Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, before I speak about what I want to speak about, listening to my colleague talk about 20 years to the day of the eruption of Mount St. Helens, that was May 18, 1980, and people are always amazed when they mention Mount St. Helens, and I say, ``Oh, yes, that was May 18, 1980,'' and they cannot understand how I can remember the exact date. I was married on May 18, 1980, so today is the 20th anniversary of my marriage. I do not know if there is some kind of lesson there, but I am glad the gentleman spoke about it, because it has been a good 20 years. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the plight of 13 Iranian Jews who are on trial in Iran in a phony trial, in a show trial, in a disgraceful trial. These people are charged with supposedly spying for the United States and Israel, and were arrested on Passover of 1999. They have been imprisoned for a year without legal representation, and they are denied the right to choose their lawyer. Their trials are going on now. Mr. Speaker, Iran must know that it cannot hope to normalize relations with the United States, certainly, and with most of the world, as long as these phony show trials are going on. These 13 people are innocent, even though some of them have been forced to supposedly confess. The trials are closed. No one is permitted to observe, not the diplomatic community, not the Jewish community, not human rights activists, and they are being tried in revolutionary courts which are not under the control of the reformist-minded President, Khatami. In fact, it is quite apparent that these 13 Iranian Jews are pawns, pawns in a power struggle between hard-liners and moderates in Iran. Unfortunately, these people are pawns, and no one knows how this trial, this staged trial, will turn out. We have a resolution in this House, H. Con. Res. 307, sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and this House would do well to pass it very quickly, condemning these trials and exposing them for what they are. Today, unfortunately, the World Bank loaned Iran $232 million. Our government, the President and Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State, rightfully said this was not the thing to do at the very time that these show trials are going on, and shame on the World Bank for doing this. I think that Iran ought to understand that there is a price to pay for what they are doing, and only if the world community expresses outrage, only if we in the United States keep the focus on this trial, then perhaps, and only perhaps, these 13 innocent Iranian Jews who are being used as pawns will be ultimately set free. So I think it is very, very important that we in the Congress keep the focus on this trial; that we not allow Iran to continue this sham, and that they understand again that there is a price to pay for doing these kinds of phony trials. Jews have lived in Iran for 2,700 years. In 1979, before the so- called Iranian revolution, there were 80,000 Jews in Iran. Today there are anywhere from 25,000 to 30,000. Seventeen Jews have been executed since 1979, and the community is very much threatened. They are allowed to travel somewhat, but not allowed to travel to Israel. So I think it is, again, very appropriate at this time that we continue to focus on this trial; that we not rest until these innocent people are set free and that the world community collectively let Iran know that there is a price to pay and there will be a price to pay if these people are harmed.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I very, very strongly oppose this amendment. I think this sends the absolute wrong message and is really the height of the wrong way we ought to go. I chair the Albanian Issues Caucus. I have put a lot of time and effort into the situation in Kosovo. Let me say something. What we have done in Kosovo is working. It is working. We have saved lives. It is true that the Europeans ought to be doing more but this will have the exact opposite effect. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen says this is counterproductive to peace in Kosovo and will seriously jeopardize the relationship between the U.S. and our NATO allies. Joe Lockhart, the White House Press Secretary, says this is the wrong message being sent at the wrong time, and presidential candidate George Bush says this is wrong and it is legislative overreach. A letter from General Wesley Clark says these measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto pull-out by the United States. We ought to be proud of the role we have played in saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and the United States ought not to cut and run. We are the leaders of the world and the leaders of the free world. No one gave us that mantle. We took it and we ought to follow it through. It is working. People have gone to Kosovo. There are going to be bumps and grinds in the road but essentially what we have done is working. We cannot pull out. We need to work with our European allies, not cut and run. This is not what America should be doing. We cannot go back to the days of isolationism. There are people that never wanted to be in Kosovo in the first place. I am proud of the role that this administration played and that the American people played in saving the lives of so many people. So I just want to say that a bipartisan no vote ought to be here and we ought to very, very strongly reject this amendment. We have saved the lives of thousands of people. Let us continue the job. May 11, 2000. Thank you for your letter of 10 May and the opportunity to provide my personal views on the amendment adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee governing the future of U.S. troops in Kosovo. While I support efforts of the Congress and the Administration to encourage our allies to fulfill their commitments to the United Nations mission in Kosovo, I am opposed to the specific measures called for in the amendment. These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto pull- out decision by the United States. They are unlikely to encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures would invalidate the policies, commitments and trust of our Allies in NATO, undercut US leadership worldwide, and encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in the Balkans. Furthermore, they would, if enacted, invalidate the dedication and commitment of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, disregarding the sacrifices they and their families have made to help bring peace to the Balkans. Regional stability and peace in the Balkans are very important interests of the United States. Our allies are already providing over 85 percent of the military forces and the funding for reconstruction efforts. US leadership in Kosovo, exercised through the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, as well as our diplomatic offices, is a bargain. It is an effective 6:1 ratio of diplomatic throw-weight to our investment. We cannot do significantly less. Our allies would see this as a unilateral, adverse move that splits fifty years of shared burdens, shared risks, and shared benefits in

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 464 which urges the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to fully recognize the Magen David Adom, Israel's counterpart to the American Red Cross, as a member. I am pleased that the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, has made membership of the Magen David Adom a priority this year. However, the Magen David Adom has been kept waiting for more than fifty years for full membership. It is imperative that the ICRC recognize the Magen David Adom immediately and not further delay the process. This could be done most easily by applying the American Red Cross' solution: to ``grandfather'' the Magen David Adom into the ICRC since it has met all necessary conditions to become a national society. I would like to commend the American Red Cross and Dr. Bernadine Healy for their support and commitment to ensuring full membership for the Magen David Adom. Furthermore, Chairman Gilman and Ranking Member Gejdenson also deserve recognition for their leadership on this issue. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this resolution. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, April 5, 2000. Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, President, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, Switzerland. Dear Dr. Kellenberger: We are writing to urge the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to recognize the Magen David Adom (MDA) as a full member as expeditiously as possible. As you know, the MDA was founded in 1930 and is the national humanitarian society in the state of Israel. The MDA is the Israeli counterpart to the American Red Cross and carries out all of the traditional roles of a voluntary medical aid society including emergency medical services, maintenance of blood supplies, first aid, and disaster relief. Unfortunately, despite its dedicated humanitarian relief efforts around the world, MDA has not yet been recognized as a full member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is a worldwide institution in which all national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have equal status. However, MDA is in a decidedly unequal position. The Magen David Adom Society is excluded from full membership in the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement solely because the Red Shield of David, the organization's emblem, is not an official emblem recognized by either the Geneva Conventions governing the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. While other countries utilize the red cross or the red crescent as emblems of their national humanitarian societies, we respect the decision of MDA in Israel, a Jewish state, to maintain the 70-year tradition of using the Red Shield of David as its emblem. With peace slowly but surely coming to the Middle East and Israel developing progressively more relations with its neighbors, it is time that the ICRC recognize the Magen David Adom as a full member, and the Federation grant it membership. As you are likely aware, the US House of Representatives passed an amendment last year which expressed the sense of the Congress that the MDA should be recognized as a full member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Congress may consider additional legislation this year about MDA's exclusion from your organization. We understand that there have been recent meetings between you and the government of Israel which have brought the two sides closer to a resolution. While we are encouraged by the new positive atmosphere, we will be monitoring this situation closely until the MDA is fully recognized by the ICRC and the Federation. Sincerely, Eliot L. Engel; Constance A. Morella; Stephen Horn; Jerrold Nadler; Rush D. Holt; Dana Rohrabacher; John M. Spratt, Jr.; Anthony D. Weiner; James E. Rogan; Henry A. Waxman; Joseph Crowley; Tim Holden; Christopher Shays; Nita M. Lowey; Benjamin A. Gilman; Steven R. Rothman; Tom Lantos; Peter Deutsch; Sam Gejdenson; John F. Tierney; Howard L. Berman; John Lewis; Sander M. Levin; Sherrod Brown; Charles B. Rangel; Juanita Millender-McDonald; Gary L. Ackerman; James H. Maloney; Edward J. Markey; Robert Wexler; Carolyn B. Maloney; Janice D. Schakowsky.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is all about politics. Everyone knows that the President is going to veto this bill, and there are not sufficient votes in the other body to override. So why are we doing this? The Republican leadership has decided this is an election year, let us once again put up this bill and let us try to get emotions flying. Make no mistake about it, my colleagues, this is the start of attempts to erode Roe v. Wade, an attempt to drive women to the back alleys where abortions will not be prevented but will be performed under unsafe conditions resulting in the deaths of many, many women. I cannot understand my Republican colleagues who profess, on the one hand, to say that the Government should get out of private lives; that the Government should not intrude on personal decisions, but they want the Government to intrude on the most personal decision made between a woman and her doctor, her family and her God. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. I would like to tell a personal story. Six years ago my wife gave birth to a beautiful boy named Phillip. Many of my colleagues know him. It was a pregnancy that was unplanned; that was not expected. He is 7 years younger than my youngest child. My wife became pregnant at age 40 and gave birth at age 41, and we were concerned about the risks. I am pro-choice; my wife is pro-choice. We are not pro-abortion. There is a difference. We made the choice. The choice was to have this beautiful child. There was much testing, there was much heartwrenching, and he is the apple of my eye. But every woman, every family, every couple has the right to make that personal choice, particularly if it should involve the health of the mother. And having no exemption in this bill for the health and well-being of the mother, I think is an attempt by this body to impose its will on the most personal decision that a wife or a husband and wife or a family will make. This bill ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I chair the Albanian Issues Caucus. I think I have done more work with Kosovo than almost anyone else in Congress. This is a very ill-advised amendment. If we want to ensure a presidential veto, this is the amendment to do if it passes. Generals Shelton and Clark have been mentioned. They certainly would not agree to this amendment. We have won the peace. We have won the war. Let us not lose the peace. Defeat this amendment. It is awful. Mr. Chairman, I include the following editorials for the Record: Editorial (By Madeleine K. Albright) Washington.--A year ago this week, Slobodan Milosevic rejected an international peace plan and intensified a campaign of terror that had already killed hundreds of Kosovo Albanians and driven more than 200,000 from their homes. His new offensive, begun with peace talks still underway, ultimately caused more than one million Kosovars to seek refuge and was marked by burned villages, rapes, murders and ethnic cleansing. President Clinton and his NATO counterparts responded forcefully and, through persistence, successfully. Most of the displaced have since returned to their homes. Communities are rebuilding. Children are in school. With international help, most of Kosovo is secure and preparing for its first democratic elections ever. Having prevailed in war, our challenge now is to secure the peace. This is proving, as expected, costly and hard. The journey from conflict to cooperation is not made overnight. Impatient, some in Congress suggest we give up, put away our wallets and call our troops home. But the costs and risks of quitting far exceed those of maintaining a stable Kosovo. History teaches us that America cannot be secure if Europe is not secure, and events have reminded us repeatedly that Europe cannot be secure when conflict engulfs the Balkans. With Mr. Milosevic still present, the region remains a tinderbox. If we check out, wide-scale bloodshed will almost surely check back in. Moreover, the price of perseverance is affordable and the obstacles to success can be overcome. During the cold war, we stationed nearly 400,000 troops in Europe. Today we have roughly 100,000. Of these, about 6,000 are in Kosovo. Surely, this deployment is not disproportionate to America's stake in the region. Further, Europe is committed to shouldering the majority of burdens in Kosovo. European Union members have contributed 64 percent of the international troops and provided hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian and reconstruction aid. We are contributing fewer than 15 percent of total troops and less than 15 percent of the nonmilitary costs of helping Kosovo recover from war and build stability. There are proposals in Congress to make a 15 percent share of these costs a legal cap. But such a restriction would harm, not help, our ability to leverage contributions from Europe. It would reduce our flexibility in responding to future events. And it would underestimate America's stake in our partnership with Europe, which extends beyond Europe itself. After Hurricane Mitch struck in our hemisphere, more than 60 percent of the bilateral aid pledged came from Europe. And Europe assumed a 33 percent share of the cost of establishing peace in El Salvador and 34 percent in Guatemala. Those ready to give up on Kosovo point to recent incidents of ethnic violence there. We share these concerns, and international authorities are addressing them by beefing up resources, tightening security, and marginalizing and disarming extremists. But the problems should not obscure overall progress. With United Nations leadership, a Joint Interim Administrative Council has been established in which Kosovo's factions can begin to share responsibility for governing their region. The ethnic Albanian militia has met its commitment to demobilize. The murder rate is now lower in Kosovo than in many American cities. In much of the region, morale is high and people are focused squarely on building a better life. The depth of estrangement between factions in Kosovo is profound. Urgent needs for police, prosecutors and courts have not yet been met. And the risk that angry individuals will generate disturbances remains significant. But if our reaction to every setback is to pull back, a dangerous world will grow rapidly more dangerous. We are not asking anyone in Kosovo to abandon legitimate interests. We are asking the people there to pursue their interests through cooperation with the international community and by participating in the joint governing structures being created. With time and sufficient support, the cooler heads on all sides will prevail. A sense of inter- ethnic community may or may not develop; but pragmatic coexistence is clearly possible. The day may come when a Kosovo-scale operation can be managed without the help of the United States, but it has not come yet. If we are forced by ill-conceived legislation to depart Kosovo or to slash our commitment of resources, others will mimic our weakness, and the flames of renewed conflict will surely and quickly ignite. The American people should be proud that we did the right thing a year ago and confident that by working with our partners to consolidate the peace, we are doing the right and smart thing now.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the members of the Corleone Society (Unione Sportiva Corleone) and their 25th Annual Dinner-Dance this week. I also take this opportunity to recognize Paolo Muratore and his 16 years of leadership as the President of the Corleone Society. In 1973 a group of friends, originally from the Italian city of Corleone, met to celebrate a traditional holiday from their native town. During this event they decided to form the Corleone Society (Unione Sportiva Corleone) in order to extend their culture and traditions to the United States of America. The people of Corleone, a city of 15,000 inhabitants, have chosen a lion clutching a flaming heart as a symbol of their nobility and generosity. Since 1973 until today the members of the Corleone Society have contributed to the enrichment of our culture with the traditions and values of the city of Corleone in Sicily. For 25 years the members of the Corleone Society have gathered together to celebrate their traditions and emphasize their commitment to noble causes. They award scholarships to support talented students in their educational endeavors. At the same time, they are dedicated to improving the health and welfare of children worldwide. The Corleone Society offers its patronage to orphanages and it sponsors sick children from abroad to receive medical treatment in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude for the indispensable services and contributions the Corleone Society has given to so many in the United States and around the world.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is going to give his State of the Union message this evening and I am going to listen very, very intently. I think when we look back at this administration we can see a very successful administration. Prosperity is at an all-time high, our economy is growing, we are about to set a record in terms of the economy, and that has been done by this President and this administration. The important things that the President will stress tonight are going to be very, very important to listen to, but I think preserving Social Security and Medicare is something that the American people want and that this administration will do. A prescription drug program. I know our senior citizens on Medicare need help with prescription drugs. Targeted tax cuts. We do not need a risky tax scheme that give tax breaks for the rich. We need targeted tax cuts to help middle America, to help the middle class, to help people so that they can pay for college tuition for their sons and daughters. My daughter is going to college, and families are struggling to try to send their children to college. So the President's proposal to have tax deductions or a tax credit for college students is certainly something that we need. Gun control, campaign finance reform, a patient's bill of rights, these are the things that Congress should pass this year.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, public service, when performed wisely and well, is the most noble of callings. I speak today to honor a man who has been in public service and who performed in just those ways. Edward Weiss is retiring from the United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, after 30 years of service. In his many capacities with the Department, Ed has received outstanding performance ratings from every United States Attorney General under whom he has served since 1981. He is well known for his ability to prepare and litigate cases. He also coordinated the Criminal Alien Program for the New Jersey District. Ed received his BA degree from Syracuse University and graduated from Brooklyn Law School. He and his wife Susan have two daughters; Robyn, in a pre-doctorate program in Religion at Hebrew University, and Karen, studying law at George Washington University. Ed is retiring to follow his other passions, hiking and traveling. He is a dedicated professional of who we can all be proud. I join his many friends in wishing him and his family many happy years in his retirement.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Bronx is losing one of its most distinguished public servants and a woman who has done more for her borough and her community than we can ever thank her for. Peggy Braverman is retiring after more than 15 years as Deputy County Clerk for the Bronx where she oversaw a staff or more than 80 people as they helped residents secure business certificates, passports, and other significant documents while answering questions about jury duty and other matters. She was always active in her community and the political arena. She was an administrative assistant in the Bronx Borough President's office from 1979 to 1985 and before that she served as an administrative assistant for then Councilman, now Assemblyman Stephen Kaufman. She was also Democratic District Leader for the 81st Assembly District. At least as extensive was her work in the voluntary area. She was an active member of the Educational Jewish Center, the Morris Park Community Association, the Allerton Avenue Homeowners Association and the 49th Precinct Community Council. She also served as President of the PTA of Christopher Columbus High School and Vice President of JHS 135. She was also a scout leader. Peggy Braverman is that rare person who serves her neighborhood and her fellow citizens in so many capacities, someone, who by their service, does so much to make government work and the community prosper. The people of the Bronx will miss her in government; let us hope we can keep her helping in the community. I want to join her legion of friends and admirers in wishing her in retirement what she has learned--the very best from life.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Sylvia ``Sally'' Stahl, a dedicated wife, mother, and grandmother is celebrating her 80th birthday and I want to take this occasion to join her family and her many friends in wishing her a happy birthday. She has lived all of her 80 years in the Bronx where her parents instilled in her the virtues and ethics she has lived by and which she passed on to her children and grandchildren. Her parents, Max and Sarah, came to America from Eastern Europe so they and their children could enjoy the America's freedom. She and her twin sister, Miriam, and her brother, Sydney, were raised in the Bronx. She and her husband, Harry, purchased their home in the Allerton section of the borough, and she lives in that house still. She and Harry were both active in the community and Sally is still an active member of Hadassah. During World War II, when Harry served with the SeaBees, she worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. She also did volunteer work at Bronx Lebanon Hospital for more than 20 years. Sally has recovered from three bouts with cancer. but not even that could slow this remarkable lady down. She is still active and drives throughout the Bronx and Westchester County. She is the mother of Robert and Paul, mother-in-law of Josephine and Helene, grandmother to Jarret, Lindsay, Dana and Eric. I am proud and honored to join Sally, her family and her friends on this wondrous occasion.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their efforts in bringing this bill to the floor today. I have worked on this legislation with my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), and I am proud to be here today to express my support for the ``Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act.'' December 7, 1941, is a day that is very well-known. On that day, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entered World War II. What has been overlooked since that day is the fact that Italian Americans on that day suddenly became so-called ``enemy aliens.'' Loyal Italian American patriots who had fought alongside U.S. armed forces in World War I, mothers and fathers of U.S. troops fighting in World War II, even women and children, were suspected of being dangerous and subversive solely because they were Italian American. With this new enemy alien status, Italians were subject to the strict curfew regulations, forced to carry photo IDs, and could not travel farther than a five-mile radius from their homes without prior approval. Furthermore, many Italian fishermen were forbidden from using their boats in prohibited zones. Since fishing was the only means of income for many families, households were torn apart or completely relocated as alternative sources of income were sought. It is difficult to believe, Mr. Speaker, that over 10,000 Italians deemed enemy aliens were forcibly evacuated from their homes and over 52,000 were subject to strict curfew regulation. Ironically, at that time, over half a million Italian Americans were serving in the U.S. armed forces, fighting to protect the liberties of all Americans, while many of their family members had their basic rights and freedoms revoked. When we first started working on this legislation, we had vague accounts of mostly non-Italians who were subjected to these civil liberties abuses. However, throughout this process, we have come in contact with many Italians who experienced the internment ordeal firsthand. As the gentleman from Illinois mentioned, Dominic DiMaggio testified at a Committee on the Judiciary hearing about his dismay when he returned from the war to find that his mother and father were so-called enemy aliens. Doris Pinza, wife of international opera star Ezio Pinza, also testified at the hearing about her husband who was only weeks away from obtaining U.S. citizenship when he was classified as an enemy alien and detained at Ellis Island. It still saddens me to think that Ellis Island, the world renowned symbol of freedom and democracy, the place where my grandparents came to this country, was used as a holding cell for Italians. There is even documented evidence of Italians being interned in camps at Missoula, Montana, and we have photos that we hope to get here soon which will demonstrate that Missoula, Montana as well was a holding camp for Italian Americans. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that these terrible events will never be perpetrated again. We must safeguard the individual rights of all Americans from arbitrary persecution or no American will ever be secure. The least our government can do is try to right these terrible wrongs by acknowledging that these events did occur. While we cannot erase the mistakes of the past, we must try to learn from them in order to ensure that we never subject anyone ever again to the same injustices. The Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act calls on the Department of Justice to publish a report detailing the unjust policies of the government during this time period. Essential to the report will be a study examining ways to safeguard individual rights during national emergencies. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the Italian American community, especially to those and the families who endured these abuses, to recognize the injustices of the past. Documentation and education about the suffering of all groups of Americans who face persecution is important in order to ensure that no group's civil liberties is ever violated again. I look forward to casting my vote for this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to go into the well and show my colleagues two photos that were taken during that terrible period. These photos were taken at Missoula, Montana at the internment camp holding the various Italian Americans primarily from the West Coast, and one of the things that people are saying, as our colleagues have said when they first heard about it and as the chairman said, everyone was in shock because nobody could really believe that this had actually happened. We had heard about the terrible internment of Japanese Americans during the war, but no one knew anything about Italian Americans. My colleagues can see over here, this was from Missoula, Montana, and this is a picture of the internment camp. We can see a band of Italian Americans just waiting to go into the camp. The next photo actually is a little bit closer and it shows again the fence, how the people were fenced in; we can see the American flag flying, and again, we have Italian Americans arriving at the Missoula, Montana internment camp in 1941. Again, this happened shortly after, a matter of days literally, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. So I am very proud of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have really helped move this legislation; the chairman, who moved mountains to get this done, and it has been a pleasure working with my good friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Lazio). When we wrote this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we wanted the American public to know, and we want the Justice Department to continue to open up its records, because if there are things that we still do not know, we want to know all that happened during this period. This is obviously the greatest country in the world and even great countries make some mistakes, and we raise this not to go back in the past, but we raise this so that mistakes like this will never be made again against any American or against any kind of people. I want to acknowledge the role that NIAF, the National Italian American Foundation, has played in helping with this bill, and I want to especially acknowledge the role that my administrative assistant, John Calvelli, played in helping to draft this legislation. I think most of the wording of this bill he wrote, and I am very grateful for everything that he has done for this legislation. I look forward to swift and speedy passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3261, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act. This legislation is designed to promote the privatization of Intelsat and open foreign markets to U.S. companies. Once enacted, this bill will bring to American consumers the benefits of lower rates and more services. Its passage is long overdue. After almost 40 years, it is time to overhaul the 1960s' era U.S. international satellite communications policy from one that is dominated by intergovernmental organizations such as Intelsat and Inmarsat to one that lets private companies compete in an unfettered market. This bill benefits both U.S. companies and U.S. consumers. I commend Chairman Bliley, Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Markey and their staffs for their efforts to produce a bipartisan, compromise bill, of which I am a proud cosponsor. In particular, the removal of the so-called `Fresh Look' provision improves the bill greatly and adds to the reasons it should pass in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, the bill eliminates the privileges and immunities of Intelsat and ends Comsat's monopoly access to Intelsat. Comsat has enjoyed for years a monopoly over Intelsat access, which, according to the Federal Communications Commission, has permitted Comsat to mark-up Intelsat's charges by an average of 68%. It is time to permit the same level of comprehensive direct assess to U.S. companies that is available to many other countries. To better understand the critical direct access provisions in H.R. 3261, we need to remember that although Comsat is a private corporation, it did not arise from normal marketplace forces. Instead, it was created by the Congress in the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 for a specific purpose: to assist in the development of a global satellite system. As part of this role and to ensure that no provider would dominate the market, Comsat became a ``middleman'', investing in the global system and reselling satellite services to entities providing tele-communications services to end users. While Comsat's ``middleman'' role may have served an important purpose when the global satellite system was in its infancy, the rationale for this role--that one entity should control access to Intelsat--no longer exists. Today, we can no longer justify a government-endorsed subsidy to Comsat or any other private successor company when fair competition is the only force to control costs and protect consumers. I urge that members support H.R. 3261. As a member of the Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Telecommunications which considered this legislation, I firmly believe that the bill will increase competition, open foreign markets, and create new business opportunities for U.S. companies.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1832, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. For years, there has been widespread concern about the boxing industry in the United States. Not only have scandals plagued the industry as long as I can remember, but fighters have been taken advantage of financially and opportunities to compete for a title have not always been awarded to legitimate contenders. As you know, Madam Speaker, almost every other major sport in the United States operates with a central body to establish appropriate business standards and effective mechanisms of self-regulation. Not boxing. Boxing exists in a world of alphabet soup organizations whose rating methodologies are as ephemeral as the famous Ali ``mirage'' and promoters who are as untouchable as Ali was behind the ``rope-a-dope.'' The purpose of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act is to increase disclosure and prevent abuses in professional boxing, specifically targeting conflicts of interest that arise for promoters. H.R. 1832 limits contracts between boxers and promoters, ending the coercive practice of requiring long contracts for fighters to obtain particular bouts. The bill also seeks to ensure that the manager is an independent advocate of the boxer, not an agent serving the financial interest of the promoter. Furthermore, the sanctioning organizations would have to establish objective criteria for the rating of professional boxers and fully disclose their by-laws, rating systems, and officials. I firmly believe that with these limitations, the boxing industry can take a giant step toward the 21st century and the ending of corruption. I would like to thank my good friend, Chairman Oxley, for his hard work on this legislation. It has been my pleasure to serve as the lead Democratic cosponsor of his bill in the House and to cosign several dear colleagues with him. Much credit is also due to Senator John McCain, author of the Senator-approved version of the bill. I would also like to call attention to Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of the State of New York, for his efforts to root out corruption in the boxing industry. As Chairman of the National Association of Attorneys General Boxing Task Force, Eliot Spitzer has helped guide Congress through the legal technicalities required for effective enforcement of new boxing regulations. His contribution and testimony before Congress will not be forgotten. In the end, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act puts abuse in the boxing industry on the ropes. By passing this important legislation, I believe that Congress will deliver the final one, two punch to boxing corruption.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, if this were only about fixing Medicare, it would be fine, but a provision that was entered into this bill wreaks havoc with teaching hospitals. This proposal results in no savings but would shift millions of direct medical education dollars between hospitals, with no consideration as to the financial needs of a hospital or the type of patient they serve. As a result, $250 million in Medicare funds will be transferred from 400 teaching hospitals across the country to 600 others. This will actually cost $300 million extra. Now, BBA relief legislation was supposed to restore Medicare cuts to hospitals, not initiate new cuts to hospitals. That is what it does to a major teaching hospital in my district, and that is what it does across the country. This affects Democrats, Republicans, people representing all different places across the country. This provision should not be in here. I know my friend from California (Mr. Thomas) put in the provision because it helps his district, but it should not be done this way. There should not be winners and losers here, and the payment should not be made at the national rate. Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means from one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) dated November 3, 1999, and signed by numerous other colleagues. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 3, 1999. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, Washington,

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I will not put on the hat, I will just hold the hat. Even though it is not the traditional blue and white Yankee colors, these are some of the fancy hats they sell on 161st Street in the Bronx outside Yankee Stadium. I speak then on behalf of myself and my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). We are both from the Bronx. We always joke, the Yankee Stadium is in his district, and some of the parking lots outside of Yankee Stadium are in my district; when the Yankees hit a home run out of the park, the ball lands in my district. I was born in the Bronx, lived in the Bronx, was raised in the Bronx, grew up within walking distance of Yankee Stadium. Today the Bronx is really proud of the Bronx Bombers, of the New York Yankees, who once again are the world champions in baseball. They are truly the team of the nineties, the dynasty of the nineties. As we enter the new millenium, the Yankees are the world champions. The Bronx is very, very proud of the Yankees, and indeed, all of New York City is very, very proud of the Yankees. We look forward to a great ticker tape parade up Broadway with the Yankees. We look forward to continued successes in the future. Go, Yankees. They have made us all proud: Joe Torre, George Steinbrenner and all the Yankees. New York, New York.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am going to put on this hat, although it is not the traditional blue and white. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Payne amendment. In my previous life, I was a teacher and guidance counselor in the New York City public schools and I only taught in Title I schools so I think I have some familiarity with it. Most of the schools in my congressional district qualify as Title I schools. I agree with my colleague from New York (Mr. Owens), who said the real problem here is that we just need more money for Title I schools. We do need more money. The other side can scoff all they want, but the fact of the matter is every child who is eligible should be getting help. If we are going to make the commitment, and this bill goes a long way in increasing funds but we still have a long, long way to go, it seems to me that what we ought to be doing is concentrating on those schools that have the greatest levels of poverty because those are the kids that are most disadvantaged. Those are the kids that really need the help. School- wide programs have usually been limited to higher poverty schools because the performance of all people, all students in that school, tends to be low. This amendment calls for the 50 percent poverty threshold because a level of 50 percent poverty is where we begin to see an impact on the entire school. At poverty levels below 50 percent, the school poverty level has a much smaller impact on the achievement of the entire school population. So the Payne amendment would certainly prevent the undermining of Title I's targeting provisions and ensure that these programs are focused on higher poverty schools that need improvements on a school-wide level and the poorest schools are better equipped. It will ensure that the poorest schools are better equipped to deal with school-wide problems. I also would be remiss if I did not mention that within the City of New York there is a very distinct problem. I represent Bronx County, and the way the funds are being allocated right now hurts students in Bronx County and Queens County and New York County within the City of New York. If we had more money, we could take care of those problems without impacting negatively on the other counties. So it seems to me that the fight here should not be a fight about a pie and who should take away from other people; but the fact is that where there are poor schools those are the schools that ought to be adequately funded. It pains me a great deal that in Bronx County we are being shortchanged with this Title I funding allocation, and again only in New York and Hawaii and parts of Virginia do we face this problem. It hurts Bronx County. It hurts Queens County. It hurts New York County; and if there were more money in this bill, we could take care of it. We could hold these districts harmless so that they could help the poorest kids and help the poorest schools. So this goes a step in the right direction in terms of allocating more money, but in my estimation it does not do the job. If we are going to have a Federal commitment to education, and again the polls show that that is what people want across the country, a commitment to education, then we really need to put our money where our mouth is. If we are going to help children in the poorest areas, then we need to help those schools that are the poorest schools. The bill goes in the wrong direction. The Payne amendment would right that wrong, and I wholly support it.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill before us today. I wish to express my appreciation for the efforts of the Ranking Member, Mr. Serrano, and Chairman Rogers in working with members thus far. I want to stress that this is not a perfect bill. There is still much work to be done. However, I will be voting for the bill to express my optimism that those concerns will be addressed, as many others have been throughout this process. It is my hope that the final version of this bill will illustrate the bi-partisan manner that the Chairman and Ranking Member have stressed all along. I am particularly pleased that $1.5 million is allocated for construction of a plant studies research laboratory at the New York Botanical Garden. The Garden is recognized as the premier institution in botanical research in the United States. Funding this new facility ensures that the Garden will enhance its preeminent status and continue to attract scientists and scholars from around the world. It is my sincere hope that continued research at the Garden will improve public health, generate economic growth, and secure our place as the world leader in plant research. Mr. Speaker, as I vote in favor of the CJS Appropriations bill today, I am confident that the continued efforts of the Chairman and the Ranking Member will result in overwhelming support for this legislation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill. This is a vastly improved bill over the original House bill because there are significant improvements in housing programs, NASA, EPA and veterans' medical care. I especially want to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), my friend and New York colleague, who really has done an excellent job in terms of putting this bill together and working to include everybody into this bill. Housing funding is increased $2.4 billion, raising the funding to $28.6 billion. NASA's budget increased. Veterans' medical care increased by $1.7 billion, and there is $3 million, of interest for me particularly, in the subcommittee report for renovations to the Bronx VA, the Veterans Administration, which will be working in connection with Mount Sinai School of Medicine. There is also $1 million in the subcommittee report for the Carl Sagan Center and the Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York. Those are two very important programs. So this bill is a vast improvement over the original bill. I look forward to voting for the bill today and working with the Chairman to make these projects a reality. I again want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for the fine work that he has done.