Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I would include for the Record an article by Eric Black of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune. It is an explanation on the whole CBO-OMB controversy. [Washington Times--Nov. 18, 1995] '93 Words Return to Haunt Clinton (By Eric Black) In four forgotten paragraphs of a 1993 speech, President Clinton delivered a devastating critique of the position he is defending today. The Republican congressional leadership has insisted that, as part of a stopgap funding bill, Mr. Clinton must accept a set of economic projections developed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as the common [[Page H 13317]] method of analyzing competing budget proposals. Mr. Clinton insists on using more optimistic economic forecasts by his own Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a practice he derided in the 1993 speech, saying it provided both parties with ``greater elbow room for irresponsibility.'' In a joint session of Congress on Feb. 17, 1993, when he unveiled his first budget plan, Mr. Clinton made the following points: Republicans and Democrats cannot have a clear debate about spending, taxing and deficit-reduction priorities unless they first agree on a common method for scoring the impact of their competing proposals on future deficits. The CBO should be the source of that common method because it is ``independent'' and its estimates have been more conservative and more accurate than the OMB estimates, which often seemed to be tailored to the political needs of the president. Mr. Clinton particularly wanted to avoid relying on more optimistic projections so that ``no one could say I was estimating my way out of the difficulty.'' The American people cannot follow the argument over spending priorities and will not ``think we're shooting straight with them'' unless the president and Congress agree on a common set of economic assumptions. All four arguments are now being made by the Republican congressional leaders. Now, Mr. Clinton rejects the arguments that he made in 1993. The Republicans are no models of consistency in this matter. When Mr. Clinton first boasted that his deficit projections were more credible because they were based on ``the independent numbers of the Congressional Budget Office,'' the derisive laughter from the Republican side of the aisle was so loud it caused Mr. Clinton to depart from his text. Then, of course, Congress had a Democratic majority and the CBO leaders were Democratic appointees. Speaker Newt Gingrich, who had often accused longtime CBO Director Robert Reischauer of pro-Democrat bias, insisted on changing CBO directors. The argument over how to ``score'' budget proposals, while highly technical in nature, is also enormously important. To say what next year's federal deficit might be, even if all current policies were maintained, would require an accurate forecast of economic growth rate, unemployment, inflation, interest rates, wage trends, tax compliance and countless other figures. If someone proposed a change, such as lower capital gains taxes or new HMO-type options for Medicare, the scorekeepers would have to estimate how many people would see long-held assets to take advantage of the lower tax rate, how many seniors would choose the HMO option and how much less it might cost the government to insure them that way: Mr. Clinton was right in 1993 when he said that CBO projections had been more accurate than OMB projections during the Reagan and Bush years. The bad news is that even the more pessimistic CBO projections turned out to be overly optimistic for every one of those 12 years.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let us get the Government working again. We are not holding the President hostage to tax cut or Medicare cuts. Everything is on the table right now. Everything is on the table. Medicare is not being cut. It goes up 6.3 percent annually, every year, under this proposal, from $4,800 a year per beneficiary to $6,700 a year per beneficiary over a 7-year period. But if you do not like our plan, let us see your plan to balance the budget. If you do not like the tax cuts, let us do it without the tax cut, but let us work together. Work to balance the budget in 7 years, and let us get the CBO to score it. It has been nonpartisan for year. Let us send the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill up the President and get 100,000 more people working again. We can do this today. We can have these people back to work by Monday. The District of Columbia Government should not be shut down because of our inability to get this signed by the President. We ought to do something for them and get them back with their own money. We should not hold them hostage. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. Let us pass this rule. Let us move ahead.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Clinger amendment. The Clinger amendment will save taxpayer dollars and protect career civil servants from being drafted into hardball political advocacy. Federal workers are routinely being pressured to participate in partisan lobbying campaigns. These lobbying efforts are often offensive to the civil servant's personal values and damaging to his or her career. What do you think happens to the career employee who expects to serve during numerous Presidencies but who gets caught up in [[Page H 13110]] partisan lobbying efforts by his agency? Well, the next administration with a different political stripe comes in and is naturally suspicious of that civil servant's professional judgment and independence. The Clinger amendment simply says: Let us leave the political talk to presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed appointees and let the dedicated career Federal workers that I represent get their jobs done free of politics. I am especially alarmed by some of the unsolicited political propaganda that was mailed to all members of the Virginia General Assembly this year by the Environmental Protection Agency. State senators and delegates complained about this junk mail that featured false statements in opposition to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and some of the regulatory reform initiatives. I support an open and vigorous exchange of ideas, and I am proud to serve in a body that epitomizes the free exchange of political thought. While there will always be a time and place for political advocacy, our system of government depends on a dedicated corps of civil servants who actually fulfill the mission crafted by Congress and the President-- free of being enlisted in partisan lobbying campaigns. Surely the President, his hundreds of Senate-confirmed appointees, combined with the thousands of nonprofit and for-profit advocacy organizations in this town can adequately express the full range of diverse policy and political opinions without requiring the taxpayer to finance lobbying campaigns by Federal agencies that harm the careers of civil servants. I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this important amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, it gives my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Moran, and me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to some outstanding citizens from Virginia. These are the people who have been awarded the Gum Springs Community Service Award. The awards will be presented at the Gum Springs Community Development Corporation 30th anniversary celebration on November 16, 1995. The Gum Springs Community Development Corporation, formerly the Saunders B. Moon Community Action Association, is a private, nonprofit, antipoverty organization founded in 1965 under the Equal Opportunity Act originated as a component of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Calvin Ferguson, an idealistic community activist, is being honored posthumously for his dedication to the improvement of his community and the perpetuation of his neighborhood's history. His contributions during his productive life were many. He worked to establish the Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, with a swimming pool for use by neighborhood families. Mr. Ferguson played a vital role in preserving both the land and history of Gum Springs, including the establishment of Gum Springs Museum project. In addition, he was instrumental in the creation of the senior citizen and youth programs at Gum Springs Community Center. Albert J. Triplett, Jr., a native of Gum Springs, has made many contributions to the community. He has played an active role in the Big Brother Mentoring Group in Gum Springs. He is founder of the Literacy for Life program for adults in the Gum Springs Community. He is also the coordinator of the male support group of the Gum Springs Children Center and the only male serving on the eight-member Gum Springs Children-Parent Committee. Jube B. Shiver was inspired by a voice in his sleep in 1960 to ``Get up--go build a subdivision.'' This dream led to the building of Randall Estates, a unique and successful housing development in Fairfax County which has existed for more than 35 years. Jube has had a long association with Gum Springs. His activities include serving as an area member of the board of directors of the Saunders B. Moon Association and director of the Saunders B. Moon Community Association. During Governor Wilder's term in office, he was appointed to serve as a member of the Virginia Small Business Financial Authority which helped create jobs and guaranteed loans for Virginia residents. Mr. Speaker, we would also like to recognize Ms. Charlotte H. Branch, executive director of Gum Springs Community Development Corporation. During her 10-year tenure as executive director she has watched the community grow and change, and has the respect of everyone in her community. Mr. Speaker, we know our colleagues join us in paying tribute to these fine upstanding [[Page E 2195]] award winners for 1995. Their contributions to the Gum Springs community have helped all of the residents of that community. Their steadfast commitment is another example of the strong volunteer spirit which so enriches our country.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Republican colleagues for stripping extraneous language from the continuing resolution as the President asked, and I applaud my colleagues on the other side who are willing to join the bipartisan dialog on how to balance the Federal budget. This continuing resolution does not mandate tax cuts, it does not mandate Medicare cuts, or education cuts. But it does get our Federal employees back to work without furloughs over the next 2\1/2\ weeks, and it does mandate that together Republicans and Democrats, the Congress and the President, will join together and work together to balance the Federal budget and do it within the CBO guidelines, something that the President stated right here that he feels was the best way, the best way really between what will work and what does not work. It does not cut the veterans benefits; basically, without furloughs, funds these agencies over these next 2\1/2\ weeks, and it leaves off Medicare, it leaves off cuts in education and the environment, which was ostensibly the reason the President gave for vetoing the last resolution. This gives the President what he wants, and it commits us to doing what we came here to do, and that is balance the Federal budget.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Time is of the essence with this. Federal workers have been sitting home the last couple of days. They want to resume their jobs. They want to continue on with governing, which is what this is all about. For Members who believe we should get our Government back up and operating, this rule makes sense. This is urgent legislation, as my colleague noted earlier in his remarks. This is one of the few times we would waive this rule, but I think that we can get a bipartisan yes to this rule and hopefully to the resolution that will follow. As I said before, Federal employees want to return to work. They are eager to get on with their business. Many employees, even if they are with funded agencies at this point or are deemed essential employees under the law, are still unable in many cases to perform their work because of other limitations in procurement and hiring and firing that take place because we do not have continuing resolutions in effect. So, should the rule come forward and this resolution be passed and sent to the President, all of this will be resolved should the President sign it. I think the subsequent resolution is something that the President should sign. The continuing resolution will make sense for several reasons. First of all, the funding levels contained here are adequate for the Federal Government and the District of Columbia government to continue for the next 18 days. There is no dip in the funding that will cut education, that will cut the environmental programs for 18 days and that should hinder that. It is certainly better than what we are being funded today. Second, it will get our Federal employees back working tomorrow. Third, it strips the Medicare and other riders that the President and the administration have deemed superfluous and have said are unacceptable. We have taken those out. Finally, it mutually, mutually commits the Congress, both the House and the Senate, and the President to balance the Federal budget with CBO numbers over the next 7 years. This should be no problem for this Congress or Members of both sides of the aisle who have professed to stand for this and for the President who on numerous occasions has said he is for a balanced budget and accepts CBO numbers. I rise in support of this rule and the subsequent resolution.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I voted with the minority on Monday to recommit this bill and send a clean resolution to the President. I thought it was junked up. I wanted to get the Federal Government working again. I felt there were some extraneous matters that did not belong there. But having said that, let me note that continuing resolutions with extraneous matters is not new to this body on the other side of the aisle. The nuclear waste policy amendments were put on in 1988, the Boland amendment, called the Central American Nicaraguan Promotion of Democracy Act were put on in about 1987, along with 8 other riders. In 1984 we put on a comprehensive crime control act; in 1983, language designating part of the New Jersey Turnpike as part of the Interstate Highway System was put on a continuing resolution, as was a pay raise for House Members, as was the Ted Turner amendments, giving him tax breaks for cable operators; and in fiscal 1982, tax breaks for Members of this body were put on. So this has happened before, and Members on the other side are not being fair to say let us get a clean resolution now, when that has not been their history. Having said that, let us get to where we are today. I hope what I am not hearing on the other side is, do it our way or no way. This side is showing flexibility. We have come back with another resolution, in light of the fact that the President would not sign what was sent to him earlier. It is hardly an extraneous resolution.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. DAVIS. As my friend knows, I opposed the tax cuts. I was 1 of 10 Members on this side to oppose that. I understand all of that will be on the table. All of that will be on the table. This does not commit you to vote for $270 billion in tax cuts. It does not commit you to vote for Medicare cuts. It is on the table to be negotiated between the President and Congress. This is hardly blackmail. It is clean, simple. If the President vetoes this resolution, it is going to be clear it was not Medicare that led him to veto the last resolution. Medicare is not in here. It is not in here at all. It was not educational cuts. There is enough money in this resolution to keep the Department of Education running at present levels over the next 18 days. It was not the environment, because there is enough money in here to keep the EPA running for the next 18 days, which is what this resolution provides for. So the excuses that were used for not signing the first resolution are not here in this case. It would only be because the President would not care about continuing the operations of government and would not care about balancing the budget, and I do not believe that. I do not believe that. I think the President will do the right thing. I think he will do the right thing for the country. I think he will do the right thing for Federal employees. I think he will do the right thing for the children and for our Nation's future by signing this resolution, this continuing resolution to keep the government going. I intend to support it.

Mr. DAVIS

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

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my short and noncontroversial amendment. This amendment simply makes a technical addition to the bill to allow a handful of ICC employees who are being separated from Federal service as a result of this bill to apply their unused annual leave for purposes of qualifying for a Federal annuity. This amendment is limited to apply only to Federal workers who are on the verge of becoming eligible for an annuity, but who are losing their jobs as a result of this bill before qualifying for a pension. Mr. Chairman, several constituents have described a predicament that no Member of this body would want to allow to go unresolved. Imagine working for 24 years and 11 months only to be told that you are terminated for no fault of your own and that you may not use the 5 weeks of annual leave that you have accumulated in order to reach the 25 year eligibility threshold for an annuity free of the penalties that we have in place to discourage early retirement. This amendment will only apply to the handful of employees who are: First, not being offered employment elsewhere in the Federal Government; second, who are within several days or weeks of becoming eligible for an immediate annuity; and third, who have accrued enough annual leave, in accordance with OPM regulations, to reach the date on which an immediate annuity would be owed. Mr. Chairman, approximately 400 Federal workers are employed at the ICC. Approximately 180 workers will remain in the Federal work force carrying out the functions that will continue under this bill. Of the 220 workers who may be losing their jobs, a few are on the verge of qualifying for an immediate retirement annuity. Most of these workers are enrolled in the Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS] which means that they do not receive Social Security benefits for the years of service they have performed. The Davis amendment simply says to those veteran ICC workers who have reached the proverbial 26 mile marker in the Federal career marathon, that we will allow them to complete the last two-tenths of a mile in order to end their Federal career with dignity and adequate financial security. I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this good- government amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Arlington- Fairfax Elks Lodge No. 2188, as well as Herman C. Anderson. The Arlington-Fairfax Elks Lodge is celebrating its 35th anniversary this week. Throughout the years, the Arlington-Fairfax Elks Lodge has flourished in its role to promote Americanism, a belief in God, and respect for the American flag. For 35 years, this lodge has served its community and Nation with reverence and devotion. Some examples of the many charitable works done by the lodge include helping our veterans in VA hospitals, fighting the war on drugs by helping to keep drugs out of the schools, and making it possible for thousands of children to attend the summer camp run by the Elks. As a direct result of the Arlington- Fairfax Elks Lodge's many contributions, northern Virginia is a better place to live. Herman C. Anderson has served the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks for over 50 years. As third exalted ruler, charter member, and past president of the Arlington-Fairfax Elks Lodge No. 2188, Mr. Anderson has been a model citizen and proven himself to be an inspiration. ``Andy'' Anderson first joined Lodge No. 38, in Norfolk, VA, in 1944, where he served with distinction and honor in a variety of posts. In 1970, he became president of the Virginia Elks Association. In 1984, he became special deputy grand exalted ruler, a post he still holds today. In 1993, he became grand esteemed leading knight serving the remainder of Doral E. Irvin's appointed year. His commitment to community service and the promotion of American values is truly commendable. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in congratulating the Arlington-Fairfax Elks Lodge on its 35th anniversary and Herman C. Anderson for his 50 years of service to the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I am as frustrated as any Member, I think, on either side of the aisle with the impasse we are currently facing between the President and the congressional leadership. They have an old saying that when the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. In this case, the people getting trampled are your Federal employees who have been out there every day doing the job that the President and the Congress have asked them to do. In no way should they be the ones to pay the price just because we in the Congress and the President cannot get our act together and get on with the business of governing. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] talked earlier about H.R. 2281, his No Budget, No Pay Act. I will join him in turning away any pay that I would ordinarily receive until Federal employees get paid as well. I think that is the example all of us in this body ought to take until we can get on with the job of governing this country. I would also like to address a couple of remarks that came from the other side about gross mismanagement of the congressional schedule and try to put it in some kind of perspective. Since 1977 over 57 continuing resolutions have passed this body and gone on to the President. This will be the 10th time since 1980 that we have faced a shutdown and possible furloughs at the Federal level. The other side of the aisle has not been clean in attaching riders to continuing resolutions as well. So there is some precedent for where we are today. But the real issue is how do we get out of it. How do we work it out today so employees can get back to work and go on with the business of governing this country? I have a letter from the Speaker and the majority leader in the Senate giving their assurances to myself, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and the entire body that the Federal employees will get paid in a later resolution should there be furloughs following the President's inability to sign this current continuing resolution. We have never before had that agreement up front from the congressional side. However, the payments could be delayed. But Federal employees will get paid. I would urge both sides to put aside their egos, to check their macho images and get on with the business of governing at this point, to step back a little bit, take a deep breath and recognize what we face as a country over the next month as we work toward a balanced budget. There are clearly differences on both sides of the aisle over the best way to achieve balancing the Federal budget over a 7-year period. But over 90 Members of the other side of the aisle and virtually everyone on this side of the aisle has agreed that this is the direction this country needs to move. The President himself when he was campaigning for election in 1992 said that he would balance the Federal budget in 5 years. Now the issue is doing it in 7 years and trying to get it scored properly by the Congressional Budget Office. What should be the extent of the tax cuts? The President has his set, Congress has theirs. That ought to be negotiated. I do not think we ought to draw lines in the sand on that. What programs should be cut? There are honest differences of opinion and we need to sit across the table from each other and work these differences out. At the same time balancing the Federal budget remains paramount. We spend a significant amount of money in this country on interest on the national debt. In 1997 we will be spending more money for interest on the national debt than for all of national defense. My 13-year-old son can expect to pay over his lifetime about $130,000 in extra Federal taxes just to pay for interest on the national debt if he makes an average salary. How we get there, I think, has to be negotiable. The sooner we sit down and agree, the better. We can put a continuing resolution and a temporary budget ceiling in place if we can get the President's agreement to sit down and negotiate clearly that we just try to do this within 7 years. The 1996 campaign is going to come soon enough. Let us set aside the campaign for now. Instead of campaigning as many of us have over the last year, let us start governing for a little bit of time. The American people made a choice in 1992 to elect a Democratic President and they made a choice in 1994 to elect a Republican Congress. It is incumbent upon both of us, both sides, to act like grownups and get on and work with each other to get the job done. Let both sides negotiate their differences out and get on with the business of governing. That is my counsel today.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I want to just say that I appreciate his efforts and those of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] in working with the Speaker and the majority leader from the other body to make sure that this guarantee to Federal workers is going to be honored at the appropriate time, as it has in the past. I would note to my colleagues that the last time this happened, Federal workers were later paid, but it ended up costing the Federal Government $200 million per day for every day that they were furloughed. So we are here talking about saving money, but in the long term, if an agreement is not worked out mutually between the White House and Congress, the taxpayers suffer. That is not right. There is an old saying when the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. We have 800,000 Federal employees in this case who are going to be not paid as a result of this. I think this letter will give them some guarantee down the road. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are happy with this part of it as well.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John and Vivian King, two people who have been helping their community and the children in northern Virginia for many years. John King did not start out to do anything special when he started walking his granddaughter to school. But one day her teacher asked him to help in class and he agreed. At that time he had no idea that he would end up creating and running the school's safety program, assisting the counselor with the drug awareness program, and recruiting grandparent volunteers. When Belvedere Elementary School in Falls Church, was undergoing extensive construction and remodeling, the need for a comprehensive safety program was evident. In addition, the safety of children going to and from school had been an increasing problem. Mr. King developed a safety program for kindergarten through sixth grade. He did not just go into the classrooms and talk, he created lesson plans which involved role playing and skits. He also used posters, charts, and questionnaires. The ``Just Say No'' program has been highly successful as well. Using carefully prepared lessons, poster contests, guest speakers, and field trips, Mr. King has impressed upon every student the importance of keeping away from drugs. His programs have been such a success that he has been asked to take them to other elementary schools in northern Virginia. In addition to his work at the schools, Mr. King is very active in his church, where he is involved in CCD classes, and in the church's elementary school, where he helps with sex education classes and drug awareness classes. During these many years of community involvement there has been one person who has been at John King's side is his wife of 50 years Vivian. Mrs. King has never been one to come into the spotlight, she prefers being behind the scenes. However, her acts of caring and kindness have never gone unnoticed. Mrs. King started making bookmarks for all of the children at Belvedere to encourage them to read. She was also ready with homemade cookies and cakes for special events. When Mr. King started the Red Ribbon program at Belvedere Elementary Mrs. King made sure that all of the ribbons had a pin fixed to them before being passed out to all of the children and teachers at school. In addition to honoring their many years of community service, I know my colleagues join me in wishing John and Vivian a happy anniversary because the Kings celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary on October 29, 1995. The Kings are the proud parents of six children: Gary, Greg, Pamela, Joseph and John (twins), and Michael, who passed away in 1984. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in honoring John and Vivian King for all of their contributions to the elementary schools and community in northern Virginia. It is this kind of civic involvement and volunteer spirit that makes northern Virginia a great place to live.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bernadette A. Budde, a woman who is legendary in Washington and across the Nation for her political acuity and her forthright personal style. Bernadette A. Budde came to BIPAC in 1970 as a research analyst. In 1974, she was promoted to director of political education, and vice president, political education in 1984. She was named vice president in 1993. She is responsible for the development and implementation of all BIPAC's political analysis programs that guide executives and business owners in effective political participation. These include the organization's conferences, briefings, and publications. She edits Election In*Sight, a comprehensive monthly report on congressional campaigns, politics, and election regulation. Known as the bible for politically active business managers, Elections In*Sight is BIPAC's flagship production. Ms. Budde also is responsible for editorial direction of other BIPAC publications, including two quarterly newsletters, Politics and Action Report. Her guidance on political campaigns, election law, and campaign finance is widely sought by congressional candidates and incumbents. She has authored a number of published articles, and speaks frequently to business and educational audiences. Ms. Budde holds degrees from Marquette University and the University of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in honoring Ms. Bernadette A. Budde for all of her accomplishments not only to BIPAC, but to national politics as a whole.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin. Of the many tributes paid him, during the memorial service at Congregation Olam Tikvah of Fairfax, VA, on November 6, 1995, in my opinion Rabbi Melvin J. Glazer's was most poignant and moving. Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleagues will appreciate hearing the words of Rabbi [[Page E 2120]] Glazer, and I am pleased to have Rabbi Glazer's tribute to Prime Minister Rabin entered into the Record. Statement by Rabbi Melvin J. Glazer yitzhak rabin, memorial service, olam tikvah nov. 6, 1995 This morning on the radio, one of those who visited the Israel Embassy to pay his respects to Prime Minister Rabin, was asked the question, ``why are you here?'' to which he answered, with tears in his eyes and a lump in his throat, ``because I care.'' And that is why we are here as well, because we care. We care about the State of Israel, and we care about the peace process. We care about a human life being snuffed out like a candle, and we care about a grieving wife and a family who have lost their husband, their father, their grandfather. We care about an entire nation of men and women who have lost their leader, their guide, their beacon. Yitzhak Rabin was not killed by one man, even though only one man pulled the trigger. Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a group of fundamentalist Jews who simply could not accept the reality of the new world in which they lived. A little less than 2 weeks ago, Yitzhak Rabin was protrayed as a Nazi; several months ago a group of Orthodox rabbis said it was God's will not to obey the orders of Israel's military if you did not agree with them. In this week's issue of the Jerusalem Report, there is an article which tells of a Kabbalistic curse placed on the Prime Minister. He was cursed with ``pulsa denura,'' lashes of fire, for his heretical policies. And so, say these mystics, he must die. As the Aramaic text stated, ``we have permission to demand from the angels of destruction that they take a sword to this wicked man, to kill him, for handing over the Land of Israel to our enemies, the sons of Ishmael.'' This curse was issued on Yom Kippur, Oct. 4, and it was to take place with 30 days. Mr. Rabin was killed Nov. 4. The stage had been ably set for the tragedy that was soon to become a reality. Violence, physical violence, was talked about openly, even encouraged, and the Prime Minister of the State of Israel was shot and killed. How do we make sense out of this act which makes no sense at all? How could it happen? Our Tradition says plainly, Thou Shall Not Murder. Our Tradition says plainly, ``Love thy neighbor as thyself.'' Our Tradition says plainly, ``these and these are the words of the living God. ``But not everyone hears these words the same way. There are those who arrogate to themselves the truth, those who believe that theirs is the only way, the only interpretation, the only truth. There are those who forget that GOD is the only truth, and when we take on that role, life, all of life, is in jeopardy. Jewish fundamentalists, especially those who live in the State of Israel and who do not serve in the Israeli army or pay taxes to the state of Israel but who insist on proclaiming that the Messiah will come only when Israel gives in to their demands, perhaps should not be allowed to remain in the state of Israel. If these right-wing fanatics were non-Jews, we would rightfully, call them anti-Semites and demand they be banished. Those Jews who kill, they are not our people, and they deserve none of our respect, only our contempt. I believe they should be expelled from decent society, they have no place among humanity. First we had Baruch Goldstein killing Moslems at prayer and now we have Yigal Amir killing our Prime Minister at a peace rally, both of them taking life into their own hands. Why should they and their supporters be allowed to remain? We do not need our own Jewish Hamas, they are a shame and a disgrace to every decent Jew and non-Jew on the face of this earth. And even worse, they are shame and a disgrace to God, who surely cries at their narcissism even as he deplores their violence. Yitzhak Rabin stood for peace, they stand for taking human life. Yitzhak Rabin preached reconciliation, they take the law into their own hands. Yitzhak Rabin reached out his hand to his and our former enemies, they would live in a world of hatred forever. These are not our people, my friends. These Jews are to be rejected and expelled and shamed by the rest of us. We must not let ourselves ever become like them, otherwise they will win, and we can never, ever let that happen. That is why the peace process will go on. Rabin was a warrior for peace, and now there will be others who will take his place. But he was the first. He was the man who liberated the Kotel, the Western Wall of the Temple in 1967, and he is the man who shook Arafat's hand and began the search for peace in earnest. He will be remembered not as a martyr, but as a peacemaker, as a head of state, as a loving husband, a caring father and a doting grandfather. One or two concluding thoughts. I remember where I was the day President Kennedy was shot, as I suspect you do as well. I look back upon the past 32 years since that terrible day, and I see here in the United States the steady rise of violence, political, racial and marital. Kennedy's assassination made the unthinkable suddenly thinkable. I am sacred, no, I am terrified that that same tolerance and acceptance for violence will now come to the Jewish state as it came to America. If anything could possibly be worse than the death of Yitzhak Rabin, that would be it. I pray that sanity will prevail, that Israelis will stop and reflect, and let Yitzhak Rabin the peacemaker be their teacher in death even as he was in life. He stood for peace, we can do no less. Finally, I am touched by so many expressions of mourning and sympathy shown the Jewish people and the State of Israel from around the world. In Israel itself, more than 1 million people came to the Knesset in Jerusalem to say goodbye to their leader. That is \1/5\ the population of the entire nation. I see them, and I am proud. I see them and I am hopeful. Perhaps there is hope. Perhaps the good people of Israel will yet rise up to support the hard choices of peace rather than the easy way of killing and death. Perhaps we will yet see peace in our lifetime between the children of Israel and the children of Ishmael. If so, and I pray for that peace daily, as I am sure you do, then once again God's Chosen People will have been a light unto the nations, showing the world that hatred need not last forever, that peace is the handiwork of God and the gift to our children and their children after them. What a fitting memorial that would be for our beloved Yitzhak Rabin, to know that his efforts brought the world closer to God's gift of shalom. I pray that it come to pass soon.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, the city schools are in crisis, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin for working with many myriad of business and civics groups to bring this proposal before the House today. Mr. Chairman, the city schools are in crisis. Less than 43 percent of eligible students are graduating from high school, and the students who graduate from high school, who are lucky enough to receive that diploma, in many cases are unable to go forward with a college education or vocational education or even to find jobs. Mr. Chairman, what I have heard from the other side of the aisle is no proposals, no solution. If money were the answer, we would have solved this problem a long time ago. Over $9,000 per student, higher than any State in the United States, is the average that the city is spending on students today. But pouring money into this is not by itself the solution, although this proposal gives more money to the city than they currently get today. More money for Even Start; charter schools, bringing entrepreneurial modes into this. We have heard a lot of talk about vouchers and opposition to scholarships. The city already does this. They do it under the ADA proposals for handicapped students today. Millions of dollars are going into private schools from the city, some of them out in Fairfax County. Accotink Academy, the School for Contemporary Education, giving people who qualify, under those laws passed by Congress, an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, why cannot we extend this to the poor in the city as well, instead of condemning them to an educational system which has given them nothing but failure to date. We have a higher responsibility in this body than to just turn our heads. This has been worked very closely with local citizen groups, with the local business community, to try to bring as much of a consensus that we ever can to these very difficult problems in the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a great start for the students in the city who are not hurt in this debate. The interest groups who are afraid of some kind of precedent are opposed, and some of the unions are opposed, but the students are the ones that really should be our interest.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my support and urge my fellow Members to vote in favor of H.R. 2546, the fiscal year 1996 District of Columbia appropriations bill. Like most appropriations bills, this has some good elements to it; it has some bad element to it, and I would suggest to my colleagues that this is the first step in a long process of moving the appropriation bill through Congress and eventually getting it signed. I think the good news for the city is, as many other items are being cut around us, the appropriation level from Congress is consistent with last year's appropriations. No one seriously doubts that the District of Columbia is in the midst of a serious financial crisis. This Congress has already laid a strong foundation for the successful resolution of the city's problems with the passage of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act earlier this year. The authority has been operating for 5 months. It appears to be moving ahead forcefully with its mission, but the passage of that act did not absolve Congress of either its duties or obligations to the District of Columbia. The matter before us today, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, must be passed for the District and the authority to know what parameters they must operate within from both policy and financial perspectives. The District can ask for, and the authority may recommend anything they want to Congress, but, ultimately, it is only Congress which has the power to act. Now, more than a full month into fiscal year 1996, the House must act to move forward in the process of dealing with the city's problems rather than continuing to wring our hands and talk about them. This legislation is only the first step in what will be a year-long fiscal year 1996 appropriations process for the city. The Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act established a special process for fiscal year 1996. One of the main reasons behind the creation of the authority is the lack of accurate financial information from the city. The authority and the city need substantial time to develop a more accurate picture of the true financial condition of the city. Mr. Chairman, Congress decided to delay the submission of the District's 4-year financial plan until February 1, 1996. Mr. Chairman, I commend the long hours of dedicated toil which Mr. Walsh, the chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee and Mr. Livingston, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee have devoted to this bill. Their hard work was ably supplemented by the many invaluable contributions of Ms. Norton and Mr. Dixon. Their efforts, aided by the valuable contribution of staff, in writing the bill and its rule mark a major step forward in this must pass legislation. The bill before the House this afternoon should be passed because it enables this body to deliberate and work its will on the budget of our Capital City including several matters of great importance not only to the [[Page H 11642]] residents of our Nation's Capital, but to citizens all across America. No other city in our Nation holds the place of Washington, DC in the hearts of the American people. The city, its monuments, museums, and most of all, its public buildings symbolize all that is great and good about the American way of life. It is our duty to give mature consideration to its affairs and to do our best to enhance our Capital City and to help steer it back to a course of fiscal responsibility. The first year of the plan is a supplemental fiscal year 1996 budget. The supplemental budget will be a document that the authority has been intimately involved with from its inception. It will provide this Congress a second opportunity to exercise its collective oversight responsibilities for the District's finances and one with far more credibility as far as both revenue and spending estimates are concerned. This legislation sets an overall fiscal year 1996 District spending level at $4.867 billion. It establishes guidelines for the basic categories of the city's spending. The bill also establishes new, lower levels for FTEs. The city, under the vigilant guidance of the authority, has begun the process of reforming itself. Passage of H.R. 2546 is the next, essential step in the process. H.R. 2546 is important not only because our Nation's Capital needs a budget. It needs a budget which will enable it to move a few more steps along the road to financial stability. By moving the appropriations process forward, we come closer to meeting our responsibility for the well being of the District. This legislation serves to further the new and vital partnership we are forging between the 104th Congress and our Nation's Capital. As this bill works its way through the legislative process it may receive further modifications. In its final form, the fiscal year 1996 District appropriation bill will be a reflection of both local and national priorities. Only by working closely together as partners can either the District of Columbia, the White House, or Congress realize our common goal--a city in which all Americans take great pride. Once again, I commend the hard work of the members and staff who have brought us to this point in the process. I am happy to stand in strong support of this bill and urge all my colleagues to do likewise and to vote in favor of H.R. 2546.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I offer this amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations bill of 1996. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations bill of 1996, H.R. 2546, as chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. I also offer this amendment as chief sponsor of Public Law 104-8, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, H.R. 1345. This Congress can take great pride in the landmark legislation we enacted this past spring for the District of Columbia. Public Law 104- 8, which passed unanimously, averted a financial catastrophe and put the Nation's Capital on a glidepath towards economic recovery. It is an honor for me to be presiding as chairman of the District's Oversight Subcommittee, the Authorizing Subcommittee, at this historic time. Not only the District, but the Washington metropolitan region, and the entire country all share a vital stake in the successful outcome of what we have initiated. The amendment that I offer today is not only consistent with what we began but necessary to carry forward the work of the new Authority. The amendment is technical in nature, and conforms to the legislative intent of Public Law 104-8. The substance of the amendment is noncontroversial. It is being offered as an amendment to the appropriations bill in order to expedite the technical corrections that are [[Page H 11651]] required to enable the Authority to operate in the most efficient manner possible and to fulfill its responsibilities. The amendment does nothing more than to give the Authority tools to do the job mandated by Congress. 1. The amendment changes section 102(e)(1)(A) to insure, as intended by the legislation, the Federal employees joining the Authority may elect to have their service with the Authority treated as if performed within the Federal Government for purposes of the thrift savings plan, health insurance, life insurance, and any other Federal benefit program. The statute already provides such persons that election for purposes of the Federal retirement program. The omission of the other programs in the statutory language was clearly inadvertent. 2. The amendment changes section 102(e)(2)(B) to clarify congressional intent and make clear that an individual electing coverage under the Federal programs referred to in section 102(e)(1)(A) will not be entitled to double coverage under comparable District Government programs. This change merely conforms the sections. 3. The amendment changes section 102(e)(3) to provide that the Office of Personnel Management, in promulgating regulations authorized by section 102(e) must consult with the Authority as well as with the District government. This change is necessary because when OPM first promulgated interim regulations, as it was authorized by the statute to do, it failed to consult with the Authority or even send on its own initiative a copy of the proposed regulations to the Authority. This change is consistent with the clear legislative intent in the statute that the Authority should be consulted. 4. The amendment changes section 102(f) in order to carry out the policy mandate created in section 102(e). It clarifies that persons employed by the Authority have an election to be treated as if they were employees of the Federal Government or employees of the District of Columbia government for purposes of the retirement system, health insurance, and any other employee benefit programs. Section 102(e) deals only with employees of the Authority who come from the Federal Government. Several other categories of persons are becoming employees of the Authority, including Federal retirees, District employees, and private sector employees. This new section gives these employees the same options as persons joining the Authority from the Federal Government. It will help to insure that qualified employees will not be discouraged from seeking employment with the Authority by clarifying legislative intent so as to provide that such persons would not lose benefits. 5. The amendment changes ``may'' to ``shall'' in section 103(f) to give the General Services Administration the appropriate degree of discretion. This clarifies that the GSA has a duty to provide the administrative services required by the Authority in a prompt manner. 6. The amendment changes section 104 because the Authority is a legal entity subject to suit. A plaintiff could thus initiate a cause of action against the Authority, its members, or employees for official actions they take, instead of suing the District of Columbia. Only claims against the District are included in the technical language of the existing exemption. This was not intended in adopting the statute, as the purpose of the section is to protect the Authority and those who act on its behalf from claims arising from their official actions. 7. The amendment deletes section 203(a)(3)(C) in its entirety, as it inadvertently undermines the fundamental responsibilities of the Authority, contrary to the clear legislative intent of the statute as a whole. A significant amount of District legislation is now being enacted on an emergency basis, thus making it exempt from the Authority's power to consider under the existing section. Even if a particular enactment is later made permanent, thus subjecting it to the Authority's review, rights could in the meantime be created or claimed under the emergency legislation and objections asserted to any subsequent disapproval by the Authority. This would frustrate the very purpose of creating the Authority. Emergency legislation can clearly have a substantial fiscal impact while it is in force and effect. The current section is not only an undesirable and significant dilution of the Authority's ability to function, but it also casts doubt on the Authority's ability to require that emergency legislation be reviewed, separate and apart from the issue of approval or disapproval. Eliminating this section would remove any doubt as to legislative intent on this point and enhance the authority's basic ability to function in accordance with its congressional mandate.