Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. CROWLEY. The New Yorkers are doing the same thing, as well.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have another example here from a gentleman in Middle Village in Queens, New York, another constituent. He has to purchase efudex. He paid $104 in New York, which is the going rate. He did a lot of shopping around. His daughter brought back the same prescription for him when she was visiting Ireland, and she paid only $13 for the two; and that is without any insurance whatsoever. The price of $13 and go over to the other side of the Atlantic and it is $104. Again, just the constituents alone. We are grateful to do the studies. We do not have to do these studies to find out. We just listen to our constituents, and they will tell us exactly what these findings are saying. There is something wrong here in this country. And the work that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) are doing to pass this bill, which is so important to the people of this country, I really do applaud them all and all those people in this Congress who are supporting this measure. It is really what the American people want to see happen right now.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman). I call now the main man on this issue, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), he is the main man as we say back in New York on this issue. I have a letter here from two constituents of mine, Don and Gert Schwartz from Long Island City. I will not go into their ages, but they are considerably older than I am. And he talks about the fact that he had to purchase for his wife Prilosec, a hundred tablets, $394 dollars for just one prescription of Prilosec. Somebody had a study done thanks to the help and aid of the office of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). When you compare the prices between what people in New York and Queens and the Bronx are paying for prescription drugs and what they are paying just over the border in Canada, it is amazing. For the same drug in Canada, $184; $394 in New York. It is ridiculous. It is simply ridiculous.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, the issue I want to talk about is the issue of the skyrocketing cost of home heating oil in the Northeast, particularly in New York and New England. It is an extremely, extremely serious problem. The problem was brought to my attention, quite frankly, by the good work and the efforts of our U.S. Senator from New York who was seen nightly on the television programs, Chuck Schumer, talking about the imminent problem that we are now faced with. I, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), introduced legislation to provide the Secretary of Energy with the authority to draw down the Nation's reserve oil supply in the Strategic Oil Reserve. That will go a long way to reducing the cost of home heating oil immediately, as was demonstrated back during the Iraqi conflict in 1991 when then President Bush opened the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and, overnight, the cost of home heating oil dropped by $10 a barrel, affording millions of people in this country more home heating oil. President Clinton has indicated that he will not draw down the supplies; but I, along with many of my colleagues, will press him in this matter. Hence, I have joined with a number of my colleagues in both political parties asking him to reconsider his refusal to use these reserves. We have a massive oil supply problem, and I believe the best way to address this issue and see a sharp decline in the cost of oil is to open these reserves and bring this oil into the market. Last week Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson addressed a number of Congressmen and women from the Northeast, and, although he too expressed reluctance to open up these reserves, by listening to us and the stories of our constituents, such as Dorothy Alteri of Dudley Avenue, who saw her energy bill skyrocket this year, I hope we can sway him to reconsider. Mr. Speaker, I have before me here two bills to two constituents. Phillip Occhino from the Bronx, his bill for the last month was $414. I dare say it has more than doubled this past month. I have another one here from Thomas Donohue from Woodside, Queens. His, too, his home heating bill for last month was $410.39, well above what they paid in the past for the same home heating oil. I fear that after last year's warm winter and the resulting profit losses of the oil refineries, that they are trying to recoup past deficits by overcharging this year. To reinforce this contention, I have noticed that the price of oil, diesel fuel and fuels in general, are much higher in the New York and New England region than they are in other parts of the country. For example, I got a letter from Vincent Fullone, the president of Fullone Trucking, who told me the national average price for diesel fuel on February 9, 2000, was $1.47 a gallon. On that very same day in New York, a gallon of diesel fuel cost $2.29 a gallon. It just is not fair that diesel fuel trucks in our region are paying more for their diesel than other regions of this country. It is safe to be said for the home heating oil industry and our gasoline prices as well that there is a serious price differential from what we here in New York pay versus what other people in different States pay. For that reason I am working with my colleagues and demanding an investigation by Attorney General Janet Reno and the Department of Justice into any price fixing that may have been orchestrated by the fuel oil industry. I am also pleased that the House has held a hearing on OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. I am glad that my committee, the Committee on International Relations, has also held a hearing investigating OPEC's price-fixing schemes. OPEC are the same people that brought us the 1977-1979 oil shortages, as well as 1973; and I fear they are at it again, cutting supply to raise their profit margin at the expense of Americans. The U.S. must stop this practice of OPEC. For lower-income seniors I am also a supporter of the President's releasing more of the Nation's reserve funds in the LIHEAP program. The Low Income Energy Assistance Program is a Federal program that provides assistance to low-income Americans to pay for fuel and utility costs. Recently, the President released $175 million of LIHEAP surplus funds, with $36.6 million going to New York. Although I was pleased the President has begun releasing the reserve funds in this account, I was troubled to see the flawed formula used by the administration. Instead of targeting the States with the greatest need, like New York and the New England States, virtually every State in the U.S. and U.S. territories benefited from this Federal program for home heating assistance, including the Virgin Islands, Florida, Arizona and Texas. I am urging the President to release more money from this reserve account, but asking him to do it in a way targeting those people hurting the most, like the people in New York. In New York City there are too many seniors who live only on Social Security checks. They cannot afford any increase in the cost of home heating oil. This LIHEAP reserve fund is there to help offset the high cost of home heating fuel for these lower-income individuals. These funds should be used to aid those with the most need. I am also one of the principal supporters of legislation sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), legislation that would create a home heating oil reserve that the President could draw down upon when oil fuel prices skyrocket, like they have this winter. This legislation is based on a 1998 Department of Energy study that outlined that a home heating oil reserve would be an effective method of stabilizing home heating oil prices in the future. Some of this oil, 2 million barrels, would be stored in containers in New York Harbor. I understand the Secretary of Energy has recently expressed some interest in this idea, and I am grateful for that. Although the solutions I speak of will not resolve any of the difficulties this winter, it would address these problems in the upcoming years. I want to let you know that we are working tirelessly on this issue. I received a petition just yesterday from a number of senior citizens in the Bronx in my district complaining about their high cost of home heating oil. The reality is we may not be at war with the Middle East nations, but we are in economic war with OPEC. The people to be the victims in this war will be the senior citizens, the people least able to afford to pay for home heating oil.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from upstate New York (Mr. Walsh) for organizing this special order this evening. He has been a stalwart ally and friend of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and I congratulate him for calling this special order. I also want to congratulate and thank my good friend and colleague the gentlewoman from Long Island, New York (Mrs. McCarthy). She may be relatively new to Congress, although I am newer than she is at this point in time, but she, too, has proven herself to be a true and good friend to the people of Ireland. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). Although the gentleman from Massachusetts is not here, I understand the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) has mentioned he is going to try to be here before the end of the special order, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, another co-chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs. Lastly, I just want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), for all his work throughout his years of service here in the House of Representatives, and prior to that his service in local government back in Long Island. The question I am most often asked by some of the gentleman's friends back in Woodside and Sunnyside, they want to know what type of curtains he has out there in Seaford. Mr. Speaker, the political process in Northern Ireland has had a major setback recently, when the British government suspended the Northern Ireland Power-Sharing Executive. Such a drastic measure certainly does not instill parties on the Republican and National side in Northern Ireland with a great deal of confidence. I realize there has been much criticism in the press lately, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), has mentioned, wrongfully so, about the IRA and decommissioning. But I, too, want to set the record straight. Back in May of 1998, the parties in Northern Ireland got together to support the historic Good Friday agreement, which set up a political structure inclusive of all the people of Northern Ireland. This agreement was accepted by not only the people of Northern Ireland, but the people of Ireland and Britain as well. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point. I would like to point out that nowhere in the Good Friday agreement does it say that if the IRA or any other group has not decommissioned by the end of January 2000, the Ulster Unionist Party, the UUP, can threaten to pull out of the agreement and that the British can suspend the power-sharing executive. We have this agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland waited for the Power-Sharing Executive to convene. Unfortunately, the UUP leader, Mr. David Trimble, refused to let it go forward. Here we see the process of what I like to call the de facto veto. While Mr. Trimble and the UUP do not have a veto spelled out in the Good Friday agreement, they have one because every time progress begins to occur on setting up the democratic institutions needed for peace, Mr. Trimble finds some new crisis to stop it. So in 1999, Northern Ireland found itself in a new crisis when Mr. Trimble would not allow the executive to meet, and former Senator George Mitchell was called in to review the process, particularly the aspects of decommissioning. Bear in mind here that the Good Friday agreement does not even say that the IRA must begin decommissioning for the Power-Sharing Executive to begin. In fact, it only says that parties to the agreement, which includes Sinn Fein, not the IRA, Sinn Fein and not the IRA, will work to get paramilitary and other groups to begin the process of decommissioning. Mr. Speaker, Senator Mitchell went to Northern Ireland and worked very hard, very hard with the pro-agreement parties, like the SDLP, the UUP, and Sinn Fein. He worked out a new accommodation. The IRA sent an interlocutor to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, the IICD, set up under the Good Friday agreement, and the UUP let the Power-Sharing Executive form and hold meetings. So 18 months, a full 1\1/2\ years after the Good Friday agreement was signed, we finally see real movement and the establishment of democratic institutions in the north of Ireland. I might point out, the IRA has agreed to in about 5 months what it previously intended to do in 2 years. That is no small commitment on the part of the IRA when they have been misled in the past. What happens a mere 11 weeks after the Power-Sharing Executive begins? Mr. Trimble decides needs to exercise his de facto veto power again, and says that he will resign unless more progress is made on decommissioning. This is even before the IICD issued its report. Suddenly, Peter Mandelson, the Secretary for Northern Ireland, fearing the collapse of the process, rushes legislation through the House of Commons effectively reimposing direct British rule and suspending the democratic institution set up under the Good Friday agreement. This bears repeating, Mr. Speaker. The Power-Sharing Executive was set up and running for only 11 weeks, 11 weeks, Mr. Speaker. In that time the UUP wanted the IRA to turn over its weapons in simply 11 weeks, even though the IRA ceasefire has held the entire time, and they invested a tremendous amount of time and energy into this peace process. Mr. Trimble, casting all of this aside, exercised his de facto veto yet again, and the process comes crumbling down. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, I support decommissioning wholeheartedly. I would like to see all parties in Northern Ireland turn in their weapons, renounce violence, and solve their differences through the political process and the democratic institutions designed under the Good Friday agreement. If we ask the IRA, they would tell us they want the exact same thing, only the IRA wants to see some progress made on the democratic institutions first. Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Members, suspending the democratic institutions after just 11 weeks does not instill confidence. Here is where, despite all of this, the IRA shows how truly committed to the peace process they are. They put forward a new proposal on decommissioning. They are willing to go even further than the Mitchell review. The new proposal is accepted by the IICD and touted as a major step, a major step forward on decommissioning. It is also accepted by the Irish government, but not by Mr. Trimble. He once again exercises his de facto veto and says the IRA has not gone far enough. Well, that is when the IRA had finally had enough. They withdrew today their interlocutor from the IICD, and said that until the suspension of the Power-Sharing Executive is lifted they would suspend their activities on decommissioning. Mr. Speaker, I feel the need to be very clear here once again. The IRA is still holding to the ceasefire and still wants to see the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. They just want the democratic institutions created under the agreement to remain in effect, not an unreasonable request. I do not think it is unreasonable. Let me just say that I am deeply disappointed by Mr. Trimble's decision to reject the new proposition on IRA decommissioning. I agree with the IICD that it would have been a major step forward. Clearly, the IRA has been an active participant in the peace process, and important progress has been made. Unfortunately, David Trimble and Peter Mandelson have dismissed these significant developments. For far too long the people of Northern Ireland have been waiting for the democratic institutions created under the Good Friday agreement to become an effective force for peace and stability. Mr. Speaker, the time for inside politics is over. The Ulster Unionist Party and the British government must let the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning complete its work. We have come too far and too many lives are at stake. We must not allow one man, one man to destroy a process agreed to by the people of Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland, and Great Britain. I have a personal stake in this peace process. My mother was born in County Armargh in Northern Ireland, and I have many family, friends, and loved ones who will either enjoy or suffer in their lives, depending on what happens during this process. Only a return to the political framework agreed to under the historic Good Friday agreement will resolve the current crisis and move it forward to continue on to the creation of a new Ireland.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the Congressional Budget Office released its latest estimates for the budget surplus. The CBO laid out three different on-budget surplus estimates ranging from $800 billion to $1.9 trillion. Depending on the actions of this Congress, we can use the surplus wisely or it can be unwisely spent, without paying off the debt, shoring up Social Security, or funding desperately needed programs, such as providing prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients and school construction and modernization of our schools. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that that we pay down the national debt. I fully support the President's goals stated in his State of the Union Address to eliminate public debt by 2013. As has been indicated, this Congress, and implied by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republican leadership will not adhere to the spending caps in the fiscal year 2001 budget. For this reason, it is imperative that we use the surplus to ensure the long- term solvency of Social Security and pay off the national debt. Once we have done this, we can then use the remaining surplus and the money saved in interest payments on our debt to enact a voluntary prescription drug plan so that seniors do not have to choose between food and medication. We can help our crumbling schools and build new classrooms to relieve a system bursting at its systems. And, yes, we can even give targeted tax cuts to help hard working American families make ends meet.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment in the so-called compromise worked out between the White House and the Republican leadership on the payment of U.S. arrears to the United Nations. Do not be fooled by this slight of hand, there is no compromise. All this does is codify the Smith Mexico City policy in legislation for the first time and include a Presidential waiver that will result in a funding reduction. A funding reduction which will affect the healthcare of women and children around the world. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I support payment of our financial obligation to the United Nations one hundred and ten percent. In fact, I am ashamed that the United States has lost so much prestige in an institution we helped create, in an organization instilled with many of the values we in this country hold so dear. I am ashamed, Mr. Speaker, because the United States, which should be a respected leader in that world body has squandered its authority by not living up to its commitments. My Republican colleagues, as they've said so often, believe in moral leadership. Well, I ask them, where is the United States' moral leadership when we do not pay our fair share? Mr. Speaker, paying our U.N. dues is an important national security concern; almost no one disputes this. Former Secretaries of States, former Presidents and former Senate Majority Leaders have all expressed the critical need to pay our arrears. Sensing this urgency, some in this House have placed partisan political considerations above the very real security needs of our country by linking the issue of our payment to the U.N. to the global gag rule on international family planning. For several years now, this linkage has held up the payment of our dues. I would submit an editorial from the November 17, 1999 New York Times which eloquently addresses this issue. Now, some of my colleagues may question the harm in limiting the activities of international family planning organizations. Still others have deeply felt convictions on the issue of abortion and do not want to see U.S. taxpayer's funds pay for abortions. Not only do I sympathize with these sentiments, I agree with them. And that is exactly why I oppose the codification of the Smith Mexico City policy. First, U.S. law rightly prohibits, in no uncertain terms, the use of U.S. funds to pay for an abortion, lobby for abortions, and coerce someone into having an abortion or purchase supplies or equipment to perform an abortion. And, no one has ever been able to show any U.S. funds used for this cause. Placing restrictions on the ability of foreign groups to use their own funds to participate in the democratic process and make their voices heard by their own governments is a violation of the sacred American right of free speech. This is just one way which this gag rule will prevent these organizations from doing their work to protect the health of families. Second, the best means of preventing the instances of abortions overseas is to promote access to family planning services. Families that are in control and informed about their options are less likely to need or seek abortions. International family planning agencies around the world are committed to providing accurate information to families about their healthcare needs, from stopping the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation to proper spacing of children to protect the health and well-being of mothers and children. Any reduction in these already under funded organizations, as this deal will ultimately result in, means that real women around the world will not have access to the basic medical information needed to raise their families in a healthy manner. Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed in this agreement, I am outraged that the will of a majority of the House was pushed aside to placate a few obstructionists who oppose providing access to family planning programs. In a historic compromise, the House included an amendment to the FY 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, offered by Congressman Jim Greenwood and Congresswoman Nita Lowey, which provides an acceptable bipartisan and majority supported alternative set of restrictions on U.S. funds for international family planning. The Greenwood/Lowey compromise includes: a requirement that international family planning organizations use U.S. funds to reduce the incidences of abortions; it allows only foreign organizations which are in compliance with its own countries abortion laws to receive U.S. funds; and, it bars family planning aid from organizations which are in violation of their country's laws on lobbying or advocacy activities. As I stated, a majority in the House supported this compromise, but the Republican leadership chose to ignore it. By ignoring the will of the House and codifying the Smith Mexico City policy, we set a dangerous precedent that will only serve to hurt women and families around the world. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that this provision was included in the Omnibus package which has so many other worthwhile programs. Funding for 100,000 teachers to help reduce class size, money for the COPS program, which keeps police on the beat and crime down, as well as other critical priorities supported by myself, my colleagues and a majority of Americans. Because of the inclusion of these key priorities, which will benefit the lives of every American, I will support this Omnibus package. However, I plan to work with my colleagues next year to restore the funding cuts that will result from this so-called compromise. [From The New York Times, Nov. 17, 1999] A Costly Deal on U.N. Dues President Clinton paid a regrettably high price to win the House Republican leadership's assent to give almost $1 billion in back American dues to the United Nations. Last weekend, White House bargainers agreed to new statutory language restricting international family planning assistance that the administration had firmly and rightly resisted in the past. Understandably, advocates for women's health and reproductive choice, even including Vice President Gore, bemoaned that damaging concession and questioned its necessity. Nevertheless, House approval of the U.N. arrears payments, assuming that final details of the agreement can be worked out and sold to the Republican rank and file, will be a significant achievement. Failure to pay these assessments had undermined the finances of the U.N., weakened American influence there and put Washington's voting rights in the General Assembly at risk. The United States cannot exercise global leadership unless it honors its financial obligations. Nor can Washington reasonably expect other countries to consider Congressional demands for lower American dues assessments in the future until it pays off most of the dues it already owes. To get the U.N. money approved, the White House compromised on an important issue of principle, and may have encouraged radical anti-abortion crusaders to expand their assault on abortion rights. Under the newly agreed language, foreign family planning organizations that spend their own money to provide abortions or lobby for less harsh abortion laws will now be legally ineligible for American assistance. As part of the compromise, the administration won the right to waive this restriction if it chooses. But even with the waiver, no more than $15 million in American assistance can be given to organizations engaged in abortion services or lobbying. That is about the amount such groups got last year. Another part of the deal stipulates that if the administration exercises the waiver the $385 million budgeted for aid to women's health groups will be reduced by $12.5 million. The practical effect of these restrictions is likely to be small, at least for as long as the Clinton administration is in office and invokes the waiver provision. But there is no disguising the political victory it hands the anti-abortion crusaders in the House who were willing to hold American foreign policy to their ideological agenda. Although part of only a one-year spending bill, the language is likely to reappear in future years unless a majority of House members vote to exclude it. Senate Republicans, including committed abortion foes like Senator Jesse Helms, behaved more responsibly than their House colleagues on this issue. But the House obstructionists held firm, faced down the White House and walked away with a disturbingly large share of what they wanted.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the DC Appropriations/Omnibus budget Conference Report. This conference report is a vast improvement over previously vetoed appropriations bills, yet in some instances falls, in my opinion, short of where we should be. I will support this legislation as it is a true compromise and will bring many benefits to the citizens of this country, funding valuable programs while having the small 0.38 percent across the board budget cut. While I believe this bill to be fiscally responsible, it does nothing to extend the life of Social Security. I strongly encourage the Republican leadership to bring up legislation early next year to extend the life of Social Security by ensuring its solvency. The Omnibus covers much ground and I would like to touch on several important issues to my constituents. In the areas of Health and Human Services and Education, I feel it is important to highlight the support this Omnibus gives to our nation's teachers and our education system; to AIDS funding and NIH research in general; to family planning services; and to Medicare payment relief for our hospitals. Overall, the Omnibus provides $39 billion for education programs. This is a 7 percent increase over Fiscal Year 1999. Importantly, the Class Size Reduction Initiative remained intact. The controversy about this program led to the President's veto of previous Labor/HHS appropriations bills. However, the $1.3 billion appropriated for class size reduction will in large part remain designated for that purpose. School districts will be permitted to use up to 25 percent of the funds for professional development, an increase over last year. Nonetheless, the majority of funding will remain targeted for its intended purpose-- reducing the sizes of our children's classes. This funding was imperative for schools in my district and in New York City. Last year, New York City used its funding under the class size reduction initiative to fund the full salaries of 808 new teachers and to partially fund the salaries of an additional 788 early grade teachers. Had there been no funding for class size reduction, the city would have been unable to retain more than 1500 teachers. This is important in my district, which contains the most overcrowded school district in the city, CSD 24, operating at 119 percent over capacity. Overall, the funding New York City receives will reduce the class sizes for approximately 90,000 students--27 percent of its K-3 enrollment. While this is nowhere near enough--it is an important first step in improving the education for all K-3 children in New York City and across the country. Another important program that this Omnibus funds is the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. This agreement appropriates $453 million for after-school centers, $253 million more than last year. After school centers are vital to keeping our children off the streets. Our communities and schools are facing the fact that most families need to have two parents working full time to provide for their children. This leaves as many as 15 million school-aged children without supervision from the time school ends until the time their parents arrive home from work. After-school programs provide school-age children whose parents both work a supervised environment providing constructive activities. Such a structured setting makes these students less likely to use alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, commit crimes, receive poor grades, and drop out of school. No one in my district, or in the nation, wants to see children go home to empty houses or apartments, or worse yet, succumb to anti-social activities on the street. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program allows schools to address the educational needs of its community through after-school, weekend, and summer programs. After school programs enable schools to stay open longer, providing a safe place for homework centers, mentoring programs, drug and violence prevention programs, and recreational activities. Additionally, after school programs enhance learning, increase community responsibility, and decrease youth crime and drug use. I fully support the increase in Fiscal Year 2000 funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program and only wish the there was more funding to enable more schools to provide this much needed service to our communities. The Omnibus also increases funding for Head Start programs by 13 percent, bringing funding for Fiscal Year 200 to $5.3 billion. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Head Start Program was instituted in 1965 and has been reauthorized through 2003. Head Start funds are provided directly to local grantees and the programs are locally designed and administered by a network of 1600 public and private nonprofit agencies. Head Start has been an unequivocal success. A 1995 report by the Packard Foundation presented evidence that high quality early childhood education for low-income children produces long-term educational, economic, and societal gains. I have one such program in my district, The Little Angels Program run by the Archdiocese of the Bronx, which exemplifies the mission of the head start program and success of the Head Start program. Little Angels provides comprehensive early childhood development, education, health, nutrition, social and other services to low income preschool children and their families. I applaud the leadership for continuing to support this essential early education and development program. Under Health and Human Services programs, we once again expressed our support for the research being done by the National Institutes of Health, as well as AIDS programs and family planning. Overall, the Omnibus provides a 15 percent increase over Fiscal Year 1999 for NIH, bringing its funding to $17.9 billion. This majority of this money will be seen by NIH researchers this year, rather than being until September 29, 2000, as originally reposed by the Republican leadership. Imagine the impact of not funding research projects for almost an entire year. A year without cancer research, diabetes, lupus, this list goes on and on. Every day important break-throughs happen, and I am happy the Republican leadership did not sacrifice health research to balance the budget. I am also heartened by the support for Ryan White AIDS program, which will receive $1.6 billion in funding, a 13 percent increase from last year, and $44 million more than the last Labor/HHS bill. We all know the battle we face against AIDS an HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In 1998, the Center for Disease Control reported that 665,357 persons were living with the AIDS virus and CDC estimates that 650,000-900,000 American live with the HIV virus. Sadly, so far 401,028 individuals have not survived their battle with AIDS. However, we all know that due to lack of reporting or lack of knowledge on the part of individuals and states, that these numbers are low respsentations of the actual number of those living with HIV and AIDS. In New York, the crisis is particularly acute. In 1998, there were 129,545 thousand reported AIDS cases and 80,408 reported AIDS deaths. New York City AIDS cases represent over 85 percent of the AIDS cases in New York State and 17 percent of the national total with 109,392 AIDS cases and 67,969 AIDS related deaths as reported in 1998. My own Congressional District spans two Boroughs in New York City with rapidly growing AIDS cases. In the Bronx, the Pelham and Throggs Neck area covered by the 7th Congressional District has report 3,045 AIDS cases and 1,957 deaths due to the AIDS virus in 1998. In Queens, a Borough with a rapidly growing population, there are 6,962 AIDS cases and 4,082 known dead from AIDS related causes as reported in 1998. Sadly, this horrible disease has disproportionately affected minorities. The majority of individuals living with AIDS in New York City are people of color. African Americans are more than eight times as likely as whites to have HIV and AIDS, and Hispanics more than four times are likely. The most stunning fact I have read comes from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in October of 1998, when they reported that AIDS is the leading killer of black men age 25-44 and the second leading cause of death for black women aged 25-44. Together, Black and Hispanic women represent one fourth of all women in the United States but account for more than three quarters of the AIDS cases among women in the country. I know we are making progress, Mr. Speaker. The number of AIDS cases reported each year in Queens and the Bronx is on the decline. This is in large part to the bipartisan commitment by the House of Representatives to funding research at NIH and programs through the department of Health and Human Services. Now that we have had breakthroughs in treatment of HIV and delaying the onset of full blown AIDS, we must concentrate more of our effort on prevention and treatment programs. These programs are especially important for minorities, who are so disproportionately affected by this disease, and I fully support the inclusion of $138 million for early intervention programs in this Omnibus bill. In my District, there is an organization that is actively reaching out to the community, both in treatment and services for AIDS sufferers and preventative education for the community. Steinway Child and Family Services, Inc., serves many areas in Queens that are devastated by high incidences of AIDS. The majority of these people are low-income minorities who have historically received little, if any, assistance due to low levels of funding. Steinway's CAPE program (Case Management, Advocacy, Prevention & Education) offers services to people who have contracted HIV, increases general public awareness of the methods of HIV transmission, and provides targeted outreach services to people considered ``at risk.'' Steinway's Scattered Site Housing program located dwellings in Queens for homeless persons with AIDS and their families. It is currently the largest program of its type in the country. I am proud that this Omnibus includes $50,000 in funding for Steinway's CAPE program. Another area addressed by the Omnibus is family planning within Title X programs. On October 26, I sent a letter to President Clinton, signed by 53 of my colleagues, expressing our support for Title X of the Public Health Service Act, the only federal program devoted solely to the provision of high quality contraceptive care to almost five million low-income Americans. Title X has had a tremendous impact over the years on reducing rates on unintended pregnancy and abortion as well as improving maternal and child health. Primary care services provided by clinics receiving Title X funds range from contraceptive supplies and services to breast and cervical cancer screening, to anemia testing and STD/HIV screening. I laud the Administration and the Republican leadership for appropriating $239 million to the Title X Family Planning program. This is a $24 million increase from last year. However, I must express my disappointment with the majority on adding a provision to the Commerce- Justice-State section of the Appropriations conference report, which allows physicians to refuse to ``prescribe'' contraceptives on the basis of moral or religious beliefs. This is in complete opposition to the provision passed by recorded vote in the FY 2000 Treasury Postal Appropriations that provides contraceptive coverage to federal employees covered by the Federal Employee Health benefits Plan. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to address the measure which would give hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies and other health care providers relief from cuts in Medicare payments that were enacted in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. This agreement provides an estimated $12.8 billion over five years in additional Medicare payments for hospitals, home health care agencies, managed care plans and other health care providers to help them restore the 5.7 percent cut in payments to hospital outpatient departments suffered as an unintended result of the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. Additionally, I am happy that the conference committee was able to remove the egregious provision in the House passed version that would have severely impacted New York City's teaching hospitals. Rather than take away much needed funds from teaching hospitals that are perceived as receiving a higher share of funds, the conference agreement reduces inflation adjustments for hospitals with high doctor training costs. This cut is less than the original Subcommittees bill, which in turn is less devastating to our hospitals. I urge Congress to revisit this issue in the next year. Finally, this Omnibus bill will also fund a number of key environmental priorities while at the same time deleting several of the anti-environmental amendments that would have been detrimental to the health and quality of life of my constituents in Queens and the Bronx. I salute the conferees for providing funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Although the Congress was unable to provide all of the resources requested by the White House, the approximately $470 million allocated for land acquisition, preservation and conservation is a solid first step. It is my hope that next year, we will be celebrating the passage of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) which will provide even more badly needed funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, urban parks and historic and wildlife preservation. These additional resources will greatly assist the people of my district. As the only New York member of the House Committee on Resources, I will continue my responsibility to the people of my state in fighting for key environmental projects like the LWCF. Further, I am pleased that the Urban and Community Forestry Program at the Department of Agriculture continues to receive stable funding under this measure. Over the last four years, the Urban and Community Forestry program (U&CF) has provided more than $1 million to contain and prevent further tree loss associated with Asian Longhorned Beetle outbreak in New York City. That includes providing specially trained smoke jumpers to assist city foresters in checking the tops of trees for beetle infestation where they are more difficult to detect. U&CF has also provided technical assistance to help city officials plant and care for trees that are resistant to the beetle to prevent future outbreaks. We've lost over 1400 trees in Queens alone from the Asian Longhorned Beetle, with more trees being infested. This is why the Urban and Community Forestry program is so important. It aims to provide increased green space and shade for our urban residents. Additionally, this bill does not include some of the more troublesome riders that were feared to be included in this Omnibus bill. Specifically, there are no restrictions on the ability of the State of New York or the Federal government to sue coal-fired power plants in the Midwest that fail to comply with major modifications provisions of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, I am pleased that an amendment I offered to the original Interior bill last summer pertaining to urban minorities and their ability to receive grants from the National Endowment for the Arts was included in this final budget bill. My amendment would include urban minorities among the traditionally ``underserved populations'' who are given priority for services from the National Endowment for the Arts or awarding the NEA's financial assistance for projects and workshops that serve these communities. My language specifies that ``underserved populations'' including African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and other minority communities that are located in urban areas should have equal access to Federal arts funding. This amendment will ensure that all Americans will have equal access to the arts and will fulfill the NEA's mission to guarantee that no person is left untouched by the arts. 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, bring communities together, and offer hope. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the positive funding increases outweigh the short amount of time and offsets of this Omnibus bill. Therefore, I support the measure and urge its passage by the House of Representatives.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was listening very closely to the comments of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning. I felt compelled to come down here again to once again, unfortunately, to those who watch C-SPAN on a regular basis, to give another history quiz, another history lesson. Mr. Speaker, who was it back in 1935 that created Social Security? The answer is a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. Only one Republican stood up and voted with the majority at that time to not recommit Social Security. A motion that would have destroyed and killed Social Security as we know it today. A gentleman by the name of Frank Crowther from my home State of New York stood up against the tide of his own party and said, ``No, I will not destroy Social Security.'' Mr. Speaker, Social Security was created because over 40 percent of the population at that time in our country were dying in poverty. They had nowhere else to go. They were dying in poverty. Social Security has enabled young families to save, send their kids to school, to college. It has meant the wealth to this country, and now we expect the Republican side of the aisle to save it? Give me a break.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, last March, seven former Secretaries of State from both parties, Republican and Democrat, wrote to Congress and told us that it was time for us to pay our debt to the United Nations. With time winding down before we adjourn, we still have not followed their good advice. For decades, the U.N. has played a key role in American international affairs and national security. But now by failing to pay our bill, we have strained our relationship with some of our closest allies. Our influence in the world and at the U.N. is being undermined and our ability to bring about critical U.N. reforms is being weakened as well. If we fail to pay by the end of the year, the U.S. will loose its vote in the U.N. General Assembly under the very rules that we helped to adopt. Our international obligations should not be held up by disputes over unrelated issues between the House and the President. Keeping our promises should be a priority and not a bargaining chip. Other countries look to our great Nation for leadership to set an example for the rest of the world. They should not look to us and see a nation that will not pay its bills because of unrelated issues.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the GOP leadership in Congress struggles to complete its appropriations work, now a full 40 days past the end of the fiscal year, I thought it fitting to examine their record of Social Security budget gimmicks this year. There simply are not enough apples in this city to demonstrate adequately what the Republican Party is doing here. They simply take apples from one basket and, before they put it in the other, they take a couple of bites out of it and then they turn the apple around so Americans cannot see what they have done to that apple. Recently the Republican majority in this chamber has gone around stating they are the only ones able to protect and strengthen Social Security. How come they elected their leader, a person who pledged, and I quote, ``to bite the bullet and phase Social Security out over a period of time.'' The fact is, Republicans have a history of voting against Social Security. In 1935, only one Republican, Frank Crowther of my own State of New York, had the courage to buck his party and vote against a Republican motion to recommit Title II to strike out old age and unemployment insurance provisions. It would have effectively killed Social Security as we know it today. Only one out of 96 Republicans had the courage to vote in favor of Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to continue to support the Social Security system as we know it today.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of the Young amendment and the Fiscal Year 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. I voted against this legislation when the House last considered it because it failed to fund the Wye Agreement and it failed to provide sufficient funding to promote America's foreign policy interests. Today, with the Young amendment, we see a much-improved Foreign Operations bill. By providing $1.8 billion to meet our commitment under the Wye Accord, the United States has re-committed itself to keeping the promise of Middle East Peace. Mr. Speaker, I am also grateful to the Appropriations Committee for including funding for UNFPA for up to $25 million, without the ``Smith Mexico City'' language. The current language in the bill is the Crowley/Campbell amendment which reduces, dollar for dollar, any funding provided by UNFPA in China. I continue to believe that this common sense compromise is the best way to address the issue of the UNFPA program in China without cutting off support for vital work being done by UNFPA. I am also pleased that this legislation contains $150 million for reconstruction efforts in Kosovo, funding for bi-lateral debt relief, and $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland. Additionally, this legislation contains provisions limiting new funds from being obligated for Indonesia and prohibits military equipment from being sold or leased to Indonesia for use against East Timor. Mr. Young and Mr. Callahan have worked hard to provide aid to Israel, Egypt and Jordan to continue the goal of peace in the Middle East. I am grateful to them for fulfilling this commitment. However, I am concerned about the lack of funding for counter-narcotics assistance for Colombia, as well as the continuation of the waiver for Azerbaijan to receive OPIC and TDA for another year. I firmly believe that Azerbaijan does not deserve U.S. support until it removes the blockade of Nagorno-Karabagh, which prevents vital humanitarian assistance from reaching this region. This is a good bill. I commend Mr. Young, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Obey and Ms. Pelosi for their hard work to balance our obligations to the world community with our shared goal of being fiscally responsible. While I would like to have seen more programs funded, including a multi-lateral debt relief package, I am satisfied with the legislation put forward today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for this evening's address. Few have done as much to express the frustration that we are feeling on this side of the aisle as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has so readily done on a weekly and daily basis here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage and my disappointment as a freshman Member of this House with the actions, or should I say, the inaction of this body. Mr. Speaker, we are more than two-thirds of the way through this session, and the Republican-led Congress has had no major accomplishments. This is despite the efforts from within their own party and by Democrats, working together, to pass meaningful HMO reform, school construction legislation, and even a minimum wage bill. Instead, the Republican leadership has been playing games with the budget, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country and their special interest friends, blocking meaningful attempts at gun safety legislation and taking money away from class size reduction and new teacher initiatives. As a freshman, I arrived last January prepared for action, and believed that with GOP promises of less partisanship that we could all work together to help the American people. Yet the last 10 months have been partisan and without any intelligible agenda. Instead, the special interests and their whims have dominated, leaving the American people out in the cold. Rather than passing a meaningful tax bill, complete with estate tax and marriage penalty changes and modest tax cuts, the Republican leadership pushed through a tax package that benefited only the wealthy and corporate special interests, almost $1 trillion to the wealthiest in this country. In fact, if you are not in the top 1 percent of wage earners, the tax cuts would not mean anything to you, or very, very little. Now, maybe all the constituents in Republican districts make that kind of money, but the working class people in districts like mine do not. Why not provide a family of four living in a place like New York City, a high cost place like New York City, in the Bronx, in Queens, in my district, earning $40,000 annually, some tax relief? What is wrong with that? Well, it is probably because they will not be contributing to the Republican leadership's political action committee this year, or next year. What about our Patients' Bill of Rights? We finally voted today on a motion to go to conference on the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. It has been 4 weeks since the House passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 275 to 151 the Norwood-Dingell bill. The Senate appointed conferees back on October 15, and yet it is only today, November 2, that the House GOP leadership is finally bringing up a motion to go to conference. As far as I can see, this delay strategy by the GOP leadership is their attempt to stop the momentum that was obtained by very strong bipartisan vote in favor of the Norwood-Dingell HMO reform bill. Mr. Speaker, why are we stopping what Members of your party want, what the American people overwhelmingly want? Why are we stopping it? We cannot even get on the runway or get off the charts a prescription drug bill to reduce the cost of prescription drugs to our senior population. Let me tell you a story that I heard recently. I received a letter from two constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Done and Gertrude Schwartz of Long Island City in Queens. He is 89 and she is 84 years of age. Recently he went to have a prescription filled for his wife. He bought 100 tablets of Prilosec, an extremely popular drug among our seniors. It cost him $394.89, $394 for 100 tablets of a vitally needed prescription. People are making life and death decisions as to whether they will pay the rent, buy needed groceries, or skip a day of taking a needed prescription drug, or simply not buying the prescription drug at all, and we are here in Congress doing nothing, as far as I can see, to help them. Then there is the budget debacle. We are 34 days into a new fiscal year, and still we do not have a budget. What is the Republican solution? To send the exact same D.C. appropriations bill that we have seen vetoed twice to the floor again today, without removing the riders that caused the vetoes in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense to me. The Republican leadership did not even bring to the floor the labor- HHS appropriations bill for a debate. They went straight to conference without any Democrats represented at all at any point in time. But, having said all I have said, it is education that is most troubling to me. We passed ED-FLEX, which impacts the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, before we even considered ESEA reauthorization. Then the Republican breakup of ESEA into pieces, passing the flawed Teacher Empowerment Act, and I want you to know this was not supported by one, not one teachers organization, we just passed a dramatically underfunded Title I bill. When crafting tax packages the Republican majority will not even consider adding school construction assistance, even though our deteriorating school infrastructure and classroom overcrowding is a national crisis. Then we have Social Security. Republicans say they want to save Social Security. Well, we will just go back to history a little bit here. Back in 1935, in the early thirties, nearly 40 percent of Americans were dying in poverty. It was a Democratic-led Congress and a Democratic President who signed into law the current Social Security system, this despite fierce opposition from the Republican Party. In fact, all but one Republican in the House voted for a motion to recommit Title II of the bill to conference, and would have thereby struck the Social Security Act and killed Social Security as we know it today, only one Republican in that entire conference. Now we are to expect that the Republicans are going to protect and save Social Security, something they never wanted in the first place. In fact, let me just show you some of the comments made by majority leader Dick Armey when he ran for Congress proposing to abolish the Social Security system. ``Ultra-conservative economics professor Dick Armey, who has based his campaign on his support for the abolishment of Social Security, the Federal minimum wage law, the corporate income tax and the Federal aid to education.'' That is from United Press International, October 31, 1984. Again we see Mr. Armey in 1984 said that Social Security was ``a bad retirement and a rotten trick on the American people.'' He continued, ``I think we are going to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out over a period of time.'' See, that is the Republican side of this issue. They never wanted it in the first place. I do not see how we can expect them to save it. Mr. Speaker, the American people do not want this. They do not want a partisan Congress living up to its do-nothing billing. I urge you to work with the President and the Democratic leadership to craft budget bills we can all support. I implore you to let the majority rule and move the bipartisan Norwood-Dingell bill on to the President unchanged. Finally, I want to invite you to come to my district and tell the students that are being taught in closets, in hallways, tell the children in kindergarten classes with 60 kids and two teachers, tell those children, going to school in buildings that are still burning coal, that they do not need to have school modernization provisions added to any tax bill. Now, I know there are very decent people on the Republican side of the aisle. I have had the pleasure to work with so many of them in this, my first term in Congress, and I can call many of them my friends. But I am not giving up on the rest of you either. But we need to work together. We need to end the partisanship and do what is right for the American people, and do what is right for the American people today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next year.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, all year the GOP Congress has employed gimmicks and distractions against the American people in their attempt to pass a nearly trillion dollar tax break for the wealthy and special interests in our country, a tax break soundly rejected by hard-working Americans. In the past few months, the GOP has dressed its trickle- down, wolf-like budget in sheep's clothing. They now claim to be protecting Social Security, even calling for across-the-board cuts to save the surplus, when their own CBO numbers show them dipping into the Social Security surplus by nearly $17 billion. Back in 1935, they voted to table Social Security. How can we expect them today to try to protect it? Now they are advocating a minimum wage bill, but upon further examination the minimum wage bill is loaded down with a tax relief for the wealthiest special interests in this country with only a 33-cent raise each year over the next 3 years for hard-working men and women in this country; a tax break for the wealthiest corporate CEOs in the history of the world and a measly 30 cents an hour raise for their workers. Mr. Speaker, this is just a back-door attempt, an attempt made in sheep's clothing, for the GOP leadership to give their best friends a tax break.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I rise in support of H.R. 3164, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House today is part of our constant battle to get a grip on the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States. This bill will give the President additional tools to combat international narcotics traffickers, to freeze their assets in the U.S., to prohibit them from conducting business in the U.S., and exclude them from entering this country. Given the negative impact of illegal drug use on our citizens, this legislation could not come at a more appropriate time. Illegal drug use is destroying our children and ruining lives, making our streets unsafe, and contributing to the substantial growth of the U.S. prison population. Illegal drug use in the U.S. has also generated huge profits for international drug cartels. These cartels then use that money to branch out into other areas of international crime and to destabilize foreign governments that seek to crack down on illegal drug production. In short, the U.S. must continue to move aggressively to crack down on the international narcotics kingpins which keep the drugs flowing into the U.S. The bill before us today will help the President wage that war. The legislation requires the Secretaries of Treasury, Defense, and State, the Attorney General, and the CIA Director to provide a list to the President of significant foreign narcotics traffickers. The President would then be required to impose sanctions against narcotics traffickers on the list and others that lend them material support, including freezing the traffickers' assets in the U.S., blocking transactions between U.S. citizens and the drug traffickers, and prohibiting the traffickers from receiving visas to come to our country. It would also provide the President with a national security interest waiver, as well as the ability to provide information to Congress in a classified format to protect intelligence and law enforcement information. The administration supports this legislation, in part because it is based on a similar initiative launched by President Clinton against Colombian narcotics traffickers. In October of 1995, President Clinton issued an executive order which targeted and applied sanctions to four international narcotics traffickers and organizations that operate out of Colombia. The bill before us today will expand that initiative to other countries, as well. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3164, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, I am, Madam Speaker.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)