Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to honor a constituent who has contributed so much to the United States, to Israel, indeed to freedom throughout the world through his actions. Abraham Grabowsky is celebrating his 100th birthday in New York, having come from Poland through Texas, Michigan to Palestine, where he served in the Allenby Brigade in World War I. He is the only survivor of that famous unit, which was formed to liberate Palestine from the Turkish Empire. His recollection of Tel Aviv in that time was of a village of ``two or three buildings'' surrounded by desert. On his return from Palestine, he worked throughout the western United States before he ``decided I missed New York.'' He settled in the city, married and raised a family. He fought for Israel 30 years before it existed. I am proud to honor him and to have him as a neighbor and to wish him the very best on his 100th birthday.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, William Graham has been helping others since his days in the U.S. Army when he served as chief social work specialist in Fort Dix. After leaving the Army he continued in social work in New York City where he is currently supervisor of intake for non-secure detention for the Department of Juvenile Justice. In his community he is president of the Bronx-Westchester Livingstone College Alumni Association, treasurer of the trustees board and member of the Board of Stewards of the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, treasurer fo the Runyon Heights Men's Club Church and a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He has been a celebrity chef for the YWCA for 9 concecutive years contributing greatly to the success of that program. He and his wife have a daughter. He has truly earned the title ``Man of the Year'' from the YMCA.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it seems that it is emigrants who epitomize the American ideal of success through hard work. Isador Berenstein was born in Poland and achieved some success there only to see it destroyed by the Nazis. He barely escaped wit his life when Dachau was liberated only a day before the Nazis were to kill him. He came to America to start over and made his way to the Arthur Avenue indoor bazaar. There, for the next 40 years, he ran the housewares stand. There are only in America facets to his story; his bargaining in Yiddish-accented Italian with newly emigrated Italian housewives, his reorganizing the market when the city allowed it to deteriorate and his being chosen to lead by the overwhelmingly Italian-American merchants for more than a generation. I have known him for 20 years and have admired his good works and his commitment to the community. His retirement is a loss to all of us.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the New York Eye Surgery Center is celebrating its 10th anniversary of state-of-the-art medical care in the Bronx. I want to congratulate the center for the medical service it has given to the area over that decade. I also want to congratulate the center for its annual gift of a day of free cataract surgery for those unable to afford the procedure. Last year 20 free surgeries were performed and more are expected to be performed this year. The center also has a day of free eye screenings for glaucoma, cataracts, and diabetes and this year May 17 is the day for free eye care as part of Mission Cataract USA '96. The screenings are free to anyone from the community regardless of need. This state-of-the-art care is also state- of-the-heart care and I congratulate the New York Eye Surgery Center for the great and good work it is doing.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during roll call votes 207 through 210 and 222 through 224. If present, I would have voted `aye' on roll call 207, `aye' on roll call 208, `aye' on roll call 209, `no' on roll call 210, `aye' on roll call 222, `aye' on roll call 223, and `aye' on roll call 224.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on May 9, 1996, 19 of my colleagues wrote to the SEC regarding the agency's approval of a preferencing program on the Cincinnati Stock Exchange [CSE]. I share the concerns expressed in that letter. Among other things, the letter expressed concern that the Commission did not adequately examine how preferencing affects the quality of trade prices received by small retail investors. Preferencing enables a broker to direct its customer orders to buy or sell stock to itself, acting as dealer. On the CSE, in those stocks where preferencing dealers trade exclusively, 95 percent of the transactions are executed by dealers simply matching or pairing their own orders with those of their customers. The overwhelming majority of trades executed on the CSE are for small retail orders. Indeed, 70 percent of CSE trades are for 500 shares or less, and 97 percent are for less than 2,000 shares. Very few institutional traders have their trades preferenced on the CSE. The SEC order granting approval to the CSE preferencing program left many important questions unanswered. Among these questions is why only small retail orders are executed under the CSE's preferencing rules, and whether these orders are receiving the same opportunity for price improvement as they would on the primary market. Mr. Speaker, today we take up H.R. 3005, the Securities Amendments of 1996. This legislation does not address the issue of preferencing but I understand that similar legislation in the other body may contain a provision directing the SEC to undertake a detailed study of preferencing on exchange markets. Such a study would provide more information about how preferencing affects small retail investors. Unless such a study concludes that there are tangible benefits to investors, including small investors, and to the capital formation process from this practice, I would support efforts to move swiftly to ban preferencing on exchanges.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me the time. I just wanted to comment on this. I have, as the gentleman says, submitted a resolution talking about the events outside of the Auschwitz death camp. I want to make just a couple of very brief points. That is, I think we all agree that it is totally inappropriate to think about any kind of mall or commercial development at actually such a place that should almost be sacred ground with so many people murdered and martyred there. I think it is an absolute outrage that this mall would even have been contemplated being built. It violates agreements that the Polish Government has made internationally, stating that within a certain amount of feet or meters from the Auschwitz death camp that nothing like this could happen. It is absolutely an outrage that one would even consider. And when you consider that the town is 7 kilometers away, it is even more insulting to think that a mall could not have been built in the town or near the town but would be built at the entrance, to the infamous entrance to the death camp where those horrible words, those lies, Arbeit Macht Frei, work makes you free, were put by the camp. So many of us have been trying for many, many months to point out this outrage and to get the assurance from the Government of Poland that this would not continue. I must say the Government of Poland, to its credit, has shown that it does not want the mall to be built, has attempted to give me assurances that it will not be built. And I would hold them to their word. I think it is very, very important that a government that makes these international agreements adheres to them. I just want to say to my colleague from New Jersey and to others who have expressed similar concerns and outrage with the thought of this happening that I intend to pursue my resolution which is cosponsored by the other gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. We will pursue it in the Committee on International Relations. We think it is appropriate that Congress goes on record as opposing it. I do, again, want to say that I am happy that we have been getting positive responses from the new leaders of Poland and from the Polish Government who have told us that this will not be built. With those assurances and the fact that it is bipartisan and we are going to work to pass my resolution, I welcome the help and support of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As everyone knows, I have submitted an amendment, amendment 9, which was in title II, which I will not submit, involving the situation of the majority of Albanians in Kosovo, and I am wondering if I can ask the distinguished gentleman to engage in a colloquy with me. Mr. Chairman, after years of repression, the humanitarian situation in Kosovo is very grim. Recent reports by respected international relief groups spell out the seriousness of the situation. According to O. Terry Heselius, Country Director of Kosovo for Mercy Corps International, ``because there has not been `all out war' in Kosovo, many people have difficulty in understanding the severity of the situation and the need for continued emergency humanitarian aid relief.'' Given the difficult circumstances and the importance of maintaining stability in Kosovo, I firmly believe that it is in the interest of the United States to continue our humanitarian assistance program for Kosovo at last year's level of $6 million. I ask my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Alabama and chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations [Mr. Callahan], does he agree that the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance should again provide $6 million to Kosovo in fiscal year 1997?

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. (Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that that $10 offer is very tempting, but I just want to make a brief statement, I will not take all of my time. First of all, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think as people have said, it is ill-timed and it is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. The people who raise the cold war, the cold war is over, the Soviet Union has collapsed. We do not have a cold war anymore, it is a whole new ball game and I do not think we ought to dwell on the past. India and the United States are developing a very good relationship. It has been said it is the two greatest democracies in the world, and I think again that India showed in the past several weeks that it is a democracy. A government was elected, that government was unpopular, it was doing some unpopular things, the government fell, and a new government was put in place, all in a democratic way. That is something that we wish the rest of the world could do. That is one of our stated policy aims. We want to increase democracy in the world. We want to promote democracy in the world. When 400 million people participate in an election in India, I can think of nothing greater than to say that democracy works. They are making progress in human rights, there have been difficulties, no one denies that, but they are making progress. And United States investment in India being $5 billion, this would just cut $8 million to the poorest people in India, the people that really need our help. So I think that again, the United States and India need to look to the future. The United States has worked with India; India has been working with the United States. Let us not go backwards, let us move forwards. This is a good investment in democracy; it is a good investment in United States-India relations, and we ought not to cut it.

Mr. ENGEL. OK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama for his support.

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

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of May 22, 1996, I was recorded in the affirmative for rollcall vote 190. I should have been recorded in the negative.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall vote 191 due to emergency dental work. Had I been present, I would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to say there is no clearer issue in my opinion that defines the difference between Democrats and Republicans that raising the minimum wage. It has been clear. We on the Democratic side have tried for months and months to try to get a clean minimum wage raise, a lousy 90 cents an hour from $4.25 to $5.15. What have we gotten from the majority, the Republicans from the other side of the aisle? We have gotten stalling, delaying, all kinds of tactics. Now we finally get a bill and we have all kinds of things to hurt workers rather than to help workers, to exempt people from the minimum wage, all kinds of tricks and all kinds of nonsense. We asked for a clean minimum wage bill, a clean bill that would clearly say that the minimum wage ought to be raised from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour. Eighty percent of the American people agree that the minimum wage ought to be raised, including 70 percent of Republicans. But the Republican leadership has been against it. And they have not allowed us to have a clean up or down vote on the floor. What could be easier or more simple than a clean up or down vote on whether the minimum wage should be raised 90 cents an hour? People have said here time and time again that the buying power of the minimum wage is at a 40-year low. All we are saying is that people who are working, people who are working people, they are not on welfare, they are not looking for a handout; they are working people, they deserve to be paid at a higher level. We should reject the amendments, and we should have a clean vote on the minimum wage.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult bill to vote against. It is popular, but I think we can all see it for what it is. It is a cynical, cheap, political, election-year maneuver. My Republican colleagues must think that the American public is stupid. Everyone can see through the bill and understand what it is. Mr. Speaker, if they were so concerned about deficit reduction as they say they are, they would be acting differently. The deficit has been cut in half, less than half, under the President and with the Democratic Congresses. There was not one Republican that voted for it. So when push comes to shove, they really do not care that much about the deficit to play it straight. Why would the Republican leadership not allow us a vote on this floor to guarantee that the savings would be passed on to the American consumers? I think that the fact that they will not allow us a vote to ensure that the American consumers will benefit from this is again a cynical move. So again they talk a good game. They talk deficit reduction, but in reality, it is only election year politics. Business as usual. Politics as usual.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas a little more clarification about Tuesday night. Does he anticipate votes Tuesday night on the Defense Authorization Act as well as the others?

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ENGEL. So not just votes Tuesday night on the suspensions, votes also on the Defense bill?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlemen yield?

Mr. ENGEL. On Tuesday night?

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was back in my district and missed two rollcall votes. On rollcall 162, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 163, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues never cease to amaze me. They yelled for years about lifting the arms embargo, as did I. We all knew that the arms embargo could not be lifted because Britain and France objected. But we all knew this was going on. Now, Mr. Speaker, they want to waive the House rules to form this committee. They touted the new House rules for saving money and now they want to waive it like they have waived all the other House rules. Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to blow a million bucks on this unneeded committee when all they needed to do was plunk down a quarter for the June 4, 1994 Washington Times. We knew it was happening then. These arms shipments were widely reported in 1994. Because the Republicans did not pay attention then, the American taxpayer will pay a million bucks now. The Republicans should hit the library and read the old newspaper clips of this story instead of hitting the American taxpayer in the wallet. The Committee on International Relations can handle it on its own. If they had not abolished the Europe and Middle East Subcommittee, that subcommittee would be in effect now, doing these kinds of things. Mr. Speaker, they talk about Iran. Where were they during the Iran- Contra scandal? This is a political ploy. It is election year politics at its worst and it should be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the 104th Congress has been on now for a little over a year and let us look at the extreme Republican agenda. They have spent the whole year trying to cut Medicare and Medicaid, to pay for a tax break for the rich. The Democrats and the President has stopped it. They want to give us the largest education cuts in the history of the United States. Can you imagine that? And they want to gut the environment and make air dirtier and water dirtier. Now they lecture us about family values, but they do not want to increase the the minimum wage. We cannot even get a vote on the floor of this House to say whether or not we want to increase the minimum wage by a lousy 90 cents an hour, up or down. Give us a vote. The American people want an increase in the minimum wage. Do not tell us you are for family values, Republicans. You do not give a darn about the American family. You will not even allow us to have a vote to raise the minimum wage 90 cents. When 84 percent of all Americans, 84 percent, say they want an increase in the minimum wage, including 71 percent of Republicans, the House leadership here will not even give us a vote. The minimum wage ought to be raised 90 cents; 90 cents is all we are asking. Give us a vote.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from Florida, who is my mother's Congressman and is doing such a great job, and I intend to return to the committee. Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, I hope that our House will vote to sustain the President's veto. This is not a good bill and the President was correct in vetoing it. This is an isolationism bill. It is a retrenching bill, a retreating bill. The United States is the leader of the free world. No one anointed us as leader. We took the mantle. As a result, we have a responsibility. Countries look to us and we have a responsibility for our own self- interest. There was no Democratic input into this bill. There is a haphazard reorganization of U.S. foreign policy agencies. In fact, it is, Pick an agency, any agency, we want to close an agency, it doesn't matter what agency, just pick one. That is no way to conduct foreign policy. The appropriations are too low. There are not enough funds in here. It undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle unfortunately seem to want to embrace isolationism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism, I feel that the Republican Party is reverting back to its 100 years ago isolationism policies. This is a dangerous policy. Henry Kissinger, we all know Henry Kissinger, a very prominent Republican Secretary of State, says about this bill, and I quote, ``Further cuts would necessitate closing many overseas posts with the result that there would be less complete political and economic reporting on foreign conditions, less effective representation and advocacy of U.S. interests in foreign countries, and less adequate services provided to U.S. citizens traveling abroad, tourists or business people.'' So even Henry Kissinger realized that the funding here is dangerously low, and that this is an isolationism bill and not really a very good bill at all. We should not undermine the President's ability to conduct foreign policy. We are the leaders of the world, my colleagues. Let us act like the leaders of the world. Let us sustain the President's veto. This bill ought not to become law.