Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gephardt bill which embraces middle-class values and middle-class families. While the Republicans are trying to cut and eliminate student loans, this bill will enable more middle-class college students to go to college. You know, it reminds me of Robin Hood; at least, Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. This steals from the poor and the middle class to give to the rich, and let us call it the way it is. This Gephardt substitute is the only substitute or amendment that was allowed. The Republicans would not allow any other amendments, because they know that it would pass. What I would like to know is how 102 of my Republican colleagues can sign a letter saying no tax breaks for the wealthy and they just fold under the Speaker's juggernaut, how 30 Members on the other side of the aisle, 30 Republican Members, say there must be deficit reduction before there are tax cuts, and then they just fold and vote for the rule and vote for the bill. This bill says all tax breaks, this substitute, all tax breaks are revoked if deficit targets are not met. That is what we should do. And look how we are beating up on Federal workers. It is bad enough we have no respect for ourselves apparently. But why beat up on the Federal workers? I guess if you are wealthy and you are millionaires, it does not matter. But most of America is not. Support the Gephardt substitute. It helps the middle class.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, our Republican friends are continuing their pattern. Now it is an assault on college student loans and financial aid in order to get money to finance tax breaks for the rich. Just the other week we saw them taking school lunches out of the mouths of America's children in order to get money to finance tax breaks for the rich, and now we see them assaulting working people. They would not raise the minimum wage. They want to eliminate OSHA, which protects the standards in the workplace and the safety of American workers, and now they want to repeal Davis-Bacon, which assures construction workers a prevailing fair wage. There is a rally today at 1 p.m. in front of the Capitol to protect the Davis-Bacon Act which will protect construction workers, and I hope my colleagues will attend. Once again we see the same pattern. At least the Republicans are consistent: Assault the middle class, help the rich. Next they will go after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Medicaid in a block grant? Who is kidding whom? Mr. Speaker, the Republicans just want to cut, cut, cut, cut the middle class and help their wealthy friends.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, after a distinguished career of almost 40 years of service to the children of the Bronx, my good friend Natalie Roberts will be retiring from the New York City educational system. Natalie Roberts started her career as a teacher in 1955 and later became an assistant principal, and finally a principal in the New York City schools. Natalie has served as vice president of the New York City Elementary Principals' Association and the New York City Administration Women in Education. She has served as a mentor to others and has been honored by B'nai B'rith and the Association of Jewish Professionals. In addition, she was the recipient of the Distinguished Education Award from the Association for Curriculum Development. I join with her family, friends, and colleagues in saying to Natalie: Job Well Done.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.R. 1360, the Kosova Peace, Democracy, and Human Rights Act of 1995, along with Representative Ben Gilman, chairman of the International Relations Committee, and Representative Susan Molinari. For too long, ethnic Albanian citizens of Kosova, who comprise 90 percent of the province's population, have been dominated and repressed by Serbia. Kosovars voted overwhelmingly for the independence of their State in September 1990. They have chosen Ibrahim Rugova to be the first President of the newly declared Republic of Kosova and Bujar Bukoshi to be its first Prime Minister. Serbia, however, has not seen fit to recognize these valid and legitimate acts of self-determination. Belgrade has prevented the new government from meeting in the Kosovar capital of Prishtina and strictly controls all media and public expressions of political views. Today, the human rights situation in Kosova is grave and has worsened with the July 1993 expulsion by the Servian authorities of international monitors. Ethnic Albanians are denied access to education, health care, and legal process solely on the basis of their ethnicity. More are dismissed from their jobs due to their Albanian heritage. Human rights groups from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to the OSCE and others document worsening humanitarian conditions, especially since the departure of international monitors. I strongly believe that the United States must demand the return of international observers and speak out more vociferously against the silent extension of ethnic cleansing to Kosova. The security situation in Kosova is also very troubling. If Serbia escalates its aggressive behavior in Kosova, the Balkan conflict may expand into Macedonia, drawing in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and possibly Turkey. I support statements by the United States Government threatening a stern American response in the event of conflict in Kosova caused by Serbian action and believe that the administration should reiterate these warnings. On the other hand, I deeply reject more recently policy changes by the administration. Last month, President Clinton offered to drop all sanctions against Serbia if it meets a specified list of conditions. Kosova was not among those conditions, even though the President specifically pledged to me in a January 4, 1995 letter that Belgrade would not be freed of sanctions until the situation in Kosova improves. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed at this point in the Record: The White House, Washington, DC, January 4, 1995. Hon. Eliot L. Engel, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Eliot: Thank you for your December 2 letter regarding U.S. policy toward Kosovo. I am pleased Dr. Rugova had a useful visit to the United States and know that his meetings with senior Administration officials were fruitful for both sides. While the United States does not support independence for Kosovo, we are committed to restoring human and political rights to the people of Kosovo, where Dr. Rugova plays an important and admirable role. His rejection of violence and his patience in the face of continued Serb repression demonstrate courage and foresight. There are a large number of issues, including Kosovo, that I believe must be addressed before Belgrade should be freed of UN sanctions and able to return to the international community. At the same time, we have clearly seen the utility of using limited sanctions suspension in return for helpful steps, such as closure of the Serbian border with Bosnia. Should Milosevic make further positive steps, we will need the flexibility of being able to consider the suspension of additional sanctions. As before, our decision of whether to support suspension of any sanctions will be made in close consultation with Congress. Belgrade knows the seriousness of our resolve in Kosovo, which I reaffirmed soon after taking office and subsequently. With Congressional support, we have been able to maintain a steady flow of humanitarian assistance to Kosovo. Our Embassy in Belgrade pursues an active schedule of visits there. We are working to bring the CSCE long-duration missions back and have welcomed Dr. Rugova's plan to open an LDK party office in Washington. I am aware of the strong arguments in favor of opening a USIS center in Pristina, but believe that we should not do so unless our safety and security concerns are resolved. I am grateful to know to your deep interest in this important issue, and hope to work together with you and your colleagues to restore the rights of Kosovo's ethnic Albanians. Sincerely, Bill. With the President's recent policy changes, the bill we introduce today is even more important. The bill contains several sections. In the findings section, the abuses of civil and human rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosova are specified. Next, a section detailing United States policy toward the Kosova issue is presented. Third, and most importantly, the bill conditions the lifting of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro upon specific improvements in Kosova, including: Substantial progress toward the realization of a separate identity for Kosova and the right of the people of Kosova to govern themselves, or the creation of an international protectorate for Kosova; Substantial improvement in the human rights situation in Kosova; International human rights observers return to Kosova; and The elected government of Kosova is permitted to meet and carry out its legitimate mandate as elected representatives of the people of Kosova. Finally, the bill directs the administration to study policy options on Kosova, including the opening of a U.S.I.A. office in Prishtina. Last year, Representative Molinari and I, as cochairs of the Albanian Issues Caucus, introduced a virtually identical piece of legislation. This year, I am proud to stand, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1360, the Kosova Peace, Democracy, and Human Rights Act of 1995, with the chairman of the International Relations Committee who is the prime sponsor of the bill and a member of the Albanian Issues Caucus. H.R. 1360 is good for Kosova and the right policy for the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor today a man of vision and commitment, the Reverend W. Franklyn Richardson. April 1995 marks 20 years since Reverend Richardson became pastor of historic Grace Baptist Church which is located in my district in Mount Vernon, NY. Grace Baptist Church, the largest church in Westchester County, has some 3,000 parishioners and in addition conducts a comprehensive outreach ministry to the surrounding community. Under Reverend Richardson's leadership, the congregation is involved in numerous programs and activities, such as providing food and clothing for the needy; ministering persons in prison, the sick and shut-in, senior citizens, the homeless and others; hosting a Christmas celebration and other programs for homeless and less privileged children; and sponsoring cultural and educational workshops and special events. Furthermore, Reverend Richardson led the congregation in the completion of a $4.2 million restoration and expansion of the church facilities; and recently initiated the construction of an $11 million 100-unit housing facility in Mount Vernon for senior citizens called Grace House. And while he has cared for his flock in Mount Vernon, Dr. Richardson has also been past 12 years Dr. Richardson served as the general secretary of the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A. Inc. He was elected to this prestigious office in September 1982. The National Baptist Convention consists of more than 30,000 churches and 8 million Baptist members across the country. He is also a member of the general council of the Baptist World Alliance. In May 1983, he was elected to the governing board of the National Council of Churches representing more than 400 million Christians from 150 countries. As a world-renowned minister, Dr. Richardson has preached and travelled extensively on six continents, including Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America. In February 1980, Dr. Richardson was selected as a member of the 1980 preaching team of the foreign mission board of countries on the continent of Africa. Since 1982, he has served as the L.G. Jordan lecturer in the laymen's department of the National Baptist Congress of Christian Education. In addition, he has crossed the nation and the world speaking at churches, conventions, colleges and universities. I am personally honored to join with Reverend Richardson's parishioners, family, friends and neighbors in this 20th anniversary celebration.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to recent comments by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the man arrested in Pakistan for engineering the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. With all of the gall he could muster, this terrorist stated that America deserved to be attacked because of our support for Israel. While denying carrying out the bombing which killed or injured many innocent civilians, Yousef stated: ``The ability of Israel to commit these crimes is the direct result of the considerable military and financial aid which the United States of America provides annually to Israel, and it is this aid which gives Palestinians and Lebanese the right to attack U.S. targets.'' A March 25, 1995, article in The New York Times, entitled ``Bomb Suspect Says the U.S. Merits Attack'', gives substantial coverage of this outrage. I insert a copy of this article to be printed in the Record at this point. Bomb Suspect Says the U.S. Merits Attack; He Avows Innocence in the Trade Center Plot (By James C. McKinley, Jr.) Ignoring the advice of his lawyer, the man accused of engineering the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center released a diatribe yesterday saying that Palestinians had a right to attack the United States for its support of Israel. In an eight-page statement, the man the authorities call Ramzi Ahmed Yousef said that his real name was Abdul-Basit Balochi and that he was an electronics engineer and explosives expert. He said he came from Pakistan and had family in both Iraq and Israel. He also claimed to have ``friends and relatives who were killed in Palestine by the Israeli Army.'' The statement, released yesterday by Mr. Yousef's court- appointed lawyer, was the first public comment from the trade center suspect since he was arrested in Pakistan last month, two years after the bombing that killed 6 and injured more than 1,000. But it failed to clear up some of the central mysteries in the case, including the true identity of the suspect. And it was unclear what motivated him to make the statement, since some of the remarks could be used against him in court. Mr. Yousef said he believed the state of Israel had no legal right to be established in Palestine and accused the Israeli Government of ``systematic murder, torture, imprisonment and deportation'' of Palestinians. ``The ability of Israel to commit these crimes is the direct result of the considerable military and financial aid which the United States of America provides annually to Israel, and it is this aid which gives Palestinians and Lebanese the right to attack United States targets,'' Mr. Yousef said in the statement. Mr. Yousef's lawyer, Roy R. Kulcsar, said he had advised Mr. Yousef against releasing the statement before his trial. ``I told him that if it were me in his position, I would not make such a statement,'' Mr. Kulcsar said. ``I think he regards himself as a political prisoner, and part of that is the circumstances under which he was brought back to the United States,'' Mr. Kulcsar added. ``He certainly feels the treatment he has received is because of his views.'' Mr. Kulcsar said Mr. Yousef's statement was not a confession. He said Mr. Yousef still maintains that he is innocent and intends to fight the charges in court. The lawyer said his client was neither cooperating with the Government nor exploring a plea bargain agreement. Prosecutors have depicted Mr. Yousef as a professional terrorist who was the mastermind of the bombing of the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993. Four other men were convicted last year in connection with the bombing, but Mr. Yousef and a sixth man escaped. Since he was arrested and flown back to the United States, Mr. Yousef's real identity has continued to be a mystery for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's office in Manhattan. No one knows for certain who he is or where he was born. More important, it is still unclear who provided the financial backing for the trade center bombing. Abdel Basit Abdel Karim was the name Mr. Yousef used when he obtained a Pakistani passport from Pakistan's Consulate General office in New York in 1992. It was under this name that he reportedly left the country just hours after the explosion and flew to Pakistan. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was the name on a valid Iraqi passport that Mr. Yousef presented to United States officials when he arrived in New York on a plane from Pakistan in September 1992. He immediately demanded asylum, and officials took his fingerprints as part of the application. Prosecutors say those fingerprints later turned up in the storage shed where they believe the trade center bomb was made. The surname Balochi is common in the region known as Baluchistan, a remote and lawless border area between Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Law-enforcement sources said they had never heard Mr. Yousef called by that name before. When Mr. Yousef was arrested, Pakistani officials said they believed he came from the area. Mr. Yousef's statement, however, suggests that he is Palestinian and even has relatives who were killed in the struggle against Israel. Calling Israel ``an illegal and unlawful state,'' Mr. Yousef said that the Israeli lands should be returned to Arabs and that an international court should be convened to try the Israeli Government for war crimes. sends military and financial aid worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Israel, which is being used to support the Israeli occupation, as well as the crimes and slaughters which were and are being carried out by the Israeli Army, all Muslims, Palestinians and Lebanese have the right to regard themselves in a state of war with the U.S. Government,'' he wrote. Mr. Yousef then tried to justify attacks against United States targets as acts of war and compared them with the bombing attacks on Japan by the United States during World War II, which he called ``the worst terrorist acts in human history.'' The United States Attorney's office had no official comment on Mr. Yousef's remarks, but prosecutors said privately there was little doubt that the statement would be used against Mr. Yousef during his trial since it provides a clear motive for the attack.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1995, the Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, the Grand Council of New York and the Claremont Council No. 1655 will be holding an investiture ceremony for 82d legion of honor member Anthony W.W. Tantillo. Mr. Tantillo, a lifelong Bronx resident, is being honored for his many years of service and dedication to the Royal Arcanum. In addition, Mr. Tantillo has been an active member of the Columbus Alliance and the Sons of Italy. I am sure that Mr. Tantillo's family, neighbors and friends join me in congratulating him on this achievement.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of men and women from all over the world become citizens of the United States of America. As they take the oath of citizenship, they acquire the rights of a citizen of the United States, as well as the responsibilities those rights carry. Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 1995, Mrs. Linda Karen Friedman-Levin will accept those rights and responsibilities of a citizen when she takes her oath of citizenship. I am confident that Mrs. Friedman-Levin will be as committed to fulfilling her duties as a citizen of our country as she has been in her perseverance in becoming a citizen. Mrs. Friedman-Levin, the mother of Emma Jess and Dana Franci Levin, and wife of Alan Levin, was born in Montreal, PQ, Canada. I would like to extend congratulations to Mrs. Friedman-Levin and her family and welcome her as one of the newest citizens of the United States.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1995 the Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, the Grand Council of New York and the Claremont Council No. 1655 will be holding an investiture ceremony for 82d Legion of Honor member Anthony W.W. Tantillo. Mr. Tantillo, a lifelong Bronx resident, is being honored for his many years of service and dedication to the Royal Arcanum. In addition, Mr. Tantillo has been an active member of the Columbus Alliance and the Sons of Italy. I am sure that Mr. Tantillo's family, neighbors, and friends join me in congratulating him on this achievement.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am not for term limits, but I am for honesty. If we are going to have term limits, let us have true term limits. I am not doing this for cover, as was suggested by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I am doing this for honesty. If we are going to impose things upon Congress that we say are for the rest of the American people, then let us impose this as well for current Members. I am for truth in term limits packaging. That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this substitute. Let us stop the nonsense and arrogance. If we are going to pass a constitutional amendment on term limits for future Members of Congress, let us make sure it also covers current Members. The Republican term limits resolutions are nothing short of incumbent protection, because they only hold future Members to its standards. Let us not hold a future generation to its standards, let us hold our generation to its standards, and I am willing to abide by that. The Peterson-Dingell substitute is the only term limits bill that counts time already served by Members of Congress. Many of our colleagues say they support term limits to prevent Members from becoming arrogant and entrenched politicians. However, it is obvious these same colleagues believe they are immune from this temptation by exempting themselves from the Republican term limits legislation. Voting for any of the other 3 term limits legislation proposals do not count previous service, and that to me, Mr. Chairman, is the height of arrogance. Voting for the Republican term limits bill will only delay the effect of our Government that this legislation will oppose. If the bureaucrats are going to start running this country, let them start now. Why wait 12 years down the line, or 19 years down the line? If you have already served here for 20 years, how can you say you are for term limits absolutely ridiculous. Mr. Chairman, we have a contract with the voters of our districts that can be renewed or ended every 2 years. Clearly the backers of the contract for America only support their contract if they are not held to its standards. Support the Peterson-Dingell substitute.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from South Carolina who spoke about arrogance, the only arrogance I see today is by people who say they are for term limits but they want it to start with the next generation. They do not want it to start right here, they do not want it to be retroactive. If you are really for term limits, then you ought to be for term limits right now. And very soon we will have a chance to vote on that amendment. Term limits, we have term limits; they are called elections. I won in 1988, beating a 10-term incumbent entrenched. The voters in my district decided it was time for a change. Let us let the voters decide. There has been a 50-percent turnover in 1992 and 1994 in this House. It shows that the American public does not need term limits to restrict terms. We have a permanent staff here. You know what we will get with term limits? We will get a permanent staff. This place will be even more staff-dominated than it is now. And it would be more bureaucratic, more bureaucracy-dominated than it is now. Why would anyone stop their lives to come here for a temporary amount of time? Do you know what this place will turn into? This will be a plaything for millionaires who want to come here, this will be a plaything for mediocrity, people who cannot do anything else, who will take time out of their lives. But competent people are not going to want to do that. Daniel Webster, John Quincy Adams, people like that served more than 12 years. Our buildings, the Rayburn Building, the Longworth Building, and the Cannon Building, let us rename them as Cells 1, 2, and 3 because they would not have been here 12 years. This is a bad idea, and it ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Mink substitute and against the mean-spirited Republican bill which takes food out of children's mouths and gives tax breaks to the wealthy. The Mink substitute provides for education and job training, two essential components to get people off welfare. The Republican plan does not. The Mink proposal provides for child care which is important if welfare people are going to go to work. The Republican plan does not. The Mink plan maintains child nutrition and school lunches. The Republican plan does not. The Mink plan ensures that welfare recipients are better off economically by taking a job than by staying on welfare. The Republican plan does not. Block grants, my friends, only work if you fully fund them. If you do not fully fund them, you are literally robbing children, particularly with this them around. I am for welfare reform, Mr. Chairman, but the Republican plan is mean-spirited and goes too far. Support the Mink substitute.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of Greek Independence Day, commemorated this Sunday, March 25, 1995. I am proud to join the millions of people of Greek heritage around the world in commemorating the 174th anniversary of the freeing of Greece from the Ottoman Empire. I also stand today to express pride in celebrating the common bond that links our two peoples together--the commitment to democracy and love of freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said, ``* * * to the ancient Greeks * * * we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' For indeed, ancient Greece gave birth to the ideals of democracy that guided our Nation. Our Founding Fathers nurtured those same ideals to build stable democratic society founded on justice and equality. In turn, the United States provided inspiration to Greece during its own valiant struggle for freedom in the 1820s. Our Declaration of Independence served as a model for Greece's own Declaration of Independence. Greece is a valued member of the international community, of NATO and of the European Union. It is one of only three nations, beyond the former British Empire, in the world that has supported the United States in every major international conflict in this century. Over 600,000 Greeks died fighting on the side of the Allies in World War II. We remember them today for their valiant struggle against fascism and their later battle against communist expansion. Today, as the tragedy in the Balkan region continues, it is important that the United States and Greece take that same cooperative action they took to defend the world from the enemies of freedom and democracy 50 years ago. Once again, our two countries must work together, this time, to end the violence in the former Yugoslavia and promote lasting peace. On this historic Greek Independence Day, I urge you, my colleagues, to join me in paying tribute to the contributions of individuals of Greek heritage to the American cultural mosaic and to the world. Let us celebrate the success of our past efforts together and ensure that they will continue well into the future.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, our Republican friends do not like to be called mean spirited even though they put forward a mean-spirited welfare reform bill. But I say, if the shoe fits, wear it. It is quite apparent that the Republican idea of welfare reform means taking food out of the mouths of schoolchildren, throwing women and children out in the streets. If that is not the case, why will they not allow any of us to put amendments on the floor to this bill to restore some of the funds for school lunches? They will not allow States could supposedly spend the money the way they want. Mr. Speaker, block grants work only if they are fully funded. The fact of the matter is they are not going to be fully funded and the effect of these block grants will mean cutting job training, cutting child care, all of which are necessary in order for people to get off welfare. Why are they doing it? The Republicans want to take the money out of the mouths of the schoolchildren and use it for tax breaks for the rich and for star wars. I say it is a disgrace. For shame, Mr. Speaker. This ought to be defeated. I have never seen anything more disgraceful.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Missouri for yielding. Mr. Chairman, you know, it really boggles the mind. We have 31 amendments, only 5 Democratic amendments, and nothing on child nutrition, and the amendments I had hoped to offer are not around. Now we are talking about participation and how many welfare recipients are going to participate in work. Well, people will participate in work only if you pay them a living wage, only if you pay them a fair wage, only if you provide them with the job training so that they can get a job, and if you provide them with the child care so that they can leave their children while they work. This bill does none of that, and that is why I believe it is a farce and a sham. Today's minimum wage is worth 30 percent less than what is was worth in the 1970's. An increase in the minimum wage is a necessary step in providing of poverty. We cannot move welfare recipients into a position where they join the growing number of working poor. Again, my amendment, which was not allowed to be brought to the floor, would have allowed working poor to continue to get child care to keep them off welfare, but the Republican majority did not even want to let that happen. Thirty-eight percent of all poor children under six have parents who work full or part-time. They are working to support their families, but cannot make enough money to live above the poverty line. In 1992, a full-time worker only grossed $8,800. That is $3,500 below the poverty line for a family of three, $11,186. How can we expect to move welfare recipients into this subsistence level of employment with no health care and no job training? But the Republicans do not care about that either. We must create a system that rewards work and does not punish someone for trying to be independent. We must make the tough decisions. We must say that job creation, training, and increased wages are national priorities. We must commit to programs that will help us reach a goal of a stable, self-sufficient employment for all Americans, not the farce that the Republicans are trying to pass off as welfare reform.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. I am wondering if I could ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to answer a few questions. I think that the conference report from my vantage point is a much better bill than the original bill but I still have some fears and some questions, particularly with regard to ecological concerns, clean water, clean air. For instance, in the rescissions bill that was just passed, we took away $1.3 billion from the States from the safe drinking water revolving fund. If we are going to continue to do things like that and take money away from the States that we gave them to pay for things, my big fear is that we then say, well, we are not funding this and therefore it can't happen and therefore all the progress we have made in terms of clean water, clean air will never be able to be funded. Therefore, the Federal Government stepping in and forcing these things will just be rendered impotent and we will not have them. I wonder if the gentleman could allay my fears about that.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that given the present mood and the budget cutting freezes we have in this Congress, my fear is that the things we are used to seeing in terms of progress on clean water and clean air will just dissipate and we will not be able to do those things in the future. I want to also ask the gentleman, he said it was prospective, how do we handle reauthorizations in this bill?

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. This is once again another instance of mean-spirited Republican budget cuts. It really never ceases to amaze me how mean-spirited and radical the Republican party has become. When I left this morning, my 16-month-old son was watching Barney. My kids have grown up on Sesame Street. I said this morning, Don't kill big bird. Let me tell you something: 40 percent of American families do not get cable television. So if we lose public broadcasting, 40 percent of America cannot see public broadcasting and these kinds of shows. Do we want our kids to be exposed to the sex and violence in commercial television? Do we really want our kids to be exposed to all these commercials? For $1 every $1 that is put in of public funds, $6 in the private sector are generated. This is an example of the public/private partnership that works. This money that the Federal Government puts forth is less than $1 for every American person. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke. Public TV works. Vote against this mean-spirited amendment and vote against the mean- spirited rescission package.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. Let us call this amendment what it is, another mean-spirited Republican attempt to harm working people in this country. First, it is ``Let us depress wages, let us not increase the minimum wage.'' Then it is ``Let us destroy Davis-Bacon. We cannot have prevailing wages.'' Now it is ``Let us destroy the health and the welfare and the safety of America's workers.'' For shame, majority, for shame. The fact is that OSHA saves lives. OSHA improves workers' health. OSHA's enforcement programs improve safety. Safe workplaces save dollars. OSHA's job is far from done. Each year, 56,000 workers still die from work-related accidents and illnesses. The fact of the matter is that working people in this country, the people that built this country, the people that continue to build this country, need protections, and OSHA provides those protections. We ought to stop the mean-spirited Republican assault on working people in the United States.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am here to deliver one short concise, simple message to my colleagues: Do not kill Big Bird. Do not kill Big Bird by voting for mean-spirited Republican budget cuts on Public Broadcasting. Do not kill Big Bird in order to help finance tax breaks for the very wealthy in this country. Do not kill Big Bird in order to help finance a star wars program that this country neither wants or needs. Do not kill Big Bird because millions of American children, including my own three children, have grown up on Big Bird and ``Sesame Street'' and Mr. Rogers and Public Broadcasting. Do not kill Big Bird because Public Broadcasting works. Public Broadcasting is good for the American taxpayer and good for the American people. Do not kill Big Bird because the public-private partnership of Public Broadcasting is what has really proven to be successful in this country. In short, Mr. Speaker, do not kill Big Bird.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the opponents of the Davis-Bacon Act have mounted an attack nothing more than an effort to pull the rug out from under working people. As the son of a dedicated ironworker, I resent this shameful union bashing and the implication that the workers of this country are not entitled to a decent wage for their labor. Davis-Bacon is a law that actually strengthens our economy and helps America. Contractors and American workers both benefit from its provisions. I ask you to consider these facts: Repealing Davis-Bacon will result in lower wages for half a million Americans. Construction workers is the United States who currently receive prevailing wages could lose $1,400 annually if Davis-Bacon is repealed. The average annual earnings of a construction worker is $28,000. Isn't this the type of middle-class American that we should protect rather than punish? The prevailing wage law actually generates benefits to local communities 2.4 times the amount spent on a construction project because workers spend their money locally and pay local taxes. Repealing Davis-Bacon could result in the widespread importation of non-local, low-wage workers, causing an adverse affect on local economies. According to a study conducted by the University of Utah, repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act will reduce Federal tax collections by $1 billion per year because of the decline in construction earnings, while simultaneously causing a massive increase in cost overruns. In States that have repealed their little Davis-Bacon laws, construction costs have risen because of substandard work that must be redone when less skilled workers are used on the projects. Davis-Bacon does not require contractors to pay union wages. 70 percent of the prevailing wage schedules are not union wage rates, yet still allow a fair wage to be paid in the local area to middle class workers. The Workers Protection Subcommittee of the House Economic and Educational opportunities Committee hurried the markup of the repeal of the Act without adequately considering its ramifications. The Subcommittee did not even allow the Secretary of Labor to testify. It's time to bring some reason to this issue. At a time when the middle class is feeling the crunch in our economy, the repeal of Davis- Bacon would adversely affect the workers that are a productive and important segment of our society. I strongly urge you to fight any attempts to repeal this Act. By doing so, you will be working to keep our construction industry competitive and viable.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to praise a series of Federal education programs, known as TRIO, which allow students from needy families overcome barriers that often prevent them from attending college. This weekend in my district, Fordham University is holding a TRIO Day to spread the word about these worthwhile programs. I commend Dr. Eliot Palais and his staff at Fordham University for the fine work they do in promoting these programs. TRIO programs include Upward Bound, which assists students from families with incomes under $24,000 where neither parent graduated from college, and Talent Search, the early intervention program that targets young people in grades 6 through 12. Other TRIO programs provide information on academic and financial aid programs and assistance in applying to colleges. More than 1,200 colleges and agencies now offer TRIO programs serving nearly 700,000 low-income Americans between the ages of 11 and 27. The common bond in all TRIO programs is empowerment. While student financial aid programs help students overcome financial barriers to higher education, TRIO programs help students overcome class, social and cultural barriers to higher education. Indeed, I know at least two of my distinguished colleagues, Representative Cleo Fields of Louisiana and Representative Albert Wynn of Maryland, who participated in TRIO programs. They are among thousands of Americans who can attest to the power and effectiveness of TRIO. I am deeply committed to maintaining and expanding programs of this nature. They represent the highest aspirations of our Nation and enjoy the support of the American people. When we allow all our citizen access to education and economic opportunity, we lift our entire Nation to a higher level.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have been troubled by the fact that this bill would prohibit U.S. troops from serving under a military commander from a NATO country. The NATO alliance is very, very, important and I think that that is really not what ought to be. This amendment, and I thank the chairman of the committee, goes a step in the direction not quite as far as I would like it to go, but needless to say it goes a step in the right direction in saying that U.S. troops would be able to serve under a military commander of NATO, in a NATO operation. I think that at a time when we are talking about expanding NATO we ought to respect it. I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that the process really is terrible, it is terrible because we have to operate under this majority-imposed ridiculous 10-hour constraint and it is terrible, frankly, because some people on this side of the aisle were unhelpful and less than frank with me in terms of helping me to bring my amendment for a vote. However, in the 10 or so seconds I have left, I want to say that the chairman has tried his best and I appreciate the fact he has worked with me to bring this amendment forward. If we did not have something like this, we could not have had D-day, fought World War I or II or Desert Storm, and that is why I think the amendment is a step in the right direction.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the previous order, I offer an amendment, as modified.