Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I hope my New Jersey Republican colleagues will remember that not only will we be hurting New Jersey senior citizens who will pay $1,000 for the privilege of getting less but we will lose $14 billion, $7 billion from Medicare, $7 billion from Medicaid. That is not right. It is wrong. It is not necessary, and there is not one New Jersey Representative who can stand on this floor and in good conscience vote for this package. This is not the Medicare Preservation Act. It is the Medicare Destruction Act, and New Jersey is one of the prime targets. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to devastating Medicare. Common sense dictates that taking $270 billion out of your account--and telling you that you will be better off--just does not make sense. If this bill passes, it will hurt Americans of all ages. Seniors will be hurt because they will have less choice in their health care. They will be hurt because they will pay over $1,000 more by the year 2002. To remain in Medicare as they know it, they will be forced to pay substantially higher prices than they do today. Their children will be hurt because they will be expected to step in and help their older parents meet these rising Medicare and nursing home expenses, at the same time they're trying to send their kids to school. If this bill passes, our hospitals will be severely impacted. I hope my New Jersey colleagues remember that Medicare provides 45 percent of all hospital revenues--76 of our New Jersey hospitals will be on a critical list. Many of those hospitals receive over 65 percent of their revenue from Medicare; and, if this bill passes, they may be forced to consolidate, offer fewer services, or even close. Any of those options adversely impact everyone in the community; not just seniors. And everyone will suffer because of the reduced health care delivery systems available to them. This bill is not a Medicare Preservation Act. It's the Medicare Destruction Act. Thirty years ago, 93 percent of all Republicans voted against Medicare--trying to kill it before it was born--now they're trying to kill it again. The $452 billion savings attained at the expense of our older Americans, our poor women and children and even the working children of senior citizens will be used to pay for a $245 billion tax cut which benefits a minority of wealthy Americans. It is not fair, it is not right, it is not necessary. We should vote ``no.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Borough of East Newark, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Although East Newark is small in size, the residents are known for their big hearts. Once a part of Kearny, East Newark broke away in the spring of 1895 to become an independent borough. The vote was cast for incorporation on July 2, 1895, and the new borough, just 64 acres in area, became the smallest community in the State of New Jersey. Two of the early industries in East Newark were the Clark Thread Co. and the Clark Mile End Spool Cotton Co., the largest thread mills in the United States at the time. The companies became Englehard Industries in the early 1930s. The area is now home to the East Newark Industrial Center, which houses over 80 corporations in the garment industry. With its industries in place, East Newark began to build its community. The East Newark Volunteer Fire Department was organized in October 1895, and the East Newark Police Department was established a month later. Today, both are still in place, 100 years after they were first established to provide for the protection of life and property. East Newark's first public school was built in 1896, and still serves children from kindergarten to eighth grade. The first church established in the borough was St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church, the congregation originally founded in 1901 by Italians who moved from West Hoboken. While the original church was destroyed by fire in 1935, it was soon rebuilt and still serves the community today at the same site on Second Street. In many ways, East Newark's history continues to influence the present. Current Mayor Joseph R. Smith is a descendant of John C. Smith, one of the original petitioners in the effort to establish the borough. I would like to salute Mayor Smith, Council President Walter Roman, Councilman Hans Peter Lucas, Councilman William Lupkovich, Councilman Frank Madalena, Councilman Robert Rowe, and Councilman Charles Tighe for continuing a tradition of excellence in community service. While the past century has seen monumental changes in the face of the community, East Newark remains an example of smalltown pride and big- spirited determination. With a population of only 2,200, East Newark proves that you do not have to be big in size to make a big contribution. Please join me today in celebrating the 100th anniversary of this little metropolis, which continues to forge its own path on the road to a new century.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Hudson County Community College, as its staff and students begin a new era in education at the college's newest building. The college will be unveiling its new flagship building, at 25 Pathside in Jersey City, on September 27, 1995. The college will hold a ribbon cutting ceremony and will sponsor a parade through the Journal Square area. Hudson County Community College is a comprehensive community college. Its top goal is to offer quality programs and services which are accessible, affordable, and community centered. These services are designed to meet the educational needs of an ethnically and racially diverse community. For more than 20 years the college has been offering its students quality teaching and programs that have helped them earn associates degrees in various fields. Through the years, the college has expanded and grown. It has become one of the fastest growing colleges in New Jersey. Seeing the need to expand its facilities, the college acquired the Pathside Building in December 1993. The building, built in 1912, was originally used as a commercial office building for the Public Service Corporation of New Jersey. Hudson County Community College acquired the building to provide its students with better facilities. It has renovated the building and now offers many new facilities, such as a 30,000 volume library, instructional support center, classrooms, laboratories, executive offices, meeting rooms, and student activities facilities. Please join me in congratulating Hudson County Community College for successfully entering a new stage in its development as a community college. The college has a long tradition of providing its staff and students with quality services and facilities, a tradition that will no doubt be enhanced by this new facility. I am proud to have Hudson County Community College in my congressional district. The college provides the public an excellent education and a chance for a better future.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today before the House of Representatives to pay tribute to the Exxon Chemical Company's Bayway chemical plant as it celebrates 75 years of doing business in Union County. It will commemorate its platinum anniversary on September 27, in Linden, NJ. The Bayway chemical plant has been a good corporate neighbor and has contributed a great deal to our community and our Nation. For 75 years, Bayway has done an excellent job in creating a good relationship between the plant and the community. The Bayway chemical plant is a vital and a responsible part of the community, creating well-paying jobs and providing benefits to the residents of Union County. At the Bayway chemical plant, the petrochemical age began 75 years ago. By producing a chemical widely used in rubbing alcohol, the plant heralded the dawn of a new era. In the decades that followed, Bayway helped to meet the ever-increasing demand for petrochemicals. From the earliest efforts of marketing isopropyl alcohol to today's commitment to safe and environmentally-sound operations, Bayway has managed to answer the needs of a changing marketplace and to maintain leadership in the chemical manufacturing business. The Bayway chemical plant should also be applauded for its safety procedures and utmost respect for the environment. In 1994, the employees earned safety through accountability certification, the top level of achievement in the U.S. Occupational and Health Administration Voluntary Protection Program. Responsible care, the Chemical Manufacturers Association program, is committed to improving the industry's responsible management of chemicals. Since 1989, the Bayway chemical plant has reduced its emissions 66 percent. This has been accomplished through the careful updating and refitting of equipment. The Exxon Chemical Company's Bayway chemical plant should be commended for its 75 years of invention and innovation in chemical manufacturing. I salute the employees for their outstanding service and dedication to fulfilling the needs of fellow Americans. I wish them the best of luck for the next 75 years.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise before the House of Representatives to pay tribute to Joanne L. Smith, Elnora Watson, and Carol Ann Wilson, this year's recipients of the Mary T. Norton Congressional Award. This prestigious award, sponsored by the United Way Partners in Caring, will be presented at its 60th Annual Campaign Kick-Off Luncheon on September 26, 1995. The United Way of Hudson County, founded in 1935, works to meet human service needs with the help of a staff of volunteers, including approximately 1,100 corporate, labor, government, and civil leaders. The United Way initiated this award in 1990 in recognition of Congresswoman Norton's commitment to human services. This award recognizes women who make an outstanding effort in furthering the success of United Way Programs in our community and statewide. Joanne L. Smith, born, raised, and educated in Jersey City, holds a bachelor's degree in urban studies from St. Peter's College. As executive director of Let's Celebrate, a local United Way organization feeding the hungry, she serves the community by moving people from hunger to wholeness. She has developed a 19-week job training program called Job Power. Ms. Smith serves as a volunteer for many organizations, including homeless shelters and a 24-hour helpline. Elnora Watson is a native of Jersey City who serves as the president and chief executive officer of the Urban League of Hudson County. Ms. Watson, a St. Peter's College graduate, has been employed at the Urban League for the past 19 years. The Urban League promotes racial harmony by working to stamp out prejudice and intolerance in communities throughout the Nation. As leader of the Urban League of Hudson County, she has developed numerous outreach programs in an effort to help bring the promise of America to those less fortunate. Carol Ann Wilson, a graduate of Seton Hill College in Pennsylvania, was elected to Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities. She holds a master's degree in educational psychology from Fordham University. As an educator and director of special services in the Secaucus Public School District, she developed special education programs which assist children with special needs. In the past, she was named ``New Jersey's Outstanding Young Woman'' and ``New Jersey Woman of the Year.'' Ms. Wilson was involved in generating funds for community mental health programs. As director of the Hudson County Department of Human Services, she developed the AIDS Network of Care which attempts to work with AIDS patients who also suffer from substance abuse. These three individuals, the United Way and all of the volunteers of America should be commended for their compassion for and dedication to the needs of their fellow Americans. I salute them today.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Linden Industrial Association, an association that has represented the city of Linden's manufacturing industry with diligence and professionalism, on its 60th anniversary. The association will celebrate its anniversary on September 27 at a special event entitled ``Linden--2000 and Beyond.'' The organization was formed in 1935 to assist the city in formulating its budget each year. As time passed the organization evolved--now its main purpose is to create a strong business climate for its members. The association also works to inform its members about environmental and safety regulations. The association promotes sound business practices and corporate responsibility. Sixty-five corporations are members of the association, such giants ranging in size from Merck & Co., General Motors and Exxon Chemical and including smaller companies as well. New and old businesses receive excellent guidance from the association that leads to long and prosperous business relationships. The association aims to keep communication open between industry, business, and government. The association has often been compared to a chamber of commerce. Their purpose is to help the businesses and to provide as much support and information as possible. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the Linden Industrial Association on its 60th year anniversary. The association is truly a remarkable organization that strives to provide better service to its members.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague and sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], who I must say has been a strong proponent of freedom and democracy in Cuba, for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, unlike many others who have spoken here, and I question no one's motives, I believe that they want to help the Cuban people, but I believe that their efforts to do so are misguided. I say that as someone, not who deals with this issue in the abstract. I say it as someone who has family living in Cuba. I say it as someone who understands the difficulties they go through. I go through the phone calls, I go through the letters; that is not something others can say. I do not deal with this issue of humanitarianism in the abstract. I deal with it in reality. But let us talk about some truths. Some of the truths are this: The Cuban people suffer, yes. Why? They suffer because the dictatorship does not do the market reforms and create the political openings that can relieve their suffering. We are not the only providers of food and medicine in the world. If not, we would dictate the world's policies. The fact of the matter is that there are tremendous pharmaceutical companies in Europe. The fact of the matter is that we have countries that are part of the breadbasket of the world, and the fact is they all trade with Cuba, but they are unwilling to give it to them gratuitously. I say to my colleagues, you need something called hard currency. You need money to be able to purchase those foods and those medical supplies, and that is what Castro simply does not have because he relied on $6 billion of what was the Soviet Union, he lost it, and now he has not made the changes to help the Cuban people. And do we have national interests? Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, this is the third-largest army in the Western Hemisphere. I do not suggest, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] has said we do not face a risk of invasion; that is not what I am suggesting. But why do they need the third-largest army in the hemisphere if their people are hungry? Why do they use money to have the largest standing army and a huge security force if their people are hungry? Stop spending the money on the bullets and the rifles, and start putting food on the plates of families in Cuban homes, in my family's homes. Now they have chosen to stay because they do not want to leave their homeland. They stay and fight, and they risk their lives every day to do so, and I risk it to some extent because of what I do here. Now that is something we do not have to worry about in the United States, so this debate in the abstract is one thing. Now we have heard a lot about what do the Cuban people want. We want to relieve their suffering, but we cannot do it while we have someone who, in fact, seeks to do everything to repress them, use his resources not to put food and medical supplies that he can accomplish throughout the world, and we are the greatest remitters of that. The Cuban Democracy Act that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] helped pass and that was overwhelmingly voted by this House opened up the doors for medical supplies which did not exist prior to that in our embargo. But when we want to hear what the Cuban people have to say, I will give my colleagues two different specific examples. When we went with a group of Members of the House to Guantanamo where 30,000 people risked the Florida Straits, risked their lives, brought their children with them to flee from a regime because of liberty, which is the word that used when we got there, not simply because of hunger, but for liberty, they said to us, the democratically elected leaders of those camps, the first ones who had an opportunity to have a free election; they did not say to us, ``The United States is punitive against us, you are hurting us.'' No, they said, ``Why can't you get the Mexicans, and the Canadians, and the Spanish, and others to join with us and have an international embargo,'' as we did in Haiti, as we did in the divestitures of South Africa, to help free those people from those oppressive regimes. They said, ``Why don't you do that? We want to end our suffering once and for all. We don't want to have to free our homeland.'' So who makes the Cuban people suffer? In the words of the Cuban people, not here in Congress; that is the words of those who were trying to flee, the 30,000. They said, ``We support your efforts.'' And just yesterday 40-something brave Cubans who risked their lives by putting their names to a letter saying, ``We support his bill,'' told the Congress, ``Vote with us, be with us, help us in a free and democratic Cuba.'' They said, ``Vote with us.'' Now these people risked their lives. Those who do not think that this is true, we have thousands of political prisoners in jail. We have these people who were willing for liberty, for freedom, and to end the suffering of the Cuban people. Now I have heard a lot about this is cold war rhetoric. The fact of the matter is no one has told Fidel Castro the cold war is over. He has not gotten over it, he has not stopped repressing his people, and what is best for the Cuban people? They have told us, they have told us, the 30,000 who were in those camps, they told us, ``Strengthen this embargo, try to get other countries to join you.'' They did not say to stop it, and what did the people who valiantly fight, who are dissidents in Cuba, fight for, and what are they willing to risk their lives? Today they said, in fact, ``Go ahead and pass this bill.'' This bill is about standing up for American interests, it is in the national interests, giving our companies and our citizens the right to sue for properties that were illegally confiscated, and it also says, the part that I wrote, ``We can go help the Cuban people in a transition to democracy, and we lay out that groundwork.'' Vote against the substitute, vote for the bill, in the United States interests and also in the interests of the Cuban people.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], the distinguished member from the Committee on Rules, for yielding, especially since I rise to support the rule and the legislation. I appreciate him yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I want to strongly support H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. I have worked tirelessly on this legislation since its introduction and written significant parts of it. Mr. Speaker, this legislation strongly endorses the proposition that our policy toward the Cuban dictatorship must address the hard and disturbing realities of Castro's tyranny, not the unwarranted hopes for this dictatorship that some will maintain. It just as strongly rejects the notion that we must formulate policy toward Cuba's dictatorship as if it were not a dictatorship, as if it were a civilized member of the international community. It is not. There is no debate about Cuba's horrendous human rights record, its refusal to allow free and democratic elections, and its wanton disregard for the well-being of its people. I support a structured rule on this vital piece of legislation. The reason that I support a structured rule in relation to this legislation is simple. Unlike other far reaching legislation, which covers a broad scope of issues--this legislation is issue specific and narrowly tailored to produce a designed result. It can be accepted or rejected on the House floor. I believe it will receive broad bipartisan support. Do we want to be positive agents for democratic change in Cuba or do we want to squander the opportunity to promote democratic institutions and [[Page H 9336]] free markets? I am concerned that misplaced good intentions will delay the establishment of important transitional organizations that will promote freedom in this much oppressed country. I hope that the debate and amendments on this carefully crafted language will present constructive steps to promote democratization and not rehash cold war rhetoric. This is not the time to abandon the bipartisan policy behind which the Nation united for 50 years and led to the ultimate defeat of totalitarianism. Ten Presidents have waited for the opportunity to bring freedom to America's only neighbor that suffers under dictatorship. It is time to render this regime to the dustbin of history and welcome a new neighbor to the fraternity of free nations.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I came with prepared remarks, but let me just say, I understand the fire of this institution. I understand debate, but I do not understand the comments of some of my colleagues. I would wonder how my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] or the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] who spoke before would feel if he heard, as we heard from one of our colleagues from Florida, that there are too many Cubans, you have to shut it down. That is a hell of a statement. I appreciate the gentleman's kind words towards me, but that does not wipe that statement clean. They have come to this country and contributed, they have worked hard, they have played by the rules, they have helped build up cities, and they have suffered. I do not understand that comment. I do not understand the comments of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] about the special narrow interest groups. Over 300 Members of this House voted for the rule, over 72 Democratic Members, nearly one- third of the [[Page H 9346]] Democratic Caucus voted for a rule. Is that a narrow interest? Why is it that when we talk about Cuban Americans it is a narrow interest? Was NAFTA a narrow interest for Mexican-Americans? Was the issue of Israel a narrow interest for those who are Americans of Jewish descent? No, we accept that. I keep hearing that we violate NAFTA and GATT. This bill does not have anything to do what that. It did maybe with the sugar provisions. Those are out. Where is NAFTA and GATT involved here? I know that is an intent to lure the free traders away, but that is not in here. I heard the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], a colleague, upset me again. He paints with a broad brush. He said, the people who are about this, who support this are about elitism and greed. Well, I will have the gentleman know that my family was poor in Cuba and it was poor when it came to the United States. No one in my family graduated from college until I went to school here in the United States, and I resent those remarks. The gentleman may have a divergence of view on policy, but the gentleman has no right to paint a group of people in such a manner, no right. I listened to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] who I respect at least in the context that he finally called Fidel Castro what he is, a dictator, which too many people who come here make believe that the United States are the bad guys. What about the dictatorship? The one thing I have that none of the people who have spoken here, except for my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) have, is family in Cuba. Everybody else talks about it abstractly. Everybody else talks about it in the context that we are creating suffering and oppression of people in Cuba. The only person who is doing that is Fidel Castro. And I say that as someone who has family there. No one else who spoke before, other than the people I have mentioned, can say that. And they still suffer. But they do not suffer because of what I do in the United States Congress. They suffer because of a person that has chosen a course of action that keeps them oppressed, not only from political liberties, but from economic reforms that would make their lives better. I rarely talk about my family in these debates because I do not need them to suffer any more as a result of what I do here in this House, but my efforts are not to hurt my family. They are to try to liberate them, and I am upset to hear, upset to hear that what we seek is pain and bloodshed. The only blood that can be spilt in Cuba is the arms of Fidel Castro. He has the guns, he has the army, he has the security forces, and only he can turn those arms against the people of Cuba. Mr. Chairman, let's talk about him. I understand differences in opinions as to how we proceed, but I do not accept the comments of some of my colleagues who say that there are too many Cubans here, that is why we have got to shut down the door. I do not accept the comments of some of my colleagues who call this a narrow interest of view when we have such a wide range of support. I do not accept those comments. Mr. Chairman, I start with a very basic premise. It has always been, and I believe always will be, in the national interest of the United States to promote a change to peaceful and ultimately democratic change in Cuba. It is in our national interest. I speak as an American when I say it is in our national interest because Cuba has the third largest army in the entire Western Hemisphere under the command of a dictatorship. It is in our national interest because Castro seeks to finish a nuclear power plant 90 miles away from the United States of a Chernobyl type. We do not need another Chernobyl 90 miles away from the United States. It is in our national interest because Castro continues to violate the human rights of his people through political repression, incarceration, and yes, firing squads, and it is this political repression and the lack of economic reform that causes Cubans to flee their homeland that my colleague from Florida so much cares about and seek refuge in the United States. Mr. Chairman, opponents of this bill would have us believe that it is the United States that is the villain, not Castro. And yet, we all agree that it is Castro who denies his people the right to free and democratic elections. It is Castro who permits the continuation of human rights abuses, and it is Castro who could end the suffering of the Cuban people tomorrow if he chose to. Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the debate in the Committee on Rules, one member suggested that by ignoring Castro, we have heard that on the floor today, perhaps it would resolve itself, that perhaps absent U.S. attention, Castro would change his ways. Mr. Chairman, Fidel Castro could change this instant. He can call elections today. He could allow alternative political parties to form today. He could release Cuba's political prisoners today. He could make substantive economic and market reforms that would help the Cuban people. Forget about anybody else. Help the Cuban people put more food on Cuban tables. Fidel Castro could make this bill irrelevant today, but instead, he chooses tyranny as his form of government, a choice he could easily reverse. Mr. Chairman, with this in mind, nearly two years ago I suggested that we develop a proactive policy towards the Cuban people, that we prepare today for a change in Cuba tomorrow, that we combine our principled and firm opposition to Cuba's oppressors with a beacon of light to the Cuban people to say clearly to them, we are in solidarity with you, we want to help you, but we do not want to assist those who deprive you of your basic rights. So I introduced with broad bipartisan support the Free and Independent Cuba Assistance Act, which is incorporated under Title II. It is not about pain and bloodshed. It is about assisting the Cuban people, sending out a blueprint from the United States of assistance to a government in transition, and ultimately, a government that is democratically elected, and it says to the Cuban people, here is how we want to help, and for the first time in foreign policy, it is proactive. Finally, the second part of the bill really deals with the right of American citizens and the right of American companies to be able to sue in our courts for their confiscated properties illegally confiscated in Cuba. If my colleagues want to stand up for American citizens, if my colleagues want to stand up for American companies simply to have a right to go to court and sue some foreign company that wants to buy those properties that were illegally confiscated from Cuba, my colleagues will support this bill. No matter how much hocus-pocus we have here, no matter how much clouding of the issue we want to make it, that is the basic line. Help the people in Cuba, blueprint for a transition, the ability to sue so that they can therefore make sure that their confiscated properties do not become the illegal fruits of Fidel Castro.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Polish officers, citizens and prisoners of war who were massacred in 1940 by the Stalinist Soviet Government. The Katyn Forest Massacre Memorial Committee will have a memorial service on September 17, 1995 to honor the Polish victims. A mass will be celebrated at 12 noon at the monument site. Many times throughout history, mankind has committed unspeakable crimes that have horrified the world. In April 1940 more than 25,000 people were rounded up by the Soviet Government. Their only crime was that they were born Polish and considered enemies of the state. Their hands were tied behind their backs and they were shot in the back of the head. Their bodies were burned and scattered throughout various locations such as Katyn Forest. This year marks the 55th anniversary of the brutal Katyn Forest Massacre. The order to execute the Polish citizens was issued on March 5, 1940. The order is a reminder to us that we must remain ever vigilant against intolerance and inhumanity. Their massacre was a genocidal act and we must never forget their suffering and sacrifice. A memorial was erected at Exchange Place in Jersey City. The monument commemorates the sacrifice of these innocent victims. The Katyn Forest Massacre was a crime against humanity. This elegant memorial serves as a reminder of man's cruelty to man. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring these Polish martyrs. They represent a lost generation of Polish citizens. Their memories live on at the Katyn Memorial Monument.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Borough of East Newark, which is this year celebrating its 100th anniversary. Although East Newark is small in size, the residents are known for their big hearts. Once a part of Kearny, East Newark broke away in the spring of 1895 to become an independent borough. The vote was cast for incorporation on July 2, 1895, and the new borough, just 64 acres in area, became the smallest community in the State of New Jersey. Two of the early industries in East Newark were the Clark Thread Co., and the Clark Mile End Spool Cotton Co., the largest thread mills in the United States at that time. The companies became Englehard Industries in the early 1930's, but since then, the area has been converted to the East Newark Industrial Center, which now houses over 80 corporations in the garment industry. With its industries in place, East Newark began to build its community. The East Newark Volunteer Fire Department was organized in October 1895, and the East Newark Police Department was established 1 month later. Today, both are still in place, 100 years after they were first established to provide for the protection of life and property. East Newark's first public school was built in 1896, and still serves children from kindergarten through the eighth grade. A bronze tablet located in front of borough hall proudly displays the names of the 175 brave men of East Newark who gave their lives to the American cause in World War I. The Albert Ettlin American Legion Post No. 36 was so named in honor of Mr. Ettlin, the first East Newark soldier killed in action at the Battle of Chateau Thierry. East Newark resident William F. Sawelson is said to have been hit by a sniper's bullet while carrying water to a wounded buddy in World War I and posthumously received the Congressional Medal of Honor. The first church established in the borough was St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church, the congregation originally founded in 1901 by Italians who moved from West Hoboken. While the original church was destroyed by fire in 1935, it was soon rebuilt and still serves the community today at the same site on Second Street. In many ways, East Newark's history continues to influence the present. Current mayor, Joseph R. Smith, is a descendant of John C. Smith, one of the original petitioners in the effort to establish the borough. I would like to salute Mayor Smith, Council President Walter Roman, Councilman Hans Peter Lucas, Councilman William Lupkovich, Councilman Frank Madalena, Councilman Robert Rowe, and Councilman Charles Tighe for continuing a tradition of excellence in community service. While the past century has seen monumental changes in the face of the community, East Newark remains an example of small-town pride and big- spirited determination. With a population of only 2,200, East Newark proves that you do not have to be big in size to make a big contribution. Please join me today in celebrating the 100th anniversary of this little metropolis, which continues to forge its own path on the road to a new century.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the BRAC Commission's recommendation because they violated not only the spirit of the law, but the letter of the law that empowers them to close bases in the first place, and, as an example of that I am deeply disturbed by the conduct of the BRAC Commission with respect to the Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, NJ, specifically with regard to the recommendation to eliminate dedicated military ocean terminals. Never before has the Commission decided, on its own initiative, to virtually eliminate an entire military mission. Ironically, the Commission found precisely what I had alleged--that the Secretary had substantially deviated from the selection criteria in its recommendation to close MOTBY which is grounds for removal from the list. However, the Commission far exceeded its statutory charter by expanding the scope of realignments and eliminated the entire military ocean terminal mission. Let me outline the numerous legal and factual errors that the BRAC failed to take into account in their sloppy, haphazard proceedings. First, a fatally flawed recommendation from the Secretary to close the Army portion of MOTBY without regard for the cross service assessment of the Navy Military Sealift Command, leaving this agency stranded, required removal of the base from the list. Second, this legal error was further tainted by a legally invalid attempt to rescue the first recommendation by closing and not enclaving MSC. This is an unlawful expansion of the scope of realignment because the BRAC failed to add the MSC enclave at the legal deadline for the consideration of additional bases. Third, the BRAC, Navy and DoD have violated the letter and intent of the BRAC statute by increasing the scope of activities to be realigned away from Bayonne 1 week away from the Commission's final round of hearings. This left the community with no time to respond to the proposed revisions. Fourth, the BRAC on its own motion realigned activities away from MOTBY to a so-called Base X. This is a violation of its own selection criteria 2, regarding the availability and condition of land and facilities at potential receiving locations. The Commission has failed to follow its own rules. By randomly assigning missions to mythical bases, the cost and manpower implications of criteria 4 become infinite. Fifth, although the BRAC has limited judicial review of its actions, it is clear that this is a major abuse of discretion in two areas. The BRAC's actions are ultra vires and wildly beyond the bounds of its enabling statute and the Commission has completely failed to follow its own regulations. I do not want to seem to be calling sour grapes over this decision. I want to establish a record because in the next few weeks legislation, which is equally ill conceived, and proves my case today. This legislation greatly threatens the military and economic security of the United States. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act, when combined with the closure of the dedicated military ocean terminals at both Bayonne and Oakland, poses the most serious threat to our Nation's ability to mobilize in this century. There are compelling military value reasons to reject MOTBY's closure. MOTBY is a unique strategic asset. No other port on the east or gulf coasts, commercial or military, can duplicate its combination of advantages in the support of power projection from the continental United States without the disruption of commercial port activities. This was amply demonstrated during the Gulf war and our recent operations in Somalia and Haiti. Having investigated and documented this matter fully, it was shocking to see the assortment of half truths and mischaracterizations that was paraded before the Commission as analysis, without an opportunity for rebuttal. For example, the staff alleged that MOTBY was only used to mobilize the 10th Mountain Light Infantry Division when, in fact, dozens of units shipped through MOTBY as well as outsized cargo such as M1A2 tanks from as far as Fort Hood, TX. Bayonne sits astride the huge, highly developed, multimodal transportation network of the American Northeast Corridor. Once cargo arrives at Bayonne, it can be placed directly into vast covered warehouses or uncovered--and fully secure--staging areas. All types of cargo, from heavy, outsized weapons like the M1A2 tank and the Patriot antimissile system, to the full range of munitions available to our fighting forces can be loaded by Bayonne's specially trained union force using state of the art, dedicated rail lines using every type of roll-on/roll-off vessel in the MSC inventory. Bayonne has the best steaming times to Europe, a full day's advantage over any other U.S. port, military or civilian. Nowhere in the staff presentation was there any reflection of the shortcomings of commercial ports. For example, since most ports are containerized, there are no commercial ports which can lift the 70 tons of the M1A2 Abrams. If forced to rely on roll-on/roll-off ships in the MSC inventory, the number of useable commercial ports plummets and even the tiny, remaining Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point, NC, an ammunition depot, quickly becomes unusable. Finally as operations in the Persian Gulf, Somalia and Haiti have proven beyond doubt, MOTBY's unique heavy sealift capabilities are always available to us in a crisis. The Pentagon's recommendation that Bayonne be closed is based on the untested premise that commercial ports on the east and gulf coasts will be both willing and able to forego their profitable contracts to accommodate time sensitive military cargo. The exact opposite of this premise was experienced with the ports of Houston and Portland during the Gulf war. Indeed, the director of port operations of the Port of New York and New Jersey, Lillian Liburdi, an acknowledged expert on military cargo management, testified that no commercial port on the east or gulf coast could substitute for MOTBY. DoD has acknowledged this by contracting with MARAD and Louisiana State University to study this very issue of commercial port availability should Bayonne be closed--a study that should have preceded any closure recommendation. Past BRACs have wrestled with the depot issue and this BRAC has 14 boxes of studies on depots. It is extremely reckless to leap ahead with the unstudied and untested assumptions that commercial ports can replace dedicated military ports in all war fighting scenarios. It threatens the soldier waiting for resupply on the beach and it threatens the economy whose ports may be subjected to commandeering at short notice. The role of MOTBY is essential. If it is closed, we will be forced to recreate it, at enormous cost, every time we mobilize even the smallest forces. Finally, I have taken this time to go into great detail in rebutting the Commission's finding point by point because of my great policy concern about maritime commerce. In its ignorance the Commission found, ``six ports capable of deploying an infantry division within 1 day's rail movement of Bayonne.'' As I warned the Commission in their regional hearing, legislation deregulating of the maritime industry, in the form of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, has already been reported out of the Committee on Transportation. Maritime deregulation will have powerful shakeouts for ports, much as airline deregulation had for airports. Our former colleague, Helen Bentley, who had vast experience in the maritime industry, has warned that deregulation will create megaports like airline hubs. Mrs. Bentley warned that deregulation could reduce the number of ports serving the Nation to as few as four. Most small seaports will vanish. There is precedence. Just as Halifax has decimated Great Lakes ports, the passage of NAFTA and maritime deregulation could spell extinction for gulf coast ports from competition via Veracruz. Ninety-five percent of American export commerce moves by ship. If maritime deregulation occurs, there will be a vast reduction in port capacity. There will be even less willingness by the new megaports to disrupt commercial traffic by accepting military cargo on a short term basis. The military cargo charges will be at an enormous premium. Even the sloppy staff work done by the Commission showed [[Page H 8697]] port operators becoming increasingly unwilling to guarantee priority to military cargo required by port planning orders. In some cases they desire 12-14 days to clear staging and berthing areas. Unfortunately, port legal counsel on the BRAC staff failed to appreciate that the military cannot compel commercial operators to give priority to military deployments during contingency situations. Under the third and fourth amendments of the Constitution, there is no authority to disrupt commercial ports in the absence of a declared emergency. By that time it may be long after the need to mobilize and use ports. The Kuwaiti invasion was in August 1990. Congress authorized the use of force months later. Port planning orders and port allocation orders are no guarantee port access on a timely basis. The only reason these orders have worked at all in the past is the delicate balance struck in the Shipping Act of 1984 between military and necessity and good commercial practice, which tolerated excess capacity in our ports. Today, I urge you to reject the BRAC recommendations. The Commission has far exceeded its authority into roles and missions. Moreover, they have seriously jeopardized the military readiness of the Nation. It will cost more than huge sums of money, it will cost soldiers' lives.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hector C. Valdes Avellaneda. After 25 years at Hudson County Community College he is retiring from his position as assistant to the dean. Mr. Valdes is an exceptional person who has dedicated his talent and services to students for 37 years. Hector Valdes received his bachelor of arts degree in accounting from the Professional School of Business and a B.A. in elementary teaching from the National School of Teachers in Matanzas, Cuba. He also attended Montclair State University and New York University from where he received a master of arts degree in education. Mr. Valdes is another example of an immigrant success story. After being held as a political prisoner in Castro's jails, he immigrated to the United States in 1969. He worked hard and played by the rules and 5 years later he became a naturalized citizen. Very quickly, he began to make important contributions to his adopted land. He began his teaching career working with students seeking their high school equivalency diplomas. Mr. Valdes later became a substitute teacher in the Union City school system. He went on to become a professor at Hudson County Community College and has risen through the ranks to serve in a variety of administrative positions. He served as an administrative assistant and was later appointed assistant to the dean. Mr. Valdes helped develop and create academic programs to assist the large immigrant population living in Hudson county, because he realized that access to quality education is a key to success. The number of students who have benefited from his efforts is countless. Throughout his years at the college, he has been a wise counselor and advisor. Mr. Valdes will be sorely missed by his colleagues and students. Hector Valdes's career is one of proud achievement and another example of the beautiful diversity of our Nation. His service to the community and student body of Hudson County Community College is second to none. Even though he is retiring he will always be remembered as a brilliant teacher and a true friend. Please join me in wishing Hector Valdes a happy retirement.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the participants of the Carnaval Elizabeth. This 3-day event celebrates Hispanic achievement in America and the diversity of the Hispanic culture. The Carnaval will be held from September 2d to the 4th, 1995, in the city of Elizabeth in New Jersey. The Carnaval is sponsored by the Elizabeth Latin Chamber of Commerce and Melly Mell Productions. The Elizabeth Latin Chamber of Commerce prides itself on assisting and defending Hispanic businesses. It is an organization that engenders friendship and fraternity among city and State organizations. Both organizations are dedicated to helping the Hispanic community. Together they are producing a Carnaval that will celebrate the hard work and traditions of the Hispanic people. The Carnaval Elizabeth will be celebrated for 3 days over a quarter of a mile stretch in the heart of Elizabeth's Hispanic business district. There will be live entertainment, dancing, folklore and amusement rides for the children. Many Hispanic entertainers such as Ramon Ortiz, Frankie Ruiz, Jose Alberto and many others will share their musical talents. The Carnaval will have booths featuring traditional foods, products, arts and crafts. The Hispanic culture is rich and diverse. The Carnaval is an opportunity for people from different Hispanic countries to gather together and celebrate their culture. Awareness is very important in the Hispanic community--the Carnaval introduces people to many new customs and traditions. The Carnaval also celebrates the many vital contributions that the Hispanic Community has given to the city of Elizabeth. I am confident my colleagues will join me in honoring and celebrating the Carnaval Elizabeth. In its 14th year, the Carnaval Elizabeth will celebrate the uniqueness of the Hispanic culture. The gathering will integrate the many Hispanic traditions and create an atmosphere of festivity and cultural recognition.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. I rise today to express my disgust with this bill. This is the bill where Republicans rewrite the world in their own image--where they create their own brave new world, if you will. They will weed out the poor, the needy and the weak to provide subsidies to corporate interests and tax cuts to the wealthy. And the middle class will foot the bill. A world where capital is more important than labor. Let me tell how this image will play out in New Jersey. According to the Children's Defense Fund, this image will mean 3,850 children will lose Head Start services, 54,200 New Jersey students will lose access to remedial education through title I and 42,200 babies, preschoolers and pregnant women in New Jersey will lose infant formula and other WIC supplements. This is the new America Republicans have created for your children and grandchildren. The new America will have $4.5 billion less in funding for education, less funding to keep schools safe and drug free and less funding for young people struggling to earn a bachelors degree. The new America will provide less assistance for dislocated workers, like the 2000 individuals working at MOTBY, in my district, unemployed due to recent base closings. It will have fewer resources for job training and it will have no funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance which serves 51,000 needy seniors in New Jersey. And yet Republicans can find the resources to fund Agriculture subsidies for wealthy farmers and to fund B-2 bombers that the Defense Department didn't even want? I have a clear image of this brave new world which Republicans seek. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget and it has nothing to do with making a better America for the working poor, our children, our young people or our seniors. Clearly it is designed to be a world where the rich and privileged will be free to prosper without the nagging and nettlesome problem of caring for their less fortunate brothers and sisters.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the Chair's ruling to say that you are calling the amendment out of order in view of the fact that it wishes to extend that which is a thing of value to something that we determine to be nonprofit and that therefore those people who take advantage of such a nonprofit organization for political purposes to lobby the Government of the United States, that that is out of order?

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am shocked that in fact you want to persist on a point of order when this bill has been legislated 29 times. There is legislation in the appropriations bill. You also so eloquently stated that you wanted to be sure that in fact the Federal Government did not use its dollars in any way, directly or indirectly, to be lobbied and therefore to seek even greater dollars to be spent on behalf of those causes, yet there is an objection. I would urge the Chair that based upon the fact that this is already protected under the rule and therefore subject to amendment and the amendment simply deals with the questions of advocacy which is dealt with under the protected part of the bill by the rule and with the question of a thing of value which we extend to tax exempt that it is appropriate to have the amendment proceed.

Mr. MENENDEZ. That is correct.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, both of the amendments were printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Skaggs amendment. Let me tell my colleagues the package we see on the floor is one of the most chilling pieces of legislation possibly in this century, and it is nothing less than a conspiracy to silence those who have politically and ideologically different views than the Republican majority. Because if that was not the case, then in fact what would happen is they would have included those who make a profit from the Federal Government and use that profit to come back and lobby the Federal Government for more. They would have included all the nonprofit organizations that support them, the informational ones that tell how the Members voted and now they will be rated here. Yet they get contributions that are tax deductible, equally as fungible. Even the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] in his testimony said both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is admitted through the tax system. Yet he excluded them from his piece of legislation which had to be included in an appropriations bill because it could not stand the daylight of scrutiny. Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope that the gentleman will not insist on his point of order because this goes to the very heart of what the majority has tried to do in terms of the Istook amendment which is dealing with welfare for lobbyists and we just simply want to clarify it and improve upon that part which already exists under a legislating provision in an appropriations bill for which there are 29 different such provisions of legislating in this appropriations bill which have been protected under the rule, and, therefore, my understanding of the rules, is permitted to be amended once in fact it has been protected under the rule. What we seek to do is to improve upon and assist with what the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is trying to do. What we do is three different things, or two in this particular amendment: One is deal with a question of political advocacy in self-dealing. The other one which is a question of value that is listed in the amendment which is presently part of the legislation as it exists, which is to now go forward from that thing of value and include tax exemption. Let me get briefly to the heart of why we believe, if you believe in the first place as the majority has argued in the past amendment that was had by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] that it is a terrible feature to have the ability to have Federal dollars be used and in some way have those dollars shifted insofar as freeing up private dollars to be used for political advocacy or advocacy of a certain point of view, then it clearly must be as the intentions of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] was cited when he came in his testimony before the committee that both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system, a tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income, then clearly this amendment is in order. Let me go through why. The fact of the matter is, is that if you believe that having a grant to an organization, that that permits them to free up private moneys, because you cannot use Federal moneys to go ahead and have advocacy, then it is clear that those who are enjoying nonprofit status and that lobby the Congress of the United States but that are receiving a benefit of fungible dollars because, in fact, such an exemption has the same effect as a cash grant under the case of Reagan versus Taxation with Representation of Washington, and if you also want to clean up what I heard wanted to be cleaned up, which is in fact using the resources of the Federal Government directly or indirectly to lobby the same Federal Government, then you also want to prevent self-dealing. In that respect, I would point to some of the testimony that has been taken in this regard, look at what the Association for Retarded Citizens said when they contended that without their right to participate in litigation, the organization would not have been able to successfully sue the State of Pennsylvania which eventually led to the national recognition of the right of retarded citizens to a public education and they went on to contend that currently while they did not spend more than 5 percent of their budget for advocacy, the new definition would require including in the total activities not now included and therefore exploitive. But let us get to why I believe that it was the intention of this amendment and it is proper to proceed that nonprofit organizations also be included. 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are limited in their lobbying by current law to produce and distribute materials which clearly violate the spirit of the restrictions of both current law and the proposed changes contained in the Istook amendment, simply by printing a disclaimer at the bottom of such materials declaring that their comments are not meant to be construed as lobbying. We have seen a lot of those letters. As a matter of fact, on the Istook amendment, we had the National Taxpayers Union, that is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt group, urging support for the amendment and also the defeat of the motions to strike it and clearly said, ``We are going to also rate you on this.'' But this is a clear example of lobbying undertaking with a subsidy of tax-exempt dollars. Let us go to organizations closely linked to politicians, which, in fact, is in essence self-dealing. Let us look at the questions of the Progress and Freedom Foundation as an example of that. According to an Associated Press article of February 17 of this year, ``The Progress and Freedom Foundation made a substantial investment in Newt Gingrich during its first year in business.'' Now it goes on to say that ``Documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service and made public Thursday show that more than 80 percent of the tax-exempt think tank's first year expenses went to two programs that gave Mr. Gingrich national television exposure. The records show the foundation spent $460,000-plus in the period from April 1 of 1993 to March 31 of 1994. The largest expenditure, over $290,000, was related to sponsoring the broadcasts of Mr. Gingrich's college courses Renewing American Civilization. An additional $94,000 was raised by the foundation, which underwrote a televised call-in show in which Mr. Gingrich served as a co-host.'' It goes on to say, ``While Mr. Gingrich has no formal ties to the foundation, its president, Jeffrey Eisensack, previously, headed GOPAC,'' and it goes on to say that the foundation worked out of GOPAC's headquarters for several months. More than half of the money spent by the organization over the 20-month period from its founding, $632,000 was for the class and the call-in show, and as a not-for- profit organization, the foundation is exempt from taxes and donors can claim a charitable deduction on their income tax returns. That is in essence what Roll Call wrote this week in their front-page article about the questions and the concerns about these type of organizations and self-dealing. If we believe that it is wrong to permit a nonprofit group that comes and receives a grant to go ahead and lobby the Federal Government through their private resources, not their Federal dollars, which is against the law, then it must also be the intention to stop those nonprofit organizations that receive tax deductibility and therefore by doing so have fungibility of Federal dollars that all of us as Federal taxpayers participate in and for which they receive those who contribute a deduction. Then it must be the intent clearly to include those so that we can level the playing field and stop that undue political influence, and also to look at organizations that continuously lobby the Federal Government, give us letters, and tell us, ``This is the way you should be voting, this is the way we believe in,'' and in fact have the benefit of Federal dollars through tax exemption as well. That must be. It must be in the purity of the desire which needs to be addressed in the Istook amendment. Therefore, I believe our amendment is in order, and if not, then we see the hypocrisy of those who would silence voices that in fact receive what they consider a fungible benefit, a benefit that is transferable because they receive a Federal grant and cannot use that money but in fact have private resources to be able to use. We want to stop that, but we would not stop organizations by which an individual, a Member of this Congress, for example, could go ahead and use that tax-exempt organization, get the benefits, the fungible benefits of taxpayer dollars or another organization who lobbies a certain view, a certain idealistic view and continues to promote it, receives the benefit of tax-exempt dollars, and not be able to go [[Page H 8413]] ahead and stop those because we believe that those are okay but ours are not. It simply does not make sense. If we want to in fact keep the integrity of what is being suggested wants to be stopped, we should be pursuing the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. point of order

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and in order to save time, I ask unanimous consent to have them considered en bloc.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, a little more than 1 week ago Members of this House came to this floor and voted in favor of continuing agriculture subsidies to farmers making over $100,000 in off-farm income and they voted to continue millions of dollars in market promotion subsidies for companies like McDonald's and Pillsbury. Yet this week, many of these same Members will come to the floor to speak and vote in favor of $4.5 billion in cuts to education programs like student aid and safe and drug free schools. How will they justify it? They will say, ``we must make sacrifices to balance the budget'', ``for our children'' they will say, ``for our children''. But McDonald's will continue to receive $1.2 million in market subsidies and a farmer making over $100,000 annually in off-farm income will get a $500-per-child tax break for his two children and continue to receive farm payments from the Federal Government. Apparently only your child and mine need to make sacrifices, not farmers nor big business.