Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in response to the last speaker, did you know that in your district, 32,028 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill, and in Florida college students getting loans will have to pay $276 million more?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Kentucky, did you know that in your district 34,543 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill, and in the State of Kentucky students will have $75 million less for student loans?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in response to the last speaker from Michigan, did you know that in your district 19,170 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill, and in Michigan, students will have to pay $211 million more for student loans because of this bill.

Mr. ENGEL. In response to the last speaker from Pennsylvania, did the gentleman know that in his district 12,921 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill and in Pennsylvania college students getting loans will have to pay $400 million more?

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. As we do budget reconciliation, a quick quiz, Mr. Speaker, three questions: First, why are Republicans cutting Medicare and hurting seniors? A-- to save the Medicare Program? B--to balance the budget? C--to pay for a tax cut for the rich? If my colleagues said ``C'' they are right. The Republicans are cutting Medicare to help their rich friends. Second, who do Republicans care most about? A--senior citizens? B-- America's children? C--the B-2 bomber? Again, if my colleagues said ``C'' they are correct. While the Republicans are cutting Federal funding to Medicare and education, they are increasing funding for the B-2 bomber, what even the Pentagon says we do not need. Third, which programs will be protected under Republican proposals? A--Social Security? B--Medicare? C--Pork barrel projects in Republican districts? Again, the answer is ``C.'' While Republicans are hurting seniors by reducing their Social Security and Medicare benefits, they are conducting business as usual by increasing funding for fat cat projects. Well, Mr. Speaker, all three answers were ``C.'' I guess the ``C'' stands for cuts--Republican cuts. Cut the heart out of our seniors by raiding Medicare. Cut the heart out of our children's education. Cut the heart out of America's future.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, for almost 45 years only one country has had the dubious distinction of having to send its government officials out of its capital to visit the United States Embassy. This insult was not reserved for Libya, North Korea, Cuba, or any of America's historic detractors. It was reserved for Israel--one of America's closest friends and our [[Page H 10687]] most important ally in the turbulent Middle East. Because the U.S. Embassy in Israel is based in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem--Israel's declared capital--the United States has managed to reject a general principle of international practice: The placement of a state's embassy in the location of a foreign nation's capital. I, therefore, rise in strong support of S. 1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, which states that an undivided Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel and that our Embassy should be moved to that city. As the sponsor of the resolution declaring Jerusalem to be the united capital of Israel, which overwhelmingly passed the House in 1990, I strongly support this resolution and urge the House to pass it. Some have raised concerns with the impact of S. 1322 on the ongoing peace process in the Middle East. According to those opposed to the bill, any decision to move the Embassy before the conclusion of final status talks on Jerusalem would damage the process and set back chances for peace in the Mid East. I would like to take this opportunity to allay those concerns. According to the Oslo agreement signed by Israel and the PLO in 1993, the issue of Jerusalem will be discussed during final status negotiations beginning of 1996. Moving the Embassy by 1999 is not only the principled thing to do, it is fully compatible with the time table of the peace process. Final status negotiations are to be complete by May 1999. While I strongly support this bill, I would like to express my opposition to the procedure under which it has been brought to the floor. S. 1322 is authorizing legislation and should rightfully have been referred to the International Relations Committee, of which I am a member, for hearings and a markup. Similar to the procedure--or lack thereof--on the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, the International Relations Committee has not seen fit to exercise its jurisdiction on this critical issue. On this 3,000th anniversary of the establishment of Jerusalem, the city of David, however, I am proud to announce my support for this legislation. As Israel's closest ally, the United States must take the lead in supporting the unity of Jerusalem and its permanent status as capital of Israel by moving our Embassy to the holy city.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, this sign says it all. Shame on Newt Gingrich and the Republicans for what they are doing to senior citizens in this country. Shame on them for what they are doing to people who have worked hard all of their lives. At least our Republican colleagues have been somewhat consistent. This [[Page H 10357]] bill came out of the Committee on Ways and Means. They certainly found many ways to be mean to senior citizens in this country. Our colleagues talk about choice, our Republican colleagues. The only choice senior citizens are going to have under this legislation is whether or not to buy dog food to eat because that is all they will be able to afford after they get through paying for health care under this bill. Shame, this bill ought to be rejected.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Bronx, NY, the top ten reasons why Republicans refuse to hold hearings on their Medicare cuts: No. 10. Republicans figure seniors can't hear, so why bother holding hearings? No. 9. It might interfere with the O.J. press coverage. No. 8. It's easier to arrest seniors than to listen to them. (At least they can get health care in jail, not under the Republican plan.) No. 7. The more you know about their plan the sicker you'll get. No. 6. Republicans would rather give tax cuts to the wealthy than health care to Grandma. No. 5. They want to keep seniors in the rocking chair, not in the witness chair. No. 4. Republicans saw a product in the National Enquirer that makes Medicare obsolete. No. 3. Why hold hearings when a tax break for the rich can buy diamond earrings? No. 2. Mugging Medicare recipients is easier if you do it in the dark. No. 1. Ah, who needs a second opinion. There's one side to every story.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, this is now the third time that we are renewing the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. This, in my opinion, is not really the way to go about it. Each time we renew it, we say it is for a temporary moment until we can put the law together and pass a new Middle East Peace Facilitation Act and each time there is just a simple renewal. I do not think this is a good process. We have had legislation introduced. I have introduced a bill. We have had no markups on the committee. We had one hearing last week, but we have not had any markups. The Senate is moving ahead with its foreign ops bill. Senator Helms and Senator Pell are putting together language. Quite frankly, I see no reason why we should cede our authority to the Senate. Why should the Senate language ultimately be the language that is adopted? I think that this House has a very important role to play and, frankly, I think that our Committee on International Relations ought to put all the legislation that has been proposed at a hearing, talk about it, do a markup, have a markup of the bill, and we ought to come up with new MEPFA language. That is the way I think that we ought to proceed. Yasser Arafat's feet must be held to the fire. I know there is a signing going on in the White House today. I intend to be there. All of us hope and pray for Middle East peace, but I think a just peace will only be a just peace if there is compliance on all sides, and that includes the PLO and it includes Mr. Arafat. I believe that United States money should continue to flow for this process, if the Palestinians, if Mr. Arafat is keeping his pledges. If he does not, then I think the money ought to stop; only Mr. Arafat and the PLO can determine that. So I do not think an automatic renewal is the way to go. I understand it is only for 30 days and I will not object to the 30 days, but I will be hard-pressed 30 days from now to come here and agree to another extension. Again, I think that the peace process will only work and American money should only continue to flow if both sides are adhering to what they agreed. We do not have that now. The covenants are still in place, talking about the destruction of Israel, the PLO covenants, and Yasser Arafat's track record has been less than admirable. So I think that while we probably have no choice today, again, I think that our committee, and I would hope that the chairman, in fact, I wonder if the chairman would give a commitment that we would have a markup of my bill and other bills that have been proposed and also perhaps that our committee can formulate a bill. Again, I see no reason why this House has to cede its authority on this important sphere to the Senate. Why should [[Page H 9601]] the Senate foreign operations bill be the core to any new Middle East Peace Facilitation Act that is proposed? While Senator Helms and Senator Pell are putting together their language and doing a good job, I think we have an equal role to play, not simply a role of following the Senate. So I am wondering if the chairman can give me assurances that we will indeed have a markup in this House and that this House will come up with its own bill and not simply rubberstamp the Senate version in the foreign ops bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the rule and defeat of the TEAM Act. Mr. Speaker, the continuing assault on the American worker by this Congress continues today with the consideration of the TEAM Act. I strongly urge the defeat of this proposal. This bill, in my opinion, creates more problems than it solves. The so-called TEAM Act has nothing to do with teamwork, with workplace cooperation, or with empowering employees. Under the guise of empowering employees, H.R. 743 guts section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, allowing an employer to create an organization of employees, determine its procedures, and select the organization's leaders. The bill would reestablish company unions, because employers could negotiate the terms and conditions of employment with this new organization, so long as the employer does not enter into a new contract. Mr. Speaker, eliminating the basic right of employees to be represented by their own independent representatives in collective bargaining will not improve the situations of employers or employees. The TEAM Act would turn existing cooperative labor-management groups into adversarial relationships. Undermining the basic rights of employees is not teamwork, but is an attack on basic rights of workers to have independent representation. The assault on the workers continues in this Congress. It must be stopped. The very first thing we saw at the start of this Congress with the Education and Labor Committee was the elimination of the word ``labor'' in the name of the new committee. Then we saw an assault on the minimum wage. Not only has the majority refused to raise the minimum wage; they want to eliminate the minimum wage totally. We see the OSHA laws, the safety of the American worker which is so important, they wan to undermine it and eliminate it and scrap it. That continues to march on. The National Labor Relations Board, we saw in the funding bills, they want to eliminate a lot of moneys to fund that. That is supposed to monitor unfair labor practices. We talk about Davis-Bacon which is supposed to provide construction workers with a prevailing wage. They want to repeal Davis-Bacon. [[Page H 9522]] Mr. Speaker, this TEAM Act is just another in a set of measures by the majority Republicans in this Congress to try to undermine the well- being of the American worker, to try to assault the American worker. It really ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. It really is unfortunate, because I think the bottom line is, the only way we are really going to get a plan that helps our senior citizens is by doing it in a bipartisan fashion; not in this way, ramming it down everyone's throat without any kind of open hearings. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, who has certainly been one of the shining lights of the new freshman class of this Congress, who has spoken so eloquently on the floor not only today but many, many days, and the gentleman is quite right, the Republicans simply want to take the care out of Medicare. Madam Speaker, Medicare actually was a program that was put into effect in the 1960's. It is a plan that many Republicans want to kill. And, in fact, that has been the modus operandi, the way the Republicans have operated, during this whole Congress. They take plans, they take bills, they take laws that they have wanted to kill for many, many years and say this law needs fixing. So instead of just fixing it, what do they do? They kill it or gut it. We have seen it time and time again, not only with Medicare and Medicaid, but we have seen it in assaults against working people in this country. We have OSHA, which protects people; occupational safety and hazard laws, which protect the safety of American workers. Do they want to fix it? No, they want to kill it. They want to gut it. The National Labor Relations Board, which monitors unfair labor practices. They are trying to cut it, cut the funding and kill it. Davis-Bacon, which guarantees construction workers prevailing wage, a decent salary. They want to get rid of that, too. As my colleague from Texas just mentioned, all the good environmental laws that bipartisan Congresses have put into effect for so many years, what are they trying to do? Not fix those laws, but kill it and gut it. Student loans. The same thing. Kill it and gut it. The Republicans have been using the fact that they believe certain bills, certain laws like Medicare need fixing. They do not fix it, they kill it. So, Mr. Speaker, this is just the first assault on Medicare as we know it. If we cut $270 billion from the program, we are, in essence, killing the program. It just starts that way and it goes on and on. One thing really ought to be made very, very clear. Medicare is a program that serves middle-class America. This is not some boondoggle or some program that is being doled out to people who have not worked in their lives, or people who have not made sacrifices in their lives; to people who have not done what they should do. Medicare benefits middle-class America, senior citizens who have worked hard and struggled all their lives, put a few dollars together only to see it dissipate in their later years. They are as scared as can be. Madam Speaker, I take the case of my mother, who lives in Florida, and all her friends. They do not have money for prescription drugs right now. Many have to choose between eating well and buying medicines. Can any of us imagine what it will mean when $270 billion is cut out of Medicare? To my Republican friends who say, well, it is not a cut, we are actually increasing the funding; and, how could it be a cut if we are increasing the funding? Everybody knows if we do not increase the funding, with the rate of inflation, it is a cut. Everybody knows if we manipulate part A and B, it is a cut. The bottom line is this, Madam Speaker, what kind of care do seniors get now under Medicare, and what kind of care will they be getting in the year 2002 after there is $270-billion worth of Republican cuts? The answer is very easy. Senior citizens, as my colleague from Texas says, the GOP Medicare plan means seniors will pay more for their health care and get less. That is the bottom line. Pay more in premiums, get less health care, get less choice, be forced into HMO's, be forced to accept strange doctors, because they sure will not be able to choose their doctors. As we are talking right now, I will bet that senior citizens will suffer from a lack of choosing of their own doctors. It is not right, Madam Speaker. All we are saying on the Democratic side of the aisle is we want to have open hearings on this. The Republicans in this Chamber have the votes. They can outvote us every time. What is so terrible to let the light shine in so that the American people can understand what this means? In the last Congress President Clinton proposed a health care plan. At the very, very beginning everyone seemed to be in favor of it, but as more and more people found out about it, for whatever reason, they decided they would not support it. And the Republicans, quite frankly, are afraid that if we let the light of day shine on their Medicare sham, or their Medicare proposal, that the American public will say, wait a minute, guys, this is not what we want. Medicare is a sacred covenant with the American people and we do not want to gut it. We do not want to hurt senior citizens. They are afraid when their plan is exposed that seniors will understand that it hurts them; that it will be terrible for the senior citizens in this country. So how do they get around it? Let us only hold one hearing on this particular bill. Now, the hearing is tomorrow. I do not know what is in their plan. I have not seen their bill. How can anyone have an intelligent hearing when we do not know what is in the bill? They would like to just blindfold us, gag us, not allow us to ask questions, and not allow us to hold hearings. What is so terrible with an open procedure? Madam Speaker, the Republicans ranted and raved on the other side of the aisle in previous Congresses about muffling the minority. We are not talking about the minority or the majority. We are talking about the American people. They have the right to understand what this Congress is about to do. The only way we can do that is by holding hearings. The hearings we are going to hold tomorrow are going to be on the lawn of the Capitol. That is because we could not get a decent hearing room in the Capitol to hold these hearings. What a disgrace. It is absolutely a gag rule. It is being perpetrated not on the Democrats in Congress but on the American people. So the bottom line here, for me, is what is the quality of health care that senior citizens get under Medicare now, in 1955, and what will be the quality of care that they will get under the Republican plan in 2002? When we couple the 270 billion dollars' worth of cuts in Medicare and, at the same time, give $245-billion worth of tax breaks to the rich, that only adds insult to injury. To my friends on the other side of the aisle who say one has nothing to do with the other, well, $245 billion and $270 billion sounds pretty equal to me. If we eliminated the tax breaks for the rich, and even if we had to cut the Medicare Program, 270 minus 245 is only $25 billion. So we would have to cut it a lot less if we gave up on the tax breaks for the rich than we would under the Republican plan.

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, those hearings are planned to continue into next week, because if we cannot get 4 weeks of hearings, as we requested, we feel that we could at least have 4 days of hearings where senior citizens and representatives of senior citizen groups and people involved with Medicare can come and testify and tell us their opinions and tell us what Medicare means to [[Page H 9413]] them and tell us what the GOP Medicare plan will be. Those are the only open hearings, unfortunately, that are going to be held on Capitol Hill.

Mr. ENGEL. The gentleman is absolutely right. We welcome testimony, written testimony and people testifying, from seniors in all walks of life, because we think it is very, very important to hear all points of view. Again, if the Republicans absolutely insist on ramming whatever they want to ram through, they have the votes in this Congress, but it ought not to be done under the secrecy of darkness. It ought to be done after we have an open and full hearing and the American people understand what is about to happen to them in Medicare.

Mr. ENGEL. Constituents can absolutely write to their Member of Congress, be it Democratic or Republican, and let us know what you feel, let us know what you think is happening to Medicare. I would hope that some of our colleagues would, and I know I plan to do it in my district in the Bronx, NY, and Westchester, NY, to have hearings in my district, have open forums in my district, so I can hear from the rank and file, from my constituents, who will be most affected by whatever Congress does on Medicare. I want to hear from them, what Medicare means to them, how important it is, not only not to cut Medicare, but to expand services. I want to see prescription drugs, for instance, expanded. I want seniors to be able to get prescription drugs. There was one very interesting point. The Republicans have said that they want to balance the budget and they do not intend to touch Social Security. Well, for my senior citizens, if you do not touch Social Security, but you touch Medicare, it is the same darn thing, because senior citizens rely on Medicare as much as they rely on Social Security. So it is an absolute fraud to say we are not going to touch Social Security, when at the same time you are devastating Medicare.

Mr. ENGEL. We have all these good Texans here. It is nice to join with them. We can bring New York and Texas a little closer together.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of heartfelt discussion, debate tonight, and I do not think that either side should question anybody's motives. Let me just say that I supported the embargo against apartheid, racist South Africa. I support the embargo against the Serbian regime. I support the embargo against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, an embargo in Iran, and I support the embargo against Castro's Cuba because I think that embargoes have been and can be effective tools in bringing down governments. Castro has been in power a long, long time. Here it is 35 years later. He shows no signs of change, no signs of instituting political pluralism, no signs of instituting democracy. Why would we want to prop up an aging dictator in his waning years? I am opposed to dictatorships. Frankly, I do not care if they are right-wing or left- wing. If they do not give people the ability to express themselves politically, if they do not have a free-market economy, if they do not have a semblance of political pluralism, I do not want to apologize for them. This bill attempts to deny Castro foreign capital. Is it a perfect bill? I have not seen any perfect legislation in the 7 years that I have been here, but it is an attempt to deny him the capital to help bring down his regime. Will it work? Time will tell. But I think this country ought to be on the side of trying to bring down his regime. I think this bill takes a step in that direction. Here it is 1995. Castro brings people to the island and he shows them around and tells people how wonderful it is. But the fact of the matter is he is dealing much the same way he dealt throughout the 1960's and 1970's and 1980's. At a time when other countries have thrown off the yoke of oppression, Castro still has a noose around his people's neck. Some people will argue that the American embargo has not worked all these years, so why would a tighter, more difficult embargo work now? The fact is that for years Castro had the Soviet Union prop him up and infuse capital into his country. The Soviet Union is gone now. There is no one to prop him up anymore. He is exposed for the world to see, and he is hurting. I think that is what makes the difference. I think that is what will lead to the toppling of his regime. I think this act is something that ought to be voted upon. I think that Castro has to go. Why does he not just go and let his people have democracy and then there would be no need for this kind of bill? He will not do it because he cares about his regime. He cares about outdated ideas. The poor Cuban people have to suffer as a result. I think we should have a bipartisan vote for this bill, and I support it.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Green amendment. I have many reservations about the bill, and this amendment addresses one of my chief concerns. I do understand and agree with many of the points in support of the bill. The CAREERS bill does eliminate much of the overlap that exists in many Federal education and training programs. I am pleased that some effort is being made to correct the problems that exist. However, I feel that the negatives of this bill outweigh the positives, and would end up damaging the system that is in effect, rather than fixing it. Unless changes such as the amendment of the gentleman from Texas approved, it would be very difficult for me to support the bill. This bill goes too far, I believe, in addressing problems that need to be corrected. Instead of dealing with overlap and waste, the CAREERS bill virtually guts the job training system for one that has little accountability and not enough safeguards for those who need these programs to improve their lives. I did not have the chance to speak on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] earlier, but I would like to take a while to comment on it here. As this bill is written, the Governors would have the chief authority to monitor funds provided by the Federal Government. The authors of the bill claim this will cut bureaucracy. However, instead of cutting bureaucracy, I believe this bill would actually increase it on the State level. In my State of New York, the bill would impose a dual system of services for recipients. Currently a State system has been established through the provisions of the State constitution and statutes promulgated by the State legislature. This system administers both State and Federal funding. However, the CAREERS bill will set up a separate system to monitor the Federal funding, to be administered by the Governor. Instead of improving services for New York recipients, this legislation will now install two levels of bureaucracy, making it more difficult to receive the same services. This is not the direction that this bill should be taking. The proposal to change the way the vocational rehabilitation system is structured is totally unacceptable to me as currently written. The bill would limit State flexibility and create uneven access to services to those that are truly needy. I am concerned that the specialized services that the people who depend on these programs require could be sacrificed in order to satisfy the financial requirements of the bill. Consolidating the specialized programs under this system with generic work force preparation activities could jeopardize the recipients of vocational rehabilitation services. Populations such as the blind and disabled need our full attention and must not be shortchanged. The current system is fully supported by the disability community and is kept intact in the Senate bill. We must strike title V from this bill so that we can continue to help those who most need it. In the fervor to allegedly cut bureaucracy through the use of large block grants, we may just be creating new problems without taking care of the needs of the recipients. Mr. Chairman, this bill has many flaws. It is underfunded, it has far too much consolidation, and it severely and adversely changes the vocational rehabilitation system. This amendment can at least save the vocational rehabilitation system so that our recipients can be properly served. We are already cutting too much from the recipients. Let us not limit their access any further. I want to conclude by saying what I have said many times in the past. I do not believe that block grants are a panacea to the needs of the States. They only work if they are fully funded, and this bill cuts a great deal. I have grave reservations but believe that by supporting the gentleman's amendment, this bill will then go in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, who correctly points out that the National Association of Governors, the bipartisan group of Governors, not only supports this bill, but supports the Green amendment to this bill.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Missouri for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman let me say I rise to say that I have some reservations about this bill, and I am going to be listening to the debate today and listening to the amendments that are put forward to ultimately decide how I vote. But let me say I have very strong reservations about the bill. First of all, youth development and adult employment block grants are funded at a 20-percent level below the appropriation of last year, for the programs being consolidated. The adult education block granted is funded 10 percent below last year's level. Let me say, as I have mentioned many, many times in our committee, my reservation about the whole block grant system. Because I was a State legislator for 12 years before coming to Congress, and when we first heard about block grants, we thought it was a panacea. But we soon learned, very sadly, that it was not. Block grants only work when they are fully funded. If they are not fully funded, all the States are deciding, all the Governors are deciding, is where to spread the pain, what programs to cut. To me, that does not seem like much progress at all. The State education department of New York sent me a letter. Let me just read one paragraph. They said: Allowing transfer of funds between block grants, as this bill provides, could result in an additional loss of services to program recipients and unpredictability in funding that disrupts local program planning. We anticipate that Federal funding for work force development programs will be reduced in the coming fiscal year as a result of deficit reduction efforts. Transferability of funds will only exacerbate anticipated uncertainty and cause burdensome fluctuations in services among already underserved groups. Let me talk about some of the reservations I have. The CAREERS bill helps to eliminate overlap in Federal education and job training programs, but I believe it goes too far. It consolidates 80 programs into four block grants, too much discretion as far as I am concerned for the States to administer such important programs that people depend on. In a crunch, when Governors are looking to save money and cutting budgets, who is going to be hurt by this? Second, the ability of the Governor to transfer 10 percent of the funds from one title of the bill to the other does not help to ensure, in my opinion, that those who need the funds will actually receive it. The Governor will have chief authority to administer the funds. He could move the funds elsewhere, rather than directing them toward these programs. Also, instead of cutting bureaucracy, I believe it instead creates new levels of State bureaucracy by giving the Governors full discretion to administer Federal funds while bypassing the State legislatures. In my State of New York, we already have a State funded system of vocational and adult education created through a State constitution and promulgated by the State legislature. The State system also administers the Federal funding received for these programs. The CAREERS bill will allow the Governor to administer the Federal funds, thereby in our State creating two bureaucracies in New York, rather than one administrator. Also, as many of my colleagues have mentioned before, in this bill the vocational rehabilitation section of this bill as it now stands is totally unacceptable. The bill would limit State flexibility and create uneven access to services to those who are the truly needy. Populations such as the blind and disabled need our full attention and must not be shortchanged. I am hoping in the amendment process we can improve the bill. The current system that we have is fully supported by the disability community and is kept intact in the Senate bill. Let me say after saying all of that, though, I believe that this bill is far preferable to the bill being worked on in the Committee on Ways and Means. So again I would hope by the end of the day we will have some amendments, we will have some agreements, and have some changes. But right now I do believe that the bill is seriously flawed.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, just this past weekend, the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], made some very hurtful and intemperate remarks about New York, New York City and New York State, for which he has apologized, but frankly the hurt is still there. The Speaker said that New York was ``a culture of waste for which they expect us to send a check and that this country is not going to bail out habits that have made New York so extraordinarily expensive.'' I want to say to the Speaker that New York City and New York State for many, many years has been sending the Federal Government much more than it is getting back; in fact, to the tune of $9 billion. New York sends and New York State sends to the Government much more than it gets back. The State of Georgia, quite frankly, sends $1 billion less than it gets, $1 billion less than it gets. So Georgia is a net gain in terms of Federal largess and New York is a net loser. In fact, in the Speaker's district, that district has received more pork frankly than any other district. Let me just say we should be very careful before we make such hurtful statements, and let me say the Speaker is now in New York raising money. If he detests us so, he ought not to do that, and I hope his budget would change and that New York would get some more help.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 42, which calls for the demilitarization of the island of Cyprus. This important resolution was approved by the International Relations Committee on July 19, 1995, by a vote of 24 to 6 and has now garnered almost 90 cosponsors. As my colleagues are aware, more than one-third of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus remains under foreign occupation by over 30,000 heavily armed troops. At the same time, a continuing arms buildup on the island is increasingly a matter of serious concern. I strongly believe that demilitarizing Cyprus would lessen tensions in the region, meet the security concerns of all parties, and, thereby, help to promote a settlement of the longstanding dispute. For over 20 years, the Cyprus problem has remained unresolved, despite continued attempts by the United States Government and the United Nations. Earlier this year, President Clinton appointed a special envoy for Cyprus and sent Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke to the region in search of a solution. Their efforts were well intentioned, but have been unable as yet to break the deadlock. A fresh approach is necessary to bridge the gap between the parties. Last year, President Glafcos Clerides of Cyprus unveiled a balanced proposal for the complete demilitarization of the island, which has been well received in the United States and Europe. It is our hope that endorsement of this notion by the Congress will help the parties build a climate within which negotiations can succeed. A bipartisan group of almost 90 Members of Congress has joined as cosponsors of this legislation, including large majorities of Republicans and Democrats on the International Relations Committee. I would particularly like to thank Rep. Ben Gilman, chairman of the International Relations Committee, and Rep. Lee Hamilton, ranking Democrat on the committee, for their support of House Concurrent Resolution 42. I would also like to express my appreciation to Rep. John Porter, original Republican cosponsor of the legislation, for his support and cooperation as we sought to move the resolution forward. Having passed the 21st anniversary of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, I urge the House to pass House Concurrent Resolution 42 and take this moderate, yet forward-looking step to promote a resolution of the longstanding conflict on Cyprus.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say that our colleague from the other side of the aisle referred to those of us who oppose this legislation as being in favor of Socialism 101. Let me say that I think what we are hearing from much of the other side of the aisle, frankly, is Mean Spiritedness 101. Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing this all Congress and I am sorry to say that this just seems to be part of the pattern on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. We have seen an anti-working people, anti-labor agenda from day one, from the start of this new Congress, from eliminating the word ``Labor'' from the old Committee on Education and Labor to refusing to consider a hike in the minimum wage, talking in fact about eliminating the minimum wage, talking about eliminating Davis-Bacon to protect working people, giving them a prevailing wage that has been in effect 60 years, was put in by Republicans 60 years ago, and now this new Congress wants to eliminate it. They want to eliminate OSHA protections for working people in this country to make sure that American workers have safety in the workplace. They want to eliminate those regulations. We just passed legislation slashing the National Labor Relations Board, which monitors unfair labor practices. They want to eliminate that. So this does not surprise me. This is a pattern on the Republican side of being against working men and women of America, quite frankly. While I have a lot of affection for some of the individuals who are sincerely pushing this bill, I think they are dead wrong on this bill. This so-called Pension protection Act is a contradiction in terms. It certainly does not protect pensions and it is bad legislation, and it would wreak havoc in Federal pension policy. H.R. 1594 is a partisan bill. It is in search of a problem, and I think it should be soundly defeated. I do not know what it is. Perhaps it is an effort by our friends on the other side of the aisle to provide cover for their efforts to slash Medicare, but they have seized an opportunity to accuse the Clinton administration of an alleged pension grab. As far as I am concerned, they are baseless efforts. It is sad, and it is an upsetting departure from the bipartisanship that has traditionally prevailed on pension issues. The collateral benefits of ETI's play a key role in stimulating local economic growth and stability and help to strengthen communities. Through ETI's, jobs are created, affordable housing is built for low and moderate income families, and infrastructure is modernized. ETI's benefit society without adversely affecting the rates of risk and return of private pension plans. Now this policy, as has been mentioned by many of our colleagues, has enjoyed nearly unanimous support since the Reagan administration. The Labor Department under the Bush administration stated that ETI's, which target the local economy, are beneficial and should be preserved. So you have the Reagan administration supporting this, the Bush administration supporting this, and now that the Clinton administration supports it, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle see a golden opportunity to bash the President. This is a continuation of policies that have prevailed on both Democratic and Republican administrations. So as far as I am concerned, it is a continuation, an it ought to be continued, because it is beneficial. Now, some of my friends want to turn back this progress and instead create chaos in the pension community. This bill would only lead to confusion in the law and excess money spent on needless litigation rather than benefits. Responsible pension fund managers who make sound investments with apparently forbidden collateral benefits could now be liable if this bill passes. The fear of litigation would also make it safer for a pension manager to select investments in foreign countries [[Page H 8751]] rather than in the United States. The percentage of foreign investments by U.S. pension funds has steadily increased over the last 6 years. If this trend continues, more American jobs will be lost. This bill will result in pension fund managers choosing foreign investments instead of domestic investments. Domestic investments create American jobs, and we would avoid any implication that the collateral benefits of the investment were even considered. At a time when we should be creating jobs and improving the standards of the American workers, our Republican friends have decided to engage in pure politics in the consideration of this bill. Accusing the administration of stealing pension funds from workers is not only false, it is downright irresponsible. It is obvious from the introduction of this that our friends on the other side of the aisle are far more concerned with bashing Democrats and the President than promoting policy that is beneficial. The Secretary of Labor has stated that this bill would have a significant adverse effect on America's private sector funds, investments that are critical to the retirement income security of workers and retirees. So I do not think we ought to threaten private pension funds. Instead of focusing on the security, health and welfare of working Americans, our friends have decided to eliminate ETI's, cut Medicare, cut education and training programs in order to play politics. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the so-called Pension Protection Act so that we can truly help the American worker.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro amendment and opposition to the Dornan amendment. This is a very sensitive question and I certainly respect both sides. My wife and I would not choose abortion for our family. We just had a baby. My wife gave birth at age 41, but I wanted to say something. People who are opposed to abortion do not have a right, in my opinion, to force their beliefs on everybody else. Mr. Chairman, the thing about the United States is that people have individual rights and individual freedoms. If you do not believe in abortion, then it is your right not to have one. Women in the military ought to be treated like every other citizen. They ought to have the freedom to choose.