Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to provide the Public Safety Office Medal of Valor to some of the greatest heroes our Nation has ever known. I want to thank my colleague from New York for introducing and shepherding this through the House so quickly. I also want to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt condolences to him for the personal loss he has suffered as a result of September 11th. The men and women who responded to the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania crash site put themselves in harm's way in order to save the lives of countless others. In the case of New York, we all know that there were tragic results. As I watched from my apartment in the Bronx, not only did the World Trade Center Towers come crashing down, but hundreds of firefighters lost their lives. I must admit at that moment I was full of despair. But then, like a light shining through the dark storm clouds, I saw even more emergency personnel going into Ground Zero. Through the horror of the events, my spirits rose as I saw time and time again, firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel pull people out. It is very fitting that we honor these men and women with this medal. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time; and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), for working with me on this resolution, as we have worked on so many other things in the past and will continue to do so in the future. This resolution was being put together prior to the events of September 11, but the events of September 11 have made us realize even more how fortunate we are to have the first responders. First responders obviously did not start on September 11. They have been there with us for all time; and we are very, very deeply grateful. The events of September 11 will be with us always. My thoughts and prayers are with all the families affected by this terrible tragedy. Though my heart is heavy, my spirits have been lifted by the incredible heroism and outpouring of support that we have witnessed since that day. The American spirit has not been diminished. Instead, it has been energized. On behalf of New York, I want to sincerely thank my colleagues and the American people for their outpouring of support to all of us during these very, very difficult times. I am so pleased to be here today and have the House of Representatives considering this resolution. It is, of course, timely and, of course, very warranted. I think it is particularly poignant that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) is the sponsor of this resolution. I am proud to be a sponsor with him. The people of Oklahoma also know personally of the tragedy of terrorism. I do not know of anyone who does not get choked up when we hear the stories of people rushing away from the World Trade Center on the terrible day of September 11. But when they were rushing away, they were passing firefighters and police officers and emergency medical personnel who were running toward the World Trade Center. These first responders did not think of their own lives; they thought of saving other lives. So this resolution honors and commends the first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel, who participated in evacuating and rescuing people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon after the terrorist attacks on September 11. It also expresses Congress' profound sorrow for the deaths and injuries suffered by first responders and extends its deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who died. I might say I visited ground zero a number of times and have again been overwhelmed by the outpouring of first responders again trying to pick through the rubble and trying to help and just trying to give comfort. First responders, ironworkers, my dad was an ironworker for 40 years. It is something that really makes us proud to be Americans, proud to be New Yorkers. Like so many people, like so many New Yorkers, I have been personally affected by the attacks. My good friend and constituent, Sally Reganhard, lost her son Christian, who was also my constituent. Christian was a firefighter for only 6 weeks in New York City, and on September 11 he responded to the call of duty as he had during those past 6 weeks. We memorialized him last Friday at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. It was very, very difficult. There were thousands and thousands of people there, and firefighters from all around the country and Canada. Although my friend is very sad, indeed she and I and everyone who knew Christian are also very proud. He will always be with us and will always be a great role model and hero, again, as will all the other first responders who responded on those days. All Americans owe so much to these brave men and women that Congress is taking the time to recognize. It is the least we can do. Again I want to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have done so much to make this resolution a reality. We will continue to provide aid and comfort to those who suffered the terrible tragedies of September 11.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for United States policy in our war on terrorism. The President has my full backing in what will clearly be a long and arduous battle to track down and stamp out terrorist organizations. In the end, I am confident that we will prevail over these forces of evil and barbarism. At the same time, we must strike a balance between our need for allies in the region and our commitment to advancing the cause of freedom and human rights. In Central Asia, for example, I support our efforts to work closely with Uzbekistan and appreciate that the fact that we have received permission from that nation to use its military bases. However, Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state which has also reportedly imprisoned over 7,000 political prisoners in poor conditions. Next door, in Kazakhstan, the repressive and corrupt regime of Nursultan Nazarbayev has also offered to provide as yet unspecified assistance to the coalition. All of us welcome support from the nations of Central Asia and hope to welcome them someday into the family of democracies, but I am concerned that there may be an implicit quid pro quo in such assistance. I hope that these countries do not expect the U.S. to ease the pressure to end human rights abuses and to promote democratic reform. In this connection, both the Financial Times and the Washington Post have recently printed editorials warning about the pitfalls of cooperation with repressive regimes in Central Asia and elsewhere. The Financial Times, for example stated on September 17 that ``the US must be careful not to align itself too closely with authoritarian regimes that have dreadful records of suppressing minority groups. An anti-terrorist campaign must never be used as a convenient excuse for repressing political opponents . . .'' Similarly, a Washington Post editorial of September 24 warned that ``In forming tactical bonds with such nations, America must not forget what it is fighting for as well as what it is fighting against.'' The editorial goes on to say that ``in the long run, democracy will be the best antidote to religious extremism.'' In this connection, it is important for the U.S. to be seen as clearly promoting the freedoms that President Bush championed in his address to Congress on September 20: ``our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.'' I believe that as we work with the governments of Central Asia to destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network, we should also caution that repression and corruption are creating ideal conditions for Islamic extremism to flourish within their borders. Islamic extremist groups will never run out of recruits as long as the Soviet era dictators in Central Asia continue their repressive and corrupt ways. In this regard, I am particularly concerned about Kazakhstan, which is the crown jewel of the region because of its oil, gas and mineral wealth. I shudder to think what an Islamic extremist government would do with that country's wealth. As we have done in other regions of importance to the United States, we must expand our efforts to promote pluralism, tolerance, and openness in Central Asia. The people of these nations deserve a political avenue to express their opinions and grievances. Extremist Islam must not be the only outlet for Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tajiks, and other Central Asians as it unfortunately has become for so many other people in the region. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full texts of the Financial Times and Washington Post editorials be printed at this point in the Record. [From the Financial Times, Mon., Sept. 17, 2001] Doubtful Allies in Central Asia Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, has said that the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington create a new benchmark by which the US will measure its allies. Just as Washington's relations with other states during the cold war were determined by their alignment towards the Soviet Union, so the US will now judge nations by how fiercely they oppose international terrorism. This tilt of the prism could lead to some surprising--and potentially disturbing--new alignments. So far, the US has done an impressive job in marshalling international support. It is now trying to court the countries near Afghanistan, including Pakistan, Russia, and China, which Washington has previously accused of giving succour to rogue states. The US is also trying to win support from the five former Soviet central Asian states. All these countries realise that they have a common interest in pre- empting terrorism in a world in which every commercial airliner has been turned into a potential bomb. But some may also see domestic tactical advantages in backing any forthcoming US offensive. In prosecuting its new war against terrorism the US must therefore be careful not to align itself too closely with authoritarian regimes that have dreadful records of suppressing minority groups. An anti-terrorist campaign must never be used as a convenient excuse for repressing political opponents or turned into an anti-Muslim crusade. Focus on Pakistan The immediate focus is on Pakistan, which is one of the few countries to recognize the Taliban leadership in neighbouring Afghanistan. As it shelters an estimated 2m Afghan refugees, Pakistan well knows the tragedies of its troubled neighbour. The US provided strong support to Pakistan during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but has since distanced itself from the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf. Washington continues to uphold sanctions against Pakistan first imposed after Islamabad exploded a nuclear bomb. It has also expressed concern that Pakistan supports militants in Kashmir. Co-operation with US In spite of the presence of Muslim extremists within Pakistan, Gen Musharraf can doubtless see the advantages of co-operating with the US. But he will, in turn, surely expect the US to legitimise his regime and help persuade the International Monetary Fund to release fresh funds for Pakistan. He may also want foreign powers to tone down their criticisms of his military rule and quietly forget about his promises to restore democracy by October 2002. Washington should resist making such explicit trade-offs. The US may also see the Shanghai grouping of central Asian states--including China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan--as natural allies in its war against Muslim terrorists. This grouping is already swapping intelligence and considering security arrangements to combat extremism. China fears that Muslim extremism could infect its western province of Xinjiang. Russia is fighting Muslim opponents in Chechnya and Tajikistan. To varying degrees, the central Asian states are all concerned that Muslim militants could undermine their own regimes. But many of these countries are characterised by blatant abuse of minority rights and hostility towards the Muslim opposition. President George W. Bush has made a commendably forthright defence of Arab Americans. He should be equally strong in support of peacefully oriented Muslims throughout central Asia. In a traditional war the enemies of your enemies may be counted as your friends. But Mr. Bush has launched a new kind of war for justice that ultimately can only succeed by winning over hearts and minds. The US should be as steadfast in its defence of Muslim moderates as it is ferocious in attacking terrorism. The natural allies of the US in central Asia may be counted more among its peoples rather than its regimes.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to to thank my colleague and fellow New Yorker, Mr. Fossella, for introducing this resolution designating September 11 as Patriot Day. Like December 7, 1941, September 11, 2001 will forever live in infany. Our country has been irrevocably altered by the events of September 11. Although we as a nation will recover, we will never forget the horror inflicted upon us. The events of September 11 and their aftermath have brought this nation together as never before. Designating September 11 as Patriot Day will remind us, in perpetuity, of the evil acts committed and the heroic acts that resulted. I wholeheartedly support this resolution and thank my colleague for introducing it.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill because it does not provide short-term economic stimulus and does long-term damage to the Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, having served in Congress 13 years, I have had to cast votes on a number of large bills that contain numerous provisions. And, I can say most of those large bills contained provisions I do not care for. What I, and the rest of our colleagues, must do is weigh the pros and cons. The large bill before us today is weighted heavily toward the con. The challenge we face is providing a short-term economic stimulus without endangering the long-term health of the Federal budget. This bill does neither, and will cause long-term, and I fear irreparable harm to the Federal budget. Let me point out one such egregious provision in this bill. Permanently eliminating the Corporate AMT while only making minuscule changes to the Individual AMT is wrong. What are the leaders of the Ways and Means Committee thinking when they give hugh corporations the chance to skip out on their taxes while continuing to force middle-income families to endure this hardship? What kind of stimulus is that? Even more disheartening is the lack of true assistance to America's unemployed. We have an opportunity to assist people immediately. In fact, we have a responsibility to assist these people. But, instead this bill forces State governments to pass new laws making assistance a long time in coming--if at all. Where is the compassionate conservatism in that? The Democratic substitute provides immediate assistance. It contains a provision that draws upon a successful history of Federal programs-- building things--in this case schools. The Federal Government has done a great job building military bases and an interstate road network. Building schools will employ people now and finally provide our children the facilities they deserve. I would also note that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee walked away from bipartisan negotiations that included the President. The White House has already signaled it has concerns about this bill-- and rightly so. It is too heavily weighed toward helping huge corporations and not toward the average American. Mr. Speaker, there are good parts of this bill. The provisions that will allow faster depreciation of business equipment purchases and of leasehold space are good provisions. These would spur short-term economic activity. Why we are not providing new short-term incentives like this is a mystery to me. In short, the egregious provisions in this bill weigh this bill down too much. I urge a yes vote on the Democratic bill and a no vote on the Thomas bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to a powerful essay by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman of Bar Ilan University and Stephen Wagner of Bar Ilan University entitled, ``Philo-Semitism in the Work of the Polish Nobel Laureate Czeslaw Milosz: He Pays Tribute to Jewish Literature.'' According to the article, while there has been anti- Semitism among the Polish masses, the Polish aristocracy and intelligencia ``were overwhelmingly philo-Semitic.'' According to the essay, Milosz's opinion ``corroborates the views of the great Jewish writer, the poet and novelist Chaim Grade, originally, like Milosz, from Vilna . . .'' For several years, I have been striving to protect the works of Chaim Grade, many of whose writings were lost due to the complexities Grade faced by the copyright laws after he came to the United States following World War II. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation to fully protect Grade's works, H.R. 2971. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Rackman/Wagner essay be printed at this point. Philo-Semitism in the Work of the Polish Nobel Laureate Czeslaw Milosz: He Pays Tribute to Jewish Literature Numerous very interested reviews of Czeslaw Milosz's newly published book, Milosz's ABC's inspired us to read it. The various, truly unexpected, unpredictable subjects, alphabetically arranged as if encyclopedia entries, may well require a volume of comments. So we comment here on only one subject, conspicuously absent from this work both as a subject and in spirit--anti-Semitism. Czeslaw Milosz, a Polish nobleman, gives as much attention and loving devotion to his Jewish friends and acquaintances, subjects and issues, as Polish ones. The absence of the least trace of anti-Semitism in Milosz's book is to us, as American Jews, a revelation, for it corroborates the views of the great Jewish writer, the poet and novelist Chaim Grade, originally, like Milosz, from Vilna, who said that in Poland anti-Semitism was mainly among the masses--evidently under the influence of the Church of pre-Vatican II--whereas the Polish aristocracy and intelligentsia, with rare exceptions, were overwhelmingly philo-Semitic. Indeed, Chaim Grade wrote a poem of homage to the greatest poet of Poland, Adam Mickiewicz, famous as a philo-Semite, calling him ``the conscience of Poland.'' Chaim Grade is a master of utmost objectivity, well aware of the horrors of anti-Semitism, for which reason in his Lamentations about the program in Kielce, July 1946--not yet translated--he describes the Polish doctor who at the funeral of the victims denounces the murderous mob with the fiery pathos of a Hebrew prophet. It is the very same doctor, a devout Catholic, who rescued more than twenty Jews from the Nazis, hiding them in his house, again as described by Chaim Grade in his acclaimed philosophical Dialogue, My War With Hersh Rassayner, the complete text of which, edited and revised by Chaim Grade himself, has just been translated into English. Scholar agree--and among them Professor Emeritus Millon R. Konvitz of Cornell University--that the Philosophical Dialogue of Chaim Grade is indeed the Book of Job on the Holocaust and that, like the Book of Job, it belongs ``among Jewish writings that are considered sacred . . . which in the Hebrew Scriptures are wisely placed in the part known simply as writings.'' Chaim Grade attended the funeral of the victims of the pogrom of Kielce with Antek Yitzhak Zuckerman, one of the foremost leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, who said that ``while it took one Pole to betray one hundred Jews, it took one hundred Poles to save one Jew, and the Poles who were saving Jews are the glory of mankind.'' Chaim Grade's works reflect this truth. No doubt, it is Chaim Grade's absolute objectivity and utmost spiritual and intellectual honesty that inspired Czeslaw Milosz, the spiritual and literary heir of Mickiewicz, to devote to him a chapter of homage in Milosz's ABC's, where among other important comments, he reports what a Jewish authority should have reported a long time ago: The Nobel Prize for Isaac Bashevis Singer was cause for violent controversies among Yiddish-speaking New York Jews . . . Above all, . . . in the opinion of the majority of the disputants, Grade was a much better writer than Singer, but little translated into English, which is why members of the Swedish Academy had no access to his writings. Singer gained fame, according to this opinion, by dishonest means. Obsessively concerned with sex, he created his own world of Polish Jews which had nothing in common with reality--erotic, fantastic, filled with apparitions, spirits, and dybbuks, as if that had been the quotidian reality of Jewish towns. Grade was a real writer, faithful to the reality he described, and he deserved the Nobel Prize . . . Grade was attentive to the accuracy of the details he recorded and has been compared with Balzac or Dickens. . . . This statement by an authority of Czeslaw Milosz's stature, himself a Nobel laureate, is a very serious matter. Czeslaw Milosz goes on to describe Jewish life in Poland as it was and Jewish-Polish relations as they were, all as reflected in the works of Chaim Grade. It is regrettable that he did not know what was very well known in Jewish literary circles, that Chaim Grade forbade all from nominating him for the Nobel prize, mostly because his pre-world war II prophetic and poetic visions of doom were recited like prayers both in the Vilna Ghetto and in Auschwitz, along with the poetry of the great Jewish poet Yitzhak Katznelson, who, together with his wife and sons, perished in Auschwitz, and of whose works very little has been rescued. All this was reported by the surviving eyewitnesses in Yiddish and published in Argentina, then in English in America--check the Jewish Book Annual--the American Yearbook of Jewish Creativity 1990-1991, 5751. Many people regretted Chaim Grade's decision, for it was taken advantage of by the writer unequivocally rejected by the Jewish writers and readers for reasons well explained by Czeslaw Milosz, who, by whatever means, got the prize and paraded the foremost representative of Jewish literature, of the very Judaism. Thus, the issue is not that Chaim Grade does not have the Nobel Prize, but that, from the Jewish viewpoint, the least suitable, the worst possible writer, has it. As Czeslaw Milosz rightly testifies, the Jewish people have the greatest appreciation for Chaim Grade, especially because of his volumes of lamentations in poetry and prose about the Holocaust, for which Encyclopedia Judaica reports, he is declared ``the national Jewish poet, as Bialik was in his day.'' Chaim Grade's volumes resurrect the life of East European Jewry, such as it truly was, very much as stated by Czeslaw Milosz who, a Pole from Vilna, knew this life very well and is a most reliable witness. Czeslaw Milosz's report about the Jewish attitude towards the Yiddish Nobel laureate may be corroborated by the following vignette: Professor Saul Lieberman, the Dean of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, heard the news from Sweden, and exclaimed in utter disbelief, ``What?!!! But he wrote only pornography!'' When Bar-Ilan University in Israel was approached about a prize for the Yiddish laureate, he was rejected so emphatically that the issue was never raised again. Czeslaw Milosz's report is especially important in view of the general contempt for the Yiddish Nobel laureate. Thus, less than a month before the incomprehensible news from Sweden, John Simon wrote on September 12, 1978, in The Esquire: International understanding is a delightful thing. How nice it was at the recent Pula Film Festival, in Yugoslavia, between looking at films, to find a group of critics and scholars from various countries in agreement about the vast overratedness of that self-inflated, dully repetitious, barely second-rate fictionalist Isaac Bashevis Singer. And Israel Shenker concluded the definitive literary obituary of the Yiddish laureate in August 1991, in the Book Review of the New York Times: He shied from chicken soup--and chickens--and became a devoted vegetarian . . . ``So, in a very small way, I do a favor for the chickens,'' Singer said. ``If I will ever get a monument, chickens will do it for me.'' A New York Times reporter in 1978, the year of the shocking choice of the Nobel prize for literature, Israel Shenker is known to have approached the late Eugene Rachlis, the Editor- in-Chief of Bobbs-Merryl, then Chaim Grade's English publisher (now it is Knopf); and asked, ``what's going on? Everybody says that it is your man who should have gotten the prize.'' All this explains why Israel Shenker chose to end the definitive literary obituary of the Yiddish laureate with the laureate's own ``chickens'' words. And all this proves the great truth of the words of the man who is America's conscience, Abraham Lincoln, ``you can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.'' Most importantly about this case is, of course, not just that the Yiddish laureate is a ``pornographic writer,'' as rightly denounced by Saul Lieberman, nor that he is merely a ``self-inflated, dully- repetitious, barely second-rate fictionalist,'' as rightly stated by John Simon and colleagues, nor that--as he himself knew and said--he is a writer for ``chickens,''--whatever this may mean. The most important is precisely as Czeslaw Milosz testifies, ``he created his own world of Polish Jews which had nothing in common with reality,'' as the result of which he has misinformed and mislead people, preventing them from knowing the truth about Jewish life in Eastern Europe, especially about Jewish-Polish relations. It is to be hoped that responsible people like John Simon and Israel Shenker will appreciate Czeslaw Milosz's testimony, that they are aware that the Jewish people are no ``chickens,'' that, prize or no prize, the Jewish people have rejected the so-called Yiddish laureate, that his prize remains an incomprehensible insult, if not an outrage. And we cannot be too grateful to Czeslaw Milosz, the Polish Nobel Laureate, for having made in his ABC's room also for Chaim Grade, the Jewish master, who describes Jewish life in Eastern Europe as it really was, and, above all, the Jewish spirit such as it is, always and everywhere, beyond time and space, the spirit of the Bible. Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, Chancellor, Bar Ilan University. Stephen Wagner, Esq., Counsel, Bar Ilan University.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am here in the Chamber tonight with a heavy heart. I will support this bill reluctantly, but I will oppose the rule. And I will oppose it because of the reasons that so many of my colleagues have given. I am very disappointed that there is no relief for workers for the airline industry. There is no job training, there is no unemployment compensation, there is no health benefits protection to laid-off workers. None of that is in the bill. I know we are going to revisit it next week, and I hope we get a bill then, but it should be in the bill tonight. Also, we all know that federalizing the security workers that are by the x-ray machines is something that we are going to have to do. Why are we not addressing this issue in the bill tonight? The fat cats, the heads of the airline industry, are guaranteed and locked in for millions, but American workers are not given the right time of day. We ought to stay here and we ought to perfect the bill. That is why I am going to oppose this rule, because we should be having amendments that will deal with these issues that we are talking about. What could be more important than helping American workers? So I will support the bill, but I will oppose the rule. The airline industry needs to be helped, but we should be doing everything tonight.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am humbled today by the outpouring of support from across our Nation for the people of my home, New York City. I want to thank Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki. Their strong leadership has made getting through this much, much easier. Here on the floor today, the Congress is doing its part. The leadership of the Congress, in a non-partisan way has come together to respond swiftly and powerfully. Also, I want to thank the President as well for his quick, strong support for this bill. The bill, though simple, is very powerful. The bill provides $20 billion to begin the rebuilding of New York. It also provides $20 billion to ramp up our efforts at counter-terrorism. All of this is so obviously needed. I want again to recognize the incredible heroism of the emergency response personnel who have put themselves in harm's way without regard for their own safety. You are all amazing and I am truly astounded. I also want to say to the families of the victims of this tragedy, that I and every other American grieve with you. We cannot express in words what is in hearts. You are in our prayers and thoughts. These acts of terrorism against New York and the Pentagon will not deter us though. We will rebuild our city. We will rebuild the Pentagon. We will go on. We stand united. We are Americans.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have just come back from New York with the President, and I must say that I still have the mud all over me. Being a New Yorker, born and bred, I was not prepared for what I saw at ground zero. Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood in the well and was one of the Democrats who crossed party lines to support the first President Bush in the Persian Gulf War to do what he needed to do as our commander in chief, and I now do the same 10 years later with President Bush. This is a very difficult time for all Americans. We need to band together to fight this scourge of terrorism, and I think we know it now more than ever before. I have never been more proud to be an American. I have never been more proud to be a New Yorker, to see the firemen, the policemen, the iron workers, and everyone else working together to try to find more survivors, to try to do whatever they can to help each other. This is going to be a long prolonged fight. As our President said, it is a war, a war on terrorism, but a war that we will win. I am very, very proud; proud of this body and proud to be an American. God bless America. (Mr. FERGUSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak from the heart. I have had a very tough couple of days. I think America lost our innocence yesterday, and I just kept thinking that perhaps this was a bad dream and we would somehow wake up and it would not be true, but we all know it is. Mr. Speaker, I am a New Yorker, born and bred. I love our city. I was in New York when this tragedy occurred. I often say to my children when we come back to New York, look at the skyline, look at the World Trade Center. It is so invigorating. It makes me feel so wonderful just to be in this city, the city I love, the city in which I was born. Mr. Speaker, we New Yorkers are a tough breed; but I have to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, this morning at 7 a.m. when I went over the George Washington Bridge to come back down here to Washington and I took a look at the New York skyline and saw the Twin Towers were not there and in its place I saw the smoke and the fire, I really lost it. I really lost it. Mr. Speaker, as much as I have lost it because I do not see the towers there, it pales by comparison when I think of the victims, the men, women and children who lost their lives; the firemen, the policemen who came there to save people's lives and lost their lives. People who go to work, like millions of people in this great country go to work to earn a living to support their families, they go to work and they are killed by lunatics. We have some questions to be asked, Mr. Speaker. We have to ask why our intelligence failed us, why our security failed us. Congress has to get to the bottom of this and ask these questions. Congress will find out. Let me say to the terrorists and those people in the streets that we saw, the Palestinians and others who were dancing in the streets with glee, let me say to them and Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and all the people that support terrorism, you have awakened a sleeping giant. The United States will not rest until we root out every one of you, until we root out the terror and the terrorist cells. We are going to rally around our President, as we always have, with bipartisanship. We are all one America. God bless this wonderful Nation. God bless America.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, recently, I took to the floor to tell our colleagues about Antonio Meucci, who is one of history's forgotten inventors. I would like to take this opportunity now to insert into the Congressional Record excerpts of a lecture of Prof. Basillio Catania that he gave in October 2000 at New York University. I believe you will find it very informative and illuminating. I commend it to all our colleagues. Antonio Meucci, Inventor of the Telephone: Unearthing the Legal and Scientific Proofs For 12 years I have researched the life and inventions of Antonio Meucci. My research was largely based on original documents, found in archives located in Italy, Cuba and the United States. Here I will briefly touch on topics connected with Meucci's priority in the invention of the telephone, namely, the Bell v. Globe trial, the United States v. Bell trial, and the scientific proofs of Meucci's priority. Regarding the Bell v. Globe trial, it is known that Judge Wallace's decision, issued in New York on 19 July 1887, ruled in favor of the Bell Company against the Globe Telephone Company and Meucci. The report of this trial is at 31 F. 729 (Cir. Ct., S.D.N.Y., 1887). In particular, the Deposition of Antonio Meucci is also available in many public libraries, such as the New York Public Library and the Library of Congress. However, it must be remarked that, while the Bell Company had sued the Globe Company and Meucci for patent infringement, it is largely unknown that the U.S. Government sued the Bell Company and Graham Bell for fraud, collusion and deception in obtaining the telephone patent(s). See 32 F. 591 (Cir. Ct., D. Mass., 1887). The U.S. Government set out to prove that Meucci--not Bell--had discovered the electromagnetic telephone and that the German Philipp Reiss had discovered the variable resistance transmitter, later called the ``microphone.'' In other words, whereas in New York the Bell Company claimed that Bell, not Meucci, was the inventor of the telephone, in Washington the Government claimed the opposite. Here is a brief chronology of what had happened in Washington, before the commencement of the Bell action against Meucci. As early as 31 August 1885, the U.S. Solicitor General consented to petitions from several parties and authorized the U.S. Attorney for Western Tennessee to institute a suit in the name of the Government to annul the Bell patents. On 9 September, a bill of complaint against the Bell Company and Graham Bell was filed. On 29 September, the Globe Company filed a petition with the Department of Justice. supporting the action of the Government and upholding Meucci's priority. On 9 October, the U.S. Solicitor General suspended the proceedings, in order to allow the Secretary of the Interior, Lucius Lamar, who had jurisdiction over the Patent Office, to launch an investigation of its activity in this connection and report recommendations to the Department of Justice. On 9 November, the Secretary commenced public hearings, with the aim of determining if there was ground for further proceedings against Bell and the Bell Company. In January, 1886, the Interior Secretary recommended the institution of a suit against Graham Bell and the Bell Company, in the name and on behalf of the Government of the United States. He accompanied his letter with all reports, arguments and exhibits put ahead at the hearings. Now, while the Secretary was holding said hearings, the Bell Company filed a bill of complaint against the Globe Company and Meucci in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Wallace, who had already ruled four times in favor of Bell for patent infringement in other cases, presided over this court. It was, therefore, evident that the Bell move was more a maneuver to counteract the attack of the Government, than to sue the Globe Company for an (otherwise non-existent) infringement. The Bell Company was confident to win quickly in New York, also to create a situation of res adjudicata in an eventual trial with the Government and to hamper the action in favor of Meucci in Washington. The Secretary of the The trial in New York against Globe and Meucci went on swiftly, as expected by the Bell Company, and it came to a decision in about one and a half years. On the contrary, the action of the Government, hampered by the obstructionism of the Bell lawyers, dragged for twelve years, up to the end of 1897, when it was discontinued after the parent(s) had expired--without settling the underlying issue of who had priority to invention of the telephone. Moreover, the record of this trial was never printed and is now only available, with some difficulty, from the National Archives, mostly in typescript or manuscript, being spread among different groups and cities. We must point out that, in the Bell v. Globe trial, the counsel for Globe and Meucci, David Humphreys, filed only nine out of the about fifty affidavits in favor of Meucci that were formerly exhibited and elucidated in Washington before the Interior Secretary. Counsel's main concern was to prove that Globe did not infringe the Bell patents, not having sold nor operated any telephones. Notwithstanding, Judge Wallace could not ignore the many witnesses that had testified to have successfully spoken through various Meucci's telephones. But he disposed of all such witnesses by ruling that the spoken words that they had heard were from a string telephone, not an electric telephone. As known, the ``string telephone'' is a toy used by children to talk with the aid of two cans and a rope or wire pulled stout between the cans. By ruling that way, Judge Wallace discredited Meucci, as having fooled himself, adding insult to injury. The thesis of Meucci's telephone being a string telephone was advanced in affidavit sworn by one Prof. Charles R. Cross from MIT--incidentally, a good friend of Bell, Prof. Cross stated that he had carefully studied Meucci's deposition, in order to faithfully reproduce Meucci's telephone layouts in his Physics Laboratory. However, Prof. Cross had omitted to mention in his affidavit a reel of wire that Meucci always inserted in circuit to simulate a long distance. There are three drawings and five different answers in Meucci's deposition where this reel of wire is clearly shown or quoted. Prof. Cross may have purposely omitted it. If he had inserted a reel of wire in his test, the sound could by no means mechanically traverse distance and reach the receiver. It could only be electrically transmitted. if any expert had raised that objection, Prof. Cross and Judge Wallace's thesis of the string telephone could not but fail. Another obstacle to be surmounted by the Bell lawyers--and next by Judge Wallace--was Meucci's caveat ``sound Telegraph.'' This caveat was filed in the Patent Office on 28 December 1871, many years before the first Bell patent. Though having expired on December 1874, Meucci not being able any more to pay the $10 annual fee, yet it was a proof of Meucci's priority of invention. Prof. Cross testified that the caveat ``plainly and well describes what is known as a lover's telegraph or string telephone.'' The Globe Company called as their rebuttal witness Thomas Stetson, the patent lawyer who had prepared Meucci's caveat. Surprisingly, Mr. Stetson's testimony was largely in line with Prof. Cross's, poles apart from an affidavit, five years before, which is nothing less than a paean for Meucci as the true inventor of the telephone. I took the trouble of comparing Mr. Stetson's affidavit of July 1880 with his trial testimony; the latter was in sharp contrast with his affidavit. Thus, Mr. Stetson's volte-face turned out to be a hard blow on Meucci's defense. Mr. Stetson's false statements could easily have been disproved by the written description that Meucci had provided him in order to prepare the caveat. But Mr. Stetson testified that he had lost it, together with some important letters on the same subject that Meucci had written. He also testified that he did not remember an important drawing, illustrating Meucci's telephone system, drafted for him in 1858 by a painter, Nestore Corradi, and accompanying Meucci's description. Conversely, he exhibited a mysterious letter-- that he said he had dictated but not sent to the Globe Company--containing his (quite recent) detraction of Meucci's caveat. He thus enabled Judge Wallace to rule that Meucci's pretensions ``are overthrown by his own description of the invention at a time when he deemed it in a condition to patent, and by the evidence of Mr. Stetson.'' Among others, the Bell Company called as their witness two Italians, Frederico Garlanda and John Citarotto, who testified that they owned a quite complete collection of L'Eco d'Italia (an Italian newspaper of New York), running from 1857 down to 1881. They stated, however, that their collection lacked just the issues from 1 December 1860 to the whole year 1863. We must recall that Meucci's invention was testified as having been published in L'Eco d'Italia between the end of 1860 and the beginning of 1861. If retrieved, it would have rendered null the Bell patents. Those precious issues of L'Eco d'Italia that lacked from said collection now lack from all main libraries in the United States. Judge Wallace added some negative statements of his own against Meucci. In fact, he stated in the closing paragraph of his decision that ``his [Meucci's] speaking telegraph would never have been offered to the public as an invention if he had not been led by his necessities to trade on the credulity of his friends; that he intended to induce the three persons of small means and little business experience, who became his associates under the agreement of December 12, 1871, to invest in an invention which he would not offer to [knowledgeable]; men [. . .]; and that this was done in the hope of obtaining such loans and assistance from them as he would temporarily require.'' Evidently, Judge Wallace chose to neglect the following trial evidence: First, Meucci's invention was offered, in 1861, to the Telegraphs of Naples, who refused Second, Meucci offered his invention in 1872 to the American District Telegraph Company. Third, the partners of the agreement signed on December 12, 1871, shortly before the filing of Meucci's caveat, were: S. Breguglia, lessee of the Cigar Stand of the Hoffman Cafe in Wall Street, A.Z. Grandi, Secretary of the Italian Consulate in New York and A.A. Tremeschin, a contractor for civil constructions. This would appear much like agreement that Graham Bell stipulated on February 27, 1875, with T. Sanders, a leather merchant, and G.G. Hubbard, an ex patent lawyer and ex railway businessman. In addition, we must remark that Meucci's agreement, instituting the Telettrofono Company, was an event of great historical importance. It recited that the company aimed ``to secure patent for [Meucci's invention] in any State of Europe, or other part of the world, to form copartnerships, to raise companies, to sell or assign, in part, the rights of such invention.'' It proved that Meucci's invention, unlike Bell's, was ripe to the point that, in 1871, he had envisaged a worldwide development of the telephone. Fourth, no proof whatsoever is found in the record about Meucci having traded on the credulity of his friends. From all of the above, we can conclude the analysis of the Bell vs. Globe trial by recalling historiographer Giovanni Schiavo's definition of the decision as ``unquestionably one of the most glaring miscarriages in the annals of American justice.'' In fact, a few weeks after the New York trial was begun, the Interior Secretary was writing to the Solicitor General, recommending the institution of a suit against Graham Bell and the Bell Company. He attached to his letter three reports on the hearings, drafted by his two Assistant Secretaries and the Commissioner of Patents, as well as all arguments and exhibits presented during the hearings. All three reports recommended the institution of a suit against the Bell Company and Graham Bell, charging fraud and misrepresentation. The Interior Secretary stigmatized in his letter the inadequacy of patent infringement suits instituted by the Bell Company: ``In none of these cases has there been or can there be, as I think, such thorough investigation and full adjudication as to the alleged frauds or mistakes occurring in the Patent Office in the issuance of the patent, as could be had in a proceeding instituted and carried on by the Government itself.'' Assistant Secretary George A. Jenks stated in his report: ``[. . . ] There is also evidence that as early as 1849, Antonio Meucci began experiments with electricity, with reference to the invention of a speaking telephone [ . . . ]. Up to 1871, [ . . . ] although much of the time very poor, he constructed several different instruments with which in his own house, he conversed with his wife, and others [ . . . ]. His testimony is corroborated by his wife, and by affidavits of a very large number of witnesses. He claims that in 1872, he went to Mr. Grant, Vice President of the New York District Telegraph Company, explained his invention, and tried repeatedly to have it tried on the wires of the Company. This, it is claimed, was used by the telegraph company, and was the basis of the contract between the Western Union Telegraph Company and the Bell Telephone Company, dated November 10, 1879. [ . . . ]'' Assistant Secretary Henry Muldrow remarked, in his report, that ``so many witnesses having sworn that the inventions of Meucci, Reis, and others antedated those of Bell in the speaking telephone,'' he recommended ``the institution of a suit to cancel the [Bell's] patent of March 7, 1876.'' It must be pointed out that Mr. Muldrow explicitly quoted Meucci and Reis, out of the scores of inventors that had claimed to precede Bell. In addition, the Chief Examiner of the Patient Office, Mr. Zenas Wilber, in his affidavit of 10 October 1885, stated ``had Mr. Meucci's caveat been renewed in 1875, no patent could have been issued to Bell.'' In his other affidavit of 7 November 1885, he stated that Philipp Reis and Antonio Meucci were the originators of ``the prototypes of all speaking telephones.'' If we take into account that the Reis transmitter was difficult to operate, as it was originally conceived as a make-and-break device, we may gather from what precedes that the point of force of the Government's action was the invention of Antonio Meucci. Obviously, all of these proofs were available, but regrettably not presented at the Bell v. Globe trial. As already pointed out, the U.S. vs. Bell trial dragged for twelve years, after which it was discontinued by consent, in 1897, after the death of Meucci and expiration of Bell's patent(s). Here is a brief summary. On March 23, 1886, following the Secretary of the Interior's recommendations, the Government refiled its bill of complaint against Bell and the Bell Company in the District Court of South Ohio. On December 7, 1886, the case in Ohio was closed on jurisdictional grounds. On January 13, 1887, the Government filed a new bill of complaint in Boston, Massachusetts, where the Bell Company had its headquarters. On November 26, 1887, the court sustained a demurrer by the Bell lawyers; the Government immediately appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. On November 12, 1888, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, finding a meritorious claim and viable issue, rejecting the Bell Company's objections to the fraud and misrepresentation charges, and remanded the case for trial. See 128 U.S. 315 (1888). On December 6, 1889, the depositions began. Meucci, however, was deceased on 18 October of the same year. When Bell's second patent expired, on January 30, 1893, the Government at first refused to close the It must be stressed that, as the case was not decided,, the Bell Company could not claim, from the outcome of that trial, that Antonio Meucci was not the inventor of the telephone, or that it was Bell. It could only exult by the astuteness of its lawyers, who were able to defer so long the decision of the case, until the question of the patent(s) became moot when they expired. We come now to the scientific proofs regarding Meucci's priority in the invention of the telephone. Among the exhibits at the hearings before the Secretary of the Interior, is an affidavit, sworn on 28 September 1885 by Michael Lemmi, a friend and lawyer of Meucci. It is an accurate translation into English of Meucci's laboratory notebook, known as Meucci's Memorandum Book, concerning his telephonic experiments, including all of Meucci's original drawings. From an accurate examination of this affidavit, as well as of Meucci's aforesaid caveat ``Sound Telegraph,'' and two drawings accompanying the caveat--the remaining original drawings were omitted by Meucci's patent lawyer, nor were they presented at the first trial--it can be demonstrated beyond any doubt that Meucci antedated Bell and/or the Bell Company in many fundamental telephone techniques, including, inductive loading, wire structure, anti-side tone circuit, call signaling, quietness of surrounding environment. Meucci's priority in the said techniques range anywhere from six to forty-two years before Bell company development. My paper ``Four Firsts in Telephony,'' published by the European Transactions on Telecommunications (Nov.--Dec. 1999) is more expansive on these techniques. From this we can gather that when, in 1871, had founded the Telettrofono Company and was awarded his caveat, he had already invented everything that was needed to start a high- quality public service. This is why, in 1872, he asked the American District Telegraph Company--which later ``misplaced'' all his models and notes--to test his system on their lines; this is why he renewed his caveat up to December 1874; this is why, after Bell obtained his first patent because Meucci's caveat had expired for inability to pay the $10 fee, Meucci repeatedly claimed that the telephone was his invention, not Bell's. The recognition of Antonio Meucci's merits in the invention of the telephone and basic telephone techniques is attainable today, thanks to sound proofs, largely of the U.S. Government and embedded in the proceedings of the United States V. Bell trial. This recognition is mandatory, not only for the honor of the United States, of which Meucci was a worthy member of its society, but also for the worldwide scientific community, regarding a person who has so greatly fostered the communication among peoples, yet unjustly remains buried in the pages of American history.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their assistance in bringing the bill to the floor. It is a pleasure working with them, and a special thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 988, which designates the United States courthouse at Foley Square in New York City as the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse. Thurgood Marshall, of course, was the first African American Supreme Court justice and one of the most well-known leaders of the Civil Rights movement. His efforts were instrumental in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education which made segregation in schools illegal. Realizing his abilities, President Kennedy appointed him to the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. He next served as Solicitor General under President Johnson and won 29 of the 32 cases he argued. When he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the U.S., President Johnson stated that it was, ``The right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man, and the right place.'' And I could not agree more. Mr. Speaker, my legislation has the support of Thurgood Marshall's family, the New York State Senate, the New York State Bar Association, and the New York State County Lawyers Association, of which Marshall was a long-time member. The Federal courthouse at Foley Square is where Thurgood Marshall practiced when appointed by President Kennedy to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961. This is an honor for Thurgood Marshall, it is a fitting honor, and I thank the House for considering this important legislation and look forward to its passage.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the Hippocratic Oath says, ``First do no harm.'' But HMO corporate charters say, First give no treatment and see what happens next. I have supported the passage of a patients' bill of rights, and I will continue to do so until this Congress acts in a responsible manner and passes a strong, meaningful and enforceable patients' bill of rights. But what we are being forced to do today is a travesty for the American people, who are going to believe they will now have rights and can stand up to HMOs when they are harmed. Instead, they will continue to be deprived of the type of care that every American is entitled to receive. If we weaken the Ganske-Dingell bill with the Norwood amendment, we will continue to have HMOs deny care and go unpunished. We will continue to have doctors making decisions based on profit margins, not patient needs. We will continue to have HMOs pressuring doctors to deny referrals; to skimp on care; and to fear retribution by corporate executives, who are concerned with profits, not patients. We need to pass legislation that gives doctors the power to provide the care that they have sworn to provide. I am not concerned with closed-door agreements, legislative victories, or making good on campaign promises. I am concerned about patients. So I urge everyone to vote against the Norwood amendment and the Thomas amendment and vote for the Ganske-Dingell patients' bill of rights and reject the majority's attempts to pass an HMO bill of rights.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see a New Yorker in the Speaker's chair. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Day in and day out we have been debating appropriations bills, and we debate them for days on end. Here we have a bill dealing with energy policy, and amendments are denied, and we are doing this in less than one day. Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments to the Committee on Rules, all of which were denied. Our governor in New York, Governor Pataki, has put into effect a ``green energy'' mandate for New York State which would say that 10 percent of the agency's energy consumption comes from renewable energy by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020. That would be State agencies' energy consumption. I propose to do that for the Federal Government. We should be taking the lead in Federal policy, and the Committee on Rules denied my amendment which would mirror Governor Pataki's New York ``green energy'' mandate. I also had an amendment to have cool roofing, because in urban areas, heat is trapped on the top floor when roofs are dark; and that was denied. I am a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and that amendment passed the committee and was part and parcel of the bill. And I want to say that I voted for the committee bill, and if that had been here, I would probably vote for the rule; but the rule denied it. Finally, a demonstration project providing for a Federal match for replacing transmission lines with superconductive transmission lines saving energy losses. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this rule is fair. I think it denies too many amendments, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I agonized over this, researched it, and know the heartfelt feelings on both sides of the issue. I am unequivocally against human cloning, but I am for a continuation of the research. And I rise in support of the Greenwood-Deutsch amendment because I am convinced that that is the only way that research can continue. We are on the verge of lifesaving treatments and cures that affect our children and our parents, and to stifle this research now would be an injustice to so many suffering with juvenile and adult diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other debilitating diseases that claim our loved ones every day. Some people will say this is not about research; that there is a moral and ethical obligation to protect the sanctity of life, and I respect that. But the sanctity of life is helped, I think, by allowing cutting edge research to move forward that will free diabetic children of their hourly ritual of finger pricks, glucose testing, and insulin shots; that will allow those paralyzed or suffering from spinal cord injuries to walk and resume their normal lives; and that will allow our seniors to fulfill their golden years without suffering the effects of Alzheimer's. So I will cast my vote for Greenwood-Deutsch, which does ban cloning, and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the gentlelady's amendment to restore funding for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. I appreciate her compassion, thoughtfulness, and leadership on this important issue. However, I must reluctantly oppose the bill. I know my good friend, the Chairman, has worked very hard to produce a bill. He is a good man and I cast no stones toward him today. I will just say that this bill wasn't given any where near the proper funding required to meet the pressing needs of public housing, veterans, environmental protection and research. In fact, the President didn't request nearly enough money for the programs in the HUD portion. The committee's website states this bill increases the HUD budget $1.4 billion over FY01, bringing FY02 funding to $30 billion. Yet, even at that level it is $509 million below the President's request. After factoring out the budgetary impact of rescissions in funding, the bill actually provides just $449 million or 1.5 percent more than comparable FY2001 appropriations and $285 million--1 percent more than the request. The bill before us cuts funding for public housing modernization by 15 percent, community development block grants by 6 percent and homeless assistance by 9 percent. It eliminates funding for public- housing drug-elimination grants, rural housing and economic development, and empowerment zones and enterprise communities. This is just unacceptable. This bill cuts $445 million from the Capital Fund. Just weeks ago, I attempted to offer an amendment to the FY01 supplemental bill to provide additional funding to assist those in public housing with their rising utility costs. I said then that Public Housing Authorities were raiding their Capital Funds to pay utility costs. Now, we have a bill before us that takes more money from the Capital Funds. I also take issue with the complete decimation of the Drug Elimination Program. For years, I have heard complaints that Public Housing was infested with drug dealers--I heard this from residents and from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As a result, we created a program to dedicate funds to hire police and get rid of drug dealers. It is very successful. What happens? In comes the new administration and they need to hold to their budget numbers so they propose killing it. The majority says that Public Housing Authorities can use their operating funds for drug elimination--but those funds are empty because of the utility bills. I feel like we are going in circles! I looked for a way to boost funding in the public housing budget. But where would I find it? The other agencies in this bill are just as starved for funding and just as worthy. I will not steal from Peter to pay Paul. Finally, I want to take a minute to talk about the perception of public housing. For too long, Congress has looked upon public housing residents as second class citizens. We continue to have the outrageous requirement that residents of public housing do community service. Do we ask that people who take the mortgage interest tax deduction? Do we require the CEO of the major defense contractors to spend 3 hours a week in community service? No, and we never will. I am a product of public housing. Many of the other members of this body from New York City are products of public housing. We should celebrate the success that is public housing. Instead, with this bill we condemn it. Mr. Chairman, this bill needs billions more. Billions that would be available were it not for the irresponsible tax cut just passed. This is a shame. We should do better. But, instead we have acquiesced our priorities to those of the new administration. The new administration has made it clear--it is more important to give rich Americans a tax cut than meeting our responsibilities to residents of public housing. That is why there is inadequate funds for this bill today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for offering this Amendment--it is very much in line with one that I offered to the FY02 Agriculture bill concerning cocoa products. My amendment passed this House with 291 votes--a strong statement by this body against the repugnant practice of child slavery. We are constantly hearing about how we are at the dawn of a new millennium--we are in the 21st Century--and that things are just great and getting better. But, Mr. Chairman, we still have labor practices that date back centuries. Labor practices so abhorrent that we thought that they were long gone--but they still remain. Child slavery continues to plague our world--and as the world's greatest economy we are in position to use our purchasing power to end this terrible practice. My amendment focused on child slavery in cocoa fields in the Ivory Coast. The U.S. imports 3 billion tons of cocoa each year spending $13 billion on the chocolate industry. That means Americans do have a great deal of influence with their dollars. Every year at Halloween our kids wander our neighborhoods in costumes to Trick or Treat. They collect dozens of chocolate treats. But, now I must wonder--will they be as sweet knowing that somewhere in the world a child is forced to work 12-14 hours in a cocoa field, is locked up for the night without adequate bathroom facilities, and is never paid. If he tries to escape he is severely beaten. Let me quote one of the farmers about this: ``If I let them go, I am losing money, because I spent money for them.'' He told one child ``You know I spent money on you. If you try to escape, I'll catch you and beat you.'' This is an absolute horror. Now the chocolate industry has responded--they are moving forward to determine the extent of the problem and to develop programs for monitoring labor practices. But I believe the federal government must act as well. The American people do not want to buy products made with child slave labor. It is wrong and we must act swiftly. My colleague from Vermont's amendment wouldn't affect the coca industry, because cocoa products don't have a detention order on them. Yet. However, during this fiscal year, FY2001, the U.S. Customs Service has undertaken an investigation into these reports about the Ivory Coast. Title 19 United States Code, Sec. 1307, prohibits importation of products made, in whole or in part, with the use of convict, forced, or indentured labor under penal sanctions. A general provision in the FY1998 Treasury Appropriations Act specified that merchandise manufactured with ``forced or indentured child labor'' falls within this statute. What does this mean for American growers of these products? Let me be clear--by not enforcing existing law, it means that the federal government is putting our farmers automatically at a competitive and economic advantage. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for two reasons-- first and foremost because there is just no reason for child slavery in our world. Second, because American farmers shouldn't be put out of business because of other country's non-existent labor standards. I have said it before, but it bears repeating, we must be ever vigilant in our fight against child slave labor. Support the Sanders Amendment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me. He spoke so eloquently that there is nothing left to say, because he so thoroughly covered the reasons why this bill ought to be supported. I want to also commend my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for his hard work and energy on this issue. I have no doubt that when we vote tomorrow it will overwhelmingly pass, because it deserves to pass. It is an important bill. I am delighted to be back on the Committee on International Relations, where I voted for this bill, as did virtually the entire committee. Mr. Speaker, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act is an act that is very, very important. We must resoundingly say no to terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head in any place in the Earth. Iran and Libya are two countries that have been at the forefront of exporting terrorism. No one can deny that. Actions speak louder than words. Time and time and time again various countries, including our own, have felt the brunt of their terrorist activities. They also have weapons of mass destruction that they sell to rogue states, and they work hard to undermine anything that is decent throughout the world. I am also delighted that this bill has been extended for 5 years, as was pointed out by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). That had been questioned, and it is right to be extended for 5 years, because anything less would be a retreat. We must be unequivocal. This Congress must be unequivocal, this Nation must be unequivocal, and our world must be unequivocal in saying no to terrorism. I would have taken it one step further, if I had my total way. I would have included Syria on the list of nations that export terrorism and would have covered Syria with similar sanctions. But that was not to be. There will be other resolutions and other legislation covering Syria, which has a stranglehold on Lebanon, and Syria needs to get out of Lebanon. But Hezbollah, which operates in Lebanon, is backed by the Iranians. They could not function if it were not for Iran and Syria, so it is important that we tell Iran that we are not going to tolerate their terrorism or their weapons of mass destruction. The same with Libya. The world looks to the United States. We are the last remaining superpower in the world. If we stand for anything, it should be for human rights and squarely against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to join my colleagues in supporting ILSA, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, and let this Congress send a strong message to the world that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction used in a terrorist way will not be tolerated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think that the gentlewoman from Ohio made two very, very good points at the end. Throughout her speech she made good points, but I want to raise two that she made at the end. This is only $250,000. It is a very, very small amount, and such a small amount to ensure that the cocoa and the chocolate in this country has not come to be by slave labor of children. I think that is a very, very small price to pay. There is a moral responsibility as the gentlewoman points out, a moral responsibility for us not to allow slavery, child slavery, in the 21st century. This is a small amount of money, it is in the budget, it will not do any harm whatsoever; and I think that it will certainly bring us to the point that this Congress can look with pride and say that we are making an attempt to stop something that we thought did not exist anymore and only now are we being made aware of the fact that slavery is continuing to rear its ugly head in the year 2001. I want to just again urge my colleagues to support this. This should have bipartisan support because again we are talking about children and we are talking about slavery. I do not think the American people would want to knowingly eat chocolate or cocoa that was harvested by children who have been tricked into slavery. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the agriculture subcommittee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment sets aside $250,000, which in the totality of this budget is very, very small, for the FDA to develop labeling requirements indicating that no child slave labor was used in the growing and harvesting of cocoa. Forty-three percent of the world's cocoa beans come from small scattered farms in the Ivory Coast. The beans are prized for their quality and abundance. In the first 3 months of 2001, more than 47,300 tons of them were shipped to the United States to be processed by U.S. cocoa processors. There are more than 600,000 small farms and no corporate or government agency in the Ivory Coast is monitoring them for slave trade. The United Nations estimates that approximately 200,000 slaves are working in various trades in West Africa and the State Department has estimated that about 15,000 children between the ages of 9 and 12 have been sold into forced labor in northern Ivory Coast in recent years. Let me repeat that. The State Department has estimated that about 15,000 children between the ages of 9 and 12 have been sold into forced labor in northern Ivory Coast in recent years. On many of the farms, the fields are cleared and the crops are harvested by boys between the ages of 12 and 16 who were sold or tricked into slavery. Some are even as young as 9. These boys come from neighboring countries, including Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Togo and do not speak the most common language used in the Ivory Coast, French. They are children, who, out of respect, will do anything to help their parents. The boys are uneducated, come from poor countries and are wooed by offers of money, bicycles, and trade jobs. ``Locateurs'' offer them work as welders or carpenters, and they are told falsely that they will be paid $170 a year. As soon as they accept the offer, they are sold into slavery and are forced to clear the fields and harvest the cocoa crop. They live on corn paste and bananas, work 12 to 14 hours a day for no pay, suffer from whippings, are locked up at night in small, windowless rooms, and are given cans to urinate in. One of these boys, Aly Diabate, was sold into slavery when he was barely 4 feet tall. He said, ``Some of the bags were taller than me. It took two people to put the bag on my head. And when you didn't hurry, you were beaten. The beatings were a part of my life. Anytime they loaded you with bags and you fell while carrying them, nobody helped you. Instead, they beat you and beat you until you picked it up again.'' Mr. Chairman, this must be stopped. Just like we cannot accept slave labor in factories in Asia, we must not accept products being sold in this country that are made by enslaved child labor. In 1999, former President Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting Federal agencies from purchasing products made by enslaved children. However, cocoa products were not included on this list. Americans spend $13 billion a year on chocolate. I love chocolate. But most of them are ignorant of where the cocoa beans come from. And a lot of the cocoa beans come from the Ivory Coast. We must change that. This amendment provides funding for the FDA to develop a label indicating that enslaved child labor was not used to harvest the cocoa beans. That is all this does. We want to ensure that when people of this country eat chocolate, they are not eating chocolate that was processed by child slavery. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that addressing a crisis in our country. My bill, the Renters Relief Act, provides a refundable tax credit of up to $2,500 for people paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. Throughout our nation, millions of working families are struggling to make ends meet. Housing costs are often the greatest drain on a family's economic resources. I would like to call to my colleagues' attention some disturbing facts from around the country: In Atlanta, Georgia there are 11,907 families waiting for housing assistance from HUD; In the Los Angeles Metro region more than 400,000 renters have incomes less than 50 percent of the area median income, and pay over half of their income for rent or are living in severely substandard housing, the ``worst'' case scenario; In Boston, the average monthly fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the metro area is $874, that means a family must earn at least $35,000 or else they will be spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. We have heard the statistics over and over. The fact is we are not producing enough housing that is guaranteed for low and moderate-income people. We are not building nearly enough public housing to accommodate our needs. Incomes are not keeping up with housing costs. I have been frustrated at not being able to help more of my constituents. In fact, three years ago Secretary Cuomo said that ``Not even families working full-time at minimum wage can afford decent quality housing in the private rental market. This is not just a big city problem but affects America's growing suburbs as well.'' HUD's own research indicates that a wide variety of market forces have contributed to this crisis of housing affordability through the 1990s. Among these are ``continued suburbanization of population and employment, regulatory barriers to development of multifamily housing, underinvestment in affordable housing by local communities, continuing discriminatory barriers, and the simple economics of supply and demand in which rising incomes for higher income families drive up rents faster than the poorest families can afford. Also, the growth in the crisis during the 1990s can also be attributed to the elimination of Federal appropriations for additional rental vouchers between 1995 and 1998.'' I urge my colleagues to turn the tide. Join me in moving the Renters Relief Act forward!