Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rev. Victor Kennedy, chaplain of the 1995 St. Patrick's Day Dinner and Parade. Reverend Kennedy is among the many country great. The Irish have been immigrating to the United States since the early part of the nineteenth century. In that time, they have made many contributions to this country. They have distinguished themselves at every level of American society. As Irish-Americans have built their businesses, so have they contributed to the economic prosperity of this Nation. As they have grown politically, they have contributed to government on the local, State, and national levels. Their devotion to family and friends demonstrates that much can be accomplished when people work together in harmony. At home, Irish-Americans have worked hard to protect all of us from crime and fire. They have put their lives on the line to help ensure the safety of their fellow citizens. The long, proud tradition of Irish police officers and firemen scarcely needs to be mentioned. However, the Irish have not only been good neighbors at home, they have also put their lives on the line when they have fought to defend this Nation against our foes in every major conflict over the last 200 years. Reverend Kennedy is part of this great Irish-American tradition. He has dedicated his life to helping others. He is the former youth director of the Archdiocesan CYP/Youth Ministries, and is currently the pastor of the Church of Good St. Anne. He is an exemplary community leader and an advocate for our youth. Through his involvement in the community, Reverend Kennedy has reached out to countless people and has made a difference in their lives. His parishioners greatly admire Reverend Kennedy for his leadership. He has played a vital role in the physical rehabilitation of his church. In addition, his efforts have brought new life to the parish. I am truly proud to have him as a resident of Hudson County. As we celebrate St. Patrick's Day, let us remember all of those Irish-American men and women who have made a difference in the United States. This is a day for us to acknowledge their achievements and feel proud to have them in the United States. This holiday is an excellent opportunity to pay tribute to Irish-Americans; past and present.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sister Maeve McDermott, grand marshall of this year's St. Patrick's Day Parade in Jersey City. Sister McDermott is among the many Irish-American men and women who have helped make this country great. The Irish have been immigrating to the United States since the early part of the 19th century. In that time, they have made many contributions to this country. They have distinguished themselves at every level of American society. As Irish-Americans have built their businesses, so have they contributed to the economic prosperity of this Nation. As they have grown politically, they have contributed to government on the local, State, and national levels. Their devotion to family and friends demonstrates that much can be accomplished when people work together in harmony. At home, Irish-Americans have worked hard to protect all of us from crime and fire. They have put their lives on the line to help ensure the safety of their fellow citizens. The long, proud tradition of Irish police officers and firemen scarcely needs to be mentioned. However, the Irish have not only been good neighbors at home, they have also put their lives on the line when they have fought to defend this Nation against our foes in every major conflict over the last 200 years. Sister Maeve McDermott is part of this great Irish-American tradition. Upon graduating high school, she joined the convent and went on to teach in the St. Patrick and St. Michael Elementary Schools. Since 1978, she has been co-principal of St. Patrick School and Assumption/All Saints School. She was also very instrumental in helping a number of Irish immigrants relocate to this country. Sister McDermott has dedicated her life to helping the young people of Jersey City. She realizes that our youth need love and guidance. She has given both freely over the years. She is an exemplary human being. As we celebrate St. Patrick's Day, let us remember all of those Irish-American men and women who have made a difference in the United States. This is a day for us to acknowledge their achievements and feel proud to have them in the United States. This holiday is an excellent opportunity to pay tribute to Irish-Americans; past and present.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sam Lamparello, who is being honored as the 1995 Man Of The Year by the Bayonne chapter of Unico National. A dinner dance will be held in his honor on March 4, 1995. Sam Lamparello is an Italian immigrant, who came to the United States with his parents when he was just 2 years old. He grew up in Bayonne and worked with his father in the family ice business. Upon graduation Sam Lamparello became an apprentice machinist with the American Radiator Co. He was later voted the president of local 447, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers Union. However, during his second term as president he decided to pursue his life-long dream. Sam Lamparello took all his life savings and founded the Beacon Oil Co. He struggled tremendously, working out of his mother's basement. In those first years he served as a driver, serviceman, salesman and installer. he was later joined by his brothers, and together they managed to turn Beacon Oil Co. into a successful business. Sam Lamparello has always been eager to serve his community. He was a member of the Hudson County Gold Seal Fuel Dealers and then in 1953 he joined Kiwanis and UNICO. While a member of these organizations, Sam Lamparello organized and chaired many fundraising events. Sam Lamparello was also appointed to the Bayonne traffic committee and the Bayonne Red Cross board. For his great dedication to the community, Sam Lamparello has been awarded many honors, including the National Conferences of Christian and Jews Brotherhood award [1966] and the Gold Seal Fuel 1969 Man of the Year award. in 1964, he was named Jerseyan of the Week by the Newark Star Ledger. Despite everything he has accomplished, Sam Lamparello was determined to keep on helping those that were less fortunate than he. For 12 years he was a member of the United Fund of Bayonne and chairman of the 1968- board of directors at the YMCA, where he also served as president for 16 years. During his term in office, he had the largest fund drive ever and in the process helped more than 40,000 children. Sam Lamparello is still an active member of UNICO, Kiwanis and the YMCA board of directors. He also serves on the First Savings Bank of New Jersey board of directors and the Bayonne Hospital board of directors. Sam Lamparello is a wonderful man and a true humanitarian. I am honored and proud to have such a man of great stature and heart as one of my constituents. Again, I offer my congratulations to Sam Lamparello for being named Man of the Year and for offering his time and kindness to those in need.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and honor to one of Latin America's greatest performers, Rafael. A true symbol of Spanish culture, Rafael has dazzled and entertained us with his magnificent talent. A native Andalucian, Rafael moved to Madrid at a very tender age. While in Madrid Rafael began singing at the age of 5, thus began a singing career that would entertain and awe audiences worldwide. He won first prize for Best Voice in the children's category at the Salzburg Music Festival in Austria, an award that is of great prestige and acclaim. He began his professional singing career at the age of 14 and since then he has starred in several films, TV series, and innumerable musical specials. He has entertained and sung to millions of adoring fans. Rafael is the only Latin American singer to win the Uranium Record Award. He has built one of the most successful singing careers selling over 78 million records, an achievement that made him one of the highest selling entertainers in the world. He has also been awarded 318 gold records and 46 platinum records. He has recorded a total of 70 LP's, 55 of them in Spanish. His unique singing style has won him much praise. He has received countless standing ovations from crowds all over the world, from Russia to the United States. He has sung before sold out crowds at Madison Square Garden, the place where he made his first American appearance. Rafael has also appeared in other renowned theaters such as the Opera House in Sydney, Australia, the Kennedy Center in Washington, Carnegie Hall in New York City, the Theatre of the Opera in Leningrad and Moscow just to name a few. He has won from the King of Spain, Juan Carlos I. Rafael has enjoyed a long and distinguished career. He is one of the most unique individuals to grace the stage. His contributions to the Hispanic community are second to none. I am very honored to be recognizing such a wonderful individual.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the participants of the Third Annual Flag Raising Event being held on February 25, 1995, by the Dominican Recreational and Cultural Society. I would also like to recognize all my Dominican- American constituents who celebrate the independence of their homeland on February 27, 1995. The Dominican Recreational and Cultural Society has dedicated itself to helping the Hispanic community. This organization serves its community well by organizing events throughout the year that emphasize the contributions of Dominican-Americans to this great Nation. It strives to bring a little of the Dominican Republic into the lives of area Hispanics. The flag raising will not only be an opportunity to honor the Dominican Republic, but also to celebrate the life of Juan Pablo Duarte. Duarte is not only the father of this great Nation but is considered a hero throughout Latin America. A young idealist and nationalist, he provided the inspiration and courage for the Dominican independence movement. He began a resistance movement called La Trinitaria, or The Trinity, that would eventually help topple Haitian rule in the Dominican Republic. Duarte left his beloved home in search of support from other Latin American nations. Unfortunately, Duarte fell ill while in the island of Curacao and was not able to see his homeland gain independence. However, under the leadership of Francisco del Rosario and Ramon Mella, a group of rebels launched their own uprising which succeeded on February 27, 1844. Today, the Dominican Republic is a beautiful nation and a good neighbor to the United States. Its cultural vitality and rich heritage has contributed to the mosaic painting that is the Hispanic community. It is my honor to salute such a great nation on its Independence Day and a great organization, the Dominican Recreational and Cultural Society on this most joyous event.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McDermott substitute. It represents a balanced compromise that extends the benefits of tax deductions for health insurance to millions more Americans, and carefully preserves the best aspects of the tax provisions related to the sale of broadcast facilities to minority owners. Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric of empowerment flows freely from the same lips that today have condemned section 1071, and the irony is almost overpowering. Section 1071 is designed expressly to empower minorities to build businesses that employ people, serve the market, and generate revenue. Minority buyers pay market price for the broadcast facilities purchased under this provision. There are no subsidies. These provisions have encouraged sales to minorities without distorting the market, precisely the kind of empowerment that is so pervasive in Republican rhetoric these days. Mr. Chairman, there is no special gain or advantage for minority bidders. Instead, it is the seller who enjoys the tax break. What could be more Republican? Vote for the McDermott substitute.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I, too, oppose the Hefley amendment. I think it is an obvious attempt to try to deflect from the upcoming amendment that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and I are offering. The fact of the matter is $1.5 million out of the taxpayers' money, wherever you do it, is still $1.5 million out of the taxpayers' money, and it goes and flies against the spirit of the contract. If you are for smaller government, you do not add another commission. If you are for less bureaucracy, you do not add another commission. If you are for less spending, you do not add another commission. And so when we have the entire resources of the Congress, all the committees that review it, and ultimately the bottom-up review that has been had, the last thing we need to do is to continue to add another layer of bureaucracy, another $1.5 million. You can shift the costs. You can shift the costs, but ultimately it is coming out of the average taxpayer's pocket. Vote against the Hefley amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the Contract With America means anything, it means we do not want to waste the taxpayers' money by establishing an unneeded commission to tell us what Republicans both in the bill and on their language on the floor already know they wanted to save. The amendment we offer seeks to strike this unnecessary money for the taxpayers. Whether you spend it out of the Secretary of Defense's budget or through an appropriation, it is still taxpayers' money, and I challenge my Republican colleagues to honor your contract vows to cut wasteful spending, to cut bureaucracy, to make Government smaller and eliminate the commission. During the last Congress, the House of Representatives spent nearly $20 million on the budgets of congressional committees with oversight over this issue--Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Government Operations, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Do you think you can tell the constituents back home that $20 million was not enough? And if you add the Members who in fact have served on those committees and who have great experience, offer 200 Members, it comes to $40 million in the House alone, without the Senate. If that is not enough to determine what it is that we need for national defense and security, I do not know what is. And as it relates to the secretary, let us hear what he had. So to say. He said, ``You are my commission,'' meaning the committee. ``I do not need an independent commission interposing itself between myself and you, and you do not need to have an independent commission interposing yourself with me.'' If you want to vote for smaller Government, if you want to have less spending, if you want to have less bureaucracy, if you want to save the taxpayers money, you will be voting yes on this amendment, you will vote for the Harman-Menendez amendment, and in fact you will be living with the Contract. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, if anyone needed any more proof that the Republican majority is prepared to march in lock-step, like lemmings over a cliff, look no further. Last night, an amendment to the Republican welfare bill, which would have spared legal residents who have served this country in our Armed Forces from being cut off from social service programs, was defeated by the GOP on a strict party-line vote. That is right, you heard me correctly. Every Republican, save one who so courageously voted ``present,'' voted last night to repay the loyalty, dedication, and service of these veterans with a slap in the face. They made it clear that Republicans view permanent residents who serve their new country in the Armed Forces as immigrants first, and veterans second. Instead of spending billions for star wars, Republicans should be taking care of their veterans. Mr. Speaker, this outrageous action against those veterans who risked their lives on behalf of their country, so that we who serve in this body may do so in freedom, marks a dark day in our history.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, in my 20 years of public service I have never witnessed anything like what is going on now in the world's greatest deliberate body, the U.S. House of Representatives. And if you love American democracy like I do, you better be worried. I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not agree with the extremist and isolationist provisions of H.R. 7. Several Republicans voted for a Democratic amendment to this bill that was passed by the International Relations Committee. They then called for a new vote and they all switched their votes. I know that some of them believe that the greatest and most powerful country in the world should lead, and not retreat, from the international community. I know that some of them do not believe that we need Star Wars II. And all of us know that we simply cannot afford it. But none of this seems to matter to my Republican colleagues. They have decided that marching in lockstep is in and voting independently is out. For the sake of kneeling before the altar of soundbyte bills written by pollsters, my Republican colleagues have abandoned the great American tradition of independent parliamentary debate. We must put patriotism ahead of polls and be serious about what we bring to the House floor. If this bill had passed the Democratic Congress of 1992, President Bush would not have been allowed to send a single American soldier to the Persian Gulf for Desert Shield or Desert Storm. If this bill passes in its present form, America will be forced either to place thousands more of our young soldiers in the line of fire to protect our vital national interest abroad--or not to act at all. America will be forced to spend millions of dollars alone, instead of sharing the costs. If this bill passes, we will create yet another unneeded commission that wastes $1.5 million for yet another study about military needs. Never mind that we already spend millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars every year to do just that. That is why I have sponsored an amendment with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] to strike that, and we hope we will get support. So, say yes to a strong and secure America, but say no to the national insecurity bill. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 7.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, Let us not have a St. Valentine's Day massacre on the crime bill. Last July I stood on this floor to urge Members to resolve their differences on the crime bill and to fulfill their promise to the American people to wage a war on crime and to put more cops on the streets of their communities. Yet today we are further away from attaining that goal. The Republican law enforcement block grant does not guarantee that even one more cop will be policing America's streets. Today we must move beyond partisan squabbling. We must put on a badge of courage like police officers who patrol the streets of our communities every day and vote for what we know will be a more effective measure in fighting street crime, which is more police officers through community policing. That is exactly what we seek to do in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying to the Members, You can't go home and say you passed the toughest, smartest crime bill possible if you walk away from your responsibility to make certain that this money will put real cops on real streets. Mr. Chairman, let's not have a St. Valentine's Day massacre on the crime bill. Last July I stood on this floor to urge Members to resolve their differences in the conference on the crime bill and to fulfill their promise to the American people: to wage a war on crime and to put more cops on the streets of their communities. Yet today we are farther from attaining that goal then we were last July. The Republican law enforcement block grant does not guarantee that even one more cop will be policing America's streets. Earlier I heard a Washington Post editorial be quoted in support of the Republican position on the crime bill; however, that same editorial also noted the hypocrisy of the Republicans who put all sorts of restrictions on the use of prison construction money, while simultaneously handing out funds with unlimited restrictions for law enforcement. Today, we must move beyond partisan squabbling. We must put on a badge of courage, like police officers who patrol the streets of our communities every day, and vote for what we know will be the most effective measure in fighting street crime, more cops. Since the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Federal Government has helped localities put nearly 15,000 police officers on the streets in 8,000 communities nationwide, thanks to the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, grant program. My home State of New Jersey has received funding for 546 new officers, and the 13th district which I represent has received funding for 95 new officers under this program. Let me repeat that: thanks to the COPS program, local governments have gotten grants that will put 95 new cops on the beat in my district. That's a program that works, and if you have any doubts, just talk to some of the residents of my district about what a difference it makes to see an officer patrolling their neighborhood on foot, where they once used to roll by in a squad car. The bill before us seeks to change all that. While we recognize the validity of the theory that says that localities know best what their law enforcement needs are, let us not lose sight of the fact that the 103d Congress created a program which works. The drive for change was never intended to dismantle what works, only to rethink what does not. The Democratic crime bill put cops on the street, to be there when we need them, to come to know the residents, and to make them feel more secure in their homes. Tell me, Mr. Chairman, where the Republican agenda differs from that goal. It is fair to say that it does not. Street crime is combated in only one of two ways: by preventing it from happening in the first place, or by arresting criminals and putting them in jail. It's simple mathematics. If you want to stem the tide, you need more cops on the beat. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of tough talk on crime lately, but when you strip away all the rhetoric, only one reality remains: combating crime requires both cops and cooperation. Nobody wins the war on crime when the door remains open to cut corners, shave edges, and shift funding. Every Member has been perfectly clear about his or her intent to stem the tide, and bring crime under control. The desire of local governments for flexibility is admirable. But we on the Federal level would fail to hold up our end of the bargain if we did not require localities to pursue policies that work. You can't go home and say you passed the toughest, smartest crime bill possible if you walk away from your responsibility to make certain that this money will put real cops on real streets. Sleep well tonight knowing that you did the smart thing. The amendment is a reasonable compromise that is tough on two key points-- it puts more cops where we need them, and still allows local governments the flexibility they need to support them.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to clarify and strengthen language in the bill requiring that Federal funds granted to local governments supplement, not supplant, local spending on law enforcement. I understand that the chairman of the subcommittee has had an opportunity to review the amendment.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this legislation. New Jersey's 13th District is the home to many immigrants, immigrants who are proud to reside in this great land and immigrants who abide by her laws. For most of these individuals, America is an opportunity, an opportunity to work, an opportunity to succeed, and an opportunity to provide a better life for their children. However, I believe it is time we send the message that America is also a privilege and if you choose to violate her laws, your privileges will be revoked. You will be tried, you will be convicted, and you will be deported. It is right to seek reimbursement to States for the incarceration of criminal aliens. The burden on the State for the incarceration of criminal aliens is overwhelming, and it is unfair to expect the American people to bear this expense. In June 1989, the GAO estimated that 22 percent of the Federal prison population were aliens and over half had been convicted of a crime for which they could be deported; at a cost of over $15,000 per prisoner per year this is unacceptable. For New Jersey this means annual costs of $6.6 million for the incarceration of criminal aliens. And in New York City, across the Hudson River from my district, in a 15-month period 12,300 aliens were arrested for felonies. In the same way that we revoke the privilege of freedom from other criminals, we should revoke that which is United States. Mr. Chairman, I join in supporting the deportation of criminal aliens. The American people cannot afford to support the costs of criminal aliens and, more important, they should not have to.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate John T. Brennan who was being honored by Ireland 32 at a dinner. He has been and continues to be an outstanding citizen. As fire chief of the Bayonne Fire Department he has served his community with much bravery and determination. Mr. Brennan is the son of two Irish immigrants, Michael and Mary Brennan. He is married to the former Meg Connolly with whom he raised six children. They are also the proud grandparents of 13 grandchildren. Mr. Brennan joined the Bayonne Fire Department on December 18, 1943 and has served proudly and courageously for 45 years. Mr. Brennan always put the lives of the people ahead of his own. His heroic deeds are hallmarks of his career. When I think of heroism I am reminded of the time that Mr. Brennan risked his life when he ran through an inferno of flames after a propane storage plant had exploded. He managed to reach the propane gas value that was feeding the fire while his firefighters were using high powered hoses to water him down. Mr. Brennan was the youngest firefighter, at the age of 38, to be named fire chief in Bayonne and in the State of New Jersey. In February 1974 he was named Irishman of the Year for the 12th annual Hudson County St. Patrick's Day Parade in Jersey City. Also he received a service award for making it possible to speedily apprehend criminals by the Bayonne Police Department. Mr. Brennan has been a faithful member of St. Vincent's Parish and a member of the 3d and 4th Degree of the Knights of Columbus. He is also a member of several associations such as the New Jersey Paid Fire Chiefs Association, the National Fire Protection Association, the Hudson Country Fire Chief's Association and the New Jersey State Exempt Fireman's Association just to name a few. Mr. Brennan has served his community with much courage and bravery. His valor and dedication is appreciated by the citizens of Bayonne. I am proud to have him as a constituent. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring this great and brave man.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of former Congressman Joseph LeFante, who was honored on January 20, 1995 by Ireland 32. He is an outstanding citizen and his service to the American people is second to none. Mr. LeFante was born in Bayonne to Thomas and Rose LeFante. He was raised in Bayonne and attended St. Peter's College in Jersey City. He has been married for 46 years to his high school sweetheart, the former Florence Behym. They have three beautiful children Janice, Tom, and Diane, and five grandchildren. His achievements and his awards are numerous and exemplary. Mr. LeFante was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1977-78. He served on the Committee on Education and Labor and Small Business Committee. His expertise was crucial in drafting important legislative proposals in these areas. He was the only freshman member to serve on the Select Committee on Welfare Reform. Prior to his congressional career, Mr. LeFante distinctly served on the New Jersey General Assembly. He was an assembly speaker in 1976, majority leader in 1974-75, chairman of the joint appropriations committee in 1973 and chairman of the assembly appropriations committee in 1972-73. He was commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. In 1990 for 2 years he served as director at the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at the New Jersey Department of Environment Protection and Energy. Mr. LeFante has also been a member of several commissions, such as the Bayonne Charter Commission and was the director of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. In addition, he was a member of the Bayonne Municipal Council where he served as chairman of the urban renewal program, the code enforcement committee, and the drug abuse committee. Mr. LeFante has received countless honors and awards for his outstanding work and dedication. He has been honored by St. John's University with an honorary doctorate of humane letters, Jaycees Distinguished Service Award, and the Dr. Benjamin Rush Humanitarian Award just to name a few. It is impossible to state all of Mr. LeFante's achievements. He has served his community with dignity and respect. He has been a great humanitarian by serving and helping the public. He is a distinguished gentleman respected by all. I commend him for his countless efforts to help others and for giving his time to help and aid the community.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I got elected for the 13th district of New Jersey to voice on behalf of my citizens their concerns, and certainly it is on their behalf that I have taken to the well today to speak on them. I want to state very clearly and very loudly for the record that I stand staunchly opposed to the unilateral action by the executive, in collaboration with the leadership of the House, to grant the Mexican Government an unprecedented bailout package worth billions of dollars. Not a single congressional voice nor a single American voter will be heard by virtue of the process that has taken place on this banker and speculator bailout bill. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a travesty for justice. I know that some in the House were involved in negotiations, but overwhelmingly many were not, many who also represent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in their congressional districts. For those of us who did not support NAFTA, we spoke up about our concerns at that time, that Mexico was a developing economy, not a developed economy. We spoke up about our concerns about the value of the peso, and that in fact it was way beyond where it should be in terms of its exchange rate. Sure enough, Mr. Speaker, after NAFTA and after the presidential elections in Mexico, we find that many of these things are coming true. So without creating the appropriate safeguards during the NAFTA debate and subsequently in its enactment, it is my belief that we created a speculative environment in which middle class investors, the mom-and- pop investors so vital to Wall Street brokers, were led to believe that investing some of their hard-earned life savings in mutual funds, in pension funds, investing in emerging Mexico was a safe bet, but billions of dollars later, we know it is not. In one week alone U.S. investors took over $12 billion out of the Mexican market. I question, one of the things I would have liked to have seen is how much money the middle class families across the country lose in the context of the investments in a speculative market that we helped create by virtue of how we portrayed the Mexican market. Today, Mr. Speaker, in the Committee on International Relations testimony was heard on this issue. I would like to read from one of the witnesses, John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation, not an institution that I normally quote, but which is of great interest to me, particularly in the context that they were supporters of NAFTA and free market ideas. He said: ``This new plan is an improvised hodgepodge that will not solve the structural causes of the Mexican crisis. This new bailout plan is bad policy, and it is bad politics.'' We were told, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the original $40 billion loan guaranty was meant to overwhelm Mexico's problem. Yet we see that this new package has now risen to between $47 billion and $50 billion. So I am concerned if $40 billion was meant to overwhelm Mexico's problem, why did we have to go to $47 billion or nearly $50 billion? This witness went on to say, ``The Mexican crisis needs a stronger free market cure than Mexico's ruling political, corporate and labor elites are willing to accept.'' He went on to criticize this action. I think his last comment that I would like to make, he said, ``Bailing out Mexico will tell governments in emerging markets that bad policies based on short-term political imperatives would be forgiven, and it would send private investors the message that bad investment decisions will be bailed out at U.S. taxpayer expense.'' I think that that is the wrong message to send. It is interesting to see in today's New York Times in the business section how now investors are looking at all emerging markets and their investments in those emerging markets and beginning to question those investments. Maybe they will come back to good old T-bills and blue chip stocks here in the United States. I think it is important in this debate to continue to raise the questions of what type of speculative environments at risk, and in doing so I would hope that we would continue to speak about this issue on the House floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to those who have coordinated a friendship seminar in Delhi, India. On February 12, 1995, the Federation of Indian Associations of New Jersey will hold the Indo-American Friendship Seminar. This federation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, social and educational organization, committed to promoting mutual understanding and cooperation between the United States and India. The fact that so many people are coming together in one place to promote harmony is a step in the right direction toward maintaining a positive relationship between the United States and India. I commend everyone who is taking part in this special seminar. I especially would like to thank those who have worked to coordinate it. Their dedication to making this event happen is encouraging and admirable. I would like to acknowledge Hardyal Singh, president of the Federation of Indian Associations of New Jersey, for the role he has played in coordinating this conference. Mr. Singh has dedicated his career to serving the Indian community in New Jersey. He was the first Indian-American to be named a special deputy sheriff of Hudson County, and was successful in his campaign to have the Indian national flag raised at Jersey City city hall. Mr. Singh's contributions to the Indian community also include the role he played in renaming public school No. 23 to Mahatma Gandhi School and was instrumental in having a statue of Gandhi installed at this site. S. Beant Singh, chief minister of Punjab State, a recipient of the Son of India Award, deserves recognition for the part he has played in making this conference happen. I would like to offer him my congratulations for his efforts to bring peace to Punjab State. Please join me in wishing the participants of the Indo-American Friendship Seminar a successful conference. I am confident that all of the attendees, as well as all Indians and Americans, will reap the benefits of the discussions which will be held at the seminar. Furthermore, I would like to offer my best wishes to the Federation of the Indian Associations of New Jersey in their future endeavors.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to protect the rights of millions of children whose parents refuse to support them. This is a national disgrace. Our continued failure to act is eroding public support for helping families who most deserve our compassion. It is time for us to send a clear, unambiguous message: The American people will do what is necessary to protect our children. We will not let parents abandon their duty to the children they bring into the world. I am therefore joining as a cosponsor of H.R. 95, the Interstate Child Support Act of 1995 introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut. This bill includes a long, tough list of enforcement measures recommended by the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support. The bill would deny deadbeat parents occupational, professional, and business licenses, driver's licenses, and vehicle registrations. It would expedite the seizure of bank accounts and authorize the seizure of pensions, lottery winnings, and other public benefits. The bill would deny passports to deadbeats and deny them Federal jobs, benefits, loans, and loan guarantees. The bill would improve enforcement of child support orders across State lines, strengthen paternity establishment, and improve recordkeeping by requiring Social Security numbers of marriage licenses, divorce decrees, parentage decrees, and birth certificates. It would also set the stage for future reforms, by requiring a study of the feasibility of developing national child support guidelines, and of collecting past-due child support through the Internal Revenue Service. It would test alternative child support assurance strategies, publish information about effective approaches to increasing child support, and test programs providing jobs for unemployed noncustodial parents to enable them to pay what they owe. I urge my colleagues to join us in enacting the Interstate Child Support Act of 1995.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Family Service Center Act authorizing modern one-stop centers consolidating services and information for families needing aid to become self-sufficient. The Family Service Center Act would fund demonstration projects in urban, rural, and linguistically and culturally diverse communities. Centers would be single neighborhood access points for a broad range of services for needy families with children. Centers would use consolidated computer systems and communications technology to improve services while reducing waste and duplication. There is significant waste in the welfare system that could be eliminated through the use of automation and new technology. In my community of Hudson County, NJ, welfare officials compared data bases with New York City and found 400 families collecting benefits on both sides of the Hudson River. The result will be savings of up to $2 million per year. More savings will be achieved as automation links together more programs. For example, Hudson County plans to check out-of-State unemployment insurance records against the welfare rolls to detect unreported income. The taxpayers are not the only beneficiaries of this bill. New data systems at Family Service Centers could cut the mountains of redundant forms that frustrate and confuse clients. Families dealing with one office, applying for aid through one form, and being tracked on a single data base, need fewer intrusive home visits by welfare workers checking for errors or fraud. Projects effectiveness in streamlining services and cutting costs would be subject to rigorous State and Federal evaluations. After 3 years, projects could be renewed for an additional 3 years if they demonstrate effectiveness in achieving their objectives. The act would also require participating States to report on Federal, State, and local policies and laws that impede the coordination of services to needy families with children. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to reinvent the welfare office.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on November 18, 1993, I cast my vote against the NAFTA, not because I oppose free trade; not because I oppose the economic integration of the Western Hemisphere; and not because of the incomplete, albeit substantial, movement toward political and economic reform in recent years in Mexico. No--I cast my vote against the NAFTA because I believed that Mexico as an economy was not prepared to enter an argument of this magnitude with the United States. I believed then as I believe now, that a more gradual approach toward economic integration, such as that adopted by the then-European Community toward nations seeking membership, is wiser. These nations were required to meet high economic and political standards before enjoying European Community benefits. The hard-working families of the 13th District of New Jersey, which I represent, do not join exclusive clubs which they cannot afford. They do not buy expensive homes if they can't afford the down payment. They do their sweating at work--not in fancy health spas. These middle class families know their limits. We should have anticipated the possibility of a peso devaluation. We should have regarded Mexico like the developing economy that it was-- not as the developed economy we portrayed. Many supporters of NAFTA told me that if I were to vote for NAFTA, I would be doing the right and responsible thing. Now they claim that the The value of the Mexican currency, the peso, fell a dangerous 40 percent in just three weeks. In one week alone, American investors withdrew $12 billion dollars from Mexico. But--that's the free market at work. Our middle class stands to be a big loser in this deal. Of the billions of dollars pumped into Mexico in the wake of NAFTA, many were invested by U.S. speculators who sent to Mexico the hard-earned dollars of middle class families in the form of mutual or pension fund investments. With the passage of NAFTA, we created a speculative environment in which middle class investors, the mom and pop investors so vital to Wall Street brokers, were led to believe that investing some of their hard-earned life savings on emerging Mexico was a safe bet. But billions of dollars later, we know it's not. Now the United States proposes to act as a lender of last resort to salvage the Mexican economy. But will this bailout really help? Even the most ardent NAFTA supporters have their doubts. Listen to avid NAFTA backer, Wesley Smith of the Heritage Foundation: ``This takes real pressure off the Mexican Government to make substantive changes.'' James K. Glassman of the Washington Post agrees that the loan guarantees may provide a disincentive for reforms in Mexico. Like parents who are too lenient with a rebellious adolescent, we may be encouraging misbehavior in the future. We may be helping the speculators who poured money into Mexico, but harming the prospects there for economic and political reform. I have serious doubts as to whether the Administration's proposals will win my support. If the United States is going to be generous as a lender of last resort, then it is appropriate that we ask Mexico to be a first-rate client. The administration must insist on assurances that would make the loan guarantee effective: The money that the United States guarantees must only be used for what it is intended: to pay the debts on short-term Mexican bonds. If we are going to bail out speculators, then we should protect middle class Americans by reporting to the American people through this legislation the losses they incurred through mutual or pension funds invested in Mexico. The billions in oil revenues that Mexico earns annually must be used as collateral should the Mexican Government default. The Mexican Government should accelerate and broaden its privatization program. The Mexican Government should continue the political, economic, and social reforms that it requires if it is to achieve long-term stability. And by the way, none of this money should be used to prop up the 36 year Cuban dictatorship of Fidel Castro, who has recently benefited from generous Mexican investments, debt forgiveness, and debt-for- equity swaps. No Mexican foreign assistance, nor any investments sustained by United States credit lines, should go to Cuba's oppressors--neither from the Mexican Government nor any of its banks or state-related companies. Not one red cent. This crisis is about speculation. It is about the speculative environment created by those who supported NAFTA without the appropriate safeguards. That speculative environment has led to the loss of billions of United States dollars invested by hard-working American families who put their savings in mutual funds and pension funds investing in Mexico. It is time to bring a reality check to the risks of the emerging markets and to the joys of the good old U.S. Treasury and blue chip stocks.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Contract With America does not include a $40 billion bailout provision for Mexico, and, therefore, I cannot fathom the need to rush to judgment that we are seeing in this House. This proposal is moving faster than a bullet train without brakes, and we are talking about $40 billion of U.S. loan guarantees. Now, there is a hearing today, but it is only with administration witnesses. No dissenters need apply. The International Relations Committee, I understand, is holding no hearings. They are going to go direct to the Rules Committee and on to this floor. Each Member has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of this country, and it is not to rush to judgment on $40 billion of loan guarantees. We heard the Mexican Government say they want no conditions. I cannot go to a bank, you cannot go to a bank and say you want to impose the conditions under which you get a loan. Mr. Speaker, let us not rush to judgment. Let us think about what we are doing. Let us exercise our fiduciary responsibility.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Amercians are the most generous people in the world, yet charlatans abuse tax exemptions designed to support worthy charities. Today, I am introducing a bill to stop such abuse of American generosity. The Tax Exemption Accountability Act would stop self-dealing by the managers of tax exempt organizations and put teeth into requirements that they file accurate annual returns with the IRS and make them readily available to the public. It also creates a national clearinghouse offering copies of returns for a reasonable fee. The bill also would cap the compensation of officers and directors at the level of U.S. Cabinet members. Churches would continue to be exempt from filing IRS returns and from caps on pastors' salaries, and hospitals could still pay high-cost professionals. We need greater accountability by tax exempt organizations because they control substantial public wealth that offers a temptation some have been unable to resist. The share of national revenues going to tax exempts has nearly doubled in the past 15 years, growing at 8 percent per year in constant dollars. The IRS reports that the revenues of tax-exempts rose from 5.9 to 10.4 percent of U.S. gross domestic product from 1975 to 1990. Revenues totaled $578 billion in 1990. These are substantial revenues. To put them into context, in 1990, taxable service industries had receipts of $1,174 billion. The tax exempts had revenues of just half that amount. The assets of tax exempt organizations totaled nearly $740 billion in 1990, with real growth at an average annual rate of 7.7 percent over the previous 8 years. These assets accounted for 4.5 percent of private net worth in the United States in 1990, up from 2.9 percent in 1979.