Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Budget Reconciliation Spending Act. While this bill contains fewer cuts than the drastic social spending reductions the Republicans have demanded in recent years, it still gives short shrift to America's seniors, workers, and immigrants. Further, it violates several of the provisions of the budget agreement we passed only a few weeks ago. First, the legislation misguidedly permits States to turn over Medicaid and Food Stamp Programs to private companies, many of which have demonstrated that they have not been able to efficiently administer other Government contracts. An amendment in the Commerce Committee would have fixed this problem, but it was unwisely rejected by the Republican majority. Second, the Medicare cuts are not as onerous as those of the 104th Congress. Still, the impact of reduced payments to providers will, in the end, be absorbed by needy seniors, resulting in poorer health care and diminished access to physicians. I am further dismayed by the incorporation of the risky medical savings account proposal in the Medicare portion of the package. This proposal will undermine the integrity of the Medicare Program by transferring critical funding away from the most needy beneficiaries to the healthiest, wealthiest senior citizens. Third, I am pleased that the bill restores SSI and Medicaid to those legal immigrants who were receiving them when the welfare reform legislation was enacted last August. Unfortunately, the budget agreement does not go far enough. Those immigrants who were here last August who only subsequently qualified for assistance, remain barred from receiving benefits. This is terribly unfair to those who had a reasonable expectation that the U.S. Government would assist them. Finally, the budget reconciliation spending bill guts much of the minimum-wage increase which Congress passed last year, by exempting those in workfare jobs from the minimum-wage protection. This is outrageous. Not only will this proposal take good jobs away from workers making as little as the minimum wage, but it will defeat the entire purpose behind workfare because program participants will not be able to earn a living wage in their jobs. Mr. Speaker, once again, this bill represents an improvement over previous Republican budget cutting efforts. Unfortunately, it still cuts too much and helps too few. I urge my colleagues to vote against the budget reconciliation spending bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during rollcall vote 235. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 235. Personal Explanation

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the resolution denying MFN for China. Those who argue against it say this is not the right vehicle. I would say to my colleagues, what is the right vehicle? If I had another vehicle, I would try it, but the Chinese Government has thumbed its nose. They do not even give us a hook to hang our hat on. We talk to them about human rights. A recent report said that there is no dissident activity in China anymore. They have suppressed all of it. We know what they are doing with Hong Kong now. We know what they are doing with the trade deficit in selling weapons to Iran; what they did in Taiwan, what they have done in Tibet. The list goes on and on and on. When does it end? When does our Government stand for something? When is the almighty dollar not the most important thing? I think that we in this country say that we stand for human rights and democracy and self-determination. There are more than 1 billion Chinese people who are looking toward us, they are looking toward us, they are looking for us to stand for something. They are looking for us to help them throw off oppression of their Government. When does this end? No dissident activity? We cannot tolerate this. Support the resolution. Reject MFN for China.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I want to just say that I think that we ought not to tie the President's hands, and we ought not to say that beyond a certain date certain our troops ought to go home. The people, our colleagues who are now saying that we ought to set a fixed date, are the same people who predicted dire disaster and dire consequences if the President sent troops to Bosnia. That has not happened. In fact, we can be proud of what our American troops have done in Bosnia. We have saved thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives. Until the United States got involved, people were killing each other, men, women, children; there was no end to the carnage. Since the United States has been there, we have helped bring peace to the region. It was only when the United States got involved that peace came. When our European allies were doing it, peace did not come; it was elusive. It was only when the United States got involved that we put an end to the carnage. I am proud of the role that we play. The United States is the leader of the free world, and sometimes we have to act like leaders of the free world. It does not mean that we need to be the policeman of the world or we need to rush to every incident in the world, but here, in Bosnia, it became crystal clear that, without United States help and intervention, the carnage was not going to end. So my colleagues who are now saying, let us get out, let us pull people out, are the ones that did not want us to go there in the first place. They said that there would be many, many American casualties; they said that it would be a disaster; they said that we would not be able to do the job. We have proven them wrong. It has not been a disaster. Thankfully, there have not been tremendous amounts of American casualties, virtually no American casualties. I went to Bosnia last year with then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry; I saw firsthand how our troops were doing. I saw firsthand the precautions that were being taken to ensure the safety of American troops. I was proud to walk with our soldiers. I was proud to see the role we were playing and the job we were doing. The naysayers said it could not happen. They were wrong. Let us leave it the way it is. The President has done a very good job. He is not going to let our troops stay 1 day more than they have to stay. He is thinning down the amount of troops that will be there. He is saying that we intend to get out by June 1998. But we cannot foresee the consequences of what might happen down the road. Do we need to set a date certain to send a message to the parties there that we are definitely getting out come hell or high water? No. We cannot do that, and we should not do that, and it would be imprudent to do that. I have letters here that I am sure my colleagues got from General Shalikashvili, from Secretary of Defense Cohen, from Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and they all say the same thing: Do not tie our hands. We are thinning out the troops. There are going to be less American troops. Our allies in Europe are going to be playing a major role. This is not the time to do it. I am proud of the role that the United States has played. Let us not tie the President's hands.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during rollcall vote 218. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 218.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an outstanding constituent from my district who has been honored as a Woman of Justice. Sister Regina Murphy is one of 25 people nationwide to be honored by Network, a national Catholic social justice lobby. Sister Regina has displayed her leadership abilities by heading campaigns for the MacBride principles for fair employment in Northern Ireland, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and against corporate promotion of infant formula over breastfeeding. Sister Regina Murphy is currently studying at Fordham University in the Bronx. Once again, Mr. Speaker it is my pleasure to call attention to Sister Regina Murphy for her outstanding honor as a Woman of Justice.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during rollcall vote 210. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 210.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this bill. I have long been in favor of NATO expansion, and I am very pleased that we finally seem to be moving forward. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill states what is obvious: That NATO expansion is a good thing, and that countries can join NATO if they meet certain criteria. I think it is very important at this stage to state that in July, we know that certain countries are going to be admitted to NATO, and we want the Congress to go on record as saying that once these countries are admitted to NATO, that the door does not swing shut, that the door is open, that NATO expansion is still on the table, that this Congress is in favor of the concept of expanding NATO. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism, the Western world, the democratic world, the United States would be foolhardy if it did not take advantage of the fact that these countries, which were formerly Communist countries and dictatorships, want to have free market economies, want to have democracy, and want to be a part of the Western world, of the free world, of the democratic world. It would make no sense for us not to bear the fruits of what happened, and I think if we delay NATO expansion, that is exactly what we would be doing. No one is saying that countries should be admitted before they meet the criteria. This is simply saying that Romania and the Baltic nations can be considered when they meet the criteria, and again, if there are other nations in Eastern Europe that can meet the criteria and want to become NATO members, they too ought to be considered; that would be the next logical step to this bill. The bill also makes it clear that such enlargement of NATO does not end at Russia. Indeed, we want to have cooperation with Russia. The President, in the pact that he signed with Mr. Yeltsin, states that, that Russia can be a partner with the West, but that Russia cannot have a veto power over NATO expansion, and that Russia cannot dictate to NATO how NATO expands or to which Nation an invitation is given to join NATO. So I think that on balance, this is a very, very good measure. It is a measure that is very, very important. It is a measure that will go a long way in guaranteeing democracy, free market economies, and peace as we approach the 21st century. I compliment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman and my friend, for putting forth this measure.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McKinney amendment. We ought not to transfer American weapons to foreign governments that are undemocratic.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express support for the amendment offered by my good friend from Georgia, Ms. McKinney. This fine amendment prohibits arms transfers to foreign governments that are undemocratic, do not protect human rights, or are engaged in acts of aggression. We must all recognize that as the leader of the free world, our country must set the standard in the effort to prevent the sale of arms to dictators. Unfortunately, our Government still provides its materiel to some of the world's most autocratic governments. In fact, in several recent conflicts where large numbers of American troops have served, including Somalia and Panama, we have opposed soldiers armed with weapons supplied by the United States. It's time we learned from these mistakes. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Georgia for her leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the code of conduct amendment.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton]. (Mr. MANTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is the Engel-Gilman amendment on the International Fund for Ireland principles. I want to at the outset thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] from the Committee on International Relations for all his help and hard work on this amendment. This amendment is very simple. It simply says that the International Fund for Ireland, to which the United States contributes $20 million per year, that funding for the International Fund for Ireland should not go to any entity in the north of Ireland that discriminates. We want to ensure that any entity which receives money from the International Fund for Ireland is committed to the principles of nondiscrimination. This is very similar to what was done in South Africa with the Sullivan principles, and this essentially embraces what is called the MacBride principles of nondiscrimination. This is identical to a bill that I have carried for the past 8 years and under the current Congress, H.R. 150, which sets up nine guidelines to eliminate religious-based discrimination in employment and job training processes in the north of Ireland, while banning provocative sectarian and political emblems from the workplace. Again, we want to ensure that U.S. money is given to entities which promote equal opportunity employment for both Protestants and Catholics and to regions where targeted investment is needed. Mr. Chairman, these are critical times for the peace process in Ireland. I commend the fact that right now the parties seem to be lined up in terms of really making progress for equality in the peace process. It is very, very important, I believe, that at this point Congress go on record as saying that moneys for the International Fund for Ireland cannot go to entities which discriminate against anybody, be they Catholic or Protestant. That is simply what this says. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the committee. (Mr. Gilman asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. King].

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I join with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] in sponsoring this amendment today. Certainly he said it all. It is an absolute outrage that we would even think about such a proclamation whereby anybody would be threatened with death for selling land to Jews. I ask my colleagues to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and if it was reserved, if the Government or Israel or any other government issued such a decree that if land was sold to another group, that person would be condemned to death? It is just outlandish and outrageous to even think that this could happen. Mr. Chairman, we call on the Palestinian Authority to condemn this practice. Simple enough, it ought to be condemned. If you say you are for peace, if you are for the peace process, if you believe in coexistence, then this practice should be condemned. We do not believe that it ought to be coddled, we do not believe that the Palestinian Authority, whether it is Mr. Yassir Arafat or anybody else, ought to again be allowed to speak out of 16 sides of his mouth. Now, I am very, very disturbed because I would like to read into the Record some quotes. In recent weeks, some officials of the Palestinian Authority have announced that the death penalty will be imposed on anyone who sells land to a Jew, based on a now repealed Jordanian law, even in Israel. Now, listen to this: Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassir Arafat stated on May 21 of this year, and I quote, Our law is Jordanian law that we inherited and sets the death penalty for those who sell land to Israelis. We are talking about a few traitors, and we shall implement against them what is written in the law books. Another quote: Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein on May 5 said, I warned the land dealers several times through the media not to play with fire. For us, whoever sells land to Jews and settlers is more dangerous than collaborators. Therefore, they must be put on trial and sentenced to death. They are traitors. The third quote: Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein stated on May 28, It is obligatory to forbid the sale of land in Ramle, Lod, the Negev, and everywhere else. There are many land dealers who have fled from Palestine, but anyone who has broken this serious law will remain a wanted fugitive by the Palestinian people wherever he may go. I submit to my colleagues that this kind of language is unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable and reprehensible and ought to be condemned in the strongest possible words by this legislative body. Certainly, those of us in the Congress that believe in the peace process may have disagreements from time to time, but certainly to say that they will absolutely murder anybody who sells land to Jews is not something that any civilized nation should tolerate. As my colleague from New York pointed out, there have already been three murders. There is no doubt about it that those people were murdered because they were looked upon as having sold land to Jews. We cannot tolerate this. We cannot put up with this. We must condemn it. It violates international law. It is a racist policy. It is something that every person in this world and every country that believes in freedom and democracy ought to condemn in the strongest possible terms. The United States should consider suspending aid that is in this bill. It does not mandate it, it says we should consider it, because I think there has to be some kind of accountability. Mr. Chairman, at what point do we say enough is enough? At what point do we say that actions speak louder than words? We need to absolutely say that it is not enough to say you are for peace, but on the other hand, you make these kinds of proclamations and you sort of judge it and say I will play it both ways. We cannot agree to have the Palestinian Authority say one thing in English for American consumption, American television consumption, and quite another thing in their own language to their own people, certainly when we are talking about murdering people. Let me say one final thing. These are Palestinians that were murdered by Palestinians. These are people that were condemned to death because they were perceived as selling lands to Jews. So this is nothing that is inherent in an Arab-Israeli conflict. These are Palestinians murdering Palestinians, and it ought to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from New York [Mr. Paxon] for putting forth this resolution with me and others who are going to speak, and I urge a very, very strong ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I supported President Bush in Operation Desert Storm. I think that was one of the times we utilized the United Nations, and we utilized the international community to further U.S. foreign policy interests. It was good for this country and it was good for the world. I want to say that we can do that again, and we can do that again if the United States is a vital force in the United Nations, not pulling out of the United Nations. That would be the opposite thing we ought to do.

Mr. ENGEL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say, as I mentioned before when I spoke against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], I think the United Nations is in great need of reform. I think that the new Secretary General is embarking on a period of reform, and heaven knows, we need reform and we demand reform in the U.N., and we must have reform. But I do not think moving it out of New York City has anything to do with reform. I wonder how expensive it would be to even consider moving it out of New York. I think if something is working, it is part and parcel of the fabric of New York, we ought to keep it. Let me just say that I do not think we want to move the U.N. out of New York any more than we want to move Disney World out of Florida. I do not know if it is the gentleman's district, but I think he would probably resist it.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, this is a sense of Congress resolution that given Syria's extremist and dangerous policies, that I firmly believe the time has come for the U.S. to consider applying to Syria sanctions which are currently enforced against Iran and Libya in the Iran-Libya Oil Sanctions Act of 1996. The fact is that these penalties ought to be applied to Syria because Syria remains in a state of war with Israel and maintains large numbers of heavily armed forces near the border with Israel. Syria occupies Lebanon with almost 40,000 troops and maintains undue influence on all aspects of the Lebanese government and society to the detriment of the Lebanese people. Syria continues to provide safe haven and support for several groups that engage in terrorism. According to the State Department's patterns of global terrorism report for 1996, the fact that Syria is one of the nations that support terrorism is undisputed, and that is why there are restrictions upon U.S. citizens' travel to Syria. Syria was also listed by the U.S. State Department as a country that does not cooperate in the war on drugs, and indeed the problem that we have here in the United States with regards to drug addiction, much of it can be laid at the doorstep of Syria. Syria, moreover, has not signed the Weapons Convention, and numerous reports indicate that Syria has increased the production and level of sophistication of chemical weapons. Reports also indicate that such unconventional warheads have been loaded on SCUD type ballistic missiles with the range to reach numerous targets in friendly nations, such as Israel, Turkey and Jordan. Syria routinely commits a wide array of serious human rights violations and, according to a recent Human Rights Watch report, is engaging in the abduction of Lebanese citizens and Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Several reports indicate that Syria knowingly allowed the explosives used in the June 1996 Dharan bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 United States service personnel to pass through Syria from Lebanon to Saudi Arabia. That is how it was able to happen. More than 20 trips by former Secretary of State Christopher to Damascus, Syria, a meeting between President Clinton and Syrian President Hafez Assad and the State Department-sponsored intensive negotiation session at Wye Plantation were all unsuccessful in convincing Syria to make peace with Israel. At the same time, most reports indicate that Israel was prepared to make substantial concessions of land in exchange for peace. According to the CIA World Fact Book of 1995, petroleum comprises 53 percent of Syrian exports. So if we really want to send a message to Syria and hit them where it hurts, this is where we can do the most damage. By imposing sanctions against the Syrian petroleum industry, the U.S. could apply additional pressure against Syria to press the Assad regime to change its dangerous and destabilizing policies. I think that clearly when we are talking about Middle East peace, when we are talking about terrorism, and we are talking about the war on drugs, and we are talking about all the things to which this country is committed to help with Syria has been one of the biggest obstacles to peace in the Middle East, the biggest obstacles to combatting the scourge of terrorism, the biggest obstacles in trying to curb drug addiction. Moreover, Syria maintains ties with terrorist states and works to the detriment of U.S. foreign policy and U.S. interests abroad. So it is for all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I think it is very, very important, the time has come for the U.S. to consider applying to Syria sanctions which are currently enforced against Iran and Libya in the Iran-Libya Oil Sanctions Act of 1996. The same types are going against U.S. interests that Iran and Libya have done; Syria has been there as well. Again, no matter what the United States has tried to do in foreign policy in these fields which I mentioned, Syria has been the most uncooperative nation, so I believe that this Congress ought to go on record as a sense of Congress resolution to say that we are tired of Syria's nonsense, we are not going to stand idly by, that if we are going to apply all sanctions upon Iran and Libya due to their terrorist and extremist policies Syria ought to be treated no differently.

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

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, recently I had the opportunity to visit Albania as the United States representative to the OSCE, which was negotiating a peace in Albania between the different factions in Albania. As my colleagues know, Albania recently has sunk into turmoil and anarchy as a result of failed pyramid schemes in which many Albanians lost their life savings. Albania has a tragic history. It was the most oppressive Stalinist state on the face of Europe, indeed perhaps in the world, and for 50 years lived under the most oppressive communism, isolationism and anti- Americanism. What I have found in my three trips to Albania has been that the Albanian people did not believe a word of the anti-Americanism that they were fed for so many years. In fact, Americans are most welcome. They truly like Americans. Americans are warmly received. I am glad that the United States has established a relationship with Albania where we supply them with help, with aid, with military help, with humanitarian aid. Because it is a small country, a little bit of aid goes a long, long way. However, as I mentioned before, there are problems in Albania. We know that the pyramid schemes when they collapsed caused many Albanians to lose their life savings, and as a result anarchy and lawlessness broke out, many people were rioting in the streets, guns were stolen, weapons depots were broken into. As a result, there was a proliferation and is a proliferation of weapons in the street. The European Community and the United States stepped in and tried to calm the situation. I was asked by the State Department to be the United States representative to these negotiations, as a year ago I was the U.S. representative to the South Balkans Defense Ministerial and traveled to Tirana, Albania with then Defense Secretary Bill Perry. I have had extensive knowledge and work involving the United States- Albanian relationship. This amendment is introduced by myself for myself and for my colleague the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]. I might also add that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, also wholeheartedly supports this amendment. The amendment commends the U.S. military and diplomats for the evacuation operation which we had to implement to get out American personnel and American citizens. I myself left Albania 3 or 4 days before I would have had to be evacuated. Thankfully, I was able to leave on a plane with Chancellor Vranitzky of Austria and some of the other diplomats. The amendment also supports the multiparty government and agreement of March 9, 1997. We feel that it is very important for the Albanian people themselves to grab the bull by the horns and stop the anarchy. That is why we in the United States have been urging the head of the government of Albania, Sali Berisha, to form a national unity government, a temporary national unity government, which he did form. That was part of the bulk of the agreement of March 9, 1997. My amendment supports this agreement. It urges the Albanian people to give the new government a chance and to turn in their weapons, and urges the United States to support the new Albanian Government in its efforts to achieve political reconciliation. The amendment also urges the new government of Albania to guarantee human rights, free and fair elections and freedom of expression. It urges us to remain closely engaged in efforts to ease Albania's crisis, and strongly supports the OSCE, which is the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, efforts and the Italian-led multilateral force. It urges the United States to work with the Albanian Government to ensure that the June 29 elections will be free and fair by supplying technical assistance and observers. The amendment also supports the convening of a multinational conference to help Albania recover from its political and economic crisis. I must say on my way back from Albania, I stopped in Italy to meet with the Italian defense minister and officials from the Italian Government who wholeheartedly support and have been working very, very closely with the United States in convening this multinational conference. Finally, the amendment opposes any challenge to Albania's border as a solution to the conflict. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe the United States must remain engaged in Albania. We have a stake in that part of the world. The Albanian people, again, for 50 years were fed a steady dose of anti-Americanism, a steady dose of the worst Communist repression, and they did not believe a word of it. They have good, strong feelings for the American people. We want to see democracy take root in Albania, and a free-market economy, and my amendment goes a long way in saying that this is what Congress wants to do.