Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this outrageous rule and its outrageous tax cut. We are not even given time to debate this bill. We can have democracy in Iraq, but not here on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions. I am angered by the blatant disregard by the Republican majority for the rights of the minority to offer an alternative. On top of that, we have just 1 hour of debate on this bill that will reduce Federal revenues by at least $550 billion. Not only are the views of the minority members being squashed, but the American people are being denied the opportunity to hear a frank and open debate about the future direction of their country. There is democracy in Iraq now, but not on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. I am also saddened. Saddened by the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of them good friends, have abandoned fiscal discipline. They have embraced tax cuts as a panacea for all our ills. They have made a conscious decision to enjoy their cake now and saddle our children, grandchildren and great-children with debt. Oh how times have changed. In 1995, the Republican Majority Leader, Mr. Delay. said ``By the year 2002, we can have a Federal Government with a balanced budget or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.'' I don't often agree with the gentleman from Texas, but on this point I am with him 100 percent. Democrats have a fiscally sound bill that will provide immediate assistance to the 8 million unemployed Americans. Democrats have a fiscally sound bill that will provide immediate assistance to States that are being overwhelmed by budget crises of their own. Democrats have a fiscally sound bill that will provide immediate assistance to small businesses which are the job creators. Democrats have a fiscally sound bill that will give the majority of Americans tax relief right now. Republicans offer a plan that has been tried, tried, and tried again. Each and every time it has failed. Giving the wealthiest a tax cut does not spur economic activity. Wealthy people save the extra money. Middle class and low-income families spend the extra money. But, what we have before us today is a whopping permanent tax cut for the rich and a meager temporary tax cut for the rest of us. Mr. Speaker, I also have some fear in my gut right now. I fear that we will leave many, many children behind because of this foolish tax cut policy. I fear that one again seniors will be forced to choose between paying their rent and buying prescription drugs so that Republicans can provide a boondoggle of tax cut to 1 percent of Americans. I fear that the bipartisan effort that led to a balanced budget and actual payments toward eliminating our national debt has been squandered in a frenzy of demagoguery. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop. Take a breath. Think about what you are doing. Vote against the rule. Vote against this bill. Don't write out a bill, stuff it into an envelope and mark it to be paid by the next generation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to comment on some recent developments in the Middle East. Yesterday President Bush, the United States, and others in the so- called ``quartet'' presented a roadmap for Middle East peace. There has been a lot of talk about the roadmap, a lot of euphoria about a new Palestinian leadership with Abu Mazen; but I wanted to take some time just to backstep a little bit and, in this rush to euphoria, talk about some very, very serious things. Everyone wants peace in the Middle East, and everyone knows that ultimately the key to peace is having two states side by side, Israel as a Jewish state and a Palestinian state side by side with security. The question is how do we get there? Oslo, which many of us supported, ultimately was a failure; and in my opinion it was a failure because Yasser Arafat's feet were never held to the fire. There were promises. There was empty rhetoric. There was saying one thing in English that sounded good and quite another thing in Arabic to the Palestinians that did not talk about peace; and we looked the other way because we so much wanted peace between Israelis and Palestinians that we never made Arafat's actions live up to his speech. We should not make the same mistake again. Yes, there is a new Palestinian prime minister named Abu Mazen; and, yes, there is a modicum of hope that Abu Mazen will be a moderate. But the fact of the matter is as long as there is terrorism in the Middle East, as long as there is no Palestinian crackdown on suicide bombers or on terrorism, as long as terrorism is still attempted to be used as a negotiating tool by the Palestinian side, there can never really be peace. At the end of the Oslo process, there was a proposal put forth. The proposal was two states side by side and the Palestinians were offered 100 percent of Gaza, 97 percent of the West Bank, a state of their own, billions of dollars of international aid; and Yasser Arafat turned down the deal. Not only did he turn it down and not offer a counterproposal, but he unleashed the Intifada and thought he could use terrorism as a negotiating tool. If that happens again, the roadmap will go the way of Oslo, which is nowhere. So what needs to happen here is there needs to be a crackdown on terror. There needs to be a real visible, sustained antiterrorism effort on the part of Abu Mazen and the Palestinians. It is no coincidence that three hours after the roadmap was announced there was another suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, which killed three innocent people and injured 40-some-odd other innocents. This cannot be left to stand. We have to judge Abu Mazen by seeing if he really cracks down on terrorism. That has to be first. I believe that the roadmap should be performance based, not time based. A Palestinian state projection is in 2004 and then in 2005 the final status. That should happen only if the Palestinians live up to their agreements, which they had not done previously under Oslo. Once terrorism is stopped, then the Israelis can make the concessions that are also necessary in order to have a just and viable peace. But let me make it clear, there cannot be negotiations or Israeli concessions while terrorism is still being used as a negotiating tool. Let me also talk a little bit about Syria. I am the author of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, and we call to the Syrians to stop their support for international terror. Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon's south/Israel's northern border, is used as a proxy by Syria to continue its support of terrorism. Hezbollah is the group which bombed U.S. Marines in 1983 and killed more than 200 of our Marines in Beirut. Syria must stop its support for international terrorism. Syria is on the list of countries of our State Department which supports international terrorism. Syria has been on that State Department list since the inception of the list in 1979, and yet it is the only country with which we have normal diplomatic relations on that list. That makes no sense. So the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 calls on Syria to stop its support for terrorism, to end its occupation of Lebanon, and to end the continuation of its production of weapons of mass destruction. We also know that Syria is harboring some of the Saddam Hussein crowd which has fled Iraq and is in Syria, and we also know that during the war in Iraq the Syrians allowed all kinds of armaments and weapons and night goggles and other things to pass through Syria into Iraq to be used against U.S. forces. President Bush has gotten tough with Syria. Colin Powell is visiting Syria. We hope he tells the Syrians to stop their support of terrorism.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on telecommunications and the economy. The telecommunications industry, Mr. Speaker, is in a state of crisis. Telecom jobs continue to shrink and capital continues to flow away from the industry. When given the opportunity to help lead the telecommunications industry back on the road to health and fitness, the Federal Communications Commission failed miserably. I completely agree with the Communication Workers of America that the FCC ``missed an opportunity to set out an effective national policy that would promote facilities- based competition in telecommunications.'' Instead, the FCC left in place rules that require carriers to lease their network, or pieces of it, to competitors for below-cost rates. This policy has had a disastrous effect on the industry. Over half a million telecom jobs have been lost and investors have lost billions of dollars. The industry is in crisis, and some of that crisis can be traced directly to bad policy at the FCC. It is clear to me that the FCC did not adopt the right rules to promote telecommunications investment. I sincerely hope that the FCC fixes this mess, or Congress will have to fix it.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for their strong support and leadership on this bill. I particularly want to single out my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has led a good, long fight for so many years. This is truly something all of us can take pride in. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has certainly led the way. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan, middle-of-the-road bill, a good bill. We should allow no ideological fights in this bill. This is not a fight about abortion; it is a fight about saving lives. The Uganda approach, which has abstinence and marital fidelity and condoms, and we have to have condoms if we are going to fight this battle, is a very well-balanced approach. Let us look at AIDS. AIDS has killed over 20 million people since the epidemic began. Another 8,000 people die each day, with 68,000,000 deaths predicted by 2020 unless the world takes action. Experts say a strong global response could prevent nearly two-thirds of those new infections, saving tens of millions of lives. What this bill does is respond to this crisis. It authorizes the bold initiative announced by President Bush. I want to say I was pleased to be in the White House 2 days ago with President Bush when he announced this initiative. This will provide $15 billion, including $10 billion in new money to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. The proposed bill will help prevent 7 million new infections, provide care and support for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans, and offer antiretroviral therapy for 2 million of those in need. H.R. 1298 is only an authorization bill. We need to fight in the appropriations process for real resources to match the promises made in H.R. 1298.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to this rule. Those of us who are on the committee wanted the opportunity, as we had in committee, to put forward some very, very important rules. We were denied that opportunity. We discussed the renewable fuel standards, for instance, last week in the markup in the committee, in the dark of night. Now the Committee on Rules is refusing to allow us to debate the ethanol mandate in the light of day. The ethanol mandate will increase gasoline prices in New York and wherever else it is not readily available. The Committee on Rules also refused to allow two amendments that I cosponsored to help reduce the impact that the ethanol mandate will have, particularly on New York. The first amendment was offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and it would have allowed refiners to produce gas that is clean, if not cleaner than gas blended with ethanol, to receive a credit for ethanol. The second was offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) that would have authorized a national phase-out of MTBE. I am deeply disappointed in this rule. We could have allowed one amendment, which really would have discussed the ethanol mandate, and it was rejected. It is really an unfair rule and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, there are four committees that have jurisdiction over this bill, and one of them is the committee on which I serve, the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Resources for giving me this opportunity. This was not a bill that was crafted in the middle. This is not a bill that Republicans and Democrats got together to produce a bill that is moderate, that the American people want to see. This was a bill that was put together by the Republicans and jammed down the throats of the entire Congress. We were in committee last week until one o'clock in the morning, and every single Democratic amendment was voted down on virtually a party line vote. This is not the way to craft an energy bill for America. We need the talents of all the Members of the House in both parties to come together for the American people. I am sorely disappointed that we are ignoring the underlying problem to national security, which is oil. There is nothing in this bill that reduces our consumption of oil. There is a lot of talking about drilling and production, but very little about conservation. Rather than stimulating research and development into renewable generation, we continue to cede the development of alternative energy technology to Europe and Japan. Whereas once we were the leaders in exporting renewable technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines, the U.S. now lags behind. At the same time, 72 percent of Americans believe that renewable energy sources should be our priority right now. We are missing a huge opportunity to create a renewable energy market that benefits both consumers and the environment. Our energy policy is tied to our national security and our economic well-being; and we need to ensure that this policy is diversified, reduces our dependence on oil, and creates skilled jobs by reducing energy costs. We are missing a tremendous opportunity. This bill does not create a market for renewables. It mandates a fixed market for ethanol, while providing liability relief for manufacturers. This is wrong. This bill does nothing to further laudable goals, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 6.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Let me finally ask, can the gentleman explain, because I am still a bit confused, what the meaning of ``preference'' is and how it would be implemented by the EPA?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Frankly, we have been spending a good part of the day trying to figure out what this amendment does, and it is very difficult really to figure out. We have had a lot of people going over it, and there have been a lot of questions. I regret that the amendment was not vetted or did not come up for a vote with the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We did this chapter in this bill until late in the evening, early morning last week, and this amendment did not come forward; and we believe that the amendment appears to have drafting problems. It is not clear what the ultimate impact will be of this amendment, although it is debatable whether or not the amendment will achieve its goal of reducing the boutique fuel problem. I am very disappointed, as well, that this is the only amendment made in order by the Committee on Rules on the renewable fuels standard. We have had a number of amendments in the committee that we wanted to bring to this floor, but we were not able to do it because the Committee on Rules, the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules, refused to let us have these votes on the House floor. So I believe we have missed a great opportunity to include a renewable portfolio standard that would require the use of renewable energy by utilities in this bill. One might think that that is because the Republican majority is against mandates, yet they do not appear to be so antimandate when it comes to the fuels we use in our cars. The renewable fuels standard will force the United States to accept an ethanol mandate that is entirely without justification for an industry that is concentrated in relatively few hands, while providing liability relief for MTBE producers that knowingly produce a defective product, as well as liability relief for ethanol and ETBE which could be a source of future groundwater contamination without banning the MTBE. Despite failing to provide MTBE, the bill provides MTBE manufacturers with $750 million in transition assistance. This bill is antifree- market, antienvironmental in important respects, and makes relatively little common sense. It provides safe harbors and subsidies to those who create it or would worsen the MTBE problem and gives nothing back to those who suffer from its ill effects. In this case, unfortunately, the legislative process has produced a bill, in my opinion, with almost nothing to recommend it save that it satisfies all of the competing claims of special interests: the MTBE makers, the oil companies, and the ethanol producers. On Tuesday, the Energy Information Agency predicted that by the time ethanol was fully integrated in California, the price increase for reformulated gas would be 9 cents per gallon. For a State like New York, California, or Connecticut, which use a large amount of reformulated gasoline, this will represent an income shift of hundreds of millions of dollars from our citizens' pockets to those in ethanol- producing States. Furthermore, when the EPA implements its new 8-hour ozone rule, 155 new counties will have to use reformulated gasoline. I hope my colleagues who represent these counties know that the ethanol mandate will increase their constituents' gas prices. Ethanol will also make it tougher to meet our air quality standards. While the supporters love to tell us that ethanol reduces carbon monoxide, they fail to tell us that ethanol use results in higher nitrogen oxide emissions, which contribute to ozone. In fact, ethanol has to get a waiver from the Clean Air Act to be used in the summertime because of its ozone-forming qualities. Ethanol proponents also claim that ethanol will reduce our demand for foreign oil, but a 2002 study published by the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology concluded that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon yields. Additionally, since ethanol has less energy contents than conventional gasoline, it takes more ethanol blend gasoline to travel the same distance. On average, the loss is a 3 percent decrease in miles per gallon vehicle fuel economy. Thus, if Americans continue to drive the same number of miles under the ethanol mandate as they did without it, more oil will be needed to be imported to compensate for the lost fuel economy. Although some argue ethanol use leads to greater energy independence, this is not the case. Fuel ethanol only accounts for about 1.2 percent of the gasoline consumption in the U.S. volume. Moreover, given that America's ethanol supply is heavily dependent on one crop, corn, any supply shortages or price increases relating to the crop could negatively affect the supply and cost of ethanol and, thus, gasoline. This happened when high corn prices caused by strong export demand in 1995 contributed to an 18 percent decline in ethanol production between 1995 and 1996. In other words, an ethanol mandate will increase our gasoline prices and harm our air and water quality. Rather than allowing an amendment that would phase out MTBE over the next 4 years to come to the floor, we are debating an amendment that I believe does nothing to improve the RFS. If we want to talk about clean fuels, why are we not debating the amendment I cosponsored with the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) that would have allowed a credit against the ethanol mandate for any refiner that produces clean burning gasoline? This is the direction our Nation's fuel policy should take. Instead of mandating inputs into gasoline, we should set high environmental standards and let oil refiners and automakers meet those standards. While I applaud the intent of the Ryan amendment to reduce boutique fuels, I do not believe this is the way to do it. The amendment could exacerbate, I believe, the boutique fuel problem because it merely expresses a ``preference'' for two types of fuels, but does not require refiners to use certain fuels. As a result, Wisconsin might adopt the gentleman from Wisconsin's preferred fuel, and Illinois might keep RFG. Such a standard will significantly constrain the refiner's ability to produce and supply two different fuels, clean burning gasoline and RFG. EPA believes that the provision could act to slightly reduce the number of fuels. However, they believe more strongly that the removal of the oxygenate requirement will have a much greater effect on the boutique fuel problems than the Ryan amendment. I also believe this amendment is unnecessary because the bill requires EPA to conduct a study of boutique fuels. This amendment would take effect before the study is completed. This whole provision makes the phrase ``politics makes strange bedfellows'' truer than ever. The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association has worked with me in opposition to this amendment, believing that it will unnecessarily complicate the already complicated fuels requirement picture. NPRA believes that further action on boutique fuels should await the results of the study already called for by the bill. Finally, I would like to mention that just a few hours ago I got this back from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which opposes the amendment. This is what they say: ``However, if the stated intent is to reduce the number of boutique fuels by permitting States to select from only two when drafting the clean air State implementation plans, then New York State is opposed to this amendment and would encourage New York Members to vote against it. This requirement would tie the hands of State air regulators by requiring the clean air standards be met, but at the same time take away the tools needed to meet these standards.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the gentleman would answer a couple of questions. In view of what the chairman, the gentleman from Texas, just said, could the gentleman please tell me why you chose these numbers?

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, there are many other fuel blends, are there not?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman also, the existing statutory standard for approval of a plan containing a gasoline requirement is that ``other control measures are unreasonable or impractical.'' Would this amendment alter that standard in any way?

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of his amendment to close that loophole in the bill when used as intended. But I also rise in opposition to the whole bill itself, to H.R. 1036. The bill would provide Federal immunity to gun manufacturers and, in my opinion, would halt progress towards safer guns and greater industry accountability. H.R. 1036 would block suits filed by individuals, victims of gun violence seeking to hold the gun industry accountable for irresponsible manufacturing or selling of guns. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are exempt from Federal consumer product safety regulation. The gun lobby made sure that the gun industry was exempted from regulation when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was established in the 1970s. This is wrong. The only other product that enjoys this exemption is tobacco. And in my estimation, Teddy bears are more regulated for safety than guns. Giving the gun industry immunity would remove the only incentive to gun manufacturers and dealers to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. Past suits have resulted in improved safety features such as internal locks to prevent unauthorized access. Right now, there are local governments who are in court attempting to show that the manufacturers that make guns that too often surface in illegal activities, and the stores that make no attempt to follow the law in selling guns, should be held liable for the relentless damages of gun violence. Now, survivors of some of the Washington area sniping victims have gone to court to sue the manufacturer of the gun that is said to be the murder weapon and the gun shop that sold it after discovering that the dealer had reported 238 guns missing from its inventory in 3 years alone. This bill would prevent these lawsuits from going forward. I believe that this industry, like every other industry, has an obligation to its consumers and to the public to ensure that their product is manufactured and sold in ways that are safe, legal, and responsible. So I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment and to vote against this bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Celia ``Celi'' Stein born January 27, 1912, in Cleveland, Ohio. She was the daughter of immigrants who fled their native Minsk in what was then Czarist Russia to escape persecution of Jews. The family settled in Cleveland, Ohio because one of the city's three Yiddish-language newspapers knew her father Bernard Leikind's reputation as a typesetter and offered him a job. Despite tradition and her father's insistence that women should not attend college, Celia eventually pursued her degree and attended Western Reserve, where she received a BA in French. As a teenager, Celi met her future husband, David, while playing tennis at a local park. She refused to speak to him because they had not been formally introduced. Later he visited her father and received permission to court her. They were married in 1935. The couple arrived in Riverdale in 1944 and faced a wartime housing shortage. They were finally able to move into her cousin's apartment building, where they lived ever since. Celi helped her husband David found the Riverdale Press and continued working in its newsroom for over five decades. As a mentor, she helped talented reporters achieve their dreams. Her civic engagement runs the gamut, from her infamous culinary skills to her leadership in building PS, JHS 141 and several other educational facilities in the Bronx. Celi was a prominent community leader outside the newspaper office as well, crusading for schools and on behalf of neighborhood social service organizations. She was also first president of PS 24 Parents Association and a leader of the parents associations of each of her son's schools--from the Spuyten Duyvil Infantry to PS 81, JHS 141, Bronx Science and Horace Mann. Also, she served on the board of directors of the Riverdale Mental Health Association for 41 years. Her long-running recipe column made her the most famous cook in Riverdale. In hundreds of local kitchens, especially during holidays, Riverdalians still pull yellowing copies of ``Celi selects'' from file boxes and scrapbooks. Celi's work has been recognized by a wide variety of prestigious organizations such as: Riverdale Neighborhood House, Riverdale Senior Center, Riverdale Community Council, the Anti-Defamation League, among many others. She was also a pioneer of women's rights, and when becoming the first female admitted to Riverdale's Kiwanis Club. The people of New York lost Celi just 16 days shy of her 91st birthday. Celi's tireless service and commitment to our community won her a place in all of our hearts. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this resolution. I do not necessarily agree with every word of the resolution, but how many times have all of us voted for bills and resolutions that we do not agree with 100 percent? We have to make a choice, and I choose to support our troops. That is clearly the thrust of this resolution, to support the brave men and women that do us all proud. War is never easy. War should always be a last resort, and while we can question the policies of any administration, the men and women that go to preserve freedom for our great country, we owe them our deepest gratitude. I think it is very fitting that the Congress show our brave men and women that we strongly support them and that we join hands regardless of how some of us may feel about policy. I voted to give the President the authority, and I think that now is the time to stand behind our President, to stand behind our troops and to move forward with one voice. Support the resolution.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Democratic budget and oppose the Republican budget. When Bill Clinton left office, we had record surpluses of $200 billion, and in two short years, we have a deficit of $300 billion, deficits as far as the eye can see. Yes, there was a downturn in the economy. Yes, 9/11 caused part of it, but a large part of it were those tax cuts. What are the Republicans giving us now? More tax cuts for the wealthy as far as the eye can see. Never in American history has there been a proposal for tax cuts at the time of war. This is so fiscally irresponsible that I just cannot believe it. We are leaving a legacy of debt to our children and our grandchildren, and the Republicans want to give us deeper and deeper and deeper debt and dig us deeper into a hole. There is no economic growth in the Republican budget. There is no real drug plan in the Republican budget. The Democratic budget has $128 million more for prescription drugs, $34 billion more for homeland security. The Republican budget gives us cuts to veterans and schools and Medicaid and to our senior citizens. The Democratic budget is responsible. The Republican budget subordinates all other priorities to additional lavish tax cuts. Vote for the Democratic budget.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me say up front that I think we need to help doctors with unconscionable medical malpractice rates. I mean this most sincerely, and I pledge to do everything I can to help them; but this bill is not the way to go. It will adversely impact patients who are injured. These are people whose lives are irreparably harmed and this legislation, in my opinion, punishes them even further. We can find a balance, but the majority is ramming this legislation through the House without regard to how it will hurt victims of negligent practices. A $250,000 cap on economic damages disproportionately affects those who do not earn a lot of money. Someone with a minimum-wage job or a stay-at-home mom or dad cannot place a value on their work, but a corporate executive will walk away with millions in economic damages. This is not what we should be advocating in the House. Further, the legislation limits the statute of limitations to 3 years from the day the injury occurred or 1 year from the day the injury is discovered. This is not fair. I had an amendment which I tried to put forward in the Committee on Rules in the hope that they would allow us an up-or-down vote on the floor. It was turned down. There are some injuries, for instance, HIV/AIDS or blood transfusions, where people do not find out about their injuries for more than 3 years. So I believe this bill is not the way to go. It should be voted down, and I hope we can come back with good compromise legislation that helps doctors with malpractice rates.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, HR 663, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, is important legislation that holds great promise to reduce medical errors. This legislation will allow medical errors to be reported so we can learn from mistakes and hopefully prevent future errors from occurring. By allowing errors or near misses to be reported anonymously it takes away the fear many providers have in regards to reporting errors. I am particularly pleased that the legislation creates the Medical Information Technology Assessment Board which will work in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services to develop national interoperability standards. I was pleased to work with the Committee to get this provision included in the bill. These national standards will allow all aspects of health care technology to become compatible. Thus, computers, hand held electronic charts and other new devices that hold a variety of medical information, including laboratory and radiology results, pharmacy orders, etc, will all be compatible. This compatibility will greatly reduce medical errors. Further, the legislation authorizes grants to test the interoperability standards. This is vitally important as it will prove the efficacy, usability, and scalability of interoperability standards, thus encouraging hospitals and other health care facilities and providers to adopt the standards and invest in medical informatics. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, and I thank both the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees for working in a bipartisan fashion to produce good legislation on such an important issue.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to illustrate the great necessity for services to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. According to the Department of Justice, every year in the United States, 4.9 million people are victimized by their intimate partners. In order to break free of violence, these victims seek assistance through the National Domestic Violence Hotline, local shelter programs, rape crisis centers and transitional housing programs. The Violence against Women Act of 2000, VAWA, authorized funding for these essential programs. In his State of the Union address, the President listed domestic violence services as important and worthy of Federal funding. Yet the President's 2004 budget cuts over $19 million from VAWA programs. This cut may seem minimal. However, for victims of domestic violence it could mean the literal difference between life and death. I stand before you today and ask that Congress restore the cuts made to the VAWA programs in the President's budget in order to preserve essential services to victims of domestic violence and their children. Without full funding for these programs, women's lives are literally in jeopardy.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joseph Bermudez who has dedicated his life to his adopted country. Joseph came to the United States as a boy of just 6 years of age. Throughout his life he has given so much to his country, his community, and his family. Joseph joined the Navy and served during the Vietnam era;. He remained in the Naval Air Reserve for 23 years, retiring at the rank of Lieutenant Commander. Shortly after his discharge from the Navy, Joseph joined the Bronx Bureau of Child Welfare serving as a caseworker, child protective investigator and training specialist for the Manhattan office. Joseph's professional career in the New York City Schools began as a bilingual social worker and social work coordinator for Community School District 1 and District 4 in Manhattan. Later he worked for School District 11 in the Bronx, as a bilingual social worker at Junior High School 112 and at Truman High School as a counselor. He also worked as an in-house social worker for the Committee on Special Education. The past 12 years he has served as an Education Administrator for The Committee on Pre-School Special Education. Finally, he has also served on the District Universal Advisory Board. During this distinguished tenure, Joseph took time away from the New York Schools to serve a 3-year assignment with the U.S. Public Health Service as a Health Service Officer. During his tour of duty, the United States faced two major public health crises, the Cuban Boat Crisis and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Joseph is a graduate of Long Island University and Fordham University, where he received a Master's degree in Social Work. He still lives in New York with his wife of 34 years and is the proud father of two daughters, Christina and Yvonne. Mr. Speaker, New York and the United States have been blessed by the efforts of Joseph Bermudez. He is a shining example for all of us to look to.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate, but not celebrate Lebanon's Independence Day. Fifty-nine years ago, Lebanon gained its independence from France. Yet, today, Lebanon is no longer a sovereign and independent country. With 25,000 Syrian troops occupying Lebanon, it remains firmly in the grip of Damascus, without the ability to conduct its own affairs without first seeking the approval of the Assad regime. More than 2 years ago, Israel completely withdrew its armed forces from southern Lebanon. This withdrawal was certified by the United Nations. The time is long past due for Syria to leave, as well, and for the Lebanese to run Lebanon. As the author of the Syria Accountability Act, I thank the 172 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the 45 members of the Senate who joined as cosponsors of our legislation. We have together shined a bright light on the injustice of the continuing Syrian occupation of Lebanon and have only added to the growing campaign to liberate Lebanon. So, on this 59th anniversary of Lebanese independence, I stand with the Lebanese people who seek freedom and democracy for their beautiful country and peace for the entire region. It is my hope that some time soon, Lebanese Independence Day will not only be a commemoration, but will once again be a celebration.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt on his 50th birthday and in recognition of the tremendous work he has done on behalf of others. Rabbi Weinblatt and his wife Symcha are the parents of four wonderful children, Ezra, Margalit, Micha, and Noam. He is the founding Rabbi of Congregation B'nai Tzedek, a Conservative synagogue in Potomac, Maryland, to which I belong, serving more than 620 families. Prior to forming Congregation B'nai Tzedek in 1988, Rabbi Weinblatt was the Rabbi of Temple Solel in Bowie, Maryland, for seven years and Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida, from 1979-1981. Rabbi Weinblatt is active in a number of local and national organizations, including the National Rabbinic Cabinet of the UHC, Hillel at the University of Maryland, the Jewish National Fund, Israel Bonds, the Jewish Community Council, where he chaired a committee on Jewish Life and Culture, and the Federation of Greater Washington, where he chaired the Super Sunday effort several years ago. Rabbi Weinblatt has also served as President of the Washington Board of Rabbis. He has been an adjunct professor of Jewish History and Theology at Wesley Theological Seminary since 1992. His dynamic leadership, innovative approach to Judaism and reputation as an outstanding teacher and speaker has earned him many honors, including selection as a Bronfman Fellow by CLAL and as a fellow in the Shalom Hartman Institute Center for Rabbinic Enrichment program. In recognition of his outstanding leadership and community involvement, he was chosen in 2001 as the Washington area ORT ``Man of the Year.'' He is a strong and vocal supporter of the State of Israel. I met Stuart Weinblatt when I was first running for Congress, 14 years ago, when we were seated at the same table, by chance, at a dinner. I had no idea that years later I would become a member of a new synagogue that was opening with him at the helm. I have followed this man all these years, and have watched him and the synagogue grow in stature. His sermons are always remarkable and inspiring. Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Weinblatt's years of service to his community and the nation have enriched the lives of so many others and he is a stellar example of the type of individuals we need leading our communities. I am proud to be a congregant of Rabbi Weinblatt's Synagogue. I wish Rabbi Weinblatt a very happy 50th birthday and I look forward to his continued service as a leader in our community. I am proud to call him my Rabbi, and even more proud to call him my friend.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of our colleague, Patsy Mink. I was extremely saddened by the news of her death this weekend. Yet I am comforted by the fact that her story will serve to inspire young men and women all over the nation to serve their country. Patsy's life was one of constantly overcoming barriers. As a student at the University of Nebraska, Patsy worked to end the policy of housing desegregation. Patsy wanted to be a medical doctor but was prevented from doing so because medical schools did not, at that time, accept women. She then applied to law school, graduated from the University of Chicago, only to be blocked from getting a job as a lawyer because of her gender. Never allowing barriers to stand in her way, Patsy started her own law practice in Hawaii. As a member of Congress, Patsy worked tirelessly to fight for civil rights, our nation's children, the environment, and equal opportunity. Furthermore, as a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee she led the fight for Title IX which mandated gender equality in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Today's great female athletes, such as Mia Hamm, owe their success in part to Patsy. I am thankful that I had the opportunity to serve with someone who fought so indefatigably for economic and social justice for all Americans. I am proud to have called Patsy Mink a friend and a colleague. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California, whose wisdom gets greater with each passing day, for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, there is no jumping for joy in this debate. This is a very solemn moment. Each Member of Congress has to do a lot of personal soul searching. There should be no finger pointing, no questioning of patriotism. This is the American way of life, the American Congress at our best, democracy where everyone can speak. This makes me so proud to be an American and so proud to be a Member of the United States Congress. Madam Speaker, for me, I will support this resolution, even though I must say there are some unanswered legitimate questions. I think it is best to speak about some of those questions up front. There are serious questions about the timing of this. Why is this the absolute right time to do it? Why not 3 months ago? Why not 3 months from now? Why not 6 months from now? I think that is a very legitimate question, and I am not totally satisfied with the answers. Secondly, I do not think there has been enough thought about what happens after we get into Iraq. We have to stay the course. We cannot pick up and run. We have to make sure that democracy sets root in that country. Thirdly, there is a question about our war against terrorism and other nations that support terrorism. For me, Iran and Syria have supported terrorism and terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas far greater than Iraq. They support terrorism against us. They support terrorism against our ally Israel; and very little has been done to confront Syria and Iran, and I hope the looking at Iraq does not turn us away from other nations that support the evil of terrorism. I think for me, Madam Speaker, what is most important and the bottom line for me is that as a New Yorker and as an American, after September 11, the equation changed. I was in New York when the World Trade Center went down. Three thousand lives were lost, including many of my own constituents. The Cold War arguments of deterrence and containment I do not think apply anymore. In this era of terrorism, the U.S. has to be proactive. When there is evil around the world, and the evil threatens our country, and the evil threatens innocent people, we have to act. We did so in Kosovo. We did so in Kuwait back in 1991. We did so in Bosnia. We should have done so in Rwanda where a million innocent lives were lost. I am not willing to let that happen again. I have no apologies when the U.S. does what is in our national interests to save our people and to save innocent lives, but we have to try to work with many nations. We have to work with U.N. resolutions. We have to work with others. Madam Speaker, back in 1991 with the invasion of Kuwait, we knew then that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, a menace to his people, a menace to our people, and a menace to the world. I said in 1991 that we should have removed him then, and I am consistent. He has weapons of mass destruction. He flaunts U.N. resolutions. He supports destruction of our ally Israel. He has played a shell game for years with weapons inspectors. We cannot allow this to continue. In the Committee on International Relations, I voted yes on this resolution because it is an improvement from the original resolution that was sent down by the White House. This resolution does not give a blank check. This resolution limits the scope. This resolution is no Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This resolution strikes the right balance. I am willing to look at some of the amendments. I am willing to listen to what our colleagues have to say; but in terms of this Congress, in terms of final passage, we need to stand together as a Nation. I believe it would be a monumental mistake not to support the President on this. The arguments against this resolution are similar arguments that were made against Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Time has shown that those arguments were wrong, and backing down now would allow Saddam Hussein and others who wish us ill to conclude that they can simply violate U.N. Security Council resolutions, kill their own people, threaten their neighbors and the world, become a danger to the United States and our way of life while we simply stand idly by. This cannot stand. Years later, when my children ask me what did I do when confronted with evil, I want to be able to say to them that we rose to the task and did not let tyrants and terrorists threaten our way of life. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution.