Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Palestinian Assembly finally took steps to amend their charter, which calls for Israel's destruction. I have been speaking about that for a number of years here on the House floor. The United States aid to the Palestinian entity, which is about a half a billion dollars, is predicated on the removal of those covenants. Just last week I took that to the House floor and said that the date, May 7, is the date by which the covenants must be amended. According to United States law that date is 2 months after the Palestinian elections. Yesterday the Palestinian Assembly did take steps to remove the covenants. The council amends the Palestinian national covenant by canceling clauses which contradict the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Israel Government. So, in essence, the clauses which contradict the letters exchanged by the PLO and the Israeli Government are those clauses which call for the destruction of Israel. That is a positive step, although I must say, Mr. Speaker, it would have been far better if they would have been much more explicit and explicitly mentioned the covenants which are revoked. That would have been a lot better. Still, I want to give credit where credit is due. The second thing to which they agreed was that the Palestinian Assembly would draft a new charter within a few short months. We are going to be looking and we are going to be seeing what is the language in that charter. We want to make sure that the new charter that is drafted has language which is compatible with pursuing peace. I think that is very, very important. Again, while I commend the Palestinian authority and commend Yasser Arafat for taking steps finally to remove the covenants which call for Israel's destruction, I want them to know that we in the United States Congress will continue to monitor the situation very closely and continue to watch the new charter which is going to be drafted by the Palestinian assembly. We do not want double talk. The problem on the Palestinian side for too long has been doublespeak, talking out of 10 or 15 sides of their mouth. If you want peace you need to be unequivocal, you need to state that you want peace, and you need to say it both in English and in Arabic, so it is not only for American public opinion consumption but it is for the home crowd, so to speak. The Palestinian people should hear their leaders say that there is no alternative to peace with Israel. I wanted to say that. I wanted to also comment on some of the other events in the Middle East. I found it a bit hypocritical that the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva condemned Israel for the bombings in Lebanon, in a totally one-sided and ridiculous resolution, which said nothing about the Hezbollah guerillas which started this whole thing. The United States, to our credit, voted against it. There were only a handful of countries voting against it. I thought it was especially hypocritical for the U.N. Human Rights Commission to do that, at the same time when the U.N. Human Rights Commission recommendations against the human rights abuse in China were not supported by the majority of countries voting, so it is hypocrisy, again. I think that is a bit ridiculous. In Lebanon, Mr. Speaker, we ought to call it the way it is. That is, clearly, that the disruption and the hardship on both the Israeli population and the Lebanese population near the border rests solely with Syria, and with Hafiz al-Asad. Syria, in essence, controls Lebanon. Lebanon has really ceased to exist as a free and independent state. There are 40,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon, and if the Syrian troops wanted to, they could control Hezbollah. They could prevent Hezbollah from wreaking havoc on Israeli civilians just south of the border. That is what happened again and again and again during the past few weeks. No government at all can tolerate the wanton shelling of its citizens without some kind of response, and that is exactly what the Israeli Government has done. They have responded to the Hezbollah attacks. Now, the Israeli attacks have hurt and killed civilians, and it is very, very unfortunate that civilians are maimed or killed. But it should be remembered that the Israeli troops, the Israeli attacks are going after the Hezbollah terrorists, whereas Hezbollah is specifically going after Israeli civilians. So I say to the Syrian Government and to Mr. Assad, who talks a good game of peace but has shown absolutely zero, the nerve of him to keep our Secretary of State waiting and not to meet with Secretary Christopher. I think we will watch the events in the Middle East very, very closely, and I am glad that peace seems to be moving forward.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the last time I argued to raise the minimum wage on the House floor I was accused by the majority whip as being hypocritical. I would say that the only people being hypocritical here are the Republican leadership. They talk about family values, they claim to support America's workers, yet their policies are just the opposite. The bottom line, my colleagues, is that we want a vote. Let us say it again. We want a vote, up or down, on the minimum wage. The Republican leadership is afraid to give us a vote because they know if there was a vote on the House Floor, the minimum wage would go up. It would pass. They do not want to do it. That is Republican democracy for you. Seventy-one percent of Republicans support increasing the minimum wage, and 84 percent of all Americans support increasing the minimum wage. But yet the tyranny here of leadership will not even allow us a vote on the floor. Today's Congress Daily says House Speaker Gingrich, who last week conceded he would allow for a vote on the minimum wage in some form, was pressured by other members of the leadership to rule out a vote. Who does the Speaker represent, the American people or the leaders? All we are saying is that we want a vote. Again, Speaker Gingrich conceded last week he would allow a vote. This week, he was pressured ``by other members of the Republican leadership to rule out a vote, at least for the foreseeable future.'' What are you afraid of, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle? Let the American people have their way. Let the Congress have their way. All we are saying is give us a vote up or down. You are blocking a vote. You cannot claim to want to help America's workers by not allowing an increase in the minimum wage. you cannot claim family values by not allowing an increase in the minimum wage. Why should someone get off welfare, as you say you want people to do, when they do get off welfare and make a minimum wage they are getting paid less than if they were on welfare? All we are saying is people want to work, and they are at the very bottom of the economic spectrum, these are people that want to work. They do not want to collect a check. They want to work. Pay them a decent wage. That is the American way. Wages are at a 40- year low. It is a disgrace. We demand a vote.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it has been 16 months since the Republicans have taken over Congress, and what have we gotten for it? We have gotten an extreme agenda that hurts the middle class. The previous Speaker showed why the environment is so important and how the Republican majority is doing nothing to help the environment. We have Medicare cuts and Medicaid cuts that hurt our senior citizens. We have the largest education cuts in American history. Let me say that again, the largest education cuts in American history. As we approach Earth Day, we find cuts in the environment, cuts in environmental enforcement, allowing the polluters to continue to pollute. They use the code word ``balance.'' That means let us let industry continue to pollute. They hurt the middle class. They want to keep corporate welfare. This is what the agenda was all about yesterday. They talk about tax relief. We have rules in this House that we passed, much-heralded rules saying that there needs to be a supermajority in order to raise taxes, and the Republicans have waived those rules three times. Let us stop the nonsense. Let us stop hurting the middle class with the extreme Republican mean-spirited agenda.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me time. Let me say we are all inspired by his story and his efforts. Mr. Speaker, just a brief while ago many of us attended a Yom HaShoah remembrance, Days of Remembrance, 1996, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and they passed out this program. On the program it says, ``For the dead and the living, we must bear witness.'' Certainly nothing is more obscene than those Holocaust revisionists who try to claim that it did not happen or that it did not happen to the magnitude that we know it happened. They include, unfortunately, leaders of countries. Even a candidate for President of this country has from time to time made such ridiculous allegations. When you go to the Holocaust Memorial Museum on the fourth floor and you first walk in, there is a quote from President Eisenhower, then General Eisenhower, who said he wanted to witness what went on after the camps were liberated. he wanted to be there himself so that if, generations later on, if there would be those people who would deny that such horrendous things ever happened, he would be able to bear witness that he say it with his own two eyes. Mr. Speaker, the unspeakable atrocities that went on in trying to annihilate the Jews of Europe is something that must never be forgotten, and it is certainly something that must never be repeated. Those of us who have witnessed the events, tragic events, over the past several years in Bosnia, while not of the magnitude of the Holocaust, certainly touched a responsive chord in us to know that we cannot ever again sit idly by and watch ethnic cleansing or Holocaust to rear its ugly head again. One would think the world would learn, the world would know, the world would not want to repeat what went on. Yet we see again and again genocide rearing its ugly head. So I think it is very, very fitting, Mr. Speaker, that this body pause to honor the people who perished in the Holocaust, the memory of the people who perished in the Holocaust, and to redouble our efforts to make sure that in the future, holocausts never happen again. On this day of Yom HaShoah, we bear witness to what happened, and we honor those people who perished in the Holocaust.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and will support this legislation, but I really feel that this ought to be used as an explanation to what has been happening in the Middle East. Everyone supports investment and economic development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We know ultimately that that is really the only way that peace is going to survive in the Middle East. However, Chairman Yasser Arafat and the PLO have promised repeatedly to amend the covenants of the PLO charter which call for the destruction of Israel. And in the recently concluded agreement to which they signed, they agreed that 2 months after the Palestinian elections were held that the Palestine National Council would meet and would amend the covenants, would take out the part that calls for Israel's destruction. That date is fast approaching. That date will come on May 7, and, much to my chagrin, I have not yet heard the positive signs that I would like to hear that that May 7 deadline will be kept. Several weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I circulated a letter along with my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], which was signed by over 100 Members of the House, bipartisan Members of the House. It was a letter to Yasser Arafat telling him that according to the law of which we provide aid to the Palestinian entity that all aid must cease unless those covenants are amended and that the May 7 deadline is fast approaching. We implored, we pleaded with Chairman Arafat to give us a commitment that that deadline would be met. Last week, I received a replay from Chairman Arafat and, much to my chagrin, he did not even mention the covenants in his reply to our letter, although our letter specifically was about amending those covenants. He talked about the peace process. he talked about normalization, but he did not address the issue of the covenants. Now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and I are sending another letter to him, asking him to please address the issue of the covenants and to please give us assurances that he will keep his word. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that, if May 7 comes and goes and those covenants are not amended, it will be very difficult for me to continue to support continued aid to the Palestinian entity, to the Palestinian authority. I believe that peace agreements are good, but I believe that both sides must keep their agreement. And as cochair of the peace monitoring accord group along with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], we intend to make sure that all parties comply with the agreement that they signed. We are not telling the parties what to sign. We are not telling the parties what to do. All we are saying is that the parties need to keep their word. They need to adhere to the agreement that they signed. And I think the issue of the covenants are a very, very important issue. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very difficult to believe that somebody really wants peace if they habitually refuse or ignore calls to amend the covenant calling for the destruction of one side, in this case the destruction of the State of Israel. So I think the time has long past. It has now been several years. And those covenants really, really need to be amended. And again according to United States law, no aid can continue to the Palestinians unless those covenants are changed. Let me finally say about this that it is not enough, I think, to just pass something and say well, this supersedes. We want those covenants abrogated. We want them eliminated. We do not want some whitewashing of them and somehow trying to fudge the issue or to allow Mr. Arafat to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Mr. Speaker, I support the peace process fully. I think the suicide bombings have brought a sense of reality to the peace process, but peace must continue and must go on. I think what is going on in Lebanon today and for the past several days also is a sobering realization that there are many, many people that want to destroy the peace process. The Hezbollah are guerrillas, the so-called Party of God, the people who are rejecting it on the Palestinian side. We need to persevere. But in order to have a real peace, Mr. Speaker, I believe that both sides must keep their agreement. And I say it again and I say it for all to hear, to Mr. Arafat, you must abrogate those covenants calling for Israel's destruction or American aid will cease. Now, I support this because again I think free-trade benefits to the West Bank and Gaza Strip are important. But again, these benefits and all benefits will stop if those covenants are not abrogated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to look at this proposed amendment and call it for what is. It is a Republican election year publicity stunt. They want to require a simple majority to go to war, but want to require a two-thirds majority to correct a tax loophole to end corporate welfare. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican majority passed a much-heralded House rule requiring a three-fifths vote to raise taxes, and every time we have raised taxes in this Chamber with Republican votes and Republican majorities, they have waived that rule, that house rule, three times. So who is kidding who? The House rule was supposed to prevent taxes being raised without a three-fifths majority. Each time the Republicans found it convenient to raise taxes, they just waived it. So with the same publicity at the beginning of this Congress that they put in to look good, this is the same kind of election year publicity stunt that they are putting in right now: a simple majority to go to war, a two-thirds majority to correct a tax loophole to end corporate welfare. One can only conclude from this that they like the corporate welfare, they like the special interests, they like catering to the special interests, and it is the middle class once again under the Republican plans that get kicked in the teeth. Americans should understand what this is all about. This is to protect corporate welfare. It is a cynical election-year publicity stunt. It hurts the middle class and ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Yes; I would.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the previous gentleman mentioned that the rule on the agriculture bill waived a point of order with regard to unfunded mandates. Is this the blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy that the majority whip was referring to?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let us say what this really is. This is an attempt by the Republican majority not to allow the whole issue of minimum wage, of raising the minimum wage for American workers to come to the floor. I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. We cannot get that bill to come to committee. The Republican leadership has blocked it. We cannot get that bill to come to the floor. The Republican leadership has blocked it. They could care less about raising the minimum wage. They expect people to work at a $4.25 an hour standard, which is less than people who are on welfare are getting. So much for welfare reform. They claim they are for welfare reform, but they do not want to pay someone who wants to work for a living a decent wage. Apparently they think coolie wages is what we should do, $4.25 an hour. This would simply raise it to $5.15. The last raise was 5 years ago. Workers' moneys in terms of what they make on minimum wage are at a 40-year low. Is there no decency? Do we not care about what people who are trying to work for a living do? The Republican majority does not want this to come to a vote. I may ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what are they afraid of? All we are saying is that the minimum wage ought to be raised from $4.25 to $5.15. We owe it to America's workers to do this. This is simple decency. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that the vote will pass and that people on your side of the aisle, some of them, may even vote for it? There has been an attempt to block this bill from being in the committee and from being on the floor. We cannot get a vote. All we are saying is let us vote up or down whether or not the minimum wage should be raised. That is all we are asking and that is all we want here this afternoon. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me, if we are debating this bill on raising the debt ceiling limit, that something to do with the minimum wage is about as germane to the debt ceiling limit lifting as the line-item veto is and as allowing seniors to make more money for Social Security purposes. I cannot see why one would not be germane and why these other things are germane. In fact, we should have a clean lifting of the debt ceiling and then we would not have to worry about germaneness after all. So it would seem to me that we cannot on the one hand attach all kinds of extraneous things to the lifting of the debt ceiling and then on the other hand claim that the minimum wage is not at least as relevant to the lifting of the debt ceiling as the line-item veto and senior citizens are. I just do not think it is fair if we are going to talk about playing by fair rules. I think we ought to be fair. While they may want to stifle free speech on the other side of the aisle, I think we have a right to ask for equity here.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I think it is disingenuous and outrageous to say that the minority leader's point of order is not in order here.

Mr. ENGEL. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill ought to be defeated. We should be considering a clean version of the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema health reform bill, and I would say that the reason we are not considering a clean version of the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema health reform bill is because the Republican leadership really does not want to see health care reform come into law. They really want to see it defeated. But, quite frankly, they do not have the guts to say it. So they are weighing this bill down with all kinds of extraneous things that do not belong in the bill, knowing full well that this will kill the bill. The Senate is going to pass a clean version. The President has said he will sign a clean version, and yet what we are doing today is a political charade. We are not passing a clean version, we are deliberately not passing the version the Senate is passing, and we know that the President will not agree. So it is a charade. And, again, the Republican leadership does not have the guts to say the truth. You know, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the Republican whip, had it right before, when he said on the House floor, and I quote the gentleman from Texas from his speech on the House floor, ``This is blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy.'' Except he was wrong in directing it to me and the Democrats. It seems to me the blatant, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] said, ``blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy'' is on the part of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the Republican leadership because they do not have the guts to say we are against health care reform; instead, they are just weighing down this bill with a bunch of nonsense. We believe that portability ought to become law. We believe that preexisting conditions is not a reason to deny people health care coverage. The Roukema bill does that. The Roukema bill will pass. The Roukema bill has the votes to pass, yet what they are doing is making it impossible for the Roukema bill to pass, and that to me is, quote, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] says, ``blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, for the whole day today the Republican leadership blocked consideration of a raise in the minimum wage. Then the majority whip, in relation to my speech that I made, said, ``This is blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy.'' His words clearly should have been taken down, but the Speaker disallowed it. Now the Republican leadership shamefully is not allowing us to consider a clean version of the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema health reform bill, even though the American people want it. The American people want to know that if they lose their jobs, they can continue to have health insurance. The American people want to know that if there is a preexisting condition used as a excuse not to give them or a loved one health insurance, that that cannot be used as an excuse anymore. It has bipartisan support in the Senate, and is supported by the President. It represents the minimum that can be done to provide additional health security to the American people. Again, the Republican leadership is blocking it, taking this bill and weighing it down with all kinds of strange things that do not belong in this bill. They know it is going to kill the bill. That is their real motive, to kill this bill. They can pretend they are for health care reform, but in reality what they are doing to this bill kills the bill, and the American people ought to know that. Republicans have been talking a lot about how they want to reconnect with average working people. Is this the way they do it? By blocking the Roukema bill, this demonstrates that the Republican leadership are more interested in political gain than in passing legislation that helps the American worker. This is really shameful.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, our Republican friends are at it again. Last year they spent the whole year trying to decimate Medicare and Medicaid and hurt our senior citizens, and, thankfully, at least for now, we were able to stop them. This year what do they have in store for America? The largest education cuts in the history of the United States. They would deny our schoolchildren the ability to compete in this global economy. Let us look at what the $3.3 billion in education cuts amount to. Sixty-five million schoolchildren will be affected, basic reading and math skills cut, safe and drug-free schools cut, vocational education cut, adult education cut, title I education cut, the summer youth and employment program eliminated. Not only do the Republicans not want to teach our children, they do not want to give them summer jobs. I guess they think they are better off hanging out on street corners than earning a few dollars to help with their families. This just shows once again the extreme, mean- spirited Republican agenda of sticking it to middle-class families. Last year it was Medicare and Medicaid. Now it is education. What comes next?

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] opened this debate by saying that this was a choice between American values and Washington values. I agree, but not quite in the context in which he put it. It is a choice between American values, where 70 percent of the American public are saying keep these assault weapons banned, where the policemen of America are saying please keep these assault weapons banned. And Washington values, political payoffs to special interests, Republican payoffs to the NRA; that is what this is all about. The Republican Party can no longer claim to be the party of law and order because they are saying if it is a choice between police and the NRA, they choose the NRA. This is a shame and a disgrace.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I might say that the bill is better than the original bill that came before the House, and I know that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has worked very hard to make the bill better, but it still is not good enough. I believe that American diplomacy is essential. I believe, as the world power that we are, we need to remain engaged in the world. This bill, in my opinion, goes in the opposite direction. It slashes money for foreign affairs agencies, it slashes money for foreign aid, it slashes money for arms control, it slashes money for peacekeeping. The people that serve our country in the Embassies around the world are very demoralized, and rightfully so. The bill has a serious isolationism bent. We cannot have it both ways, my colleagues. We cannot be the leader of the free world, indeed the leader of the world, and tell other countries that we want them to emulate us in terms of being more open, more democratic, a free society, and at the same time we are pulling back, putting our heads in the sand and being isolationist. We cannot have it both ways, and this clearly, in reducing the level of aid, in reducing the importance of foreign affairs and foreign involvement, we are truly going back to the days when the United States was an isolationist country. I do not think that is the direction in which we ought to go. Family planning; it pulls back in family planning as well. The country programs; it pulls back as well there. It seems to me that we spent so much money in the era of the cold war. We won that cold war. We beat the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries crumbled. Did we spend billions and billions and billions of dollars on an arms race only to throw it all away? Now that we have won? To say that we do not want to stay engaged in the world? To say that we want to retrench and pull back? The American public believes that foreign aid is about 15 percent of our budget when in reality it is less than 1 percent of our budget, and in my opinion that is certainly not enough if we want to say that we are the leaders of the world, and we are. Nobody anointed us and said that we were the leaders. We choose to be the leaders, as well we should. I believe with leadership comes responsibility. I believe that, if we want to ensure that the fledgling democracies in this world continue to prosper and grow, then we have got to provide the help, we have got to provide the aid, especially with the developing countries. A little bit of aid goes such a long, long way. But what are we telling the world with this? We are saying that we want to step backwards into the era of isolationism. Now we have problems with the U.N. The U.N. has not always been an ideal or done what we like it to do, but I would think that the world would be a lot worse if we did not have a U.N., and here we are retrenching even there. So let me just say, if I may conclude to my colleagues, I think this bill goes in the wrong direction and it ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add my voice to the comments of my colleagues about the resolution condemning terrorism, but we had hearings today in the House Committee on International Relations to try to find out if the Palestinian authority is doing all it can do or has done all it can do to curb the scourge of terrorism, and I think the frustration that one sees and hears; we feel, on the one hand, that the peace process needs to continue. On the other hand, we cannot continue with blinders and pretend that nothing has happened. So I certainly support the resolution, I think we need to condemn terrorism, I think we need to reach out to the brave people of Israel. No country could tolerate this kind of wanton terrorism against its civilian population, and I think clearly the ball is in Mr. Arafat's court. He has to determine whether or not he is going to be serious about cracking down on the scourge of terrorism. It is not enough anymore just to condemn it, it is not enough anymore to say one is against it. We have to show actions speak louder than words. He has got to route out terrorism, the United States has to stand foursquare against terrorism, but all the nations of the world have to participate. So I am happy to join in support of the resolution as I know every Member of Congress will. Terrorism is a threat to all of us everywhere in the world.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, in a very succinct and incisive interview with Middle East Insight president and editor George Nader in the magazine's 15th anniversary issue in December President Clinton articulated his vision for the future of the Middle East and for American interests in the region. The President said, ``We want to see the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous region in which all nations and people can live in freedom and security.'' Real progress made in the Middle East peace process under the Clinton administration has been unprecedented. As the Israeli-Syrian talks continue to move ahead, and our attention remains focused on further process toward lasting peace in the Middle East, I commend the entire interview to my colleagues. [From Middle East Insight, November-December, 1995] Interview With President William J. Clinton (By George A. Nader) In this 15th Anniversary issue, President Bill Clinton gives an exclusive interview about U.S. interests in the Middle East to Middle East Insight editor George A. Nader. This interview is a follow-up to President Clinton's first interview with Middle East Insight as President-elect. President Clinton's term in office has been marked by historic agreements between Israel and the PLO, a formal peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, ongoing negotiations under U.S. auspices between Israel and Syria and Lebnanon, and continued enforcement of dual containment of Iraq and Iran. President Clinton had developed a warm and productive relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin before his assassination last November, and will now be working closely with his successor, Shimon Peres, on many vital areas of interest to the United States in the Middle East. We are privileged to have President Clinton share his views below on these subjects as well as his vision for the future of the region. Q: Mr. President, as spiral of violence in the Middle East, capped by the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, has challenged the peace process. What are your thoughts about the impact of this assassination on the state of the peace process? A: The tragic death of Prime Minister Rabin was an attempt to stop the historic progress which has been made toward a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the reaction in Israel, the Middle East, and around the world to this crime demonstrates the marginalization of those who would use violence to achieve their ends and the overwhelming support which exists for the peace process. The world lost a great man and I--along with all Americans--a great friend in Yitzhak Rabin. A champion of his nation in conflict, he became a hero for reconciliation and understanding as well. His life paralleled that of the Middle East in his time: he fought tirelessly for the security and prosperity of his people, and then turned that same strength and wisdom to forging a peace that would ensure that this security and prosperity would live on after him. His death reminds us all that the cost of leadership is sometimes very high. But his life serves as an example for what can be achieved through courage and determination to do what is right. The tributes paid to Prime Minister Rabin by King Hussein, President Mubarak, and other leaders from the region and around the world have been mirrored in the unprecedented outpouring of support expressed by the people of Israel for his living legacy, the pursuit of a just and enduring peace of all the people of the Middle East. I am committed to continue doing all I can to ensure that this goal is realized. Q: What is your view of the importance of Palestinian economic development to the success of the peace process? A: We agree that Palestinian economic development is a key ingredient in building a lasting peace. It is essential that the Palestinian people see that the peace process has produced tangible benefits in their daily lives, that their future--and that of their children--has changed for the better because of the decision to pursue dialogue and reconciliation over confrontation. Since October 1993, the United States has taken the lead in mobilizing the international donor effort to support the Palestinian Authority and to help provide the foundations for a better and more prosperous life for the Palestinian people. The United States has met fully its pledge of $100 million per year in assistance and we are encouraging other donors to ensure that their aid commitments are fulfilled as rapidly as possible. In order to help the Palestinian Authority meet its responsibilities under the Interim Agreement and to move forward on infrastructure development projects critical to the building of a vibrant economy, we are a major organizer of the Conference on Assistance to the Palestinians to be held in Europe this December. In addition to our leading role in the international donor effort, we are also working to improve the environment for private sector economic growth and investment. We are discussing with Israel and the Palestinians the possible establishment of industrial zones, as well as ways in which Israel's justifiable security concerns can be addressed consistent with our shared desire to promote development of the Palestinian economy. Consistent with our desire to promote Palestinian entrepreneurship, US Trade Representative Kantor has recently announced an agreement to extend duty- free treatment to Palestinian goods entering the United States. Q: With the recent imposition of Presidential sanctions on Iran, US-Iranian relations have reached a new low. What are the prospects for the success of sanctions on Iran and what is the potential value of a dialogue with Iran? A: Our problem is not with the people of Iran; it is with the unacceptable behavior of the Iranian government: direct and indirect support for and use of terror; subversion of states friendly to the United States; military intimidation of its neighbors; and acquisition of weapons and technologies of mass destruction--including nuclear. The Executive Order I signed earlier this year, imposing a complete ban on US financial and commercial dealings with Iran, is intended to demonstrate our resolve that Tehran pay a price for continuing its threatening activities. To be fully successful, we need the support of Iran's other trading partners in Europe, Asia, and around the world. We are urging them to follow our example and help ensure that sustained and meaningful economic pressure is brought to bear until the behavior of the Iranian government changes. While we are prepared to have a dialogue with authoritative representatives of the government of Iran at any time, it must be made clear that normal relations cannot exist until such time as Iran ceases its objectionable activities. Q: UN economic sanctions have been imposed on Iraq for five years now. While the sanctions seem to have checked the military capabilities of Saddam Hussein, he still remains in power and the Iraqi people suffer. How successful can sanctions be? A. The United States is committed to the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq until Baghdad complies fully with all its UN Security Council obligations. Recent revelations by Iraqi defectors and the work of UN inspectors provide compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has consistently attempted to deceive the United Nations. They also show that as recently as last summer, Saddam was planning new threats against his neighbors. We are deeply concerned about the humanitarian plight of Iraqi people. But there must be no doubt that Saddam is responsible for their suffering. He has refused to avail himself of the opportunity under UNSC resolutions to sell oil to pay for food and medicine, preferring to divert resources to his supporters and military and to use his own people as hostages in the pursuit of international sympathy for lifting of the sanctions. Sanctions are the primary means available to the international community to compel Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions and to ensure that Iraq does not again become a threat to the region. Given Saddam Hussein's track record, the Council has a responsibility to hold him to the highest possible standard. With respect to the future of Saddam Hussein and his regime, that is a matter for the Iraqi people alone to decide. Q. As you are involved in the peace process, and as the region undergoes important changes, what is your vision for the future of the Middle East and for America's interests there? A. Our vision for the future of the Middle East is a simple one. We want to see the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous region in which all nations and peoples can live in freedom and security. There is much work still before us, but we are making real progress toward our goal. The peace process has made unprecedented advances in the last two years, and despite the loss of one of its greatest champions, it continues to gather momentum. The enemies of peace such as Iran, Iraq, and Libya are increasingly isolated. More and more regional governments are recognizing that dialogue and reconciliation--and the trade and development that accompany and reinforce peace--are the best means of ensuring a better future for their nations. The United States will continue to stand by those who take risks for peace and work together with them to ensure that our mutual vision is realized.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Federal Marshal Romolo J. Imundi. At the age of 75, Marshal Imundi has completed 53 consecutive years of Government service and retired from his post as U.S. marshal for the southern district in New York on October 15, 1995. Mr. Imundi was a highly respected marshal in New York and has received numerous awards and plaques during his long and distinguished career in law enforcement. For 13 years, Mr. Imundi's office has been responsible for the security of 80 Federal judges, 200 U.S. attorneys, 80 security officers, 100 marshals and inspectors, and dozens of crime suspects. In recognition of his unfailing dedication to his work, I am inserting an article into the Record detailing his years of public service. The suspects he has escorted have been some of the most famous and notorious this century, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman--found guilty of plotting the bombing of national monuments such as the Statue of Liberty--and those accused of plotting the World Trade Center bombing. Not a single one of his clients has been injured or harmed in any way during his protection, to say nothing of all the innocent lives he has helped to save during the course of his impeccable career. The southern district of New York is losing a marshal greatly respected by all people. He brought to his post, his 32 years of experience in the New York Police Force and 8 years as an investigator for the U.S. Veterans Administration. He was first appointed Federal marshal by President Ronald Reagan and served under Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, giving him the distinction of being the longest- serving Federal marshal this century. His record in public office has been an inspiration to his colleagues as well as the community as a whole. Mr. Imundi's well-deserved retirement will sadden all those who gained so much from his time in office: not just the citizens of New York but all the people of the United States. On January 30, 1996, there will be an event honoring Mr. Imundi's years of service and dedication to law enforcement and justice. Mr. Speaker, I know you will join me in wishing Mr. Imundi well and the best of luck in his retirement. Gladiator Retires After Half-Century of Service Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson may have been the most famous federal marshals. Romolo J. Imundi may be the most photographed. ``I'm also the longest-serving federal marshal in this century,'' Imundi said. He retired Oct. 15 from his job as U.S. marshal for the Southern District in New York after 13 years in the post. He was appointed by President Reagan in 1982. At 75, Imundi completed 53 years of government service, including 32 years as a New York City police officer and detective, eight years as an investigator for the U.S. veterans Administration and the past 13 as a federal marshal in the Manhattan office. Imundi and his wife of 48 years, Rosemarie, who have four grown children and eight grandchildren, have lived in the Crestwood section of Yonkers the past eight years. ``This job is a presidential appointment,'' Imundi said. ``George Washington appointed the first federal marshal in New York City in 1789. He was the chief lawman for the area. I'm a conservative Republican. I was appointed by Reagan and reappointed by George Bush. When Bill Clinton came in, I was asked to stay on the job.'' Imundi, nicknamed the ``Roman gladiator,'' often was seen in newspaper photographs and on television as he escorted such suspects as Leona Helmsley, Bess Myerson, mobster ``Fat Tony'' Salerno, Michael Milken, Mafia boss Paul Castellano and Imelda Marcos into federal court. His last case was completed earlier this month when Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman was convicted of plotting the bombing of the Lincoln Tunnel, the United Nations, the Holland Tunnel and the Statue of Liberty. ``Imagine what would have happened if they blew up a tunnel, and you had water cascading all over Manhattan,'' he said. ``It is too horrible to even think about.'' The sheik and his followers were moved each day from the Metropolitan Corrections Center underground to the federal courts for their trial. All were found guilty and will be sentenced in January. ``I think they will all spend the rest of their natural lives in jail,'' Imundi said. They were not subject to the death penalty. Imundi has witnessed one execution, the electrocution of murderer Elmer ``Trigger'' Burke in Sing Sing Correctional Facility 40 years ago. For 13 years, Imundi's office has been responsible for the security of 80 federal judges, 200 U.S. attorney, 80 security officers, 100 marshals and inspectors and dozens of crime suspects. He never had a client injured or killed in all that time, although junk-bond king Milken fainted after Judge Kimba Wood sentenced him to 10 years in prison. Former Miss America Myerson, charged with a tax violation, was close to fainting when she was in a cell and was told she had to be fingerprinted. ``I put a hand on her shoulder and steadied her,'' he said. Helmsley, who served three years in prison on a tax charge, was one of his most difficult cases. ``She was so disliked that many people stood on the courthouse steps and screamed obscenities at her every day of the trial,'' he said. ``The terrorist trial was clearly the trial of the century, not that thing in Los Angeles,'' he said. ``Millions of lives were at stake here when these guys plotted their violence. Judge Michael B. Mukasey really did a great job of handling that. He had to deal daily with 15 lawyers and kept * * *.'' Imundi, who handled the suspects in the World Trade Center bombing case, said that crime really frightened him. ``Few people know this, but if that bomb was planted two stories higher and not in the garage, that entire building would have gone down,'' he said. ``It would have dwarfed the bombing at Oklahoma City and thousands upon thousands of lives would have been lost.'' Now, the care and feeding of so many suspects has been turned over to a new marshal--Martin Burke, a bodyguard for former Gov. Mario Cuomo. ``Now, I'll just take it easy for a while, do some painting, work around the house, tend to my garden, and enjoy our family,'' Imundi said. Few public servants have done as much to earn a quiet, peaceful retirement as Imundi has. Few have had a half- century of such adventures.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Let me just say that I am going to vote against this rule and against this resolution because I consider this to be political chicanery of the worst kind, an arrogant attempt to tell the President, ``Play by my rules or we won't play at all.'' That is what the majority party is doing. It is an attempt to trap the President, to rape the President, to say again, ``If we think that you are doing what we deem you ought to be doing, then we will open the Government, but if we do not, then we will keep it shut.'' You know, my colleagues, it took 12 years of Reagan and Bush budgets to get us into this mess of deficits, and it is going to take 7 years to get us out of it. The President agreed to support a 7-year balanced budget as an end product of the negotiations. But the Republicans also agreed to protect Medicare and Medicaid and education and the environment, things that we believe are dead in their budget. Their budget kills Medicare and kills Medicaid and kills the environment and hurts working families and kills education. We have not seen them change their budget. That was supposed to be part of their end of the deal. So this is simply trying to change the rules. It is an attempt to shift the dialog because the Republicans are taking a beating for shutting the Government down, and so they need to try to shift the dialog, and by trying to shift it, they are saying to the President, ``We demand that you produce a balanced budget according to our rules, not as you agreed to the end game.'' We ought not to play by these games or by these rules. This is only going to come out of both sides getting together, working together for a compromise. Reject this nonsense, this chicanery.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let us call this resolution for what it is: It is a cynical resolution to allow the Republican Congress to take a vacation; nothing more, nothing less. The Republicans shut the Government down, everybody knows it. No amount of political spin can change it. They are suffering politically for it. The Speaker tried to relieve the pressure by trying to think about a clean continuing resolution, but last night there was a rebellion in his conference amongst House freshmen Republicans. They will not have any part of it. They are on a crusade, an extreme crusade, but a crusade, so the Government is shut down. This is to relieve them of that pressure, so there is a resolution to take the political pressure off them. It is a cynical move. Everybody knows we are not coming back until the 23d. The American public will not be fooled by this. Congress should stay here and do its job. We should pass an absolutely clean continuing resolution to keep the Government open. This is the way it has always been done. The Republicans want to kill Medicare and Medicaid; the Democrats want to protect it. It should not be ``our way or no way.'' Let us stay here and do our job.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Bronx, NY, the top 10 reasons why House Republicans shut the Government down: No. 10, they are not essential. No. 9, they never liked the Washington Monument anyway. No. 8, if Medicare can wither on the vine, why should not Federal workers? No. 7, furloughed employees will have more time to read Time magazine's Man of the Year story. No. 6, it does not matter whether people work or not; Republicans have been gutting worker protection laws all year long. No. 5, the CR to reopen the Government will contain a clause allowing the Speaker to leave the President's plane by the front door. No. 4, Republicans say furloughed workers will not dare to bitch when we give a tax break to the rich. No. 3, the EPA will not be able to monitor the hot air coming from the freshman House Republican caucus. No. 2, Republicans are writing a new poem entitled, ``If Government Can Be Shut, Then Medicare Can Be Cut.'' And the No. 1 reason why House Republicans have shut the Government down: To give more time for furloughed workers to return those unwanted Christmas gifts.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a chart over here dated December 29, 1995, ``Pay to the Order of Federal Employee.'' A Federal employee in my district who works at the Bronx Veterans Administration Medical Center in my district received a paycheck for $1.51 for her 40 hours of work. $1.51. All the deductions were taken out, but her full salary was not there because of the Government shutdown. Let me tell you what $1.51 can buy you in New York City, in Bronx, New York, where I live. It can buy you a subway token. That costs $1.50. That can get you to work, and then you have a whole penny left over to spend as you see fit. This is the result of the House Republican Government shutdown. It is signed ``U.S. House of Representatives Extremists,'' because that is what is happening. Extremists are driving the agenda. And it is for ``Don't spend it all in one place.'' What is happening in our country today, Mr. Speaker, is a disgrace and a sham. Make no mistake about it. The Republicans have shut the Government down. The House Republicans have shut the Government down. The House Republican leadership has shut the Government down by not permitting a vote on this floor to open the Government. We tried yesterday. We could not get it on the floor, and we were ruled out of order. So if we are so concerned about the veterans and we are so concerned about the seniors and we are so concerned about the American public that is not getting its benefits, we have the ability to open the Government by passing a clean continuing resolution. That is what are have to do. They did it in the other House. Both Republicans and Democrats did it in the other House. But the House Republicans here will not allow it to come to the floor. That would open the Government immediately. This is what has always been done in the past when there has been a dispute between the President and the Congress. Both Houses pass a continuing resolution to keep the Government open while negotiations are going on. It has always been done. We have had a series of Republican Presidents and Democratic Congresses. This has never been done for so long a period of time, because a continuing resolution was passed. This is part of a calculated strategy to try to bring the President to his knees and to bring the country to its knees so that they can push through their radical, extreme agenda. What is this radical, extreme agenda? It is slashing Medicaid, slashing Medicare, harming the environment, slashing education, all to give a tax break for the rich. That to me is a disgrace. A tax break for the rich, but let us hurt the senior citizens of this country. Let us hurt the children of this country. Let us hurt our environment, and let us add taxes on working families to give a tax break to the rich. That is the extreme Republican agenda. A colleague before said there is a saying, ``You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.'' Well, in the last election, some of the people were fooled some of the time, but when they voted for Republicans they did not know they were voting for this extreme agenda. The Contract for America did not say hurt senior citizens by cutting their Medicare and cutting their Medicaid and hurting our kids by cutting education and killing the environment. It did not say that. But the hand has been played, and the extreme agenda is here. Make no mistake about it, we could reopen the Government tomorrow and the American people would not suffer, if the Republicans in this House who are in the majority would vote to reopen the Government, would vote for a continuing resolution. Now, the reason we need this continuing resolution is because they did not do their job to begin with. They did not pass the budget bills and send them to the President on time. That is why the Government has been shut down. They say well, you know, the President vetoed some of these bills. It is his prerogative as the Chief Executive to veto the bills. This is the way the Constitution says things are supposed to happen. This has always happened in this country. The President vetoes, we come back and try to override the veto or we pass another bill. But this is part of a calculated plan to push forward an extreme agenda, and it will not work. One has nothing to do with the other. The balanced budget has nothing to do with this Government shutdown. It is two separate issues which the Republicans are linking. So make no mistake about it, this is not about a balanced budget. This is about shutting the Government down. I say to my Republican colleagues, please join us in voting for a clean continuing resolution to open the Government once again while negotiations are going on. The only people who are suffering are the American people, and they ought not to suffer anymore.