Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this bill as is. What really annoys me about it is the attitude that the other side of the aisle seems to have, that government is bad and somehow we all ought to apologize for what we do here; that we need to engage in self- flagellation all the time to eliminate things because we are supposedly living high off the hog here. The fact of the matter is that 99 percent of the Members that I know on both sides of the aisle work very, very hard here and use the resources that we are given. If we do not begin to have respect for ourselves or respect for this institution, frankly no one is going to have respect for us at all. And for good cause. Yes, let us cut waste. Let us cut the things that do not work. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. Eliminating OTA? Give me a break. That is one of the things that has worked. It is one of the things that has been good. We have 581,000 people in my district. New York has 581,000 people in all the districts. We need to communicate with our constituents. I do not see why eliminating the folding room or cutting printing helps anybody. I do not see where it makes government more efficient, just so we can go back to our constituents and say look at what we have done, we have cut all of these wonderful things. Let us cut where it makes sense, but not just to cut to throw the baby out with the bath water. The flag program, my constituents like that program and if we are subsidizing it at $300,000 a year, let us just raise the price of the flags. Why do we have to eliminate it or transfer it to another agency? Transferring or shifting things to other departments is a phony savings. It is a phony cost savings. We are not saving money; we are just shifting the costs and claiming that we are saving money. Privatization, I do not think privatization as an end in itself is something that is so terrific. If it makes sense, let us do it. But if there are functions here that we do in terms of legislative offices like printing and like folding, to me it makes sense to do it in-house. And firing employees, well, let us fire where we need to fire. But just to throw people out on the street and pretend that we are doing all of these great things, I do not see it at all. This rule blocks most of the amendments filed at the Committee on Rules, including the gift-ban amendment, amendments to abolish two joint committees, and the lockbox amendment. The bill eliminates funding for the Office of Technology Assessment for the first time since 1972. The bill prohibits the Joint Committee on Taxation from reviewing tax refunds of a million dollars or more to determine if they are in compliance with tax laws. Give me a break. Let us cut where cutting is necessary, but let us not do this thing with a meat cleaver and pretend that we are somehow doing wonderful things for the American people. I make no excuses for government. I think government is necessary to help people. I do not want to eliminate it. Downsize it, yes. But downsize it where it is important, not just so we can go home and say how wonderful we are.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in commemoration of the fifth annual Day of the African Child. It was 19 years ago on this date that a massacre of schoolchildren took place in the town of Soweto, South Africa. Starting in 1991, the Day of the African Child has served as an annual awareness day, alerting the entire world of the continued progress and the daily plight of children throughout the African continent. This year's campaign is particularly special because we explore the challenges and celebrate the progress encountered by children in armed conflict. It is chilling to realize that according to a recent study commissioned by UNICEF 75 percent of children interviewed in Rwanda had witnessed mass killings in multiple areas. Equally shocking is the reality that boys as young as 11 years old are being recruited to serve in the armed forces of Africa's war-town countries. The Day of the African Child is not just a time to recognize hardship but also an opportunity to dispel fallacy. It is important to realize that the continent of Africa is not a land of conflict-laden countries destined for decay and destruction. It is a place of potential growth and change, hope and progress. Just in the last 35 years, the infant mortality rate has been cut in half and the average life expectancy in Africa has jumped 13 years to the age of 54. Over 80 percent of children living in urban areas have access to safe drinking water and African governments have provided safe drinking water and adequate sanitation to an additional 120 million people during the 1980's alone. In the area of education, over two-thirds of school age girls are enrolled in primary school. That's 25 percent more than in the 1970's. While these advances are impressive they also vividly illuminate the daunting reality; African children have yet to even approach the basic humanitarian standards enjoyed by their counterparts in industrial nations. It is for this reason that we observe the Day of the African Child. And it is for this very reason that today and every June 16 we must remember not forget, recognize not sidestep, and reinvigorate not doom the plight and the promise of the children of Africa.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this is a very sensitive debate. I respect the positions of people on both sides. But I would say to the trying to impose your morals on everyone else. All we are saying is that each woman should be allowed to decide for herself. If she does not want to have an abortion, she does not have to have one. If she wants to have an abortion, then she ought to be entitled to the same things that all other American women are entitled to, that is, the right to choose. Lipsosuction, tummy tuck, a nose job? Give me a break. How can you compare that, in all seriousness, to abortion? People ought to have the right to choose. Let them make the decisions for themselves. No public money is being used. No taxpayer dollars are being used. Give women in the military the same choice as other women. The people who talk about killing, have they ever voted for the death penalty? Let's stop the hypocrisy and let people have the right to choose for themselves.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, we are actually debating three amendments, and I would like to speak on all three. First of all, with regard to the Burton amendment to cut AID, I strongly, strongly oppose it. Cutting AID any further, and we are cutting it enough in this bill, would in my opinion render AID much less effective. It would be simply a matter of being penny wise and pound foolish. If we are going to lead in the world, then we have to have a strong AID program. So I oppose the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. The chairman's amendment, the manager's amendment, I oppose that as well, primarily because in the amendment we are withdrawing from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Let me tell Members what that means. I want to read the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] with regard to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It says the act entitled An Act to Authorize Participation by the United States in the Inter-Parliamentary Union approved June 28, 1935 is repealed. Now, we have participated in the Inter-Parliamentary Union for 60 years. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is a group of parliaments from all over the world, 135 countries, which get together to discuss parliamentary democracy and other concerns around the world. Is this the time that we ought to be withdrawing from such an organization? To me, as so much else in this bill, this amendment is yet another indication of the dangerous and growing isolationist wave engulfing the Republican Party. The United States is the leader of the Free World and we ought to lead. The IPU is the only global international parliamentary organization to which the U.S. Congress belongs. We have forums who meet on NATO and CSCE, colleagues, but the IPU is the only parliamentary organization in which we have a chance to meet with members of the Middle East, including Israel, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And like most international parliamentary organizations, the great utility of the IPU lies not in its resolutions or debates but in the forum it provides for Members of Congress to interact and make direct contacts with [[Page H5720]] prominent parliamentarians from around the world. From personal experience, I have been to IPU meetings, and what we get in interchange of ideas and talking is certainly an enhancement of democracy. This summer the United Nations is celebrating its 50th anniversary, and in New York City there will be commemorations and celebrations, and the IPU is taking the lead. Is this the year the United States ought to withdraw from the Inter-Parliamentary Union when we are celebrating our own country, the establishment of the United Nations and the establishment of the victory in World War II over fascism and the establishment of democracy, when countries are knocking down the door to try to be more democratic and emulate the United States? We are going to withdraw from the world. We are going to pull away. I can think of nothing that is really more ridiculous. One hundred thirty-five countries participate. The United States is now going to join Upper Volta or some other country in not participating. We really ought to wake up. It may sound good but it is not something that is in the best interests of this country. So I am opposed to the chairman's, the manager's amendment. I want to speak briefly on the Hoyer amendment and Bosnia. There are some of us who for the past 3 years have been arguing for a lifting of the arms embargo. Every time we get to the floor and we are able to bring forward some kind of resolution, we are always hearing the argument that we should not get involved. What has happened every time we plead? A year passes by, months pass by, more people are killed, more people are raped, more injustice has been heaped upon genocide, heaped upon a people. And yet the world wrings its hands. In my opinion, we ought to get the British and the French and everybody else out of there and let the Bosnians defend themselves. That is all they are asking. They are asking not for American troops. They are asking for the arms to defend themselves. How can we just sit by and allow genocide to happen again on the continent of Europe? I do not understand it. Diplomatic niceties are passed; 3 years ago, they passed. We said this 3 years, 2 years ago, last year and now, and nothing has happened. And if the events of the past several weeks have taught us nothing, I do not know how we ever learned from history. The Serbs are arrogant. They thumb their nose; they care not about what the international community thinks. They have made a shambles out of NATO. They have made us look like fools. They have made our allies look like fools. Yet we stand by and say, no, no, no, we do not want to give the Bosnian Moslems a chance to defend themselves. Is it because they are Moslems? They are people. Give them the chance to defend themselves. That is all they are asking, and I commend the gentleman from Maryland for his amendment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the chairman.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the chairman, with the big events in Bosnia this past week, we are dealing with a very, very important foreign aid bill. I know that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has an amendment which I am sure the American people would like to see debated. I just find it incongruous that we are being denied, for whatever reason; I am not blaming anyone, but the way it is working out, it seems that Mr. Hoyer will not be allowed to put forth his amendment which would call for an end to the arms embargo. I think this is a very, very important vote on a very important amendment at a very important time. I am wondering if I could somehow or other ask unanimous consent or ask the chairman if we can somehow get some time to debate Mr. Hoyer's amendment because I think the American people want to see us debate it and it is too important to just push it to the side.

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] are saying that what his amendment would essentially do is gut the bill. I say that unless we have the Ackerman amendment, we are gutting America's role in the world. I said it before, and I will say it again. Did we spend billions upon billions of dollars to fight and win the cold war, only to throw it away after we are successful? American foreign aid, only 1 percent of the budget, has worked. The people pushing this bill--and I oppose the bill because I think the bill is an isolationist bill; I think the President is exactly right on that--the people pushing this bill are saying that consolidation of AID, ACDA, and USIA would be a good thing. Well, how do we know? I say to my colleagues, ``If you are for the Contract for America, then you ought to be for this amendment. All we are saying is do a cost-benefit analysis, see if indeed there will be savings, and then make an intelligent judgment after we see what the cost-benefit analysis says.'' Voting this way is buying a pig in a poke. We do not know if it is going to save money. In fact, many of us believe it will lose money. We do not know if it is going to be more effective. In fact, many of us believe it will be less effective. I like AID, ACDA, and USIA as independent. Do we really want them rolled into the State Department? They have different roles. Do we really want them under the thumb of the State Department? I do not. I say to my colleagues, ``The only plausible reason you can make to consolidate is if it saves money, and, my colleagues, if it doesn't save money, then what are we doing this for?'' So all my colleague from New York is saying is, ``Let's do a cost- benefit analysis, which my friends on the other side of the aisle often talk about the cost, they often talk about wasteful government programs, they often talk about downsizing and consolidating if it saves money, but if it doesn't save money, what are you doing? You are shifting the bureaucracy from one part to the next, and you're probably making for a less efficient agency.'' So again, whether my colleagues are for this consolidation or whether they are not, and I am not, what detriment can a cost-benefit analysis do. If it, indeed, saves money, it would seem to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle would have something to bolster their argument to consolidate, and, if it loses money, I would think a lot of people on both sides of the aisle would not want to vote for it anyway. So let us stop having our heads in the sand. Let us stop having the fervor of consolidation and downsizing only. Let us do something that makes sense. Where there is fat, let us cut it out. If it makes sense to consolidate, let us consolidate, and, above all, let us look at the cost. A cost-benefit analysis is right for America. Again I say to my colleagues, ``If you supported the Contract, you should be for this. Everybody ought to be for this on both sides of the aisle, so I urge my colleagues to support the Ackerman amendment.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on May 31, 1995, Mr. John Morley will be retiring after 51 years of dedicated service to millions of baseball, football, hockey, basketball, racing, and soccer fans, as well as concert-goers, circus fans, and many others in stadiums, arenas, parks, and zoos across the country. Mr. Morley will be retiring from his position as the vice president of operations for Harry M. Stevens, Inc., now a member of the Aramark family of companies. At Harry M. Stevens he has been a leader of the team that provides food, beverages, souvenirs, and service to Presidents and Popes, athletes and actors, musicians and many more. Mr. Morley began his career vending hot dogs at Yankee Stadium, and then moved on to be a steward in Washington. He later moved back to New York as a manager, and then on to Kentucky for the Derby. As the Mets began playing in Shea Stadium, Mr. Morley returned to New York in order to serve as general manager of the stadium. While in New York he also worked in Nassau Coliseum after the Islanders were established. Throughout his career he has set the highest standards of service to American fans at thousands of games and events including several World Series, Super Bowls, Stanley Cups, Kentucky Derbies, and many concert tours from the Beatle's first stadium appearance in the United States to the Who's farewell tour. John Morley's professional life has been characterized by a commitment to excellence, a commitment to respect for fellow employees, and a commitment to making the best possible experience for the fans. His commitment to the fans is reflected in the smiling faces of children enjoying that first ballpark hot dog or wearing their teams's hat; his commitment to employee excellence is demonstrated by the tens of thousands of men and women whose working careers began in a stadium, many of whom have chosen careers staying in the service sector and many of whom have chosen to use the experience as a foundation for other industries; his commitment to the fan experience is reflected in the many new services, menu items and quality programs that enable fans to maximize their entertainment experience. Mr. Morley will be missed by all those he has served and especially by those with whom he has worked. His commitment to excellence will continue through the legacy he has left after half a century of service to sports fans and music lovers.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, last November he was my colleague, along with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Jefferson] on a trip to West Africa. We visited five countries in West Africa, and it was just unbelievable. These countries, many of which were leaning toward the Soviet bloc during the 1960's, are now looking to the United States for aid and help. I said it the other day. I will say it again now. My colleagues, did we win the cold war to just throw it all away? A little bit of U.S. money goes such a long way, No. 1, in helping democracy take root in these countries; No. 2, in making these countries effective as a trading partner with the United States; No. 3, in ensuring that these countries will continue to have friendly relations with the United States; and, No. 4, in ensuring that the United States will have influence in these countries. The other side talks a lot about free market economies and business and whatever. I can think of no better way to spend our money than in these emerging African nations which will develop free market economies which will be good trading partners with the United States with just a little bit of help from us. It makes no sense for me, and that is why I have problems with this bill. This is essentially an isolationist bill. We are retreating from our traditional role in the world. I know some people I do not think we can, either, but we certainly can help with technology. We certainly can help democracy take root. My colleagues, it is to our benefit, it is to America's benefit. Seventy-five percent of all foreign aid moneys are spent right back in this country, stimulating our economy, helping us by creating jobs. One percent of our budget, that is all foreign aid is, and all we hear is cut, cut. It makes no sense whatsoever. I am on the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations. I want to be on that subcommittee because I want to be part of a generation of Americans that does something for this continent, that shows a partnership with the countries of Africa. I can think of no more important place whereby America can establish democracy in these emerging republics. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment to restore funding for the Development Fund for Africa to current levels. If I had my druthers, we would do even more. I hope my colleagues support this amendment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak out very vociferously against these amendments, which I think are ill-timed and, frankly, poorly thought out. The bill in my opinion devastates American programs abroad. The United States is not only the leader of the free world, but the leader of the world, and what are we doing in this bill? We are stepping back and taking back our leadership, and we are saying to other countries, ``We really don't care what goes on.'' Mr. Chairman, these amendments would make the bill even worse by further cutting back. I know it may be good politics to say to the folks back home, ``Gee, I'm cutting back on this unpopular foreign aid program.'' But in reality I think it does our Government a great disservice and it does our country a great disservice. Foreign policy for years has always been bipartisan. That has been the strength, in my opinion, of American foreign policy. During the Persian Gulf war I was one of a handful of Democrats to break with my party and supported President Bush in sending troops to the Persian Gulf. I did so not because the President was a Republican and I was a Democrat. I did so because he was the President and I felt that what he was saying was right. It was being conducted in the best way in terms of bipartisan foreign policy. In my opinion this bill is not and these amendments are not even more so. We traveled, some of us, to foreign countries, or we meet some people, foreign dignitaries, here in Washington. Last November a group of us on the Subcommittee on Africa visited West Africa, met with officials, leaders, of five countries. They pleaded with us for American assistance and helping democracy take root, and we are not talking about large sums of money here. A little bit of money goes such a long way. We defeated the Soviet Union in the cold war, and now are we going to throw it all away? Are we going to say that we do not care if these countries all across the Earth have democratic values or democracy in governments or parliamentary governments? Are we now going to say we do not care? That is the effect of the cuts in this bill. I just think it is a terrible, terrible thing to want to get up and say well, let us cut it all back, let us not even have any more. It may play great again to the folks back home, but in reality I believe it is one of the most destructive things that we in Congress could do. Let us look at the effect of this. The effect of this proposal, cutting $227 in fiscal year 1996 and $625 million in fiscal year 1997 from the President's request, on top of the committee cut of $38 million, will absolutely devastate the Department's ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy. Four years of steep cost cutting has left the State Department where nearly all the funding is spent just to support basic operations. An additional reduction in 1996 alone would shut down 160 overseas posts and radically reduce presence at those remaining U.S. missions. It would close half of the domestic passport agencies. It would eliminate 5,700 positions, including 3,500 Americans. It would stop plant infrastructure investments that are essential to restructuring and streamlining both overseas and headquarters operations. Are we to strip ourselves so bare that we can no longer effectively carry on foreign policy? Are we going to strip ourselves so bare we are now going to say America does not care what goes on in the rest of the world? Surely what happens in this ever-shrinking globe will affect us here back home. So I would urge defeat of these amendments. I think they are very, very shortsighted, and very, very destructive. I also do not think it is right to keep beating up on Federal workers, frankly, as the majority here, the Republicans, have been doing all session long. People are working hard at their jobs. They earn their money. They work hard. They took employment with the Federal Government knowing what the benefits were. For us now to simply cut them I think is absolutely ridiculous, unfair, demoralizing, and not something that ought to be done. Again, foreign policy ought to be bipartisan. People who say that America is the strength of the world ought to put their money where their mouth is or else there is no way we can conduct foreign policy. Foreign aid is 1 percent of the budget of the United States; 1 percent. It is the lowest in terms of gross domestic product of any democracy in the West. We are something like 25th. We are behind a country like Ireland and all the Western democracies in terms of what we contribute in gross domestic product for foreign aid. This is shameful for us to think that we can cut it even further. I urge my colleagues to defeat these amendments. They are terrible for America and ill-thought. modification offered by mr. funderburk to the amendment offered by mr. funderburk to the amendment offered by mr. brownback

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of good things in this bill, but there are also a lot of very troubling things in this bill. I want to commend the chairman of the Committee for inserting a number of good things. We have principles involving the MacBride principles with regard to Ireland. There is good language in there involving Kosovo, the people of Kosovo. Of course, aid to Israel and to Egypt is maintained. However, there is a very, very troubling aspect of this bill. That is the underlying thought that somehow or other foreign aid needs to be drastically reduced. In fact, in this bill, foreign aid is cut to an unprecedented low level. A very interesting poll appeared a couple of weeks ago in the New York Times, when the American public was asked ``Do you think that the United States gives too much in foreign aid, too little, or just about right?'' Overwhelmingly, people said ``Too much.'' Then the question was asked ``How much of the U.S. budget is foreign aid?'' The consensus was generally 15 percent. People thought 15 percent of our budget was foreign aid. Then the question was asked ``What do you think is a good percentage of the American budget that should be used for foreign aid?'' The consensus was 5 percent. Then the respondents were told the truth, that foreign aid is barely 1 percent of the American budget. Mr. Chairman, the Soviet Union has collapsed and the United States is the leader of the world, unquestionably. Is this now the time to recoil, to hide our heads in the sand, and to move towards what I regard to be a dangerous isolationism? No matter how we cut it, we are retreating in this bill. We are cutting back on foreign aid, we are cutting back on helping other nations. Many of us speak with leaders of other countries, fragile democracies where democracy is just taking root, countries that were Communist governments just a few years ago. They plead with us, a little bit of American aid would go such a long way towards ensuring that democracy would take root and stabilize in these small countries. Have we won the cold war, only to throw it all away? That is what I think this bill does in terms of foreign aid. While the bill protects foreign aid for Israel and Egypt, it shrinks foreign aid for just about everyone else, so Israel and Egypt are a larger portion of the foreign aid pot. It is only a matter of time, given the thought of this bill, that Israel and Egypt will be cut, because that is the trend that the Republican majority is moving toward. I think it is a dangerous trend. Mr. Chairman, we talked about consolidating AID, USIA, and ACTA, into the State Department. That will not save us any money. Mr. Chairman, that is not going to save any money. In my opinion, it is going to be less efficient and very much troublesome. The President has said that if this bill passes, he is going to veto it. I think we all ought to put our heads together, do something that makes sense, reassert America's leadership in the world, and put something together that says America is not recoiling from the world but indeed America is acting like the world power that it is.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Owens-Payne substitute.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, just before the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle] spoke, and in 1991 he came here to the floor of the House with a bag on his head, and now he has showed he is a very good stand-up comic, but unfortunately the Republican plan is not very comical. In fact it is downright tragic, and the fact of the matter is that Medicare and Medicaid cuts count for nearly one-third of the savings in this bill. The bottom line is not how much money each State gets and the fact they might be an increase or a decrease. The bottom line is by the year 2002, Mr. Chairman, seniors in the United States will be getting less health care coverage and will be paying more in 2002. That is a fact. The fact of the matter is that any kind of increase does not make up for the fact that there will be more seniors in the program and does not make up for the rate of inflation. So who is kidding who? A 25-percent cut in the Medicare Program by the year 2002 means to the seniors in America fewer benefits, much higher out-of-pocket costs for seniors and less choice of doctors, forcing seniors into HMO's. Mr. Chairman, my mother who lives in south Florida is a good case in point, is petrified about having to be forced into an HMO. She lives off meager Social Security. There has been no pension since my dad died, and there have been millions and millions of senior citizens just like her, people who spent $300 and more a month on prescription drugs and get no help from the Medicare Program. What are these people supposed to do by the year 2002? Choose between food or choose between staying alive with medication? The fact of the matter is that we are reducing this program, and seniors will have worse health care in this country. And Social Security? The Republicans are cutting Social Security by $24 billion between 1999 and 2002 due to the cost of living changes. So this is not very funny. This is life and death to most people.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the New York Public Library, one of the Nation's most treasured cultural institutions, and the only library in the world combining a preeminent research collection and a comprehensive system of neighborhood branch libraries, is celebrating its 100th birthday. For 100 years, the New York Public Library has been a cornerstone of equal opportunity by providing free and open access to information without distinction based upon income, religion, nationality, or other human condition. The only criterion for admission is curiosity. Through the 82 branch libraries and 4 research centers, the Library serves more than 10 million people each year. The research libraries, which include the Center for the Humanities, the Schomberg Center for Research in Black Culture, the Library for the Performing Arts, and the soon-to-be-opened Science, Industry, and Business Library, contain vast treasures which provide researchers, scholars, and students access to the accumulated wisdom of the world. However, it is the neighborhood branches that are the cornerstone of many New York City neighborhoods. They provide a safe and inviting gathering place for the young, the elderly, and, in fact, for everyone to learn and enrich their lives. The branch libraries reach far beyond the traditional lending role usually associated with neighborhood libraries. The many branch libraries that are located in my congressional district play an extremely important role in the education and socialization of the residents of Bronx County. I join with my constituents in recognizing the New York Public Library on the 100th anniversary of its founding.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, this year, one of the leading religious institutions in my district, Temple Beth-El of Co-Op City is celebrating its silver anniversary. Temple Beth-El is one of the original religious institutions opened when Co-Op City was established over a quarter of a century ago. But, this temple takes its mission a step further. Its officers and members work not only on the religious needs of the community, but are active participants in the social and civic fabric of Co-Op City. They are to be commended for their work. I join with all the residents of Co-Op City in wishing Temple Beth-El a very happy 25th birthday.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, 1995 makes two major milestones in the life of Msgr. John Doherty. On January 27, he celebrated his 15th anniversary in the priesthood and on June 25, he will celebrate his farewell mass at Saint Gabriel's Parish, located in my congressional district. What stands out most about Monsignor Doherty is not only his commitment to his faith but his commitment to his community. The Monsignor was a founding member and for 14 years, a member of the board of directors of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, a neighborhood activist group, credited with the rehabilitation of the Bronx, restoring financial reinvestment by banks and insurance companies and the rebuilding of scores of homes and apartment houses in the north Bronx. Monsignor Doherty has been the recipient of the Riverdalian of the Year award from the Riverdale Community Council, the Good Neighbor Award from Neighborhood House as well as numerous citations from the New York State Legislature and the New York City Council. Monsignor Doherty also honored us by offering the opening prayer for a session of the U.S. House of Representatives. I join with the people of the Bronx in honoring Msgr. John Doherty and thank him for his years of service.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, a long-time community leader and activist, Samuel Bea, Jr., is retiring as district manager of Community Board No. 12 in the Bronx after serving 18 years in the post. Sam's commitment to the residents of the Northeast Bronx cannot be matched. He brought to the position of district manager exceptional management skills and knowledge of people and issues which were the key to his many successes in trying to improve the quality of life for his constituents. His past experience includes serving as director of Community Services, Westchester Community Opportunity Program, Inc., executive director, Mount Vernon Community Action Group, project administrator, Harlem Hospital Comprehensive Alcoholism Program, deputy executive, associate director, OJT director, Urban League of Westchester, manpower coordinator, Yonkers, NY, and director, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Greensburg, NY. Everything that Sam Bea has done in his professional life has been devoted toward helping people. And though he retirees from being district manager, I am sure his commitment to helping people will continue. I join with Sam's family, friends, and colleagues in wishing him the best in the years ahead and thank him for all he has done.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, On May 7, 1995 Dr. Philip Segan will be honored at the Student Sponsorship Breakfast to be held by the Riverdale Temple. It has been noted that most of the significant life cycle events in Dr. Segan's adult life are connected to the Riverdale Temple. It is rare that we find someone so committed to his community and his religious ideals. Dr. Segan has served as co-president of the Parents' Association and then as chairperson of the schools committee. But Dr. Segan's work with the temple did not stop when his children grew up. He went on to become temple vice president and then in 1990 became the temple's 18th president--a number with great significance in Judaism. Dr. Segan and his family have also worked with indigent families in the surrounding community through the Kingsbridge, Riverdale, Marble Hill Food and Hunger Project. Now a former Schools Committee chairperson, still an active member, and past president of the temple, Dr. Segan remains actively involved in social and educational causes both in the temple and the community. I join with Dr. Segan's family, friends and fellow temple members in congratulating him on this honor.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the residents of the North Bronx established a civic organization called the Woodlawn Heights Taxpayers and Community Association. Their motto was ``To Make This a Better Place in Which to Live.'' And, for 100 years they have lived this motto. I have had the privilege to work closely with this association on numerous community and neighborhood projects. They have a history of success in making Woodlawn a better place in which to live. These successes have led to a better Bronx and a better New York City. From securing a neighborhood library to preventing a discriminatory tax assessment, from spearheading beautiful programs to keeping open the local fire station, the Woodlawn Heights Taxpayers and Community Association has a record of accomplishment hard to beat. The people of Woodlawn, of the Bronx, and of New York City have something of which to be very proud. To the officers past and present and to the members of the Woodlawn Heights Taxpayers and Community Association--Thank you for your efforts, your hard work, and your dedication.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, much as been said this morning about the circus coming to town, and it is true. As we speak, the circus is out here on the Capitol Grounds, celebrating its 125th anniversary, complete with clowns and elephants performing tricks. While the elephants are outside performing their tricks, the GOP elephants in this Chamber are performing their tricks on the American people. They say they are for balancing the budget, but instead they are about to pass legislation giving tax breaks for the rich, at the expense of the rest of the American people. These tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Speaker calls his crown jewel, will surely explode the national deficit and at the same time cut or eliminate college student loans, take food out of the mouths senior citizens and veterans' health care. The Speaker is planning a big speech and festivities celebrating the end of the 100 days of the contract on America. These Republican circus festivities may not be as entertaining as the real circus, but to paraphrase a very famous song, Mr. Speaker: ``Where are the clowns and who are the clowns?'' Mr. Speaker, it looks like they are here.