Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. No, Mr. Chairman. I stand by my original statement.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for his courtesy. I do appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues, I recognize the need to meet the rising energy costs of the Defense Department. This bill contains $734 million for higher fuel costs. As we know, jet fuel, gasoline, even heating price increases are having a dramatic effect on the Defense Department. We all agree that it is no good to have the most advanced jet fighters in the world if they cannot fly. I, therefore, do agree with this portion of the bill. Yet, the Defense Department is not the only agency that is impacted by these price increases. Public housing is also directly affected. The estimates are that the public housing authorities need about $300 million to make up the shortfall. Now, $300 million in the totality of this bill is not a great amount of money, so that is what my amendment does. It provides the funding for the $300 million. I regret that the Committee on Rules did not provide a waiver. I agree that these are needed funds to DOD, but there are other needs as well. Because of the budget caps in the recent tax bill, I have been forced to designate this need as emergency spending. I believe with all my heart that this qualifies. According to the Energy Information Administration, home heating oil prices increased nationally from 88 cents to $1.35, a 53 percent increase from fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. Natural gas jumped 51 percent, from $6.69 per thousand cubic feet to $10.07. In fact, in New York City, which I represent, the Nation's largest public housing authority, with 160,000 units, has actually had its oil prices rise 82 percent and natural gas prices increase 90 percent. I could paint a picture of an elderly woman who worked for 45 years living in public housing that has no heat, but we know that, in fact, is not the case. Instead, the elderly woman who worked hard for 45 years is living in an apartment that has a hole in the ceiling, that needs new flooring in the bathroom, and could benefit from energy- saving windows and other energy-efficient things. The fact is that public housing authorities are now diverting funds from capital repairs and improvements to pay utility bills. Obviously, they do not want people to freeze over the winter. Let me be clear that it gets my goat that we are using money to pay for heat that should be used to pay for insulation which, in the long run, would save a lot of money on heat. We are going to be debating tax policy and we are going to be debating energy policy, and I have some innovative thoughts that I hope we can act upon later on in this session. Public housing has gotten a bad reputation around here in the past few years. We need to change this. I grew up in public housing. In fact, many of my colleagues in the New York City delegation grew up in public housing; and the people who live in public housing deserve to have quality housing. People move to public housing because it is often the only affordable housing they can find. Most public housing residents work, pay rent, and are just trying to provide a safe, loving home for their families. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have an obligation and a responsibility to public housing, and I would urge the chairman of the committee not to insist on his point of order and allow this amendment to move forward. I do appreciate the courtesy of the chairman of the full committee to yield his point of order so I can make this statement.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). Even though we disagree on this bill, he is truly one of the great Members of this House. I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 1088. I also want to urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. I was a cosponsor of this bill in the last Congress when jurisdiction rested with the Committee on Energy and Commerce on which I serve, and I am also a cosponsor this year as well. This bill is obviously important to my home city, New York City, and important to the rest of the country as well. The need for the underlying bill is just simple mathematics. Current law allows the Federal Government to charge far more in fees than are needed to keep the SEC operating. Let us be clear. By the end of this fiscal year, the SEC will have collected $22 billion more than it has needed to operate. That is $22 billion that could have stayed with the individual investors to be invested and made available to the capital markets. We in Congress have done a lot to encourage our constituents to start saving for retirement. Millions of Americans are now investing in the stock market through their 401(k) plans and mutual funds. But some of their savings are actually being drawn off to pay for the fees that have been accumulating at the SEC. We need to fix this now. These fees drain capital from the private markets, removing it at the very start of the capital-raising process, and divert it to the U.S. Treasury. The transaction fee is assessed when brokerages charge an investor for selling shares, and are generally passed on to the customer as part of the cost of the transaction. Once this fee is reduced, investors will be able to see the savings immediately. The individual investor, not the broker, is paying the vast bulk of these transaction fees. On the New York Stock Exchange, 87 percent of the section 31 fees are paid by individual investors and 82 percent on the NASDAQ. This is unacceptable. Also, the manager's amendment adopts the language for pay parity. This is something I have supported for a very long time. We cannot expect the government to attract the talent it needs if we are going to pay these people sometimes half of what they can earn in the same job in the private sector. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on the manager's amendment and a yes vote on the underlying bill. This is a bill whose time has come.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me time. I want to thank the gentleman, and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) as well, for working with me so quickly for bringing this resolution to the floor. As was mentioned by my colleagues, I too am wearing a yellow ribbon. In fact, I have many yellow ribbons here, and I would like every Member of Congress to wear a yellow ribbon for today, since this resolution is on the floor today. I think if we all wore the yellow ribbons, it would be a very powerful symbolism of the fact that we stand with the oppressed people of Afghanistan, with the Hindus of Afghanistan, just the way during the terrible Nazi era, when the Jews were told that they had to wear the yellow star to identify them, to single them out from everyone else, all the Danes wore yellow stars of David and said that we are all Jews. I believe here in Congress, all of us should wear these yellow ribbons, and today we all should be Hindus and stand in solidarity with those oppressed people. Mr. Speaker, just over 2 weeks ago, I heard the disturbing news that Afghanistan's Islamic Taliban regime had issued an edict requiring Afghan Hindus to wear yellow identification badges and Hindu women to fully cover themselves in a veil and for Hindu families to have curtains that are yellow or some such identification, clearly showing that they are different from everyone else. This is absolutely an outrage. My colleagues have mentioned all the outrages of this Taliban regime, from Osama bin Laden getting cover there and planning his terrorist attacks all over the world from the safe confines of Afghanistan, being protected, by the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhist statutes that were thousands of years old, to making it impossible for aid workers to help the starving people of Afghanistan. Indeed our country, the United States, is the leading country in terms of providing humanitarian aid for those starving people. So what we are attempting to do here today is saying that the United States can make a difference. We can make a difference in providing humanitarian aid, so that the people of Afghanistan are not suffering because of their regime. And they are suffering, but we can make the suffering a little bit better. Also what happens in this Congress is listened to around the world. I think it is so important for us to take a moral stand. Now, what the Taliban are doing is just an outrage that cannot be ignored. The Taliban's edict accompanies the 1999 law forbidding non- Muslims from living in the same houses as Muslims, from criticizing Muslims, and from building places of worship. This resolution calls upon, demands, that the Taliban regime immediately revokes its order stigmatizing Hindus in Afghanistan and to conform its laws to all basic international civil and human rights standards, and, of course, condemns the recent order by the Taliban regime to require Hindus to wear these different identification symbols. Now, combined, these edicts have the effect of stigmatizing, separating, and disadvantaging the Hindus because of their religious beliefs. It should be pointed out that when the Nazi edicts in Europe came against the Jews, initially it was just small edicts, and there were people that said, well, this is only a very minor thing, and it will pass. I think we have learned from history that if we ignore these so- called minor things, they turn into catastrophes; and we do not want to ignore this because this is not minor, and it will get worse if the world just turns its back. Now, to add insult to injury, according to the Taliban regime this action was taken, they say, to protect Hindus from the religious police, who often arrest Hindus for not following Muslim law or who beat Hindus for not conforming to Muslim law. This, of course, adds insult to injury, to claim they are putting in this oppressive law in order to protect the Hindu citizens. Obviously this is a bunch of nonsense. This type of religious discrimination has no place in the world today. Forcing Hindus to wear distinctive clothing does nothing to protect Hindus from the religious police; rather it makes them more vulnerable to police and mob violence. So, again, we cannot allow the Taliban to systematically oppress Afghan Hindus in such an eerily similar manner to the way the Nazis oppressed Jews, homosexuals, Romas, and others. This is not the first time the Taliban has singled out Afghan Hindus. Prior to 1992, Afghanistan had a population of over 50,000 Hindus. Most fled due to anti-Hindu violence. There are now only 500 Hindus, approximately, left in Afghanistan, subject to the Taliban's edict. The international community, including our friends and allies around the world have joined us in condemning the Taliban's edict; and Pakistan, one of only three countries recognizing the Taliban as a legitimate government, said that they deplore these discriminatory practices. That is why this resolution calls upon Pakistan to try to use its influence with Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues in solidarity with the Afghan Hindus; and again I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, to come over, and we will give them ribbons so everyone can wear ribbons. Again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has been so gracious.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the efforts of Professor Basilio Catania of Turin, Italy. Professor Catania is the retired director general of Italy's Central Telecommunications Laboratory, a distinguished scientist, holder of the European Union's first Telecommunications Prize, holder of Italy's internationally acclaimed Marconi Prize. Following years of meticulous research, Professor Catania is now trying to bring to light the merits of Mr. Antonio Meucci, who claimed that he and not Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. In October 2000, at New York University, Professor Catania presented ``Antonio Meucci, Inventor of the Telephone: Unearthing the Legal and Scientific Proofs.'' Had Mr. Meucci been able to afford the ten-dollar fee to extend his 1871 caveat from the United States Patent Office beyond 1874, the Bell patents could never have been issued and we would have a very different vocabulary today in discussing telecommunications issues. The fight over who actually should hold the patent for the telephone and succeeding inventions dates back to the earliest days of the telecommunications industry. The federal government even played a direct roll. In 1885, the Meucci claim was presented before Secretary of Interior Lucius Lamar, who at the time had jurisdiction over the Patent Office. Fifty affidavits and the exhibition of two dozen of Meucci's telephone models were part of the presentation. One of the affidavits was the translation into English of Mr. Meucci's Memorandum Book, in which he kept the notes on his various experiments on the telephone as far back as 1862. A drawing in the Memorandum Book shows that Mr. Meucci had discovered the inductive loading of long distance telephone lines many years before the Bell Company. It was also found that Mr. Meucci should have been credited with other firsts, such as call signaling, the anti-side tone circuit, and the first measures to optimize the structure of telephone lines. The outcome of the hearings led to a recommendation to proceed against the Bell Company. Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to this important trial brought by the Department of Justice in January 1887 United States v. Bell Telephone Company and Alexander Graham Bell. This lawsuit was instituted by the federal government against Bell to strip him of his patents for fraud and misrepresentation. Appealed on demurrer to the Supreme Court, it was determined by the High Court that a viable and meritorious contention against Bell had been raised, and the case was remanded for trial. The record of the trial proceeding was never printed and now resides in storage with the National Archives and Records Administration. Interestingly, the hearings before the Interior Secretary coincided with a lawsuit brought by the Bell Company against Mr. Meucci for patent infringement. Sadly, none of proceedings at Interior were made available during the patent infringement trial.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues a recent interview with Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma which appeared in The International Jerusalem Post on May 11, 2001. This important interview discusses a wide range of matters from Ukraine's cooperation with NATO to its relations with Israel to its current state of economic development. The interview also provides President Kuchma an opportunity to respond to some of the criticism recently leveled against him. I ask that the article be printed at this point in the Congressional Record. [From the International Jerusalem Post, May 11, 2001] The View From Kiev Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma talks about his country's relationship with Israel, the sometimes troubled past of its Jewish community, and its political and economic future (By Thomas A. Rose) Mr. President, thank you for agreeing to share your thoughts with our readers. Your administration has come under increasing criticism from opponents who accuse your government of everything from failing to implement meaningful economic reform to suppressing press freedoms and even to charges that you were personally involved in the death of a prominent journalist. As a result, many in the West, particularly the United States, have started to question your country's political stability. How would you respond to these charges and concerns? Politically, Ukraine is both stable and predictable. Industrial production is up, financial markets are improved, our agricultural sector is showing great promise, and we are beginning to see real progress in our effort to redress social contradictions. Governmental bodies and the local authorities are functioning normally. The world must know of the tremendous progress we have made and of the tremendous progress we will make. Our state is only 10 years old. In that short time, we have developed a functioning democracy, a free press, an independent financial system, and have become the first nation in history to voluntarily renounce and destroy its nuclear weapons' capability. These are not small accomplishments. Regarding the attacks against me personally, I would call it more of an aggravation than a crisis. It is the demonstration and consequence of the situational uniting and stirring up of different forces and particular persons-- political outsiders if you will--who are out for revenge and the redistribution of power through unconstitutional means. Unfortunately, all the attention their outlandish charges are gaining in the West has emboldened them to think that they can threaten even the most considerable achievements of our Ukrainian nation, which are independence and sovereignty. Their ambition is to gain power for themselves. Yet, as you would say, the proof is in the pudding. Domestically, which with all due respect, is the political realm to which I am responsible, these people cannot find support. As to the so called ``demonstrations'' which have been well reported in the West, a few thousand paid participants in these protests do not have the key role and do not determine the general frames of mind of the Ukrainian people. In fact, things in this regard seem to have peaked on March 9. This has no doubt frightened the agitators, which is the very reason why they are trying to internationalize their cause. However, I would be insincere if I do not say that artificial, purposeful, and excess politicization does not weaken our country and its ability to tackle the huge social and economic problems we face. My office shall never submit to the influence of such provocations and shall not strengthen these pseudo- oppositionists. Mr. President, the question of NATO membership for your country continues to be a point of friction between NATO, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. It seems as though your administration has decided to back off from this initiative, at least for now. Does this mean that your country is more interested in improved relations with the Russian Federation, perhaps at the expense of the West? I strongly object to the way you have raised this question. Ukraine has always been consistent in its interest in cooperating with NATO. The beginning of the relations' development between Ukraine and the Atlantic alliance was made right after our country achieved its independence. Let me remind you that I signed the charter on special partnerships between Ukraine and NATO in 1997. Cooperation between Ukraine and NATO has been progressing and covers a wide range of military and defense industries. One of the key elements of the cooperation remains our participation in the joint Ukrainian-Polish battalion and Ukrainian helicopter platoons are acting now within the contingent of peacemaking forces in Kosovo. Speaking of the possibility of membership of Ukraine in the NATO alliance, my more direct answer to your question is that while we are increasing our cooperation with elements of NATO and the alliance, we are not ready to consider membership yet. Unilateral political announcements about our interest or readiness for implementation would be premature and harmful to the alliance and my country. We are not reorienting our political outlook as you tried to suggest. Ukraine looks forward to integrating itself in the European direction as a strategic option, while at the same time maintaining good relations with all our neighboring countries, including those in the East. You have enjoyed notably good relations with all five of the Israeli prime ministers with whom you have worked. Knowing the troubled history of Ukrainian-Jewish relations, do you view this association as an attempt at national reconciliation or rather as a national strategic interest? In your view, is it necessary for Ukraine to actively pursue reconciliation with Israel and/or the Jewish people? I am very proud of the excellent relations between our two great countries and my good relations with all of your elected leaders. I had a particularly close relationship with Ytzhak Rabin and I considered it a great honor to attend his funeral. Earlier this year already I was delighted to receive the president of the State of Israel, Moshe Katsav, who has become my sincere friend. I am confident that President Katsav's visit will result in new understandings between our peoples. Regarding you new prime minister, I am convinced that the heritage of this great son of the State of Israel will do all he can to help to lead the Middle East region to the peace and stability. Ariel Sharon is known in Ukraine as a experienced statesman and military leader, and as a wise person. He is very highly regarded. I hope that the policy of his government will continue on its path of working to achieve the goal sought by the Jewish people for countless generations--a prosperous, secure, and stable Jewish state at peace with its neighbors. In my letter of congratulation to then prime minister-elect Sharon I reaffirmed the readiness of Ukraine to follow our two countries' recent tradition of excellent bilateral relations and close cooperation. Currently, the scope of our cooperation with Israel is quite extensive. I look forward to working with Prime Minister Sharon to even further expand our already expansive commercial relations. Let's not forget the fact that nearly 400,000 of the roughly one million recent immigrants to Israel from the republics of the former Soviet Union are from Ukraine. This alone is reason for a special relationship between our countries. That so many of our former countrymen have decided to make Israel their new home makes our concern about the political situation in your region more acute. Terrorism and violence that create distrust and hostility are especially dangerous and inadmissible. It is a dead end. I said as much in my recent message to Chairman Arafat, imploring him to do all in his power to curb violent demonstrations and to resume his fight against extremist organizations. At the request of President Katsav, I have instructed our Foreign Affairs Ministry to take all possible measures to help win the release of the Israeli servicemen kidnapped by Hizbullah. Our country also recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to an independent state of their own. Yet we believe that his nation can only come into being as a result of negotiations. Your previous answer would likely come as a surprise to many of our readers. The extent of your country's relationship with Israel, its support for Israel, its commitment to the peace process, these things are largely unknown. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think it may have something to do with the troubled history of our people? Well, you are probably in a better position to answer that than I am. Another point to make regards our recent decision, as president of the United Nations Security Council. Our delegation did not support the resolution, subsequently vetoed by the United States, which would have mandated an international ``peacekeeping'' force for deployment in Palestinian areas. We did not believe such a step was wise or helpful. To the contrary. Recent events have only reinforced the fact that peace can only be achieved by the parties themselves. Solutions cannot be imposed upon them. But Ukraine also recognizes and supports the need to give great weight to the positions expressed by the international community. After independence, the priority for Ukraine was to consolidate its authority and international recognition and obtain the attributes of statehood. Generally we succeeded. Most important in our view was developing good working relations with the United States and the European Union. This took more effort than that required to establish relations with our eastern neighbors since we have lived and worked with them for centuries. This wasn't the case with Western countries. This year marks the 60th anniversary of Nazi invasion of Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, and the destruction of nearly one million Ukrainian Jews. More than 100,000 of those Jews were murdered not five miles from here at a place called Babi Yar. As this awful date approaches what commemorative events are planned in Ukraine? Yes, Kiev is the sight of one of the most tragic crimes in the whole history of man. Compounding the enormity of the crime was an attempt on the part of the Soviet authorities who ruled Ukraine until our independence to conceal what really happened here. Early last year, I authorized the establishment of the ``Days of Memory of the Victims of Babi Yar for the year 2001.'' For the 60th anniversary of the tragedy we will be dedicating an edition of The Holocaust Encyclopedia, a book of memories and an album. Under the same perspective the opening performances for the plays of the leading theaters of the country, and the series of TV and radio programs are in their final preparations. We will be publishing speeches of famous writers, cultural and art workers, scientists, and war veterans. I would like to repeat one more time: We consider it a sacred obligation to respect the memory of the Jewish victims who perished. Economic development is key to Ukraine's admission to the European Union. However, as you have mentioned, your country is not yet able to attract the amount of foreign investment you say you need. What industries or specific projects are you trying to promote as significant sources of Western capital and/or management? Perhaps, more importantly from the investors' point of view, what kinds of protections can you offer them? What guarantees can you provide regarding legal procedures? What about nationalizations? How can an investor be sure the economic landscape can't or won't change radically? While not as fast as we would like our economy is still growing. Our high GDP and industrial production growth rates in the last year and in the first months of this year should reassure everyone. They have been very impressive, particularly when contrasted with the Western slowdown. Increasing foreign investment is critical to our development plans. Our estimates are for investment inflows of at least $30 billion. To help facilitate this necessary migration of capital, Ukraine is implementing the largest-ever privatization processes in the spheres of power, engineering, communications, and agriculture. this gives our international partners, including those from Israel, wonderful and exciting opportunities. I will dare say that Ukraine is one of the most exciting and opportunity-rich markets on earth. We have developed special economic zones of priority development with reduced regulatory and tax regimens. The total area of these zones makes up more that 10 percent of our country's territory. Here, investors are granted special tax advantages, including discounts for value added tax, income duties, and other levies. These zones already host more than 400 projects financed by foreign investors. But this is just the beginning. Opportunities extend to woodworking, pulp and paper, engineering, metalworking, fuels and chemicals, oil and gas, transportation, metallurgy; construction, shipbuilding; the list is quite literally endless. but having said all this, there is one area that calls for special attention and that is agriculture. Owing to the intensive market reforms, almost all our collective and Soviet farms have been restructured into private market businesses. Our national tax burden has been dramatically reduced to the point where it is now roughly one-fifth of the tax burden found in an OECD country. If these are not competitive advantages, then I don't know what are. As for your question about nationalization, let me say that foreign investors in Ukraine are as well protected here as anywhere in Eastern Europe. We have binding bilateral agreements to this effect with more than 50 countries, including Israel. Our national legislature includes guarantees on the inviolability of rights and parity conditions of national and foreign investors. In particular, even if some changes are introduced into the present legislation in the course of 10 years, guarantees that were in effect before will be used upon request of the foreign investor. Foreign capital in Ukraine is not subject to nationalization. Furthermore, foreign investors actually have the right to obtain compensation from the state in the event state actions result in financial losses. For media companies like ours that may consider entering your market, what assurances can you provide regarding press freedom in Ukraine? The economic advantage I described before are as applicable to foreign media investors as they are to foreign construction engineers. Today we have more than 10,000 periodicals of all shapes, sizes, and opinions published in Ukraine. Our constitution elevates ideological diversity, forbids censorship, and guarantees free speech and association rights to every citizen. But you must remember, we are a new country and a new democracy. This actually means we need more help than other, more developed democracies. When we are talking about press freedom, it is critical to remember that independent publications belong to people and/ or companies, some of whom express themselves through clannish, corporate, or private interests and ambitions, which doesn't necessarily benefit anyone other than themselves. The President's Decree states that a newspaper can only be closed by the person who owns it, founded it, or if our judicial system deems it has broken the law. In other words, in our country, just like yours, we do have laws and we demand that all citizens, private and corporate, adhere to them. Any person or company who obeys the law and pays his taxes has nothing to worry about.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor James Large Jr., who has served as Acting President of the Wildlife Conservation Society and distinguished himself as a virtuous leader in business and philanthropy and, most importantly, as a citizen dedicated to conserving the natural heritage of his local as well as global communities. For more than a year, and, for what was offered as a temporary and part-time assignment, James Large has devoted 12-hour work days, restless nights, early mornings along with the whole of his intellect, heart and spirit to leading the Wildlife Conservation Society into the 21st century, Under his stewardship, the Wildlife Conservation Society's celebrated wildlife parks inspired more than 4.5 million visitors to care about wildlife and wild lands and to participate in their conservation, managed field projects in living landscapes around the world, and developed award-winning environmental education programs for schools across the United States and abroad. Jim's role as Acting President will soon be coming to an end. I congratulate him on a job well done, and wish him and his wife, Carol, well on the journey that lies ahead. He will no doubt continue to serve his community with diligence, honesty and devotion and remain steadfast to his commitment to conserve the beauty, bounty, and wonder of nature.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California, the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman, for yielding time to me. I certainly agree with the remarks of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) condemning the President of Syria, and I would also add that Syrian troops ought to leave Lebanon as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is rolled into the en bloc amendments, addresses the unfortunate events of World War II in which almost 19,000 American civilians living or traveling abroad were captured by the Axis powers and incarcerated, 1,700 of whom either died in captivity or were executed. It is really a shocking statistic. To date, no formal apology has been offered for these terrible actions. My amendment would extend the Congress' sympathy to the brave men and women who were incarcerated and their families for the terrible hardships they endured. Also, it encourages foreign nations that incarcerated U.S. civilians during World War II to formally apologize to these individuals and their families. Passage of this amendment would honor the many who suffered, including Michael Kolanik, Sr., of Westchester County, New York, which I represent. He was captured by Nazi Germany and was a slave laborer for 6 years. Unfortunately, he has already passed away; but his son Mike, Jr., a Vietnam veteran, has been pursuing this issue in honor of his father. While recognition of their ordeal will not erase the painful reality of their imprisonment, it will provide a sense of closure for them and their families and put to rest a long and drawn-out battle to honor those brave men and women for their suffering. I know this has bipartisan support, and I thank everybody for that; and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment so that we can begin to heal the wounds of the past.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise in support of his amendment. U.N. Security Council Resolution 520 expresses strong support for Lebanese sovereignty ``under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon.'' It is time that the Lebanese Government abides by the call of the Security Council and deploys its military throughout the country. It is inexcusable that in the wake of the complete Israeli withdrawal, southern Lebanon remains under the control of the terrorist organization called Hezbollah. I will not stand idly by while the United States provides military support to a government which refuses to halt acts of terror on a neighbor. I still favor humanitarian and educational assistance to Lebanon. I hope in conference we can continue economic assistance to Lebanon. But such assistance is put in jeopardy by the inaction of the Lebanese Government to control Hezbollah. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Lebanon. The Lebanese people have suffered enough. Syria, Hezbollah and all terrorist organizations need to get out of Lebanon now. It is not enough for the Government of Lebanon to wring their hands and claim that they have no maneuverability. They need to attempt at least to take strong actions now. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment. Like the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I fully supported the decision of the Reagan administration to withdraw the U.S. from UNESCO because of its anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israeli stance. Today, however, UNESCO has reformed itself, improved its management, stamped out corruption, and put UNESCO's financial house in order. UNESCO is no longer the proponent of anti-Western propaganda it once was. It no longer espouses anti-U.S., anti-Israeli, and anti-Western rhetoric. And we can see today that UNESCO is the U.N. agency for press freedom, setting up an uncensored newspaper and broadcasters in the former Yugoslavia, East Timor, Burundi. It is advancing human rights, core U.S. interests, such as economic development and trade, and American values in every country. It is a tiny fraction, the $59.8 million, of what the U.S. spends on military expenditures when instability abroad escalates into conflict and refugee migrations. This is the purpose for which the U.S. founded UNESCO with its allies in 1945, conflict prevention, and that is why I think we should not support this amendment.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am outraged by what happened at the United Nations. I am as outraged as anyone. I am cochair of the U.N. Working Group, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman form Iowa (Mr. Leach). The U.N. certainly is not always right, and in this instance they are absolutely wrong and it is absolutely outrageous. But in trying to weigh what our reaction should be, I come down on the opposite side of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), my good friends, because I do not believe that trying to blackmail nations into supporting us ever really works. I think that that is really not the way to go. I agree with everything the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) said, and I have more respect for him than almost anyone else in this body when it comes to these matters, and he was right on the money in everything he says; but I just think that our reaction ought to be different. There has been a buildup of anger at the United States because frankly, we have not been paying our dues. I know we are on track to do it now, but it was a long struggle; and it was many, many years before we went on track. There has been anti-U.N. rhetoric from this body and in other places, and there is some anger at the fact that we have not ratified at a convention on the rights of a child, banning land mines, the Kyoto Protocol and other treaties as well. That is not an excuse for the U.N., but the question is, how do we react? How do we react to this at all? I do not believe that these votes at the U.N. should be linked to the payment of arrears. We owe them money, and we ought to pay it. We ought to express our outrage. There are other ways to do it. I do not think that withholding the money is the right way to go. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, for whom I have enormous respect, said, frankly, somebody was not watching the store. We could point fingers at everybody and do a lot of fingerpointing all the way around, but that really does not have any beneficial effect. We have made our point known. The administration, the Bush administration, opposes this amendment. We have to now decide what the best way to go is. I just think that this may do us a lot of good in expressing our personal pique, but I think in the long run it is counterproductive. So I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize one of my constituents, Mr. Christian Jos. Becker, for his lifetime of dedicated service to the Westchester County Volunteer Firemen's Association. Mr. Becker began his volunteer work at the age of 42, when he moved from the city of Yonkers to the village of Ardsley. Over his 33 years of service, Chris has achieved numerous accomplishments, all of which have greatly improved the Westchester area. In 1971, Mr. Becker received the Ardsley Fire Department Fire Fighter of the Year Award for his unwavering dedication in responding to nearly every alarm within his village. Also, he served as the Department's first Secretary for five years. Though Mr. Becker's firefighting days were caused to come to a close in 1975 due to an illness, his volunteer activities continued on. As Ardsley Fire Department's Delegate to the Firemen's Association in the State of New York and the Westchester County Volunteer Firemen's Association, Chris's services persevered. One of his greatest accomplishments occurred in 1970 when he founded ``The Westchester Volunteer,'' a bimonthly newsletter which supplies relevant news to firefighters throughout the county. Mr. Becker also sits on both the Public Relations Committee and the Legislative Committee for the Firemen's Association in the state of New York, where he championed notable legislation such as the Cigarette Fire Safety Act and the Requiring of Adoption of the Fire and Building Codes. For all of the good he has brought to their community, the people of Westchester County will forever be indebted to this selfless volunteer. I am certain that all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives will join me in extending a sincere offer of congratulations, as well as gratitude, to Mr. Christian Jos. Becker. It is a pleasure to recognize such a dedicated man who has used his life to benefit those around him.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution to repeal the ergonomics rule on repetitive motion syndrome issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA has been working on the new regulations for the last 10 years and that work has produced a rule that will protect our nation's workforce from what then Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, called ``one of the nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses in the 1990's.'' The plain truth is that America's workers suffer thousands of injuries every day and millions of injuries every year. While not all injuries are unavoidable, we in Congress have a duty to protect our workers from unnecessary injury. The ergonomics rule will prevent thousands of injuries due to repetitive motion syndrome. It has been estimated that the new protections will prevent over four and a half million injuries over the next ten years and save employers and workers $9 billion each year. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by. The fact that the resolution would prevent similar regulations from being implemented in the future is unconscionable. Repetitive motion syndrome is a real problem that will not go away with the passage of this resolution. Our workforce is suffering and we can ill afford to repeal this much needed rule and leave workers without any of the protections deemed necessary by OSHA. It is amazing to me that the republicans have resorted to dusting off the rule book to use a technicality as a means of blocking this provision. What are we to say to the thousands of workers that will suffer from repetitive motion syndrome in the years to come if this rule is repealed. I don't think that those suffering will be heartened by the notion that this is political posturing at its best. We cannot let this resolution pass. We must let the ergonomics rule take affect so that our workers will enjoy the safety and protection due to them. I urge all my colleagues to vote no on the resolution.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor three people who have dedicated their professional careers to fighting for better lives for the children and families of our nation's capital. Each week, all of us come to this revered institution to continue the greatest exercise in democracy and freedom the world has ever known. And yet, in the shadow of the Capitol itself are families and children whose lives we cannot imagine. There are children who are not able to contemplate the beauty of democracy and freedom because they are only concerned with surviving another day with enough food, with proper shelter, and without being a victim of abuse. Luckily, there are many people who are using their formidable talents to provide a better life for these children and their families. On Monday, March 6, the Bar Association of the District of Columbia honored three special individuals as ``Unsung Heroes.'' I would like to take this opportunity to also honor these people. Alec I. Haniford Deull has been a lawyer in Washington DC for nearly a decade. After graduating from the Washington College of Law at American University, magna cum laude, Mr. Deull opened his own practice in 1993. For his entire professional career as an attorney, he has represented clients in child abuse and neglect cases. He also represents children in special education court actions. He is widely respected for his passionate advocacy on behalf of his clients. Mr. Deull is also working to train the next generation of children's advocates, often taking on numerous interns from local law schools. Juliet J. McKenna is now the Executive Director of the District of Columbia chapter of Lawyers for Children America, a wonderful organization. This organization trains lawyers in private practice who are volunteering their time as guardians ad litem in child abuse and neglect cases. Before joining Lawyers for Children America, she spent two years in the District's Office of the Corporation Counsel in the Abuse and Neglect section of the Family Services Division. Ms. McKenna is a bright and enthusiastic young woman who only graduated Yale Law School in 1995, but has already earned a reputation as an outstanding advocate. Finally, upon graduating from Northwestern University School of Law, Anthony R. Davenport joined the Office of the General Counsel of the District of Columbia Department of Human Services and then the Office of the Corporation Counsel. In all, he spent eight years working for the people, families and children of the District. For the past six years, Mr. Davenport has been a solo practitioner specializing in litigation concerning the rights of children and families. He has spent countless hours working to provide a better future for children and families across this city. These are three extraordinary people. I ask that all my colleagues join me in recognizing and honoring these people for their contribution to making our nation's capital a better place for children and families.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the election mess in Florida and the closeness of the election throughout the Nation has cemented the fact that we must reform the electoral college. Today, I have introduced legislation to amend the Constitution to provide two middle-of-the-road options. Neither will totally scrap the system, yet both will allow the voters more of a voice in electing the President. The first resolution, or the proportional plan, will change the electoral college system by awarding electoral votes in each State based on the percentage of the popular vote gained by each ticket in that State. For instance, if one candidate got 60 percent of the popular vote in a State, he would get 60 percent of the electoral votes of that State and the other candidate getting 40 percent would get 40 percent of the votes in that State. The second bill, or the district plan, will award one electoral vote to the candidate who wins in each congressional district in the country with the additional two electoral votes of each State awarded to the winner of the popular vote in each State. This plan is already in place in Maine and Nebraska, and several State legislatures are going to be considering adopting it. It just does not seem right, as we have the current situation in Florida, where all the electoral votes of that State hinge on a few hundred votes either way. So I offer these two proposals as a way to begin the discussion and further this debate. There is a place for tradition in our country and a place for reform, and I think these proposals offer an equitable balance between the two.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the authors of this legislation and express my strong support for this bill. Historically, minorities have been under-represented in health research. It is my hope that establishing a National Center for Research on Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health will provide the means necessary to meet the health challenges many minorities face. With the unique health problems affecting different racial and ethnic communities, it is essential that this National Center be established to research and develop treatments and cures for afflictions that are more prevalent in minorities. One of my concerns throughout my tenure in Congress has been the effects of smog and pollution that inner-city residents are exposed to on a daily basis. Within inner-cities, minorities comprise a large portion of the population. I have been a strong advocate on behalf of inner-city communities, including my own district, that have been unfairly burdened by environmental hazards. I included an amendment in the House version of this bill which simply stated that the Administrator of Health Care Policy, within the National Center for Research on Minority Health and Health Disparities, take into account environmental factors when researching the cause of health disparities for minority populations. While the Senate version of the bill that we are considering today does not include the exact language of my amendment, it does accomplish the goal I intended to address. The legislation clearly states that when researching barriers many minorities face in obtaining proper health care, the Administrator of Health Care Policy is specifically directed to take into account the socioeconomic status, attitudes toward health, the language spoken, the extent of formal education, the area or community in which the population resides, and other factors the Director determines to be appropriate. It is my hope that by identifying health problems caused by environmental factors, we can begin to address the issue and enhance the quality of life for our urban residents. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my support for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was in New York, and unable to be present for the following votes, had I been present I would have voted as follows: October 24: rollcall No. 541, ``no''; rollcall No. 542 ``yes''; rollcall No. 543, ``no''. October 25: rollcall No. 544, ``yes''; rollcall No. 545, ``no''; rollcall No. 546, ``yes''; rollcall No. 547, ``yes''; rollcall No. 548, ``yes''; rollcall No. 549, ``yes''; rollcall No. 550, ``yes''; rollcall No. 551, ``no''; rollcall No. 552, ``yes''. October 26: rollcall No. 553, ``no''; rollcall No. 554, ``yes''; rollcall No. 555, ``no''; rollcall No. 556, ``no''.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, my good friend, for yielding me this time. We represent similar areas in New York, Bronx County, Westchester County; and we know there are problems with schools in those counties. We need to hire 100,000 new teachers. We want to get our schools' classes down in size so there are no more than 18 students per class. We will need to build new schools, hire 100,000 teachers and fix and repair crumbling school buildings. I am the father of three children. I am a former teacher; my wife is a former teacher, I was a guidance counselor. There is nothing more important to the future of this Nation than to get our class sizes down. Any parent knows that the less children there are in a classroom the more the children can learn and get personalized attention. So I support this instruction for conferees. I think we should move in a bipartisan fashion to fund our schools, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this. Again, we need 100,000 teachers, we need to build new schools, and fix and repair crumbling school buildings.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Angela House is a small transitional residence providing homeless women and their young children with support and training in a supporting, home-like setting. A primary goal is to break the cycle of homelessness and to achieve self-sufficiency for these families. This year Angela House is celebrating its first Award Dinner to raise money to buy permanent quarters for this fine organization. Dr. Spencer Foreman, the President of Montefiore Hospital, is being honored for his work in getting Angela House a building for use as a residence until Angela House can get its own building. Dr. Foreman has been a health systems executive for nearly 30 years and I can personally attest to the good work he is doing in the Bronx as President of Montefiore Medical Center. Currently he is in the midst of building an up to the minute pediatric hospital to treat the children of the Bronx and nearby Westchester County. He is a member and past Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Greater New York Hospital Association and the Board of Directors of the League of Voluntary Hospitals. Under Dr. Foreman Montefiore generously donated a three-story building for use by Angela House in the work it is doing for young women in need. Angela House is one of the many organizations making a concerted effort to solve the problem of homelessness in New York City. It also makes a crucial difference in the future of the children it serves by strengthening the family unit. Dr. Foreman and Angela House are well matched. Both are doing good work for the Bronx in helping people who are in need. They both contribute so much to making the Bronx a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to address this body and talk about my bill, the Caribbean Amnesty and Relief Act, and I would like to speak about it again. I am very proud to introduce the Caribbean Amnesty and Relief Act, which is legislation to reduce the devastating impact on the Caribbean community caused by the 1996 Immigration Reform bill. The people of the Caribbean Basin have always been loyal friends of the United States. At the height of the Cold War, the United States looked to the Caribbean nations to fight the infiltration of Cuban- style Communism. As a result, the Caribbean countries suffered political upheaval, and the people of the Caribbean fled to the United States to escape human rights abuses and economic hardship. People of the Caribbean have now established roots in the United States, many in my congressional district. Many have married here and many have children that were born in the United States. The economic structure of the Caribbean is such that it cannot absorb the great number of undocumented people now present in the United States. Our country, in my opinion, should grant the Caribbean population already in the United States amnesty since they have been here so long and continue to benefit the United States economy. The Jamaicans, for example, present in the United States, send back to their families 800 million in U.S. dollars per year. The Jamaican economy would be severely strained if that money were to disappear. In 1997, Congress recognized that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act would result in grave injustices to certain communities, and so we passed the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act but left out Caribbeans. I believe that that was very unfair. We need to pass legislation which will help the Caribbean community; thus, I am proud to take the lead on the Caribbean Amnesty and Relief Act. I would like to again tell my colleagues what this would do. This bill would allow for an adjustment for permanent residents for Caribbean nationals who have lived and worked in the United States prior to September 30, 1996 and have applied for an adjustment of status before April 1, 2002. This means that Caribbeans who have been in the U.S. prior to September 30, 1996 without proper documentation can receive green cards. The bill provides for spouses and children of those who have become permanent residents under section (a) to also become permanent residents of the U.S. if they apply before April 1, 2002. The bill establishes a Visa Fairness Commission, which will study economic and racial profiling by American consulates abroad and customs and immigration inspectors at U.S. points of entry. The purpose of this section is to determine whether there is discrimination against Caribbeans and others when applying for a visa or upon entering the United States. In addition, this section would allow for the Secretary of State to waive the visa fee for those who are too poor to pay. Again, it is imperative that we try to unite families. It is unconscionable that we would have families here in the United States and others in the Caribbean nations who want to be reunited but through loopholes cannot be. We are also concerned about the arbitrariness of people who are granted green cards and some people who are not able to get green cards. We think that much of this is done in an arbitrary manner. Madam Speaker, this is important legislation, and I urge the House to give it favorable consideration as soon as possible. We are, after all, dealing with people's lives. I look upon immigration as a good thing for this country. Immigrants built this country. The reason why this country has done so well through the years is because the best and the brightest from all over the world have come to these shores, as my four grandparents did many, many years ago, and have helped to build this country. What kind of a person emigrates to these shores? It is not a lazy person. It is someone who is willing to put aside all of the customs and cultures, leaving family behind and coming to this country is certainly an industrious, hard-working person who just wants to be given a chance. That is what the United States has meant to millions and millions and millions of people through the years, for people to just have a chance. It is a win-win situation, because, in terms of helping the families, we are also helping this country. Again, if we do not do it as this term winds down to an end, I will be reintroducing this in the next Congress, and I hope we can move so that this travesty of families being broken apart can be ended and that we can finally give relief to people who need it, helping them, helping their families and helping this country as well. Madam Speaker, I urge this House to give my legislation favorable consideration as soon as possible.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, as a Bronx boy born and bred, and as someone who represents Bronx, New York, I want to congratulate the New York Yankees, the World Champions of 2000, for their wonderful season and, therefore, their victory in the World Series yesterday. When I was growing up, I lived within walking distance from Yankee Stadium. I remember the old teams with Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris, and these Yankees certainly winning the World Series three years in a row shows they are truly champions. I also want to congratulate the New York Mets for a wonderful, wonderful season and for being the winners of the National League. The subway series, and I went to as many World Series games as I could go to, really has made all of us as New Yorkers proud. In fact, my cap, which says ``Subway Series'' and has the number 4 train and the number 7 train on it, is something, again, that makes New York very, very, very proud. Not since the 1950s, when I was just a little boy, have we had a subway series in New York, and I have never seen such electricity coming from the city. So we are all really winners; the New York Mets, the New York Yankees, two great phenomenal teams. I am proud to be a New Yorker, and I say again congratulations to the World Champion New York Yankees and to the National League Champions, the New York Mets.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding to me. I would not forgive myself if at this time I did not say what was in my heart. I have had the honor and privilege of serving in this body now for six terms, for 12 years. And I look forward to coming back to the new Congress. I have had many colleagues and have enormous respect for so many people, but I want the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) to know that there is no one for whom I have more respect than he. And I know this personally because the gentleman and I are good friends and we have spent a lot of time together. Many, many times in life we are called to do certain things and we never quite know how we are going to react to them when we are called upon. Many people act of principle and some people do not, frankly, because they fear what the consequences might be. I want to tell the gentleman that I have seen him to be a man of principle and to not worry about what consequences might be but to do what he thinks right in his heart. I have seen the gentleman make decisions, some agonizing decisions and some that lesser people might not have made. So I just want to tell the gentleman that I personally am enormously proud of him. I know the people of the First District of New York have been served tremendously well by him in Congress. And people in the First District ought to know that, in my opinion, there is no one finer, there is no one who works harder, there is no one who has been more effective than the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), representing that district, representing all the people of New York, and representing the people of the United States. I have again enormous respect for all of my colleagues, but I think that all of us in life walk a very difficult task and there are times that we have decisions to make. Let me just say to my friend, you have always in my estimation made the right decision, not the right decision for you personally perhaps, but the right decision for the country, the right decision for your constituent, and just doing what is right. So it has been a privilege to be your colleague. It is an even bigger privilege to be your friend. And we will continue to be friends. I want to tell you that my career in Congress has certainly been enriched by working with you and in walking the walk with you. I wish Godspeed to you and Barbara and your children and children to be and all good things and I know life is going to treat you well, because you have certainly treated life well and treated the people whom you have touched very well. So Godspeed, my friend. I know you may not be here next year, but we have not heard the end of you yet. I love you, and I wish you the best.

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?