Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such a time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. As has been explained by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], this bill represents an effort to help the Agency for International Development to minimize the reductions in force required by budgetary constraints. I must say that I regret the budgetary constraints which require the reductions in force. I have had occasion, of course, to see the good work that AID has done in many countries around the world. I can tell you that it is well worth the money and the effort that we put into it. But we have to be realists and we understand the budgetary problems and constraints. This simply helps AID minimize these reductions. It is something that we understand needs to be done. It has bipartisan support. Therefore, I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill, and I want to commend my friend from Nebraska for his diligence and hard work in bringing this bill to fruition. There are compelling reasons to keep the Development Fund for Africa separate from other development assistance and funded at as high a level as possible. Africa has special development needs. We all know that. The continent has a unique combination of war-related humanitarian requirements and traditional sustainable development needs. Many observers feel that Africa remains the world's greatest development challenge. The DFA has proven to be an effective mechanism in providing foreign assistance to Africa. Its flexibility and orientation toward establishing measurable results distinguish the DFA. The Development Fund for Africa was cut from $781 million in 1995 to $675 million in 1996, a cut of 13.6 percent, which was very regrettable because we know that this is where the humanitarian funds are needed. I had occasion to visit West Africa along with other members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and we saw firsthand how these countries are crying out to us for assistance. I have long said on this floor that despite the pleas for assistance, we have indeed been falling short in recent years. I think again it is very shortsighted because the world looks to America for leadership, the world looks to America for assistance, and if we want to see democracy flourish in these countries, we want to see people not suffer, we need this kind of humanitarian assistance. So restoring a line item at $704 million is an appropriate policy response to the challenge facing United States policy in Africa, sort of a midway point between restoring most of the money that has been cut. There are many of us that believe it should be more, but I think that this is a very, very important step in the right direction. I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this. The Philippines and the United States have a long history of friendship and cooperation. Just recently President Clinton praised the contribution of Filipino veterans, and he did it so recently. He did so during his trip in 1994, when he visited the Philippines. The role of the Filipino veterans is very, very important in the victory over Japan in World War II. It is very appropriate, I believe, for Congress to recognize and honor the service provided by these veterans. As the resolution notes, Filipino veterans were important players in the effort to defeat Japan in World War II. The Philippine Islands played a critical role as a strategic base for launching the final effort to defeat Japan. This resolution seeks to convey the appreciation of the Congress for these contributions. I believe it is very fitting that we do so. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me. As my colleagues know, this is not Republican bashing or any other kind of bashing. This is simply setting the record straight. The American people are not fools. They understand that the Democrats in Congress all Congress long have been pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. We could not even get a procedural vote to bring the minimum wage to the floor for months upon months upon months. The Republican leadership did not want this bill. They finally are here kicking and screaming every inch of the way because they know that 80 percent of the American people support the minimum wage increase and they were on the wrong side of the issue. So they are cutting their losses, and they are reluctantly coming to the table. But the American people, again, are not fools. They know that the Democratic Party has been pushing it in this Congress. I do not need history about what happened in previous Congresses. Let us talk about this Congress. This is the Congress that the Republicans have the majority, and this has been to do-nothing Republican Congress because it took us so long to finally get the minimum wage to the floor, and we are finally about to pass the minimum wage, but again with 90 Republicans or 92 Republicans, still a majority of Republicans in this Chamber, voted against raising the minimum wage, and a majority of Democrats overwhelmingly supported and voted for the minimum wage. So the American people should understand that. That is what has happened. We talk about welfare reform. Well, no one is going to get off the minimum wage, get off a minimum wage job or get into a minimum wage job and get off welfare if the minimum wage is not worthwhile, if there is no child care, if there is inadequate health care, and that is the problem with the welfare bill. But we are discussing minimum wage, and it is very clear, very simple. The American people know the Democrats in this Congress have been for increasing the minimum wage time and time again, and Republicans have dragged their feet every step of the way, and again it is consistent with the Republicans attacking working people in this country, being against the minimum wage, being for gutting OSHA and gutting all kinds of rights for workers. So let us get on and let us pass the minimum wage. This is a victory for the American people.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. My colleagues, let us call it the way it is. The Republican majority in this Congress has spent the better part of a year and a half assaulting the rights of workers in this country. I have served on the committee, I know what is happening. They steadfastly refused the minimum wage. We had to practically pry it out of them. OSHA, safety for workers in the workplace, they want to gut OSHA laws. Davis-Bacon to pay workers prevailing wage, they want to eliminate that, too. Mr. Speaker, they have slashed funding for the National Labor Relations Board which guarantees and safeguards workers' rights and protections. They want to bring back company unions so that the employers will control the unions, not the employees. The first thing they did when they received the majority, the Republicans removed the name ``labor'' from the Committee on Education and Labor to punish supposedly punish the labor unions. It is now the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and the word ``labor'' has been purged from both the committee and subcommittee names. The campaign finance bill which went down yesterday had an antilabor provision in it. So make no mistake about it, this is just another assault on working men and women in America by the Republican majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody understands that employers and employees are not equal and there will be coercion. Employees will be coerced into accepting these kinds of things. We do not believe that American workers ought to continue to be assaulted by this Republican majority, but again it is consistent. They tried to gut Medicare to give huge tax breaks for the wealthy. They want to give us the biggest education cuts in American history. They want to gut environmental laws. This is a direct assault on the middle class in this country and on working people by the Republican majority. This is just an extension. The Democrats, in filing the dissenting views accompanying this bill said, and I quote: ``This legislation encourages employers to hire fewer employees and to work them longer hours by freeing them from having to pay cash for overtime, potentially reducing both workers' incomes and employer labor costs by billions of dollars.'' Let us reject this and not continue to assault American workers. The Republicans' platform is exposed by this bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding the time. This bill should not be called the campaign finance reform bill. I have some better names for it. It should be called the wealthy country club set control of American politics bill. How about the fat cat influence on American politics bill? How about the rich and incumbent protection Republican campaign bill? That is all this is doing. This is giving special interests an even larger say in campaigns. But at least our Republican friends are consistent. They have spent the past 2 years trying to decimate Medicare and give huge tax breaks for the rich. This is just a continuation of that pattern. Let us continue to give breaks for the rich. Let them control politics. Let them have more influence in politics. Speaker Gingrich said, there is not enough money in politics right now. We ought to have more money in politics. This is exactly the opposite direction that we ought to be going toward. The Republican bill imposes no limits on how much can be spent in a campaign, allowing the influence of special interest money to continue to dominate the political system. The Republican bill increases the importance of soft money in campaigns; thereby increasing the role of special interests in their party. The Republican bill imposes huge costs and administrative burdens on labor unions; again, a consistent Republican pattern these past 2 years of punishing working men and women in this country, punishing labor unions for speaking out, for daring to speak out against the Republican extremist agenda. This is a highly partisan bill which is designed to create an unfair advantage to the Republican Party and their wealthy donors. The only way we can have real campaign finance reform in this Congress or any Congress is to have a bipartisan bill. We ought to do that. The Democratic bill attempts to limit big money. It attempts to put the amount of money that a candidate can spend on a campaign to have a cap. This is the only way we are going to eliminate special interests. The big problem to our democracy, in my opinion, is that it costs so much to run a campaign, only the very wealthy can run campaigns. Is this what we want in this country, where the very wealthy can control campaigns and run? This goes in the wrong direction. The Republican bill ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting in the Chamber and listening to all our colleagues speak about Ham, I could not help thinking if Ham were here right now he would be terribly embarrassed about it all. He would probably admonish us to not say the kind things we were saying, and he probably would say, ``Oh, you know, it's not really true.'' But I think the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there have been so many Members who have come here after hours from both sides of the aisle, both parties, to speak from their heart about Ham Fish really says just the kind of person he was. Everybody loved him. Everybody cared about him. When you serve in office and you are elected again and again, as he was for so many years, it really means that the people in his district understood that he had a very special quality. Those of us that are privileged to serve in government, we meet people from both sides of the aisle. It is very quick and easy for us to figure out who are the real good ones. I think we all know that Ham Fish was one of the real good ones. He had a very laid-back demeanor, a very kindly demeanor, and that made him even more effective. You really knew that he cared about you. You really knew that he cared about people. I was privileged not only to serve with Ham Fish as a member of the New York State delegation, but there were four of us that shared part of Westchester County in New York State. Ham and I both shared parts of Westchester County, and so we worked together, the four of us, two Democrats and two Republicans, to try to get things for Westchester County. Never once can I remember a time where Ham embarrassed me or when Ham was not trying to help me. Politics was not important. It was helping people, caring about people, that was important to Ham Fish. Every conversation I ever had with him, everything we ever discussed, was always pleasant. I remember during reapportionment, and my colleague, the gentleman from New York, Charlie Rangel, and other colleagues from New York will remember that there was a lot of trepidation in New York because we were losing three congressional seats in reapportionment, so it was a very, very tense moment. Ham would always kind of crack a joke. There were many different maps that were drawn. One of the maps had me going deep into Westchester County. Ham counted the number of golf courses that would be in my district, and he said to me, ``Boy, 19 golf courses. That is a pretty good district.'' That district was never meant to be, it was not a district that I had received, that I eventually wound up having, but every time I saw him afterwards he would always joke about the 19 golf courses and how perhaps we could play some golf. Ham Fish was a wealthy man. He was one of the wealthiest men in Congress, but you would never know it. You would never know it because he never flaunted it. He truly cared about people. It did not matter how much money people had, it did not matter what they looked like, it did not matter the color of their skin, their race, their religion. Ham Fish cared about them all. After he left Congress, a couples of times in the Shuttle coming back and forth from new York to Washington I bumped into him. Again, he always had a smile, always had a good word, always was asking me how I was, how my wife was, how Congress was. This was the kind of person that Ham Fish really was. The New York delegation in particular has lost a good friend, but he will certainly live on in our hearts and in our minds. When I look to see what kind of a legislator, what kind of a person, indeed, that I try to be, Ham Fish is a perfect, perfect role model: Hardworking, quiet, and effective. So I want to say to his family, the Fish family, to Mary Ann and to his children, whom I know, and to everyone, we will certainly miss Ham Fish, but we will never forget him. I know Ham Fish is looking down at us now, being a bit embarrassed by it all, but everything that has been said by every Member today is true. It is the way we feel about Ham Fish. He will truly be missed and he was truly loved.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Murray and Beatrice Safran are a living affirmation of the institution of marriage. It was 50 years ago, on February 17, 1946, that they were married. They had five children and have contributed to their community and their country with pride and distinction. Murray served in the U.S. Army from 1942-46 after which he was a guidance counselor and social studies teacher and United Federation of Teachers chapter chairman. He was also active in the Jewish War Veterans. In 1994, he was named Man of the Year by the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel. Beatrice served as cochairperson of the Association for Help of Retarded Children, as secretary to the president of Hebrew University and involved herself in politics as a member of the Reform Democratic Club. I want to congratulate Murray and Beatrice on their 50 years of marriage and their children, Judith, Hal, Aron, Sari, and Debra.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, for 25 years the National Council of Negro Women, Co-op City section, has been serving the community in numerous ways, giving to the area programs which will make Co-op City better for generations to come. This marvelous group of people has established the Saturday tutorial to give individualized instruction in reading and math for grades 2-12. It also established a youth group for young ladies, teaching them pride, leadership, responsibility, and community participation; the Community Concerns Committee, in which members visit shut-ins or nursing homes in the community; and the annual brotherhood program to recognize an outstanding individual, family, and a youth in the community. This is a wonderful organization which continues to contribute so much to the community. I am proud to have them as neighbors.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to restore funding for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program. I say to my colleagues if they are for public broadcasting they should to be for this amendment. The bill before us allocates $10 million for this program, which is a $5 million cut from last year. My amendment would retain the current level of funding for public telecommunications by restoring $5 million to the program. Let me say that program was halved last year, $14 million was cut, and now it is proposed to cut an additional $5 million. Public broadcasting simply cannot continue to exist with these kinds of cuts. CBO has scored my amendment and has determined that the budget authority and the outlays are budgetary neutral. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment because I feel this is yet another attempt to continue the assault on public broadcasting that has occurred in large part during this Congress. Last year there were efforts by some in the majority to zero out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We were able to prevent that from happening, but CPB still received major cuts. The cuts in the facilities program are further evidence of the contempt that some in the majority have for public broadcasting. However, the American people see and know the positive results in the quality and integrity of public broadcasting. If support for public broads and the facilities program are severely cut or eliminated, the quality of programming and the educational value they provide will suffer as a result. Public broadcasting and the facilities program are private-public partnerships that work. This is a success story that demonstrates what the government and the private sector can accomplish when they work together. The facilities program is a matching grants plan for public radio and television stations. It helps stations purchase equipment to extend their signals to unserved areas; by the way, many of whom are rural areas, as well as replacing outdated hardware, such as transmitters, master control rooms or towers. Many of these stations, as I mentioned, are in rural areas and do not have the resources without these grants to upgrade their systems or receive signals. This program has been an unqualified success because it has helped extend public TV and public radio stations to most of this country. It has been estimated that 10 million Americans still do not receive a reliable public television signal and approximately 25 million Americans do not receive a reliable public radio signal. On hundred forty-two public telecommunications grants that were rewarded in fiscal year 1995 went to noncommercial telecommunications awards in 44 States, extending public radio signals to 2.8 million previously unserved persons and public TV to 500,000 unserved persons. PTFP is the sole program in the Federal Government that assists in the maintenance of the vast public broadcasting inventory which now exceeds an estimated 1 billion in value. Cutting this public telecommunications facilities program will only weaken the ability of the public broadcasting community to continue providing a technically reliable service to the public while simultaneously limiting the ability of public radio and TV to reach unserved and underserved audiences, especially in rural areas but in urban areas as well. Weakening this program will represent the loss of a considerable investment that has already been made in public broadcasting's infrastructure, an infrastructure that is nearly universal and ready to be augmented by new technologies. Since its inception, public telecommunications has invested $500 million in public telecommunications facilities that deliver informational, cultural and educational programming to the American people. That is a significant investment in a system that is now nearly universal, reaching communities as diverse as Point Barrow, Alaska; Jackson, Mississippi; and Los Angeles, California. This universality provides an amazing potential for communication among Americans as we move further into the information age. We must not let it deteriorate by further cutting this program. In addition, maintenance of this system is especially important as we develop the information highway. Public radio and television have an important role in linking schools, libraries, health care facilities, governments and other public information producers. These are areas that will not be filed by the void that would be left if public broadcasting services do not survive. It does not make sense to allow the existing framework of equipment and services that are currently available to hard-to-reach areas to fall into disrepair while the information highway is in development. It is a small program but an important one. Investing in our infrastructure is vital to serve those customers who rely on public broadcasting for information and education and it must be maintained if we are to move forward in today's world. Let us stop the assault on public broadcasting and let us invest in our future.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, then I will certainly yield to the chairman.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the second anniversary of the terrorist bombing of the AMIA Jewish community building in Buenos Aires to pay my respects to the hundreds of victims who perished or were wounded in the attack. My profound condolences go out to their family members whose grief remains unrelieved as all efforts to bring the terrorist perpetrators to justice have been fruitless. That the second anniversary of this atrocity will pass with the terrorists still at large sends a potent message that this tragic episode demands our immediate and renewed attention. Although there is reason to be encouraged by the recent incarceration of several police officers in relation to the bombing, the case is far from a satisfactory resolution. Regretfully, new and disturbing news has begun to surface as the investigation proceeds. It has been reported that Argentine Minister of Justice Rodolfo Barra, an official directly responsible for the investigation, was forced to leave his post after it was discovered that he was involved in an extremist, anti-Semitic organization in his youth. Furthermore, authorities in Buenos Aires have denied the families of the victims the right to place a memorial sculpture near the Argentine Supreme Court. All in all, I am concerned that the Argentinean Government is not pursuing the terrorist criminals in the most vigorous fashion. It should be known that this tragedy has not been forgotten thanks to the efforts of some very special people. I would like to recognize my constituent and friend, Rabbi Avi Weiss and his organization AMCHA, the Coalition for Jewish Concerns, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that justice is carried out. Members of his organization will be participating in vigils simultaneously in New York and Buenos Aires today at 8:53 a.m. in remembrance of this tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I extend my prayers for the victims of the Buenos Aires bombing and offer heartfelt condolences to their family members who survived them. At the same time, I call upon my colleagues to urge the Government of Argentina to reinvigorate its efforts at seeing the terrorists brought to justice.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, public service is the most honorable profession when it is done honestly and well. Anne E. Kearns epitomizes the public servant who has served honestly and well for the citizens in the New York City area. She has lived all of her life in New York and for the past 20 years has worked for the Federal Government. Her duties in that time included working in the security and engineering departments of the Veteran's Administration Hospital in the Bronx and working at the New York Maritime College where she provided support services to uniformed members of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. She also made significant contributions to the efficient operation of the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps. Anne Kearns is the consummate public servant who embodies the highest ideals of government service. I am proud to congratulate her on her retirement. We are losing a distinguished public servant.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, there are many people in the Riverdale section of the Bronx who are worthy of praise for all of their civic activities. One of the most deserving in James J. McFadden, who for many years has given unselfishly of himself to make his neighborhood, his borough and his city a better place. He is a founding member of the Frances Schervier Home and Hospital Area Board of Trustees. He has initiated programs, to help drop-outs take high school equivalency exams, served as city labor commissioner and has served on the boards of the New York City Department of the Aging and the Yonkers Waterfront Commission. It is a great honor for me to be able to note that he is being named as Riverdalian of the Year by the Riverdale Community Council, a richly deserved honor.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Father Thomas J. Murphy, S.J., has served for more than 20 years in St. Margaret's Parish in Riverdale, in New York City, where he is known for all the good work he has performed for the community. This includes his activities with the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition and his longtime chaplaincy for the Pro Patria Council of the Knights of Columbus. Besides his numerous and productive efforts with the parish, which include his leadership in athletic and social activities for the youths of the parish, he also teaches at Regis High School, one of the premier high schools in New York City. Father Murphy is being named Riverdalian of the Year by the Riverdale Community Council. This honor is earned and I am proud to note his many accomplishments. I congratulate him for all the good work he has done for his community.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, a house of worship not only brings sustenance to its parishioners, it draws sustenance from them. In Mount Vernon, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church has given aid and comfort to its parishioners for a century and for 40 of those years Mary Masi has been office manager and church secretary, giving of herself to help her church and her fellow parishioners. In that time the church has had eight pastors and it was Mary Masi who provided the continuity for them serving as a link from the past to the future. She is always the first to volunteer for church events and is usually the driving force behind them. She is a member of many church organizations and for Mount Carmel, Mary Masi has become a symbol of loyalty, unselfishness, and devotion on whom the church and its parishioners have come to rely. I offer her my congratulations for her years of giving to her church and her neighbors.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Jewish War Veterans Post 500 of Co-op City in the Bronx is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. This is an organization of men who have given so much to their country in time of war and now give to their communities. They help their fellow veterans who are hospitalized in the nearby Veterans' Administration Hospital, bringing them newspapers to read and company for when the day gets long. They organize fund raising events to support their charitable works and march annually in the Memorial Day parade to honor the heroic sacrifices made by fellow veterans in all wars. We owe our liberty to these men and all others like them. This year we also celebrate the centenary of the National Jewish War Veterans, making this a truly auspicious time. As a patron member of Post 500, I am proud and happy to join my neighbors in celebrating these anniversaries.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, handicapped people are a significant part of our population and a group which deserves our support as they strive for independence. The Handicapped Adults Association of Co-op City in the Bronx is an organization of individuals which has done much to achieve that independence. HAA was organized in 1971 by individuals who saw the need to unite the fragmented, disabled adult population. They sought to make the changes necessary to improve life for the disabled everywhere. These valiant people worked for adequate public transportation, housing, and employment. Their work has borne fruit in the Urban Mass Transit Act, mandating accessible public transportation, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. I want to join all of my neighbors in Co-op City in congratulating HAA on its 25th anniversary and for its many accomplishments.