Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment considered at this point.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment speaks to the immediate needs of our southern neighbor, Haiti. This amendment would increase economic support funds by $40 million, development assistance by $5 million, and child survival and health funds by $5 million, totaling an additional $50 million for Haiti. It is my intention to offer and withdraw this amendment. After a history of instability, poverty and democratic setbacks, Haitians poured onto the streets of their country last month to cast their votes, demonstrating a desire for a better future. After a contested vote-counting period, the front-runner in the presidential election, Rene Preval, was declared the winner with nearly 52 percent of the official vote, compared to less than 12 percent to his closest contender. Such a large mandate and a large margin of victory gives Preval a strong mandate and legitimacy to reform and rebuild Haiti's institutions and fractured society. Yet the challenges are vast. The same massive underlying problems still plague Haiti, and a second round of elections looms in the coming weeks. Now is the time, I very strongly believe, for the United States to tangibly demonstrate that it stands with the Haitian people in their quest for democracy and stability. We have long had a special relationship and a special obligation to the people of Haiti. I believe that there exists a limited window of opportunity to help Haiti, which was opened by the recent successful elections. We should seize this opportunity by expanding our assistance to Haiti and the Haitian people in the immediate future. My amendment does just that. My amendment provides $50 million in emergency FY 06 supplemental assistance for our impoverished neighbor in the south. Haiti, of course, is the poorest country in the Americas. Specifically, the amendment increases economic support funds by $40 million, developmental assistance by $5 million and child survival and health by $5 million. This supplemental funding directly addresses the profound social needs in Haiti, while providing support for future elections, reconciliation and efforts to jump-start local economies. Mr. Chairman, I would like you to know that members of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, where I am the ranking member, recently wrote a bipartisan letter supporting $50 million of additional assistance for Haiti in this supplemental legislation. I would like to thank Chairman Barton and the other members of the subcommittee for their support. I will include this letter in the Record. Elections signal the beginning of a transition, not an end. Thus we believe that this additional assistance is the least we can do at this critical time to help Haiti. We obviously have a stake in their democracy-taking route, having Haiti so close to our shores. Of course, there is a large Haitian-American community in this country which has ties to Haiti that further bind our two countries together as well. Mr. Chairman, as this legislation moves forward, I ask that the House work with the Senate to include emergency aid for Haiti. It is my hope that, in the end, Congress will heed the bipartisan call of the subcommittee and provide important additional aid to Haiti. As I said, I am going to withdraw my amendment at the end because I believe that this is the best way to move this amendment forward, by working with the Senate, and hopefully we get it there and it comes here. So I urge my colleagues to listen to our pleas.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in the hope that this will move the process along so that Haiti will get all of the money it needs, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor an organization that has been more than a guiding force but, in fact, a leader in advancing civil rights for nearly a century. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People continues its mission to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights for all people. As the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the nation, the men and women working for the NAACP have sought to remove all barriers of racial discrimination through their use of legal and moral persuasion. The NAACP won one of the nation's greatest legal victories; that was the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. The NAACP was also a prominent power that lobbied for the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act were also achievements of this longstanding organization. In 2005, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People launched the Disaster Relief Fund to help Hurricane Katrina survivors in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Alabama rebuild their lives. The NAACP was built and grew from the collective courage of thousands of people and continues to inspire the high standard of full equality to ever younger generations. As grandfather of all civil rights organizations, it has been persistent in its commitment to nonviolence, even in the face of overt and violent racial hostility. Today, on the 9th anniversary of the NAACP, it is important to celebrate how these men and women advanced their mission through reliance upon the press, the petition, the ballot, and the courts. Their premise has been that people of all races, nationalities and faiths, men and women, are created equal. All Americans must continue to uphold these standards of morality and justice. I congratulate the NAACP and look forward to celebrating their centennial in 3 years.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Black History month, it saddens me that our nation has lost one our foremost civil rights activists--Coretta Scott King. Though best known as the wife of the great Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta had a distinguished career herself. She was an activist not only for racial equality but for economic justice, women's and children's rights, gay and lesbian dignity, religious freedom, the needs of the poor and homeless, health care, educational opportunities, nuclear disarmament and ecological sanity. She was also a powerful voice in bringing an end to the scourge of apartheid in South Africa. During the civil rights movement, she was at the forefront of the movement alongside her husband. Coretta was a music student and she brought her talent to the civil rights movement by performing in ``Freedom Concerts,'' singing and reading poetry to raise money for the cause. Planning marches and sit-ins, she never relented even after her family members were targets of beatings and stabbings. She never relented, even after the jailing of her husband. She never relented, even after their family home was bombed. Long after Martin's assassination, Coretta continued her work and concentrated her energies on fulfilling her husband's work by building The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change as a living memorial to her husband's life and dream. I had the pleasure of meeting her. For me, meeting her was meeting an icon. The civil rights movement began when I was about 8 or 9. Years later, to meet her in person was awe inspiring. It was, frankly, astonishing. Coretta Scott King was not a witness to history, she was an active participant and a leader in making history. Speaking to her one on one was a humbling experience and one that I will never forget. Coretta Scott King will be sorely missed by people not only in the United States but those throughout the world who looked to her as a strong woman and a leader in the non-violent resistance movement.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on December 19, 2005, I voted against the Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report as it was considered by the House of Representatives. While I voted for the Defense Authorization Act and normally would support a Defense Appropriations bill--especially with our troops in harm's way--this year I regrettably had to vote against the legislation. I did so largely because the Republican majority inserted a provision allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This controversial measure was repeatedly rejected through the democratic process, but the Republican leadership preferred to hold the Defense Appropriations bill--and our troops in the field--hostage to the effort to drill in this pristine wildlife refuge. Moreover this legislation contained a 1 percent across the board cut in non-defense discretionary spending. Mr. Speaker, America cannot drill its way to independence from foreign oil. Tapping ANWR would produce barely a drop in the bucket of the amount of oil we consume in this Nation. Even if we started drilling in ANWR today, we would not see any of that oil until 2012. Rather than drilling in the Arctic wilderness and extending our reliance on oil, we must increase fuel efficiency, diversify our sources of energy, and promote clean alternatives. We need to invest and focus on ways to reduce our consumption of oil. This is why Congressman Jack Kingston (R-NY) and I have introduced The Fuel Choices for American Security Act, which sets meaningful and achievable goals, all of which can be accomplished using new technologies that are already proven, effective and efficient. I, therefore, am very pleased to learn that the Senate has struck the ANWR drilling provision from the Defense Appropriations Conference Report. It is my understanding that this bill will now pass the House by unanimous consent, and will be sent to the President for signature.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Harold Bott is a lifelong resident of the Bronx, the son of immigrant parents, who has worked to make his home borough a better place for all. He followed his father into the plumbing business, eventually establishing a successful contracting company. But he never forgot his community and his efforts to help were continual and tireless. He moved to Woodlawn in 1972 with his wife Loretta and their two children and he brought that same sense of community to his new neighborhood. He organized the annual 239th Street Block Party, which was a success every year. He worked with the Boys Club, organized and assisted with the June walk, the placement of flags on Katonah Avenue, the Christmas display, and also served as president of the Woodlawn Taxpayers Association. He also organized a 9/11 Memorial Tribute, the annual Veterans Day celebration, and free tennis lessons for children. He has given selflessly of himself and has served as a role model for how to improve a community. Tonight he is being honored for his contributions to the Woodlawn community and I stand with the residents of that neighborhood in thanking him for his many contributions.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Jerry and Lillian Friedman are celebrating their 50th anniversary, two wonderful people who have worked as much for their community as for themselves. Jerry was a Brooklyn boy who saw the light and moved to the Bronx. There he met Lillian and in 1955 they married. They have two children, Evelyn and Stuart, a son-in-law, Mark, and two grandchildren, Sophie and Benjamin. Lillian was a Girl Scout, and when their daughter was old enough to join the Scouts, Lillian became a Girl Scout Leader. Jerry was a Boy Scout in Brooklyn, and later a Scoutmaster as part of a 65-year relationship with the Scouts. They were both involved in their communities. They organized tenant- help groups, leading to lower rents and improved upkeep of the apartments. In Co-Op City in the Bronx they helped to form a building association with Jerry eventually becoming a member of the Board of Directors and First Vice President. Both were also active in local Democratic politics. Jerry and Lillian are the kind of people who make a community more of a community. I ask all who believe in love to join me in celebrating their 50 years together.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman from California, for the time. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 438, which urges the U.N. member states to cease unfairly castigating Israel and adopt a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would also like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for their diligent effort on this issue, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Mr. Speaker, this resolution concerns one simple issue: equality of all U.N. member states. It is shameful, absolutely shameful, that Israel, a state established by U.N. consensus in the ashes of the Holocaust, has been unjustly maligned for decades. More than 30 years since the infamous Zionism of Racism resolution, an established precedent of Israel-bashing still thrives at the United Nations. Within the context of U.N. reform, eradicating the various mechanisms of bias is crucial to its success. Examples include the plethora of resolutions condemning Israel while the world's worst human rights abusers escape attention or are even appointed to key U.N. panels. I am particularly concerned with the three annual U.N. resolutions which reauthorize the so-called Division on Palestinian Rights, the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the Special Committee to Investigate so-called Israeli Human Rights Abuses. These bodies serve no other purpose than to bash Israel and endorse the cause of one side in the long-standing conflict. Such discriminatory treatment of Israel discredits the entire United Nations organization and should be immediately eliminated. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from meetings in the European Union. I and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and other colleagues urged European Union officials to switch their vote in the U.N. General Assembly from ``abstention'' to ``no'' on those resolutions which fund anti-Israel entities. I say to our friends in the European Union, an abstention is the equivalent of voting ``yes'' and continuing the bias against Israel. By voting ``no,'' the EU can join the United States in dissolving these inherently discriminatory panels, transfer the funds to a real humanitarian purpose, and move unequivocally to the realm of honest broker. If the EU states were to vote ``no,'' funding would stop because there would not be the necessary two-thirds to perpetuate the funding. Mr. Speaker, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be solved by constantly berating one side, Israel. By tolerating such action, the organization responsible for maintaining world peace is actually exacerbating the conflict by discriminating against a member state. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 438.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, last week, on December 1, communities across the world joined to commemorate the 18th annual World AIDS Day. World AIDS Day gives us a chance to evaluate what needs to be done to make substantial progress combating HIV/AIDS, both at home and abroad. Globally, 25 million people have already lost their lives to this disease, with another 40 million people currently living with HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death (age 15-59) and threatens the political, social and economic stability of nations worldwide. We must answer the call to action to fight the AIDS pandemic on the global, national and local levels. Globally, we must continue to fund programs that not only directly address the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS, but also those programs that promote the overall health, economic and social prosperity of developing nations. On the national level, we can start by reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act. This landmark program, which provides federal support to metropolitan areas and states to provide lifesaving health care and support services for individuals and families living with HIV/AIDS, expired on September 30, 2005. I strongly urge the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee to commence with hearings on the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act when Congress reconvenes in the new year. In my state of New York, significant time and money has been invested into HIV/AIDS care. No state spends more than New York to care for its residents with HIV/AIDS--over $3 billion last year. Sadly, New York's efforts still are not enough to sufficiently address the need. New York City comprises three percent of the nation's population, but more than 16 percent of the nation's AIDS cases. Mr. Speaker, we must do better by CARE Act funding. This program has been virtually flat funded for years, and its AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP) only received a ten million dollar increase in this year's House Labor-HHS bill. Many very low-income people continue to be shut-out from ADAP programs due to states' varying income eligibility levels, which can range from 125 percent to 500 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Without early, aggressive treatment people living with HIV/AIDS can experience rapid and often irreversible disease progression. Additionally, if care is interrupted drug resistance can develop, which compromises their ability to properly control their health. The President's Principles for Ryan White CARE Act Authorization, released this past summer, include some troubling provisions which could have devastating results for communities' ability to provide consistent, appropriate care for persons living with HIV/AIDs. The proposed Severity of Need for Core Services Index will change funding formulas to take into account the availability of other resources, like state and local funding streams. This is bad public policy as it punishes states that have taken responsibility for their local HIV care and creates a powerful disincentive for other states to prioritize funding for HIV funding in future years, if they think the federal government will just cover the gap. No state spends more than New York does to care for its residents with HIV and AIDS--over $3 billion last year. New York has always viewed this funding as a partnership between the state, cities and federal government and should not lose out on future federal funding for being at the forefront of providing progressive services and treatment. Secondly the President's proposal for a minimum of 75 percent of Ryan White CARE Act funding to be spent on core medical services should be seriously revisited. While there is no question that appropriate funding should be directed towards medical care, localities that benefit from comprehensive state funding for medical care, might better serve patients with using the funding for transportation to medical visits, emergency housing assistance for homeless patients, and other key services. This hard number fails to reflect the different resources that cities like New York utilize to care for their patients, and the changing needs of the HIV/AIDs patient population. New York City has always had a special respect for the opportunities the Ryan White CARE Act affords the city in serving the needs of our HIV/AIDs population. As of December 31, 2003, there were 142,085 cumulative AIDS cases in NYC, and 88,479 City residents diagnosed as Persons Living With HIV/AIDs. Although Ryan White CARE Act is widely considered the payer of last resort for people with HIV/AIDs, it fills much of the void in providing treatment and support services for those who either are uninsured or underinsured, without the necessary resources to access desperately needed care. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that Congress recently passed legislation with billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, all in the name of reform. Real reform would be to permit early treatment for those living with HIV in the Medicaid program. Under current Medicaid rules, most HIV positive people must meet both an income standard and be disabled-- by AIDS--before they can receive access to Medicaid provided care and treatment that could have prevented them from becoming ill so quickly. This policy runs counter to current Federal HIV treatment guidelines which call for early access to medical care and treatment including the use of combination antiretroviral therapy. Medical costs for those with advanced AIDS are significantly higher than costs for caring for HIV positive people, and this is a burden on the States' Medicaid budgets. I offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup for Medicaid reform to give States the OPTION of amending their Medicaid eligibility requirements to included uninsured, pre-disabled low-income people living with HIV. ETHA, which has been introduced by Leader Pelosi in prior Congresses and Senator Smith and Senator Clinton in the Senate, is modeled after the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act, BCCA, that allows states to provide early access to Medicaid to women with cancer. Forty-nine States have implemented the BCCA, designed to preserve health and prevent unnecessary and high-cost medical interventions. As with the BCCA, ETHA includes an enhanced Federal match rate of 65 percent to 83 percent to encourage States to participate in offering the services. Although my amendment failed, a demonstration project for ETHA, was successfully offered by Senator Clinton and Senator Smith in the Senate consideration of the reconciliation bill. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage the preservation of this important policy in the formal reconciliation bill. World AIDS Day is an opportunity to examine what progress we have made and to seriously consider what we must do to address this overwhelming problem. Working together, we can address both prevention and early treatment options, attacking HIV/AIDS head on.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 535, which honors Yitzhak Rabin on the 10th anniversary of his assassination. I am honored to be the sponsor of this resolution, and I would like to thank my colleagues on the International Relations Committee for their assistance and support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by my colleagues, November 4th marked the 10th anniversary of the brutal assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, a warrior turned peacemaker. In a recent national poll, Israelis ranked Rabin's assassination as the third most formative event in the Nation's history, after the 1967 and 1973 wars. Rabin's impact in life was tremendous and his loss to the world is incalculable. I remember attending his funeral in Israel with many Members of this body and the other body as well, and many leaders, international leaders, and leaders of other nations. Who can forget the moving eulogy by then President Bill Clinton, who, among other things, said about Mr. Rabin, ``shalom chaver,'' which means ``goodbye friend.'' Mr. Speaker, my legislation highlights the legacy of the man. The Hebrew word for the anniversary of a death is Yizkor, which simply means remember. While mourning his loss, we must also celebrate his life. Yitzhak Rabin dedicated his life to the cause of peace and security for the State of Israel by defending his nation against all threats, including terrorism, and undertaking courageous risks in the pursuit of peace. By adopting this resolution, Congress will honor the life, legacy, and example of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. This resolution expresses our admiration for Mr. Rabin's legacy and recognizes his historic service to the Israeli people, while extending our deepest sympathy and condolences to his family and the people of Israel. It also reiterates our continued support for the close ties and special relationship between the United States and Israel and the building of a just and lasting peace between Israel and all of its neighbors. We also condemn any and all acts of terrorism, including one that happened just the other day in Netanya, and reaffirm unequivocally the sacred principle that democratic leaders and governments must be changed only by the democratically expressed will of the people. Rabin was the first Sabra, a native-born Israeli, to become prime minister. He was born in Jerusalem and later volunteered for the Palmach, the elite unit of the Haganah, the predecessor of the Israeli Defense Forces. He served for 27 years, including during the 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Suez War, and as Chief of Staff in the June 1967 Six-Day War. In 1975, Prime Minister Rabin signed the Interim Agreement with Egypt, which lay the groundwork for the 1979 Camp David Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt. He also served as ambassador here in Washington, ambassador to the U.S., from 1968 to 1973, Minister of Defense from 1984 to 1990, and Prime Minister from 1974 to 1977 and from 1992 until his assassination in 1995. On September 13, 1993, in Washington, D.C., Yitzhak Rabin signed the Declaration of Principles framework agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. I remember it well. I attended with my wife, who was then 7 months pregnant, and it had to be 95 degrees in Washington, but we sat on the White House lawn and watched the historic ceremony because we wanted to be a part of it. Upon signing, Rabin said to the Palestinian people, ``We say to you today in a loud and clear voice, enough of blood and tears. Enough. We harbor no hatred toward you. We have no desire for revenge. We, like you, are people who want to build a home, plant a tree, love, live side-by-side with you, in dignity, empathy, as humans beings, as free men.'' He received the 1994 Nobel Prize For Peace for his vision and bravery as a peacemaker. The following year, as was pointed out, Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan signed a peace treaty between their countries, and we know about the tragic assassination. And as was stated before, his last words were, ``I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace, are prepared to take risks for peace, peace is what the Jewish people aspire to.'' Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, Israel and the world lost a leader of vision and strength. Former Prime Minister Rabin epitomized the essence of the State of Israel, fierce in his defense of his homeland, but always willing to go the extra mile for peace. As we remember him on the tenth anniversary of his death, let us express the hope that Israel and its neighbors will someday experience this peace that he worked so hard to achieve. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 535.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the majority should be absolutely ashamed of the bill before us today. It is simply unconscionable that the majority is not only moving forward with reconciliation but that they are increasing cuts all under the guise of paying for Hurricane Katrina relief. Under their rules, they won't even allow amendments to this monstrosity--shutting down any meaningful opportunity of offering even slight improvements to this bill. The fact of the matter is that the irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy have run our country's fiscal order into the red with over $8 trillion in debt. Even before Hurricane Katrina, the budget resolution called for $35 billion in cuts to programs for the poor to partially offset the $106 billion in tax cuts in the same budget resolution. The math simply doesn't add up. It is interesting that the majority continues to use terms like personal responsibility when justifying the draconian cuts to services, cruel penalties and cost sharing for the poor that will essentially block access to care while failing to exercise the same responsibility in their own fiscal disorder. The general fund of the Government of the United States is paid for with borrowed money, over $1 billion a day. To make ends meet while continuing to pass tax cuts, we borrow heavily from China, Japan and other foreign nations, knowing full well our children and grandchildren will one day be saddled with our debt. In the meantime, they pretend we can shore up our economy with a few simple reforms that will have devastating consequences for the most vulnerable children, seniors and other impoverished people, which won't really affect the trillions of dollars of debt created by the majority's fiscal irresponsibility. What is irresponsible are the billions of dollars in cuts the majority is making to the Medicaid program. We already have 45 million uninsured Americans. Without Medicaid and SCHIP, the percentage of uninsured Americans, including children, would be a lot higher. As we all know, health care coverage isn't meaningful unless it is accessible and comprehensive. The proposals included in this bill will undoubtedly prove to be a barrier to care as it permits States to significantly increase the amounts Medicaid beneficiaries payout of pocket for premiums and copayments for healthcare services, again, all in the name of personal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, but what about the low-income mother trying to care for her family by stretching her budget to cover housing, electricity, clothing and now increased cost-sharing and copayments for medical care? Why are we setting her up for failure when she has to make choices between her medical care and her children and her utility bills, all important to the wellbeing of her and her family? How have we fulfilled our professional responsibility if we put her in the position of making these impossible choices? I can assure you, these mothers are as familiar with personal responsibility and strapped budgets as any Member of Congress in this room. Part of the problem that I have with these proposals are that the ``reforms'' are budget driven in that the solutions offered are far less important than the anticipated savings associated with them. I urge this committee to scrap these massive changes to Medicaid. While there are certainly ways to modernize, improve, and reform this program, it must be done with the compassion and thoughtful consideration it deserves. A sensible improvement to this bill would be to permit early treatment under Medicaid to those with HIV. Under current Medicaid rules, most HIV positive people must meet both an income standard and be disabled--by AIDS--before they can receive access to Medicaid provided care and treatment that could have prevented them from becoming ill so quickly. This policy runs counter to current Federal HIV treatment guidelines which call for early access to medical care and treatment including the use of combination antiretroviral therapy. Medical costs for those with advanced AIDS are significantly higher than costs for caring for HIV positive people, and this is a burden on the States' Medicaid budgets. I offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup for Medicaid reform to give States the OPTION of amending their Medicaid eligibility requirements to included uninsured, pre-disabled low-income people living with HIV. ETHA, which has been introduced by Leader Pelosi in prior Congresses and Senator Smith and Senator Clinton in the Senate, is modeled after the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act, BCCA, that allows States to provide early access to Medicaid to women with cancer. Forty nine States have implemented the BCCA, designed to preserve health and prevent unnecessary and high-cost medical interventions. As with the BCCA, ETHA includes an enhanced Federal match rate of 65 percent to 83 percent to encourage States to participate in offering the services. Although my amendment failed in committee, Senators Clinton and Smith successfully offered a demonstration version of the Early Treatment for HIV Act on the Senate floor. I tried to offer that amendment on the House floor but the Republican leadership would not permit any amendments. It is my fervent hope that this provision survives conference. Outside of the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I serve, are even more cruel cuts to working families and vulnerable populations. Billions in cuts to student aid programs, child support enforcement, foster care and SSI disability payments. They cut food stamps, eliminated nutritional school lunch and breakfast programs for hundreds of thousands of families and children--the list goes on. Mr. Speaker, you should be ashamed to allow our Congress to even consider such proposals, let alone vote on them, while continuing to promote tax cuts for the wealthy. I vote ``no'' on this monstrosity and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado as well and I want to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to talk about H.R. 323, which is what was mentioned before, a bill which will name the third-floor library at Ellis Island in New York Harbor as the Bob Hope Memorial Library. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for his assistance and support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, most Americans remember Bob Hope for his work in the entertainment business, as a comedian, actor, dancer, singer, as well as his work with American troops abroad; but what few know or remember about Bob Hope is that he was an immigrant from England. The gentlewoman mentioned he came to the United States when he was only 4 years old, and certainly he is referred to as America's most famous immigrant whose life epitomizes the American Dream. I would like to also take this opportunity to vent my frustration a little bit with the National Park Service and its handling of this legislation. We need to pass this bill. I read in Congressional Quarterly that the National Park Service does not support the bill on the grounds that Bob Hope's journey through Ellis Island and his life's accomplishments may not be enough to warrant renaming the island's library in his honor. I want to say that they presented that same sort of testimony before the committee; and the committee had the good sense, in a bipartisan fashion, to reject that kind of thinking, because this is something that is very deserving for Bob Hope because, after all, it is Bob Hope. Everyone knows Bob Hope and everyone knows what he stood for. Bob Hope embodies the American Dream, and the Ellis Island Restoration Commission even called naming the library a fitting tribute. After a long period of restoration, Ellis Island was turned into a museum in 1990 for people to come and remember the 16 million immigrants who passed through Ellis Island from 1892 to 1954 to pursue the American Dream. When I talk about Ellis Island and the immigrants who came through Ellis Island, it is very personal because all four of my grandparents came through Ellis Island, and so many Americans had family coming through Ellis Island. It is estimated that some 40 percent of the current United States population has roots in Ellis Island. So this is a very fitting thing that we do today in memory of Bob Hope. Like many of the other 16 million immigrants who passed through Ellis Island, Bob Hope arrived in America with little. Bob Hope described himself upon arrival as ``a 4-year-old boy in knickers who had no idea of the opportunities that lay ahead.'' He went on to become a household name in the United States and around the world as well. After arriving in the United States, the Hope family moved to Ohio, and he later started his career in radio. He moved on to appear in numerous movies and Broadway plays. He is perhaps best known, however, for his unwavering commitment to entertaining our Nation's military overseas. Who can ever forget all the various Bob Hope shows at Christmas and Thanksgiving and all throughout the year entertaining our troops in harm's way? For nearly six decades, often during holidays, from World War II all the way through the Persian Gulf War, Bob Hope traveled the globe, bringing a little bit of America to U.S. troops during times of war and peace. Troops abroad even called him ``G.I. Bob,'' and in 1997 Congress even named him as an honorary veteran for all the work he did with veterans serving overseas. Bob Hope has been honored in many ways for his work. In fact, the family tells us he has been honored with over 1,500 awards. Some notable awards include several Academy Awards, obviously; a Congressional Gold Medal in 1962; an Emmy; and a Golden Globe. Despite all the awards Bob Hope received, he had a special place in his heart for Ellis Island, and in 1990 when the Ellis Island Restoration Commission suggested naming the third floor library of the museum in his honor, he stated that it would be ``one of the single most important highpoints in my career.'' Sadly, Bob Hope passed away in 2003 at the age of 100 and did not see this project finished. So the Bob Hope Memorial Library will serve as a daily reminder to Ellis Island's visitors of Bob Hope's great contributions to the American people, American culture, and the American dream. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from Bob Hope expressing his support of the museum as well as a letter from the Ellis Island Restoration Commission expressing their support for this project which I will include for the Record. In conclusion, I want to just say I know that everyone supports this and I trust this will pass unanimously because, after all, this is Bob Hope. May 3, 1991. Mr. Philip Lax, President, Mr. Norman Liss, Chairman of Development, Ellis Island Restoration Commission, New York, NY 10005. Dear Phil and Norman: As you well know, I am very honored to be part of the Family Heritage Center at Ellis Island. However, with my trip to Saudi Arabia at Christmas, two television specials and a hectic schedule, I have not been able to fully express my enthusiasm for the project. Enthusiasm, by the way, which is greater than ever. Is it possible that I can meet with you and Ann Belkov of Ellis Island along with Alan Prigge and his associate Friedman to discuss details of the campaign and/or a news conference? I'll be in New York from June 12-16 and hope we can all meet during that period at my Garden City Hotel suite to go over the important details. Or, would you like to set a press conference date hosted by Secretary Lujan? Once again, the Ellis Island recognition is very special to me and my family and I really appreciate this great honor. Warm regards, Bob Hope.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding me time, and I thank my friend from Minnesota for being so helpful in passing this bill today. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have said it all, but I want to add it is with honor that I stand here today to pay tribute to this brave American, an exemplary New Yorker, Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr. Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr., grew up in my district in Pearl River, New York, which is in Rockland County, a suburb of New York City. He was a popular high school athlete. He played football and baseball at Pearl River High School. His classmates remember him as a happy-go-lucky guy. After attending Rockland Community College, Ahlmeyer went on to graduate from the State University of New York in New Paltz. Immediately after college, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps at just 23 years old in 1967. As a second lieutenant, he and three other Marines came under heavy fire from all sides, tragically, on just his first day in Vietnam. Because of the heavy fire surrounding the incident, the four Marines were presumed dead, but, sadly, Ahlmeyer's remains were never recovered, leaving his family and friends without any real closure or sense of peace. I must say that in Pearl River and Rockland County, it is a wonderful community, and people never forgot about Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr., and wore tributes to him, wore wristbands and other things to show that the community has never forgotten him. So for almost 38 years, friends and family wondered if they would ever know exactly what happened to Heinz. Then, finally, in January of this year, they were unexpectedly notified by military officials that, through DNA samples, his remains were found, giving his family and friends and the community much-needed closure. This past May, Ahlmeyer's life was celebrated during his burial at Arlington National Cemetery. It is important that America, Mr. Speaker, honors their heroes of war, not just for their grieving family and friends but for future generations who might enter into combat. My deepest sympathy goes out to the Ahlmeyer family who I hope may take small comfort in knowing that Heinz has a burial place closer to home. The Heinz Ahlmeyer Post Office in Pearl River will be a daily reminder to the community of his great sacrifice to his country. I might also add that, at all the parades on Memorial Day and Veterans' Day, the community has made it very clear that this is so important to everyone concerned, so important that we do the right thing, that I really must say I am touched and grateful to my colleagues for the promptness by which this bill has passed out of committee and has come to the floor. So I want to thank everyone on both sides of the aisle who has been involved with this. We can never bring Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr., back, but we do always remember him personally, because he was such an exemplary young man and for what he stood for. When I check and see, he was only 3 years older than I am right now, but, unfortunately, cut down as a very, very young man. Three years older, if he had lived, he would now be entering his late fifties or early sixties. So we remember him. We show that we are a caring community, that we are a caring country, and this Congress is doing right by Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of the civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, who passed away on October 24, 2005, at the age of 92. Rosa Parks is one of our country's premier civil rights advocates, who worked in the Montgomery, Alabama office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and is best known for refusing to relinquish her bus seat to a white man in December 1955. Her quiet defiance lead to her arrest and sparked the movement that inspired the Civil Rights Act which banned racial discrimination in public accommodations, ending legal segregation in America. Her historic act of courage showed that it was long past time to roll back the Jim Crow era discrimination laws. After taking her public stand for civil rights and the ensuing Montgomery bus boycott, Mrs. Parks was unable to obtain work in Alabama. In the midst of threats and harassment, she and her husband, Raymond Parks, moved to Detroit, MI in 1957. Mrs. Parks worked as an aide in Rep. John Conyers' Detroit office from 1965 until retiring September 30, 1988. Upon her retirement, Mrs. Parks said she sought to dedicate more time to the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, founded in 1987. The Institute is committed to developing leadership among Detroit's young people and initiating them into the struggle for civil rights. Mrs. Parks continued to be a leader within her community and a symbol of freedom for all Americans up to her death. Mr. Speaker, Rosa Parks' lifetime work and fight for the civil rights for African-Americans has not gone unnoticed in the last decade. Mrs. Parks was awarded the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton and the Congressional Gold Medal. Rosa Parks not only stood up for herself but for generations of African-Americans. Mrs. Parks will and shall forever remain an inspiration to those who are fighting for freedom and her legacy will remain iconic for the civil rights movement.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ALS Registry Act of 2005 with my esteemed colleague, Lee Terry of Nebraska. We are proud to have the support of over 40 other bi-partisan members of Congress today as original co-sponsors of this important legislation. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal, progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects motor nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. While the great baseball player, Lou Gehrig, put a national face on ALS over 65 years ago, my own family was devastated by the death of my grandmother, Dora Engel, who passed away from ALS in her 50s. Unfortunately, families across the Nation face the challenges and experience the suffering associated with ALS every single day. 5,600 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with ALS each year, and it is estimated that as many as 30,000 Americans have the disease at any given time. The average life expectancy for a person with ALS is two to five years from the time of diagnosis. The causes of ALS are not well understood and there is no known cure. We must provide hope to change this tragedy today. Surprisingly, a single national patient registry which collects and stores information on the prevalence and incidence of ALS does not currently exist in the United States today. The legislation I am introducing with Congressman Terry, would create an ALS registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and will aid in the search for a cure to this devastating disease. The registry will collect data concerning: the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the United States; the environmental and occupational factors that may contribute to the disease; the age, race or ethnicity, gender and family history of individuals diagnosed; and other information essential to the study of ALS. The registry will also provide a secure method to put patients in contact with scientists conducting clinical trials and scientists studying the environmental and genetic causes of ALS. We need to provide our Nation's researchers and clinicians with the tools and information they need to make progress in the fight against ALS. The data made available by a national registry will potentially allow scientists to identify causes of the disease, and maybe even lead to the discovery of new treatment, a cure for ALS, or even a way to prevent the disease in the first place. This is good public policy. The establishment of a registry will bring new hope to thousands of patients and their families that ALS will no longer be a death sentence. I strongly urge the swift consideration and passage of the ALS Registry Act of 2005.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the mayor of the City of New York announced that there was a credible threat of a terrorist bombing attack against New York City's trains. The FBI concurred, and then we heard that the Department of Homeland Security disagreed and said that the threats were not credible. Madam Speaker, what is going on? We are spending billions and billions of dollars on homeland security, and our Federal officials cannot seem to get it straight. First we had these ridiculous color- coded alerts. Now our FBI and Department of Homeland Security cannot agree on credible threats. Today, part of Pennsylvania Station in New York City had to be evacuated. President Bush should summon Secretary Chertoff and ask some very hard questions. This Congress ought to investigate why our Federal officials cannot seem to get their act together with regard to homeland security.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It is ironic that this bill is called the Gasoline for America's Security Act, or GAS Act, because this bill is certainly filled with a lot of hot air. This bill will do nothing to bring down the cost of gasoline. My constituents and millions of Americans want to know why they are paying $3 and more for gasoline. Just today in the newspaper it reported that Americans can expect to spend 45 to 90 percent more on home heating fuel this year than they did last winter. This is absolutely unconscionable. We saw during Hurricane Katrina looters in New Orleans, but the real looters are the big oil companies. They are looting the American people. They are making record profits. What does this bill do? It does nothing to bring down the price of gasoline. That is what Americans want. They do not want rhetoric. They do not want more SOP to the oil and gas industry. They do not want more of the same. Since I am from the Bronx, I will quote Yogi Berra of the Yankees: It is deja vu all over again. Once again, the majority has presented us with legislation that purports to respond to skyrocketing gas prices, but does nothing of the sort. Under the guise of responding to Hurricane Katrina, we are voting on a bill that guts environmental and public health protections and does nothing to reduce our Nation's devastating dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Further, we are once again witnessing the majority undermining States' rights on the floor of the House. This bill includes provisions that preempt State and local government's authority to decide where refinery facilities are placed in individual communities. What this country critically needs, but was neither in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was signed into law, nor in this bill, is a policy to reduce our addiction to oil through the promotion of alternatives and clean renewables, automotive fuel efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gases. We must create policies that achieve these goals, and we need not destroy the environment and the rights of our citizens in doing so. This is a sop to the industry. It gives us more of the same. It does nothing to lower gas prices. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying ``The South will rise again!'' Well, the bill before us today is proof the ``Era of Big Government has come again!'' Let no mistake be made, those who support this bill cannot claim to be dedicated to fiscal responsibility and smaller government. This bill blows another hole in the Federal deficit. I oppose this sham overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. Enacted in 1973, this landmark legislation has been hugely successful in saving many species from becoming extinct and has been an important conservation tool. The Endangered Species Act must be strengthened not decimated. Of the more than 1,800 plants and animals protected by the act, only 9 percent have been declared extinct. Those species that have survived continue to grow and flourish. Newly named, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act ignores this success and carves out loopholes in the Act that will allow developers and others to avoid the law's protections. This legislation eliminates extremely critical habitat designations, giving many species no opportunity to survive. It is a travesty that the leadership in this House, is yet again giving business the upper hand over sensible and effective environmental protection law. Private landowners will now have no incentive to protect their land. In fact, the Federal Government will now pay landowners for merely abiding the law! Mr. Chairman, this Act does not ``modernize'' or ``reform'' the Endangered Species Act, it guts it and should be called the landowner and developer welfare act.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Congress will stand by and allow the Ryan White CARE Act to expire. While this does not signify the end to the program, it does underscore our responsibility to conduct hearings and vote on its soon overdue reauthorization. We must act swiftly to ensure that this landmark program, which provides lifesaving treatment to more than half a million persons living with HIV/AIDS each year, be strengthened to meet the changing needs of their care. New York City has always had a special respect for the opportunities the Ryan White CARE Act affords the city in serving the needs of our HIV/AIDS population. New York City comprises three percent of the nation's population, but more than 16 percent of the nation's AIDS cases. As of December 31, 2003, there were 142,085 cumulative AIDS cases in NYC, and 88,479 City residents diagnosed as Persons Living With HIV/AIDS. Although Ryan White CARE Act is widely considered the payer of last resort for people with HIV/AIDS, it fills much of the void in providing treatment and support services for those who either are uninsured or underinsured, without the necessary resources to access desperately needed care. We must do better by CARE Act funding. This program has been virtually flat funded for years, and its AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP) only received a ten million dollar increase in this year's House Labor-HHS bill. Many very low-income people continue to be shut-out from ADAP programs due to states' varying income eligibility levels, which can range from 125 percent to 500 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Without early, aggressive treatment people living with HIV/AIDS can experience rapid and often irreversible disease progression. Additionally, if care is interrupted drug resistance can develop, which compromises their ability to properly control their health. Now, more than ever, the President should release emergency ADAP funding to help host states care for the estimated 8,000 victims of Hurricane Katrina, who have been displaced from their homes and networks of care. The President's Principles for Ryan White CARE Act Authorization include some troubling provisions which could have devastating results for communities' ability to provide consistent, appropriate care for persons living with HIV/AIDs. The proposed Severity of Need for Core Services Index will change funding formulas to take into account the availability of other resources, like state and local funding streams. This is bad public policy as it punishes states that have taken responsibility for their local HIV care and creates a powerful disincentive for other states to prioritize funding for HIV funding in future years, if they think the federal government will just cover the gap. No state spends more than New York does to care for its residents with HIV and AIDS--over $3 billion last year. New York has always viewed this funding as a partnership between the state, cities and federal government and should not lose out on future federal funding for being at the forefront of providing progressive services and treatment. Secondly the President's proposal for a minimum of 75 percent of Ryan White CARE Act funding to be spent on core medical services should be seriously revisited. While there is no question that appropriate funding should be directed towards medical care, localities that benefit from comprehensive state funding for medical care, might better serve patients with using the funding for transportation to medical visits, emergency housing assistance for homeless patients, and other key services. This hard number fails to reflect the different resources that cities like New York utilize to care for their patients, and the changing needs of the HIV/AIDS patient population. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I look forward to holding hearings on the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act. We must work together with the Senate to strengthen and preserve the foundation of the Ryan White CARE Act program with the compassion and thoughtful consideration it deserves.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, fifty-five years ago, the United States came to the aid of South Korea, when it was invaded by Communist forces from across its northern border. This month, South Korea has come to the aid of the United States, when a natural disaster struck from across our southern coastline. With its generous pledge of $30 million in cash, services, and in- kind contributions, South Korea joins a list of more than 90 countries that have offered some form of assistance to our efforts of relief and recovery in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. What is noteworthy is that, among those nearly 100 countries, South Korea is providing the fourth-largest offer of assistance. According to a recent statement by the Korean Embassy, ``Seoul's commitment of $30 million will comprise of $5 million from the government budget with the remainder to be raised through a collection of contributions by the Korean National Red Cross, the religious community and Korean corporations with U.S. subsidiaries.'' In fact, just last week in New York, the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI) pledged $10 million to be collected from Korean conglomerates directly to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. It is not mentioned often enough that South Korea is one of America's most important and trusted allies. In the global war on terror, there are more South Korean troops stationed in Iraq than any other nation besides the United States and the United Kingdom. They have assisted our efforts there from almost the moment the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled and have done so at great personal peril to the soldiers deployed and at considerable political risk to the government in Seoul. As I had the opportunity to travel to North Korea at the beginning of the year along with several of my colleagues, including Rep. Curt Weldon, the status of the Six-Party Talks to resolve North Korea's nuclear issue has been of great concern to me. That is why I was pleased to know that earlier this week, after lengthy deliberation, a joint statement was agreed to by all the parties involved. I commend the U.S. Envoy to the Six-Party Talks, my good friend Ambassador Christopher Hill, for his skillful diplomatic leadership in helping to achieve the accord. I also commend South Korea for remaining a key partner throughout the difficult negotiations. It is my hope that the joint statement will provide the impetus for a denuclearized Korean peninsula and I encourage the six nations to work together to make it a reality. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my personal appreciation to the government and people of South Korea for all they have done to continually support the United States, at home and abroad. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to offer their own expressions of gratitude to the Korean people for their generosity, spirit of friendship and abiding commitment to an enduring alliance partnership with the United States.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me start by stating my sheer admiration for the men and women of the United States Coast Guard. Their performance during and after Katrina was phenomenal and they deserve our gratitude and praise. I rise to thank the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Transportation Committee and its Coast Guard subcommittee. A year ago, they worked with me to add language to the Coast Guard authorization bill requiring the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security to do a security assessment of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. As that bill moved through the process, this study was expanded to all nuclear power plants in the United States. I am pleased to report that DHS plans on releasing this report very soon--perhaps even this week. While I am well aware that security for nuclear plants is a sensitive matter and fully understand that this might require that parts of this report be classified, it is my hope that the report would contain unclassified sections to permit those around the nuclear plants to gain a better understanding of how our government is protecting them. We know for a fact that Al Qaeda has the plans of U.S. nuclear power plants. We know that these facilities are a target. We, the Congress and the rest of the federal government, have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of these plants and our citizens. I am hopeful that the analysis in this report will help us as we make policy decisions about how best to safeguard these facilities. There is no doubt about the awesome power of nuclear energy. It provides 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. However, if a terrorist group were successful in causing major damage to a plant or its cooling ponds, then the impact would be devastating on a scale we dare not imagine. We know that on 9/11 one of the planes flew over Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York and that the terrorists had plans nuclear plants in their possession. While I will continue to call for Indian Point to be closed, until that day, I will work to ensure it is as safe and secure as is humanly possible. This report will be an important step toward protecting Indian Point and all nuclear power plants sitting on major waterways. Again, I thank Chairman Young, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Oberstar and Ranking Member Filner for their assistance and support.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that there will be a Special Order after this bill is debated where Members can say how we feel about it, but I really think it is inappropriate. I think that there should be substantial debate on this bill itself, not that we want to slow down any kind of funding, but frankly we fiddled and faddled for days and days, and now we are told that we can only have 5 minutes per side to debate this bill. I think it is wrong. I think Members of Congress who have rushed back here, who want to help, who want to make sure that the people of the Gulf are given their due and the moneys, we should have the right to debate this bill now. We watch TV and we see the looters and much has been made about the looters who are coming and looting in New Orleans. I think quite frankly with the prices of gas rising, the real looters are the big oil companies. They are looting the American people. It is unconscionable that we have had a spike of 30 to 50 cents in gasoline prices 2 days after this disaster happened. There is no way that that could have been reflected at the pump so quickly. So it is looting the American public, and I think these are the issues that Congress should debate. I am glad that our Energy and Commerce Committee is having a hearing on this on Wednesday, but the American people ought to hear Congress debating this. What are we going to do to bring relief to our people with these huge and unconscionable gas prices? We are doing nothing. We are fiddling while Rome is burning. So while I say that it is very important that we are passing this legislation quickly today and we should be doing this, I wish that we had had hours of debate on this, yesterday or today. It should not be where we have 10 minutes of debate because we quickly have to get the bill to the President. We need to get the bill to the President as quickly as possible but Congress needs to debate the issues of the day. So while I will not object because we have to get the relief to the people of the Gulf, the fact is that Congress needs to debate the issue of high gas prices. Our constituents all across America are suffering. The oil companies are making record profits. Frankly, they ought to turn some of those profits back to the American people to try to keep the price of gasoline down. This is all tied in, and how dare they use this terrible disaster, this terrible tragedy to loot the American people and to spike the prices of gasoline higher and higher. I hope this Congress can have a full and free debate on this. I do not object because I want to get the money there as quickly as possible, but this Congress needs to do and this President needs to do something about the high price of gasoline. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before when I reserved my right to object, I think that this debate should have been going on before we passed the bill, not after we passed the bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, but this should have been part of the debate. Mr. Speaker, there is looting going on. We know there is looting going on. You can turn on your television and see looting going on. But the real looting that is going on is the looting of the big oil companies, looting the American public, picking the pockets of the American public. It is unconscionable that gasoline prices in a matter of days have been spiked 30 to 50 cents a gallon. This is price gouging on the part of the oil companies. There is no way that the disaster in the Gulf States could have been reflected so quickly with an upswing of prices at the pump. There is no way, except for greed and price gouging. Big oil companies should stop the looting of the American people. When the price of a barrel of oil goes down, it takes a month or two to be reflected at the pump. Why, then, is it quite the opposite when disaster hits? Why is there an immediate increase in the price of gasoline? How dare the oil companies use this disaster to line their pockets. How dare the oil companies use this tragedy to get richer and to stick it to the American people. The American people demand answers and want to know why they are being forced to pay so much for gasoline. This Congress and the President should do everything possible to bring down the cost of gasoline. If it means releasing the strategic reserves, as I have been calling for for months and the President says he will do, we should do that, and then some; and we should call on the oil companies to put back some of their profits into helping the American people bring down the cost of gasoline. Now, of course, I support this legislation. Of course, we must help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. As a New Yorker, I am appreciative of how the country responded after September 11. We need that kind of response today. Why were these things not in place before the hurricane happened? We knew the hurricane was going to happen. Why did we not have food and clothes and water and all kinds of things for the people? Why is it still, days and days later, taking time to evacuate people? Why are there dead bodies floating around? What is the administration doing about this? Government has dropped the ball and heads should roll, quite frankly, because it is unconscionable that we are standing by and not responding properly or effectively enough. I flew over the tsunami. I flew over Indonesia and I saw the devastation there. It is one thing to have devastation in a Third World country, as terrible as it is; but in the United States of America in the 21st century, days later, for people to be there stranded without water and food and shelter, it is unconscionable. Again, how dare the oil companies take advantage of this and raise the price of a gallon of gasoline so that the American people during Labor Day and after are suffering. It is shameful that they are using people's misery in three States to line their pockets and spike the price of gasoline for the entire American public. Mr. Speaker, the other issue involves us weaning ourselves off foreign oil. Local gas stations in New York and elsewhere and in places outside of the Gulf Coast supply lines have gasoline. Their suppliers and shippers have gasoline. So why are prices going up so much? Again, it is simply price gouging by the giant oil companies. I realize that gasoline is priced on a futures market and that gas prices today reflect what is expected in the future. But it is bad enough that this Congress passed an energy bill several weeks ago that did nothing to help the American people in terms of bringing down the price of gasoline. So now Congress has a challenge not only to help the victims of Katrina, but to help the American people with this spike in gasoline prices. For years I have been talking about the need to wean ourselves off oil because we have to rely on the sheikdoms that are either unstable, unfriendly to the U.S. or even supporters of terrorism. Now we have another reason to wean ourselves off foreign oil. So much of our economy is based on oil, and when Mother Nature gets grumpy, it sends us into a tailspin; and the oil companies use the tragedy of hundreds of thousands of hurricane survivors as cover to extract more profit from our constituents. This cannot stand. We need to improve the fuel economy of passenger cars and SUVs to a level our advanced technology makes possible, not issue CAFE standards, as the administration did last week, which do nothing to improve fuel efficiency. We need to make America the world's leader in energy technologies, not rely on the inefficiencies of the past. We can do this. I am currently forming a bipartisan Oil and National Security Caucus to highlight the danger of our over-reliance on oil. But in the end we will never end our addiction to oil and never break the grip of the oil companies unless we act now. So I call on this Congress to come up with solutions which are already there to wean us off foreign oil, and I believe that this Congress needs to take action now. Now, provisions and assistance should have been on the ready, as I mentioned before, so that as soon as this storm moved on, the food, water, medical supplies and personnel, military and civilian, would be on their way. We must not ignore the mistakes that have been made. We must fix them immediately and learn from them for the future. We must help the people immediately. Let me finally say that the priority of this Congress and this administration has been tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts; and this is a result of it. We do not put the money where we need to put the money. We do not put the money into infrastructure. We do not do the kinds of things to prevent disasters from happening again. Priorities cannot only be tax cuts and war; priorities must be helping the American people, first in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, and then taking strong steps to wean us off foreign oil.