Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my mother, Seroy Engel, and the millions of mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers throughout our Nation whose lives depend on Medicare. In the next few weeks this legislative body is going to have to make some tough decisions. The question will be will we let the Republicans take the care out of Medicare. I say, ``No.'' [[Page H 8544]] In 1965, Medicare was established to demonstrate that this Nation cares about its senior citizens, that it cares whether or not they receive medical treatment, and, ultimately, that it cares whether they live or die. In 1965, only 46 percent of America's senior citizens had health coverage. Today, 99 percent of American seniors are covered for medical expenses. Today we are at a crossroads. We must decide if we will break our sacred oath to millions of Medicare recipients by forcing them to pay more for less care, wait longer for personal care, and have less control over who provides that care. There is a fundamental question that we must ask ourselves when the Republican leadership asks you to cut $270 billion from Medicare to pay for a tax break for the wealthy: Will we vote to take the CARE out of Medicare? Will we vote to take the care out of Medicare? That, Mr. Speaker, is the question we must all ask ourselves. This Congressman says ``No.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the United States was founded on an idea--the idea of democracy. In its general sense, this concept embraces the participation of all segments of society in the shaping of our republic. However, the American democracy is neither simply defined nor easily described. It is expressed in an infinite number of variations. In its most basic form, democracy in our society is nonrepresentational and conducted directly at the local level. I rise, today, to recommend to my colleagues a Public Broadcasting Service [PBS] television series, ``The American Promise,'' celebrating our country's community-based democracy. Members of Congress arrive in Washington, DC having won elections to introduce, consider, and vote on legislation. While much is accomplished in our National's capital, too often, congressional democracy devolves into the partisan bickering and a competition for political power. ``The American Promise'' highlights another aspect of American democracy. In community after community throughout America, in ways large and small, citizens decide every day to become part of the democratic process. They do this by joining organizations, forming community groups, and helping their fellow citizens to shoulder the burdens of society. When this happens, there are not losers. When a community development bank is opened in a depressed inner-city location or when neighbors add their combined strength to form a local safety watch program, they are exercising their rights as participants in the American democratic experiment. In my view, there is no better antidote to doubts about our Nation's future than adjusting our sights from the latest iteration of partisan one-upsmanship to the grassroots to relieve our concern. Mr. Speaker, the PBS special, ``The American Promise,'' does exactly this: It reminds us all of the community-based democracy found beyond this Capitol. In doing so, it restores our faith in the idea for democracy, the possibilities for our future, and the promise of America. I would also like to highlight a particular aspect of the series. One segment features an outstanding example of grassroots democracy in my home, the Bronx, NY. In response to the tragedy of random inner-city violence, mourning families commission graffiti artists to paint walls horning their murdered children. These memorials to the past not only honor the lives of those who have died, but represent warnings to the living about the need to work together for an end to the carnage. Finally, I am proud to recognize the Public Broadcasting Service for making possible programming that demonstrates America at its best. In this time of cuts to the public broadcasting budget, I am proud to commend PBS for continuing to offer the finest programming available on the public airwaves. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and viewers across the Nation to tune in to their local PBS station and watch ``The American Promise.'' The series reminds us of what is right about America and what we must do to achieve our country's full potential.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I bring today to the floor this shirt which says ``shame.'' It was given out yesterday by people in the labor movement, but it is just as good to illustrate what we are doing to the children of America today, for shame. S is for selling out the children of America, selling them out by eliminating the safe and drug-free schools program, by a 27-percent cut in vocational and adult training, $1.2 billion cut from title I, the Goals 2000 education standards eliminated, 50-percent cut in bilingual education. H is for Head Start, which will lose more than $137 million when we sacrifice our future. A is for the aged, which will have to choose between food and heat when we destroy their low-income home energy assistance program. M is for mean spirited, which is what these attacks on the most vulnerable in our society are. E is for enough, enough of taking from working people, the aged, our children, to pay for the Republican tax cuts for the rich, these same people who gained the most from the trickle-down years. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for this institution, and it is a sad day for America. It has been said that we should be judged by how we treat those who are least able to defend themselves. By that standard, our Republican friends should feel nothing but shame for what they are about to do. This is the worst bill I have seen in my 7 years in Congress, and it should be soundly defeated. Shame on all of us if we pass this bill. Shame on what we are doing to the children of America, to the working people of America and to the elderly of America, all to pay for a tax cut for the rich. Shame.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but we are now extending it a second time for another 45 days, and I guess my feeling is a little bit different than my colleague from Indiana. I believe that we cannot indefinitely have these extensions without holding Mr. Arafat's feet to the fire. I have submitted a bill along with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], which clearly lays out reasons and the threshold for Mr. Arafat and the PLO to comply with before there can be a continuation of funding for the PLO. I would like to ask the Chairman if he can give me assurances that our bill will be marked up at committee, because I think there are many, many different feelings and opinions on the committee, and I think we should have the opportunity. I just want to say, I think it is especially critical because it seems pretty obvious to me that in the Senate, the State Department authorization bill is dead. So I think it is even more critical that we in the House come together and mark up my bill so that we can have a resolution of this issue, and I would like to just ask the Chairman if he would agree to mark up the bill.

Mr. ENGEL. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just reiterate that I think it is critical that we do have a markup of the bill, that we hold hearings and have a markup of the bill. With the chairman's assurances that he will take a look at this, and I hope with the assurances that we will mark up the bill. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for yielding this time to me. This entire bill just shows how mean-spirited and radical the Republicans have been with this proposal, and it really is for shame because from the moment this Congress began we have seen the majority try to hurt working men and women of America, we have seen them purge the name of Labor from the old Education and Labor Committee, we have seen them refuse to raise the minimum wage, we have seen them cut OSHA now here by about a third. More American workers are going to die and be injured on the job because of these OSHA cuts. We have seen them slice the National Labor Relations Board which monitors unfair labor practices. We see them slice money, cut money, for dislocated workers. Why hypocrisy. We talk about getting people off the welfare rolls, and here we have workers that are losing their jobs, and we want to cut funding to help them locate new jobs; Davis-Bacon, which pays prevailing wage, that is cut. So, we have a pattern here, and this bill fits that pattern. In my 7 years in Congress this is the most disgraceful appropriations bill I have ever seen, and it ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the proposed cuts in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill because in the 7 years I have been fortunate enough to serve in Congress, this bill is truly the worst bill I have ever seen. This bill is nothing less than a frontal assault on the working men and women of this country. The cuts will only serve to decrease productivity, increase costs and cost lives. I am a member of what used to be called the Education and Labor Committee, which is now called the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. And the minute the new Republican majority took control, they changed the name of the Committee. They purged the word labor out of the Committee and purged the word labor out of all the subcommittees. That, to me, sums it all up. They want to just purge labor, purge labor unions and purge the working men and women of this country. The cuts in OSHA in this bill, and OSHA takes care of the health and safety of American workers, they slash OSHA enforcement programs by 33 percent, a third. This would decimate the agency's enforcement program, leaving millions of working Americans with no where to turn for safety and health protections. With 17 workers dying on the job each day, these shortsighted cuts will increase this carnage sharply. OSHA laws did not just happen overnight. They came in gradually. And we have now had OSHA protection for 50 or 60 years. And we have seen that as long as we have had the OSHA protection, American workers, less and less American workers have been injured, maimed or killed on the job so the OSHA laws are working. Why would we want to turn the clock back to before the time there were these protections? Why would we want to endanger the health and safety and welfare of America's workers? In this bill, the National Labor Relations Board is also cut by 30 percent. Currently the National Labor Relations Board has the power to prevent and fix unfair labor practices committed by employers and safeguard employees' rights to organize. The cuts will result in severely weakened workers' rights to fair and decent conditions on the job. Now, as rationale in all the hearings we have held in the committee, people who want to eliminate OSHA and want to eliminate the NLRB say, you know, these impose very big hardships on employees and most employers are good. I agree, most employers are good and they are responsible. Those are not the employers that we are worried about. To those employers who do what is right and do what they are supposed to be doing and protect the health and safety of their workers, OSHA ought not to affect them. It is those few employers who do not care about the health and safety of their workers which is the reason why OSHA laws were put into effect in the first place. So now we are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of trying to fix what is broken, we want to gut the whole program and throw the baby out with the bathwater and leave American workers exposed. To me worker safety is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is an American issue. I do not know why my Republican friends want to gut the program. Now, in this bill, also there is a 34-percent cut planned for the dislocated workers program. That means that 140,000 fewer workers will be helped finding new jobs, workers who need help in getting the skills for jobs in our changing economy due to increased corporate and defense downsizing. We talk about welfare reform. We want to keep people off the welfare rolls. We want to get people off the welfare rolls. How do you do that, by cutting the dislocated workers program which helps people get jobs, train jobs and find jobs? It makes no sense whatsoever. So we must stop punishing the workers of this country in order to fund initiatives like tax cuts for the wealthy. The American workers deserve better from us. My father was an iron worker. I remember walking the picket lines with him during a strike when I was a boy. Workers do not want to strike. They do not want to lose pay. They do a strike only as a last resort. The attitude that we see in some quarters in this new Congress, making workers a pariah, is just unbelievable. Davis-Bacon reform, Davis-Bacon protects prevailing wages so people in my area of the country, New York City, where there is a very, very high cost of living can get a decent wage. We do not want to depress people's wages and have cheap labor coming in from elsewhere, but that is exactly what happens if Davis-Bacon is repealed, and the Republicans are again assaulting Davis-Bacon. Some of us believe that $4.25 is not enough for anybody to live. That is the minimum wage. We think it should be raised. Our Republican friends do not want to raise the minimum wage; they want to eliminate the minimum wage. This is backsliding. This is not what ought to be done. That is only the labor part of this bill. What we see later on in education is even worse. I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation, to vote against it. We hear the votes still are not there. We ought to defeat this bill, if it comes up this week, and hopefully reason will prevail.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. We have all heard this story of how Nero fiddled while Rome burned. For the past 3 years the world has fiddled while Bosnia has burned and its people have been raped and killed. For 3 years, I and others have been arguing on this floor to lift the arms embargo, and what do we hear time and time again and 3 years later? We are still hearing the same things. Mr. Chairman, the failed policies, the tired policies, the diplomatic niceties, they have failed. The status quo is not acceptable. Two hundred thousand people have been killed. It is almost an insult to our intelligence to say we should just stay the course and let us give NATO or the United Nations one more chance. Mr. Chairman, for the past several weeks, some of us who are Members of Congress have been receiving the most vile anti-Semitic and racist faxes coming into our office. Unfortunately, it shows that 50 years after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and racism is still alive and well in some quarters, and genocide, once again, is rearing its ugly face on the Continent of Europe. Are we just to stand by and do nothing? Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we ought to do something because it is right. Is that not what this wonderful country has always stood for, doing what is right? The Serbs are trying to expand Greater Serbia. If they get away with this in Bosnia, Kosova will be next and other places will be next. Let the Bosnian Moslems defend themselves. That is all they are asking. We have seen in the past 3 years, whenever NATO has seemed to take a firm stance, the aggressors have backed down. When they saw that NATO and the United Nations was a paper tiger, they emboldened themselves. Safe zones were established only to crumble: Srebeniza, Zepa. What is next, Gorazde, Bihaj, and Sarajevo? Are we going to sit by and watch people be raped and murdered? Mr. Chairman, we do not want to send the message that aggression and genocide pays. We want to send a message that this country will not tolerate it. Support the bill. The whole world is watching.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, from the home office of New York's 17th Congressional District in the Bronx, here are the top 10 reasons why Republicans want to cut Medicare: No. 10, a Republican memo says older Americans are pack oriented and want to follow a leader; No. 9, on the 30th anniversary of Medicare, Republicans say don't trust anybody or anything over 30; No. 8, Republicans need the money to pay for a big tax cut for the wealthy; No. 7, $270 billion in cuts is a nice round number; No. 6, Republicans want seniors to choose between buying food and buying medicines; No. 5, according to Dick Armey, Medicare is a program that he would have no part of in a free world; No. 4, Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class; No. 3, Republicans think if 40 million Americans don't have health care, why should seniors? No. 2, Republicans want to see seniors go from Medicare to welfare; And the No. 1 reason why Republicans want to cut Medicare is: Medicare, Schmedicare, Who needs health care in a brave newt world!

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such item as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, since my previous amendment was not allowed to be put forward to a vote, this amendment represents, again, a modest shift of funds from periodic censuses and programs to the program for public broadcasting facilities, planning, and construction. Public broadcasting facilities, planning, a construction have been cut severely in this budget. Again, if Members support public broadcasting, then this is an amendment that ought to be supported. By voting for this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we will send a message that funding for children's educational television should not be eliminated. We will increase funding for public broadcasting facilities across the country. We will support funding for long distance video learning, specialized equipment for services for the hearing impaired, and we will send and give a reliable public broadcasting signal for 25 million Americans. There has been a battle in this Congress to end public broadcasting. I happen to think that is a very misguided battle. Public broadcasting is the best example, as I mentioned before, of a public-private partnership that works. For every $1 that public funds are put into public broadcasting, they are able to generate $5 and $6 of money from corporations and from the private sector. We should be, in my opinion, increasing public broadcasting, not cutting it back. If we increase by only $2 million, again, a small amount considering the magnitude of this budget, for public broadcasting facilities, planning, and construction, we will be sending a message that we want and support public broadcasting and that public broadcasting ought to continue. I say to all my colleagues who have come up to me and have expressed strong support on both sides of the aisle for public broadcasting, by voting this amendment they are sending a message, sending a message to their folks back home, to their constituents, to their colleagues, that they support public broadcasting. By putting the money into public broadcasting facilities, planning, and construction, we will continue to have the finest public radio and television anywhere in the world. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the cuts in public broadcasting are representative of the poor judgment we have used in this process to cut worthwhile programs indiscriminately. What I do is take a small step in the right direction. Again, the funding which is provided for these facilities through corporate, foundation, and governmental resources remains low. Why, again, would we want to break something that works? Please support the amendment and save public broadcasting.

Mr. ENGEL. Five minutes on each side?

Mr. ENGEL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, would this be on all subsequent amendments to the bill?

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

Mr. ENGEL. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully disagree. I would say that this has been authorized in every single budget, and I see no reason why it should not be authorized in this budget. I would respectfully disagree.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a minor shift of funds from the periodic censuses and programs into the National Endowment for Children's Educational Television. This amendment is important not just for what it does but for what it represents. Throughout this appropriations process, I have witnessed many programs which I support lose funding partially or in many cases completely. I feel that I cannot stand idly by as another successful program falls victim to the budget axe. The National Endowment for Children's Educational Programs last year was funded at $2.5 million. Under the proposal, it is zeroed out. Mr. Chairman, funding in the previous fiscal year for the National Endowment for Children's Educational Television was funded at $2.5 million in this year's proposed appropriation, wiped out, funded at zero. I am proposing to fund it at $2 million which would represent a 20- percent cut over the funding last year because I understand that many programs are taking cuts because of budgetary constraints. But I do not think that the National Endowment for children's Educational Television, which has been so successful, ought to be zeroed out. Next week we are going to begin debate on Labor HHS appropriations, and we are going to cut back a lot of funds for education. Right now we have before us the Endowment for Children's Educational Television, which in my opinion is a very worthwhile program, which will fall victim to shortsighted cuts. Now, the National Endowment for Children's Educational Television is the only Federal setaside dedicated exclusively to the funding of educational programming for children. I am the father of three children. Many of us have children and grandchildren. We realize how important it is to have children's educational television. The endowment is a worthwhile investment in our children's education. Projects which have been funded by the endowment include Storytime and Ghostwriter, reading and literacy programs which are aired daily on PBS. Public broadcasting programs focus not only on reading, literacy and math but on productive social behavior, cultural tolerance, ethics and values. Unfortunately, the funding resources, the Endowment for Children's Educational Television, from corporate foundation and governmental institutions remains low. While most of this money is raised through corporations and foundations, Federal funds remain a small but crucial portion of their budget. This is a public/private partnership that works. Why would we want to kill it? Ending it will only hurt the children who rely on educational programming. Again, as the father of three small children, I appreciate the value of this programming, and I am sure most parents do. At a time when we are all concerned about the amount of violence our children are seeing on television, on commercial television, I find it hard to believe that we would forgo the opportunity to provide wholesome programming for the youth of the country. By the time a child in the United States reaches the age of 18, he or she will have spent nearly 13,000 hours in school. By contrast, that child will have spent roughly 15,000 to 20,000 hours watching television. The National Endowment for Children's Educational Television does its own small part to ensure that these children have the option of quality programming. Two million dollars is certainly money well spent for this very worthwhile programming. Public polls have shown that people across the country do support public broadcasting, particularly when we are talking about children's educational television. So, my colleagues, I cannot think of anything worse to zero out, worse than to cut this very, very worthwhile program. I am proposing that we reinstate $2 million which by budgetary standards is a very, very small amount of money to aid our children's future. Again, under my amendment, the National Endowment for Children's Educational Television would still take a 20-percent cut but would not be zeroed out. I urge my colleagues to support this. It is very, very important. Please save public broadcasting and let us send a message that funding for children's educational television should not be eliminated. point of order

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Engel: Page 41, insert the following after line 6:

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, there go our Republican friends again. First they cut Medicare to give tax breaks to the rich, and now they are cutting education, our children's future, to give tax breaks to the rich. A subcommittee today is cutting $3.9 billion off education, robbing America's children. Goals 2000, setting education standards, cut; safe and drug-free schools, cut; chapter 1 funding to help our schools, cut; Eisenhower Program for teacher training, cut; and adult and vocational training, cut. And why? To give tax breaks for the rich. What will this mean to middle class America? More students per class, and local and State property taxes increasing. Student loans were taken away from our children by the Republicans, and now, on top of Medicare, they are going to cut education again. These are middle-class kids that are going to suffer. Eighty-nine percent of jobs created in this country require postsecondary training. What are the Republicans doing for that? Cut again. We have a plan. It is a plan of compassion. Let us fix what needs to be fixed, but let us not cut and rob our children's future.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. It hardly seems fair that one side should get 16 minutes and the other side 10 minutes.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there are 10 minutes allocated to each side. Does the 10 minutes on the side in favor of the amendment include the 6 minutes that they had previous to the allotment of the 10 minutes each?

Mr. ENGEL. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side would have the 16 minutes; that the side in opposition would also have the additional 6 minutes.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, regular order.

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