Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, unfortunately, I happen to be the ranking member on the authorizing committee on this issue. None of the people who support OPIC have had an opportunity to speak. So depending upon how those 10 minutes are divided, otherwise, I would have to object. If the 10 minutes are to be divided on behalf of those who have not had any opportunity to speak in favor of OPIC and against the amendment, we may be able to do that, but if the 10 minutes are to be divided between all the parties, I would have to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, let me understand the unanimous consent request again. It is to have 15 minutes on each side of the aisle?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Each side of the issue?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, can the distinguished chairman advise me when this debate is going to commence on Monday?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are asking us to consider trillion dollar legislation that could affect the entire economy, put our Nation's jobs and prosperity at risk, sink our country into deficits, debt, and red ink, and they drew it all together in a few hours, like a patchwork quilt, and it is so ugly that they bring it out in the darkest of night. Republicans talk about the value of a trillion dollar tax cut for our wealthiest citizens. Their idea of family values is to leave a legacy of debt and fiscal irresponsibility for the next generation of taxpayers to clean up. The Democrats' idea of fiscal responsibility has been to resist budget-busting tax giveaways, and the result has been the first balanced budget in more than a generation. We have shown that fiscal discipline works, and that fiscal discipline is giving working Americans the biggest tax break of all: low interest rates, so they can afford to buy a home or a car; so their savings are not eaten away by inflation; so businesses can invest in new equipment and capital and create new jobs; and so workers' salaries maintain their value. But ever since they became the majority in this Congress, their only real value has been to propose one fiscally irresponsible giveaway after another. We Democrats believe in a different value: honoring our commitments. We believe in honoring our commitment to our senior citizens, who have paid into Social Security and Medicare over a lifetime of hard work and who deserve security in their retirement. We believe in honoring our commitment to our children's education, to make sure that every child in this Nation has the opportunity to reach his or her God-given potential. And we believe in honoring our commitment to future generations by using the budget surplus to truly pay down the national debt. Republicans, on the other hand, want to give a risky trillion dollar tax cut to the very wealthiest citizens that jeopardize all of these important commitments. And under their plan nearly half of those tax cuts would go to the wealthiest 1 percent. Mr. Speaker, the difference could not be clearer. Democrats want to honor our commitments to all of our citizens and the next generation. Their risk is a risk we cannot afford. Oppose the rule.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, I share the gentleman from Vermont's concerns, but I think this amendment is the wrong way to go about it. We do not seek to hurt South Africa, but we also do not seek to hurt American companies and their international intellectual property rights. When you go down the road of saying to American companies, forget about all of the research, all of the intellectual property rights that you possess, you go down a road that is going to hurt South Africa and Africa ultimately, because you want investment to take place and that investment is going to take place if people believe that their intellectual property rights are going to be observed. This amendment would restrict the ability of the administration to protect the intellectual property rights of American pharmaceutical companies in foreign countries. The State Department plays a crucial role in assisting U.S. companies whose intellectual property rights are violated by foreign governments. In fact, the law says we should defend intellectual property rights. Now, in the context of AIDS, we share that concern. That is why the U.S. Global Strategy on AIDS, released in March of 1999, cites health care infrastructure problems, including shortage of doctors, clinics and laboratories. That is our biggest obstacle. That is what we should be doing with the Vice President, $100 million more, but not violating the intellectual property rights of our companies. impact of amendment The amendment would restrict the ability of the Administration to protect the intellectual property rights of American pharmaceutical companies in foreign countries. The State Department plays a crucial role in assisting U.S. companies whose intellectual property rights are violated by foreign governments. The State Department has been successful in negotiating acceptable resolutions to these international trade conflicts, protecting both American interests and jobs. In fact, the law says that we should defend intellectual property rights. Section 315 of Uruguay Round Implementation Act states that it is the policy of the U.S. to seek enactment and implementation of foreign intellectual property laws that ``strengthen and supplement'' TRIPs. This amendment contradicts the law and would inhibit the pharmaceutical industry from seeking assistance from their own government to resolve intellectual property rights issue with foreign governments. While the author of the amendment contends that the restrictions would not apply if the bill was in compliance with TRIPs, I'm not sure how such a determination of a violation can be made without going to WTO. Unless, we decide that the State Department can make legal determinations about the legality or illegality of intellectual property rights actions, this amendment would allow the Administration to prejudge the outcome of a WTO case. The amendment is broadly drafted and could prohibit the Administration from acting even when there is a clear violation of TRIPs, as in the case of South Africa. The South African Medicines Act, which is under litigation in South Africa, not only permits parallel importation which is not permitted under Article 28 of the TRIPs agreements, it also contains a provision which allows the complete abrogation of patient rights at the discretion of the Minister of Health. Specifically, Section 15c of the South African Medicines Act says that, the Health Minister may determine ``that the rights with regard to any medicine under a patent granted in the Republic shall not extend to acts in respect of such medicine which has been put on the market by the owner of the medicine, or with his or her consent.'' Conceivably the amendment could compel the State Department to refrain from action if the government in question--in this case South Africa--claims that their actions are in compliance with TRIPs, since the amendment does not establish how to determine if an action is compliant with TRIPs. Members need to know the facts, Article 28 of TRIPs--the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property obligates countries to prohibit parallel importation of patented products. Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars annually for the research and development of pharmaceutical products--patents protect their intellectual property. If those rights can be arbitrarily violated what incentive remains to pursue R&D for new and more effective drugs. It is irresponsible to forbid our State Department from acting on behalf of companies and citizens and that is what this amendment would do. aids crisis It is important to note that the amendment is not specific to AIDS drugs and as such, would affect imports of all medicines. This amendment is not about the AIDS crisis. We do need to address the AIDS crisis in Africa. Last Friday this Chamber passed two amendments which recognize the need for the public and private sector to expand efforts, including legislation to address the AIDS crisis in Africa. We should address the AIDS crisis by adopting appropriate policies and programs. We should not adopt a policy which abrogates property rights and international agreements. The U.S. Global Strategy on HIV/AIDS, released in March 1999, cites health care infrastructure problems, including shortage of doctors, clinics and laboratories, as the biggest obstacles to the delivery of effective HIV/AIDS care. These are issues which we need to consider. On Monday, Vice President Gore announced a $100 million initiative to fight the growing AIDS epidemic in Africa, this is the type of action that we need to take and I intend to advocate for the authorization and appropriations of those funds. I urge Members to vote against the Sanders amendment and to look for real, meaningful solutions to the AIDS crisis.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations for both his support and encouragement in the committee, as well as today on the floor. This bill, which I have authored, seeks to protect the United States taxpayers from assisting countries like Iran which sponsor international terrorism, denounce the United States, and seek to develop weapons of mass destruction which may be used against us or our allies, from obtaining money indirectly from the United States through the International Atomic Energy Agency support for Iran's efforts to build a nuclear power plant on the Persian Gulf coast. Let me first say that I recognize the importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency and its role in ensuring the safety of nuclear sites around the world. And so did the over 405 Members of the House who last year voted for this bill as well. But this bill will not affect the International Atomic Energy Administration's safeguards program, and the bill does not seek to withhold any funds to IAEA's safeguard program in Iran or elsewhere. The only funds affected by this bill are our voluntary, not assessed, contributions to the IAEA's Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund for Iran. Second, I have amended the bill from last year so that withholding is not mandatory. Withholding is contingent upon the Secretary of State's certification to this committee, the Committee on International Relations, of three things, which are, 1, that the International Atomic Energy Administration's activities in Iran are consistent with U.S. nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals; 2, that the International Atomic Energy Administration's activities will not provide Iran with training or expertise relevant to the development of nuclear weapons; and, 3, that the International Atomic Energy Administration's activities are not being used as a cover for the acquisition of sensitive nuclear technology. If the Secretary can make that certification, then no funds will be withheld. If the Secretary cannot make that certification, then we are making the right decision by withholding funds. Now, this bill is not a significant change in policy. In fact, prior to 1994, U.S. law required the withholding of proportional IAEA voluntary funds to all countries on our list of terrorist States; and despite the change in the law, the administration continued to withhold those funds for 2 more years until 1996. What this bill does is require that the administration reinstate proportional withholding of IAEA voluntary funds, those funds we pay above and beyond our membership fees for the Safeguard Program for Iran, if the Secretary cannot make the requisite certification. It also requires the Secretary of State to undertake a comprehensive review of all IAEA programs and projects in other states which sponsor international terrorism to determine if the IAEA is sponsoring any other projects which conflict with the United States' nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals. Clearly, our monies should not be going to any country, especially voluntary monies, if they oppose our own nuclear nonproliferation goals. As it is, since the IAEA's inception, more than $52 million for the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund has gone to countries on the United States' list of states which sponsor terrorism. The United States is the largest supporter of the IAEA. We provide them with more than 25 percent of its annual budget. In the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund, we contribute about 32 percent, or over $18 million annually in voluntary funds. It is from that fund that the IAEA is providing over $1.5 million to date for the development of the new Bushehr nuclear power plant. Moreover, the IAEA has launched a new program this year to help Iran in the area of uranium exploration. Clearly, when we suspect that Iran has the requisite technology to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, it is not a wise idea to help them in their efforts to locate more of it. The Clinton administration has publicly stated its opposition to Iran's development of nuclear reactors and its concern about the development of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. In testimony before the United States Senate, Deputy Assistant Secretary Bob Einhorn explained, and I quote, ``In our views, this is a large reactor project. It will involve hundreds of Russians being in Iran, hundreds of Iranians or more being in Moscow being trained, and this large-scale kind of project can provide a kind of commercial cover for a number of activities that we would not like to see, perhaps much more sensitive activities than pursuing this power reactor project. It also will inevitably provide additional training and expertise in the nuclear field for Iranian technicians. ``In our view,'' this is now the Deputy Assistant Secretary speaking, ``in our view, given Iran's intention to acquire nuclear weapons, we do not want to see them move up the nuclear learning curve at all, and we believe this project would contribute to them moving up that curve,'' and that is the end of the quote. Last fall, during a press briefing at the State Department, its spokesman, James Rubin said of the Bushehr: ``We are convinced that Iran is using the Bushehr reactor project as a cover for acquiring sensitive Russian nuclear technology.'' Given Iran's historic support for terrorism, coupled with the fact that Iran boasts immense, immense oil and natural gas reserves and the seismic activity near Bushehr, we must question Tehran's motives for conducting expensive nuclear reactors. Moreover, the development of the nuclear reactors has been an economic nightmare for Iranians. Clearly, Iran does not need additional energy sources, considering it has some of the world's largest oil and natural gas reserves, nor is nuclear energy an economic choice for Iran. So, in essence, what is it for? Clearly, the concerns expressed by the administration, clearly, those concerns are about nuclear weaponry. And if we add to that the fact that Iran's missile capacity has been developed, we now will not only have a uranium exploration and uranium enrichment, we now have all of the facets not only to create nuclear weapons, but to deliver them. Mr. Speaker, we need to ask one basic question. Does it make sense for the United States and U.S. taxpayers to provide any kind of support for the construction of a nuclear reactor which we clearly and justifiably oppose. This bill seeks to protect the United States taxpayers from assisting countries like Iran, which sponsors international terrorism. It seeks to make sure that our dollars are not going to develop weapons of mass destruction that can be used against us and our allies. It is ludicrous for the United States to support a plan, even indirectly, which could pose a threat to its national security and to stability in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) who is an original cosponsor of this resolution, let me just say that we are pleased to see the House considering it today. The nearly 60-year- old border dispute with Ecuador and Peru was the most dangerous unresolved border dispute in this entire hemisphere. Fighting in the border area, which erupted seriously in 1995, threatened to destabilize a region which already faces so many other challenges. This resolution commends the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, countries which as guarantor parties helped to bring a 1995 cease-fire and facilitate negotiations for a permanent peace. First and foremost, it commends the Presidents and governments of Peru and Ecuador for negotiating a peace agreement that was signed last October, and since signing the peace agreement Ecuador and Peru have moved to implement the comprehensive agreement and to improve relations between its respective countries. A few weeks ago Presidents Fujimori and Mahuad met at the border to seal the agreement. They do still need our help. International support is needed for some elements of the peace settlement, especially an agreement on border integration and development. Manifestations of international support along the lines of what we are doing here today for the peace process will help to ensure its full implementation. But, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if at the same time that we are congratulating Peru along with Ecuador for peace on their border I did not also mention some grave concerns that I and many colleagues in Congress have at this time regarding Peru. I am concerned about an erosion in Peru's democracy. Freedom of expression, judicial independence from the executive, and other aspects of the country's democracy have been threatened recently. I know we will have other opportunities in the near future to address these concerns, I know that they are concerns shared by our distinguished chairman of the committee. I would only urge Peru that while we today in the Congress congratulate and that while itself as the government congratulates itself and the Peruvian people for reaching peace with Ecuador, it also look inward and make sure that Peruvian peace and democracy are not threatened at home.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Vicki L. Beard as she prepares to culminate her active duty career in the United States Army. Vicki is the epitome of an outstanding officer and leader. Lieutenant Colonel Beard began her career more than 24 years ago as an enlisted soldier. She then received her commission as a second lieutenant. A graduate of the University of Cincinnati, as well as the Command and General Staff College, Vicki Beard has met the many challenges of military service as an Army Officer, and has faithfully served her country in a variety of command and staff assignments in the Continental United States, Germany, and Korea. Vicki was previously assigned to the Army Congressional Investigation Division as a Congressional Liaison Officer. During her tenure in the Army Legislative Liaison Office, Vicki served on several investigation panels, spearheading changes in current Army personnel policy. She concludes her career as the Special Assistant for Personnel Policy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Always thorough and precise in applying her personnel expertise, Vicki has been very generous with colleagues, both senior and subordinate, who sought out her advice on personnel and legislative matters. Senior Defense officials depended on Vicki for her studious approach to matters, and Congressional Members and staff looked to her for her honesty, candor, and professional assessment of any given situation. Mr. Speaker, service and dedication to duty have been the hallmarks of Lieutenant Colonel Beard's career. She has served our nation and the Army well during her years of service, and we are indebted for her many contributions and sacrifices in the defense of the United States. I am sure that everyone who has worked with Vicki joins me in wishing her health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of thousands of residents in my district, who as Americans of Puerto Rican descent care deeply about what is happening to their many friends and relatives on the island of Vieques. One week ago, while on a visit to Puerto Rico, I visited Vieques, at which time I met with Vieques's Mayor Manuela Santiago at a town meeting she hosted, and attended a briefing by Rear Admiral Kevin Moran, Commander, Navy Region Southeast. On my flight to Vieques I observed an island that is naturally gifted and beautiful, with some of the most marvelous beaches in the Western Hemisphere. Its people love their island, are hardworking and industrious, as is evidenced by the fishermen I met. But Vieques' natural beauty is scarred and its tremendous economic potential is blocked by the presence and activities of the U.S. Navy. Let me say from the outset that I do not doubt the Navy's claim that the type of training the Navy conducts as Vieques is vital to its defense mission. It certainly is. What I strongly disagree with is the Navy's position that there is nowhere else in the entire hemisphere where such training could take place. If God had not gifted us with Vieques, or if, God forbid, Vieques was subsumed by an earthquake, would the Navy tell us that it would be impossible for them to perform their defense mission for the United States? I think not. Might it be an inconvenience? Yes. Might it take some time? Yes. Might is cost money? Yes. But to take the firm position that the nation's defense rests solely on Vieques is simply not credible or acceptable. So why should the Navy permanently cease all live and inert ammunition exercises and, therefore, ultimately leave the island and return it to the people of Vieques and Puerto Rico? I think the answers can be found in the voices of the people of Vieques I met and in the sights I observed. From Mayor Santiago's presentation, one would conclude the Navy has in their actions been insensitive to the economic development needs of the island. This insensitivity has real, tragic, human consequences. Over 70% of the residents are below the poverty line, a rate 14% above the rest of Puerto Rico, and unemployment is exceedingly high. Carlos Ventura, a leader in the fishing community, vividly describes the very significant damage that the Navy's restrictions, operations, amphibious landings, mine sweeping, and live ammunition explosions have caused in the loss of fish, coral reef, and the destruction of natural fishing habitats--all of which has caused the deterioration of the fishing industry. For all these reasons, when you visit Vieques and talk of the Navy, you will hear voices of despair and distrust. The risk of developing cancer is greater in Vieques than in any other municipality in Puerto Rico. The infant mortality rate is among the highest of any municipality. So when Dr. Luis Rivera Castano speaks of the presence of explosive components like RDX and Tetryl in the potable water reserves of Vieques, or of chemical compounds in the actual charges of the projectiles themselves, his reasoned voice is one of concern and alarm. Then there were the passionate voices of the Alliance of Vieques Women, and of Alba Encarnacion, a school teacher, who spoke eloquently of their sleepless nights and of their anxiety and fear for their security, peace, and health. The voices of these mothers are the voices of Vieques children. From that town meeting, I went on a Navy helicopter to a briefing at the observation post where security guard David Sarnes Rodriguez was killed and four others injured. That briefing focused on the need the Navy has to perform such training, but it did little to convince me that the devastating sights I saw of the leveling of hills and coconut plantations, and the blasting off the face of the Earth of lagoons and cays, was not an environmental injustice. Nor was I convinced of the fairness and balance of the Navy, with its constant denial of virtually all of the concerns and complaints voiced by the citizens of Vieques. The lack of any real adherence to the Memorandum of Understanding of October 11, 1983, and the Navy's original denial of having fired 268 rounds of uranium depleted bullets, added to all of the previously mentioned denials, clearly gives the Navy a major credibility problem with the people of Vieques, the people of Puerto Rico, and I would add a growing number of Members of Congress, including myself. While the report issued by the Navy yesterday continues to reaffirm its position, its recommendations begin to show that there is clearly some culpability and responsibility that even the Navy must admit. The 9,311 American citizens who call Vieques home--squeezed between the ammunitions warehousing area and the firing range area--have suffered harmful and detrimental effects on the quality of their lives, creating an economic and social condition which rates below the rest of Puerto Rico's population. If this were anywhere else, we would be talking about environmental racism. The incidents listed in the Government of Puerto Rico's Special Commission report from 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999, are all indicators of a greater tragedy waiting to happen. I can tell you as a seven-year member of the International Relations' Western Hemisphere subcommittee that Caribbean and Latin American countries are watching and talking about how we act in response to the abuses of the people in Vieques. We cannot be examples of democracy and human rights abroad unless we observe them at home. This is not a question of ill will toward the people of the United States. The people of Puerto Rico love America. They love it so much that thousands of their sons and daughters have worn the uniform of the U.S., served it voluntarily, and given their lives for its values since the first Puerto Rican battalion was created in 1900. We need to value them as U.S. citizens. Living in Vieques should not take an act of courage. These 9,311 American citizens are entitled to go to their jobs and schools, attend church, and be able to achieve health and economic security, just like other American citizens can. In conclusion, I believe we should demilitarize the island, decontaminate it, and devolve it so that its citizens can develop its economic potential, and achieve in Vieques the peace and security they deserve as American citizens.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax cut plan of a trillion dollars is fiscally irresponsible and will leave a legacy of debt and deficit for the next generation of taxpayers, and that is why they only show us charts for the first 5 years of their tax cut plan. They do not show us the last 5 years where the tax cuts will explode and leave us with an enormous gap in the budget. Their tax cut plan will create higher deficits and, therefore, create higher interest rates for American families and businesses. That is not a value we Democrats share. Democrats believe that we have to pay down the national debt, and Republicans want a massive tax cut. Democrats value the contribution of seniors who have helped build families and community and who should be able to retire with dignity and health security. That is why we want to pay the debt, extend the life for Social Security and Medicare. Republicans want to go on a wild tax cut spree that leaves nothing for Medicare, nothing for Social Security, and nothing for our prescription drug program. That is fiscal irresponsibility we cannot have. It is a value we do not share.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 189th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of Colombia from Spain and to proclaim July 19-23, 1999, as ``Colombian Week'' in the City of Elizabeth, NJ. The Colombian Community in the City of Elizabeth has made great contributions to my district, as well as to the State of New Jersey. They have provided many invaluable services, and their culture and heritage continues to enrich the entire 13th District. Repeatedly, they have worked diligently to realize every opportunity that American democracy provides. Because of their spiritual and cultural values, the Colombian community of Elizabeth has exemplified civil responsibility. They have emerged as true role models for all Americans by working not only for the welfare of the Colombian community, but for the health, wealth, and welfare of the city at large. The initiation of ``Colombian Week'' offers a time for the Colombian community to celebrate Colombia's growth as a nation and to share that feeling with the entire community of Elizabeth. Through teaching and learning from each other's experiences, we are able to build a strong and united community. I invite all the people of Elizabeth to unite and help to commemorate this great Colombian anniversary. I am happy to honor the Colombian community for their many achievements and contributions to the City of Elizabeth. As the city unites to commemorate the 189th anniversary of Colombia, may we all take a moment to recognize their great efforts and accomplishments.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today Democrats take the next step in the long, arduous road to real patient protections, despite the fact that Republicans continue to construct roadblocks to meaningful managed care reform. Republicans will claim that they are moving managed care reform through the committee process, but what they will not tell us is that these so-called reforms lack meaning and enforcement. The American people deserve more than empty promises and rhetoric. They deserve to choose their doctor. They deserve access to specialists. They deserve to have doctors, not health care bureaucrats, making their vital medical decisions. Most importantly, they deserve legal remedies to hold their health plans accountable. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights provides these guarantees. Republicans are up to the same old tricks again this year. They will not even allow us to bring the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights to a debate here on the floor for the American people to listen and ultimately for all of us to vote on. Last year, protecting their special interests, they narrowly defeated the real patient protections Democrats pushed to the floor. Then realizing that we represented the views of Americans across this country, they put forth a watered down proposal to try to detract from the real issues. Again this year Republicans are doing the same thing. This discharge petition should serve as a wake-up call to Republicans that Americans want real patient protections and they want it now.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 230 I was avoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am here to ask Members to show some courage for the sake of our children. I am here to ask the 56 Republicans who were brave enough to buck the power of the gun lobby and vote for the Brady law to show that courage again and vote for the McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich amendment which closes the last loophole in the Brady law. Right now a criminal with a rap sheet of violent crimes can go to a flea market and buy an arsenal of weapons and not even be subject to a criminal background check. This is an outrageous and inexcusable state of affairs and the McCarthy-Roukema amendment stops it. The Republican bill, however, falls far short from closing the loophole. Now, the NRA is happy about that, because it gives the appearance of doing something without doing something. But who are my Republican colleagues answering to, the NRA or our children and our families and the tragedies we have seen across this country? To those 56 Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, finish the job with us. Stand with us. Vote for the McCarthy-Roukema amendment. Close this loophole that criminals are using to buy guns and show that you are standing for our Nation's children and against a gun lobby that has gotten out of control and out of touch with the priorities of the American people. The life you save with this vote may not only be your own, but more importantly it may be of your child or your grandchild or your neighbor's child. This is a crucial vote. This is a vote that sends a message whether we are serious about entering the next century making our schools and our communities safer for our children and our families. Vote for the McCarthy amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Republicans have time for the NRA. The Republican leadership gave the gun lobby nearly a month to twist arms and try to derail a gun safety bill. In fact, the New York Times said this morning, and I quote, Republican leaders have worked out a scheme to make it easier for lawmakers who take their cue from the National Rifle Association to vote against meaningful reform. First, Republicans say they need time to consider a bill in committee, and then they bring a bill to the floor that skips the committee process. Then Republicans say they want to work out a bipartisan solution. Instead, they split the bill in two parts so the NRA can try to kill the gun safety provisions. Mr. Speaker, scheming with the NRA while our children's lives are at stake is a disgrace. It is time Republicans stop scheming and plotting political strategy with the gun lobby and start working on solutions to save our children from the epidemic of gun violence. It is time to have the Republican leadership stop pandering to the radical right in their party and start fighting for American parents who want to send their kids to school safely each day.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Republicans need to decide who is more important to them, our children or their politics. Because if they want to play politics with the issue of gun safety, they should explain why to the parents of Sean Harvey of West Paterson in my home State of New Jersey. Sean did not live to see his 17th birthday because he was shot by a man who mistakenly thought he was stealing a neighbor's car. Well, the car belonged to a friend of Sean's, and the gun used to kill him was unlicensed by a man with a list of prior offenses. This Congress has a responsibility to get these guns off the street and to make sure that everyone who buys a gun is subject to a background check. When it comes to keeping our children safe in their schools and in our neighborhoods, there should be no loopholes and no exceptions. There is nothing more important than the safety of our children, and it is a sad day in this House and this Nation when the Republican leadership gives the NRA all of the time necessary before the Memorial Day break to be able to work over Members and to create a process that is destined to failure, destined to fail our children in terms of safety, destined to fail the citizens of this country in terms of safety and destined to ensure the NRA's victory.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this amendment. But I really have real concerns when there are those who would use national security to achieve partisan political advantage. However, in their zealous effort to make this a partisan political issue, even though it goes back 2 decades and even though it includes efforts during Republican administrations to have some turn us back to the Stone Age. There was an original amendment which would have restricted the export of your basic laptop computer to China. That simply is not reality. We need to proceed as we move on beyond this amendment cautiously with this debate. This near faux pax would have been disastrous for American industry while having no impact on China. We need to carefully consider how to best address our national security while simultaneously taking into consideration the reality of today's global marketplace, and we need to understand that America does not have a monopoly on advanced technology. Now, the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, of which I am the ranking Democrat, has jurisdiction over the Nation's export control policies. I am disconcerted that we have not had an opportunity to consider the proposals contained in the amendment before us in the subcommittee or in the full committee. So we look forward to working on those issues in the days ahead. But the issues raised in the Cox-Dicks report are not partisan issues. Democrats and Republicans are equally concerned about our national security. So let us proceed with caution and address the issues raised by the report in a responsible manner, with the full input of the relevant committees, industries, and government agencies. Let us not unfairly stigmatize Americans of Asian descent who have contributed to the greatness of this country. I believe that everyone in this Chamber wants to ensure the national security of the United States. But we also have to do it in a way that keeps the tip of the iceberg in terms of America's technology away from those others who may not have it in the global marketplace, but make sure we are competitive in all other respects. No one has a cornerstone on national security interest in this Chamber.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Abraham Zuckerman and his wife, Mina, as they prepare to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of their emigration to the United States. Fifty years ago, Mr. and Mrs. Zuckerman left behind the degradation of the Nazi regime and the loneliness and disdain of the displacement camps and headed to America to start a new life--one without bitterness and without hatred. The Zuckerman's relocated to New Jersey and raised their family, which has now grown to three children, eight grandchildren, and one great-granddaughter. The Zuckerman's flourished in their new homeland but they have continued to bear witness to the horrors they endured during the Holocaust. Mr. Zuckerman's commitment to bearing witness to the honest and truthful portrayal of the Holocaust has spanned a lifetime. He has made it his quest to educate people about both the atrocities and the heroism of the era. Mr. Zuckerman has been dedicated to honoring the memories of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, including countless friends and relatives, as well as honoring the memory of the man to whom he says he owes his life--Oskar Schindler. Well before Oskar Schindler was a household name, Mr. Zuckerman had been personally responsible for the renaming of more than 20 streets in the State of New Jersey after the German industrialist and remarkable humanitarian. In fact, Mr. Zuckerman committed his tory to prose in a truly extraordinary and captivating book, ``A Voice in the Chorus: Memories of a Teenage Saved by Schindler.'' In addition, Mr. Zuckerman is a founding member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, a member of the Executive Committee of the Holocaust Research Center at Kean College in New Jersey, and is the President of the Jewish Education Center of Elizabeth, New Jersey. Mr. and Mrs. Zuckerman have overcome unimaginable obstacles and they have done it with love, compassion, understanding, and, most importantly, hope. For these tremendous accomplishments, I ask that you all join me in honoring Mr. and Mrs. Zuckerman on this momentous occasion.