Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member of the subcommittee, who has been an excellent mentor and friend on this. (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In urging my colleagues to vote with this amendment, I would like to deal with some of the misconceptions put forward about the amendment. People say they want smaller government. What we are doing here would not give us smaller government, if we oppose this amendment, it would give us dumber government, because government would be taking taxpayers' money and not necessarily getting the best deal for it. We hear it is a violation of States' rights. Not so. This simply says the State needs to go through a justification process, but the decision as to what to do remains with the State. We hear this is unworkable. Any State that is spending tens or hundreds of millions of Federal taxpayer dollars without doing this is running their projects in an unworkable way. We hear that privatization has been a great success, and since my friends from New Jersey raised New Jersey, let me raise New Jersey. New Jersey, as I understand it, laid off the custodians at the State Capitol, the people who clean the State capitol building in the name of saving money. We have a problem with the Capitol building not being clean and we find out that the firm that was hired to do the work has hired illegal aliens to do the work, so I am not sure that that was a success. When our constituents, Mr. Chairman, go out and shop tonight for an air-conditioner or a TV set, they look for the best deal. We should do the same thing with their money. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the South Jersey Radio Association [SJRA], which is celebrating its 80th anniversary this year. The importance of radio in this society is intangible. From reporting news stories at critical moments to stretching our mental capabilities with thoughtful commentary, the radio has played an integral role in the development of this Nation. As the oldest active amateur radio club in the United States, the South Jersey Radio Association built the foundation of the radio industry. The SJRA, originally known as the South Jersey Wireless Association, first met on June 12, 1916 at the home of William G. Phillips in Collingswood, NJ. The meeting was composed of 13 ambitious individuals who were eager to learn more about the technical development and operation of wireless communication. Harry William Densham presided at this historic meeting which was attended by William G. Phillips, George Haldeman, C. Waldo Batchelor, Leon W. Ashton, William A.F. Pyle, Gordon Kressel, William L. Kirby, Edward B. Patterson, Henry Wetzel, Henry S. Byam, Taylor Stokes, and Roger W. Barrington. The South Jersey Wireless Association grew in size to 40 individuals by the time World War I began. The group responded to the growing need of wireless operators brought about by the war by conducting a wireless school in the physics lab of the Collingswood High School. After the course, many members of the club went on to advanced training at the Harvard University Radio School. Soon after the war, the activity of the association declined because of the rise in broadcasting and neighborhood annoyance over interference from local wireless telegraph stations. However, a small group of dedicated pioneers still met at each others homes to continue their pursuit. During this time, Normal Wible, a member of the SJRA, gained national prominence by being the first North American amateur to communicate with a South American over shortwave and vacuum tube transmitters. This event rejuvenated the club and gave rise to what is now known as amateur radio. On March 17, 1932, the SJRA received a station license with the call number W3CTV. Twenty-one years after its inception, the association became incorporated under New Jersey law on March 17, 1932. Over the past 80 years, the SJRA has taken the initiative to promote amateur radio. In 1993, they developed a special program to introduce amateur radio to over 2,000 fourth, fifth and sixth graders. The program set up an amateur station in each classroom and encouraged the students to talk with amateurs through the various pieces of equipment such as the SJRA repeater. SJRA members have also assisted in many special events such as the New Jersey Fall Festival, the New Jersey Apple Festival, and the New Jersey Cranberry Festival. The service of the SJRA to the community makes them worthy of special recognition. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the South Jersey Radio Association, an organization which has devoted its time and energy to the promotion of radio in the United States. With over 250 current members, the association has come a long way since its humble beginning back in 1916. I applaud the dedication of such an outstanding organization and I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there is a vast economic potential that remains untapped today. This resource could mean millions of dollars for many cities and States. It could aid consumers, help tourism, and create jobs. I'm talking about the untapped potential of passenger aviation between Japan and the United States. Currently flights between the two countries are restricted by agreements that severely limit the number of flights, the cities served, and the carriers that can fly between the routes. One additional flight per day from Newark to Japan would bring almost 100,000 additional passengers to the area, with an economic impact of almost $700 million a year. There's an easy way to unlock this potential. The Clinton administration has the key. All it has to do is begin negotiation of a comprehensive new agreement to expand United States-Japan aviation service when officials of the two countries meet in Washington later this month. Right now, the agenda consists solely of trying to obtain two new flights from Osaka, Japan, to Jakarta, Indonesia. Unbelievably, the larger issues are not on the agenda--the issues that affect travelers in the United States, the people who work in tourism and the people whose livelihood depend on the aviation industry. Mr. Speaker, now is the time to think of those and renegotiate the United States-Japan passenger aviation agreements.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Indiana. I rise in opposition because there are very few things we can be certain about in this world, but there are some things we can be certain about. The first is that Asia will be an incredibly important area of the world for our country for years to come, and there is no credible Asia strategy for America that does not include a strong relationship with India, potentially as a counterbalance to the People's Republic of China but for the relationship in and of itself.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the second argument is that there is no scenario for the future of our economy that does not include increased global trade, and there is no trade strategy that does not focus upon enhanced trade with India. Another thing we can be sure of is the fact that people all over the world are watching what we do here. They watched as 1 in 10 citizens of the world voted in a free and fair election in India. If we reward that desirable conduct with this undesirable amendment, we will be abandoning our own principles. For these reasons and others, I would strongly urge a vote in opposition to the Burton amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I also rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky]. I do so for reasons of strategic balance, constitutional propriety and moral imperative. On issues of strategic balance, I do not think anyone on our side of the question would disagree that the importance of Turkey's military role to the defense of this country is very important and very desirable. But one of the many benefits of the Visclosky amendment is it does not in any way impair that relationship. In fact, it simply only speaks to the economic assistance and conditions that assistance, not the military assistance, upon the behavior of Turkey. With respect to the issue of constitutional propriety, with all due respect to the administration, many of us believe that its decision to waive the provision of the Humanitarian Corridor Act was incorrect and wrong. This, we believe, restores a sense of constitutional balance, where we say with respect to economic assistance funds there will be none, period, unless there is compliance with the act. And with respect to other provisions, we respect the prerogative of the Commander-in- Chief and the executive branch. Finally, there is a matter of the moral imperative here. A country that continues to illegally and harshly occupy the island of Cyprus, that continues to persecute people within its own borders for the practice of their religion, a country that has the dubious distinction of leading the world in 1995 in the number of journalists imprisoned for simply speaking their minds, such a country has no place receiving the hard-earned tax dollars of the people of our country. Cyprus is the most egregious example. What has happened to the people of Armenia fits a similar standard. And for us to adopt Mr. Visclosky's amendment, I think, would make us unwitting and undesirable components or accessories to such a policy. I believe we should not do that. I commend Mr. Visclosky and his colleagues for introducing this. I thank my friend from California for yielding to me.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, to understand this debate today and what has happened in this Congress in the last 18 months, we have to consider the case of an individual who owns a building, and that woman who cleans his building at night and is working for minimum wage. Here is what we have done for those two people or to those two people in the last 18 months. For the person who owns the building we have said, if you have a pension plan and you have what you consider to be surplus income in the plan, you can keep it and spend it on yourself. We have said that when you sell the building, we will give you a tax break or a tax reduction on your profit when you sell the building, and if you choose to move out of the country, renounce your citizenship, and no longer be an American for the purposes of evading taxes, we will let you do it. That is the policy we are following here. On the other hand, when the woman who cleans the building at night tries to get a 90-cent increase per hour in her wages, that is a great risk to the American economy and a great diversion of public policy that makes no sense. What makes no sense is that we are even having a serious question about this. The people who sweep our floors, cook our meals, and work in the child care centers in this country need a raise. They have earned it, they deserve it. Mr. Speaker, I support the increase in the minimum wage. I oppose the amendment that will follow this, which will eviscerate and defeat the increase in the minimum wage. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to honor a group of citizens with me that glorify the State of New Jersey. On the 14th of May this year the City of Camden held it's Police Awards Banquet. Citizens and police officers that went beyond the call of duty received awards in their particular areas of service. These people exemplify the definition of what a citizen to one's community is. Police officers put their lives on the line every day to protect the people of our communities. We should award not just the following individuals, but all officers of the law as well. Without them, our families and communities would not be safe. Citizen Awards/Special Appreciation Awards Kathleen Toso, Slice of New York Pizza; Anthony Santovito, Brinks Corporation; Diana Vilafante, 104 East State Street Village; Rodick Campbell, 1027 Sheridan Street; Ronald Johnson, 1343 Dayton Street; Willie Smith, 250 Mt. Vernon Street; Richard Suarez, Cooper Medical Systems; Darren Lomonico, Cooper Medical Systems; David Smalls, Cooper Medical Systems; Clifton Kilgore, 518 Center Drive Chiselhurst; Samuel Plaza, 600 State Street; Lieutenant Martin Taylor, Philadelphia Police Dept.; Sergeant Stephen Naughton, Philadelphia Police Dept.; David Garrison, Cartuns Hardware Store; Conrad Greenhow, 428 Chambers Street; Len Mauer, Bell Atlantic; Jessica Gonzalez Joseph, Campbell Soup Co.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues one of the great business success stories in my State, Wakefern Food Corp. of Elizabeth, NJ. Wakefern, which to many of us is known as ShopRite, was born in 1946. The Second World War was one of the great tragic conflicts of human history, but the peacetime economy that was created in its aftermath laid the groundwork for so many positive opportunities to come. Wakefern was created out of just such an opportunity. In Newark, NJ, eight independent grocers joined together to create a buying cooperative, Wakefern Food Corp., so they could get the benefit of buying discounts. Like so many other companies, their earliest days were filled with endless challenges and difficulties. Yet, through hard work and dedication to a dream they persevered, and the company became the success that it is today. Today, Wakefern and its ShopRite supermarkets represent the largest retailer-owned cooperative in the United States and are New Jersey's second largest employer. Their 37 members own and operate those supermarkets employing 35,000 associates and serving 500 communities in New Jersey and more than 3 million customers each week. Throughout the region, the firm employs 15,000 more associates. Wakefern takes its mission of excellence seriously, and it also understands that this mission can only be extended through community involvement. ShopRite's owners and Wakefern have dedicated themselves to improving educational opportunities through programs such as the supermarket careers effort for special needs students. They have worked tirelessly to fight hunger through their support of the Community Food Bank of New Jersey, and they can continuously recognize the spirit of friendship and love through their sponsorship of the New Jersey Special Olympics. This past March, I was pleased to join with those congratulating Wakefern's general merchandise facility in Jamesburg for winning the Merit Site OSHA Award for workplace safety. This year, Wakefern is celebrating its 50th anniversary in grand style, with commemorative ceremonies and activities at Liberty State Park and Ellis Island. While we join in this celebration and recognize the dedication of so many that have worked so hard to make Wakefern and ShopRite the outstanding corporate citizen that it has become, we also pay tribute to an individual who helped build this company from the ground up, Tom Infusino. Tom has steadfastly led Wakefern as its chairman for the last 25 years. His vision has helped transform Wakefern from a group of local grocers to the great service corporation that it is today. Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues would join me today in congratulating Wakefern, its 50,000 associates and its great leadership on 50 years of success, and in wishing them 50 more years of service to our community.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today in honor of a special group from my district in New Jersey. Over the past 5 years the Hilb, Rogal, & Hamilton Co. of New Jersey has devoted itself in serving our communities. They have generously supported local churches and youth organizations by donating their volunteer services and materials to veterans and young people throughout the State of New Jersey. Therefore, I congratulate Arthur C. Hanebury, C.P.C.U., president and the entire Hilb, Rogal, & Hamilton Co. for their honorable work and dedication. Hence, I officially proclaim March 16, 1996, to be Hilb, Rogal, & Hamilton Co. Day in the First Congressional District of New Jersey. Speaking not only for my district, but for the State of New Jersey as well, we are very fortunate to have such a charitable group gracing our State.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to honor the volunteers of the Gibbstown Fire Co. These brave individuals risk their lives every day protecting the citizens of Gibbstown. I commend all of them for their invaluable services to our community. On May 11, 1996, the company dedicated the opening of their new fire station. The firemen themselves helped with the cost of the building by raising $140,000. The new station has the capability to house up to five firemen, is completely computerized, and handicapped accessible. Along with the countless hours of training and dedication required to serve as a fireman, this building will help save lives. I ask my colleagues to stand with me and applaud the selfless efforts of the Gibbstown Fire Co., and all fire companies for that matter. These heroes sacrifice their own lives to make our communities a safer place.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this week has been designated National Nurses Week. As Congress faces several important items affecting health delivery in the United States, it is a good time to reflect on the importance of nurses to our health care system. The issues affecting the nursing profession continue to have a profound impact on the quality of health care our constituents receive. Many in other professions seek to exclude nurses from performing duties for which they are qualified. As licensed practitioners, nurses are just as capable as other professionals of performing high quality services--often at much lower cost. We must find ways to use their talents. The nursing profession as a whole is being besieged by reductions in public and private budgets, as well as by changes in hospital staffing policies. We must support continued funding for nursing education. We must support measures to allow nurses to practice in their own specialties rather than floating between hospital wards. Finally, we must oppose any move by health insurers to allow unlicensed practitioners to assume the nurses' role. If we want to maintain the high quality of health care in the United States, we must examine every part of the caregiving network for savings and efficiency. I believe our investment in the education and utilization of nurses will continue to prove sound.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the New Jersey State Police on their 75th anniversary. The service of the division of State Police is invaluable to the people of New Jersey. On March 29, 1921, Gov. Edward I. Edwards signed legislation creating the New Jersey State Police, and appointed Col. H. Norman Schwartzkopf as the first Superintendent of the State Police on July 1, 1921. In December 1921, 81 troopers and officers left Trenton and took up their initial assignments as the first statewide police force in New Jersey. In the 75 years since their creation, the New Jersey State Police has led the way in the field of criminal justice. Among the techniques that the State Police has pioneered include the Nation's first Underwater Recovery Unit, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, and the DNA database and databank, which allows the inclusion of DNA records in the FBI's national identification index system. The police have shown their impressive skill in such historic events as the Lindebergh kidnapping, the Hindenburg zeppelin disaster, the Hall-Mills murder trial, and the Woodbridge train wreck. Today 2,500 troopers valiantly serve New Jersey in many capacities. They patrol our roadways, including the New Jersey Turnpike, the Nation's busiest limited access nonstop toll road. They enforce the criminal, motor vehicle, marine, and alcoholic beverage control laws of New Jersey. They also maintain the State Police Museum and Learning Center as a tribute to the men and women who have served the State of New Jersey as State Police troopers and officers. The people of New Jersey are indebted to the honor and dedication of the New Jersey State Police. Today I congratulate State Police Superintendent Maj. Carl A. Williams, Jr., and all of the ranks of the State Police on reaching this milestone, and look to many more years of continued service.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there are two sets of ideas before the House tonight. There is a set of ideas on which there is disagreement, whether we should limit the amount people can recover if they are a victim of malpractice; whether or not people should have medical savings accounts; whether or not there should be pooling arrangements for small businesses. There is legitimate disagreement about those things. Then there is another set of ideas on which there is virtual unanimous agreement, broad consensus that we should make it illegal to say you cannot deny someone an insurance policy because they have been sick, and that people should be able to take their insurance from job to job. Mr. Speaker, logical people would say that we put aside the things on which we cannot agree and debate about them and try to refine them and deal with them another day and then we take the things on which we do agree and pass them so we can send them to the President of the United States and make them law. But we are not going to do that. What we are going to do tonight in the bill that is before us is take a lot of controversial provisions and maybe pass them out of here and send them to a conference that will, in likelihood, I believe they will wither on the vine and die. Now, this is not just another cynical example of the cynical exercise of how politics is practiced in our country. It is more than that. It has a lot to do with real people in real families and their real lives. Mr. Speaker, the American people understand this. A woman with breast cancer, a man who has had a triple bypass heart operation, a shipyard worker who has had asbestosis can be denied health insurance coverage now because the have been sick. If the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] does not pass tonight, they can still be denied that coverage. We need to make it illegal, illegal for an insurance company in this country to say to that woman with breast cancer of that man with asbestosis or that person who has had the triple bypass operation that, we are not going to sell you a policy or that we are going to charge you the Moon and the stars to buy the policy. A unanimous vote in a Senate committee said they agreed with that. Dozens of Republicans and Democrats, if not hundreds around here, have said they agree with that. The President of the United States has said he would sign that. But unless the Roukema substitute passes, we are not going do do that. Do the right thing tonight. Vote ``yes'' on the Roukema substitute and ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, we always hunger for good news. The following should be a very fine meal in this respect. Community Action of Greater Indianapolis, Inc. To: Thomas L. Haskett, State Program Director From: Nanci Morris, Foster Grandparent Program Coordinator, Community Action of Greater Indianapolis Re: Impact, Meeting Community Needs To address community needs, three priority areas have been targeted for Community Action's Foster Grandparent Program services: (1) special needs children in public schools, (2) children in homeless shelters, and (3) neglected and abused children in temporary homes and shelters. 1. special needs children in public schools Dramatic increases have occurred in the number of mildly- to-severely disabled children enrolled in 19 elementary schools of the Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) that have been designated for mainstreaming these children. Budget cutbacks have not allowed for all classrooms with special needs children to have teacher's aides. Severely disabled children are assigned 8 to a classroom with 1 teacher and 1 aide, and moderately-to-mildly disabled are assigned 10-14 per classroom with 1 teacher and sometimes 1 aide. Thus, 8 schools with classrooms having no aides or not enough aides to adequately address the children's special needs have been selected as priorities for this Foster Grandparent Program's placements by the IPS Programs for Young Children, Special Education Department. 2. children in homeless shelters The increase in children throughout the nation living without a permanent address has made serving homeless children a priority for all Foster Grandparent Programs as presented at the recent Foster Grandparent Conference in Washington, D.C. A survey conducted last fall indicated that there were at least 824 homeless children under age 15 in Indianapolis. Thus, serving homeless children has been identified as a community need for Community Action's Foster Grandparent Program. Program volunteers are placed at 6 of Indianapolis' seven homeless shelters serving families with children. 3. neglected and abused children in temporary homes and shelters Reported child abuse in Indianapolis has risen 150 percent during the past 2 years. A decrease in the number of neglected, abused, sexually abused, abandoned, fetal alcohol syndrome, emotionally disturbed/disabled, and ``crack'' children is not anticipated for the foreseeable future. Funding for homes and shelters to serve these children have not increased accordingly. Thus, 7 shelters for abused children have been selected for Community Action Foster Grandparent services. impact on community needs At the end of the 1994-95 school year, children assigned to Foster Grandparents were tested and assigned to summer school for additional assistance as needed. To our knowledge, only three students assigned to Foster Grandparents were not promoted. The rest were able to keep up with their classmates after receiving the intervention of one-on-one Foster Grandparent instruction during the school year and summer school. In addition to there being too few available, homeless shelters for families with children in Indianapolis are understaffed. There is a need for Foster Grandparent intervention during the parents' busiest hours (mornings) as they seek jobs and attend to other business. The one-on-one attention provided by the Grandparents eases the trauma and provides a sense of stability through loving and meaningful interaction for these children. Foster Grandparents help fit the children in suitable clothing in addition to helping provide for other physical needs. The parents enjoy guidance and support from the volunteers as well. Additionally, the shelter employees benefit in the traditional ways from the Grandparents' assistance. Consequently, the whole atmosphere of a shelter improves when a Foster Grandparent is around. The staffs of homes and shelters for neglected and abused children alone can not adequately provide the level of attention needed there, particularly by the babies and small children. The maturity, stability, and love Foster Grandparents provide help the children respond in ways that would likely not be possible otherwise. impact on the volunteer Many Community Action Foster Grandparent volunteers have worked with special needs children in the IPS system for years and continue to maintain regular contact with many of their former students. Having witnessed the progress these children have made, the Grandparents benefit from the abounding satisfaction they feel from having been a part of each child's paths to success. The Grandparents are encouraged and allowed by IPS to be creative, and the teachers gladly seek advice and new ideas from the Grandparents. A good example of this creativity at work was when children living in a homeless shelter were often teased by their school classmates. ``Grandma'' started a grooming session whereby the special needs children met her before school. She would check them over for tidiness, give them a pep talk, and then give them a liberal spray of after shave lotion or perfume as a reminder that she was with them all day. This soon caught on, and other children who weren't homeless sought out Grandma for some reassurance and a sweet smell. Thus, the Grandparents are rewarded in the best possible way for being creative. Additionally, each of the Grandparents is taught how to operate school office equipment such as the duplicator, copiers, and calculators. The children often assist the Grandparent in copying and preparing papers for the next day's work, honing skills and providing satisfaction for both. One school even offers computer literacy classes to the Grandparents. Many of the Grandparents live near the shelters they serve. They know first-hand about the situations faced by the families as they starting over. Being able to offer the single parent support, guidance, and encouragement to ``hold your head up'' in the face of diversity and loneliness, inspires the Grandparent and develops a sense of independence and self-worth for both parties. Of course ultimate personal satisfaction comes when the family is ready to leave the shelter and thanks the Grandparent wholeheartedly for the time, advice, and loving attention given to the children at their time of need. Reward likewise abounds for the Foster Grandparents who serve neglected and abused children. The sense of self-worth derived from these programs is priceless for the Grandparents.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Star-Ledger of New Jersey reported on the troubling situation of pension funds for New Jersey's public employees. Governor Christine Todd Whitman has used these workers' investments to pay for her campaign promises from 1993, which the State could not afford. When Governor Whitman ran short on money to pay for important programs like Medicaid and education, she either tried to cut them, or she simply stopped paying the government's full share of the State employees' pensions. The result is a massive shortfall in State pensions, including a $2.5 billion unfunded liability in the teachers' fund alone. What allowed this to happen is a legal system that lets the Governor use inaccurate economic estimates, and a State legislature that proved willing to comply. Governor Whitman is balancing the New Jersey budget on the backs of the State's workers, who are seeing their retirement funds placed in the greatest of danger. I have proposed a solution to this problem. In May of last year, I introduced legislation to grant State public employee pension beneficiaries the right to sue the State in a Federal court. My bill, H.R. 1683, does not stop a State from changing its contribution to retirement funds. Rather, it encourages the State to obtain the approval of a review board first. The board's primary responsibility will be the fund's economic health, not a political agenda. If a State uses such a panel, then any lawsuit filed by pension beneficiaries will be held to a much higher standard of proof. My bill will put the fate of State employees not in the hands of political opportunists, but of people who know how to make a pension fund work for the benefit and security of its members.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as a country, we can express nothing but outrage at the recent events in Israel. The cowardice of the Hamas terrorists, who attack children dressed in costume for the Purim holiday, is hard for any sane individual to grasp. The United States cannot let such blatantly evil acts against humanity go unanswered. During Purim, Jews throughout the world celebrate freedom from the tyranny and oppression imposed by Haman, a villain of the worst magnitude. Jewish tradition suggests that joyous holidays be celebrated even during difficult and trying times. These are indeed trying times for the people of Israel, and people who support freedom and democracy throughout the world. While Jews celebrate ancient freedom from Haman's oppression, they know that such terror lives on in the form of Hamas. Under the Gaza-Jericho agreement of 1994, signed by the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, Israel and the PLO must take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime, and hostilities directed against each other, and shall take legal measures against offenders. However, while Yasser Arafat has promised to outlaw Hamas, he has failed to shut down their training camps or confiscate their weapons. His lack of action raise serious questions about Mr. Arafat's commitment to peace. It is unrealistic to expect the peace efforts to go forward, or for the United States to continue with its support, without Yasser Arafat and the PLO taking concrete steps toward bringing the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. The United States has a vital interest in stability in the Mideast, as well as in the protection of Americans in the area. Last year Alisa Flatow, a student from New Jersey was killed in a terrorist attack. In the past week, Matt Eisenfeld from New Jersey and his fiancee, Sara Duker, were also killed. We must use every available resource and avenue of influence to protect our citizens and ensure that the killing stops. Likewise, the Israeli Government must use any necessary force to stop and prevent any future attacks. No peace will ever be achieved until both sides are committed to it. The PLO must eliminate Hamas, and turn over the perpetrators of these crimes, if they are to live up to that commitment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bid farewell to a close friend in the diplomatic community, Ambassador Siddhartha Shankar Ray of India. Ambassador Ray's work here has greatly improved the relationship between the United States and India. During his tenure, he focused not only on government-to-government relations, but on business-to-business relations as well. He returns to India to run for elected office, and I am sure he will serve his constituents well. Ambassador Ray is no stranger to elected life. Before coming to Washington both he and his wife served as Members of Parliament. He served in both majority and minority positions in his home state of West Bengal, and served as the Minister of Education, Social Welfare, and Culture in the Indian Cabinet. Before his appointment as Ambassador to the United States, he served as Governor of Punjab. Ambassador Ray has always understood that good relations with the United States would have to be built upon with more than just political diplomacy. He has focused a considerable amount of his efforts on improving business relations between our two nations. Following the dramatic economic reforms instituted by Prime Minister Rao in 1991, Ambassador Ray worked hard to encourage United States companies to go into India. He knew that having American business leaders meet their Indian counterparts would improve relations. Because of his efforts, a number of high-level American officials traveled to India to promote United States investment there. Commerce Secretary Brown and Energy Secretary O`Leary both led delegations that succeeded in finalizing multibillion-dollar deals. From India, both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister came to spread a message of opportunity and goodwill. I join with my colleagues in thanking Ambassador Ray for his service, and I wish both him and his wife happiness in the future.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin tonight by adding my voice to those who praised the colleague who spoke here a few minutes ago, Mr. Mfume. This institution will be impoverished by his departure, but I am certain that his country will be enriched by his continuing service at the NAACP, a different kind of service, the same ideals he has served us. Please let my voice be added to the record to those who say we will miss him. Mr. Speaker, as the country watches our continuing debate about the balanced budget, I wanted to say a few words tonight about why a balanced budget is so important beyond Washington bookkeeping or Federal financial statistics. We spent most of our time the last couple of weeks talking about how best to balance the budget. I would firmly stand with those who believe that we can do so without forcing a part B premium on our senior citizens Medicare or by taking reading teachers out of our public school and private school classrooms or without undercutting our ability to protect and enforce our environmental laws. Tonight I would like to talk about why it is so important to balance the budget in terms of the workaday life and family budgets of people all across our country. I represent an awful lot of people who are struggling an awful lot in 1995, people who are unemployed, people who are barely employed, who are struggling at or just above the minimum wage to try to pay their bills with very little help from the government that assembles here. People who are woefully underemployed, who are making 70 or 80 percent of what their family budgets require. People who are employed but who feel that their employment is hanging by a very thin thread, that they may be the next victim of a corporate downsizing or a massive layoff. People who are retired, who thought that they were going to be able to get by on whatever they had in the bank when they retired, plus their Social Security and, if they had a pension, plus their pension, who have found that those assumptions really do not work for them anymore and they are still in real trouble. There are people who have never been employed who went to college, went to school, got their job training, got their education and cannot find that first job that puts them on the path to a successful career. How does a balanced budget affect each one of these people? I would suggest that it affects us, Mr. Speaker, in four ways: First, every dollar that the Federal Government borrows to run its operation from the savings pool of this country is $1 less that an employer, an entrepreneur, a business person has to start a new product, expand his or her business, and hire more people. Every dollar Uncle Sam borrows to meet the payroll is a dollar that cannot go to generating new payroll in companies and employers across this country. It is that simple. Second, every time we pile up another dollar of debt, we have to spend more money to service that debt, just like if, Mr. Speaker, we raised the amount we owe on our credit cards in our family budget, the amount we have to pay toward that credit card each month continues to rise and rise and rise. This year it is in excess of $200 billion, almost $300 billion by some accountings, just interest on the national debt. What else could we buy with that money if we did not have this huge debt? We could fully fund Head Start so that every child in this country who is eligible would be in a proper child care program. We would not have to worry about cutting back on Pell grants or student loans because there would be ample money for that. We could give a significant income tax reduction to everyone across the country with that money or perhaps, most importantly, we could start paying down the national debt that has been accumulated over here for such a long time. Every time we send a dollar to pay, or a bond for this borrowed money, it is a dollar we are not spending on education or the environment or our military or health care or veterans programs or something for children. It is a mistake. Third, the Federal deficit as it grows, continues to rise and put pressure up on interest rates. That means that every time someone buys a car or takes out a mortgage or makes a purchase on their credit card, it costs them more than it otherwise would. As the supply of money stays the same but the demand for money goes up because of Government borrowing, the price goes up. It is the law of supply and demand. Not even the House of Representatives can repeal that law. It forces interest rates up and forces the costs for family budgets up. We would all be better off if it did not happen. Finally and perhaps most importantly, we have developed a psychology of borrowing. In my opinion, it is an irresponsible and immoral psychology of borrowing that says that we can give out benefits today. We can spend money today and pass the cost along to future generations in the form of a lower standard of living, higher taxes, jeopardized Social Security benefits and a lower level of Government services. That is not fair. It is disingenuous and it is wrong. In the days and weeks ahead, let us work together. Let us find the common ground, and let us finally balance the Federal budget.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. He did, but the party chose to put veto bait on the bill. The failure of the second resolution is the fault of our party, frankly, because I think the President chose to send a political signal to his democratic base that he would not buy into your 7-year number because that was an important symbol for his base, so strike one on you, strike two on us, so here we are with nothing. It just occurs to me that if the five or six of us here at 11:35 tonight had the power to make this decision, I think we would make a decision that would be fair and reasonable and probably get the people back to work by Monday. I do not see why we cannot do that.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, let me begin tonight by thanking the staff of the House of Representatives for staying so late and giving us a chance to address each other and our fellow countrymen. We appreciate it. It must be very scintillating for you to listen to all of us. We appreciate that you are here. It is a great honor and a humbling experience to serve in this body. It is something I am very proud of. But frankly, we have not brought ourselves very much honor the last couple of days by what has gone on. Tonight I would like to talk about a question and a challenge that I would offer to everyone on both sides of the aisle as we try to struggle through the next couple of days. It must be, Mr. Speaker, thoroughly exasperating to watch what we have done the last couple days or have not done the last couple days, when you consider the fact that there is a short-term question before the Congress and a long-term question before the Congress. The short-term question is, what do we have to do to open up the doors of the Federal Government again and get these 800,000 people back to work? Virtually everyone from both parties that comes to the floor says they want to do that. And then they degenerate into why the other side has blocked them from doing that. And I find it inconceivable that 535 Members, including us and the other body and the President, cannot come up with a sensible solution in the next couple of days that would do that. The longer term question is, do we want to balance the budget in 7 years? The answer is an overwhelming yes. Almost 300 Members of this institution have voted to do exactly that, not in [[Page H 13292]] symbol, not in political symbol, but have actually voted for a 7-year plan to balance the budget, numbers and details. And it must be equally exasperating to figure out why that has not happened, why 300 of us cannot get together and do that. Let me offer a question and then the challenge that I talked about. The question is, I have to wonder whether the leaders of the Republican Party and frankly whether the leaders of my party at the White House really want to resolve this problem or whether they want to set themselves up for the 1996 election. It is not too farfetched, Mr. Speaker, to think that here is what is going on. The Republican Party has had tremendous success in this country at all levels of politics by making the argument that they are the party of lower taxes and leaner Government and zero deficits, and the Democrats are the party of higher taxes and larger Government and higher deficits. They have done very well having that argument in elections. The thought occurs to me that maybe the Republican Party is better served by keeping that argument going through the 1996 election. On the other hand, the Democrats have done well in the November 1995 elections and the public opinion polls would suggest are doing well right now with the argument that Republicans are callous to the needs of seniors and children and the environment and maybe the leaders of our party have decided that we would be doing well to keep that argument going through the 1996 election as well. I pose the question tonight in all sincerity, without impugning the motive of any person in this House or any person in the Government, as to whether that is what is really going on, as to whether we are engaged in a huge choreographic exercise here that is simply designed to lead up to the 1996 campaign so we all have the right themes and the right sound bites. If that is the case, we are doing our country and this institution a tremendous disservice. Because there are two things at stake here that we may never again in our careers have a chance to address. The first is the chance to reverse a 25-year flood of red ink that has put the children of this country at great risk. I believe sincerely that there will never again come in this century and maybe not for the next couple of decades an opportunity to truly balance the budget of the Federal Government. There are 300 of us here in this Chamber who are ready to do that. I do not know why we have not been able to get together and figure out a way to do that. The other point that I would make to you, and I think is even greater significance, the credibility of politicians in general and this institution in particular was very low when this all began, and it is much lower as we stand here tonight. And I believe that what is at stake is not simply our ability to put the fiscal house of this country in order, it is also maybe our last chance in a long time to make people believe that the political system works for them again. I stand here tonight, 11:20, after a long day, frankly, wondering what is going on. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].