would also like to thank Senators Moynihan and Schumer and Representatives King, McCarthy and Meeks, as well as former Congressman Thomas Manton, for helping to navigate this critical project. Although we are a long way from our goal, this funding will help keep this important project on track for 2010. I look forward to working with the subcommittee on the future of this project.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Judge Robert McGann for his long career of service to the city and state of New York. Judge McGann will be the Guest of Honor at this year's Catholic Lawyers Guild annual dinner on May 24th. Born on June 11th, 1948, Judge McGann is a native of Queens County. He is a 1969 graduate of Fordham University, where he received a degree in Political Philosophy. He served on the Editorial Board of the Law Review at New York Law School where he was awarded a Juris Doctor degree in 1972. Upon graduation from law school, Judge McGann was appointed as an Assistant District Attorney in Queens County in 1972, serving under Thomas Mackell, Michael Armstrong and Nicholas Ferraro. In 1976, he was appointed Special Assistant Attorney General in the office of Special Prosecutor John F. Keenan. From 1981 to 1986, he was an Inspector General in the administration of New York City Mayor Edward Koch. Mayor Koch appointed him to the New York City Criminal Court in 1986. He has served as Justice of the Supreme Court by Designation since 1995. Judge McGann has been an Adjunct Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at St. John's University since 1977. He has lectured nationally on arson and other Fire Service related issues. He attended the National College of District Attorneys and the Cornell Organized Crime School. He is a member of the Queens County Bar and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Judge McGann is also a member of the Catholic Lawyers Guild and is active in his parish, St. Andrew Avellino. Judge McGann and his wife, Jane, are the proud parents of two daughters, Laura and Elizabeth. Mr. Speaker, please join me recognizing Judge Robert C. McGann on a distinguished career, and his lifetime of commitment to Queens County and New York City.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton amendment. Some in this Chamber are claiming that Vieques is vital to our national security, and that those who oppose this are somehow less American than others. That is why I am so pleased that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is the lead on this important amendment. I cannot think of a better messenger for such an important message. No one in this Chamber questions the dedication of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to our armed forces and our national defense. I am pleased to stand behind him and support his amendment. With the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), I sponsored the original House legislation to return the Navy-owned lands on the island of Vieques back to the people of Puerto Rico. This past January an agreement was reached between the Navy and the government of Puerto Rico to handle this delicate situation. The compromise allows for the resumption of training on the island temporarily, while the U.S. Navy can find another training location. The Navy supports this agreement, the government of Puerto Rico supports this agreement. Unfortunately, the Committee on Armed Services is ready to overturn the hard won compromises in the Clinton-Barcelo agreement. The committee produced a good bill to strengthen our national security, but there are some problems in this bill. The Skelton amendment will correct one of the biggest flaws in this overall good bill.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the actions of the Iranian government for their treatment of the 13 Iranian Jews they now hold. Numerous Members of this body and the international community have come forward to express their outrage at this travesty of justice, and I join them in their anger. Mr. Speaker, these 13 Jews have been wrongly imprisoned. Some have even been forced to confess to imagined crimes. When President Katami was elected in Iran, it was on a platform of moderation and reform supported by all the Iranian people. In response to his election, the United States made good will overtures toward Iran, including the lifting of sanctions on the import of Iranian foodstuffs like pistachios and carpets, as well as the easing of travel restrictions. Yet, despite the rejection of hard-liners in the last election, the leaders in Iran are still on the wrong track. At a time when the United States has sought to improve relations with the Iranian people, the government of Iran must reciprocate and respect fundamental human rights and act as a responsible member of the world community. When travesties such as this trial continue, it should concern us about our policy towards Iran. The Iranian government must put an end to this travesty, free the 13 and leave them and their families to live in peace. I urge my colleagues to speak out on this issue and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 307, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the ongoing prosecution and persecution of 13 members of the Iranian Jewish community.