Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I may have a bruised eye but it is nothing compared to the bruises the American people and our Federal workers are taking from this Republican Congress. I rise today on behalf of the employees and patients of the Bronx Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees who are stuck in the middle of this budget debate. Here is a copy of a check for $1.51, which is what one worker at the Bronx VA Hospital Center received when she opened her paycheck in my district last Friday, $1.51, Mr. Speaker. In New York City that can get you this: One transit token to get home from work, and one penny extra to spend in any way you see fit. And if you live in Co-op City as I do, it will not even get you home, because Co-op City is a two-fare zone. The staff of the Bronx VA Hospital has begun soliciting food donations to distribute to the staff because the workers cannot afford to buy food. It is an outrage that those who can care for our veterans have to go hat in hand to beg for food. I call upon you Republican colleagues to stop shutting the Government down. Think of people who live from paycheck to paycheck.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my aunt and uncle, Sylvia and Julie Wetter, who celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary on November 11, 1995. Mr. Speaker, Sylvia and Julie Wetter were married on November 11, 1945 and were long-time residents of Bronx, NY. For the past seven years, they have lived in Atlanta, GA. Their marriage has been blessed by the birth of two children, Alice Wetter Paul of Marietta, GA and David Wetter of Bronx, NY. Alice is married to Danny Paul, and they have two lovely daughters, Michelle and Jillian. Throughout their lives, Sylvia and Julie Wetter have committed themselves to serving the Nation and community. Julie worked for years with the U.S. Postal Service before moving on to Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Sylvia, my father's sister, has been an animal rights activist and has been very involved as a volunteer assisting those who have been afflicted with multiple sclerosis. During World War II, Sylvia worked for the coordinator for international affairs at the Department of Commerce. Julie Wetter served with great distinction with the 83d Division of the 9th Army during World War II. In fact, Julie was drafted when former Secretary of War Simpson selected the ball with his birthdate as the first group of young men to serve our Nation during the war. Julie served 5 years in the infantry, rising to the rank of staff sergeant. Julie was the first in his division to reach the Rhine River, served in the Battle of The Bulge, and was awarded the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service to his Nation and the cause of world freedom. Mr. Speaker, Sylvia and Julie Wetter are two individuals who exemplify what is good and right about our Nation. They have served their Nation and community with pride, they have raised a wonderful family and they have shared a love that has lasted more than 50 years. I also want them to know that I love them very much. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and congratulating Sylvia and Julie Wetter on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary, and I know that their Congressman and my colleague, John Lewis, shares my heartfelt sentiments in wishing them the best.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend from Connecticut, when he spoke about taking care of Medicare and not letting Medicare go bankrupt, the actuaries said that it would take $89 billion to ensure that Medicare would not go bankrupt. Why then under the Republican plan are there $270 billion worth of cuts?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, let us make no mistake about this. It is the Republicans who are shutting down the Government. Clearly and simply, the Republicans, by refusing to vote for a continuing resolution to keep the Government open, are shutting down the Government. They have the majority of votes here and in the Senate, they could easily keep the Government open by voting for a clean continuing resolution with no strings attached, no blackmail attached, and the Government would open and 250,000 Federal workers would go back to work, and then we could negotiate a budget. But no, they will not do that, because they are trying to link the two issues together; they are saying they will vote for no continuing resolution until there is a 7-year balanced budget. Now, I want everybody to understand that there is no linkage to keeping the Government open with a continuing resolution and a balanced budget. The Republicans are the ones who are linking it. The reason we are in trouble in the first place is because they did not do their job. October 1, 1995 was the start of the new fiscal year, and there are 13 appropriations bills which the Republicans were supposed to have sent to the President of the United States, and by that time they had sent only 3 So it is their fault that the Government could not continue and that the Government had to shut down; and the only way you can keep the Government open under those circumstances, when the majority party does not do its job by sending the appropriations bills to the President, is by passing a continuing resolution. They are refusing to do that. All of this talk and rhetoric about balancing the budget in 7 years is a separate issue from the continuing resolution and from the Government shutdown. The President of the United States has said, and rightfully so, that he will not be blackmailed into accepting the Republican mean-spirited and extreme agenda. Yes, the majority of Americans want to see a balanced budget, but when you ask the majority of Americans, do you want to see a balanced budget at the expense of Medicare and Medicaid, if it means devastating Medicare and Medicaid, the American people overwhelmingly say no. Well, on the Democratic side of the aisle we say that Medicare and Medicaid and education and the environment and helping working people and not giving a tax break for the rich are Democratic priorities. While the President did agree 31 days ago to have a 7-year balanced budget, CBO-scored, the Republicans also agreed to protect the Democratic priorities of Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, and student loans. It seems to me that the President, by accepting the concept of a 7- year balanced budget, CBO-scored, has done more to compromise with what the Republicans want to see than the Republicans are doing to compromise with the Democrats. Instead, we get this mean-spirited, extreme attitude, ``We're going to shut the Government down if we don't get our way.'' Newt Gingrich came to the Republican Conference this morning attempting to compromise, apparently, and he was told, ``No, we are not going to have a continuing resolution, we're going to shut the Government down.'' This from the party that talks about family values. A quarter of a million American workers before Christmas are thrown out of work, and they talk about family values. Congress is going to be in session next week, so we cannot be with our families. They talk about family values. Now, I do not mind Congress being in session if we are actually doing something, but we have been sitting around here all day long today and yesterday while the Republicans are caucusing and not getting anything done, not doing the people's work, arguing, quibbling, passing ridiculous, irrelevant resolutions instead of passing the continuing resolution to get Government open again. That is the truth. So do not talk to me about family values, do not talk to me about balanced budgets, when you are the ones that are not allowing compromises to be made. We talk about health care, whether it is a cut in Medicare or just a lessening of an increase, the bottom line is senior citizens in my district and in everybody's districts are on Medicare and Medicaid. The health care coverage is inadequate now. They do not have enough money now to buy medicine. But let us look at the health care that seniors are getting now in 1995, and what kind of health care will they be getting in 2002 under the Republican plan? The answer is seniors will be paying more and getting less. They will not have the choice. They will be thrown into HMO's. They will not have a choice. So let us stop the nonsense, let us pass the continuing resolution, let us open up Government again, and then let us negotiate on a balanced budget. One issue has nothing to do with the other.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is an exercise in fun and games, Republican-style. We are just given this budget. We do not know what is in it. It is just like yesterday's irrelevant resolution. We should be doing the work of the people. We should be passing a clean continuing resolution so the Government could open, but Republicans do not want to do it. Let us make one thing clear: It is the Republicans that have shut the Government down. There is no reason to link the continuing resolution to keep the Government open with a 7-year balanced budget. There is no reason to link it. The reason we have the Government shutdown is because the Republicans did not do their job and pass the appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year, September 30. Let us look at the Republican budget. Medicare decimated, Medicaid decimated, all to pay for tax cuts for the rich; education, our children's future, decimated; the environment, decimated; tax increases for working families. This is the Republican budget. It is mean- spirited and it is extreme. Let us stop playing the phony Republican shell game. That is all it is. They talk about family values. What kind of values are we giving to our children under this Republican plan? This is a farce. We should be passing a continuing resolution to keep the Government open.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Indiana for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, first of all, to say that bringing this up again, I think the fifth time, reminds me of the old saying by Yogi Berra saying: ``it is deja vu all over again.'' We have had these temporary extensions time and time again. This is no way to run things. This is no way to fund the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. I think the process is, frankly, terrible. We ought to be marking up a bill that I introduced many, many months ago to have peace facilitation, or the Helms-Pell bill, which the Senate has discussed. To me, this is the way it ought to be done, not a simple extension. Every time we come back here, a month later, 2 months later, 3 months later, nothing has been done. I think the chairman is absolutely right: This House did pass a new Middle East Peace Facilitation Act as part of the foreign operations appropriations bill. Unfortunately, that bill is stalled due to a fight on abortion, which has nothing to do with foreign operations in terms of funding MEPFA, so we are being held hostage once again. This ought not to be the way that we fund things. This ought not to be the way that we do things. Prime Minister Rabin lost his life in the fight for peace. Certainly as partners in the peace process, the United States ought to be doing things in a little better way: Quite frankly, our Government here is shut down because appropriations bills were not passed. The majority here has not done its job by the end of the fiscal year and passed the appropriations bills. That is why our Government here is shut down. The Republican leadership talks about a family friendly Congress and family values in Congress, and Congress is now going to be in session not only this week, but through next week and Christmas week and so on and so forth. If we simply had a continuing resolution to keep funding the Government the way we should have because the Republican leadership did not do its job, the Government would not be shut down. Frankly, if the Republican leadership did its job and did not stall this over a dispute on abortion, we would have a foreign operations bill, and we would not have to be doing this now with a temporary extension of MEPFA. So I just think the leadership here has not been doing its job, and that is why we are in the pickle we are in now. We are shutting down our Government, we are not fulfilling our obligations, we are stalling Middle East peace by not having MEPFA in place. Not only is the PLO not being funded, but the Government of Israel, the Government of Egypt, and other countries that get foreign aid are not getting their foreign aid, because, again, we are not passing the foreign operations bill, which is what we should be doing. So while I certainly support peace and I certainly will support this, I think it is a tribute to Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Perez, who came here last week, this is no way to run a Government. This is no way to run foreign operations. This is no way to have an extension for the fifth time again. We ought to be doing a markup of a separate bill and ought to be passing the foreign operations bill. I tell you, comes March 31, we could be coming here again asking for another extension. This is not fair for the Middle East peace process, and it just to me shows a tremendous lack of leadership in the way this House is run. So, Mr. Speaker, I will support this, very reluctantly, this way, because while I certainly support peace, I think, as I have said before, that we must hold all parties to the agreements feet to the fire. I am not worried about the Israeli Government not keeping its end of the bargain, I worry about Yasser Arafat and the PLO. He has agreed to a number of things. I think we should hold his feet to the fire. I want to see those covenants calling for the destruction of Israel removed from the PLO, from the Palestinian Council. I want the Palestinian Council to remove that. I want them to agree to everything that they agreed to when they signed the Middle East peace facilitation act, nothing more, nothing less. But if Yasser Arafat and the PLO and the Palestinians said they would do certain things, then we ought to make them do those certain things before American aid flows. I think American aid should flow, because American aid is very, very important to the peace process. But I also think when parties say they are going to do something, they have an obligation to fulfill what they say. That is all we are looking for. That is why it is important to have new MEPFA language, not to simply keep renewing the old one. Again, I reluctantly go along with this. I hope we will not be back here on March 31 doing the same thing all over again.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Pearl Alma Rivero, an outstanding individual who has devoted her life to her family and to serving her community. Mrs. Rivero will be celebrating her 70th birthday on Sunday in the company of her loving family and friends in Miami, FL. Mrs. Rivero is a native of New York City. She is the youngest of eight children born to Alexander and Ursula Shepard. She is the sister of Joseph Anthony Moniz, Vincent DePaul Moniz, Sylvia Patronella Moniz Nicholas, Ivy Eleanor Cristabel Moniz, Virella Santiago, Hyacinth Moniz, and Florin Moniz, Jr. On October 18, 1942, she married Louis Bouchet and was blessed with two daughters, Margo Maria Bouchet and Sandra Cecelia Bouchet. On August 1, 1959, Mrs. Rivero married Emil Joseph Rivero, with whom she celebrated 33 years of happiness until Emil's death on May 13, 1993. Their marriage was blessed with the birth of three children, Maria Theresa Rivero, Angela Justine Rivero, and Emil John Rivero. Mrs. Rivero has four wonderful grandchildren, Betti-Rahkel Bouchet- Williams, Derrick Boddie, Mychal Williams, and Cassandra Bankhead- Williams. A devoted mother, Mrs. Rivero raised her family to be religious, sharing, and caring individuals. Mrs. Rivero has worked tirelessly to benefit her community and her church. She has served as a Eucharistic minister, lecturer, and a teacher of religious classes at Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church in the Bronx, and St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Miami, where she presently resides. Mrs. Rivero has also taught Bible classes at St. Ann's Nursing Home in Florida and currently serves as CORE member of the Divorced and Separated Ministry at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Miami. She is a founding member of WINGS, a ministry serving the needs of widows, and has served as mediator for the Better Business Bureau in New York City. Mrs. Rivero has received accolades, acknowledgments, and awards from her community, including awards from the Better Business Bureau of New York and the committee on the handicapped from the New York Board of Education. She was also certified as a lay minister for the Archdiocese of Miami. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and the family of Mrs. Pearl Alma Rivero in wishing her a happy 70th birthday and best wishes during this holiday season.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues focus on this chart, which says ``Medicare.'' It is one little word, but I think it says more about the differences between Democrats and Republicans than any other word. Mr. Speaker, Democrats care very much about Medicare, and Republicans want to take the care out of Medicare. They want to slash Medicare by $270 billion to give a tax break for their wealthy friends. Mr. Speaker, Republicans would like to take the ``care'' out of Medicare. By their budget they are taking the ``care'' out of Medicare. I hope we look at this. When they take the care out of Medicare, this is what happens to health care in this country. It becomes mediocre care. Democrats stand for Medicare. Republicans stand for mediocre health care for our seniors, mediocre care so our seniors cannot get the care they need; mediocre care so people go without health care; mediocre care so senior citizens have to suffer, all to give a tax break for the rich. For shame.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, we have heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the Republican side of the aisle, say that the United States has not been forceful. We have been hearing for the past 3 years that the United States has not been forceful, that we have left the European allies to do the job in Bosnia, and they have been doing it ineffectively. Now the President takes the bull by the horns and hammers out an agreement in Dayton and we are second-guessing and undermining and playing totally politics with the President. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the Democrats that crossed party lines and supported President Bush during the Persian Gulf war. I did so because I believed that it was in the best interests of America not to undermine the President of the United States at such a crucial time in foreign policy. I believed that then, and I believe it now. I would no more undermine President Clinton than I would undermine President Bush. We have been watching for nearly 4 years now, and we have seen visions of a new Holocaust rearing its ugly head in Europe again, 50 years after the end of the worst Holocaust in world history. We have seen ethnic cleansing, emaciated people, rapes, pillages. I think America does have a moral obligation to act. I do think that the stability of Europe is certainly in the vital interests of the U.S. The NATO alliance is certainly important. If we were to do nothing now, the NATO alliance would be rendered impotent and go down the drain. So I do think we have a vital interests there. We are the leaders of the free world and we have to lead. We have seen in other parts of the world that things do not move until the U.S. acts, in the Middle East, South Africa, and Ireland. If we do not act, war will break out again, and it could such more countries into a greater war. We saw what appeasement did in the 1930's with Hitler, and when the United States and other nations did not step in, it led to a larger war. When we talk about the Persian Gulf war, I remember my Republican colleagues at that time saying support the President, support the President. My God, during the Persian Gulf war we sent 50,000 troops to fight in a war, and the Republicans cheered. This is 20,000 troops to keep a peace. All the warring factions have invited us in. The mission is clearly defined, and the Pentagon, which is usually skeptical about peacekeeping, supports this and says it is doable and will be successful. The same people who predicted doom and gloom in Haiti and were wrong are predicting gloom and doom again. So my colleagues, let us not undermine our troops, let us not undermine our President. We are the leaders of the free world, not an isolationist nation. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat the Buyer resolution and support the Hamilton resolution, which supports our troops. The button I am wearing says blessed are the peacemakers, and blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are our brave men and women, blessed are our troops, and blessed is our Nation in the undertaking we are about to do. Nothing could be more noble than what this country does, and nothing can be more noble than to end the carnage in Bosnia. We are coming in as peacemakers. We are making peace. We are not fighting a war. We are giving that nation a chance to put itself together. In doing so we are strengthening NATO and we are strengthening ourselves. This is not the time to turn to isolationism. We accept the leadership of the free world. Nobody anointed us with it. We wanted it. We have it. We are to act like leaders, and here in Congress, no matter what the polls say, we are elected leaders, and we have to lead. Mr. Speaker, I think what is going on now is in the best defining interests of our country. This is a great Nation, it has always stood for what is right, and as the President says, what we are doing is the right thing to do. Defeat this resolution. Support Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act, and also the rule pertaining to the act. This has been a very emotional Congress, and it is nice to see bipartisanship. Everyone is agreeing with this bill. It is a good bill. The legislation is critical to the future and continued existence of our Nation's commercial maritime fleet. As you are aware, last year the House overwhelmingly passed legislation to promote our maritime industry. Unfortunately, the 103d Congress adjourned before the Senate had the opportunity to cast its vote. During the intervening period, several U.S.-flag carriers have chosen a course of action which inevitably led to the reflagging of a number of U.S.-flag liner vessels. The decision to reflag was based on their perceived inability to compete successfully with their foreign counterparts who receive tremendous support and a great deal of incentives from their respective governments, while the U.S. Government promotional programs for this industry have been systematically reduced, eliminated, or attacked. While foreign nations recognize the importance of maintaining and supporting a strong national flag commercial maritime presence, the U.S.-flag merchant marine has been targeted by its adversaries because it has received government support. For each direct or indirect expression of support accorded to the U.S. fleet, the American merchant marine has contributed substantially to the economic and national security interests of our Nation. U.S.- flag carriers manned by patriotic and dependable American crews responded each and every time our country called for their assistance in times of war and national emergency, in Haiti, Somalia, Desert Storm, and now in Bosnia. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, let us remember the thousands of U.S.-flag cargo ships that were lost during that war and the thousands of merchant mariners who lost their lives in the service of their country. Without the efforts of the U.S.-flag merchant marine and heroic actions of the men and women who manned those [[Page H 14062]] vessels, perhaps the welfare of this Nation would not be as sound as it is today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1350 is critical to the future and continued existence of America's future maritime fleet. At the same time, the fleet is crucial to our national security. We therefore cannot justify turning our backs on this industry and its loyal work force and must enact the Maritime Security Act swiftly because it represents the best chance for Congress to preserve such an essential resource. It will maintain and create jobs, American products, American ships, American seamen, and workers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to also add my voice in the designation of H.R. 965, to designate the Federal building in Louisville, KY, as the Romano Mazzoli Federal Building. Having served with Ron Mazzoli, I can think of no greater or fitting honor and I am just delighted that this bill is here this afternoon. I know that all of our colleagues will support it, because Ron was truly one of the great members of Congress with which many of us served. I am here today also now to thank my colleagues for the passage of the bill which commemorates one of the most distinguished Americans of this century, and that is the designation of the U.S. courthouse in White Plains, NY, as the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse. As representatives of the Westchester, NY, area I am here on behalf of Congresswomen Nita Lowey, Sue Kelly, and Congressman Ben Gilman to urge the bestowal of this honor in memory of an historic and influential man, and the ideals for which he stood. Mr. Marshall, as we know, began his distinguished career in private practice. Specializing in civil rights cases, he represented clients who very often could not afford to pay for his services. As the national counsel of the NAACP, Mr. Marshall spent much of his time in the South furthering the cause of civil rights and challenging segregated education. In 1954, Mr. Marshall's struggle for integrated education culminated in his argument before the Supreme Court in the landmark Brown versus Board of Education case. Following this decision, he focused his energies on the elimination of segregation and discrimination in voting, housing, public accommodations, as well as within our defense. He chose to fight the battle of civil rights on a different front when he accepted President Kennedy's appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He continued to break down the walls of segregation on the other side of the bench, accepting posts traditionally held by white males. As solicitor general he argued such cases as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy requirements, voter qualification tests, and poll taxes. On June 13, 1967, Thurgood Marshall, the great grandson of an African man brought to this country as a slave, was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, the first African-American to hold that position. As a Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Marshall continued his work in the name of individual rights for minorities, women, and all those who for so long did not have a voice in our Government. Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the highlights in the distinguished career of a man who earned the respect of his colleagues through his intelligence, hard work, and commitment to the civil rights of all Americans. Mr. Marshall said of himself that he hoped to be thought of as one who did the best he could with what he had. We know that he deserves a better and more lasting memory. The Westchester County Board of Legislators, the Common Council of the City of White Plains, the African-American Federation of Westchester, the White Plains-Greenburgh Federation of the NAACP, and the constituents of Westchester County have asked that we name the courthouse at 300 Quarropas Street as a lasting memorial to Mr. Marshall's legacy. Sixty years ago Mr. Marshall was at the forefront of a movement at its inception. The struggle for civil rights for minorities is one which we continue today. What tribute could be more fitting for a man who fought tirelessly for the cause of civil rights than to provide a tangible symbol of the principles of law and justice which will be defended within the walls of the courthouse. I again thank my colleagues for passing this bill. I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for his hospitality. I urge the passage of this other fitting tribute to Ron Mazzoli.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Let me just answer the gentleman again. Let me say the bottom line is that we know how much funding we need to keep American education looking forward, to increasing the funding for education that we know our children are going to need so that this Nation is going to have a future, and what I see here when I look at this bill, I look at the Republican plan, is that in each and every aspect that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] and I have mentioned, we are not going to be able to provide the kinds of services that we set as a priority in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. ENGEL. No. That is not true.

Mr. ENGEL. I thank my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii. You know, I certainly agree with everything that she said, and what is really just so shocking about this is that only a year ago it would have been unthinkable to have these kinds of draconian cuts to education. If you asked the American people how can we best fulfill the future promise of America, they certainly would say that we need to invest in our children's future, that we need to invest in education, that we need to invest in programs for the future, and while we may have some disagreements in Congress over which programs are important and which programs are more important than others, I do not think that there should be any question that we should be increasing funding for our children's future or our Nation's future for education. If this appropriations bill is enacted, the education cut would be the largest setback to education in United States history. Education would be cut under the Republican plan by 17 percent, while defense spending is increased by 5 percent, and yet we are still giving the $270-billion tax break for the rich. I do not see where the priorities are straight when we are cutting education. Now, this House, 1996 Labor, HHS, Education bill, in my opinion, many, many of these appropriations bills are horrendous, and to me this is the most horrendous of all the bills. We are cutting education funding by $4 billion. The budget reconciliation package cuts student aid by $5 billion over 7 years. My State of New York will lose $319 million next year and $2.5 billion over the next 7 years. Major cuts in education are certainly unwise, and unwise as an economic policy as well, and this legislation, amongst all the terrible things it does, as my colleague from Hawaii points out, this legislation eliminates $1 billion from Medicaid funds from more than 1 million children with disabilities. New York City will lose $85 million of that money, and the legislation denies Head Start to 180,000 children in the year 2002 as compared to 1995. Just last year we were fully funding Head Start, and in a bipartisan approach we were all patting each other on the back to say Head Start is really a program that works. Everyone agreed, and here we are cutting it. My colleague from Hawaii mentioned we eliminate Goals 2000, the Eisenhower professional development program, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. What could be more important than a program to ensure that we have safe and drug-free schools? Certainly those of us in urban areas know that we have a problem in our schools, and we should be trying to eradicate the drug problem, not cutting back funds to try to eradicate it. The legislation cuts bilingual education, vocational education, $9.5 million in New York State in vocational education, and title I. Title I, in my district, is very, very important because there are a lot of children with low income and the schools rely on title I funding. We have a 17 percent cut of $1.1 billion in 1996 in title I funding. Title I funding was put there so that schools that were in poorer areas could get the enrichment, the children in those schools could get the enrichment they deserve. What we are doing is we say we do not really give a darn about the poor and we are just going to cut those funds. I think in the long run I could go on and on about the things, the terrible things that this bill does, but it is just basically, I think, the wrong approach. [[Page H 13778]] There is fat in the Federal budget. We need to downsize the Federal Government. We need to cut out fat. We need to put programs that work ahead and fund programs that work, and we need to change programs that do not work. But we do not need cuts to education. We do not need the orientation of mortgaging the future of our country by saying that we are not going to continue to expand.

Mr. ENGEL. Let me just answer you. When we are going to deny Head Start to 180,000 children in the year 2002, to me, anyway you play with numbers, that is a cut. If we are going to say that children who have disabilities are not going to be able to get the funding, that is a cut. If we are going to eliminate or sharply curtail the Safe and Drug- Free Schools Program, that is a cut, and we can point to several more instances whereby it is a hard cut, and even if it is not a cut, it is a cut in the services that we will be able to provide for our children because of inflation and because of what we have learned and where we know we have to provide the funds. There is no denying that. There will be a cut in education services to millions of American children, and I personally cannot see that at a time when we are increasing defense spending, giving a huge tax break to the rich. I cannot see us sacrificing education funding for our children.

Mr. ENGEL. Let me just say to my colleague, we have had this discussion not only in this bill but in Medicaid and Medicare, and you can play with numbers, you can say, well, we are really giving it a small increase or we are cutting back on what we were going to have. To me, the bottom line is this, because we can all play with numbers and can all show statistics, the bottom line is what kind of programs do we have now in 1995-1996, if I just might answer your question, and what are we going to have under this bill in the year 2002?

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an awful bill and I hope it is defeated. Let us look at what it does. It cuts housing programs by 21 percent. It cuts environmental protection by 21 percent, the Superfund by 19 percent, homeless programs by 27 percent. The Republicans give our veterans an amendment against burning the American flag, but what do they do to veterans' needs? They cut construction or improvement at VA facilities by 62 percent and slash all kinds of other help to our veterans. It is nothing but a sham and a shell game that is being perpetrated on our veterans. The AmeriCorps Program, the community development bank initiative and dozens of housing programs are eliminated. All of the original 17 EPA riders which the House instructed to drop were removed from the bill. We are talking about America's future here. What we are doing is we are [[Page H 13759]] slashing all these good programs to pay for a tax cut for the rich. It is really a disgrace.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time. You know, many of us on this side of the aisle voted to support President Bush in the Persian Gulf War. It was not an easy vote, but we did it because we think it was right. When the temptation arose amongst some colleagues to do this kind of thing to undermine President Bush at this same time, when the President was trying to build a consensus, we said, ``No; give the President a chance to put it together, and then let him come to Congress.'' Well, President Clinton has said he will come to Congress. So I do not understand why we are not giving President Clinton the same courtesy we gave to President Bush. I do not see why we are undermining the President and undermining the peace talks going on now in Dayton, OH, with this bill. The same people that are talking against this now are the same ones that said Haiti would never work. Haiti, by all means, has been a success. And where were these people when Republican Presidents did not come to Congress and sent U.S. troops to Grenada, to Lebanon, and to Panama? You know, my friends, we cannot afford to slip into a dangerous sense of isolationism. The NATO alliance is a very important alliance, and the United States has to be the leader of that alliance. We cannot undermine the NATO alliance and not participate and then at the same time say we are going to be the leader of the free world and at the same time say we are going to increase our defense spending. One of our friends asked how are we going to pay for it. Well, let us kill two B-2 bombers. We will have $4 billion right there. Some of us have been yelling for years to lift the arms embargo. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle have been critical of this Administration. They say the President is not decisive, the President has done nothing, and now that the President has finally gotten the peace talks going and success seems to be right there, they are undermining the President. I cannot understand that, for the life of me. The President is saying that he feels this will be detrimental. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues, I beg you, in a few weeks we can have this debate. This is the wrong debate to have right now.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a real turkey, and the American people should beware. The Republicans are about to serve the public a turkey left outside for special interests to pick on, and because of reckless, last-minute closed-door deals, this turkey was not cooked long enough. If you buy this turkey, it will make you sick. It cuts Medicare by $270 billion to pay for a tax break for the rich. It increases taxes on working families by $32 billion. It drastically cuts corporate taxes and permits corporate raids of pension plans. It cuts child nutrition. It cuts school lunches. It cuts student loans. It cuts nursing home care, doubles seniors' Medicare premiums, kills the environment. We should move toward a balanced budget. But who says that 7 years is so special? Seven years is an arbitrary time. If it is going to cause so much pain, we ought to abandon it. This bill is typical Republican nonsense. If you are rich, you win. If you are a senior citizen, a student, a middle-class person, a poor person, a working poor, or the rest of America, you lose. It should be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, only one thing good has come out of this shutdown. It has exposed the extreme agenda of the Republican Party. What are they doing? What are they proposing? To raise Medicare premiums on seniors, gut environmental regulations, gut worker safety laws, gut health rules for food inspection, gut education, gut student loans, and let us remember, we would not be in this crisis if the Republicans were doing their job. Ten of 13 appropriations bills have not yet been sent to the President that were supposed to have been sent by October 1. It is easy to see that the Republican leadership has provided this crisis in order to blackmail the President to accept their extreme agenda. Let us listen to what some of the leaders said just a few months ago. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget: ``If we close down, people will listen.'' The Speaker: ``The President will veto a number of thing and we'll put them all on the debt ceiling and then he'll decide how big a crisis he wants.'' We cannot balance the budget on the backs of working people. We cannot cut Medicare $270 billion to give a tax break for the rich. Stop your extreme agenda, Republican leadership, and let us get on with the people's business.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let us call it the way it is. Let us stop the charade here. What is going on here is Presidential politics and cheap politics at its worst. The attempt to embarrass the President of the United States, or to blackmail the President of the United States, is really not worthy of this great body. If the Republican leadership were indeed serious about tackling the problem with the debt-limit extension, or the continuing resolution, we would be voting on clean bills, stripped down bills today that would do exactly that. [[Page H 12111]] No one disagrees with the fact that the debt limit has to be extended, or that there needs to be a continuing resolution, but the attempt to junk it up, to pump it up with all kinds of things that do not belong in the bill to push the continued extreme Republican agenda is really not worthy of this institution. Let me say to my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle that a couple of polls came out today. The polls show that the American people have finally caught on to the Republican shell game, to the irresponsible shell game. Fifty-nine percent is the President's approval rating, the highest in a year and a half. Sixty percent of the American people say that the President ought to veto the extreme Republican budget. In a generic question about whom would you vote for for Congress, Democrats or Republicans, the American people chose Democrats by a total of 50 to 44 percent. The American people are not fools. The American people know where to point the finger if the Government should shut down. It is totally irresponsible to even be playing this game of brinksmanship. Let us sit down, put our heads together, work out a budget, work out differences on issues, but let us not hold America hostage. Let us not hold this debt-limit extension hostage, or the continuing resolution hostage. Let us have some responsibility. Vote no on this miserable bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 770, I am recorded as having voted ``present.'' I would like the Record to reflect that I was opposed to this resolution.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding time to me. We had a lot of conversation on that plane. We did not sleep very much, but those of us that were privileged to be part of the official American delegation to Israel for the tragic funeral of Prime Minister Rabin will remember it and cherish it for the rest of our lives. Mr. Speaker, when we arrived in Israel, we were given two badges. These were the badges we wore, which said that we were part of the official delegation and allowed us to get into the cemetery. What I saw in Israel, and I have been to Israel many, many times, what I saw in Israel was nothing that I have ever seen: throngs of people crowding each street corner, throngs of people crowding as the motorcades went by, as our bus went by, into the cemetery; people lighting memorial candles, people holding vigils, people holding signs. It was just something that will live with me for the rest of my life. I was proud. We had 15 Senators and 19 House Members there as part of the official delegation. Although, again, I have been to Israel many times, and I feel so strongly about enhancing the United States-Israel alliance, which is a vital alliance for both countries and a good, strong alliance, I think that this time in Israel, short as it was--36 hours, and we did not even have a chance to sleep; we were there, we ran around, we came back--I think this trip had the most meaning for me. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged and proud to know Yitzhak Rabin for many, many years. I was privileged and proud to call him my friend. I was privileged and proud to watch him, watch him grow, watch him change, in an evolutionary change. He fought on the battlefield and was a soldier in war when he felt that was the way to protect his nation, but he became a soldier for peace, understanding that peace was the only way to go, and the best way to ensure the security of his nation. Let me say to my dear friend Yitzhak Rabin, ``We will miss you, but we will never forget you. All of us will try to emulate you. Peace, shalom. That is the most important thing.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for yielding this time to me, and I want to use this opportunity to express my dismay at this bill. I think the Delegate from the District of Columbia [Ms. [[Page H 11625]] Norton] spoke very eloquently when she spoke about the elimination of home rule for D.C. We talk a good game about giving the power back to the States and the cities, about taking it away from the Congress, and when it comes to Washington, DC, we want to, apparently, do just the opposite. I think that home rule is home rule, and, if we are going to allow it for others, D.C. should be no different. What disturbs me in this bill are several different parts. First of all, and it has been mentioned before, the whole abortion dispute to amend the D.C. Code not to allow the people of the District to decide what is right for them, not to allow them to spend their own money when it comes to abortion; this to me is wrong despite what people may feel, pro or con, on the issue of abortion. Singling out the NEA, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] points out, when there are 26 other groups that have the same privileges, singling them out to me seems absolutely wrong. The whole issue of domestic partnership, again to make it statutory not to allow D.C. home rule, if they want to have and allow domestic partnerships, I do not think that should be this Congress' business to tell them no. I think they ought to have a right to do whatever they want in terms of domestic partnership, and I do not think we ought to impose our views on them. I also rise today to oppose the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson's amendment to a D.C. appropriations bill. This amendment in my opinion is the latest in the ongoing efforts of this Congress to destroy rather than improve the public school system in this country, and it is time, when D.C. public schools need our strongest support, we are instead, in my opinion, considering proposals that will weaken them. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his efforts to be open and inclusive in developing school reform proposals, however the provisions in the amendment to provide funding for charter schools will only create chaos in the D.C. schools without promoting real reform. The charter schools that could be funded by the legislation will include private schools. These private schools would have a direct entitlement to public funds and would not include requirements that teachers be certified. Mr. Speaker, Federal funding of the charter schools would deprive the District's public schools of needed funds and further divide students along class, religious, and ethnic lines, without doing anything to improve education or increase student achievement. The so-called low-income scholarship program in reality, despite what my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], says, is actually a voucher system and would have a similar adverse effect on the District's public schools. The program would allow Federal tax dollars to provide funding for students attending private and religious schools in and outside the District. This plan will divert attention and vital resources away from efforts to reform the District's schools. If additional resources can be found to support education in Washington, DC, they should be spent on helping the public system within the District, rather than funding schools outside of the District. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gunderson amendment. We must reform D.C. schools, but the way to solve this problem is not to take funds and attention away from students that need help. The public schools need our support so our students can succeed. I also want to say if there are any amendments, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], I understand, is doing one on domestic partnership, I think, that should be rejected. The domestic partnership allows two people who are living together as a family for more than 6 months to enjoy certain rights. If the people in the District of Columbia want to have that, that should be their prerogative. We cannot have this dual standard, this double standard whereby we say we want to take power away from Congress and give it to the States and cities, but when it comes to Washington, DC, we want to hit them over the head and tell them that they cannot run their own show.