Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a member of the community who has been instrumental in the success of the Westchester Jewish Center for many years, Susan Lurie. The WJC is honoring Susan at their 66th Annual Spring Gala this year, and I cannot think of a more deserving honoree.

Susan has been part of the Larchmont/Mamaroneck community for over 30 years. She became Executive Director of the Westchester Jewish Center 16 years ago after receiving a call from a congregant at WJC who was on the search committee for a new director there.

What has kept Susan at WJC for all this time has been the interesting and diverse work; but even more than that has been the relationships and the feeling of home and family for so many congregants.

Susan has been involved in every facet of WJC life. Over the years, Susan and the WJC leaders have worked together implementing innovative methods and programs such as a major building campaign and construction and the development of a strategic plan to make the many segments of synagogue life more engaging and responsive to the needs of its congregants.

As a face of WJC, Susan is always warm and welcoming. After 16 years Susan has decided to retire and she reports with great pleasure about all the congregants that have come by to see her since the announcement was made.

On this special occasion, I want to take a moment to thank Susan for all of her amazing work and congratulate her on this wonderful honor. It's much deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my revulsion at the gas attacks killing innocent Syrian civilians. One of the responses from this Congress should be when we get back, as soon as possible, we pass the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2017. It is sponsored by myself and Chairman Royce. It is named in honor of the courageous former Syrian photographer known as ``Caesar,'' who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2014 about the Assad regime's torture of Syrian civilians. This legislation passed the House in November 2016 by voice vote but didn't pass the other body.

This bill requires the President to impose new sanctions on anyone who does business with or provides financing to the Government of Syria, including Syrian intelligence and security services, or the Central Bank of Syria. It sanctions anyone that provides aircraft or spare parts for aircraft to Syria's airlines, including financing. It sanctions anyone who does business with transportation or telecom sectors controlled by the Syrian Government or anyone who supports Syria's energy industry.

Mr. Speaker, we need to send a strong message to the murderous Assad regime and a strong message to Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah that we will not tolerate attacks on innocent civilians.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I join with my colleagues. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), who is a valued member of our committee, for his leadership on this critical issue, and also the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires). I agree with everything that they have said heretofore about these draconian cuts.

I am here because I am rising to strongly reject the Trump Administration's draconian cuts to the International Affairs Budget. Now 2\1/2\ months into the Trump Administration, I find myself deeply troubled by the direction American foreign policy is heading on many fronts. I was particularly shocked when the White House released its fiscal year 2018 budget calling for a 31 percent cut to American diplomacy and development efforts.

In my view, cutting the International Affairs Budget by even a fraction of that amount would be devastating. We haven't seen many details, but a cut that drastic would surely mean that too many efforts and initiatives that do so much good would wind up on the chopping block.

Here is the bottom line: Slashing diplomacy and development puts American lives at risk. If we no longer have diplomacy and development tools to meet international challenges, what does that leave? It leaves the military.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have always supported a strong national defense, and I do support our military, and I do support giving them more money. But I also support using military force only as a measure of last resort. We should not send American servicemembers into harm's way unless we have exhausted every other option. If we are not investing in diplomacy and development, we aren't even giving these other options a chance.

We rely on diplomacy to resolve conflicts across negotiating tables at multilateral gatherings and in quiet corners so that we don't need to resolve them down the line on the battlefield. Our diplomats work to strengthen old alliances and build new bridges of friendship and shared understanding.

Just last week, the Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on the

Trump Administration's efforts to decimate our International Affairs Budget. In his testimony at the hearing, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said that morale at the State Department is ``at its lowest point in my memory.''

It is deeply disturbing to hear that our diplomats, many of whom serve in dangerous places at high risk to themselves and their families, are so disheartened.

Of course it is not just former diplomats who reject these cuts. A recent letter signed by more than 120 retired generals and admirals to House and Senate leadership said: ``We urge you to ensure that resources for the International Affairs Budget keep pace with the growing global threats and opportunities we face. Now is not the time to retreat.''

Mr. Speaker, I include their letter in the Record in its entirety.

February 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

House of Representatives.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader,

House of Representatives.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader,

U.S. Senate.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader,

U.S. Senate.

Dear Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Majority Leader

McConnell, and Minority Leader Schumer: As you and your

colleagues address the federal budget for Fiscal Year 2018.

we write as retired three and four star flag and general

officers from all branches of the armed services to share our

strong conviction that elevating and strengthening diplomacy

and development alongside defense are critical to keeping

America safe.

We know from our service in uniform that many of the crises

our nation faces do not have military solutions alone--from

confronting violent extremist groups like ISIS in the Middle

East and North Africa to preventing pandemics like Ebola and

stabilizing weak and fragile states that can lead to greater

instability. There are 65 million displaced people today. the

most since World War II, with consequences including refugee

flows that are threatening America's strategic allies in

Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and Europe.

The State Department. USAID, Millennium Challenge

Corporation, Peace Corps and other development agencies are

critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put

our men and women in uniform in harm's way. As Secretary

James Mattis said while Commander of U.S. Central Command,

``If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need

to buy more ammunition.'' The military will lead the fight

against terrorism on the battlefield, but it needs strong

civilian partners in the battle against the drivers of

extremism--lack of opportunity, insecurity, injustice, and

hopelessness.

We recognize that America's strategic investments in

diplomacy and development--like all of U.S. investments--must

be effective and accountable. Significant reforms have been

undertaken since 9/11, many of which have been embodied in

recent legislation in Congress with strong bipartisan

support--on human trafficking, the rights of women and girls.

trade and energy in Africa, wildlife trafficking. water. food

security. and transparency and accountability.

We urge you to ensure that resources for the International

Affairs Budget keep pace with the growing global threats and

opportunities we face. Now is not the time to retreat.

Sincerely,

1. General Keith B. Alexander, USA (Ret.), Director.

National Security Agency ('05-'14), Commander, U.S. Cyber

Command ('10-'14)

2. General John R. Allen, USMC (Ret.), Commander, NATO

International Security Force ('11-'13), Commander, U.S.

Forces-Afghanistan ('11-'13)

3. Lt. General Edward G. Anderson III, USA (Ret.), Vice

Commander, U.S. Element, North American Aerospace Defense

Command/Deputy, Commander, U.S. Northern Command ('02-'04)

4. Lt. General Thomas L. Baptiste, USAF (Ret.), Deputy

Chairman, NATO Military Committee ('04-'07)

5. Lt. General Ronald R. Blanck, USA (Ret.), Surgeon

General of the United States Army ('96-'00)

6. Lt. General H. Steven Blum, USA (Ret.), Deputy

Commander, U.S. North American Aerospace Defense Command and

U.S. Northern Command ('09-'10)

7. Lt. General Steven W. Boutelle, USA (Ret.), Chief

Information Officer and G6, United States Army ('03-'07)

8. Admiral Frank L. Bowman, USN (Ret.), Director, Naval

Nuclear Propulsion ('96-'04)

9. General Charles G. Boyd, USAF (Ret.), Deputy Commander

in Chief, U.S. European Command ('92-'95)

10. General Bryan Doug Brown, LISA (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Special Operations Command ('03-'07)

11. General Arthur E. Brown, Jr., USA (Ret.), Vice Chief of

Staff of the United States Amy ('87-'89)

12. Vice Admiral Michael Bucchi, USN (Ret.), Commander of

the United States Third Fleet ('00-'03)

13. Lt. General John H. Campbell, USAF (Ret.), Associate

Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support,

Central Intelligence Agency ('00-'03)

14. General Bruce Carlson, USAF (Ret.), Director, National

Reconnaissance Office ('09-'12)

15. General George W. Casey, Jr., USA (Ret.), Chief of

Staff of the United States Army ('07-'11)

16. Lt. General John G. Castellaw, USMC (Ret.), Deputy

Commandant for Programs and Resources ('07-'08)

17. Lt. General Dennis D. Cavin, USA (Ret.), Commander,

U.S. Army Accessions Command ('02-'04)

18. General Peter W. Chiarelli, USA (Ret.), Vice Chief of

Staff, U.S. Army ('08-'12)

19. Lt. General Daniel W. Christman, USA (Ret.),

Superintendent, United States Military Academy ('96-'01)

20. Lt. General George R. Christmas. USMC (Ret.), Deputy

Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs ('94-'96)

21. Admiral Vern Clark, USN (Ret.), Chief of Naval

Operations ('00-'05)

22. Admiral Archie R. Clemins, USN (Ret.), Commander in

Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet ('96-'99)

23. General Richard A. ``Dick'' Cody, USA (Ret.), Vice

Chief of Staff, United States Army ('04-'08)

24. Lt. General John B. Conaway, USAF (Ret.), Chief,

National Guard Bureau ('90-'93)

25. General James T. Conway, USMC (Ret.), Commandant, U.S.

Marine Corps ('06-'10)

26. General John D.W. Corley, USAF (Ret.), Commander, Air

Combat Command ('07-'09)

27. General Bantz J. Craddock, USA (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe

('06-'09)

28. Vice Admiral Lewis W. Crenshaw, Jr., USN (Ret.), Deputy

Chief of Naval Operations for Resources, Requirements, and

Assessments ('04-'07)

29. Lt. General John ``Mark'' M. Curran, USA (Ret.), Deputy

Commanding General Futures, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command ('03-'07)

30. General Terrence R. Dake, USMC (Ret.), Assistant

Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps ('98-'00)

31. Lt. General Robert R. Dierker, USAF (Ret.), Deputy

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command ('02-'04)

32. Admiral Kirkland H. Donald, USN (Ret.), Director, Naval

Nuclear Propulsion ('04-'12)

33. Lt. General James M. Dubik, USA (Ret.), Commander,

Multi National Security Transition Command and NATO Training

Mission-Iraq ('07-'08)

34. Lt. General Kenneth E. Eickmann, USAF (Ret.),

Commander, Aeronautical Systems Center, U.S. Air Force ('96-

'98)

35. Admiral William J. Fallon, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Central Command ('07-'08)

36. Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Pacific Command ('02-'05)

37. Admiral Mark P. Fitzgerald, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Naval Forces Europe ('07-'10) and U.S. Naval Forces Africa

('09-'10)

38. General Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF (Ret.), Chief of Staff

of the United States Air Force ('94-'97)

39. Lt. General Benjamin C. Freakley, USA (Ret.),

Commander, U.S. Army Accessions Command ('07-'12)

40. Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.), President,

National Defense University ('77-'81)

41. Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, USN (Ret.), Chief of

Naval Operations ('11-'15)

42. Lt. General Arthur J. Gregg, USA (Ret.), Army Deputy

Chief of Staff ('79-'81)

43. Lt. General Wallace C. Gregson, USMC (Ret.), Commanding

General, Marine Corps Forces Pacific and Marine Corps Forces

Central Command ('03-'05)

44. Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.), Inspector

General, U.S. Navy ('97-'00)

45. General Michael W. Hagee, USMC (Ret.), Commandant, U.S.

Marine Corps ('O3-'06)

46. Lt. General Michael A. Hamel, USAF (Ret.), Commander,

Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center ('05-'08)

47. General John W. Handy, USAF (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Transportation Command and Commander, Air Mobility Command

('01-'05)

48. Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr., USN (Ret.), Commander,

U.S. Fleet Forces Command ('09-'12)

49. General Richard E. Hawley, USAF (Ret.), Commander, Air

Combat Command ('96-'99)

50. General Michael V. Hayden, USAF (Ret.), Director,

Central Intelligence Agency ('06-'09)

51. General Paul V. Hester, USAF (Ret.), Commander, Pacific

Air Forces. Air Component Commander for the U.S. Pacific

Command Commander ('04-'07)

52. General James T. Hill, USA (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Southern Command ('02-'04)

53. Admiral James R. Hogg. USN (Ret.), U.S. Military

Representative, NATO Military Committee ('88-'91)

54. Lt. General Walter S. Hogle Jr., USAF (Ret.),

Commander, 15th Air Force ('00-'01)

55. Lt. General Steven A. Hummer, USMC (Ret.), Deputy

Commander for Military Operations, U.S. Africa Command ('13-

'15)

56. Lt. General William E. Ingram, Jr.. USA (Ret.),

Director, U.S. Army National Guard ('11-'14)

57. General James L. Jamerson, USAF (Ret.), Deputy

Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command ('95-'98)

58. Lt. General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Ret.), Deputy

Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command ('93-'96)

59. Admiral Gregory G. Johnson, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Naval Forces Europe/Commander in Chief, Allied Forces

Southern Europe ('01-'04)

60. Admiral Jerome L. Johnson, USN (Ret.), Vice Chief of

Naval Operations ('90-'92)

61. Lt. General P. K. ``Ken'' Keen, USA (Ret.), Chief,

Office of the U.S. Defense Representative to Pakistan ('11-

'13)

62. Lt. General Richard L. Kelly, USMC (Ret.), Deputy

Commandant, Installations and Logistics ('02-'05)

63. Lt. General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.), Deputy

Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence ('97-'00)

64. General Paul J. Kem, USA (Ret.), Commanding General,

U.S. Army Materiel Command ('01-'04)

65. General William F. Kernan, USA (Ret.), Supreme Allied

Commander, Atlantic/Commander in Chief. U.S. Joint Forces

Command ('00-'02)

66. Lt. General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.), Deputy

National Security Advisor to The President of the United

States ('00-'01)

67. Lt. General Bruce B. Knutson, USMC (Ret.), Commanding

General, Marine Corp Combat Command ('00-'01)

68. Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni, Jr., USN (Ret.),

Deputy Conunander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S.

Atlantic Fleet ('01-'04)

69. General Charles Chandler Krulak, USMC (Ret.),

Commandant of the Marine Corps ('95-'99)

70. (Ret.), Lt. General William J. Lennox, Jr., USA

(Ret.), Superintendent, United States Military Academy ('01-

'06)

71. Vice Admiral Stephen F. Loftus, USN (Ret.), Deputy

Chief of Naval Operations for Logistics ('90-'94)

72. General Lance W. Lord, USAF (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Air

Force Space Command ('02-'06)

73. Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.), Commandant, U.S.

Coast Guard ('98-'02)

74. Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire, USN (Ret.), Deputy

Director for Strategic Operational Planning, National

Counterterrorism Center ('07-'10)

75. Admiral Henry H. Mauz, Jr., USN (Ret.), Commander in

Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet ('92-'94)

76. Vice Admiral Justin D. McCarthy, SC, USN (Ret.), Deputy

Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet Readiness, and Logistics

('04-'07)

77. Lt. General Dennis McCarthy, USMC (Ret.), Commander,

Marine Forces Reserve ('01-'05)

78. Vice Admiral John ``Mike'' M. McConnell, USN (Ret.),

Director of the National Security Agency ('92-'96)

79. General David D. McKiernan, USA (Ret.), Commander,

International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan ('08-

'09)

80. General Dan K. McNeill, USA, (Ret.), Commander,

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan

('07-'08)

81. General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.), Chief of Staff,

U.S. Air Force ('90-'94)

82. Lt. General Paul T. Mikolashek, USA (Ret.), Inspector

General, U.S. Army/Commanding General of the Third U.S. Army

Forces Central Command ('00-'02)

83. Vice Admiral Joseph S. Mobley, USN (Ret.), Commander,

Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet ('98-'01)

84. General Thomas R. Morgan, USMC (Ret.), Assistant

Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps ('86-'88)

85. Lt. General Carol A. Mutter, USMC (Ret.), Deputy Chief

of Staff, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Marine Corps ('96-

'98)

86. Admiral Robert J. Natter, USN (Ret.), Commander, Fleet

Forces Command/Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet ('00-'03)

87. General William L. Nyland, USMC (Ret.), Assistant

Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps ('02-'05)

88. Lt. General Tad J. Oelstrom, USAF (Ret.),

Superintendent, U.S. Air Force Academy ('97-'00)

89. Admiral Eric T. Olson, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Special Operation Command ('07-'11)

90. Lt. General H. P. ``Pete'' Osman, USMC (Ret.),

Commanding General II MEF ('02-'04)

91. Lt. General Jeffrey W. Oster. USMC (Ret.), Deputy

Administrator and Chief Operating Officer, Coalition

Provisional Authority, Iraq '04), Deputy Commandant for

Programs and Resources, Headquarters Marine Corps ('98)

92. Admiral William A. Owens, USN (Ret.), Vice Chairman,

Joint Chiefs of Staff ('94-'96)

93. Lt. General Frank A. Panter, Jr., USMC (Ret.), Deputy

Commandant for Installations and Logistics ('09-'12)

94. Vice Admiral David Pekoske, USCG (Ret.), Vice

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ('09-'10)

95. General David H. Petraeus, USA (Ret.), Director,

Central Intelligence Agency ('11-'12); Commander, Coalition

Forces in Afghanistan ('10-'11) and Iraq ('07-'08)

96. Vice Admiral Carol M. Pottenger, USN (Ret.), Deputy

Chief of Staff for Capability Development, NATO Allied

Command Transformation ('10-'13)

97. Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.), Commander in

Chief, U.S. Pacific Command ('96-'99)

98. Lt. General Harry D. Raduege, Jr., USAF (Ret.),

Director, Defense Information Systems Agency/Commander, Joint

Task Force for Global Network Operations/Deputy Commander,

Global Network Operations and Defense, U.S. Strategic Command

Joint Forces Headquarters, Information Operations ('00-'05)

99. Vice Admiral Norman W. Ray, USN (Ret.), Deputy

Chairman, NATO Military Committee ('92-'95)

100. Lt. General John F. Regni, USAF (Ret.),

Superintendent, United States Air Force Academy ('05-'09)

101. General Victor ``Gene'' E. Renuart, USAF (Ret.),

Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S.

Northern Command ('07-'10)

102. General Robert W. RisCassi, USA (Ret.), Commander in

Chief, United Nations Command/Commander in Chief, Republic of

Korea/U.S. Combined Forces Command ('90-'93)

103. Lt. General Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.), Commander,

12th Air Force/Air Forces Southern ('06-'09)

104. General Henry H. Shelton, USA (Ret.), Chairman, Joint

Chiefs of Staff ('97-'01)

105. Admiral William D. Smith, USN (Ret.), U.S. Military

Representative, NATO Military Committee ('91-'93)

106. Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., USN (Ret.), Commander

in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/Commander in Chief, Allied

Forces Southern Europe ('94-'96)

107. Lt. General James N. Soligan, USAF (Ret.), Deputy

Chief of Staff for Transformation, Allied Command

Transformation ('06-'10)

108. Admiral James G. Stavridis, USN (Ret.), Commander,

U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander,

Europe ('09-'13)

109. Lt. General Martin R. Steele, USMC (Ret.), Deputy

Chief of Staff for Plans, Policies and Operations, U.S.

Marine Corps ('97-'99)

110. General Carl W. Stiner, USA (Ret.), Commander in

Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command ('90-'93)

111. Vice Admiral Edward M. Straw, USN (Ret.), Director,

Defense Logistics Agency ('92-'96)

112. Vice Admiral William D. Sullivan, USN (Ret.), U.S.

Military Representative to NATO Military Committee ('06-'09)

113. Lt. General William J. Troy, USA (Ret.), Director,

Army Staff ('10-'13)

114. Admiral Henry G. Ulrich, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S.

Naval Forces Europe/Commander, Joint Forces Command Naples

('05-'08)

115. General Charles F. Wald, USAF (Ret.), Deputy

Commander, U.S. European Command ('02-'06)

116. General William S. Wallace, USA (Ret.), Commanding

General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command ('05-'08)

117. Lt. General William ``Kip'' E. Ward, USA (Ret.),

Commander, U.S. Africa Command ('07-'11)

118. General Charles E. Wilhelm, USMC (Ret.), Commander,

U.S. Southern Command ('97-'00)

119. General Michael J. Williams, USMC (Ret.), Assistant

Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps ('00-'02)

120. General Ronald W. Yates, USAF (Ret.), Commander. Air

Force Materiel Command ('92-'95)

121. General Anthony C. Zinni, USMC (Ret.), Commander in

Chief, U.S. Central Command ('97-'00)

Mr. Speaker, in 2013, Secretary of Defense Mattis similarly said: ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. So I think it's a cost benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene.''

That is from Secretary of Defense Mattis. I couldn't agree with him more.

Now, I believe that development helps to lift countries and communities up today so they can become strong partners on the global stage tomorrow. A lot of us think we have a moral obligation to help cure disease, improve access to education, and advance human rights. But even if it were not the right thing to do, it would be the smart thing to do because those efforts lead to greater stability, more responsive governments, and stronger rule of law--populations that share our values and priorities. Poverty and lack of opportunity, on the other hand, provide fertile ground for those who mean us harm.

All these efforts, by the way, cost cents on the dollar compared to military engagement. People think international affairs and foreign aid are a massive chunk of the Federal budget, but the chart right over here next to me shows how it actually stacks up: 1.4 percent. And we make that sliver of the pie even smaller. It will come back on us in spades. 1.4 percent of our Federal budget goes to all these programs.

The diseases we don't combat will reach our shores; the communities on which we turn or backs may be the next generation of people who mean us

harm; and the conflicts we fail to defuse may well grow into the wars we need to fight later at a much higher cost in terms of American blood and treasure. Just imagine having to tell the parents of a young American soldier that their son or daughter was killed in battle because we weren't willing to spend the tiny sums needed to prevent the conflict.

Finally, let me say that the American people don't want to see us slash diplomacy and development. In fact, recent data shows that 72 percent of Americans believe the country should play a leading global role. Nearly 6 in 10 believe funding levels at the State Department should stay the same or increase.

Fortunately, the Congress is a coequal branch of government. I want to the remind the executive branch of that. We in Congress decide how much to invest in our international affairs, not the White House.

For example, regardless of how this administration is playing footsie with Vladimir Putin, Congress will devote resources to push back against the Kremlin's efforts to spread disinformation and destabilize our allies, just like they did to the United States during last year's election campaign.

I am hopeful that, as we move forward with next year's spending bills, we continue to provide our diplomatic and development efforts the support they need and the support they have received under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike.

With the President's proposed cuts, I fear what message we are sending to the world. The United States is the global standard bearer for freedom, justice, and democracy. If we cede our role as a global leader, make no mistake, someone will step into the void. It could very well be another power that doesn't share our values or our interests. Think Russia or some country like that.

We cannot allow that to happen. I am committed to ensuring it doesn't, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to firmly reject President Trump's cuts.

You are doing a fine job.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree with him more. And, you know, it is especially interesting since, during the campaign, President Trump attacked the previous administration for not being strong enough, for not showing American presence. And now with this cut, with this proposed 31 percent cut, I couldn't think of anything that would make us weaker or make us unable to do what we need to do.

So I hope the President remembers what he said during the campaign and acts accordingly so that these massive cuts can be taken away.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would add that we give foreign aid, and it is good for those countries, but it is also good for us. It also helps us. If there is a drug problem in Central America, it inevitably comes up to our border.

If there is some problem with some developing country, say, we have a disease that could--Ebola or something like that, and we give money to help eradicate it, well, that will prevent Ebola from coming into the United States. So it is really a win-win situation.

Again, if we are going to be the leaders of the world, certainly of the free world, and we want other countries to follow our lead, well, if you are a leader, you have to lead. What we are doing is in our own best interests, not only just in the other countries' best interests.

I think it is important to say that. And it is important to, again, say, 1 percent--1.4 percent of our total budget is all the foreign aid and all the money that we give in terms of eradicating diseases, in terms of crime, in terms of everything that is actually very important to us as well. The American people think it is much higher, but it is not.

So if you take the President's slashing of it, it would virtually make all of this impossible to do. So it is a program that is a win-win situation.

Absolutely. Again, I want to reiterate that we are not the leaders of the world because we anointed ourselves. We are the leaders of the world because we provided leadership for all of these years, particularly after World War II, and it is important to engage with the world.

One of the gentlemen mentioned some of the things that the President said. You know, one of the things he did was he called NATO obsolete. That kind of talk worries me because it is our alliances that are the pillar of our foreign policy and the strength of the United States and our alliances which have worked so well since World War II.

So if we denigrate our alliances, and then we cut funding for all these programs that help various countries so we can be a leader by about a third, that doesn't say much for a robust foreign policy. You get to be a leader by acting like a leader, not by pulling away from the world.

Mr. Speaker, when people look at these bills, they want to know what they are going to pay. What this bill does is simple--you pay more and you get less. That is the bottom line--pay more and get less.

The President promised better health care for more people at a lesser cost. But my Republican colleagues can no longer claim with any credibility that their plan achieves these goals.

Twenty-four million people will lose coverage. People 50 to 64 will be hit with an age tax and pay premiums five times higher than everybody else. Deductibles will go up. And protections that make sure insurance companies offer minimum value will be thrown out.

Again, the Republican bill, TrumpCare--pay more, get less--but it gives billionaires a tax break. That is really important; isn't it? With the Affordable Care Act, we set out to give Americans more affordable, higher quality health care.

Is the law perfect? No. We should be working together to tweak the law. We should be working together to improve the law, not putting in a clunker like this bill, which will roll back the time on people's coverage. Roll back the time, give people less coverage, and let them pay more. That is not what the American people want. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, an Olympic Gold Medal; groundbreaking international conferences on religious cooperation intolerance; membership in the World Bank, the IMF, and other international bodies; and recognition by more than 110 countries--these are only some of the accomplishments of the young nation of Kosovo.

The United States was among the first to recognize Kosovo, and today we are its strongest backer, and rightfully so. First recognized by President Bush, relations only deepened under President Obama. For that, Kosovo proudly has become the strongest supporter of the United States and Europe, sitting at an 85 percent approval rating.

This is not to say that Kosovo is a perfect country. We are not a perfect country. Corruption needs to be attacked in Kosovo. Judicial reform is progressing far too slowly. And official unemployment hovers at just above 30 percent. So there is hard work to be done. There is obviously a lot of work to do. But I have visited this country again and again and again and again;

and every time, I see progress, and I know there is a bright future.

I have often said that, as an American, I can go all around the world, but I will never get greeted with more love and friendship than I will in Kosovo. People there truly love Americans and all things American.

The best way to help Kosovo is through continued, strong support, as the United States has done for many years. But too many impediments stand in the way, many of them coming from outside of Kosovo's borders.

For example, Kosovo wants what most countries across the region want, to become part of a secure and integrated Europe, membership in the European Union and in NATO. Yet, just five European holdouts stand in the way of this progress for Kosovo.

When it comes to United Nations membership, Kosovo's way forward is blocked by Serbia and its ally, Russia. In fact, Serbia seeks to block Kosovo at almost every turn, and lately has been escalating tensions.

Both Serbia and Kosovo want to go to the European Union, and I support both of them getting into the European Union. But one of those countries shouldn't try to block another one, and Serbia has repeatedly tried to make it difficult for Kosovo to get into the EU and to get other things as well.

Serbia recently sent into Kosovo's north a propaganda train emblazoned with the words, Serbia is Kosovo, written in 21 languages to foment discord among Kosovo's small Serbian population. It pushed the building of a wall in Metrovica, a tiny city straddling the cleavages of Kosovo's interethnic divide. While that wall has now come down, the scars remain.

Serbia has continued to deny justice to the loved ones of hundreds of victims of its campaign of ethnic cleansing, including three American citizens, the Bytyqi brothers. And there are all kinds of insults, from a train and other things, giving propaganda against Kosovo by Serbia pushed to the Serbian-Kosovo border that helps to escalate tensions rather than bring them down.

As a result of a Serbian INTERPOL arrest warrant, French authorities recently detained former Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj, who has already been acquitted twice by an international tribunal.

We in the United States have this wonderful thing of no double jeopardy. If you go to trial and you are acquitted, you cannot be tried on the same thing again. That isn't true of many countries.

So Ramush Haradinaj was accused of war crimes, went to The Hague, spent many weeks and months there, was acquitted, and then was recharged again, and had to go back to The Hague to have another trial on which he was again acquitted. Now, Serbia has manipulated INTERPOL to try to get a third trial on essentially the same matter for Ramush Haradinaj again. This, to me, is unconscionable and shows tremendous bad faith on the part of the Serbian Government.

Serbia also fought Kosovo's membership in UNESCO, ultimately a self- defeating act, because among Kosovo's most cherished historical cultural institutions are its 13th century Serbian Orthodox churches. Kosovo did not get into UNESCO. It failed by three votes, and again the Serbian interruption played a major role in preventing them from getting into UNESCO. The United States fought to have Kosovo into UNESCO, but ultimately lost by three votes.

Kosovo and Serbia have sat down across the negotiating table in talks facilitated by the European Union. Those talks showed some progress that resulted in an agreement calling for normalization. I even nominated, at that time, the Prime Ministers of Kosovo and Serbia, along with the EU's former policy head, Baroness Catherine Ashton, for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Unfortunately, today, I question these successes. What kind of normalization involves stoking tensions among a neighbor's minority population and standing in the way of international integration? That is what Serbia is doing to Kosovo, and it should be stopped.

In terms of Ramush Haradinaj, trying to try him again, I don't know why the Government of Serbia seems intent on rekindling 20- and 30- year-old Balkan wars. They were terrible things that happened in war and terrible things that happened on both sides, but the man was found innocent twice. This is nothing more than bad faith on the part of the Serbian Government and harassment.

It might come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but 9 years on, as a free and independent country, Kosovo still has no army. That is right. A sovereign nation-state without an army. It has a small, lightly armed security force, but nothing resembling the large Russian-equipped Serbian military just next door.

Earlier this month, Kosovo took a small step toward establishing its army. Legislation was submitted to parliament. Like the legislative process here in the United States, the introduction of a bill is only the opening note on a much larger and longer sheet of music, a score which involves consultation with regional partners, the international community, domestic minorities, and NGOs.

We all know how this process works. There is back and forth, there is give and take. Supporters and opponents alike are welcome into the arena and all positions are heard. The process accounts for everybody's concerns in some way or another.

So what is in this proposal? What would Kosovo's army look like? It would be multiethnic, just as the Kosovo security force and the Kosovo police are now. It would partner with Western countries and hopefully NATO in pursuit of greater regional and international stability. It would be defensive and nonthreatening to Kosovo's neighbors. Mr. Speaker, it would be exactly what the United States wants to see in a partner.

Yet, while Kosovo slowly moves to set up its small defensive force, Serbia is beefing up its military with full Russian backing. It is taking deliveries of T-72 tanks, MiG-29 fighters, and S-300 antiaircraft missile systems, courtesy of Moscow and Vladimir Putin.

So I am a little confused, Mr. Speaker. Kosovo, a country we support and which supports us, wants what every other country in the world has: a basic army in which its citizens can serve their nation, and probably serve alongside our own military if given the chance.

What do we do? We offer rebukes and diplomatic threats, and we make it clear that we don't support Kosovo having an army at this time. That is absolutely absurd and is a position that we ought to change, and change quickly. Yet Russian weapons and materiel are pouring into Serbia, courtesy of Vladimir Putin; and as far as I can tell, the United States has stood in silence.

Regardless, Mr. Speaker, America's relation with Kosovo is strong and the future is bright. We need to stay on that course. Kosovo is a young country. I have been there many, many times. It is not even 10 years old.

We know better than anyone that building a democracy is hard work. Sometimes you will face setbacks. Sometimes you need a helping hand. That is why American support is more important than ever. That is why the United States should work to deepen our ties, enrich our mutual understanding, and continue to bring stability to the entire Balkan region. That is the way to a more prosperous, democratic, and multiethnic Kosovo; and that is the way for the United States to see a Balkan region free, at peace, and part of the whole of Europe.

Meanwhile, France should send Ramush Haradinaj home. Enough is enough already. We cannot stand for any more of this nonsense.

The United States should stand by Kosovo. Kosovo is a free and independent country. For many years, they were fed all kinds of lies about the United States during the old Communist regime in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. You know what? The people of Kosovo didn't believe a word of it.

So I would say to my colleagues and to my friends and to all of our American citizens: When you visit Kosovo, you will know and you will be proud to be an American because people come up to you in the street and want to touch you, want to talk to you, want to do everything and be everything American. Those are the kinds of friends that we need.

America does much for many, many people around the world, many, many

nations, and sometimes we feel it is not appreciated--but not in Kosovo. Everything the United States has helped that country with is appreciated from everyone, from the Prime Minister to the President, to people in government, to the average people in the street.

I very often have people coming up to me in the street wanting to talk to me. They recognize me. They say: Thank you. Thank you to America for standing by us in our independence. Thank you to America for being strong and keeping us strong.

So those are the kinds of friends I want to have. Those are the kind of people I want to have.

So I would say to the people of Kosovo and the Government of Kosovo: The United States stands by you and always will stand by you.

I would say to the Government of Serbia: We support the aspirations of the Serbian people to enter the European Union, but Serbia ought to stop doing what it is doing to block Kosovo. Serbia ought to stop its belligerent moves against Kosovo.

Both countries should go into the European Union--and eventually, NATO--and each one should not stop each other. They should help each other.

Health Care

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend the next couple of moments talking about a subject that is very near and dear to everyone's heart, and that is health care. I want to do it because tomorrow we have a big healthcare vote here in the Congress, and I think it is very important that we all very clearly lay out what we really feel should happen.

Last week, as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was up for about 28 hours in a row marking up a bill that was done all night long. At the time when we marked it up, we thought it was a bit silly because the bill hadn't been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, so we had no idea what it cost. It was like buying a pig in a poke. How could you decide whether something is good or not when you don't even know what the cost is? Since we obviously don't have unlimited funds, if something costs more money, we have to pull it out of someplace else.

So we voted on a bill. Unfortunately, it was a strict party-line vote, and the bill passed. Shortly thereafter, a few days later, the Congressional Budget Office scored it; and I think it was, frankly, from my vantage point, a disaster for the bill.

Now, what I think that this Congress should be doing is I think that we should make tweaks and fix the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. There are many, many good things in ObamaCare, in the healthcare bill, in the healthcare act, that has now been here for many, many years. But there are also some problems with it.

You know, every major bill that has been passed by this Congress and signed into law needed some tweaks, needed some changes, because you pass a law with good intention, but sometimes it doesn't work out exactly as you wanted it to work out. So you need to change things, you need to make improvements. When you see what is working, what is not working, that is what you do.

That is what this Congress should do with ObamaCare. We should say where premiums are going up or where certain jurisdictions only have one insurance company and, therefore, there is no competition, we can figure out ways to fix it. We can figure out ways to tweak it. That is what the American people would want us to do. The American people would want us to work together and would want us to work in a bipartisan fashion to try to fix what was wrong with ObamaCare.

Now, there are many wonderful things about ObamaCare. First of all, everyone knows it eliminated the so-called preexisting condition problem, where before, when you changed jobs and you went to a new insurance company, the insurance company said, ``Sorry, you have had cancer for 3 years and you have been treated; we are not going to treat you for cancer because it is a preexisting condition,'' or a heart attack or whatever it is. That was basically unconscionable.

And millions of people couldn't get help because they changed a job and, therefore, changed a healthcare plan. That was changed in ObamaCare. And that was a very, very important thing because an insurance company can now no longer deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.

Also, as everybody knows, children up to 26 years old can now stay and be insured under their parents' insurance plans. That was a very good plus of ObamaCare, or of the Affordable Care Act.

And there were other very, very important, good things. We had more people being covered than ever before. People who had never had health coverage got it now because of the Affordable Care Act.

So what do we see now? We see, instead of trying to put it together in a bipartisan fashion, trying to fix it, we have this bill which passed the Energy and Commerce Committee and passed the Ways and Means Committee and supposedly is going to be on the floor tomorrow if they can round up the votes. They are having difficulty rounding up the votes.

And what do we see when we look at this new bill that they are asking us to vote for? Let me tell you what we see.

If this bill would ever come into law, we would have much less coverage than ever before. Many people would lose their healthcare coverage, and we would have a smaller population actually being covered for health care.

We call it TrumpCare, and TrumpCare will take away health care from 24 million hardworking Americans. That is not acceptable.

Why shouldn't we be working together to improve ObamaCare? Why do we need a new plan that will insure 24 million less people than we insure now? It is bizarre. It makes no sense whatsoever.

We also feel, when we analyze it--and this is, again, what the Congressional Budget Office tells us--there are higher costs. TrumpCare forces families to pay increased out-of-pocket costs and higher deductibles.

So what does that all mean?

It means you pay more and you get less. That is a pretty bad deal. I don't think anybody wants that deal. I think Democrats and Republicans, alike, don't want that deal. I think Americans don't want that deal. We want it the opposite way. We would like to pay less and get coverage. But what TrumpCare does to the Affordable Care Act, you pay more and you get less.

If that weren't bad enough, an analysis of it finds that there is a crushing age tax. TrumpCare forces Americans between the ages of 50 and 64 to pay premiums which are five times higher than what others pay for health coverage, no matter how healthy they are. Talk about discrimination.

If you are a 50-year-old that is in good health, why should you have to pay five times more premium than what others pay for health coverage? Doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.

And then you say: How do they get the money to pay for whatever? Well, it steals from Medicaid and Medicare. TrumpCare ransacks the Medicaid funds that allow seniors to get the long-term care they need and shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years. Again, pretty bad deal for me.

And you say: Well, who benefits from this? If this is something that people are going to have to pay more and get less coverage, it is discriminatory for people ages 50 to 64. It hurts middle class people making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year, hurts them and hurts seniors, knocks seniors out. Well, who does it help?

Well, guess what? TrumpCare ransacks the Medicaid funds that allow seniors to get the long-term care they need. I said that before. But what does it do? It lowers tax cuts for the rich. So the rich get more tax cuts--I am sorry. It doesn't lower it. It gives the rich more tax cuts.

So it is really kind of nice, I suppose, when you have a billionaire President, it is nice to help the rich--but not at the expense of middle class America.

So when you look at this plan, it is a pretty bad plan for the middle class, pretty bad. So if you didn't like ObamaCare, you are going to dislike TrumpCare even more.

If it is passed, once it is passed, we are going to see, again, premiums rise, millions of people thrown out of insurance, and less coverage, but the very wealthy will get a nice, juicy tax break.

So, you know who used to steal from the rich and give to the poor? This is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. It is really disgraceful.

So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's defeat TrumpCare because it doesn't help anybody, and let's put our heads together. We have enough talent in this place on both sides of the aisle, and that is what the American people want us to do. They want us to put our heads together. They want us to work together and come up with a plan that aids the largest amount of people at the lowest possible cost.

It won't be easy. It will be very difficult. But we should do it together, not jam TrumpCare down our throat, not tell people about false promises when you know people are going to be thrown off.

If you say: Well, you know what? It is going to be cheaper. Well, it is cheaper if you throw off all the sick people and you don't give them insurance, and you throw off all the seniors and you don't help them. Well, of course it is cheaper because all the people that are sick and really need the help won't get it. And after all, what is insurance about? Insurance is there just in case you get sick.

So I am very chagrined about this new bill. I hope it gets defeated tomorrow. I hope that we then go back to the drawing board and come up with a program that will help the American people, not a program that helps Democrats or a program that helps Republicans, but a program that helps Americans, because we are all in this together.

The bill proposed by my Republican colleagues called TrumpCare is not a bill for Americans that will aid them with help when they get sick. As Americans, I do believe that health care should be a right, not a luxury. I believe that the richest country that the world has ever known can give its citizens health care. I believe in the single-payer health care.

But even if it is not single-payer, let's take the original Affordable Care Act, keep what is good, enhance what is good and what needs to be corrected and changed. Let's do it. That is what the American people want. That is what the American people demand, and we should do nothing less.

This bill ought to be defeated tomorrow. Let's go back to the drawing board and come up with something we can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 171.

Mr. Speaker, I have long prided myself on working across the aisle to get things done for my constituents and all the American people. That is what the American people want: a government that grapples with tough issues in a constructive way.

Unfortunately, since January 20, the new administration has shown no interest in working with the Congress on both sides to tackle problems, including Russia's unlawful interference in last year's election. That is why I decided not to stand on the aisle in the House Chamber to shake the President's hand during the joint session of Congress, as I have done in the past through Democratic and Republican administrations alike. This will be the first time during my 29 years in this House I have made this decision.

I have deep respect for the Presidency, and I will attend the joint session, but that respect between the branches must be mutual. The President has attacked the free press by calling it the enemy of the people. He has rejected America's traditional role welcoming refugees who have helped to make our country great. He has cozied up to Vladimir Putin, the strongman who attacks our democracy. He has moved to gut the Affordable Care Act. He has looked the other way when threats against the Jewish community have increased in the recent year.

This isn't part of our normal political discourse. This goes beyond ideological and political differences. The President needs to work with all people. Therefore, I will listen to what he has to say today, but I will not greet him and shake his hand.

Mr. Speaker, communities thrive when hard work, dedication, and sacrifice are set by voluntary example. Katherine (Kitty) Mary Geissler has served her community with honor, and it's a pleasure to wish her well on her 104th birthday year.

Kitty was born in County Limerick, Ireland. She immigrated to the United States in 1930,

where she met and married her husband George R. Geissler on October 7, 1942.

Kitty joined the LAOH, Division 9 in Portchester, and transferred to the Tarrytown Division in 1951 when she and her family moved. The division was renamed The Kitty Geissler Division 11 following her tenure, a testament to her work there. Kitty served at every level of leadership, including ten consecutive terms as President. She held several offices on the County level, and has been a delegate to many of the New York State and National Conventions.

In addition, Kitty has been a delegate to the New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee, while also being an active member of the American Irish Association of Westchester, the Catholic Daughters of America, The Ladies of Charity, The Ladies Auxiliary of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and the Tarrytown Senior Citizens.

In 1979 Kitty was honored by the American Irish Association and became the First A.I.A. Irish Woman of the Year. In 1986, Kitty was Aide to Grand Marshall Patrick Grimes in the Yonkers St. Patrick's Day Parade to Grand Marshall Bill Burke in the New York City St. Patricks Day Parade. Kitty was the first Grand Marshall of the Sleepy Hollow St. Patrick's Day Parade, served again in honor of her 100th birthday. Kitty's dedication was recognized by the New York State LAOH after she was awarded the Mother Teresa Medal.

Kitty's real love though is family. She is the proud Grandmother of eight and great Grandmother of nine. Kitty's life is a true inspiration, and it is an honor to celebrate her incredible 104th birthday in Congress. I am honored to represent such a special constituent, and I am thankful for all she has done in the community.

Madam Speaker, this is not a women's issue or a men's issue. It is an issue for what is right. People have a right to make health choices. If someone doesn't believe in abortion, then make that choice for yourself. If someone believes in something else, then they have the right to make that choice. So eligibility for title X funding should be based on a provider's ability to provide family planning services, period. Whether a provider offers safe and legal abortions with private funds should not be used to prevent women and men from getting preventive care like cancer screenings or HIV tests. That is all the rule requires.

It should not be controversial. Yet, here we are.

What effect would this Congressional Review Act have?

Well, Kansas has given us an ominous preview. When Kansas defunded providers that offered abortion services, the number of Kansans accessing cancer screenings, STI tests, and other care through the title X program plummeted by thousands. A vote for this CRA is a vote to multiply that number.

The Americans who will be affected by this CRA will lose the opportunity to see the provider of their choice, sometimes the only viable provider.

Why would we want to put women--why would we want to put anybody in that category, where they cannot see the only viable provider because someone else doesn't like what the doctor can do?

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' My Republican friends always talk about individual freedom and how important it is. This is an individual freedom of a woman's right to control her own body and to make personal choices on health care. We should not interfere with that. We should allow the most and the best health care to be available to all people. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two community leaders, Deborah Shapira and Barry L. Stern, who are being recognized as the Guests of Honor at this year's 48th Annual SAR Anniversary Dinner. Deborah and Barry have been intimately involved in SAR's outreach and operations, and are integral to the organization's success. They are most deserving of this wonderful recognition.

Ask anyone and they'll tell you, Deborah and Barry are among SAR's most thoughtful, humble and gracious members. Deborah serves on the SAR Board of Trustees, and is Chair of the SAR Academy Board of Education. Together, they served as Regional Vice Chairs for the 2014 Dinner, where Barry was involved in strategy and outreach. Deborah is a most active volunteer, working as a grade representative, class parent, Learning to Look volunteer, and committee member for the Academy's Chanukat Habayit, and regularly offering her wisdom on an array of academic issues. They have opened their home for parlor meetings and `meet and greets' to introduce and mentor SAR's new families.

Deborah, a graduate of the HaSha'ar teacher training program at the Drisha Institute, taught at Beit Rabban Day School in Manhattan. She currently serves as Board Chair for the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies, North America. Barry is Associate Clinical Professor of Medical Psychology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. He also has a private psychotherapy practice in midtown Manhattan.

But for Deborah and Barry, their true passion and love is first for family. They have three beautiful children, Pearl, Kayla, and Matan, and they are their pride and joy.

Congratulations again to Deborah and Barry on receiving this wonderful recognition, and thank you for all you've done in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and welcome a new leader in the community, Rabbi Adam Baldachin, who on February 5, 2017 will be installed as the new Rabbi of Shaarei Tikvah in Scarsdale.

Rabbi Baldachin joined Shaarei Tikvah in July 2016, drawn by the community's energy and warmth. He previously served as the Rabbi of Montebello Jewish Center in Rockland County. There, he founded the Rockland Clergy for Social Justice, a group of Jewish, Christian and Muslim clerics advocating for fair and equitable education for the public school students of East Ramapo, a district controlled by an ultra-Orthodox school board.

Rabbi Baldachin has also served communities as close as Riverdale, which is also a part of my district, and as far as Israel and Uganda. In Uganda he worked with the Abayudaya, the local Jewish Community, teaching Hebrew, leading services, and helping to build sustainable businesses.

A native of New Providence, NJ, Rabbi Baldachin earned his undergraduate degree from the Joint Program of Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary. He then completed his Rabbinical Degree with an M.A. in Midrash at the Seminary, where he received the prestigious Gladstein Fellowship in Entrepreneurial Rabbinic Leadership. He also completed extensive training in community organizing with JOIN for Justice and in pastoral care, interning as a chaplain at Self Help with Holocaust survivors.

When not serving his congregation, Rabbi Baldachin loves spending time with his beautiful family. He and his wife, Maitel, have three wonderful children and they are his pride and joy.

I know that Shaarei Tikvah is in very good hands with Rabbi Baldachin, and I know his presence will only strengthen our community further. Congratulations to him on this day.

Mr. Speaker, the strength of our Westchester community lies with those who are engaged and working to better it day by day. One of those engaged individuals is a constituent of mine, Paul Warhit, who has given his time and talent to a whole host of active civic groups in the region.

Born in Yonkers, Paul is a loyal son of Westchester. He had his bar- mitzvah at Mid-Chester Jewish Center and later graduated from Eastchester High School. He went on to attend Boston University and after completing college returned to New York to oversee the family business.

Paul's active involvement in Jewish communal life began in 1996, when llissa joined Temple Israel of New Rochelle. Less than a decade later, he became the synagogue's president. He has also served as president of the Board of American Jewish History Society, the New Rochelle Public Library Foundation, in addition to treasurer of the Jewish Deaf (and Hard-of-Hearing) Resource Center.

Thanks to his prolific involvement across a range of organizations, Paul's work caught the eye of the Westchester Jewish Council (WJC) who asked him to join their board. As is often the case with Paul, once he's on the board it's only a matter of time before he becomes the board's president, and Paul was elected to that post for WJC in 2013.

When not serving his community, Paul enjoys spending his down time reading and traveling the country to visit different Major League Baseball parks. He also serves as an umpire for Westchester High School baseball leagues.

This year, WJC is honoring Paul Warhit at the organization's 41st Anniversary Gala for all he has done to better our community. I want to congratulate Paul on this wonderful honor,

and thank him for all the years of amazing service to Westchester.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an active member of the Westchester community, Mr. Jeff Kohn, who is being honored this year by the Westchester Jewish Council (WJC) at the organization's 41st Annual Anniversary Gala.

Jeff has been an active member in the Westchester Jewish community for a long time. He and Martha are members of Temple Shaaray Tefila Bedford Corners, where he currently serves as President. Prior to that, he was a board member at the Temple for more than a decade, and Martha has also served actively as co-chairperson of the Caring Community committee. Outside of the Temple, Jeff is also quite active. He currently serves as an officer of the Westchester Jewish Council and serves on a whole host of other non-profit boards focused on education. He serves on the advisory board at NYU Law School; Cornell University's School of Industrial & Labor Relations; and the George Washington University Law School, from which he graduated in 1984. Jeff has since been honored by the school with their Distinguished Alumni Award.

A lawyer by trade, Jeff is Managing Partner of O'Melveny & Myers LLP's New York office, where he practices labor and employment law. In 2011, he received his first Warren Christopher Values Award, in recognition of individuals who epitomize the values that guide the firm. Jeff currently Chairs the firm's Values Award Committee and works on the firm's scholarship program, which provides financial support to deserving students from five New York City public high schools.

In both a personal and professional capacity, Jeff Kohn has always worked to improve his community. The WJC couldn't have picked a more deserving honoree for their annual Gala, and I want to congratulate Jeff and thank him for all of his amazing work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a member of the SAR team who has utilized her time and talents to transform the academy through the arts, Ms. Donna Salamon.

Donna is a uniquely talented artist who has spent countless hours over the last 12 years transforming the Academy's open spaces into gallery walls and museum-worthy displays. She has a passion to elevate Jewish education. With her strong connection to Eretz Israel, she has created projects that incorporate science, literature, history, and most importantly, Jewish values, through art. Her portfolio includes the design and production of a 720-square-foot mosaic mural, ``Do What is Right and Good,'' depicting the core elements of the SAR experience on the Academy field wall. The mural was a 10-month project featuring 75,000 tiles, 12 iconic images, signatures from every child (804) in the Academy, and the work of more than 1,000 volunteers.

Donna makes SAR celebrations come alive--life-size educational games based on history curricula for Yom Yerushalayim, a year-long ``Science is the Story,'' science, history and art program, including life-size dioramas and culminating in a Riverdale restaurant gallery showing. She also makes props for the Celebrate Israel Parade, banners for `theme of the year,' stunning alphabet/middot paintings for the graduation ceremony produced by art elective students she leads, backdrops for such milestone events as the Siddur and Chumash plays, and sets for drama productions.

When not working to improve SAR, Donna loves spending time with her family. She and her husband, David, live in Riverdale with their three beautiful children, Yedidya, Yonatan, and Yaakov.

Congratulations to Donna on being this year's SAR Michael Schreck Memorial Community Service Award honoree.

Mr. Speaker, as a former school teacher, I am intimately aware of the amazing impact educators can have on young minds. At SAR High School in my district, one such educator, Dr. Mark Shinar, has been changing the lives of his students in just such a profound way.

Abraham Joshua Heschel said that ``It is the personality of the teacher which is the text that pupils read; the text they will never forget.'' As Director of General Studies at SAR High School, Dr. Mark Shinar embodies this quote. He has proven to be a mentor and champion to his students both in and out of the classroom. He is deeply invested in their academic and long term personal growth which continues even after they leave SAR. His is the voice in their ear, the text they will not forget as they make key decisions in the future. Mark brings an infectious energy and enthusiasm to the classroom that energizes both students and faculty. He leads by example and listens to concerns of colleagues, peers and students always trying to improve the learning process. This is the true definition of a teacher. ``The classroom is air to me and the students are part of my family. It's a joy and remarkable privilege to teach at SAR.''

When not changing lives in the classroom, Mark enjoys spending his time just being a husband and dad. He and his wife, Lauren, are parents to four wonderful children, Aiden, Joseph, Samuel, and Ilan. The Shinar family are members of YIOZ in Riverdale, and will be making aliya at the end of the current academic year.

This year, SAR. is honoring Mark at the organization's 48th Anniversary Dinner with the Audrey Schurgin Memorial Faculty Award. They could not have picked a more deserving honoree. Congratulations again to Mark on receiving this well-deserved recognition, and thank you for all of your amazing work in the community.