Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I go to senior citizen centers in my district and I always get a lot of heads nodding when I say there is a problem with something with Medicare. And sometimes we have difficulty where we get, we are in a hospital stay and we get a printout afterwards and we see the monies that Medicare has spent. And we see listings sometimes of doctors' names, and we say who are these doctors I do not know who they are. I did not see them. And it is the doctor who pokes his head in the door and asks how you are feeling today and then leaves and bills Medicare. And when people say that, or when I say that, people nod all the time. I am sure all our colleagues have countless stories that constituents have told them about waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare system, where people are told that they can get certain things, and they get them and they do not need them. I really believe if we crack down on waste, fraud and abuse we could save billions. And by saving that money, we could put it into ensuring that everybody gets expansion of health care coverage and that people that do not have it can get it. So I think where there is a will there is a way. We certainly are capable of looking at it. And we know there is waste, fraud and abuse, and we can get at it. So I again think that the President's proposal is something that has a lot of merit. I know the American people, I have seen polls, are all for it. I know my constituents in New York are for it. And I think, again, that those of us in Congress who understand the necessity for the expansion of Medicare, particularly on the Democratic side, and I hope again our colleagues on the Republican side will embrace it as well, but I know on the Democratic side we are embracing it and that we will continue to push for Medicare expansion in this Congress and hopefully get a bill that the President will sign into law.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I certainly am sympathetic to the bill, but I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) does make a valid point about committees and committee process and committee hearings. I want to add my voice in support of the underlying legislation. For several months now I have been working on legislation which would force insurance companies that have not paid Holocaust victims what they are supposed to be paid, to force them to do so. I think one of the most obscene things that has come to light during this whole process has been the role of the insurance companies in stonewalling and not paying Holocaust victims and their families and descendants what is rightfully due to them. So I think it is very, very important in this Congress that we focus on this issue and that we move on this issue. I am a member of the Committee on Commerce, and the bill will come through the Committee on Commerce in terms of the bill forcing insurance companies. I already have several cosponsors, and will drop the bill in today. I am working with the Holocaust Museum and the people of the Holocaust Museum on this bill. I think that it is very, very important that we move swiftly on the bill that I am dropping in today, which has bipartisan support. I wanted to make this comment because I think this issue is very, very important. I am very sympathetic to the objections of my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), and I hope we can resolve this so this very important legislation, as well as my legislation, gets passed very, very soon, so that the victims of the Holocaust and their descendants will at least get what is rightfully due them.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the feeding frenzy and the rush to judgment that we have heard in the media during the past week involving the President is something I think that really is shameful. The media is saying that no Democrats are sticking with the President. This is one Democratic Congressman who is proud to stick with the President of the United States. He has been a good President. He has had many initiatives, and I want to listen to some of those initiatives tonight. When he talks about expanding Medicare, I am with him. When he talks about expanding child care, I am with him. When he talks about using the surplus to shore up Social Security, I am with him. When he talks about 100,000 new teachers, I am with him. There are safeguards in this country, there are constitutional protections. One of them is one is innocent until proven guilty. The President of the United States deserves those same kinds of protections that you and I would want for ourselves. The Bible says, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I think we ought to remember that. Bill Clinton is my friend, my President. He has been a good President. I stand by him. Let us not rush to judgment. I am going to be listening to him tonight and I know he is going to have a brilliant State of the Union with bold initiatives that are good for this country.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for all the reasons that were mentioned in terms of the Census. But I also want to call attention to another very, very important issue, and that simply is the money that the United States owes in arrearages to the United Nations, which is not in this either and which is another reason why I oppose this. Today our President is trying to reinvigorate the International Coalition Against Iraq so that our young men and women will not have to fight alone should the need arise. But just as we are readying the Nation for some kind of action in the coalition, Congress may take this disastrous step to undercut our ability to build a coalition of nations at the U.N. This makes no sense. If we do not begin today the effort to repay our arrearages to the U.N., our ability to forge a solid coalition against Iraq will be severely in jeopardy. I want to be absolutely clear. I believe that in paying off our debt to the United Nations, it is in America's interest and it is justified on its own merits by the good work the U.N. does around the world. However, because of the threat emanating from the Persian Gulf, the danger of not paying our arrears is now much greater as American troops could be put at risk. So I oppose this amendment, I oppose this rule, because of the Census and because of the U.N. arrearages. Today, our President is trying to reinvigorate the international coalition against Iraq so that our young men and women will not have to fight alone, should the need arise. I voted for the Gulf War and will support the President again if armed force is needed to reach Iraq a lesson. But, just as we are readying the nation for military action, Congress may take a disastrous step to undercut our ability to build a coalition of nations at the U.N. If we today do not begin the effort to repay our arrears to the U.N., our ability to forge a solid coalition against Iraq will be severely in jeopardy. I want to be absolutely clear: I believe that paying off our debt to the U.N. is in America's interest and is justified on its own merits by the good work the U.N. does around the world. However, because of the threat emanating from the Persian Gulf, the danger of not repaying our arrears is now much greater as American troops could be put at risk. It is unfortunate that only a potential military crisis can reawaken the Congress to the need to pay what we owe to the world body. Soon, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will offer a motion to recommit this bill with instructions to waive the authorization requirement for the $100 million repayment of the money the U.S. owes the U.N. I urge my colleagues to support the motion and, by doing so, support our troops in the Gulf.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2709, and I must tell you that I have heretofore resisted any legislation which puts sanctions on Russia or any entities. But I think the time has come that the Congress really needs to take a tough stand. It is no secret that Russia and Russian companies have been providing technology to Iran and missile goods to Iran. The one thing that strikes me is if you go to the Middle East and you speak with heads of governments of all of the countries, Israel and the Arab States may have many disagreements, but the one thing on which they all agree is that Iran is the threat to the region. You will hear the same thing in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, as you will hear in Cairo, the capital of Egypt, as you will hear in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, and all the Persian Gulf countries. While at the moment we are focused on Iraq and the crisis there with Iraq, the governments will all say the long-range threat comes from Iran. When we look to see which countries are assisting Iran in developing this technology, we look to China, and the President has had an agreement with the Chinese leadership to stop any kind of transfer of technology to Iran. We look to North Korea, they have done it; and, of course, Russia. I think that it is very, very important that the Russian Government and the Russian companies understand that our patience has worn thin; that because Iran is not only a threat to the region, but indeed a threat to the world, supporting terrorism, we do not feel that we can simply let the status quo continue. Iran has the capability and will have the capability in a few months to be able to strike out and hit all the countries that I mentioned if it goes unchecked. Now, it is clear that Russia has already provided Iran with critical know-how and technological support. The question facing us now is whether we can halt any further assistance, and time is short. As I mentioned, we have but a few months to prevent Iran from achieving a significant advance in its missile program. Most critical in the short term is the prospect of Iran enhancing its ballistic missile capacity. Iranian acquisition of ballistic missiles with a range of 1,300 kilometers or more poses an unacceptable threat to American forces in the Middle East, as well as our allies throughout the Persian Gulf region. It is hard for me to believe that Russia's assistance to Iran does not violate Russia's international obligations as an adherent to the Missile Technology Control Regime, the MTCR. It is also inconceivable to me that such transfers would not trigger U.S. missile sanction laws. I think it is time for this Congress to stand tall and to say to Russia and Russian companies that we are not going to permit this transfer, and H.R. 2709 goes a long way in that direction.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during rollcall votes 575 and 606. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 575 and ``no'' on rollcall 606.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to clarify an amendment offered by Representative Carolyn McCarthy and myself that was included in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The amendment added $100,000 to the Department of Education's Program Administration account so that the Department can expand its web site to include information for all public and private scholarship and financial aid programs. It is my understanding that the committee report includes explicit language stating that the conferees have agreed that the funds are specifically included to enable the Department to expand its web site to provide this information, pursuant to Section 409A(1) of the Higher Education Act. This provision states that the Department of Education shall award a contract to maintain a computerized database of all private and public student financial assistance programs. Our amendment is geared to help the Department fulfill this goal. I thank the Committee chairmen and staff for working with us on this matter to help ensure that the Department will receive the funding it needs for this important project.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to praise the Citizens Advice Bureau, an organization started in the Bronx 25 years ago which has helped thousands of people to make a better life. The CAB is a multiservice organization founded by clergy, community activists, and social workers who were concerned about the rising level of poverty and the massive housing loss the Bronx was suffering. From a single office it has expanded to 20 offices serving an area with a population of 600,000. It was a pioneer in the consumer protection field, entitlements and advocacy for senior citizens. In its initial years, it worked for affordable housing and tenant protection. In the late 1980's, CAB was one of the first Bronx organizations to implement an AIDS services program. In the 1990's, its transitional housing program and family relocation services enabled more than 1,000 families to stabilize their lives and secure permanent housing. Its eviction prevention program has kept 10,000 families in permanent housing. The CAB now works to provide immigrants with help and guidance. Every year more than 1,500 young people participate in its early childhood development programs, summer camp, and teen programs. The Homeless Outreach Team patrols 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in streets, highways, and parks to find and help homeless people. Because of their efforts not a single homeless person has died in the Bronx during the past two winters. The CAB helps those in need, making the Bronx a better place for people of all ages. It deserves thanks from all of us.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Westchester-Putnam Affirmative Action Program is a non-profit, nonpartisan, interracial organization dedicated to providing job training and finding employment in the construction trades for minorities, women, and the economically disadvantaged. It is comprised of representatives of the construction trades, building contractors, minority and women's groups and is celebrating its 25th anniversay as a successful force for bringing minorities, women, and others into the construction trade. It has placed more than 4,000 such people in construction related jobs throughout Westchester and Putnam Counties. It administers the only federally approved hometown plan to achieve compliance for the Executive order requiring minimum goals for the employment of women and minorities in the bicounty area. I am proud to say that all of its placements are from among the poor, bringing these people in the mainstream of productivity. W-PAAP is celebrating by paying tribute to the Joseph T. Jackson Training Center and the man it was named after. The late Joseph T. Jackson was the first black master mechanic in the Nation. Also being honored are those who helped make W-PAAP a success: the NYS Department of Labor, Westchester County, Con Edison, the contractors and labor unions, and original board members Virginia Monahan, Orial Redd, Napoleon Holmes, and Thomas Green. The success of W-PAAP is an inspiration to all and I give them my congratulations for all they have accomplished.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion offered by my good friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Although I have the deepest respect for the gentleman from California, I feel strongly that Section 245(i) has been beneficial to our country and should be extended. Section 245(i) allows an individual who is technically out of status to pay a fee and correct problems with his or her immigration status. The majority of the people affected by this problem have merely overstayed the terms of their visas while they await permanent residence arising out of valid immigrant petitions. Those qualified to use section 245(i) are already eligible for visas that will be immediately available to them under U.S. law. Without section 245(i), these soon-to-be green cardholders are faced with an ironic problem: they are approved to be legal permanent residents, but have to return to their home countries to get their visas and, then, face a 3- to 10-year bar to reentry. This result undermines the principle of family unification which forms the bedrock of our immigration code by separating spouses and children from their families. It would also adversely affect businesses by forcing important employees to leave the United States to adjust their status. Several benefits accrue to the United States from permanent codification of this section. Due to the $1,000 fee charged to those who utilize section 245(i), the INS expects to generate up to $200 million in revenue this fiscal year, alone. These moneys are used to offset the costs of detention and adjudications of illegal immigrants. Furthermore, by allowing individuals to adjust status here, U.S. consular staff abroad have more time and resources to provide better services to traveling Americans. I think it is important to note that the Senate has already agreed to extend section 245(i). Mr. Speaker, I believe the choice is clear: support extension of section 245(i) and oppose the motion to instruct.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise today in opposition to the rule. I am a member of the Committee on Commerce, the committee with jurisdiction, and went before the Committee on Rules with an amendment that I think is a very good compromise and certainly something that should be discussed with regard to this very important issue. My amendment was not made in order so I will oppose the rule. I agree with the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] that on such an important issue as this, when we are essentially debating nuclear policy in this country, we should have allowed an open rule or, at the very least, we should have allowed pertinent amendments, certainly from members of the committee, to be able to present those amendments. We all know that the President is probably going to veto this bill in its current form and even though I voted for the bill in committee, we know that we will probably have to come back next year and debate this again. And if we are going to debate the issue of nuclear waste, then certainly we need to have all the ideas on the table, particularly when there are very serious proposals of compromises that may ultimately have to be hammered out in this body. I just do not understand why my amendment and some of the other very pertinent amendments were not made in order by the rule. Therefore, I think it is a bad rule and ought to be defeated. My amendment would have permitted utilities to spend fees coming into the nuclear waste trust fund for on-site storage prior to the construction of an interim or final repository. The fees, as the gentleman from Colorado said, have been collected. They have not been doing very much and I think that the fees that the public has been paying would be used, could be used to keep the nuclear waste at the facilities until we can decide where it ought to be permanently buried. This approach would allow plants to address their waste problem now instead of in 2002, the date when H.R. 1270 foresees completion of the interim repository near Yucca Mountain, because by next year, Mr. Speaker, 26 nuclear reactors will have run out of storage space. This is a problem we must address now, not 5 years from now. I offered this amendment in the Committee on Commerce, but withdrew it because it had not yet been reviewed by CBO and scored. I also did it to give my colleagues a chance on the committee to consider the measure. It has since been scored and will result in no additional costs. My amendment addresses many of the problems not addressed by H.R. 1270. First, we all agree that the average ratepayer has been on the short end of the stick during this process as the trust fund is used to balance the budget, not for this purpose. My amendment would have put our constituents' money to its designated purpose, storage of spent nuclear fuel. Second, it would allow power-plants which are running out of pool space to create interim storage on site without passing all of the massive costs to the taxpayers on top of fees they pay to the trust fund. Third, it allows the powerplants an economically viable way to stay open when they run out of storage space and, again, the nuclear waste would not have to be trucked through our communities because it would be able to be stored at the site itself. Fourth, it offers a method to provide interim storage without the inherent risks in transportation and security and without creating powerful momentum for starting the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain before the science is completed, before the study is completed. So once again, Mr. Speaker, I must unfortunately oppose the rule for H.R. 1270, because my amendment was not made in order and other amendments were not made in order. If we cannot have a very important discussion of this very important issue, then I think the rule is defective and ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Riverdale Temple, the largest reform Jewish house of worship in the Bronx, is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It was founded in 1947 when a small group met to talk about a new liberal Jewish congregation. Later that year a charter was signed and 67 families founded the temple. The Honorable Francis J. Bloustein was named first president and a dynamic rabbi, Charles E. Shulman, came from Chicago to become the first of a distinguished line of rabbis for the congregants. The temple had its meetings in the Arrowhead Inn until it was torn down in 1952, and, until its own building was completed in 1954, at various churches in the neighborhood. The temple acquired a Torah which had been damaged during the Kristallnacht terror in Germany and today holds an honored place in the Holy Ark. Then Vice President Gerald Ford, in 1973, donated a Torah mantle to the sanctuary. The Riverdale Temple now has more than 550 member families. It is affiliated with the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and is a patron of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. The Riverdale Temple, in the words of Rabbi Shulman, strived to be ``a great Jewish community in Riverdale, great not only in numbers, but also in knowledge and spirit and faith.'' The temple and its congregation has succeeded admirably. It has grown and it has affirmed the high principles of Jewish ethics. I congratulate Riverdale Temple on its 50th anniversary and wish it many more years as a central part of our community.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp. [SOBRO] is celebrating its 25th anniversary with a record of accomplishments that is inspiring. In the time it has been working to make the South Bronx a paradigm of development, it has stimulated more than $120 million in investments, created or retained 30,000 local jobs, trained or placed more than 20,000 low-income residents into jobs, completed more than $20 million in reconstruction projects to upgrade local commercial districts, and created a community development revolving loan fund with $600,000 to assist small businesses and entrepreneurs to gain access to credit. SOBRO is one of the principal reasons that the Bronx, so famous as a model of urban decay that it became a regular presidential campaign stop, was named this year as an all-American city. SOBRO also helped the South Bronx to grow as a regional business hub. SOBRO was founded in 1972 by five prominent New York City banks and has received the help of city, State, and Federal governments, as well as philanthropic support. SOBRO has worked to create jobs which benefit residents of the South Bronx. SOBRO has played a large part in the transformation of this area from one famous for being shown on television during the World Series as burning to a model of redevelopment. I congratulate SOBRO on its 25th anniversary for the great work it has done and I know will continue to do.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Riverdale Neighborhood House is a settlement house serving 5,000 residents of the northwest Bronx, providing programs for parents, their infants and toddlers, and after school programs. It not only serves young families, but provides outreach and support to homebound senior citizens. Its teen center offers job training and a place to congregate, or as the teens might say, ``hang out.'' Riverdale Neighborhood House also had a pool for local residents, a summer camp for kids, and a thrift shop. Not only does the Riverdale Neighborhood House do a lot of good for the community, it has been doing it for a long time for this year it celebrates its 125th anniversary. RNH started as a neighborhood lending library for workers to which Riverdale residents subsequently gave land and money to promote social services as well as a reading room. In time it helped servicemen in the Spanish American War, fought problems of sanitation and contagious diseases, aided soldiers' families in World Wars I and II, opened a kindergarten and a seeming infinite number of programs to aid the community and its residents. On its anniversary, RNH is honoring Paul Elston, a member of its board who has served on so many organizations working for the community that his life would deem to epitomize public service. Riverdale Neighborhood House and people like Paul Elston deserve the acclaim of all people, for they show the benefit and goodness which flows to the community when good people act to benefit all of us.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Dr. Major McGuire is celebrating his 11th anniversary of pastoral ministry at the Emmanuel Baptist Church. In that time, he and his wife, the Reverend Darlene Thomas- McGuire, minister of education and youth, have contributed to its growth, brining in 400 members to the Emmanuel family. The Reverend McGuire also initiated a number of programs which contributed to the growth and development of the church and surrounding community in the Bronx. Rev. Major McGuire was born in Baltimore. He attended Morgan State University and Towson State University in Baltimore. He accepted the call to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and was licensed in 1974. Three years later he was named Under Shepherd of the Riverview Missionary Baptist Church in Coeymans, NY, and in May of that year was ordained from the New Shiloh Baptist Church in Baltimore. He later served at the Bethel Baptist Church in Mount Kisko. He continued his education, ultimately receiving his masters of divinity degree from the Union Theological Seminary in New York City in 1983. He was awarded the Martin Luther King Distinguished Leadership Award from the State University of New York and in 1983 was named as an Outstanding Young Man of America. In 1986, he became pastor of the Emmanuel Baptist Church. He, his wife, and their four children have made their church and community a landmark to the family and to worship. The Reverend McGuire made his church into a dramatic force for good. We salute him and the accomplishments of his ministry.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I will not object, but I want to echo the statement of my colleague from Texas [Mr. Frost]. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of us here that would like to go home out of respect for the religious holiday. I think that the request of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is more than fair. I think that there is right and wrong here on both sides. I am tired of the disrespect, and I would respectfully urge my colleagues to accept what the majority leader has said. I think that is a compromise and it is a fair compromise. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I once again appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have been a Member of this body for 9 years. We all respected each other. We come from different faiths and different backgrounds and different regions of the country. I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to go along with what the majority leader has said in respect to the Jewish Members here who need to get home for the religious holiday. I might say to my colleagues that I respect everyone else's religion; please respect mine.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan- Shays amendment. I rise to give my strong support to a fair and accurate Census 2000 which can be accomplished through the use of statistical sampling. This issue should not be caught up in cynical partisan sniping. Three separate panels of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences have recommended the use of sampling. Sampling in the 2000 Census has also been endorsed by the American Statistical Association, the American Sociological Association, the National Association of Business Economists. These are groups for whom the census is a matter of science and not politics. The fact is that no matter how hard the Census Bureau reaches out (and during the 2000 Census they will be using more methods than ever before to reach every American) we simply cannot count every person. The 1990 Census failed to count 1.6 million. The majority of those who were missed were minorities, and residents of poor rural communities. During the last Census, African-Americans were six times more likely to be uncounted than Non-Hispanic White Americans. Hispanic American were seven times more likely to be undercounted than Non-Hispanic White Americans. These are groups who are shut out of the workings of our Government in so many ways. By opposing the use of sampling we are further alienating these people who deserve to be counted and need to be counted. In undercounting these groups we are denying them their apportionment of Federal funding which the Census determines. Some of my colleagues have characterized sampling as guessing. The Census Bureau will not be making numbers up. Sampling is a well-tested method of following-up on those households which have not responded. The Department of Justice under the administrations of Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton have all concluded that sampling is Constitutional. We should not tie the hands of the Census Bureau because we are afraid of the political ramifications, or for any other reason. If we want a fair census, if we want an accurate census, then we ought to let the Census Bureau conduct a professional census by using any method they deem necessary for accuracy, including statistical sampling.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise strongly in opposition to this amendment. There is no reason to have any kind of an assault on public broadcasting when public broadcasting has been so successful and it is a public-private relationship that works. We talk a lot about eliminating wasteful Government programs. I think we are all for eliminating wasteful Government programs. But when we have a program that works, when we have a program that is not wasteful, when we have a program that reaches so many millions upon millions of Americans, why would we want to do anything to harm it? It seems to me that these are the kinds of programs that we ought to be pumping more money into, because they have been successful; not trying to pull money away from it or trying to kill it. Public broadcasting is a private-public partnership that works. It is a success story that demonstrates what the Government and the private sector can do when we work together. CPB funds serve as seed money for new programs and station support. For every Federal dollar invested, public broadcasting raises $6 additional. This Federal seed money is crucial to public broadcasting stations, especially to those in underserved and rural areas of the country, because it provides the fund-raising base needed to sustain noncommercial programming. Ending this partnership or diminishing this partnership will only hurt the children and families who rely on public broadcasting as their source for news and education. We all know access to public television is free. Many households in this country cannot afford to pay $300 or $600 per year for cable TV. This provides a service for those people. Eighty-eight thousand adults per year get GED certificates. Two million adults have gotten GED certificates as a result of public broadcasting. Why would we want to stop that? The American people see and know the positive results and the quality and integrity of public broadcasting. Further cutting CPB will mean that CPB will have to pander to the monetary and rating concerns of commercial broadcasting. Why would we want to put them in that category? The whole reason for public broadcasting is not to have just another commercial broadcasting station, where they have to worry about ratings and have to worry about selling things and all these seedy commercials and seedy things that go on. We do not want that. We want a better quality of television, and public broadcasting provides that better quality of television. I have three children ages 3 to 16. My kids were all raised on public broadcasting. I like to listen to public broadcasting, my wife does as well, and my family. There are literally millions upon millions of Americans in all walks of life who rely on public broadcasting. Public broadcasting has an average of 5.5 hours per day of instructional television, which is used by 1.8 million teachers to teach 29 million students in 70,000 schools in the United States. Why would we want to hurt that? Eliminating support for public broadcasting would result in the demise of quality shows, like the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour Report, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, and even William F. Buckley's Firing Line. It would increase the emergence of shows like Hard Copy and Jenny Jones, without the presence of viable alternatives like those on public broadcasting. It is a myth to say we have increased funding, because if we look at the current fiscal year 1999 appropriation, $250 million, it actually provides 18 percent less buying power than in the fiscal year 1990 appropriation. The report bill's increase in funding for CPB is less than the inflation adjustment from the fiscal year 1990 funding level. Let us also remember that CPB lost $99 million in rescissions in the 104th Congress. So rather than an increase, we are really behind what we would have been. Public broadcasting is one of the Federal Government's most cost- effective expenditures, just costing 98 cents per year for every citizen. According to a national poll, public television ranked second and public radio ranked third on a list of Government programs that can provide the best value for the dollar. Again, why would we want to cut this? The American people have been very outspoken in their support of public broadcasting, and understand its benefits and the quality and integrity of the programming. Public radio and television are among the top five values in return for tax dollars spent, according to a recent poll conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide. Let us fully support CPB funding and vote against this ill-thought amendment. Mr. Chairman, public broadcasting is a private-public partnership that works: This is a success story that demonstrates what the Government and the private sector can accomplish when they work together. CPB funds serve as seed money for new programs and station support: For every Federal dollar invested, public broadcasting raises $6 more. The Federal seed money is crucial to public broadcasting stations, especially to those in underserved and rural areas of the country, because it provides the fund raising base needed to sustain noncommercial programming. Ending this partnership will only hurt the children and families who rely on public broadcasting as their source for news and education. Access to public TV is free. Many households cannot afford to pay $300 to $600 per year for cable television. Eighty-eight thousand houses per year get GED certificates--[MADULO]. The American people see and know the positive results in the quality and integrity of public broadcasting. Further cutting CPB will mean that CPB will have to pander to the monetary and ratings concerns of commercial broadcasting. If support for public broadcasting is severely cut or eliminated, the quality of programming and the educational value it provides will suffer as a result. Eliminating support for public broadcasting would result in the demise of quality shows like The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, Mister Rogers Neighborhood, and, yes, William F. Buckley's Firing Line. Children average 5\1/2\ hours per day of instructional television used by 1 to 8 million teachers to teach 29\1/2\ million students in 70,000 schools. It would increase the emergence of shows like ``Hard Copy'' and Jenny Jones without the presence of viable alternatives like those on public broadcasting. The bill provides a proper amount of funding and should be retained. House of Representatives Washington, DC, September 5, 1997. Don't Cut CPB Dear Colleague: We urge you to oppose amendments to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill that could reduce funding for your local public broadcasting stations through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The Appropriations Committee approved a $300 million advance allocation for CPB in FY 2000 with bipartisan support. However, amendments may be proposed that would either cut or eliminate funding for CPB. Funding provided through CPB is vital to local public television and radio stations throughout the nation and must be continued. Public broadcasting is a private-public partnership that works. It is a success story that demonstrates what the government and the private sector can accomplish when they work together. Weakening or ending this partnership will only hurt the children and families who rely on public broadcasting as their source for news and education. The American people have been very outspoken in their support of public broadcasting and understand its benefits in the quality and integrity of the programming. Public radio and television are among the top five values in return for tax dollars spent according to a recent poll conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. Let's fully support CPB so the American people can continue to receive the quality programming they deserve. Sincerely, Eliot L. Engel, Nita M. Lowey, Tom Latham, Members of Congress. Corporation for Public Broadcasting Hefley amendment would cut the CPB FY 2000 appropriation in the bill by $50 million, to provide level funding with the FY 1998 and 1999 appropriations. The bill contains a $50 million increase from $250 million in 1999 to $300 million in 2000. (CPB is advance funded two years ahead the normal fiscal year in the appropriations bill.) The current FY 99 appropriation--$250 million--provides 18% less buying power than did the FY 90 appropriation. The reported bill's increase in funding (to $300M) for CPB is less than an inflation adjustment from the FY 1990 funding level. CPB lost $99 million in rescissions in the 104th Congress. Public broadcasting is one of the federal government's most cost-effective expenditures, just 98 cents per year for every citizen. According to a national poll, public television ranked 2nd and public radio ranked 3rd on a list of government programs that provide the best value for the dollar.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am proposing to the Labor- HHS-Education appropriations bill would add $100,000 to the Department of Education's program management account so that the Department can expand its Website to include enhanced information on private scholarships and financial aid. I am proposing this amendment along with my New York colleague and good friend, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy]. In 1992, the Higher Education Act was amended to require the Department to compile a database of all private and public student financial assistance programs. The department conducted a study in 1994 and found that the database would be beneficial because it would create a one- stop shopping area where students could access financial aid information through telephone, computer discs, and on-line services. However, funding for the program was ended in 1995 and has not been funded since that time. This amendment would simply provide the Department with the necessary resources to expand its existing Website so that it would include the information required by the Higher Education Act. The funding would allow the Department to create on-line directories and establish links to postsecondary education institutions, financial aid offices, and government agencies that provide scholarships for students. At a time when students are having more difficulty than ever in financing their education, we need to provide an objective, comprehensive outlet where available aid can easily be accessed. This problem is compounded by the fact that many students have been the victims of scams by fraudulent companies that pose as legitimate scholarship search services. Students often sign up and pay for services that claim to guarantee scholarships or financial aid. However, there are many scam artists out there who promise financial aid but never deliver on this promise leaving innocent students without the assistance they need. Creating a centralized, reliable Website containing accurate information through the Department of Education would help students find the information they need to obtain funding for higher education. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy] and I introduced legislation earlier this session that would require the Department to provide direct links from its Website to databases that contain reliable information on scholarships, fellowships, and other student financial aid. Helping the Department create a thorough database as required by law could be even more beneficial to students in their efforts to pay for an education. Education is an investment in our future. Students already have a difficult time financing their studies as well as obtaining reliable information. One only has to look at the cost of higher education in this country. It has gone sky high each and every year and so our students are more and more dependent on financial aid. Government ought to be facilitating this, making it easier for them to find out where they can get such financial aid, not making it harder. The amendment that I propose along with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy] will do just that. We urge our colleagues to support this amendment so that we can help our young people further their academic pursuits.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during rollcall vote 366. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 366.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, and in doing so, I really want to expose it for what I believe it is. It is a political agenda. It is part of an all-out assault on organized labor and on working men and women in this country. It is part of a pattern that we have seen in some quarters here, unfortunately on the Republican side of the aisle, for the past 3 years. First of all, last year we passed an increase in the minimum wage which was done so kicking and screaming by many Members on the other side of the aisle with great reluctance. They did not favor an increase in the minimum wage. The first thing that the GOP did when it controlled this Congress was to change the name of the Committee on Education and Labor and purge the word ``labor'' out of everything from the committee and the subcommittee. We have seen an all-out assault on OSHA. I have been to many of the hearings where Members on the other side of the aisle proposed to eliminate all kinds of OSHA standards and to eliminate all kinds of funds for OSHA. We have seen them try to cut funding for the National Labor Relations Board time and time again. This last amendment, which was defeated, thankfully, was part and parcel of this assault on working men and women, trying to cut wage and hour enforcement. We have seen them try to put back company unions with the so-called TEAM Act, unions that really would not, in my opinion, have the best interests of America's workers at heart. They are trying to eliminate Davis-Bacon, which is the prevailing wage in Federal contracts, so that people who are doing these contracts will not get a prevailing wage, which in turn would hurt union companies right-to-work laws they tried to pass. They have tried to gut the 40-hour workweek with all types of comp time and other regulation. So this is part and parcel of an assault on organized labor, but more importantly, an assault on working men and women in this country. One does not have to be a genius to understand that we need OSHA standards. We need a strong OSHA department. We need a strong OSHA. Workers are still being maimed and injured on the job. Let us look at the latest statistics. In 1993, there were 6,300 workers who died from traumatic injuries in America on the job and more than 50,000 died from occupational diseases. Nearly 7 million workers in 1993 were injured on the job. These are American workers, Democratic, Republican, Independent, old, young, men and women. Unfortunately, injuries on the job and deaths on the job cut across all kinds of lines. On an average day, 154 workers lose their lives as a result of workplace injuries and illnesses and another 16,000 are injured. That is one workplace death or injury every 5 seconds in America. Should we be cutting back on OSHA funding which protects that and tries to mitigate against that? I think not. Workers need more OSHA protection, not less. OSHA is a small agency that does not have the funding or staff to oversee the safety and health of 90 million American workers in 6 million workplaces under its jurisdiction. Federal OSHA has only 900 inspectors and on the average it can inspect workplaces, on average once every 87 years. The current OSHA budget, which is 318 million, amounts to a little more than $1 per citizen. So let us really expose this for what it is. It is a continued assault by some Members on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately some GOP Members, against working men and women in this country. We all want more money for education, but again, pitting one group against the other is not the way to go. This does nothing, again, but advance an agenda which hurts America's workers, and I think this ought to be soundly defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I have just recently gotten back from a trip to the Middle East, which I took with the gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman, and had the opportunity there to express my sense of outrage over the previous bombings in Jerusalem on July 30, and certainly my outrage is even more intense after the spate of bombings yesterday. Let me tell my colleagues what I said to Mr. Arafat face to face on August 21. It was the day after he convened his so-called unity conference, and kissed the leader of Hamas, and embraced all the people in the Palestinian camp, including those who support terrorism. I was very unequivocal and forthright, and told Mr. Arafat that he had to make a very important decision; that we in the Congress would not continue to fund the Palestinian Authority, we would not continue to fund any of these activities, unless he went after the terrorists, unless he went after them actively, unless he moved to break up their infrastructure, unless he fulfilled his commitments under the Oslo accords. I have not been convinced, sadly, that he has fulfilled his objectives. We understand and we know that he can go after the terrorists if he so chooses. He has, unfortunately, this year chosen not to do so. Last year there were some times when he went after the terrorists. He went after them, he tried to break up their infrastructure, but we have not seen him do it at all this year. When the Palestinian population was rioting in the town of Hebron, the riots went on for days and days and days, and when Mr. Arafat decided there was enough, he moved his police in and they effectively were able to quell the rioting. We know that there can be effective measures taken by Mr. Arafat to destroy the Hamas terrorist infrastructure. He chooses not to do so. I would say to Mr. Arafat what I said to him face to face, and I will say it again and again. The ball is squarely in his court. He can no longer talk out of 16 sides of his mouth. Either you support terrorism or you do not. Supporting terrorism does not mean that you have to be the one to plan the actions. Supporting terrorism means that you know actions are being planned and you do nothing to stop it, you do nothing to destroy it, you do nothing to break it up. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The peace talks, the Oslo accords, the underpinning of the Oslo accords was combating terrorism. Terrorism cannot be equated with anything else. It cannot be equated with the building of homes, it cannot be equated with closures, it cannot be equated with collective punishment, so to speak. Terrorism has to stand by itself. If terrorism is not eradicated, if terrorism is not gone after, there can be no peace process, there will be no peace process, and there will be no peace. Mr. Arafat has to decide. Terrorism cannot be used as a legitimate negotiating tool. That is what he is doing. He is looking the other way. He is winking at terrorism. He is saying, I did not plan it, I did not do it, I am not at fault. That is not enough. That is not good enough. How many more people are going to be killed and maimed, innocent people, including American citizens, killed and maimed by terrorist bombs? I went in the latest trip to Hadassah Hospital and saw some of the victims. One of those victims was a 15-year-old Arab boy who had his leg blown off in the market in Jerusalem. Bombs do not know the difference between Arabs and Israelis or Americans or anybody else. Bombs kill and maim people. I say to Mr. Arafat and to those with him in the Palestinian Authority, we in the U.S. Congress are not going to stand idly by and pretend there is business as usual. No leader of any country can continue to accept innocent civilians being blown up wantonly in the street. I say that enough is enough. We are at our wit's end. Our patience is over in this Congress. Until we see the Palestinian Authority and Mr. Arafat actively go after the terrorists, actively break up the Hamas infrastructure, and actively do the things that we know he is capable of doing, we will not believe that he is serious in combating terrorism. So I support this resolution wholeheartedly. I said it to him face to face, to Mr. Arafat face to face, on August 21, and I say it now in the U.S. Congress, exactly what I repeated to him, except I think it is even more important now. We will not stand for terrorism. We insist that the Palestinian Authority and Mr. Arafat live up to his commitments under the Oslo accords to fight terrorism, get at the root of terrorism. If he does not do that, then there can be no peace process and the blame will rest solely at the foot of Mr. Arafat. The ball is in his court. He has to decide what he wants to do. Let us see some serious going after terrorism before I will vote for one more red cent for the Palestinian Authority.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment. I have just gotten back from India, where I was part of the official American delegation celebrating the 50th year of independence of India. We were in the parliament at midnight in New Delhi as 12:01 came and 50 years was just put into place, and I could not help but looking down and seeing this vibrant democracy. There are so few democracies throughout the world, and India has been a vibrant democracy. It has some flaws, and who does not have flaws, what nation does not have flaws. But the fact of the matter is India is a vibrant democracy. There are nearly 1 billion people in India, 943 million people. Why would we want to do anything to alienate them or jeopardize the United States-India relationship? United States investment was over $5 billion in India last year, a ten-fold increase from just a few years ago. As we went from celebration to celebration, I could not help but thinking this is a real golden opportunity for the world's largest democracy, India, and the world's longest democracy, the United States, to really forge even closer ties. We had a meeting with the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Gujral, who wants very, very much to have increased United States-India ties. In fact, he was telling us stories where he feels very neglected, feels that the United States has not devoted enough attention to India in the past years, and is delighted that President Clinton is going to be visiting with India. So I think we have a golden opportunity, particularly with the end of the cold war, when there had been in previous years some kind of close relationship between the Soviet Union and India that does not exist anymore. So at a time when we are going to former Communist countries like Vietnam and trading with former Eastern Bloc countries and bringing them into NATO, why would we not want to forge closer relations with the largest democracy? By the year 2020 they are going to be the country in the world with the largest population. So I believe that the Burton amendment goes in the wrong direction, in the opposite direction from that which we should be going. It is not good for democracy, it is not good for U.S. trade, it is not good for U.S. business, and it is not what we should be doing. The people of India have shown tremendous warmth and affection for the United States. We ought to return that affection. I thought for all the reasons we have been given, the fact that United States and India have an opportunity to forge even a closer relationship in the future, that we share common goals of democracy, India has improved on its human rights violations, and with prodding from the United States will improve even more. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].