Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Dennis A. Lusardi who will receive the Four Freedoms Award on Friday, November 5, 2004. This prestigious award is given by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute to exceptional men and women who, in their work and life, are committed to the 4 principles outlined by President Roosevelt in 1941. These principles are the freedoms of speech and expression, worship, and the freedom from both want and fear. I know that Dennis embodies these pillars in his work with the labor movement. As a dedicated worker, he has served the labor community and union members for over 40 years. He was born in Yonkers and graduated from Christopher Columbus High School and then attended Westchester Community College. I admire his entrance into the workforce in 1958 as an apprentice in the esteemed Ironworkers' Union. My father was an Ironworker, and I have great respect for trade unions, their values, and the work that they do. Dennis immediately showed that he was a dedicated and passionate advocate for improvements to his union. He took his first leadership role in the 1970s when he was appointed to the Pension Fund, and has proven his devotion by continuing his service as Chairman still today. He continued his impassioned work in 1981 when he became a Delegate to the International Convention. In 1989 Dennis also became the Financial Secretary Treasurer, and since then he has held his position by acclamation from those he serves. Dennis' expertise and experience have truly benefited the labor movement, the community, and those who know and love him. He also lends his services and experiences as the Ironworkers' Union's Business Manager. He is as committed to advocating on behalf of his fellow workers today as the day he began his career. I am delighted to say that he continues this exceptional service as the Vice President of Westchester Building Trades, the Treasurer for the Ironworkers District Counsel of New York, and is also representative for the Ironworkers District Counsel Pension Plan. He exemplifies the hardworking ideals of his union and this country, and truly deserves this great honor. In addition to the incredible and significant work on behalf of organized labor, Dennis is also a proud father of two, and has three wonderful grandchildren. It is my privilege today to speak in the House of Representatives in honor of Mr. Dennis A. Lusardi.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, why are we standing here today, wasting taxpayer dollars in an attempt to, for the first time in our history, amend our Constitution to deny a specific group equal rights? Why do we not leave it to the States, as our Constitution provides? Frankly, I fail to understand why gay marriage threatens my wife's and my 24 years of marriage, or anybody else's marriage, or why it would undermine the Republic. Gay and lesbian Americans want their secular government to legally recognize their committed relationships. They want their secular government to provide equal benefits in tax law, access to health care, Social Security, and death benefits. They want the same benefits as other Americans. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are being disingenuous by saying they simply only want to define the institution of marriage. If that is their only motive, then why do they also oppose domestic partnerships and civil unions, which would give gays and lesbians the same rights as other Americans? Why are we even dealing with this now? The Senate has defeated it. Could it be an attempt to divert attention from the failings of the Congress to do its work on appropriations and transportation; to divert attention from the war in Iraq, from a poor economy or from skyrocketing deficits; to force a blatantly political vote in this House; to whip up a frenzy in a specific group of voters one month before an election? Let us stop playing political games. Vote down this amendment. We should not be dealing with something that is best being left to the States.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and distinguished colleague for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of the resolution. Being a New Yorker, no one feels the pain of September 11 more than we do. I happen to have been in New York on that fateful day, and my life will never be the same, and I know the life of so many millions of Americans will never be the same. I think this is a time for Congress to come together and to commemorate the struggle, to talk about September 11, to talk about what it means in all of our lives and to really bring the country together. September 11 was an incident that will forever remain in our lives. For me, it showed that the war on terrorism is a war that needs the participation of all Americans. It does not matter whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent, or black or white or brown, or from the North or the South or the East or the West. We are all Americans, and this is quite appropriate for Congress to come together. There may be people who may disagree on a sentence or two here and there in this resolution, but basically I believe that we all ought to stick together and talk about September 11 and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks. I just want to say as a New Yorker, every time I look at Manhattan, it even chokes me up to begin to talk about it and look at the skyline of New York and see that the Twin Towers are no longer there. It leaves a hole in my heart, and that, of course, only pales by the fact that 3,000 people lost their lives, and countless others were injured. We can see based on what is happening in Russia and every other place, in Israel and every other place in the world, that terrorism is everybody's fight. It is our fight as Americans. It is the fight of all decent people. We have to stand together. I rise in strong support of this resolution and ask my colleagues to vote for it so that we as a Congress can be united in the fight against terror.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4618. Mr. Lombardi was a dedicated postal employee, and exemplary New Yorker, and it is my honor to dedicate the U.S. Post Office of Nanuet, New York, in the name of the late Anthony Lombardi, retired Army Sergeant, 4th Infantry. Anthony Lombardi, known to those close to him as ``Tony,'' grew up in St. Agatha's Orphanage in Nanuet. When Tony enlisted in the Army, the United States was embroiled in the European battles of World War II. Tony served in the ground force that stormed Normandy in 1944 and was later awarded the first of his two Bronze Stars for his part in the battle's success. Sixteen days after D-Day, Tony volunteered for a mission in the hills of a German stronghold near Bretteville, France, where he delivered food, ammunition, and water under hostile conditions to the needy frontline troops. During the difficult Battle of Hurtgen Forest, Tony's company commander was wounded by enemy fire. Tony came to his commander's aid and brought him to safety. Tony Lombardi could easily be honored on his military record alone but few in Nanuet had any knowledge that he even served in the war until after his death in 1987. His work in the community made Tony a household name in Nanuet. He dedicated much of his time to teaching Sunday school at St. Joseph's of Spring Valley. In 1978, the students of Nanuet High School honored him for his dedication to the school and its pupils in his efforts as head night custodian for over 22 years. Tony Lombardi is loved and remembered most in Nanuet as a friendly and caring mailman. During his 30-year career, Lombardi estimated that he had walked over 100,000 miles delivering mail. He always greeted everyone with a smile, a handshake and a hug and left a life-long impression on all those who came in contact with him. The Nanuet Post Office will serve as daily reminder to the community of Mr. Lombardi's contributions to Nanuet.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to this sham. What a shame it is when we have 41 million Americans without health insurance, more than 2 million jobs lost, an additional $2 trillion in debt, that the leadership of this Congress chooses to try again to divert attention to a divisive issue. Having failed to even muster 50 votes in the other body to place in the Constitution language setting one group of Americans aside as second class citizens, this leadership now turns its attention to a full assault on the Constitution itself. If they cannot amend the Constitution, then attack the balance of power. I keep hearing that activist judges should not change State laws. Five activist judges denied all the voters of Florida the right to have their votes counted, but this bill is far more cynical. The other side knows it will be thrown out by the Supreme Court. That means they can keep this issue alive for years and years. Stop this assault. Vote no on H.R. 3313.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2443. I want to thank the chairmen and ranking members for all their hard work. The Coast Guard is an integral part of our Nation's homeland security efforts. I want to mention that I am a strong supporter of the Deepwater program that is replacing a number of aging vessels with new, high tech ships that I have no doubt will serve the Coast Guard and the American people very well. Most of all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Transportation Committee for retaining and broadening language regarding security assessments at nuclear facilities. When the House debated its version of this bill, I offered and the chairs and ranking members generously accepted, an amendment to study the vulnerability of the Indian Point Nuclear power plant in Westchester County New York. I am very pleased that during negotiations with the Senate on the final bill, this version was expanded to include all nuclear facilities that are adjacent to navigable waters. We have a responsibility to ensure that our Nation is safe. We know that Al Qaeda has plans for our nuclear facilities. This assessment will help us in Congress and the Administration to better plan for protecting and preventing an attack that may be attempted. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sandra Feldman as she retires from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and thank her for her valuable contributions to education and dedication to the teaching profession. As a former New York City school teacher and member of the United Federation of Teachers myself, I can personally attest to her strength of conviction and determination. Having known her for many years, it is also a great privilege to count her a personal friend. Throughout her career, Sandra Feldman became known as an authority on urban education and an advocate for children. No stranger to activism, she began her advocacy work during the 1960s civil rights movement. A former public school student herself, she then taught in one of New York City's public elementary schools. I had the privilege of working with Sandra Feldman when she was President of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, the largest union local in the United States. She later took over as President of the American Federation of Teachers in 1997, leading its more than 1 million members. Throughout her career, U.S. presidents, governors and mayors have appointed her to numerous commissions and task forces tackling educational, economic and child-welfare, labor and social issues. However, Sandra Feldman's interests went beyond the field of education; she serves as a board member or activist in many community and civic organizations. A dedicated activist, educator and leader, I thank Sandra Feldman for her work throughout her career and sincerely congratulate her on her retirement as president of the AFT.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations discredits itself once again, unfortunately, by having one set of rules for Israel and one set of rules for everyone else; and here is but another example of that kind of hypocrisy that unfortunately has permeated the United Nations. We will soon be talking about a ruling by an international court; and when I spoke about that ruling several days ago on the House floor, I said that one set of rules for Israel at the U.N. and one set of rules for everyone else does not help anybody, but just helps to discredit the United Nations. Now, there are 191 members of the United Nations, as my friend from California has pointed out, and only one of them is given third-class status. Israel has been a member of the United Nations since the founding of the Jewish state in 1948, and yet it has never been allowed to serve on the Security Council of the United Nations, where you have one undemocratic despotic nation after another serving on the Security Council, sitting on the Human Rights Commission, but not democratic Israel. So what this resolution does is it simply expresses the sense of the House of Representatives in support of full membership of Israel in the Western European and Others Group at the United Nations. As was pointed out, this will enable Israel to serve in all bodies of the United Nations, to have a vote in all bodies of the United Nations, and to serve on the Security Council if it is elected. If the United Nations is to be an effective group, then all nations must be treated equally; and democratic nations such as the state of Israel cannot be allowed to continue as third-status nations in the U.N. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for the wonderful work that he has done on this resolution and indeed the wonderful work he does on our Committee on International Relations. I spoke on the floor last Friday after the so-called International Court of Justice rendered its decision. I said at the time that they should rename themselves the International Court of Injustice because their decision is truly a travesty of justice. What hypocrisy. What a double standard. Again, one standard for Israel and one standard for everybody else. As the gentlewoman from Nevada pointed out, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and India have built fences. Not a peep from the international community or the court of justice about those fences. Israel has built a fence to defend its citizens. This decision from the International Court of Justice comes down. Not a word about suicide bombings. Not a word about terrorism. Not a word about a nation defending its right to exist and defending its citizens. What is a nation supposed to do? What is more important to be a nation than to defend the rights of its citizens, the killing of innocent civilians that Palestinian terror has done? A nation has a right to defend itself, and that is why I support Israel's security fence. I have been there. I have seen the fence firsthand. It stops terrorism. It works. And it not only works for Israelis by preventing terrorism, it is working for the Palestinians. Because of the fence, on the Palestinian side life is getting back to normal. The checkpoints are going away. So it is benefiting both sides. They talk about Israel building the fence. Do my colleagues know who built that fence? Yasser Arafat built that fence. Palestinian terrorists built that fence. If terrorism would end, there would be no need for a fence. And yet the hypocrisy of the International Court of ``Injustice'' condemning Israel for trying to defend its citizens. I again strongly commend the gentleman from Indiana and urge all my colleagues here to support this very important resolution. Terrorism is terrorism, and security is security. Israel should not be treated differently than any other nation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. We look at Taiwan today and, as the gentleman from California pointed out before, it is a success story. Taiwan is a democracy. Taiwan has an economy that is the 16th largest in the world. I come from the premise that we should be supportive of countries that are supportive of us, and Taiwan has been a good friend of the United States and has shown that it is a true democracy. I had the honor of meeting with President Chen in New York several months ago, and I have always been a great admirer of a country that took a system that was autocratic and undemocratic and transformed it into a very democratic country. Now the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 was crafted very delicately because, yes, we do have a one China policy, but we do not want to abandon our friends in Taiwan. Therefore, I believe it is the responsibility of our country to ensure that the people of Taiwan have the capability not to be overrun by anyone else and to have the capability to defend themselves. Now, in the resolution, it says that the Department of Defense report, our Department of Defense report entitled Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China dated July 30, 2003, documents, and I am reading, that the government of the People's Republic of China is seeking coercive military options to resolve the Taiwan issue and, as of the date of the report, has deployed approximately 450 short-range ballistic missiles against Taiwan and is adding 75 missiles per year to this arsenal; whereas the Taiwan Relations Act requires the U.S. to maintain the capacity to resist any force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan. This is what the Taiwan Relations Act commits us to do. It is what we should do. It is right. It is proper. We stand with the people of Taiwan and their democratic ways, and I am proud to be a part of reaffirming the unwavering commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act by the United States Congress.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today the so-called International Court of Justice, which I think would be better named the ``International Court of Injustice,'' ruled against Israel putting up a security fence, which she put up in order to protect her people against suicide bombers. No condemnation from the ``International Court of Injustice'' about suicide bombers and the killing of innocent civilians and the terror campaign that has been waged against Israel by the Palestinians for the past 3 years. No talk about the children, the schoolchildren who have been blown up as they go to school on buses, or the pregnant women that have been killed because of Palestinian terror. But only, once again, a ruling condemning the State of Israel. I do not think that any Nation, having the need to protect its citizens, would act any differently than the State of Israel in putting up this fence to keep suicide bombers out. It is hypocrisy for the International Court of Justice, it is hypocrisy for the United Nations, the hypocrisy of these countries that would have one standard for the State of Israel and one standard for every other country. Other nations have fences, yet we hear no condemnation towards those countries from the International Court of Justice. India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey all have fences to deal with insurgencies or terrorism, but yet the very countries that condemn Israel for the same thing, we hear nary a peep from them about other countries. The International Court of Justice should not have even heard this case. But, again, of course, they have one separate standard for the State of Israel and one separate standard for every other country. Today's decision by the International Court of Justice is in itself a travesty of justice. The Israeli security barrier is not only protecting innocent Israeli civilians from terrorism; it is allowing Palestinians to achieve a greater degree of normalcy as Israeli checkpoints have been removed and terrorists are less able to pass through Palestinian communities. The Prime Minister of Israel's disengagement plan endorsed by our country, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia was based in large part on steps by Israel to achieve greater security, including the establishment of this temporary security fence. As soon as Palestinian terrorism ends, there will no longer be a need for this antiterrorism banner. The ruling of the ICJ sets back the Middle East peace process by undermining the disengagement plan and the road map. The Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that the security barrier is a legitimate and legal tool to prevent terror, but that there must be a balance between security and the impact on Palestinian communities. I cannot comprehend why an international tribunal has taken up and now reached a decision on a case which had already been competently handled by a national court. Now, this decision is merely advisory. I call upon the members of the United Nations General Assembly to correct this mistake by not taking up a resolution to implement the recommendations of the International Court of Justice. If they do, the United Nations will once again show that it is not functioning the way it was intended; that instead of being an impartial group, it is leaning heavily on one side, and as Abba Eban, the late Foreign Minister of Israel, used to say, you could have a resolution at the United Nations saying that the Earth is flat, and if it were put forward by an Arab country, it would automatically get 70 or more votes. The fence that Israel has put up is a fence that any nation would put up to defend its people and keep terrorism away. Just as we in the United States are doing everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack on our country, Israel has every right to do the same thing to prevent terrorist attacks on its country. Terrorism is a terrible tool that some think can be used as a negotiating tool. We must stomp out this scourge of terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head. I commend Israel for the security barrier, and I condemn the ``International Court of Injustice'' for once again showing that they are nothing more than a travesty of justice.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment. I voted for the PATRIOT Act, I voted for all the appropriations for the war against terror, I voted for all the intelligence appropriations, and will continue to do so. But I think we have to be careful. We have to carefully balance the war against terror with our personal freedoms. With the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI gained the unprecedented power to search libraries and book-buying records without probable cause of any crime or intent to commit a crime. Furthermore, librarians and others who are required to turn over records are barred from informing anyone that the search has occurred or that records were given to the government. This means that average Americans could have their privacy violated wholesale without justification or proper judicial oversight. This amendment will not limit the ability of the FBI and the Department of Justice to fight terrorism. This amendment will ensure that library or bookstore records relating to an American who is not the subject of an investigation will not wind up in the government's hands without the benefit or protection of the courts.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Obey resolution. Mr. Speaker, I feel like this is Alice in Wonderland. In 3 years, at the end of the Clinton administration, we had the largest surpluses in American history, and now, after 3 years under Republican rule, both the presidency and the House and the Senate, we have the largest deficits in American history. The Republicans used to call themselves fiscal conservatives. They cannot say that anymore. What has happened to the heart and soul of the Republican Party? We are having an orgy of tax cuts and we are leaving a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren. It is unconscionable. Every day people come into my office and need more money for desperately needed programs. Veterans are pleading; they need more money for health care. The Republicans say no. People who have kids in schools want more money for No Child Left Behind in education. Republicans say no. In health care, we want a prescription drug bill, seniors tell me, that will really help seniors; not the phony one passed by the House. Republicans say no. So what Democrats are trying to say is that in programs that we desperately need, homeland security, first responders for police and firemen, putting homeland security dollars for trains and things where people know we need it, Republicans say no. And what is the Republicans' proposal? To give great tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. The Obey proposal would simply say, if your adjusted income is $1 million or more, you ought to give back a little bit of those tax breaks to help us with priorities in this country. The borrow-and-spend Republicans say no. The Obey proposal ought to be voted on. It ought to set priorities for our country. Let us help our veterans. Let us help our kids. Let us help our seniors. Support the Obey proposal.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. All one has to do is look at today's newspapers, look at what the 9/ 11 Commission has found, and we can clearly see that al Qaeda is looking to strike where they can make the worst hit and that is in the urban areas. I do not mean to denigrate the good work that has been done on this bill. There are a lot of people who have done a lot of good work, and it is very, very hard, and the point has been made that we are not funding homeland security to the extent that we should. But the American people know the difference between what is necessary and where the threat is, and the difference between that and pork, and quite frankly, we should not be using this bill to spread the wealth around, this pork, so each of us can go back to our districts and say we produced a little bit for our constituents. We should put the money where the threat is. I really have to vehemently disagree with the idea that States with virtually no threat of a terrorist attack are getting as much as $20 more per capita than New York gets. That is illogical, it is unfair and it makes no sense whatsoever. I rise in strong support of this amendment. This allocates more money for the Urban Security Initiative which would send more preparedness dollars to high threat areas. It makes sense. Doing so would better prepare first responders where terrorists are most likely to attack. Our colleagues have mentioned that we know that the terrorists want the biggest bang. We know that New York City and Washington have already been hit. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this is where the biggest threat is. New York obviously has taken the brunt of terrorist attacks, yet we get shortchanged on preparedness dollars while States that have little or no risk are raking in millions. Again, that does not seem fair, and it does not seem right. Hundreds of New York's fire fighters and police officers died responding to the World Trade Center attacks. The September 11 Commission has highlighted a number of areas where New York's first responders needed more resources to respond to a large scale attack that occurred. We can rectify the problems that our heroic fire fighters and police experienced on September 11 if we have the proper resources. Currently, our first responders are underfunded and overworked, as New York continues to remain in a heightened state. New York remains a prime target, and scarce resources are being diverted to areas that are not really at risk of terrorist attack. We owe it to our firemen and police in New York who will be tasked with responding to a future attack, we owe it to them and the residents of New York to do all we can to prevent and prepare if another 9/11 should happen again. Now, I understand that all of our colleagues must return home and talk to their constituents about homeland security. I certainly understand that every American is just a little on edge. I understand because when I go home and talk to my constituents they fear that although many terrorist plots have been thwarted over the years, one may eventually be successful, but I want to once again repeat, we are not talking about hypothetical threats in New York. The threat is very real. So I am asking my colleagues to step back. Please do not make this about funneling money into your State. As we all mentioned before, we are all Americans but not all of us have had our local economies destroyed, our cities bombed and our neighbors murdered. I am asking my colleagues to put the money where it is needed most but also where it would do the most good. We are an institution representing the entire Nation. We are in charge of making tough decisions about how best to use our scarce Federal tax dollars. Putting more money into the high threat account should not be one of the tough decisions. It is the logical one. It is the right one, and I want to repeat, it makes no sense that States with virtually no threat of a terrorist attack are getting as much as $20 per person more than New York gets. So I strongly support the Sweeney amendment. Again, it is fair, it is right. We are one Nation. We need to put the money where the threat is. Please support the amendment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I would certainly agree that we are fiddling while Rome is burning. While our people in our districts are disgusted with the high gasoline prices, while our people in our districts understand that they need help from Congress to make ends meet, we are instead not passing an energy bill that would bring down gas prices, not passing an energy bill that would help the average person in all of our districts, but passing an energy bill that helps the big companies, the big industries, that says to polluters, we will take you off the hook, you do not even have to pay for the mess you have created; we are going to pay for it. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say that we do not have enough money in government to pay for programs. Yet this bill contains obscene giveaways to those people that are doing the worst things when it comes to energy, the worst pollution. This is not a very good bill. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle say they oppose cloning when it comes to living organisms, but it is obvious that they fully support cloning legislative proposals, and as if fulfilling our greatest fears, the Energy Policy Act before us today is a clone of a monstrous bill that the House dealt with months ago. Just like last time, the bill contains an ethanol mandate that hurts New Yorkers, my State, by forcing up gas prices, just to provide subsidies to multibillion dollar corporations like Archer Daniels Midland. Just like last time, it would open up our own public lands for huge corporations to drill and destroy. Just like last time, this act emphasizes drilling over conservation. Whatever happened to conservation? It does nothing to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil or protect consumers from skyrocketing gas prices. Just like last time, it ignores that there is great bipartisan support for the desperately needed electric reliability provision. We should be passing just that section and getting it to the President's desk. He would sign it, and we would be accomplishing something. Just like last time, the House majority leadership is ignoring that there is bipartisan opposition to this bill in its present form. Mr. Speaker, let us drop the ethanol provision and the MTBE provision and the drilling provision. Let us concentrate on conservation and electric reliability. Let us have a bill that is a center, not a bill that is extreme, that cannot pass, that cannot be signed into law. Let us start doing the work that needs to be done. Let us bring gas prices down. Let us get a bill that the American people can stand up and say, when the gas prices went up, Congress really did something to help us, not to help the big companies that pollute, not to continue our dependence on foreign oil, not to just pass a bill that was passed before, that we know has virtually no chance of being signed. Let us pass a commonsense bill. Defeat this bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, along with all of my colleagues here today, I rise to honor President Ronald Reagan. I was first elected to Congress in 1988, on the same day that President George H.W. Bush was elected. Because Members of Congress officially take office on January 3, while a new President does not take office until January 20, my first 17 days as a Congressman were during the last 17 days Ronald Reagan served as President. So when people ask me who was the President when I first came to Washington, I reply that it was Ronald Reagan. I had the opportunity to see Ronald Reagan in person only one time, with his wife Nancy, during the inauguration of President George H.W. Bush. I remember thinking that together they had a larger than life presence. Although I differed with Ronald Reagan a great deal on domestic policy, I nevertheless admired him for the strong leader that he was. He had an affable manner that allowed him to interact well with people who both supported and opposed his policies. He was a strong leader who had a lot of charm, strength and enthusiasm. The gulf between the Republican and Democratic policies can sometimes seem vast. But the bridge that spans that gulf is our common heritage as Americans and belief in this great nation. Ronald Reagan had the gift to make that bridge seem very small. I am pleased to honor him today.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the adage if you want something done ask a busy person to do it was never more true than in the case of David Sable. For more than 20 years he has been busy in marketing communications, becoming vice chair and president of Wunderman's worldwide operations. But there is another side of Mr. Sable, one which led the Riverdale Jewish Center to honor him at their 50th anniversary celebration, a decision they said wasn't particularly difficult. He was raised in Riverdale from early childhood, the son of the founding Rabbi of the Riverdale Jewish Center. He has served the RJC with extraordinary tenure as President and is currently the Chair of the Board of Trustees. He is, in their words, understanding of the RJC past, an integral part of its present, and a source of confidence for its future. He also has served his community in a larger sense, as a member of New York City's Cultural Advisory Committee and a member of the steering committee for the Mail Industry Task Force of the United States Post Office. His love for Israel is well known. With the breakout of the Yom Kippur war, he joined the Israeli Defense Force as a combat medic. He is a member of the Board of the Tzfat Foundation. He has also served the RJC as Youth Director and Vice President. A celebration of the Riverdale Jewish Center without David Sable would not be a true celebration. I congratulate him and the RJC for all the good work both have accomplished in Riverdale and beyond.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Robert Rivers is a man of many parts who has served his community, city and country. Bobby, as he is most familiarly known, was born in Harlem and after high school joined the Air Force, serving four years and being honorably discharged. He returned home to his family and met Hazel Pazant, who became his wife. Fortunately for the Bronx they moved here and started to raise their family of four children. Bobby became a police officer in the New York City Police Department in 1969. While a police officer, he attended and graduated Fordham University with a degree in Sociology. Also during his years on the force, he settled in the northeast Bronx and he joined his local block association, the Seton Falls Neighborhood Association, one of the many organizations helping his community that he joined. He also joined the Guardians Association, a police organization, eventually becoming its president. He retired from the Police Department in 1997 as a Detective but remains active with the National Black Police Association. He has engaged in many civic activities in his community, including the fight to save Seton Falls Park from becoming a landfill, and joined the 47th Precinct Review Committee, monitoring the activities of the police in the community. He is also a member of the NAACP, serving on several committees in that organization, and is chair of the Legal Redress Committee. He also serves as Chair of the Thurgood Marshall Independent Democratic Club. Bobby Rivers is a tireless activist for his community, willing and able to participate in any and every activity that will help his community and improve life there. I congratulate him for his great work and wish him every continued success.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, what has happened to the heart and soul of the Republican Party? I used to have a lot of respect for my friends on the other side of the aisle when they called themselves fiscal conservatives. The Republicans can never again call themselves fiscal conservatives. The American people are not foolish. Each person, each household in America understands that in a budget you only spend as much as you have. If you keep overspending year after year, if you spend more money than you take in time and time again, bad things happen; and that is what is happening here. We are having an orgy of tax cuts, and we have an unbalanced budget, and we are passing on a legacy of debt to our children and our grandchildren. Shame on us. We fought long and hard in this Chamber to balance the budget during the Clinton Presidency. We succeeded by making hard choices. Yet today we are presented with an easy choice, borrow and spend. The borrow-and- spend Republicans have hit once again. Shame on the majority for this sham budget. When the House debated the budget resolution earlier this year, I rose in opposition to it because it is a big fat IOU to our children and grandchildren. It is unfair. Shame on the majority for abandoning PAYGO for spending and tax cuts. We should vote down this quick and easy fix. Let us make the hard choices that we were elected to make. Let us pass a budget that balances soon, not one that never balances, and not a phony one that is only 1 year because we want to masquerade the sham that we are causing.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today regarding my grave concerns about funding for our Nation's police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. This week is National Police Week--a time we set aside to remember and honor the brave men and women protecting our streets and communities. I would like to note that the names of nine New York police officers who are being added to National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial at a candlelight vigil on Thursday, May 13, 2004. These police officers fell as far back as 1906 and as recently as last year. They are: 1. Rodney J. Andrews, Detective, New York City, New York. 2. Michael F. Brophy, Sergeant, City of Utica, New York. 3. James Ivan Broughton, Police Officer, Middletown, New York. 4. Jeffry Todd Edelson, Sergeant, New York State Police. 5. Neil A. Forster, Police Officer, New York City, New York. 6. James Verneuil Nemorin, Detective, New York City, New York. 7. Fred Preston, Police Officer, Patchogue, New York. 8. Glenn Matthew Searles, Deputy Sheriff, Onondaga County, New York. 9. George A. Stillwell, Deputy Sheriff, Suffolk County, New York. We here in Congress do many things to honor our police officers. Just this term, I authored legislation to name a Post Office in my district for Edward O'Grady, Waverly Brown and Peter Paige. Twenty- three years ago an armed gang attempted to rob a Brinks Armored Truck in the middle of the day at a crowded mall and these three brave souls fell in the line of duty. But, Congress has another important job to do when honoring our ``finest.'' We have a responsibility to provide funding to help our police--and in fact all first responders--do their jobs. The President shares this responsibility. Yet, his budget for fiscal year 2005 is woefully inadequate. A few simple figures: Provides only $97 million for COPS, a $659 million cut below the 2004 enacted level--and in FY04 COPS was funded at $748 million; Totally eliminates the Byrne formula and discretionary grants, yet in FY04 formula grants were funded at $495 million and discretionary grants were funded at $208 million; and Also it eliminates Local Law Enforcement Block Grant grants, which were funded at $223 million in FY04. As a New Yorker who was watching from my home in the Bronx on September 11--watching as the greatest attack on U.S. civilians was ever undertaken--I am greatly disappointed by the President's poor request. As a New Yorker who watched the greatest act of heroism I can remember--hundreds of firefighters and police officers running into the World Trade Center as they burned, I am saddened by the President' weak request. As a New Yorker who watched in abject horror as the towers fell, killing thousands, including hundreds of firefighters and police, I am angered by the President's insufficient request. Later, I learned that a police helicopter was circling the Trade Center site and could tell the second tower would soon fall. Yet, the police could not warn the firefighters inside because they used a different radio system. I pledged to myself and my constituents that I would do everything I could to make sure this never happened again. Thus, I joined my colleagues, Mr. Fossella and Mr. Stupak, in authoring legislation to provide funding to our states and localities to purchase interoperable radio equipment. H.R. 3370, the Public Safety Interoperability Implementation Act would use proceeds from spectrum auctions to help our police and firefighters and EMS personnel. I urge my other colleagues to join us in this effort. I also urge my colleagues to join me and the other speakers here tonight in fighting for the funding needed to make our districts safer.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. I am proud to serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and when we marked up this bill last week, I was very happy to speak in favor of it. I represent a district covering Rockland, Westchester and Bronx counties, all of which are part of the 9 million people that this water is so important for. I am aware that many of my colleagues are unhappy that we are only reauthorizing a very small provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I agree with their unhappiness, and I hope that the committee and subcommittee and the full House can reauthorize the rest of the Safe Drinking Water Act; but I would say to my colleagues, please do not hold New York hostage. All 29 Members of the House representing New York, both Democrats and Republicans, strongly support this bill. I am certainly happy to take care of New York, but my State benefits from the State revolving loan fund as well. So I want to say that the safe drinking water programs are all important and should be reauthorized, and I hope they will be. This bill is very important to New York. Millions of people rely on drinking water from this watershed, and ensuring that they have safe and clean water is very important to me and my constituents. This is obviously not a perfect bill, but it is an important water quality monitoring program. It is a model program for the rest of the Nation, and I would hope this could be replicated with the rest of the Nation. So, again, I thank my colleagues for coming together. We want to have safe and clean drinking water in New York. When our Republican colleagues come to New York in August and September for the convention, we want their water to be pure, and I think Democrats and Republicans can all agree on that. So, again, I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me; and I, too, rise in strong support of the alternative minimum tax reform. In fact, I would go so far as to say, if there was one tax that should be permanently reformed, it would be this one. First of all, as everyone has mentioned, many middle-income people find themselves caught with this tax. They have plenty of deductions, but they are not allowed to deduct it because they have met the threshold, and it certainly is regressive and should be changed. In 1969, the tax was put into effect. It has not been modified since it makes no sense whatsoever not to have it indexed to inflation; and again, if there was any tax reform that ought to be made permanent, it should be this tax. We have heard about other taxes. The estate tax is one with which I do not agree that that tax should be permanently repealed. The estate tax repeal would only benefit the very, very high-income people, and I think they should pay their fair share; but this alternative minimum tax really hits a lot of working people, a lot of middle-class people and is really grossly unfair. If a person lives in a high-tax State, as was mentioned by my friends from New York and Connecticut, it even hurts and hits them even more so. This tax, as it is currently written, makes no sense at all. I would hope that after this 1-year extension we could put our heads together and come back with something that makes sense, a permanent reform. While this bill is a step in the right direction many middle class families that are hurt by the AMT, will not be helped by this and will only be helped by a total re-write of the AMT and a permanent reform. I think on this side of the aisle the point had been made that the Committee Ways and Means, which is the tax-writing committee, ought to have hearings. And after we can finally put together a plan that would reform the AMT permanently for good. Right now, I will take this quick fix, but we ought to build on to it. We should permanently reform the AMT. It makes no sense whatsoever to keep doing short-term extensions on tax policy that hurts a lot of hardworking families.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of this Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom HaShoah, to remember both the best and the worst of humanity. Six million Jews and millions of others were rounded up, tortured, and murdered, by the Nazis 6 decades ago. The martyrs of these indescribably vicious and inhumane deeds will never be forgotten, neither their deaths nor the principles for which they stood. We remember those who were too weak to defend themselves, who were brutally slaughtered in death camps. We remember those like Anne Frank who battled to preserve their humanity in their own unique way. We remember those who fought back, like the brave men and women who rose up against the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto 60 years ago. Yet, nearly 6 decades after the Holocaust concluded, Anti-Semitism still exists as the scourge of the world. The Anti-Defamation League has found that in 2003 more than 1500 Anti-Semitic incidents occurred in the United States alone. Holocaust museums were the victims of arson and community centers defaced with swastikas. Tombs of Jews around the world, from Argentina to France, have been damaged and disgraced. For years we have spoken about this unacceptable situation, but we must reinforce our words with actions. As George Washington wrote in a letter to the Jewish Community of Newport, Rhode Island 204 years ago, the Government of the United States must always give ``to bigotry no sanction.'' As it did 60 years ago, the best of humanity must not stand silent but respond. Too small is our world to allow discrimination, bigotry and intolerance to thrive in any corner of it, let alone in the United States of America. Let this day of memorial strengthen our resolve to ensure that tolerance and coexistence will never be defeated by those who wish us harm.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, several months ago now the President signed the Syria Accountability Act, which was passed overwhelmingly by this House and the other body. Since that time, however, the act has not been implemented; and I believe, as do the vast majority of Members in this House and the other body believe, that the time is now to slap sanctions on Syria. Just the other day, the word came out from Iraq that Syria was allowing weaponry to come from Syrian territory into Iraq and guerrillas to come from Syrian territory into Iraq to do harm to American troops. Syria has not patrolled its border and has allowed these anti-U.S. guerrillas to come in and kill our troops. Also, the other day in Jordan a plot was discovered where poison gas was to have been released and there was to be an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan. It was documented that this gas and these attacks came from Syria across the border into Jordan. Syria is a major sponsor of terrorism. Syria illegally continues to occupy Lebanon, has a weapons of mass destruction program, and, as I mentioned before, is allowing its border to be used by terrorists to come into Iraq to do harm to U.S. troops. Those are the four things that this bill, the Syria Accountability Act, called on Syria to end. Syria has not ended, and the President should implement the sanctions immediately.