Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last month, Speaker Gingrich shut down the Government because he did not like his seat on Air Force One. Now he is at it again. This time Speaker Gingrich has shut down the Government to try to get his way on the budget, throwing more than 200,000 people out of work a week before Christmas. These families are being used as pawns in the Speaker's attempt to force through huge cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, all to pay for a $245 billion tax break for the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Speaker, they are so wedded to this tax break, the crown jewel of the Contract on America, that they are willing to put the lives of 200,000 working Americans at risk. These folks are not being paid one week before Christmas holidays, and they are willing to put those lives at risk in order to give their rich CEO friends this tax break. Stop playing games with people's lives. Have a budget that protects Medicare, Medicaid, and America's priorities.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman will yield, he knows that is not true.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the issue today is not this motion that is before us which is being debated, but rather that we ought to be debating a continuing resolution so that we can keep this Government open and we can talk about the Commerce, State, and Justice bill, and the Cops on the Beat Program. Mr. Speaker, let me make just one point in that the President in my view was correct to veto the Commerce, State and Justice bill for, particularly in my view, for the Cops on the Beat Program and dismantling it. But the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] both know about the President's commitment to the Violence Against Women's Act, and that if we got this Government open and running, that that money would flow and the commitment is absolutely there. Mr. Speaker, they were part of a bipartisan effort to put it together, and anything that they get up to say about it was a partisan on the their part today. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I strongly support what the President did on Commerce, State and Justice, specifically because I oppose dismantling the community policing initiative. It is a crime fighting program that has worked and one that we ought to continue, and it has lowered the crime rate in this Nation tremendously.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let me just comment on one thing that the prior speaker mentioned at the beginning of his remarks, and that was that the President was holding out, was hanging tough, whatever phrase you want to use, on the budget, because of the people that he cares about, or the interests that he cares about. I have got to tell you I am very proud of the President and his holding firm on this budget, because of in fact who he is holding out for, and that is for the folks who are on Medicare, those elderly who are in nursing homes, that get their health care paid for through either in whole or in part by Medicaid, by concerning himself with the environment, and by concerning himself with the working families of this country. By the same token, Speaker Gingrich is trying to hold the President hostage on this budget because of the special interests that he has, and I will match the President's commitment to the working people of this country with Mr. Gingrich holding out for those special interests, those who are going to get the benefits of $245 billion in tax breaks, those richest of American corporations who are going to see a $17 billion windfall with the repeal of the alternate minimum tax. Last month Speaker Gingrich shut the Government down. He shut it down, and, in his own words, he shut it down because he did not like his seat on Air Force One. Now he is at it again. This time the Speaker has shut the Government down because he is not getting his way on the budget, even though the overwhelming number of Americans reject Speaker Gingrich's budget, and I might add, that 60 percent of the American public wanted President Clinton to veto the Gingrich budget because of the issues of Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. The Speaker is not getting his way on this budget. He would like to cut Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, all to help finance that tax break for the wealthiest Americans. Those may be the Speaker's priorities, but in fact they are not America's priorities. But instead of listening of the American people and fixing this unbalanced budget, the Speaker has chosen to shut the Government down for the second time in a month. His decision to shut the Government down has thrown more than 200,000 people out of work 1 week before the Christmas holidays. Yesterday my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Moran, was on the floor, and he put the Government shutdown into human terms that I think everyone who is listening can understand. He said he visited a school in his suburban Washington district where the teachers told him that the children are not enjoying Christmas this year as they have in the past. Why? Because many of their parents are Federal employees who are out of work today, people who want to go to work, people who take on personal responsibility for themselves and their families. They are out of work today, thanks to Speaker Gingrich. Their parents are fighting more, worried that they will not get paid, and afraid to spend money on the Christmas holiday gifts. We should not be surprised that Speaker Gingrich is willing to go to such extreme lengths to get his way if you take a look at what the Speaker said in September about shutting the Government down. This is a quote from the Washington Post on September 22. It says, ``I don't care what the price is. I don't care if we have no executive offices and no bonds for 30 days--not at this time. I don't care what the price is.'' Quite honestly, that sums up the philosophy of the Speaker. It explains why he is willing to shut down the Government and ruin the holidays for thousands of hard-working families in this country. This is someone who talks about a budget that is good for our children. What happens to these youngsters who are watching their parents worry about their jobs and what they are going to be able to do in the future? It explains why Speaker Gingrich's budget cuts health care for the elderly and the poor while providing massive tax breaks for the wealthiest people and corporations in this country. Believe it or not, this is the same man who last week was named Times ``Man of the Year,'' leaving America to wonder who was the runner up, Ebenezer Scrooge?

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if we pass the Republican budget, the children of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] will have the air that they breathe fouled, the water they drink dirty, we will deny them their opportunity for student loans to be able to get an education. This Republican budget does exactly what it says it does, and it denies children opportunity, if you take a look at it, chapter and verse, and you look at the fine print. Last month, Mr. Speaker, Speaker Gingrich shut down the Government because he did not like his seat on Air Force One. Now, he is at it again. What was it this time that caused the Speaker's tantrum? Who knows? Perhaps he was invited to breakfast at the White House and President Clinton got two slices of bacon while Speaker Gingrich only got one. What we do know is the American people have rejected Speaker Gingrich's budget, a budget which would devastate Medicare, Medicaid, and education, to finance a tax cut for the wealthy. Instead of listening to the American people, the Speaker chooses to shut down the Government to get his way. That is not leadership. It is childish. The Speaker should have a budget that reflects the priorities of the American public, not his own.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Speaker Newt Gingrich was named Time Magazine's ``Man of the Year''. Today, the man of the year brings us the scam of the year. That's what this resolution is, a colossal scam. Everybody knows that when you can't defend your position, you change the subject. That's what this resolution is--a diversionary tactic. Republicans cannot defend cutting Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment to finance a tax break for the wealthy. The American people have rejected the GOP budget which will do harm to the people of this country. But, instead of working to come up with a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people, the Speaker shuts down the Government, throwing thousands of people out of work a week before Christmas. Mr. Speaker, stop playing games with people's lives. Stop playing games on the floor of the people's House. Give the American people an early Christmas present: a balanced budget that reflects America's priorities, not yours.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague for helping in terms of public education and for focusing on this and what it is, and that is values and what the values are in this country as they are not reflected in the Republican budget. I yield the balance of our time, we have about 5 minutes left, to my colleague the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here tonight and join with several of my colleagues to talk about the budget agreement or the lack thereof and what the concerns and considerations are about a budget agreement in this body. It will be the topic of conversation over the next several days. Not the prior speaker but the gentleman who spoke before the prior speaker made reference to the November 19 agreement that was agreed to by the President and the Congress in terms of a continuing resolution which would open the Federal Government that had been closed in those few days beforehand. The gentleman referenced this agreement, but what he did not do was to talk about the full scope of what this agreement was, a commitment to a balanced budget. I would like to read what the commitment included. It had a couple of parts to it. My colleague intimated that the President had talked about a balanced budget in 7 years and that, in fact, that that was the scope and the sum total of this agreement and under the economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office and leaves the impression in the public's mind that the President has backed off of that agreement and has not been true to his word about the balanced budget and the economic assumptions. It is not only the President who he intimates has reneged on this effort, but, in fact, the Congress and those of us in the Congress who, in fact, supported that agreement. But the full scope of that agreement includes the following. It said that the President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget no later than fiscal year 2002, that is a 7-year period, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office and the President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. Further, the balanced budget will adopt tax polices to help working families and to stimulate future economic growth. Part B, the balanced budget agreement shall be estimated by the Congressional Budget Office based on its most recent current economic and technical assumptions, following a thorough consultation and review with the Office of Management and Budget and other government and private experts. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like the American public to believe that the agreement was only to a 7-year balanced budget and solely on the economic assumptions made by the Congressional Budget Office. It is a total reneging on the part of my Republican colleagues and the Republican majority in this body to, in fact, what that agreement was all about. First and foremost, it was about ensuring the values and the priorities of this great Nation of ours and that has to do with Medicare and Medicaid and education and tax policy that is equitable to working middle-class families in this Nation. This agreement was signed and voted on by two parties and yet the only people who have been intransigent on this budget agreement and will not move off of $270 billion in cuts in Medicare and $163 billion in cuts in Medicaid is the Republican majority in this House of Representatives. Thank God, the President is holding firm on those priorities and the values of this great Nation of ours. I will say to you that Members on both sides of the aisle feel passionately about their positions on the debate and we should feel passionately. We are debating the future of this country and the listening public should make no mistake. Sometimes you think that there is an argument, that we are bickering back and forth. I will just tell you, as this Member, and I know my colleagues feel the same way, these are issues that are worth fighting for. If we are not fighting here for the values of this Nation and the priorities of the people of this country, then we do not deserve to represent those people who put their faith and thrust in us and asked us to come here on their behalf. This debate is more than just about numbers. It is about those values. It is about those priorities of the American people. Democrats and the President are opposed to the Republican budget plan because it makes deep and devastating cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education and environmental protection, and we truly believe that those cuts go too far, too fast, and are going to hurt too many people in this country. Let us talk about Medicaid for the moment. Medicaid is the Federal program that provides health care to tens of millions of needy children, of the disabled and the frail elderly in this country. Speaker Gingrich's budget plan cuts Medicaid by 28 percent, $165 billion. At the same time it rolls out $245 billion in new tax breaks and loopholes to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in this country, to the richest corporations in this country. They will see a $17 billion windfall. And at the same time Medicare beneficiaries will see their deductibles go up, their copayments go up, and they will lose the choice of their doctor and many rural hospitals in this country will close down. If you are a hard-working American listening tonight, you might think that the cuts in Medicaid do not affect you, that they only affect people on welfare and that it is just a program for the poor. Well, that is wrong, and it is a mistake. The changes in Medicaid proposed in the GOP budget would have a devastating impact on middle-class working families in this Nation. Do not take my word for it, Everyone is familiar with something called the Consumer Reports. It is a publication that tells you if you are getting a good deal or a bum deal when you go out to buy a new car or a computer or a refrigerator or some sort of an appliance in your home. The group which publishes that famous report has taken a look at the Republican Medicaid plan from a consumers point of view and, guess what, they say it is a bum deal for America's working families. That is right, the Consumers Union has said, do not buy the Republican plan because it is a lemon. That is what it is. The reports looks at the impact that the GOP Medicaid cuts would have on nursing home residents and their families. According to its findings, millions of American families would be impoverished by the Republican plan. Medicaid covers the cost of care for 60 percent of nursing home residents in this country, and it includes guarantees and insurance that families are not saddled with the financial burden of that care. But all of that is about to change if the Republicans get their way on this budget. According to Consumers Union, families of nursing home residents can expect the following changes if the Republican budget is approved. First and foremost, and understand this, if you have a parent, if you have a loved one who is in a nursing home and the cost of nursing home care is about $38,000 a year these days, that in fact if this bill gets passed, if this budget goes through, ladies and gentleman who are listening out there, adult children may be held financially liable for the nursing home bills of their parents. Second, family assets, including homes, may be sold or seized by Medicaid liens. Let me tell you that what it says in the fine print is that if you make above the median income in your State, your assets, as an adult child or a parent who is in a nursing home, can be tapped to pay for that nursing home care. It was Ronald Reagan who wanted to protect adult children from having to be destitute in terms of having their funding taken away in terms of paying for health care and nursing home coverage for their families who put those laws into effect in this Nation. In the State of Connecticut, if you make more than $41,000 a year, the State can come after you to pay for the cost of your parents' nursing home care. Heed this well: Further, no one is guaranteed nursing home eligibility, no one. States may set unreasonably low income levels so that thousands of people will be denied help in paying the high cost of nursing home care. Families may be forced to spend their life savings for long-term care of a loved one. Speaker Gingrich has put together a budget that reflects his priorities, not America's priorities. It is a budget that will hurt those who would need our help when helping those who are doing just fine. Over and over again the budget socks it to working families while cushioning the blow for the wealthy. Balancing the budget is an important goal, but balancing the budget has to be not about just balancing the books. It has to be about what balancing what our priorities are about. I am going to stop at this juncture for my colleagues who are on the floor, and I want to open up the discussion to them, and we can make the continued points, and I am happy to yield to and to recognize my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], who has spent endless hours on the floor of this House, and in meetings, and in his own district to try to truly educate the public on what is in this bill which is so hurtful to people in this Nation and particularly takes away health care, that security and that safety net of health care in this country. I am happy to yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to make one point and then yield to our colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. The point that you have made is that there truly is nothing balanced about rolling back environmental protection in order to, at the behest of corporate polluters, which is what has happened in this portion of the budget, is those people who--will want to continue polluting, have had the opportunity, in fact the most egregious points about this effort is that they have the opportunity to help to draft the legislation in this body, and we are rolling back those environmental protections for the aggrandizement of these special interests which is an integral part of this budget. One of the last pieces I wanted to mention is that we have in this tax break package rolled back the alternate minimum tax. For instance, you are going to cut student loans that allow working families, middle- class families to get their kids to school. We all went to school with student loans. They are going to try to cut out these programs and at the same time do away with the alternate minimum tax. That is the tax that again was put in by Ronald Reagan to have the richest corporations in this country pay their fair share of some taxes at a 20-percent level. Nobody was asking for that repeal. This is being repealed, and they are telling us at the same time that we have got to bring our fiscal house in order, we are going to give this--you know millions of dollars of windfall to the richest Americans, and at the same time we are telling working families we are sorry we have got to cut back on the student loan, your kid cannot go to school, and you are going to have to figure out another way to do it, or a veteran in this with, you know, sorry we are going to cut $6 billion of veterans' benefits, but we are going to give all these billions of dollars to these folks who at this time do not need it. It is truly mind-boggling to think about what this says about the priorities of this Nation. I now would like to yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], who has really been fighting the fight on this issue in talking about how all of this affects her constituents in the State of California.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague from California for reiterating the effect on adult children, and how their assets are at risk if they have a family member who is in a nursing home. One other point in terms of continued education, a number of our colleagues this afternoon, Republican colleagues, talked about how the President has been derelict in his duty and at this last hour is vetoing these appropriation bills. I say to my Republican colleagues, you cannot talk out of both sides of your mouths. You cannot be in charge of this institution, hold the majority on all of the committees, and in the final votes in committee and on the floor of the House, and when you get to the appropriations bills, when you cannot get them completed in the House and in the Senate and send them to the President, that has been the single biggest issue in holding back what has been going on here in terms of getting to the budget, is they have not done their job on any of these appropriations bills. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing that point out.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, Jim McDermott. In terms of the Medicare issue, the gentleman from Washington has really led the way in terms of heeding what the trustees said in terms of solvency, and $90 billion to be able to deal with that issue, because none of us view that there are not changes that could be made in the Medicare Program, but the gentleman has had the foresight to think about the future and what happens with baby boomers and setting up a structure to deal with that, and not sending the balance of that $90 billion from the $280 that the Republicans want to cut from Medicare for their tax cuts for the wealthy, but has been someone who has worked diligently on trying to deal with the Medicare issue. I am proud to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague from Texas in making a similar kind of inquiry. The normal procedure has been that when we do go into recess, that we all, in a bipartisan way, on both sides of the aisle, have the opportunity to go into special orders; and sometimes we have a dialog amongst all of us, and sometimes we just share the time. But it would seem to me that that is the procedure that we ought to follow here so that in fact we are not sitting around here doing nothing while we are waiting for the opportunity to come back and find out what the rest of the schedule is going to be, and that people in the peoples House have that opportunity to make know their concerns, their interests, and take this time, which I think we all agree is used usefully on behalf of both parties.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, to the prior speaker I say, ``Take the tax break off the table, and we will have a Medicare program for seniors and we will balance the budget.'' Last month Speaker Gingrich shut down the Government because he did not like his seat on Air Force One. Now he is at it again. This time the Speaker wants his way on the budget. While President Clinton, Democrats, and Republicans in the other body all try to reach a budget agreement, the Gingrich Republicans want to shut down the Government in order to force their budget priorities on this country. But the American people have rejected the Gingrich budget, a budget which slashes Medicare, education, environmental protection, to finance that crown jewel of the contract, tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Speaker, it is time for House Republicans to join the President, Democrats, and Republicans in the other body at the negotiating table. Let us give the American people an early Christmas present, a budget that reflects America's priorities, not Speaker Gingrich's priorities.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] is absolutely right.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would be delighted to yield to my colleague there of Massachusetts.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I will make one more comment, because I know there are a number of colleagues on the floor who want to engage in this conversation. If you could make the case that some of this cut were going, in fact, to balancing the budget or bringing down the deficit, you might be able to make a case in some ways for it. I do not know how in terms of nursing home standards and putting working middle-class families at risk, but the fact of the matter is here there is, as part of this budget, a $245 billion tax break to the wealthiest Americans in this country. I do not deny people the opportunity to increase their salary and achieve a good status. That is a part of what the American dream is all about. No one questions that. But at this moment if you are going to cut Medicare, as they will, $270 billion, cut Medicaid $163 billion, in order to pay for that tax break for the wealthy, it is wrong, it is not part of the American tradition, and we need to fight it with every single breath we have. I compliment my colleagues, and I am proud to join with you this afternoon in having this conversation.

Ms. DeLAURO. It is gone.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I want to thank all of my colleagues. It is a pleasure to join with them this afternoon, and I particularly thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for his invitation to participate and for his being here, tirelessly, just about every single evening. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the Medicaid issue from the same perspective, but maybe a slightly different one. First of all, I think sometimes people misunderstand what Medicaid is all about, and they have an impression that it truly in fact does not affect their lives, that this is a program, if you will, for poor people or people who are out there that they have nothing to do with, and it does not in some way affect their own lives. The fact of the matter is that two- thirds of the expenditures of the Medicaid program are for people who are in nursing homes. Let me give an example of the people in Connecticut. Sixty percent to seventy percent of seniors who are in nursing homes in the State of Connecticut today have their health care paid for either partially or in whole by the Medicaid Program, so that millions of families, intergenerationally, really are dependent upon Medicaid to provide essential, essential health care. What the Gingrich plan does is, it is a raid on Medicare, and essentially this raid is an unconscionable assault on the values of middle-class Americans. I would like to mention a couple of things about what is intended, as well as the cutback. The Congress voted last month to turn Medicaid into a block grant program, to slash the program by $163 billion. That is over the next 7 years. Particularly startling about the block grant approach and the one other one-third cut in the Medicaid program is the repeal of the family protections which have to do, quite honestly, with all of us, if we have senior loved ones, parents, or relatives who may potentially have to go to a nursing home. The family protections will be repealed if this bill sees the light of day, if it becomes law. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a couple of points here. I will, by the way, say that the President vetoed the budget due to its extreme agenda as it has to do with Medicaid. There is a report that all of us had a chance to look at, by the Consumer Union. These are the folks who put together the Consumer Reports, when you go out to look to buy a car or a computer, and you know whether you are buying something good or you are buying a lemon, or you are going to get a bum deal. You make your decision. People look at these Consumer Reports. This is the group, the Consumer Union, that issues those reports and that issued the report on this proposal by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and the budget. They talked about this potential nightmare that is going to be placed on working families with parents who need nursing home care. They have estimated that there will be 395,000 long-term care patients that are likely to lose their Medicaid payment for their care next year if this bill is approved. That is an unbelievable and staggering number of people who, one, will not have the care, but whose families, working families today in our country, are going to pick up the slack somewhere. You are not going to see your mother, your father, a dear aunt or uncle or so forth, be out in the street. What is more, what is of equal concern, is that with the repeal of these family protections you are going to see that adult children--you can put a lien on the home of an adult child if you do not meet the State median in terms of income. If you fall below your State median in income, and in the State of Connecticut it is $41,000, and if you make more than $41,000--and in many middle class homes today with two working parents you see above that number, and it may be slightly above that number--you then are now liable to pick up costs for your parent or your loved one's nursing home care. They can come in and put a lien on your house. If you are in rural America or in farm country, they can put a lien on your farm to help to pay the cost of nursing home care. This is written in the fine print in this Medicaid law, which many people do not know about. In addition to that, there is no longer a requirement, there are no more Federal regulations on nursing home standards; every State can do what they want. No one wants to believe that States are going to be evil, bad, or that State legislatures are bad people, but the fact of the matter is that is you have a money crunch in your State and it is going to cost more to make sure of those nursing home standards, and those are the ones where they could retrain your father or your mother, they could use mind-altering drugs, that was all changed--I might add that was under Ronald Reagan--that all changed. Now they do not have to comply with any Federal nursing home standards, so it really is a monetarily devastating effect, a quality of care. It has to do with the individual who is in a nursing home and who gets that care paid for by Medicaid, but it falls on the backs of the families of folks who are in nursing homes, and that is what will happen if this law on Medicaid passes in the next several weeks here.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last month, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] shut down the Government because he did not like his seat on Air Force One. But now he is at it again, and while the President and the Republican leaders of the other body work together to negotiate a budget deal, Speaker Gingrich can only offer obstruction. Why is the Speaker determined to shut down the Government again? Was he invited to breakfast at the White House and got only one piece of toast and President Clinton got two? Who knows. What we do know is that the Speaker is using the threat of a Government shutdown to force his budget priorities on the American people. My colleagues on the other side have said that the polls show that the American people know what is going on. In fact, they do know what the Republicans are doing here, and they do not like it. They oppose a budget that cuts Medicare, education, environmental protection to finance a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. So, Mr. Gingrich, quit playing games. Give the American people an early Christmas present, a budget which reflects America's priorities, the priorities of the people of this country, not yours.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of American troops and in support of the United States mission in Bosnia. The debate we have here today is as much about America's future as it is about Bosnia. Our vote today will send a message about our country's future role in NATO. If we walk away today, we will have relinquished our leadership role in the international community. The human tragedy in Bosnia is beyond description. A quarter of a million people have been killed in 3 years of senseless slaughter. If we fail to enforce the Dayton peace agreement, we turn our backs on those who have suffered from mass rape, ethnic cleansing, and other unspeakable horrors. In the face of this moral crisis, we must be willing to step forward and lead. It is what great nations such as ours have always done. Moral leadership in the world is part of the price of being the world's sole superpower. Over the weekend, I joined a factfinding trip to Bosnia. I admit that I went with strong reservations about our military mission there, but I have returned with the knowledge that our troops are ready and our mission is clear. I have also returned with a belief that we have a moral obligation to do what only a U.S.-led force can do: keep the peace. One of the highlights of our trip was a stopover in Germany to visit with American troops who will be deployed in the coming weeks. While there, I had a chance to speak with a young soldier from New London, CT, Private Jarion Clarke. Private Clark told me that he is well- trained, has faith in his leaders, and believes in the United States mission in Bosnia. I asked Private Clarke what I could do for him: ``Tell the American people that we are ready and we need their support,'' he said. So, that is the message I bring. Our soldiers need our support. They deserve our support. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Dornan, and Buyer resolution. Vote for the Hamilton resolution. The only measure that clearly says to American men and women in uniform is that we stand behind them.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we all remember last month when Speaker Gingrich closed down the Government because he did not like his seats on Air Force One. Well, here we go again. Yesterday, an aide to Speaker Gingrich says that Mr. Gingrich is prepared to shut down the Government again, if he does not get his way on the budget. The problem is that Gingrich's way is not the American way. America does not support the Gingrich budget priorities. The American people do not want a balanced budget which devastates Medicare, education, and the environment, in order to finance a massive tax break to the wealthy. So, Mr. Speaker, spare us the theatrics and give the American people an early Christmas present: a balanced budget which reflects our priorities, not yours.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to share a statement made by my dear friend Marvin Lender about the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. A resident of Woodbridge, CT, Mr. Lender is the former national chairman of the United Jewish Appeal and has a long and distinguished record in helping others. He has made countless contributions to community and civic affairs, but has concentrated his efforts on the Jewish community and the people of Israel. Before assuming the chairmanship of the United Jewish Appeal [UJA], Mr. Lender was UJA's national chairman for major gifts, and contributed greatly to the Passage to Freedom Special Campaign for Soviet Jewry and Operation Exodus. The success of Soviet Jewry's settlement in Israel in freedom and dignity is due to his extraordinary efforts on their behalf. He served as UJA's cochairman for the northeast region, general chairman of New Haven's Combined Jewish Appeal, and president and chairman of the boards of directors of the United Israel Appeal and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. Mr. Lender currently resides in Woodbridge with his wife and three children. He serves on the board of trustees at Yale New Haven Hospital and is the cochairman of the annual drive for the New Haven chapter of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Mr. Lender cochairs the New Haven Holocaust and Prejudice Reduction program which helps eliminate prejudice by making school-age children aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. Through his following statement, it is clear that his countless efforts on behalf of the Jewish Community and the people of Israel were inspired by the achievements and the example of Yitzhak Rabin. I applaud Mr. Lender's heartfelt statement remembering and honoring Yitzhak Rabin. Mr. Rabin's life and his achievements will be remembered and revered for many years to come. I am returning to Israel after just arriving back in the states on Friday. Sleeping on the flight is impossible. My mind never stops thinking about Prime Minister Rabin. The times that I had the privilege of being with him are so vivid to me. I have feelings of sadness. I feel that the Jewish people have experienced another major tragedy. Israel is at the center of it all again--the bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv or Beit Leit--soldiers being killed in South Lebanon--and now the taking of the life of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people. And to make matters worse, if that is possible, Rabin was murdered by a Jew. For many reasons, I felt I needed to be there--to attend his funeral--to pay my respects and personally say good-bye--to be there as a representative of the United Jewish Appeal, as a strong supporter of Israel, as a Jew, and most of all, as a friend and admirer of Yitzhak Rabin. In fact, ironically, after many years of interacting with him, and especially over these last two years, I had come to know him more intimately, and to some extent he began to know more about me and how I felt about what he was doing. Our first meeting was on the day after he was elected Prime Minister. I remember it as though it were yesterday. I remember September 13, 1993, on the lawn of the White House. I will never forget his demeanor. He was so uncomfortable. His body language was so obvious. He did not want to be there, but he knew he had to be in order to lead our people to a new phase in our history. This was the first significant step in the peace process. Rabin had the courage to take this momentous step, beginning the long rocky road that he would travel to achieve peace. He spoke, and you could hear his concern, his emotion and his passion. He concluded his poignant remarks with the Hebrew words so familiar to us, ``Ose sholom binromov hu yasase sholom Olaynu v'al kol yisroayl v'imru omayn.'' And at the end, which was a beginning, he shook hands with Arafat, symbolizing a time for change and peace. Immediately after the signing, Brian Lurie, executive vice president, United Jewish Appeal, Joel Tauber, president, United Jewish Appeal, and I, flew to Israel and met with the Prime Minister to define UJA's role in peace. He was very clear about our responsibility to Aliyah and Klitah (immigration and absorption). After watching the historic vote in the Knesset, we took the message back to America. Our meeting with Mr. Rabin once again demonstrated his ties as well as expectations vis-a-vis Jews in the Diaspora. From that moment, Mr. Rabin was under a different kind of pressure. Every time an Israeli died or was injured in a terrorist attack, it was like losing his own child. He despised fanaticism and terrorism by all people. There were no distinctions between Jews and non-Jews. The Baruch Goldstein event was a tragedy for him, not unlike any Arab terrorist activity. My image of Prime Minister Rabin is that of a shy man. One who preferred not to make speeches. He was direct and focused--yet one could sense his strong feeling and sensitivity every time he spoke. If you were fortunate to be with him in a small group, it became even more evident how bright, intelligent, sharp and knowledgeable he was about any subject. It did not matter whether it related to the United Jewish Appeal, the Jewish Agency for Israel, or any other subject matter, the Prime Minister would always offer a solution. Peace was his focus. It impacted on all of the issues that he talked about during his campaign and his term in office--the economy, immigration and absorption-- as well as the social issues of the country. A year ago, I heard the Prime Minister speak at a meeting in London. That evening, he recounted a number of significant events of the week. He spoke of the arrival of the Chief Rabbi of Syria, marking the end of a movement to free Syrian Jews, as well as the signing of the Jordanian Peace Accord in Arava. But he spoke most emotionally as he recounted the shiva call that he had made to the family of Nachon Waxman. I saw his tears and pain as he described the attack that he authorized in an attempt to release a Jewish hostage. There were many meetings over the last three years--from the day after he won the election, to our meetings in Washington several days ago. He was always focused, determined and very clear about his mission. However, one could see the passion and compassion that this great man possessed. He knew, and so did we, that he was making great progress on the road to peace, albeit with great sacrifice and pain. He was deeply hurt by the demonstrations and personal attacks on him by the right wing in Israel and America. But he was a man driven by his desire for peace. He did not want the children to die in a war. Little did he know that he would give his own life for peace. Yitzhak Rabin was a warm, caring man--a husband, father, grandfather, and a friend. He loved his country. He loved Jerusalem. On October 25, in Washington, D.C., in the Rotunda, how proud I was when the Prime Minister spoke about ``my Jerusalem.'' His words were those of a poet. How beautiful. How poignant. It really is his Jerusalem. That evening, he presented President Clinton with the Isaiah Peace Award on behalf of the United Jewish Appeal. It was truly their peace. The strong feeling of affection that they had for each other were very obvious. At the funeral, I will always remember the siren blasting for two minutes. I watched Israelis, dignitaries from around the world, and representatives of world Jewry, as they bowed their heads in sorrow. His loss will be felt by all. When President Clinton walked by the casket and bowed his head, I cried. When I listened to Shimon Sheves, his granddaughter, and Etan Haber, I cried. The people who spoke reflected the true feelings of all of us, and all those from around the world honored him with their attendance, attesting to his greatness. We appreciate and are grateful for having had him as our leader. Yitzhak, we will truly miss you--I will truly miss you. May your life and commitment to peace be an inspiration to all mankind.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 848 on House Concurrent Resolution 117, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.