Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Bishop Angelo Rosario, of Bronx, NY. Bishop Rosario is being honored for his leadership and service to the community by the Committee for Effective Leadership and the New York State Democratic Committee. Bishop Angelo M. Rosario has been in pastoral ministry for the past 44 years and embarked on this path at the age of 18 while working with youth at a storefront church in the South Bronx. His ministerial work was guided by the leadership of the late Rev. Clemente Repollet. Bishop Rosario was the youngest person to be ordained at the Assembly of Christian Churches and remained there for over 25 years. He studied and eventually taught at the A.I.C. Theological Institute and the Latin American Bible Institute. Bishop Rosario and his wife, Rev. Nancy, founded and presently preside over Church of God's Children in the highly populated housing complex of Co-Op City in the Bronx. This institution presents a wide variety of year-round educational, spiritual and community-minded programs ranging from quality after-school care and pastoral counseling to job placement and health services. Bishop Rosario has organized many activities in the Co-Op City and Bronx Community, among them the Somalia Relief Fund, United Day of Prayer, Youth Day, and job and health fairs. He is a co-chair of Community Board 10 in the Bronx and is the CEO of the Borough President's Bronx Clergy Task Force whose mission is to bring all faiths together to work for the betterment of the community through quality education health care and financial stability through the houses of worship and community organizations. From the streets of South Bronx to the pulpit, Bishop Rosario has dedicated himself to helping the community. He is an advocate for community development according to biblical principles. He believes in one race--the human race. Bishop Rosario and his wife share a family of 10 children and 22 grandchildren. Madam Speaker, I join to wish Bishop Rosario best wishes and good fortune in his future projects.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Tracey A. Lynch, of Bronx, NY. Ms. Lynch is being honored for her leadership and service to the community by the Committee for Effective Leadership and the New York State Democratic Committee. Born and raised in the Throgs Neck/Silver Beach community, Ms. Lynch has been an active member of the community for over twenty-five years. She is a graduate of St. Helena's Business School, The Wood Secretarial School, and attended Pace University as an undergraduate. She has been married to Thomas Lynch for 20 years and is the proud mother of three. Ms. Lynch has been the President of the Silver Beach Association (SBA) for the past 12 years and has coordinated a number of activities within the community to bring families together. Some of those events have included Irish step dancing classes, sign language classes, chess clubs, book clubs, and arts and crafts. Other organizations with which Ms. Lynch is involved are Throgs Neck Community Action Partnership, the Throgs Neck Homeowners Association, the Schuyler Hill Civic Association, and the 45th NYPD Precinct. Ms. Lynch has been working for the Department of Education since 2003 and is a Parent Coordinator for P.S. 14, the Senator John D. Calandra High School. In this role she serves as a liaison between the Department of Education and parents and guardians and assists parents with education, social, medical and community needs. Ms. Lynch also organizes and facilitates workshops and meetings in conjunction with the principal, teachers, staff and community-based organizations. Madam Speaker, I join to wish Ms. Lynch best wishes and good fortune in her future projects.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. The audience in not in order, Mr. Speaker. The gallery is not in order.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, on February 20, 2007, I gave the following speech in Hamburg, Germany: The American and European economies are deeply rooted and complimentary. In 2006, the transatlantic commerce--trade, investment and local business by transatlantic subsidiaries-- representing three trillion dollars in business and providing some 14 million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. We recognize that the U.S. Administration and Europe have developed numerous plans to eliminate barriers between the two continents, however much work remains if we are to achieve a truly barrier free transatlantic market. Chancellor Merkel has rightly pointed to the need for a new transatlantic initiative as the best means of expanding economic opportunity and enhancing competition in the global economy. We support the call for a new Transatlantic Partnership based on the foundation of our shared values to further deepen our economic ties and to eliminate trade barriers that still exist. Previous attempts by both U.S. Administrations and the European Commission to develop plans to enhance transatlantic cooperation have resulted in some favorable results, but a higher-level commitment is in order to more effectively dismantle the barriers that limit the economic and trade opportunities in both continents. A mutual pledge to addressing the barriers that inhibit trade and commitment to strengthening competitiveness and growth in the transatlantic economy is timely. The BDI-IMDI Congressional Roundtable discussion underscores the need for a transatlantic framework agreement in which the governments and legislatures on both sides of the Atlantic commit to addressing these issues. We applaud Chancellor Merkel for giving priority attention to the Transatlantic Partnership in her position as President of the European Union and support placing the item on the next EU-U.S. Economic Summit Agenda and encourage our respective governments to further cooperation in this area.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. Currently, more than 15.4 million workers in America are enjoying the right to unionize, earning an average 30 percent more than workers without unions. New Yorkers make up approximately 2 million out of the 15.4 million unionized employees nationwide--making it the second most unionized state in the Nation. But far too many workers looking to have collective bargaining rights are denied and the people who are often looking to organize are those working in the service industry--many of whom do not have access to collective bargaining, the right to affordable health care, or the ability to earn a living wage. I encounter these people--working people--far too often in my own district in Queens and the Bronx, New York. This bill will help get rid of many arcane tactics some employers use to prevent employee organization, thereby giving a helping hand to those workers and the groups who are trying to defend their rights to respect in the work place. That is why I support the Employee Free Choice Act. There are far too many people in this country who work hard, play by the rules, and cannot get ahead--this bill is a helping hand to a better life for themselves and their families. Opposing this bill is opposing the ability of Americans to attain the American Dream.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, can anyone argue that investment in the United States does not create jobs? I mean, that is what this is all about, encouraging direct foreign investment from other countries in helping to create jobs here in the United States. How the job market is touched in some way by the CFIUS process by a loan from direct foreign investment is, I am sure, an issue that someone may have some desire to know more about, but that is not the role of CFIUS.

Mr. CROWLEY. I will yield in a moment. That is the role of the Commerce Department to do those kind of studies. They can do that. Let them spend the time. Let's not divert the attention of CFIUS, which is to allow for a steady stream of flow of foreign investment in the United States, and at the same time checking the national security interests of our country, making sure that state-owned businesses that are entering into foreign investment of the United States are not in some way compromising our national security, the private-owned industry that are making investments in the United States are not jeopardizing or compromising our national security. That is the role of CFIUS. It is not for CFIUS to become the Commerce Department. They have a role to do as well. They can do studies on the implications of the CFIUS process and foreign investment and how it is affecting the growth or loss of jobs in the United States, not the role of CFIUS. I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time, and I want to thank my good friend from Massachusetts, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, for bringing this legislation before us today. In particular, I want to thank my colleague and friend from New York, Carolyn Maloney, who has done an outstanding job in moving this bill so quickly through the House this year, through the committee, and now to the floor. Carolyn, as myself, being from New York City, understands a number of issues as they come together here on this particular issue, that is, the need to make sure that our country is secure from the interests of terror, and, at the same time, wanting to ensure that our country is open to direct foreign investment. Direct foreign investment is for two reasons, one, because it is good for America, it is good for New York, it is good for America. But also what we do here in the House of Representatives, and how we transform and change the CFIUS process, if we don't do it quickly and do it properly it can be reciprocated in other parts of the world against the interests of American corporations. I also want to thank my good friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Blunt, a gentleman with whom I had an opportunity to work with last year on this very similar legislation, as well as Representative Pryce, for their hard work in ensuring that this bill came to the floor in such a fashion. I have to harken back to last year just momentarily, and that is when we look at the overall issue of what brought this legislation to the floor right now, we have to understand the historical context that brought this legislation to the floor. What happened last year, what I call the Dubai Ports debacle, in the administration's inability to explain to the American people just what was happening and why it was in the interests of the United States to walk softly here. But we have come a long ways since then. Last year, in a very politically contentious year, we would have passed unanimously out of committee very similar legislation as we have on the floor today and then passed unanimously out of the House that legislation, again, in a very hotly contested political year. But this issue did not fade away because we failed to reach an agreement with the Senate last year and were never able to codify into law the CFIUS process, which was an executive order put into place in the early 1970s that has been amended several times, but never codified in a way which Mr. Frank wishes to do today, which I would certainly wholeheartedly support. This bill is a good jobs bill, it is pro-business and it is pro- labor. That is why I want to support this bill. This bill is about keeping the flow in foreign investment coming into the United States and not driving these funds and subsequent jobs out of the United States. But H.R. 556 includes new tough safeguards put in place to ensure the security of America first. This entire legislative initiative, which has been pursued in a bipartisan fashion, is the result of the botched handling, again, of the Dubai Ports deal. That transaction involved a government-owned company from Dubai buying into various port assets here in the United States. As a result, a significant and appropriate focus of the committee's work has been to toughen the scrutiny for acquisition by government- owned companies, since some government-owned companies will make decisions based on government interests and not merely on commercial interests. No job, no deal, no transaction, is worth threatening the safety of Americans, and this bill puts those conditions in place. We all know this to be true, but, again, being from New York, it is even more true. This bill will provide strong new safeguards to ensure our Nation's security and to protect our critical infrastructure but also continues to give CFIUS the flexibility to exercise discretion, allows CFIUS to focus on the deals that raise real national security issues and not get bogged down into those deals with no national security ramifications whatsoever. This is a good bill protecting national security, guaranteeing the continued flow of direct foreign investment in the U.S. and ensure we will not have a Dubai Ports debacle. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this very worthy piece of legislation. Again, I want to thank the Chair of the committee, the ranking member for bringing this bill, Mr. Bachus, for bringing this bill so quickly to the floor; the gentlelady from New York, once again, Carolyn Maloney, for all of her work on this issue; my good friend, the minority whip, Mr. Blunt, for his work, as well as Representative Pryce. This truly is a bipartisan piece of legislation and deserves every Member's support.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I, too, want to rise in opposition to my good friend from Texas's amendment, which I believe is a noble attempt to improve the legislation. I just don't think it belongs here, as the gentlewoman from New York described as well. What you are asking for, though, that is kind of interesting, is requiring CFIUS to report on the burdens placed upon potential companies entering into the United States through direct foreign investment. Where does this end? We could have an investigation on the burdens, on the burdens, on the burdens, creating more burden for both the companies that have to be investigated, asking them to give that information to CFIUS, as well as placing additional burdens on CFIUS. As the gentlewoman has said, diverting them from the attention that they need to focus on: national security. And as the gentleman from Massachusetts has said, what is national security? What we have thought was an issue of national security 10 years ago no longer is today, and what we think of national security today may not be an issue of national security 10 years from now. It is ever changing and in flux. But clearly, creating more burden on direct foreign investment is not helpful in this process, I really believe. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CROWLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, no one is arguing that the CFIUS process and the direct foreign investment has an implication on the jobs of the United States. I am arguing that it will actually increase opportunities for jobs in the United States. And it is not the role of CFIUS to make those investigations, that is the job of the Commerce Department.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 976. This is a smart bill that is good for workers and their employers. Representing Queens and the Bronx, I serve a large number of people who work full time jobs for the minimum wage, and they deserve a raise. But their employers, like the small restaurants that dot 74th Street in Jackson Heights should not be hit with a new tax. This bill will allow congress to start in motion the process of increasing the minimum wage, while protecting important employer tax benefits like enhancing the tip credit and expanding and increasing expensing deductions. This bill also extends and expands the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to encourage businesses to hire people who were formerly on welfare. Today, we are showing the American people that the Congress works. This bill is good for workers and business and I urge everyone to support it.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, along with my good friends and colleagues, Representatives Cantor, Pomeroy and Reynolds, I introduce the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act, RIDEA. This legislation will continue the tradition of Congress to periodically review and amend the tax rules governing REITs to ensure that they are able to operate within the competitive norms of the marketplace. In an effort to keep REITs competitive, this bill addresses several issues tied to REIT investment diversification and empowerment. The legislation would make several minor, but important, changes in the REIT tax rules to permit REITs on behalf of their shareholders to continue to compete with other real estate companies in international and domestic markets. In 1960, Congress created the REIT rules to allow average investors to obtain the benefits of owning large-scale, income producing real estate such as shopping malls, apartment communities and office buildings. REITs are typically publicly traded companies that pass through their earnings to individual shareholders. The vision of Congress has come to fruition: The equity market capitalization of REITs as of December 31, 2006 was $438 billion--up from only $1.4 billion at the end of 1971. Investment professionals such as Burton Malkiel of Princeton University, Jeremy Siegel of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and David Swensen, the manager of the Yale Endowment, have recommended that individual investors should maintain a discrete allocation of REITs as part of a diversified portfolio to maximize performance while lowering investment risk. Commercial real estate plays an essential part in the national economy, producing about 6 percent of the gross domestic product according to the Federal Reserve Board. REITs have grown to be an essential component of the real estate marketplace and provided investment opportunities for everyone to invest in where we work, live and shop. REITs own all types of income producing real estate, from community shopping centers to landmarks such as Roosevelt Field on Long Island, Tyson's Comer in Virginia, and Queens Plaza, in my home borough of Queens, NY. REITs are subject to a number of rules to ensure their primary focus is commercial real estate activities. At least 75 percent of a REIT's assets must be comprised of rental real estate, mortgages, cash items and government securities. A REIT also must satisfy two income tests. First, at least 75 percent of a REIT's annual gross income must consist of real property rents, mortgage interest, gain from the sale of a real estate asset and certain other real estate-related sources. Second, at least 95 percent of a REIT's annual gross income must be derived from the income items from the above 75 percent test plus other ``passive income'' sources such as dividends and any type of interest. For over three decades, the IRS has recognized that real estate investments abroad qualify as ``good assets'' and generate ``good income'' under the REIT tax rules. With that said, the treatment of foreign currency gains directly attributable to overseas real estate investment is not altogether clear, but its correct characterization is becoming increasingly important as REITs continue investing in the most attractive marketplaces for their shareholders. Similarly, as more and more countries begin to authorize REIT-like approaches to real estate investment, it is important that U.S. tax rules allow U.S. REITs to invest in these businesses without negatively affecting their own REIT status. I do not believe this bill is controversial. The three previous changes to the REIT rules made over the past decade have been sponsored by many Members on both sides of the aisle, and we expect that RIDEA will follow in these bipartisan footsteps. It is also important to note that this bill is endorsed by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts and the Real Estate Roundtable. Madam Speaker, this is an opportunity for us to provide REITs the flexibility needed to remain competitive and to make other minor, but important, changes to the REIT rules. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting these changes. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a detailed summary of its provisions be printed in the Record. The REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act (``RIDEA'') includes five titles: Title I--Foreign Currency and Other Qualified Activities, Title II--Taxable REIT Subsidiaries, Title III--Dealer Sales, Title IV--Health Care REITs, and Title V--Foreign REITs. As the REIT market develops and as REITs continue to expand their overseas investments, the issue of the correct characterization of foreign currency gains, and other types of non-specified income and assets, has become even more important. Title I would in effect codify existing law concerning the income derived, and assets held, by REITs in connection with their REIT-permissible activities outside of the U.S. Specifically, Title I would treat as qualified REIT income foreign currency gains derived with respect to its business of investing in ``real estate assets'' outside of the U.S. Today REITs can achieve approximately the same results by establishing a ``subsidiary REIT'' in each currency zone in which it operates and securing a private letter ruling from the IRS. RIDEA would allow a REIT to obtain the same result by operating a qualified business unit that satisfies the 75 percent income and asset tests. Title I also would provide the IRS with authority to determine whether certain types of foreign currency gains were qualifying income, as well as to provide that certain items of income not specifically listed in the REIT gross income provisions should not be taken into account in computing a REIT's gross income. Under current law, even if a REIT were to earn a substantial amount of certain types of income that are not specified in the gross income baskets, the REIT could jeopardize its REIT status--even though these types of income may be directly attributable to the REIT's business of owning and operating commercial real estate. Examples include amounts attributable to recoveries in settlement of litigation and ``break up fees'' attributable to a failure to consummate a merger. The IRS has issued private letter rulings to taxpayers holding that the particular type of income should be considered either qualifying income or should be ignored for purposes of the REIT rules. Under this provision, I would expect that the IRS would conclude, for example, that dividend-like items of income such as Subpart F income and income produced by holding stock of a passive foreign investment company either are considered qualified income for purposes of the REIT income tests are not taken into account for purposes of these tests. Furthermore, Title I would conform the current REIT hedging rule to also apply to foreign currency gains, apply those rules for purposes of both REIT gross income tests and would make conforming changes to other REIT provisions reflecting foreign currency gains. Title II would increase the limit on taxable REIT subsidiaries, TRS, securities from 20 percent to 25 percent, as originally contemplated in the REIT Modernization Act of 1999. The rationale for a 25 percent limit on TRSs remains the same today. The dividing line for testing a concentration on commercial real estate in the REIT rules has long been set at 25 percent, and even the mutual fund rule uses a 25 percent test. It is not too often that an industry requests Congress to increase the amount of income it can earn to a double level of taxation. Title III updates the rules that require a REIT to be a long-term investor in real estate. A REIT is subject to a 100 percent tax on net income from sales of property in the ordinary course of business-- ``prohibited transactions'' or ``dealer sales''. In 1976, Congress recognized the need for a bright line safe harbor for determining whether a REIT's property sale constituted a prohibited transaction. Congress further liberalized these rules in 1978 and 1986 to better comport with industry practice and to simplify a REIT's ability to sell long-term investment property without fear of being taxed at a 100 percent rate. The current safe harbor exceptions for rental property and timber provide that a sale may avoid being classified as a prohibited transaction if it meets several requirements, including that the REIT own the property for at least 4 years and that each year it sell either less than seven properties or 10 percent of its portfolio, as measured by tax basis. Largely because commercial real estate is increasingly recognized as a separate asset class that provides substantial diversification and performance benefits for retirement savings, the real estate market has achieved greater levels of liquidity than ever before. This increased liquidity has provided real estate owners who have invested for the long term with more and more opportunities to maximize value by selling assets sooner than originally expected. REITs that rely on the safe harbor have been precluded from selling some of their investment assets because of the current 4-year requirement. The safe harbor is intended to provide a clear dividing line between a REIT acting as an investor rather than a dealer. However, the 4-year requirement is arbitrary and not consistent with other Code provisions that define whether property is held for long term investments, e.g., the 1-year holding period to determine long-term capital gains treatment for individuals, and the 2-year holding period to distinguish whether the sale of a home is taxable because it is held for investment purposes. A 2-year holding period better reflects current economic realities. In addition, the 10 percent limit that is now based on tax basis negatively impacts companies that are the least likely to have engaged in ``dealer'' activity. The most established REITs have typically held their properties the longest, resulting in low adjusted bases due to depreciation or amortization deductions. Thus, the aggregate bases of all the REITs properties will be relatively much lower for purposes of the safe harbor exception than for a REIT that routinely turns over its properties every 4 years. Accordingly, the REIT that holds its properties for the longer term is penalized. In 1999, Congress adopted a provision that utilizes fair market value rules for purposes of calculating personal property rents associated with the rental of real property. The measurement change in Title III to the 10 percent test from tax basis to fair value is fully consistent with this 1999 provision. Title IV parallels the treatment under the REIT rules of health care facilities to lodging facilities. Payments made from a subsidiary owned by a REIT to that REIT usually are not considered qualified income for REIT purposes. Congress in 1999 carved out an exception under which a REIT may establish a TRS that can lease lodging facilities from a REIT holding a controlling interest, with the payments to the REIT considered good ``rents'' under the REIT rules. Under these rules, a TRS is not allowed to operate or manage lodging or health care facilities; instead an independent contractor must do so. When this change was made in 1999, health care operators did not object to bearing the risks associated with being liable as a long-term lessee. Recently, many operators of health care assets such as assisted living facilities have indicated that they would rather be independent operators of the facilities and instead rely on a REIT to bear all real estate-related financial risks. Most health care REITs now believe that the TRS restriction is interfering with their ability to manage their operations in the most efficient manner. Title IV would allow a REIT's TRS to lease health care facilities from its controlling REIT so long as the facilities are operated and managed by an independent contractor. It also clarifies that a TRS's mere possession of a license which, for example, is sometimes required for State purposes, is not considered the operation or management of the facilities. Governments around the world have recognized the success of REITs in the United States as creating ``liquid real estate'' for the first time in history. More than 20 countries have adopted REIT legislation, with the United Kingdom making the leap on January 1 and Germany expected to follow suit later this year. Although the Tax Code treats stock in a U.S. REIT as a qualified asset that generates qualifying income, current law does not afford the same treatment to the stock of non-U.S. REITs. Instead of investing abroad either directly or in a joint venture, a U.S. REIT might want to invest through a REIT organized in that country. However, a company could lose its status as a U.S. REIT if it owns more than 10 percent of a foreign REIT's securities, even though the foreign company is the equivalent of a U.S. REIT. A U.S. REIT should have the flexibility in deciding what form its overseas real estate investment should take. Title V would allow a U.S. REIT to acquire securities in a foreign REIT so long as that REIT has the same core attributes as a U.S. REIT. The Treasury Department would have the responsibility to analyze the foreign laws and rules to determine if the REITs organized in a particular country meet this test, much as it does in determining whether entities organized abroad are ``per se'' corporations under the ``check the box'' entity classification rules. In making these determinations, the Secretary should take into account whether the laws, stock market requirements, or market preferences in a country imbue listed foreign REITs with these characteristics: (1) At least 75 percent of the company's assets must be invested in real estate assets; (2) the foreign REIT either receives a dividends paid deduction or is exempt from corporate level tax; and (3) the foreign REIT is required to distribute at least 85 percent of its taxable income to shareholders on an annual basis. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California, and I rise to thank our young men and women in our armed services and their families, those who have understood the sacrifices that they have made on behalf of our great Nation. But Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak out in strong opposition to President Bush's misguided escalation of troops in the Iraq War and to commend the Democratic leadership of this House for holding a real debate on our involvement in Iraq. Since January 4, when Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, the Democratic majority has delivered on its pledge of oversight and accountability of this war in Iraq, and Democrats have changed the direction of the discussion and have changed this war to lead us to the ultimate goal of all Americans, that is, to bring our troops home. For too long, Congress has taken a backseat on the President's handling of this war, but this majority has held more hearings on Iraq than the Republican-controlled Congress did since this war began. This debate is about not about trying to embarrass our President for political purposes. We are debating the escalation because the American people have demanded a change in direction. The President has failed to recognize the will of the people and many of the top military and foreign policy thinkers around the country who view this escalation with little hope of success. Our constituents spoke with their voices loudly on Election Day, and they have been even more vocal since about the dissatisfaction with the way this war has been managed. Many in this country want to see a deescalation of America's forces, not the increase the President has proposed. The President and his advisors created this problem, and it is now on the Congress to find a way to disengage Iraq without causing the country and the region to be engulfed in a further outbreak of violence. In the last week, we have seen some of the most horrific bombings that cost the lives of hundreds of Iraqis and the downing of several U.S. helicopters. Over 3,000 of our young American men and women have lost their lives; tens and thousands have been physically and mentally maimed; and hundreds of Iraqi citizens, the vast majority of them trying to live normal lives, have been killed or injured. This was not how this war was to be conducted. Four years ago, when this President came to the Congress for authorization to invade Iraq, he stated that Iraq posed a clear and present danger. He talked about how invading Iraq was part of the greater war on terror and how, if Saddam Hussein was not toppled, he would attack our allies and maybe even on our own soil. After seeing the death and destruction al Qaeda did to my city on 9/ 11 and to our Nation, I wanted to trust our President and all the President's men and women. When I sat across the table in the Roosevelt Room in the White House from Condoleezza Rice and then-CIA-Director George Tenet, I thought I could trust them. Because of them and the false intelligence they gave, I voted for authorization of this war. As the only Member of this Congress to lose a relative on 9/11 and as someone who has lost 125 constituents to the attacks of the Twin Towers, I do believe that America must always act to defeat threats before those threats act against us. As they say, in life, there are no do-overs; and if I could turn back time, I am sure that most of the Members of this House and most of my colleagues in this House would never have given this President this authority to wage this war in Iraq. This war has cost us a fortune from our national treasury, a fortune in American lives lost and ruined, and a fortune in our ability as a Congress to trust our Commander in Chief and our President. Today, we have an opportunity to stand as a group and to say what our constituents want us to say, to say what the Army generals want us to say, to say what many of them, those men and women in our Armed Services in uniform on the front line want us to say: ``Mr. President, adding more troops is not the answer. Adding more troops to fight what has become a civil war is not the answer.'' The answer is we need to start to begin to bring our troops home, reducing our presence in Iraq, and create the conditions for the Iraqi people themselves to stand up and secure their own country. The Iraq Study Group set out a plan that many of us support, but the President continues to believe that history will judge him favorably. As the Iraqi government attempts to clamp down on the Shi'a and Sunni militias, it has become abundantly clear these forces are not as strong as we have been led to believe, those being the Iraqi government's forces. I believe we need to look strongly on redeploying our troops in Iraq along the border and in the Kurdish north, removing American citizens from harm's way in Baghdad and Anbar Province, and forcing the Iraqis, both politically and militarily, to secure these areas. U.S. troops should only be used in an advisory role, not in direct combat. Mr. Speaker, I have more to submit for the Record, but I want to send our young men and women home as soon as possible and an end to putting them in harm's way. Only when the violence stops should the U.S. in small numbers work with Iraqi and multinational forces in keeping the peace, building the military infrastructure and securing long term stability. Right now, with the exception of Great Britain and a few other countries we are doing all the work, taking all the risk, and losing our best and our brightest while the Iraqis lay waste to their country. It is time for us to get back to our roots and be the beacon of freedom and democracy that we are. We need to increase our conversations with the moderate Arab states and get them invested before Iraq, and possibly the whole region, is at war. The focus should be making sure that countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia are not funding Sunni and Shia extremists, respectively. Diplomacy is not the end all fix, but it is a start. Whether or not my colleagues want to refer to the President's plan as a surge or escalation, I see it as a target on the backs of our armed forces. This resolution clearly states that the House does not support the escalation, but we will not abandon the safety of our troops by cutting off the supplies they need for force protection. I do not support this escalation. Instead of bringing our troops home President Bush has decided to put even more of our overburdened arm forces in an increasingly sectarian bloodbath. Our country has been asking for answers to why our men and women of the armed forces continue to die in Iraq and we have not received any answers. Until these answers are forthcoming, I will not support the President's escalation and I wholeheartedly support this resolution.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the accomplishments of one of my constituents, Jonathan Rivera of Bronx, NY. I wish to recognize Mr. Rivera for being named a semi-finalist in The New York Times College Scholarship Program. Currently a senior at Monsignor Scanlan High School, Jonathan has demonstrated both a commitment to academic excellence and to serving the community through his involvement in the Campus Ministry, making him a deserving recipient of this honor. The New York Times awards 4-year scholarships and mentoring opportunities to only 20 students each year attending New York City public schools. Recipients are selected for attaining high levels of scholastic achievement in the face of adversity. Madam Speaker, I join to wish Mr. Rivera best wishes and good fortune in his future projects.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Joanna Kurylo of Queens, NY. I wish to recognize Ms. Kurylo for being awarded the 2007 New York State Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Humanitarian Youth Award. Joanna is a student at Christ the King Regional High School where she has achieved a high level of excellence and has already established herself as a community leader. While participating in a number of extra-curricular school activities, Joanna was honored for her notable fundraising efforts which brought aid to the Darfur region and helped advance the battle against leprosy. This award is granted to five students throughout New York State each year. Madam Speaker, I join to wish Ms. Kurylo best wishes and good fortune in her future projects.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a number of my constituents, the Throgs Neck Little League team of Bronx, NY. I wish to recognize the Throgs Neck Little League for celebrating their 55th anniversary this year as a community association dedicated to improving the lives of countless youth, The commitment and contributions of coaches, families, and loyal fans deserve to be acknowledged and these community members commended for their steadfast devotion to this organization. Madam Speaker, I join to congratulate the Throgs Neck Little League for their achievements thus far and I wish them continued luck and many wins ahead in future seasons.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Joanna Kurylo of Queens, NY. I wish to recognize Ms. Kurylo for being awarded the 2007 New York State Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Humanitarian Youth Award. Joanna is a student at Christ the King Regional High School where she has achieved a high level of excellence and has already established herself as a community leader. While participating in a number of extra-curricular school activities, Joanna was honored for her notable fundraising efforts which brought aid to the Darfur region and helped advance the battle against leprosy. This award is granted to five students throughout New York State each year. Madam Speaker, I join to wish Ms. Kurylo best wishes and good fortune in his future projects.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the accomplishments of one of my constituents, Jonathan Rivera of Bronx, NY. I wish to recognize Mr. Rivera for being named a semi-finalist in The New York Times College Scholarship Program. Currently a senior at Monsignor Scanlan High School, Jonathan has demonstrated both a commitment to academic excellence and to serving the community through his involvement in the Campus Ministry, making him a deserving recipient of this honor. The New York Times awards four-year scholarships and mentoring opportunities to only 20 students each year attending New York City public schools. Recipients are selected for attaining high levels of scholastic achievement in the face of adversity. Madam Speaker, I join to wish Mr. Rivera best wishes and good fortune in his future projects.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. HIV/AIDS is one of the worst epidemics we have ever seen in the United States. More than 900,000 cases of AIDS have been reported in the US since 1981. Nearly 1,000,000 people may be infected with HIV, one quarter of them is unaware about their infection. In my hometown New York City more than 100,000 people are living with HIV. Approximately 1 in 70 New Yorkers is infected with HIV. Statistics just help us to number the dimension of HIV/AIDS in our country but every single number reflects more, reflects the life and the living with HIV/AIDS of one of our fellow citizen. While we are far away from curing AIDS, science has made enormous progress. Today, we can say that early and correct treatment enables people to live longer and to live with HIV/AIDS more as a chronic illness than a definitive death sentence. Even with these opportunities, we face new challenges. The African-American community is disproportionately affected by HIV/ AIDS. According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, black women are 9 times more likely to die of AIDS than white women; black men in New York City are 6 times more likely to die of AIDS than white men. This is another sign of the massive health disparities that exist in our nation. We need to work together, all of us in Congress, to address and eliminate the disparities in health and health care between the people of our country. That is why I strongly support the National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, celebrated on February, 7. The goal of this day is clear to all of us: We have to fight against both the stigma and the spread of HIV/AIDS in our African-American community, and I would add, in every American community. Groups like Bronx AIDS Services and the AIDS Center of Queens County do excellent work, but we in Washington need to back them up with the right support. This includes full funding for Ryan White, ensuring the housing needs of those afflicted are met through the HOPWA program, and eliminating the stigmas attached to the illness. We also need to allow each community group to speak to and target those at greatest risk of exposure in the most effective ways possible. But overall, we know that educating about and against HIV/AIDS, engaging in safe sex, and getting tested are the main elements of comprehensive prevention efforts. Closing, I like to emphasize the importance of the National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day by quoting its goals: Get tested to know about your HIV status. Get educated about HIV/AIDS. Get involved in your local community. Get treated if you are currently living with HIV. It is these missions that we must work to achieve. I thank the gentle lady for her resolution.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution introduced by my friend from New Jersey, Chris Smith. I stand among my colleagues and say that it is a privilege to be an original cosponsor of this important statement by the House of Representatives. The movement towards peace in the north of Ireland is moving at a steady but slow pace. It is the slowness of this pace which is regrettable. However, the movement forward is one which we can continue to commend and support. The political parties of the north of Ireland must continue to overcome the obstacles for the sake of the people who they were elected to represent. The people of the north must be given the representation in government that they have sought out. However, in order to continue to build and promote this ongoing peace process, we must make sure that the past atrocities have been fully investigated and those who are guilty, held responsible. The British and the Irish Governments had agreed to hold public inquiries into high profile murders of human rights defenders like Pat Finucane. We must build better trust between the people of the north, and so it is time for the British to allow the truth to come out. I wish to express my deepest sympathy to the family of Patrick Finucane at this time. After this brutal murder, justice must be pursued, and I wish to thank Geraldine and her son Michael for agreeing to testify before the committee of the House of Representatives. The family of Pat Finucane has a right to know the full extent of collusion that existed and caused the death of this husband and father. Under the Weston Park Agreement and the commitment made by Judge Cory, the British must live up to their obligations by reconsidering their position on the matter of inquiry into Pat Finucane's death and amending the Inquiries Act of 2005. It is time for an independent, judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, last November the American people overwhelmingly called for change in Congress and a change in the direction of this country. In the first 100 hours after taking office the new Democratic majority answered that call by passing significant legislation to begin taking this Congress and this country in a new direction. First, we passed groundbreaking ethics reform and fiscal responsibility rules to clean up the way Congress operates. Then we implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a long overdue step towards making our Nation safer. We went on to raise the minimum wage for millions of working Americans, gave HHS the ability to negotiate cheaper prescription drug prices for millions of seniors, and made college tuition more affordable for millions of students. And just yesterday, we repealed Republican policies that gave corporate welfare to big oil companies instead of investing those funds in consumer relief alternative fuels and energy efficient technology. Mr. Speaker, Democrats were elected because Americans wanted to see real change in Congress, and we have not let them down. The legislation we passed will make a real difference in the lives of all Americans, and we can all be proud of the great start that we have made right here in this House.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, a bill that will finally put our Nation in the correct direction, a new direction towards weaning ourselves off the addiction of oil and gas. This bill is about the future of America. In the 1960s, President Kennedy challenged our country to dream the unthinkable and to put a man on the Moon. While President Bush has talked about the addiction to foreign oil, the Republican view of the treatment is to continue to pass tax cuts for oil companies, instead of focusing on innovation and new sources of energy. By this investing in new technology, we have an opportunity for a win-win situation, more energy independence and more jobs for American citizens here in America. Who could be against that? Please pass this bill. Create a clean energy trust fund and free the resourceful minds of the most resourceful people on Earth today to do what Americans do best, to create and innovate. We can kick our addiction to foreign oil, and the first step in this is to pass H.R. 6.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, a bill to lower the cost of college for millions of middle class Americans. Tuition all over the country has sky-rocketed. The State University of New York (SUNY) costs over $12,000 a year to attend for a commuter and almost $17,000 a year to live on campus. And these are resident in state tuition figures. The GOP's response to the sky-rocketing price of college tuition: Last year, Republicans cut $12 billion from student aid. To add insult to injury on December 23, 2004 with a Christmas gift only worthy of the Grinch, the Republicans actually cut back college grant programs to 1.3 million students. Democrats offer a New Direction. Our American direction is designed to make college more affordable for Americans by cutting the current interest rate for student loans in half. Our bill will save middle class families in New York and nationwide approximately $4,400 over the life of their loan. Democrats are putting our money where our mouth is and passing legislation to actually benefit middle class families. I urge my colleagues to pass this common sense legislation.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the H.R. 4 to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate the price of drugs for our nation's seniors. This legislation would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, and would also require the Secretary to report back to Congress on his negotiations, effectively giving us the right of oversight. But I support this legislation because it has the ability to save our nation's seniors millions of dollars in drugs they use every day. There is evidence to show that this bill could potentially save our seniors significant savings on their prescription drugs. According to Families USA, the average senior could potentially save 58 percent on their drugs. Additionally, according a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, eighty-five percent of respondents feel that the government should be given the ability to negotiate lower prices for senior citizens. However, this bill, while a step in the right direction is by no means the end to this debate. Congress should hold hearings, and briefings to further discuss how to lower prices for medication without eliminating access to vital medications for our nation's seniors. In order to accomplish more access to medications, and an over all improvement in the healthcare system, the answer does not lie in pointing fingers at each other, but rather the un-obstructed dialogue between constituents, elected officials on both sides of the aisle, and all interested parties. I know that I am willing to work with all parties in this debate if it helps my constituents obtain much needed medicine, and access to doctors. Let's stop blaming each other, and prohibiting each other from trying something new. Instead, let's attempt something that could possibly be revolutionary. Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said ``It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.'' I agree with him, prevail or not, at least we can say we tried to make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans. I urge all my colleagues to work together to get this legislation passed, both in Congress and out.