Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill because this bill means jobs for many Americans currently unable to find employment. This bill is about bolstering our Nation's transportation infrastructure which has a direct impact on our economy. I believe that this is a good bill. I wish it was even more money because we can use the transportation infrastructure money. I am very sorry that the administration is threatening to veto this bill because it goes above the $256 billion limit they set. I do not know why they do not seem to get it. They do not get the fact that America's workforce and floundering economy would benefit tremendously from this legislation. It is unbelievable that at a time of high unemployment this administration is threatening to veto legislation that would actually create real jobs. I do not want to hear phony cries about budget restraint. The tax cuts for the rich rob us of our ability to have good programs. This is a great program. The administration says that anything above $256 billion is too expensive. This is ludicrous because the transportation bill is self-funding. The former chair, Mr. Shuster, did a wonderful job in ensuring that revenues generated for the trust fund would only be used for transportation projects. I commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). I think this is a marvelous bill, and I wholly support it.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute astonishment at the disingenuous budget resolution presented by the Republican majority and in opposition to the Republican Study Committee's alternative. But at least the Republican Study Committee, I give them credit, they try to be consistent. They try to bring down the deficit. They try to say that we cannot have these tremendous deficits. I do not know whether to laugh or cry, to actually carve out protections that allow increases in the deficit by billions. What has happened to the soul of the Republican Party? Is fiscal responsibility no longer their mantra? Make no mistake, guaranteeing that we can have tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts means even bigger increases in the deficit. The tax cuts for the rich are robbing us of our ability to fund needed programs. How can we look at our children and grandchildren and say we are promoting the general welfare? $7 trillion in debt, every American now carries a burden of $24,326. Just this year alone we are spending $340 billion on interest for this debt. We are leaving our children and grandchildren an economic time bomb. Just as the baby boom generation begins to retire, this budget spends every penny of the Medicare and Social Security surpluses over the next 10 years, but not on Medicare and Social Security; and the cuts on Medicaid are shameful in this budget when we consider that unemployment is high and people need Medicaid. Democrats want to balance the budget and pay our bills now, not sometime in the future. Republicans used to stand in this Chamber and scream about balanced budgets. What happened to you? Reject this budget and support the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) alternative.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I must say a couple of things before I begin. I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his meticulous Spanish, and I want to also take note of the fact that the Manhattan College Jaspars, in my district, just won the opening round of the basketball NCAA against Florida. They were the underdogs. So I am very proud of them and the 17th District of New York. Go Jaspars. I want to address a very serious subject, though, Mr. Speaker, and that is the violence which took place yesterday; ethnic clashes in Kosovo in the Balkans between ethnic Albanians and ethnic Serbs. I chair the Albanian Issues Caucus in the Congress and have done extensive work in the Balkans and extensive work in Kosovo. I believe that ultimately the situation in Kosovo can only be resolved through self-determination. The people of Kosovo have to have a future and have to understand that they have the right to determine their own future. The ethnic violence which happened yesterday is a tragic undertaking, a tragic tragedy, and I must call on both sides to stop the violence. Violence is never a solution to anybody's perceived problems or indignities. It must be solved peacefully. However, having said that, I think that the violence that erupted yesterday was inevitable, and it was inevitable because in 1999, when the United Nations came in, including our troops, and prevented genocide, prevented Slobodon Milosovic from his ethnic cleansing, from cleansing Kosovo of its Albanian population, we stepped in and prevented that from happening. And that was a wonderful thing that we did. However, since that time, very little has been done to move to a resolution of the final status of Kosovo. When there is no resolution of the final status, the people in a country become restless because they see no future. They see no end point. They only see the status quo. And we have become the status quo in that country. UNMIK, the United Nations, and NATO have to be seen as people who are resolving this issue, who are moving it to final status to give the people of Kosovo hope. Right now there is rampant unemployment. Right now there is very little hope for a future. That has to end. Self-determination and, ultimately, independence for the people of Kosovo is the only solution. When people do not see a chance for self- determination, tensions fester beneath the surface when you do not move to resolution. What we have seen with the United Nations, with UNMIK and NATO, is this ridiculous plan called standards before status. To me, it only means status quo. We put forward benchmarks and we tell the people of Kosovo they have to achieve these benchmarks before we can even look at a resolution and at self-determination. And somehow or other, something always intervenes, the benchmarks are never there, so the status is never achieved and we delay, and we delay and we delay, and we push it to the back burner. I very much regret that our administration has pushed the whole issue of Kosovo to the back burner. It needs to be on the front burner. We need to resolve this problem. We need to give the people of Kosovo hope. We need to have a resolution. Self-determination is what is needed, and we need to push that; not be pushing off the day of reckoning again and again and again and again. And let me tell my colleagues why self-determination and, ultimately, independence is the only solution. There are only two other solutions, which do not work. One is to have Kosovo go back under Serb control. That will never happen after the ethnic cleansing of 1999. The overwhelming Albanian population will never, rightfully so, accept it. Secondly, the only other alternative would be for Kosovo to continue to be an international protectorate, which is what it is now, with troops of many countries there, United Nations troops and NATO troops. That cannot happen indefinitely. So the only solution is independence, and the only solution is to give the people of Kosovo some hope. So I would hope that the administration would move to resolve this problem now, to give the people of Kosovo hope for the future. The status quo only aids and abets violence. And while we are at it, we have to resolve the whole situation with privatization. The people there have to know if they invest in property for the future, to help the people there, they must know that it will be secure. So, again, I want to condemn the violence, I want to show my sympathy for the victims of the violence, but I want to again tell the administration that we need to ratchet it up and come to a resolution of final status for the people of Kosovo.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution, but I am going to do it with a heavy heart. I am going to do it with a heavy heart because this is obviously a politicized resolution. It is a resolution that was designed to make Democrats look bad. It is a resolution which Democrats had no input in whatsoever. It is a resolution that really smacks, I think, of hypocrisy, because when we look at the self- righteousness on the other side, when we had a resolution on the House floor several years ago when Bill Clinton was President to support our troops in Kosovo, almost everyone on the other side voted no. I am going to vote for this because I support our troops. I am glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and I am glad that there is an Iraqi Constitution, and that is essentially what this resolution says. I believe that whether one believed that the war in Iraq was justified or unjustified, the fact that we are there now and we cannot cut and run because if we did, Iraq would surely be a terrorist state now if it was not one before, we really cannot cut and run. But I think my friends on the other side of the aisle really ought to build a consensus. Democrats should have had input into this resolution. Democrats should have been allowed to amend this resolution. If we truly want bipartisanship, then we really need to stand together. I am troubled that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. I am troubled that it seems that our intelligence was not exactly up to snuff. I am troubled that the American people were not told the entire truth. But I think we have to come together to support our troops. Mr. Speaker, I want to say again to my friends on the other side of the aisle, we support our troops whether they are in Iraq, Kosovo, or anywhere around the world, and we have to stand together and say it, not play partisan political games.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 540. Madam Speaker, being a Member of Congress, we are privileged to meet many international leaders. Particularly serving on the Committee on International Relations, it is our honor to meet visiting dignitaries, and we often go to different countries to meet with them as well. Last week, I had the distinct honor, on Friday, of attending President Boris Trajkovski's funeral in Skopje, Macedonia, as part of the official American delegation, along with my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and also Secretary Principi, who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I know the three of us felt that it was an honor to represent the United States of America at this funeral. I knew Boris Trajkovski, having met with him on many occasions. It is a tragedy, as my colleagues have pointed out, that a man so young, only 47, with tremendous promise, a very good leader for his country, forward looking, a strong ally of the United States, would be cut down in such a tragic manner. It is not easy to be a leader in the Balkans. The Balkans has been a very, very volatile area. It takes people with courage to be able to look ahead and to be able to do what is right. Boris Trajkovski was such a person. I remember a meeting with him in 1999 in Skopje, Macedonia, where he was running for election as president and was courting the votes of the Albanian community in Macedonia. The Albanian community is a very important and large ethnic minority community in Macedonia. And President Trajkovski was looking for the votes and said that he is a Methodist minister; and as a Protestant minister in an Orthodox Christian country, he was a religious minority in his own country. So he said that he would be sensitive to other religious minorities and ethnic minorities in Macedonia. And, indeed, he was. Madam Speaker, part of the resolution says: ``Whereas during Macedonia's armed ethnic clashes, Mr. Trajkovski demonstrated his willingness to work with all of Macedonia's ethnic groups, which helped to prevent a civil war.'' And even though that was unpopular among some of his own people, he knew it was the right thing to do. He knew that the Albanian ethnic minority was entitled to rights as first-class citizens of Macedonia. And I can tell you, as chairman of the Albanian Issues Caucus here in Washington, I witnessed firsthand the workings of President Trajkovski bringing people together and standing out and speaking out in favor of such an agreement, which worked. Tensions in Macedonia are at an all-time low, largely because of the work of Boris Trajkovski. Our ambassador, the U.S. ambassador to Macedonia, Ambassador Butler, who does such a wonderful job, told me last week that he met with President Trajkovski regularly. In fact, they prayed together and they often discussed all kinds of issues. President Trajkovski was unabashedly pro-American. As our colleagues have said, they joined with us in fighting terrorism and joined with us in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Adriatic Charter, Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania, we promoted that in this Congress. My resolution passed both the Senate and the House commending these countries for signing the Adriatic Charter. President Trajkovski was an important part of making that happen. Yes, he alienated a number of people because he wanted to move forward. Even in his own party there were some times he wondered if he could win reelection because he was so bold in taking these enlightened positions. But, ultimately, I believe that had he lived and stood for reelection, he almost certainly would have been reelected, because people understood that here was a man of vision and a man of greatness and someone who was good for the Macedonian nation. So I just want to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to President Boris Trajkovski. I met with his wife before the funeral, saw his children; and at the cemetery, I must say it was very, very moving to have thousands of foreign dignitaries there, each representing a different country. I had not seen anything so moving since the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel several years ago. Boris Trajkovski was a man who will be missed; and it is very, very important that all people of good will follow in his footsteps and make sure that Macedonia continues to have a thriving democracy and continues to work closely with the United States of America. I strongly support this resolution and urge our colleagues to all vote in the affirmative.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 15, which commends India on its celebration of Republic Day and reiterates its support for continued strong relations between the United States and India. My colleagues have all talked about the importance of this relationship. I for many years in the Congress have always tried to stress this relationship. I am pleased to say that I was one of the founding original members of the Indian Caucus and have remained a member of the Indian Caucus. And as it was pointed out, it is the largest caucus here on Capitol Hill, and with good reason. As my colleagues have mentioned, India and the United States share common values: the oldest democracy, the United States; and the biggest democracy, India. It is not easy to be a democracy for as many years as we have been a democracy and for the people of India who have struggled to be a democracy. So we have shared values and shared concerns. We have many, many Indian Americans in this country, and we celebrate our Indian American friends and what they have added to the United States of America, and that also solidifies the ties between India and the United States. I had the pleasure of visiting India a few years ago, and I was amazed by the warmth I felt by the people who wanted to be close to Americans. During the days of the Cold War sometimes the ties between India and the United States were strained. It never made any sense to me, but since the end of the Cold War, we have moved very closely together to ensure that the ties between India and the United States are strong, remain strong and continue to get strong year by year. It certainly makes a lot of sense. India's a strategic partner of the United States. India has the same concerns as the United States, fighting terrorism on its borders and inside its country. India stands with the United States as a strong fighter in the war against terrorism, and India also is very concerned by other countries that surround India or near India, and the United States also needs to share those concerns. So H. Con. Res. 15, in congratulating India, points out the strong bonds between our two Nations, and those of us in Congress on both sides of the aisle will continue to work to strengthen ties between two great democracies, India and the United States.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 56 which seeks to recognize a National Day of Remembrance regarding the treatment of Japanese, German and Italian Americans during World War II. Many Americans are not aware that on February 19th, 1942 Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Roosevelt authorizing restrictions and internment of ``enemy aliens.'' While the intent of this order was to monitor and detain people from countries the United States was fighting in World War II, the result was that thousands of patriotic Americans of foreign descent had their civil liberties revoked--even though they had done nothing wrong. I am troubled by the fact that the internment of Italian Americans is little known even today. For these reasons I authored H.R. 2442 in the 106th Congress, which called for the United States to acknowledge this terrible chapter in our history and required the Department of Justice to study and report back to Congress on the extent of the Italian American Internment, known in the Italian American Community as ``Una Storia Segreta'' (the Secret Story). Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department report confirmed much of what I learned in the years leading up to the enactment of H.R. 2442. Thousands of loyal Italian American patriots, mothers and fathers of U.S. troops, even women and children were suspected of being dangerous and subversive. With this new enemy alien status, Italians were subjected to strict curfew regulations, forced to carry photo ID's, and could not travel further than a 5 mile radius from their homes without prior approval. Furthermore, many Italian fishermen were forbidden from using their boats in prohibited zones. Since fishing was the only means of income for many families, households were torn apart or completely relocated as alternative sources of income were sought. It is difficult to believe that over 10,000 Italians deemed enemy aliens were forcibly evacuated from their homes and over 52,000 were subject to strict curfew regulations. Ironically, over 500,000 Italians were serving in the United States Armed Forces fighting to protect the liberties of all Americans, while many of their family members had their basic freedoms revoked. When we first started researching the Italian American Internment we had vague accounts of mostly anonymous Italians who were subjected to these civil liberties abuses. However, throughout the process we came in contact with many Italians who experienced the internment ordeal first hand. Dominic DiMaggio testified at a Judiciary Committee hearing about his dismay when he returned home from the war to find that his mother and father were enemy aliens. Doris Pinza, wife of international opera star Ezio Pinza, also testified at the hearing about her husband who was only weeks away from obtaining U.S. citizenship when he was classified as an enemy alien and detained at Ellis Island. It still saddens me to think that Ellis Island, the world renowned symbol of freedom and democracy, was used as a holding cell for Italians. There is even documented evidence of Italians being interned in camps at Missoula, Montana. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that these terrible events will never be perpetrated again. We must safeguard the individual rights of all Americans from arbitrary persecution or no American will ever be secure. While we cannot erase the mistakes of the past, we must learn from them in order to ensure that we never subject anyone to the same injustices. But most important of all, we can never forget what happened during this time or we run the risk of repeating this awful chapter in our history. That is why H. Res. 56 is important to this Congress and all Americans. A National Day of Remembrance will ensure that the treatment of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans will always be remembered, and hopefully, we will never allow the civil liberties of Americans to be jeopardized again.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the month of February is dedicated to recognizing and celebrating the often overlooked achievements and contributions of African-Americans throughout our country's history. Although African-Americans settled the American frontier alongside British colonists, it was not until the establishment of ``Black History Month'' in 1926, that they were afforded the respect and dignity they are rightfully due. If not for the efforts of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, who first noticed a glaring disparity in historical texts and established the ``Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History,'' the stories of prominent and influential African American men and women would still be hidden in the shadows today. The choice of February as the month of celebration honors the birthday of two important figures in the history of African-Americans. The first is Frederick Douglass, a leader of the abolitionist movement during the Civil War, as well as a prolific author, newspaper editor, and dedicated civil servant. The second is none other than our sixteenth president of the United States, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln. The month of February also marks the anniversary of important events such as the birth of civil rights leader W.E.B. Dubois, the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment granting black suffrage, the first black senator and the establishment of the NAACP. I proudly represent the 17th district of New York, which is rich in African-American history. From early politicians to entertainers, African-Americans in the Bronx, Westchester, and Rockland counties have contributed to our nation. This month I would like to recognize Denzel Washington's contribution to our culture through his talented work in film. A native of Mount Vernon, this actor, producer and director is one of only two African-Americans to have received an academy award in the best actor category. While living in Mount Vernon, Denzel Washington was an active community member taking advantage of the Boys' Club of America. Today he continues his work as a leading spokesman for the organization, as well as a being an outstanding supporter of the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund and an AIDS-hospice called The Gathering Place. Through his talent and dedication, Denzel Washington has left his mark as a positive leader in our community and important contributor to our culture. I am always inspired by the community spirit and leadership I witness from African-Americans in New York and around the country. It is my hope that as we commemorate Black History Month in the future, we will continue to celebrate the many achievements and rich culture of African-Americans.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the United Irish Counties Association. The UICA represents people from all the counties of Ireland who came to the United States, helping those who were new to the country and encouraging fellowship among all, no matter where they came from in Ireland. Until the founding of UICA, most Irish people joined organizations representing their individual counties. What UICA did was give the whole immigrant community, and its children, a unified voice in Irish affairs and a broader ability to help newcomers. With the assimilation of the Irish into the mainstream of America, it meant that the Irish population was not only rising economically but spreading geographically. With the breakup of the old Irish neighborhoods, the UICA came into its own as a representative of Irish affairs. The growth and rise of the Irish immigrant community is a story of the success of America. The United States filled its broad spaces with the best from Europe then and the rest of the world now. Starting in the 1840s, and propelled by the terrible experience of the Great Famine, the Irish came to America, made it their own, and made it better. They overcame prejudice and poverty and within five generations elected one of their own as president. In many ways the Irish were the template of the immigrant waves which followed; arriving individually, coming together to help one another, and then taking advantage of the opportunities that this country offered. The United Irish Counties Association deserves much of the credit for this success, and for the continuing success of the Irish immigrants who still come to America, many to Woodlawn and Yonkers in my Congressional District. If America is ever to expand geographically again, I suspect that Ireland could be the 51st state. I congratulate the United Irish Counties Association for a century of growing by helping.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I want to praise Howard Jonas, a man who donates enough to charity to be called a philanthropist, who works to better his community, and who is being honored for his work in the United States on behalf of Israel. Howard was born in the Bronx, attended one of New York City's premier schools, Bronx High School of Science, and then went to Harvard University, graduating with a B.A. in Economics. He has been manifestly successful in his businesses, starting at the age of 14 with a hot dog stand near a local hospital. Since then he has gone on to travel brochure distribution, business-to-business directories, mail-order bonsai Christmas trees, and to run one of the country's largest direct mail businesses out of his dorm room at Harvard. When one of his employees moved overseas he got into the international telephone callback business. From there he went on to found IDT in August of 1990, a model of upstart entrepreneurship, serving as Chairman of the Board since its inception. He has been generous in his giving and serves as a trustee on many university, religious, and social service organization Boards. He also serves as a National Board member of AIPAC where he fosters close relations with some of our nation's most prominent leaders on behalf of a strong United States-Israeli relationship. Finally I speak of him as a close friend, a man from the old neighborhood who never forgot where he came from. He is a caring and generous man and I am proud that he is my friend.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 19, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 20, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act. This bipartisan legislation makes technical corrections to the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, which I was proud to cosponsor. The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act has several key components that will result in a better, more efficient process in which the Food and Drug Administration works with medical device companies to review applications, inspect device plants, and ensure that reprocessed devices are used in a safe and identifiable fashion. The user fees included in the legislation are intended to provide FDA with additional resources to review new or updated device applications more quickly, but also more effectively. Every day, medical devices save or improve the lives of patients around the world and this legislation will mean that patients will have access to new and improved devices in a much timelier fashion. Mr. Speaker, the manner in which the Energy and Commerce Committee worked to enact the original bill and the legislation before us today should be a model for future legislative efforts. Because of the truly bipartisan process, the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act enjoys widespread support which will work to ensure its success. I commend the medical device community and my colleagues for their efforts to improve the delivery of health care to millions of Americans.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1954, the Highland Stewardship Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I pledged that I would do everything in my power to pass this bill, and I am delighted that this bill is on the floor today. I want to start by thanking the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the subcommittee ranking member, for their assistance and support. More importantly, I want to commend the sponsor of this legislation the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). It is because of his vigorous and stalwart support of this bill and his active participation in moving it forward that we are here today. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and this is a very, very important bill not only for his district and my district, but for many, many districts and many, many States in the Northeast. I represent Rockland County. We have a pristine area there which is very, very important, and we need to protect this area. We very often talk about suburban sprawl and development, which is unwanted and which would mar this pristine land. This bill gives us the opportunity to balance that. That is what is so important. The Highlands in my district encompasses an area totally of 1.5 million acres from the lower Hudson River Valley in New York to the Delaware River in New Jersey. Within this area are some spectacular things to see and do, and, of course, many people, 1.4 million people, live within the Highlands area. The Highlands adjoins a metropolitan area, the New York metropolitan area, with a population of more than 20 million people. More than 11 million people rely on the Highlands' drinking water resources, which serves at least half of New York City's water supply. More than 14 million people visit the Highlands each year for recreational opportunities. Over 240 species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles depend on Highlands habitat, and more than 160 historical and cultural sites have been identified in the region. Where once apple farms and bungalows dotted the landscape, we now have 300,000 people living in Rockland County, and as I mentioned before, it is very, very important to have that balance between development and preserving pristine areas such as this. The Federal Government has an important role to play in protecting our area of national significance here in our own backyard. I have supported increased funding for Forest Service programs such as the Forest Legacy Program, the Forest Stewardship Program and the new Forest Land Enhancement Program that protect environmentally sensitive forestlands such as the Highlands. Again, I want to say that it is vitally important that the Federal Government facilitate partnerships between all levels of government to protect the Highlands and prevent the region from suffering from further urban sprawl. My district is a combination of an urban district and a suburban district, and I am very, very sensitive to the needs of the suburbs, and this bill and the money put into this bill goes a long way in keeping that balance and keeping these lands pristine. The Highlands Act will really move us far along in this effort because we do not want further urban sprawl. So I thank the chairs and ranking members and, again, most of all, my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). This is truly bipartisan and truly a very, very good day for the American people.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, for many years I have sponsored and worked for a real prescription drug bill for seniors and this bill breaks my heart. This bill is not a bipartisan bill. It is a Republican fraud. The Republican leadership would like to privatize Medicare and replace it with private insurance vouchers and HMO health care. That is what this bill does. It is the beginning of the destruction of Medicare and the destruction and privatization of Social Security is next. You mark my words. We should be giving seniors a clean prescription drug bill under the Medicare program, but we do not have money for that because the Republican tax cuts for the rich and the stealing from the Social Security trust fund make it impossible to have any money left to pay for a real prescription drug program. The hodgepodge of benefits will do nothing but confuse seniors. After spending $2,200 in drug bills, seniors will have to pay the next $1,400 out of pocket without any help whatsoever while they still pay their monthly premiums. What kind of assistance is that? Seniors want a real drug bill and they want it to begin now, not in 2006. They want help in bringing drug prices down. This bill does none of that. When I first came to Congress 15 years ago, I asked my mother what was the best thing we could do to help senior citizens and she said, give us a prescription drug program. Tonight, my colleagues, my mother gave me some more good advice. She said, vote against this sham bill. And that is exactly what I am going to do. Shame on this Congress for betraying our seniors and ramming this bill through in the middle of the night. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. When I came to Congress 15 years ago, one of my highest priorities was to strengthen Medicare, provide drug coverage for seniors, and ensure that my children and generations to come would always have access to quality health care in their golden years. What the Republican leadership has put before us today does none of these things and threatens the very fabric of the Medicare program. The Republicans chose to give the richest Americans billions and billions of dollars in tax cuts rather than truly provide our seniors with relief from the high cost of prescription drugs. If this legislation is enacted, Medicare, and the cornerstone of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, will be decimated. There is nothing I would like more than to vote for legislation that would provide a meaningful Medicare drug benefit for seniors. In fact, I authored legislation to do just that. My legislation would have provided seniors with coverage comparable to most private plans and those utilized by federal employees. But what we have in this Conference Report is a fraction of that coverage. Most seniors will see little relief from the high cost of prescription drugs. Seniors will pay at least $35 a month in premiums with a $250 deductible, but these are just benchmarks and seniors may wind-up paying much more. There is also a gap in coverage where seniors will pay the premium while receiving no benefit. The gap in coverage is between $2,200 and $3,650 of out-of-pocket drug costs. This could mean that for half the year a senior will be paying a premium and getting no assistance. Additionally, the drug benefit doesn't even begin until 2006. Seniors in my district tell me they need help now. They don't want to wait two more years for this benefit to begin. I certainly think that they have waited long enough for assistance in paying for medicines that save and improve their lives. Our seniors deserve better treatment than this. In keeping with the poor design of this benefit, it is expected that millions of retirees currently receiving drug benefits from their employers will lose it. So the Republican bill offers seniors a paltry benefit while taking away the quality benefits they currently enjoy. Wait till our seniors get a load of this. As bad as all this sounds, it only gets worse. Despite the large outcry by seniors and Democrats across the country, this Conference Report embodies not the first small step toward privatization, but a giant leap that breaks the promise we made to our seniors and have kept since 1965 when Medicare was created. What is being dubbed as a demo project to ``test'' premium support, what is at best a voucher program, will encompass about \1/6\th of Medicare beneficiaries. We're talking about 7 million people being forced out of traditional Medicare and into HMO's. These, the unluckiest of all the Medicare population, will pay higher premiums and receive some type of benefits, but we don't know what they are because the HMO's will package them as they see fit. For the first time in history seniors in different areas will be paying different premiums and receiving different benefits. What is most troubling is that this legislation is setting Medicare up to fail. This legislation includes a provision that automatically triggers cuts in the program if Medicare spending increases to an amount determined by the Republicans. The likely scenario regarding this is that sometime over the next several years Medicare spending will increase triggering the cuts. In order to get under the arbitrary cap traditional fee-for-service Medicare will be decimated. Republicans will then point to their privatization as Medicare's savior and they will have finally succeeded in their ultimate goal of ending Medicare and leaving seniors to fend for themselves in the private market where HMO's will be the order. Make no mistake, we agreed on the path to full privatization and an end to one of the most successful government programs in our history. We have all heard that this group endorsed the bill and that group endorsed the bill, so why are Democrats opposing it. The only reason this legislation has any life in it is because the Republicans have doled out billions of dollars in payouts to insurance companies, drug companies, and other special interests. These groups are not endorsing the bill because it helps seniors, they are looking out for themselves. Well I am not going to sell out our seniors. Mr. Speaker, the greatest generation is about to face the brunt of the greatest hoax since since I have been in Congress. Most seniors are not watching this debate. They will have on their local news that Medicare will soon be covering their prescription drugs and they will be ecstatic. ``Finally'' many will say. What a shame it is that we re playing a political game with the lives of seniors around the country. I urge all of my colleagues to vote this bill down so that the can enact a real benefit that strengthens Medicare and provides a comprehensive drug benefit that will make this wonderful program even better.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to again personally thank her for being my partner in this bill. This whole Congress, it could not have been done without her. And it was a pleasure to work with her. I want to state that for the record. I also want to thank the gentleman who is to my left who is my chief of staff, Jason Steinbaum. When I say that we wrote the bill in my office, he is the man who did all the writing. And I want to acknowledge his role and his work and thank him. It is very difficult when you have a concept and then you want to put the concept into writing and then you want to pass it through all the channels that it needs to be passed through. But as you mentioned, our staffs do a magnificent job. We could not do what we do if it were not for the good work of our staff.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has been supportive every step of the way. It has been a long road. Two years ago, when we sat down in my office and drafted this bill, we could hardly have dreamed the overwhelming support that this bill would have picked up, bipartisan support, I might add, in both the House and the Senate. In the previous Congress, the 107th Congress, I approached the then majority leader, Mr. Armey, about sponsoring this bill with me, and he very graciously agreed to do so. Our sponsors in the other body were Senator Santorum and Senator Boxer, and they, in the 108th Congress, continued to be the sponsors of the bill. In the 108th Congress, I spoke with my good friend and the chair of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), and she joined with me in sponsoring this bill in the 108th Congress, and it has been a pleasure to work with her. I want to also thank our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and all of the people who have worked so hard to bring this to fruition. This is a very important bill. Syria is prominently listed by the U.S. State Department as a nation which supports terror. In 1979, the U.S. State Department put forth a list of countries which support terrorism and Syria was a charter member of that list. Syria has been on that State Department list, unabated, for 24 years, and now, in 2003, Syria is the only nation currently on that list with which we have normal diplomatic relations. It never made any sense to me, it still does not, and this bill is an important step in saying to Syria, enough is enough. No longer are you going to get away with supporting terrorism. No longer are you going to get away with your weapons of mass destruction. No longer are you going to get away with your occupation and strangulation of the sovereign nation of Lebanon and, certainly, no longer will we allow you to get away with allowing terrorists to cross over your border into Iraq to do harm to U.S. troops, and weapons crossing over from Syria to Iraq to kill U.S. troops. Numerous terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, maintain offices or training camps in Syria or areas of Syrian-occupied Lebanon with impunity under Syrian control and guidance. Syria is in clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, which directs all states to refrain from providing any form of support for terrorists. Indeed, even after Secretary of State Powell's meeting with President Assad earlier this year, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups still remain active in Damascus and all over Syria and Lebanon. Hezbollah is the group which killed more than 200 U.S. Marines in Beirut 20 years ago. Hezbollah continues to attack and wreak havoc in Israel's northern border. Hezbollah continues to kill American citizens. And yet Syria continues to play these duplicitous games. As General Aoun, the former leader of Lebanon, said, Syria plays a game where she is both the arsonist and the fireman. She starts the fire and then helps to put it out and expects accolades. Syria can no longer throw us crumbs and support terrorism at the same time and expect our accolades. She does not deserve it. I think it is also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that several days ago the bombings in Turkey and Istanbul, and there were other horrible bombings this morning, but the bombing of the two synagogues in Istanbul the other day were carried out by two cousins. And the mastermind of the bombings, a brother of one of the cousins, fled to Syria after the bombings. Syria, of course, is safe haven for terrorists around the world. Now, not only does Syria undermine regional stability by harboring terrorist groups, its 20,000-strong occupation force has denied Lebanon its internationally guaranteed sovereignty and political independence. As called for in U.N. Security Council Resolution 520, it is time that Lebanon is run by the Lebanese, not by the Assad regime in Damascus. I cannot tell you how many Lebanese Americans have called me and called my office and commended us for this bill because people of Lebanese descent in this country are tired of seeing the stranglehold on Lebanon by Syria. I am also concerned about Syrian efforts to field chemical and biological weapons in its development of long-range ballistic missiles. Considering the close ties Syria maintains with terrorist organizations, Syrian weapons of mass destruction programs are of grave concern. At a recent hearing of our Middle East subcommittee, the State Department confirmed that Syria is continuing to permit volunteers and others to enter Iraq from Syria to attack and kill Americans. This is totally unacceptable. The broad spectrum of organizations which supports H.R. 1828 recognizes Syria as a major destabilizing factor in the region and see this bill as an essential tool to send a clear message to the Assad regime. The bill has 297 bipartisan cosponsors in the House and 76 in the Senate, a majority in both Houses in both parties. The legislation imposes a variety of penalties upon Syria until it ends its support of terrorism, withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon, halts development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and stops facilitating terrorism in Iraq and stops allowing people to cross the border to do harm to U.S. troops. This act is a measured and flexible approach to deal with the challenge emanating from Syria. It clearly states that we will not accept Syria's support of terrorism and we call for a free and sovereign Lebanon. This is the right step in America's Middle East policy. And, finally, I want to say the national security waiver authority in this bill, which was put in by the Senate, is to be taken very seriously by the President; and its provisions are not to be waived except in instances truly affecting the national security interest of the United States. Let me just say, as Syria is still supporting terrorism, occupying Lebanon, procuring weapons of mass destruction, and permitting guerillas to enter Iraq to attack and kill our troops, I want to say to the White House that any waiver would have to outweigh those most dangerous transgressions. I find it very hard to imagine what factor would be more important to the national security of the U.S. than those matters. The administration should be aware that any waiver will be given the strictest scrutiny by Congress. And I would hope that the President in signing this bill would understand that the full implementation of this bill ought to be put into effect right away.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from California for his kind words, and I thank him as always for his help on matters such as these. We all look to him for guidance. I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), as well, for really being with me every step of the way in bringing this to fruition and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), as well, for working with me on this. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 209, which commends the signing of the U.S.-Adriatic Charter. As the author of H. Con. Res. 209, I am honored that the Senate has passed this measure and the House is now considering this important resolution for final passage. On May 2, 2003, the U.S.-Adriatic Charter was signed in Tirana, Albania, by Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Croatia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As Secretary Powell noted when he signed the document, it is remarkable that the agreement was signed in Albania, a country once known only for its isolation and distance from Western principles. I can say, Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Albanian Issues Caucus in this Congress, I am absolutely delighted that Albania and the United States continue to work closely together and look at this charter as an important step in bringing Albania and the United States even closer together. Today, Tirana is a capital filled with energy as it continues its opening to Europe. Macedonia and Croatia have seen similar changes as well. Mr. Speaker, as NATO has expanded through other countries of Europe, several Balkan nations in South Central Europe were excluded. They just were not ready for membership at that time. Today, three of those nations, Albania, Croatia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, are now moving to make the needed changes in reforms so that they can join the North Atlantic structures including NATO. I have long been a strong supporter of Albanian membership in NATO. The U.S.-Adriatic Charter embodies a commitment by Albania, Croatia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the values and principles of NATO and a declaration of their intent to join NATO as soon as they meet alliance standards. I certainly support all of their efforts to advance toward NATO membership, and having Secretary Powell sign the charter puts the United States firmly in support of their efforts to join NATO when they are ready, and as far as I am concerned, sooner rather than later. By passing this resolution today, as amended in the Senate, and it is a House resolution, Congress adds its voice by ``urging NATO to invite Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to join NATO as soon as these countries demonstrate the ability to assume the responsibilities of NATO membership.'' H. Con. Res. 209 also welcomes and supports the aspirations of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to join the European Union at the earliest opportunity and recognizes that the three countries are making important strides to bring their economic, military, and political institutions into conformance with the standards of NATO and other Euro-Atlantic institutions. Finally, our resolution also commends Secretary Powell for his strong personal support of the resolution, as demonstrated by his travel to the region to sign the document. Mr. Speaker, as a sponsor of H. Con. Res. 209, I think this is an appropriate forum to publicly thank Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for sending forces to fight alongside our troops in Afghanistan. It is my hope that Albania, one of only three European countries to send ground troops to fight in the war, would be high on the Defense Department's list when it considers the realignment of, and new bases for, American forces around the world. I have often thought that Albania is a perfect country for the United States to put new bases into. Finally, again I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, and his staff for the cooperation and support as we drafted this concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 209. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his support; and the Senate for its adoption of the measure; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our chairman; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking member. All played important roles, and I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to also support it.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I rise in disapproval of the bill. I am very disappointed in this bill. America faces real problems with its energy needs. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But instead of pursuing the program of energy efficiency, we here have a bill that pursues the policy of political payback to Republican friends and corporate welfare. The bill takes us back in time by weakening the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Why would we do this? Why are we letting polluters make policy? Why, when we have made so much progress, would we go back to weaker standards? I think we all know the answer: Because oil and gas companies find it cheaper to pollute and push off the real cost of their activities to the real people of this country. The citizens will pay more for cleanups and, even more disturbing, will pay more for health care costs, for more asthma treatment, and more for cancer treatment, more for everything. I must also say that the ethanol special interest subsides in this bill are shameful and talk about special interests subsidies, special interest industry tax breaks. This bill has ballooned from the President's $8 billion tax cut proposal, up from the House's $16 billion tax cut proposal, to a whopping $23.5 billion tax cut proposal of subsidies to the industry. Have we all forgotten the $400 billion deficit we have right now? I am afraid my Republican colleagues can no longer call themselves fiscal conservatives. Let us increase the debt and push it off so our children and grandchildren can pay it because we are not going to. I, for one, am sick and tired of coddling polluters. I am sick and tired of sticking the average Joe with the cost of fixing polluters' problems. We should be concerned with conservation, with the environment, with alternate sources of energy. We should try to lessen our dependence on Middle East oil. This bill does none of that and it should be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the bill. It is ludicrous to have only 1 hour of debate on the rule and 1 hour on such an important bill. America faces real problems with its energy needs. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But instead of pursuing the program of energy efficiency, we have a bill that pursues a policy of political payback and corporate welfare. My Republican colleagues are constantly saying they do not like wealth distribution, but this bill will suck dollars out of the pockets of New Yorkers and others to pay for unnecessary ethanol subsides to huge Agra businesses. The majority has talked to a good game against unfunded mandates. This bill was a case of ``do as I say, not as I do.'' There is a liability shield for MTBE makers so that New York taxpayers could be forced to pay for cleanups, but this bill also provides $2 billion in subsides for the MTBE makers to transition to other work. This bill takes us back in time by weakening the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Why are we letting polluters make policy? Why we going to weaker standards? I think we know the answer: Because oil and gas companies find it cheaper to pollute and push off the true cost of their activities to the real people in this country. This bill is a disgrace. I am sick and tired of coddling polluters and sticking the average Joe with the cost of fixing polluters' problems. We should stand up for America and stand up for energy independence and future generations and vote down this rule and this bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Riverdale is a fortunate community in that not only do the people who live here care for it, but newcomers after they arrive also do their best to make it even better. Hilary Kitasei came to our community a few short years ago and in that relatively brief time has made a lasting impression on her new neighborhood and on how the community looks. She first took on a rather desolate piece of wasteland at Fieldston Road at the Henry Hudson Parkway overpass and using her considerable abilities transformed it into a woodland glade that is a highlight of the neighborhood. It was planted by the students from almost all of the local schools as well as neighbors and is now a part of the New York City Parks Department Greenstreets Program. Setting her eyes on a larger project she is spearheading the development of the Hudson Scenic Byway Program to create New York State's first urban scenic byway. Riverdale, and by extension all of New York City, is lucky to have such people as Hilary Kitasei. I join all of our community in thanking her for the wonderful things she has done.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Minnesota, for recognizing me, and I rise in support of the manager's amendment that will be offered later, and I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar), the gentleman from New Jersey (Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Filner) for their support of my amendment which they have included as part of the manager's amendment. I also rise in support of the overall bill. The Coast Guard is a vital part of our national security. We must provide them with the tools they need and the funding to successfully execute their mission. I am especially pleased with the funding for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program. Madam Chairman, I offer my amendment because I continue to have grave concerns about the safety of my constituents should the Indian Point nuclear power plant be attacked. I am concerned about the safety and security of the plant. I have even more concerns about the ability to evacuate people safely, but that is for another debate. This amendment is simple. It requires that the Coast Guard conduct a vulnerability assessment of the facility. As of January 1, 2003, the Coast Guard had established a permanent safety and security zone around Indian Point. However, the Coast Guard's Hudson River cutter passes Indian Point about twice a week, and its copter only about three times a week. Indian Point is located in Buchanan, New York, 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan and just a few miles northeast of my district. Almost all of my district is located within the 10-mile radius of the plant, and approximately 20 million people live within the 50-mile emergency planning zone or EPZ. In addition, as we know, blueprints for American nuclear power plants were found in al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan, and that point bears repeating. Al Qaeda has the plans to some U.S. nuclear power plants. A study conducted by the Marist Institute found that 82 percent of people living within a 50-mile radius of the plant are concerned about a potential terrorist attack on the facility, moreover, a majority of residents in the 50-mile radius do not feel that the plant is secure and protected against a terrorist attack. I support closing Indian Point completely. Absent that solution, I am working with my colleagues to ensure that it is the most safe and secure nuclear power plant possible. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and the bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3166, legislation to name the United States Postal Facility at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York after former Congressman John G. Dow. The House of Representatives lost a member of its family on March 11th of this year when John Dow passed on at the age of 97. After living a storied life dedicated to serving the propel of Rockland County and the State of New York, it is a privilege to honor this great man on the floor of the House of Representatives. Born and bred in New York, John Dow earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard University and later a master's from Columbia University. In 1954 he began his career in public service holding the post of Civil Defense Director in Grandview, NY and later Chairman of the Grand View Zoning Board of Appeals. John Dow then stepped onto the national political scene, winning a seat in Congress in 1965 in the 22nd Congressional District, which encompassed Rockland County. John Dow served just six years in Congress but his imprint on this body was far greater than his tenure. He was one of the few Members of Congress that openly questioned and opposed the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Despite popular opinion, he spoke out against laws that would ban flag burning and fiercely defended the civil rights movements, even marching in the south to show his support for equal rights. He was an independent thinker that did not always take the popular stand but fought for what he felt was right for Rockland County, for New York, and for the United States. John Dow upheld the great values of this country at a time when we most needed it. He was considered a voice of dissent in the Congress against the Vietnam War even though it was a President of the same party leading us into that war. John Dow's warnings and cautions would ring true in later years as the reality of the Vietnam War set in. His principled stance eventually cost him the opportunity to continue serving in Congress but that did not deter him. As the political winds shifted, John Dow was swept out of office in 1968. He would return for another term, winning election in 1970, but would lose his seat for good two years later. However, John Dow would continue serving the people of New York and Rockland County until his death. Mr. Speaker, I am a life-long New Yorker and I am proud of that fact. I am proud to serve the people of my district and the Rocklanders that John Dow once represented. It is a tribute to his service and his memory that every Member of the New York delegation, Democrat and Republican alike cosponsored this legislation to honor one of our own. I want to thank Chairman Davis and Congressman Waxman for expediting this legislation so that we can honor Congressman Dow and his service to this great nation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to announce that my former Administrative Assistant, John Calvelli, is turning 40. It is hard to believe that the lanky kid I met when 19 is now older than Jack Benny always claimed to be. I guess it makes me realize that I am that much older too, although I constantly remind John that he has more grey hair than me. I won my first primary election for Congress on September 15, 1988, the day John turned 25. I told him that evening ``John, we're going to Washington together'' and indeed we did. During those first months in Washington, we would sometimes walk outside, gaze at the Capitol dome and say to each other, ``Do you believe we're really here?'' I think that at 25, John was the youngest AA on the hill, but he rapidly turned into one of the most effective and well-liked staffers in Washington. Everybody got to know John. Even as a young person, he had what we in New York call the best ``gift of gab'' I ever heard. He always had that little extra something. He served as my AA for more than 11 years, and our working relationship and friendship during that time could not have been better. In fact, I often refer to John as the kid brother I never had. During the course of my Congressional terms, John and I would often develop strategy for legislation, committee assignments, and many other things essential to a successful congressional career. We traveled cross country and overseas many times. Our first trip was probably one of the most memorable. It came that first summer in 1989, when I visited the three ``I's'' of New York City politics, Israel, Italy and Ireland, as well as Egypt. We came back from that trip with a picture of the Pope, stories about Egyptian fruit, grape leaves and the ``Kinjedom'' down in Luxor. John's complete fluency in Italian made him a great person to travel with. In fact, whenever we met Italian- speaking tour groups, in the many different countries we visited, nobody would believe that John was from New York and not from Italy. I want to tell John that now that he is 40, one of the age categories in my newsletter this year will read, age 40 to 56, and in honor of his birthday we will talk about ``Quattro formaggi'' in Italian, ``Political Party'' in English, and the 40-hour work week being sacrosanct. I know that John's family is as proud of him as I am. His wife Maria and son John Domenico, as well as his parents Rose and John, and brother and sister-in-law Louis and Angela all share in his happiness on this special day. John continues to remain active with many Italian American organizations, including NIAF and FIERI, a group in which he was one of the founders. John and Maria were married ten years ago at Fordham University, John's alma mater. John is an attorney by trade but since leaving my office he has been a Senior Vice President at the Wildlife Conservation Society also known as the Bronx Zoo. To this day in Washington I get many people asking me, how is John doing? It is a pleasure to honor John as he turns 40, and whether his future lies in politics or elsewhere I am sure that the phrase ``you ain't seen nothing yet'' applies to my ``kid brother'' John Calvelli.