Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of myself, and my colleagues Mr. Campbell, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Payne, other members of the New Jersey delegation, and Mr. Waxman, rise to offer legislation that all of us concerned about fair competition and the environment should support--the Electricity Clean Competition Act of 1997. Our legislation is offered in recognition of the fact that environmental regulation is a competitive issue that must be addressed as the Congress considers the restructuring of the electricity industry. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have been skeptical that the Congress needs to take the lead in introducing the retail competition to the electricity industry. I have been an advocate for recognizing the unique role of States in ensuring the availability of this commodity to all our citizens in a manner that reflects the need for continued reliability of service, recovery of stranded costs, and continued consumer protection for residential customers. At the same time, I have been concerned that States might find it difficult to develop a framework that would protect other vital interests of the American public, including: preventing the exercise of market power; establishing a reciprocal regime prohibiting States from gaining competitive advantages resulting from uneven application of deregulation; and most importantly, preventing market distortion and air quality degradation due to inconsistent environmental regulation that resulted from past Federal decisions made under a different set of regulatory circumstances. As I have listened to the testimony presented before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, it appears that a number of principles are emerging that can form the basis for a consensus bill. While I am still uncertain as to the exact timing of mandated universal direct access by all consumers, I believe that a date certain might well be a useful backstop to the efforts of the States and to ensure that the benefits of competition reach all our citizens within a reasonable timeframe. However, I could not support restructuring legislation if it did not also: provide for reciprocity of access during the time preceding the implementation of universal access--ensuring that some suppliers could not retain captive customers under state regulation and compete for new customers in other jurisdictions; respect reasoned State decisions on utility recovery of investments in assets that become uneconomic in the new competitive environment; establish a regime favorable to the development of environmentally friendly, and competitive renewable technologies; and most importantly, address the need for comparable environmental standards applicable to all generating assets. It is of this last point that our legislation is directed. I think that it is time we recognized that when the Congress adopted the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, many old, dirty facilities that were expected to close down were granted exemptions to the strict air pollution control requirements that we applied to new facilities. Yet, 20 years later these grandfathered facilities continue to operate and would, in the absence of our legislation, enjoy an even greater unfair competitive economic advantage over electricity generators that have installed state-of-the-art pollution control technologies or that generate electricity using cleaner fuels or renewable resources. In order to remedy this problem, the proposed legislation establishes national emissions caps and a credit trading system for nitrogen oxides [NOx] and sulfur fine particulates. The national generation performance standard that would apply to existing facilities would be based on Federal new source performance standards, ensuring that all generation facilities would have to meet the same environmental requirements. Trading in emission credits ensures the lowest possible compliance costs. Federal restructuring legislation represents the last, best chance to achieve the goals of the Clean Air Act and level the playing field for all competitors in the electric generation market. I hope that if Congress proceeds with consideration of restructuring proposals, my colleagues and I who support Electric Clean Competition Act of 1997 can work with the Commerce Committee to craft consensus legislation that will protect consumers, ensure a fair competitive environment and improve air quality.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend some time tonight initially talking about the fast track legislation which we are likely to be voting on either tomorrow or Sunday. I am very much opposed to the fast track legislation for a number of reasons, and I wanted to use part of the hour tonight to outline some of those reasons and begin with a local situation in Monmouth County, which is one of the two counties that I represent in the State of New Jersey, because I think it illustrates the types of problems that I have with fast track by reference to NAFTA. Many of those who are opposed to fast track and who will be voting against fast track legislation, if it comes up over this weekend, are doing so because of the experience with NAFTA. I want to comment on why Congress really should resist the pressure being put on us to grant the fast track authority, to expand NAFTA and essentially put even more Americans out of work. If I could give an example from central New Jersey, from Monmouth County, my home county, of how these trade agreements can affect the jobs and the lives of highly skilled American workers. On September 9, most of the 240 people who work at the Allied Signal plant in Eatontown, NJ, in Monmouth County were informed of the decision to close what is a defense technology manufacturing plant. They were told that the plant would be phased out in 1998, with a complete shutdown expected by March 1999. The company told the Allied Signal workers in Monmouth County, NJ, that in the short run, the jobs would be going to Tucson, AZ. But I believe, and I know that everyone at the plant believes, that the jobs ultimately will be moved to Mexico. The reason is squarely because of NAFTA. Allied Signal is one of the many companies with a history of relocating production facilities to Mexico. NAFTA has greatly facilitated the flight of manufacturing jobs south where corporations can take advantages of low wages, substandard labor rights, and weak environmental protection and enforcement. The recent experience with Allied Signal shows everything that is wrong in corporate America today; namely, corporations abruptly turning their backs on the workers and the communities that have made them profitable. Ironically, the hard-working folks at Allied Signal are involved in the kind of high tech work needed to protect our national security, for the United States to maintain its technological edge over our adversaries and for the protection of our Nation and our allies. Yet the security of the very same defense workers who have helped to make America the world's superpower are now being abandoned in the search for higher profits and lower wages. The workers of Allied Signal and many other such plants have lived up to their end of the bargain but their employers have not. Mr. Speaker, if I could just talk about this plant a little bit. The plant is productive. Its employees are productive. It has won commendations from other major firms with which it has contracted, such as McDonnell Douglas. The employees of Allied Signal deserve much of the credit for this fine track record and they deserve a much better fate than this betrayal by the company to which they have devoted so much of their time, energy and talent and dedication. The union representing the employees of Allied Signal, Local 417 of the IUE, the Electronics Workers Union, has organized a petition drive and is enlisting the help of their affiliates, and they are also organizing demonstrations, they have over the past couple of months, to publicize the movement of their work to Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the move of this facility is an example, in my opinion, of the negative effects fast track agreements like NAFTA are having on America's working men and women, an example that hits very close to home for me. The loss of quality manufacturing jobs is felt not only by the workers and their immediate families, their buying power is diminished, meaning that the store, the small businesses, the small business owners throughout the area also feel the pinch. Fast track deals do not include standards to protect workers and consumers. They do not give those of us in Congress who were elected by our constituents back home to do a job to look out for their interest, to fix what is wrong. Since NAFTA was passed, more than 420,000 American workers have lost their jobs. That trend continues and will only get worse if we do not stop these unfair trade deals. Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly salute the men and women of the IEUE in central New Jersey for refusing to accept the loss of these Allied Signal jobs without a fight, and, although they have an uphill fight, their effort to mobilize solidarity among union ranks and to educate the wider public about the negative effects of these trade deals will go a long way to derailing fast track and putting our trade policy on the right track. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is highly unlikely that the fast track legislation will pass. I hope it will not. I will do whatever I can to stop it. But I want to say that one of the reasons why the opponents of fast track are likely to succeed and should succeed is because of the fact that there have been so many examples around the country like Allied Signal and Eatontown, and many of the workers have joined together and said, look, we have had enough, we cannot have this type of thing continue with the expansion of fast track authority. And, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to use Allied Signal as an example, but I also wanted to talk in general about fast track and the environment, because one of the major reasons that I oppose the fast track relates not only to labor concerns and worker concerns here in the United States, but also to environmental concerns. We were, those of us, and I was not, those of us who were asked by the administration to support NAFTA a few years ago, were told that if they did, there would be adequate addressing in NAFTA of their concerns on the environment, and there would be adequate enforcement if environmental problems arose. But the reality is with NAFTA that none of that happened. There has not been any environmental enforcement, there has not been any real impact to try to protect the environment. And if I can just give an example, most of the commitments that were made by the administration then were put into what is called an environmental side agreement, a side agreement to NAFTA that was supposedly going to protect the environment. What we found out since NAFTA began is that these side agreements are, in effect, unenforceable, and so any suggestion pursuant to the fast track legislation that is likely to come this week that somehow there will be environmental provisions contained therein or their side agreements will be enforcemental on protective environmental concerns, there is no reason to believe that, because it did not happen with NAFTA. More than 3 years ago, the Commission on Environmental Compliance, the CEC, was established under NAFTA for environmental cooperation. This was the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation, the environmental side agreement to NAFTA. The CEC could be considered to be the sort of EPA equivalent under NAFTA. Yet of the 10 enforcement cases submitted to the CEC, the Commission on Environmental Compliance, under NAFTA, only one has resulted in an investigation. Enforcement cases submitted to the CEC have included wetland pollution in Alberta, Canada; water pollution from livestock farming in Quebec; untreated sewage discharges into the Magdalena River in Sonora, Mexico; a massive bird die-off in the Silver Reservoir in Mexico; and dynamiting of a coral reef, imagine that, in a protected natural reserve in Cozumel, Mexico, for the construction of a cruise ship pier. Now, although it was submitted almost 2 years ago, a final decision on this last case, the Cozumel pier case, the one case which the CEC has agreed to investigate, is being delayed pending a vote by the CEC members. Of the remaining nine cases, four have been rejected, one has been withdrawn, two have been objected to by the Canadian Government, and two are still pending review. So this is all nonsense. There is not going to be any enforcement. Anybody who has brought to the attention of the CEC, this Commission that was set up under NAFTA for environmental concerns, anybody who brought any concerns to them has basically been told go away, or somehow has been swept under the rug. In fact the Wall Street Journal recently wrote, and I quote, that both supporters and opponents of NAFTA agree that the side agreements, not only the environmental side agreements, but all the side agreements, the labor side agreement, have had little impact, mainly because the mechanisms that created them have almost no enforcement power. Our experience with NAFTA has proven that environmental side agreements are not enforceable, and that is why environmental groups, even groups that support NAFTA, are solidly united in opposition to fast track. Last time there were a number of environmental groups who supported NAFTA. This time they are all unanimously opposed to fast track because they realize that these environmental side agreements have been completely ineffective. Let me talk a little bit more about what the President and the Vice President have told us in terms of, in trying to address the concerns that people like myself and others who have concerns about the environment, in trying to address our concerns in the context of fast track. The President and the Vice President have stated that the negotiating objectives outlined in the administration's fast track legislation would include specific references to the environment. Let me say that all that is simply window dressing. None of that means a thing. It is not enough to simply make the environment a negotiating objective. In order for fast track to truly address environmental concerns, it would have to clearly set environmental protection guidelines for all parties involved. It would be critical that fast track require that environmental concerns be directly addressed in negotiated trade agreements rather than allowing environmental protection to be negotiated separately in these unenforceable side agreements, the experience of which we had in NAFTA. They cannot possibly adequately protect the health and safety of American families. And agreements negotiated under fast track should also be required to include enforcement mechanisms that will serve to hold governments to set environmental protection standards. None of this is being proposed with the fast track legislation that we are going to see possibly this weekend. Again the inadequacy of the environmental side agreement to NAFTA and its protection of the United States-Mexican border environment serves as a disturbing example of the ineffectiveness of the environmental side agreements that the administration has proposed. The number of factories along the already heavily polluted United States-Mexico border has increased by 20 percent since NAFTA went into place, yet little is being done to insure that these new facilities are complying with environmental standards. The health and safety of American families are being put at risk by the 44 tons of hazardous waste that are illegally dumped by these border facilities every day. Free trade agreements, I should say, also create pressure on neighboring governments to relax environmental regulations in an effort to lure manufacturers across borders, thereby allowing these companies to profit by polluting and abusing natural resources. We had this underlying problem that, in effect, what NAFTA has done and, in effect, what the free trade agreements will do if there is not adequate protection, which this legislation does not do, is that they basically create a ratcheting down so that environmental laws, environmental protection became less and less because of the competition between the countries and between the companies, each country, in effect, trying to provide less and less environmental protection in order to lure jobs and companies. Rather than entering into trade agreements that directly undermine U.S. efforts on the environment, these agreements should establish a level playing field among neighboring countries that requires all parties involved to adequately protect the environment, natural resources and human health, but this is not happening, Mr. Speaker. This is not happening with the fast track legislation that we may see tomorrow or Sunday or perhaps at some later time. It is not just the environment. Another major issue that has come to the forefront, an area that is not being adequately addressed, is that of food. There are tremendous food safety problems that have resulted from the NAFTA experience. Many of my colleagues have highlighted; I wanted to mention Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut, one of my colleagues who put out a dear colleague just a couple of days ago which she calls fast track stomachache, and she points out that each year overburdened American Customs inspectors allow more than 3 million trucks carrying produce from Mexico to cross the United States-Mexico border without inspection. Less than 1 percent of all trucks crossing the border are stopped and thoroughly inspected. Canadian beef is not properly inspected at the United States border for dangerous chemicals. More than 200 cases of the potentially fatal hepatitis-A have been associated with strawberries imported from Mexico. But NAFTA's regulations have denied us the chance to change the situation. Under section 7171(a), the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] writes, an increase in inspections of meat, produce and other perishables are considered a restraint on trade. So the continued absence of inspections only encourages importers to continue to cut corners, jeopardizing our food safety to guarantee larger profits for themselves. Again, whether it is the environment, human health, food safety, labor laws, none of these, none of these are being protected, none of these are being addressed under NAFTA, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that they will be addressed under the fast track agreement that we are being asked to consider either tomorrow or Sunday. Now, I wanted to get into some of the labor issues as well because in the same way that I am concerned about the impact of fast track on the environment and food safety, I am also concerned about the impact on labor, on wages, on people's ability to retain their jobs, going back to Allied Signal and the example I used again from my home county of Monmouth County, NJ. Public Citizen, which is a watchdog group, put out a publication just a few days ago where they point out how the labor side agreements, or the labor side agreement under NAFTA, that those have also not been enforceable and have not managed to protect a single worker essentially under NAFTA, and there is no reason to believe that the experience would be any different with fast track. I wanted to just use a couple examples from the document called Deals for NAFTA, Votes to Bait and Switch, which Public Citizen put out this month. There are many examples of broken promises in this document, but just to give a few examples here this evening: One of the promises that were made with those who were concerned about displaced workers pursuant to NAFTA related to assistance for harmed workers. In other words, the idea is if you lost your job because of NAFTA, you were going to be made whole in some fashion. There is absolutely, the whole history of this effort called trade adjustment assistance for harmed workers has been one of failure. Just to give an example, this program was created, as I said, to hold harmless workers, and it is estimated that more than 400,000 Americans have been laid off due to NAFTA. The NAFTA-implementing legislation created the Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program. To date only one-third of NAFTA job loss victims are being certified as potential recipients of benefits under this program, and as of mid-October 1997, 144,691 workers have been certified as eligible for assistance. So of the 400,000 that we estimate have lost their jobs under NAFTA, only 144,000 have been certified to even receive assistance. Now, that does not mean that they are even going to get any assistance. Essentially you have to show that you are directly impacted in some way to qualify, and the reality is that many of these workers have had a very difficult time getting any kind of benefits under these workers training programs, under this hold harmless program. The other thing that was promised pursuant to NAFTA again by the administration was an effort to protect and promote labor rights in Mexico. In other words, some of us were concerned about protecting workers here; others were concerned about what would happen to workers in Mexico. President Clinton promised to use existing trade laws to take action if Mexico's policies denied internationally recognized workers' rights, but not only did the administration not fulfill its promise in this regard, which required issuance of an executive order, but it has since taken steps in its fast track proposal to ensure that neither President Clinton nor any future President has the authority to do so. So what we have been seeing in Mexico is that not only are labor laws not respected or not enforced, but, in fact, what has been happening is that the actual, the protections and the wages for Mexican workers have actually gotten less, and the amount of money that they are making, the minimum wage, has not only not risen, it has moved in the opposite direction. Between 1993 and the first quarter of 1997, productivity in Mexico manufacturing rose by over 38 percent while real hourly wages for production workers fell 21 percent. The national average minimum wage fell by 20.43 percent during the first 4 years and 9 months of NAFTA. So the labor side agreement, the environmental side agreement, it has really been effectively worthless. There is absolutely no reason to believe that anything would be any different with the fast-track legislation that we are considering. If I could just summarize in a way some of the concerns, it is not that those of us who are opposed to fast track are opposed to free trade. I do not see it as a vote on free trade at all. What we are concerned with, though, is we do not want to negotiate away in one fell swoop, if you will, any ability on our part, on Congress' part, if you will, to protect the American workers, to protect the environment. We want to reserve the right, if you will, to look at the agreements that would be negotiated individually and to make sure that there are adequate protections of the environment, adequate labor protections, adequate food safety protections, in those agreements. The problem is that if you simply pass fast track, in effect you are giving the administration a blank check to extend NAFTA without Congress having the opportunity to seriously address the problems that have been raised with NAFTA. If we look at our trade deficit, if we look at what is happening, the United States trade deficit with Mexico has skyrocketed. In the auto sector alone the deficit has jumped from $3 billion to $15 billion. A number of jobs have already been lost because of NAFTA. Drug trafficking, violent crime in our border regions has increased, and I already talked about the public health, of course. So what those of us who are opposed to fast track are saying is the experience with NAFTA tells us we cannot simply give the administration the blank check that they are looking for with fast track. We have to have input into the trade agreements that are being negotiated, and, if we do not, we believe that there will be more tragic consequences that result in the same way that the tragic consequences have resulted from what has happened with NAFTA and the experience of NAFTA over the last few years. Turkish Studies Chair at UCLA Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just talk briefly about a few other issues. First of all, I should say that my colleague from California [Mr. Sherman], touched on two issues that I wanted to mention briefly also this evening. He mentioned that the University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA, is establishing a Turkish Studies Chair, funded I may add, by the Government of Turkey. I wanted to join the gentleman in expressing my serious concern about this unfortunate use of a major prestigious university as a vehicle of indoctrination by another country. In my home State of New Jersey, we had a similar situation where Princeton University set up a study program that was financed by the Government of Turkey. As a result, the information that was coming out of the study program essentially denied the Armenian genocide. There has been a history with the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey to basically deny that the Armenian genocide ever occurred. My concern, and I know that of Mr. Sherman as well, is that by establishing these chairs or these Turkish study programs in different parts of the country, in my case at Princeton, in his case at UCLA, the Turkish Government is using these study programs to basically deny history and deny the facts of the Armenian genocide. In fact, it is really a brazen opportunity, if you will, a brazen attempt by a foreign government, to manipulate an American university for the denial of the historically verified genocide of the Armenian Nation. The Turkish Government is not setting up scholarships. These are propaganda and propaganda alone. It would be like a German Government that had not acknowledged the Holocaust funding a Nazi studies program at an American university. Of course, the difference is that Germany at least accepts responsibility and apologizes for the Holocaust of the Jewish people. The Turkish Government, still defying the historical record, denies that the Armenian genocide ever happened. I just wanted to join this evening with the Armenian community in the United States in appealing to the officials at UCLA, in the same way that I did at Princeton University about a year ago, and ask the board of regents to stop the effort of filling the heads of young Americans with revisionist propaganda in the name of so-called scholarship. This is something that we have seen happen more and more where the Turkish Government has been financing these study programs or chairs at various American universities in order to basically deny the Armenian genocide. Plight of the Kurdish People I know Mr. Sherman also mentioned earlier this evening, and another of my colleague from California, Bob Filner, has basically spearheaded this effort, there has been a group of Kurdish Americans who have been fasting on the steps of the Capitol, on the main steps of the Capitol now for a number of days, probably more than a few weeks, in order to highlight, if you will, the ongoing tragedy in the mountains of Kurdistan, where, again, the Turkish Government, which is, of course denying the Armenian genocide and continues to, is also basically trying to essentially obliterate, not only individually by killing Kurds in Turkey, but also by denying Kurds the ability to speak their language, to learn about their culture, to go to school in Kurdish, and this fast, conducted by supporters of the Turkish people on the Capitol steps, includes the human right activist Cameron Porter, who is the spouse of one of our colleagues, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. John Porter]. I just want to say these fasters deserve tremendous credit for the dedication, courage and perseverance. It has been getting cold lately here in Washington, but that has not deterred them. Last Friday I joined with a group of my colleagues, members from both sides of the aisle, to visit with the fasters and supporters. I know Congressman Sherman and Congressman Filner were out there with me. Every day as we pass by these people sacrificing for the causes of peace and human rights, the sight of these protestors on the Capitol steps is a reminder to all people of conscious of the plight of the Kurds and the governments that hold them down, most notably the Government of the Republic of Turkey. In particular, Mr. Speaker, as we come into the Capitol to cast votes on legislation, sent here to do a job by the constituents who elected us, I hope we will remember one of our fellow elected legislators who does not have the opportunity to represent her constituents, Mrs. Leyla Zana, one of the most prominent victims of Turkey's cruel, irrational anti-Kurd cruel policies. Leyla Zana was elected to a seat in the Turkish Parliament in 1991 representing her hometown. She was elected with 80 percent of the total vote, and she became the first Kurd to break the ban on the Kurdish language in the Turkish Parliament, for which she was later tried and convicted. She had uttered the following words: ``I am taking this Constitutional oath for the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples.'' On May 17, 1993, she and one of her colleagues addressed the Helsinki Commission of the U.S. Congress. The testimony was used against her in a court of law. On March 2, 1994, her constitutional immunity as a member of Parliament was revoked and she was arrested, taken into custody, tried in a one-sided mockery of justice, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Leyla Zana, who is 35 years old and the mother of two children, is well into the third year of her 15 year sentence at a prison in Ankara, the Turkish capital. Leyla Zana's pursuit of Democratic change by nonviolent means was honored by the European Parliament, which unanimously awarded her the 1995 Sakharov Peace Prize. She has received major consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize. More than 150 Members of this House, my colleagues, have written to President Clinton on her behalf, and I hope a majority of the Members of this House will join with the European Parliament in defending the human and civil rights of this brave woman, and I might remind my colleagues, a fellow Parliamentarian, a fellow elected official. We owe her our moral support and to urge our ambassador in Ankara to raise Mrs. Zana's case with the Turkish authorities at the highest levels. Mr. Speaker, I just want to share with the Members of this body and anyone watching this some of the basic goals of Ms. Lasagna, of the fasters outside this building, and of the repressed Kurdish people of Turkey. The Kurdish identity must be recognized. The use of the Kurdish language in conversation and in writing should be legalized. All cultural rights should be conceded. Kurdish political parties must be given full constitutional rights and a general amnesty for all political prisoners must be granted. Mr. Speaker, we often hear from our own administration and other apologists for Turkey about what a great democracy the Republic of Turkey is. Yet this is how a duly elected representative of that so- called democracy is being treated for the crime of speaking her language and defending the rights of her people. Mr. Speaker, this cannot go on. For many years we have witnessed a clear pro-Turkish tilt on the part of the State Department. We often hear about strategic importance of Turkey and its pivotal location, and I do not discount those arguments completely. But we have to balance those factors against some other very important considerations. Turkey continues to spend billions of dollars in obtaining sophisticated weapons systems, not only from the United States, but from France, Russia and elsewhere. Much of this military hardware is then used to repress and terrorize the Kurdish people, citizens of Turkey who should be extended the protection of their country's armed forces and not be victimized by those armed forces. Meanwhile, Turkey does not have a strong industrial base, and is lacking in infrastructure in many key areas. So why is Turkey, our ally, throwing so much of its limited resources on sophisticated weapons to use against its Kurdish residents, when it could be investing in better schools, health care and other services that could help put Turkey on a par with the western nations it seeks to be associated with? About half of the worldwide Kurdish community lives within the borders of the Republic of Turkey, where their treatment is an absolute affront to basic fundamentals of human rights. At least one-quarter of the population of Turkey is Kurdish. Yet in Turkey, the Kurds are subjected to a policy of forced assimilation which is essentially written into the Turkish Constitution. To date, 3,134 Kurdish villages have been destroyed and more than 3 million of their residents have been forced to become refugees, either in Kurdistan or abroad. Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that in many ways what we are seeing happen in Kurdistan today is in some ways the prelude to the same type of genocide that occurred by the Turks against the Armenian people 80-some years ago. While the situation for the Kurdish people in such nations as Iraq, Iran and Syria is also deplorable, I wish to draw particular attention to the situation in Turkey for some basic reasons. Turkey is, after all, a military ally of the United States, a member of NATO. As such, it has received billions of dollars in military and economic assistance, courtesy of the American taxpayers. In addition, Turkey aspires to participate in other major western organizations and institutions, such as the European Union. Mr. Speaker, I believe most Americans would be frankly appalled to know a country that has received so much in the way of American largesse is guilty of so many breaches of international law and simple human decency. I have joined with many of my colleagues in denouncing Turkey's illegal blockade of Armenia, its failure to acknowledge responsibility for the Armenian genocide of 1915 through 1923, its ongoing illegal occupation of Cyprus and its threatening military maneuvers in the Aegean Sea. The brutal treatment of the more than 15 million Kurds living within Turkish borders offers a major argument for cutting back on military and economic aid to Turkey, or to at least attach very stringent conditions to provisions of this aid. If Turkey wants the benefits of inclusion in Western institutions that are supposed to be founded on the defense of democracy and human rights, then that country should start living up to the agreements it has signed. Again, the situation in Kurdistan is just another example of the type of treatment that Turkey has done historically with the Armenian people and other peoples, and it must stop. Tribute to Ravi Shankar Mr. Speaker, I would like to do one more thing tonight, if I could. This is because of a couple of events that are going to occur this weekend, both at the Embassy of India and also at the Kennedy Center with regard to the legendary sitar virtuoso and composer, Ravi Shankar. I just wanted to make a tribute to Ravi Shankar this evening before the House. On this Sunday, November 9, at the Kennedy Center Concert Hall, Ravi Shankar, the legendary sitar virtuoso and composer, will perform in concert with his daughter. Ravi Shankar is India's most esteemed musical ambassador and a singular phenomenon in the classical music worlds of both East and West. His pioneering work in bringing Indian music to the West has helped to cultivate an unprecedented audience, making him an important and respected cultural influence for over 40 years. As a performer, composer, teacher, and writer, he has obtained a level of admiration and respect, both in India and in the West, that is unique in the annals of the history of music. Mr. Speaker, two quotes from musicians representing widely different points on the musical spectrum, both of whom have been friends and collaborators with Ravi Shankar, show the profound reach of his enigmatic genius. The great classical violinist Yehudi Menuhin said, ``Ravi Shankar has brought me a precious gift and through him I have added a new dimension to my experience of music.'' To me, his genius and humanity can only be compared to that of Mozart.'' George Harrison, the former Beatle, said, ``Ravi Shankar is the Godfather of World Music.'' To honor his 75th birthday, a four CD boxed set, entitled ``Ravi in Celebration'' has been issued. And Ravi Shankar has not stopped creating spiritually powerful new music. His latest CD, ``Chants of India,'' produced by George Harrison, offers a new approach to the traditional and Vedic and Upanishad hymns. Pandit Ravi Shankar has been honored throughout the world, by the leaders in the realms of politics and the arts. In India, he has received the Nation's highest civilian awards. He was awarded an honorary doctorate from Harvard University. He has the distinction of being a Commandeur de l'Ordre des Lettres in France, he was presented with the Praemium Imperial Prize of the Japan Art Association by the Japanese Royal Family, among many other distinctions and honors. That list of awards will grow tomorrow, Saturday, November 8, when Ravi Shankar is honored by the U.S. Asia Foundation and the Indian American Forum for Political Education with the Light of Asia Award at a reception by India's Ambassador to the United States, the Honorable Naresh Chandra. Mr. Speaker, the occasion of India's 50th anniversary of independence and democracy gives us an opportunity to reflect on the great contributions by Indians and people of Indian descent. For decades, in virtually every part of the world, Ravi Shankar's music has held audiences spellbound. Further, his artistic genius is matched with an abiding devotion to building bridges of friendship and understanding across the cultural and political gulfs that have divided people. Maestro Shankar's concert on Sunday with his daughter Anoushka is being held in tribute to the 50th anniversary of India, a country to which he remains devoted. But, as is always the case when Ravi Shankar performs, Sunday evening's concert will transcend the boundaries of culture and language. Ravi Shankar is a great international artist with the power to move his audience with his unparalleled genius and vision. I am very pleased tonight to be able to take a couple of minutes to pay tribute to this man. Mr. Speaker, I would like to request to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], and I guess then he could yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky]. Powerful Arguments Against Fast Track

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership this morning will bring up a resolution that allows the House to adjourn this weekend and not return until the end of January, and the purpose of that basically is to avoid addressing the issue of Loretta Sanchez' election and the ongoing investigation. This House should not adjourn until it ends this witch-hunt of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez' election. The Republican leadership has not been able to prove that there was any illegality involved in this election. Congresswoman Sanchez won her California election fair and square. The Republicans are simply wasting a lot of money, over $500,000 in taxpayer dollars, to try to prove a case that they have not been able to prove. It is all because Republicans are trying to harass and intimidate Hispanic voters because they voted in overwhelming numbers for Democratic candidates in the last congressional election. Let us free Loretta Sanchez and put an end to this witch-hunt. It is not proper for this House to adjourn until this investigation is concluded and stopped.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed. Motion To Table Offered by Mr. Bereuter

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the House should not adjourn this weekend until it ends this witch-hunt of the election of the gentlewoman from California Ms. Loretta Sanchez. The Republican leadership plans to put forward this morning a so-called martial law rule that will limit Democratic Members' ability to bring up privileged resolutions that demand an end to the outrageously partisan and unprecedented 10-month investigation into the election of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. The gentlewoman from California won her election fair and square. After wasting more than $500,000 in taxpayer money, Republicans have completely failed to prove that Bob Dornan's loss was the result of voter fraud. Republicans were trying to harass and intimidate Hispanic voters simply because in 1996 Hispanic Americans voted in larger numbers than ever before, and mostly supported Democratic candidates. Let us free the gentlewoman from California Ms. Loretta Sanchez, and let us put an end to this witch-hunt before we adjourn this weekend.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Gilman-Markey amendment. Mr. Speaker, last month I called on the administration not to certify that China has stopped its exportation of nuclear technology to unregulated countries, and I wrote to President Clinton urging that the administration halt preparations to recertify China and spoke out against it here in the House. Mr. Speaker, granting certification to China now is the wrong thing to do, given China's record of exporting nuclear technology. The recent action by the Chinese premier to sign regulations limiting nuclear exports pales in comparison to Chinese actions of the past 12 years which argue for continued prudence and vigilance. I am particularly concerned about Beijing's pattern of transferring ring magnets, an important component for building nuclear weapons for a Pakistani nuclear facility. I am concerned that the administration appears to be giving insufficient consideration to China's recent transfer of nuclear technology to unregulated nuclear facilities in Pakistan. The administration will be granting certification despite CIA findings that the Chinese have sold 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan for its uranium enrichment facilities, and ring magnets can be used in the building of nuclear weapons. The administration is apparently willing to ignore China's continued support of Pakistan's commitment to build a plutonium production reactor and a plutonium reprocessing plant. These facilities are essential for a nuclear weapons program, and despite the protests of United States lawmakers, China continues to assist Pakistan in building a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, this arsenal is not subject to international inspection. Furthermore, the administration continues to look the other way as China continues to export technology and ballistic missile components to Pakistan, a country that is not a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and bans investigators from several of its nuclear facilities. Mr. Speaker, clearly, there is a lot of skepticism and many unanswered questions about granting the certification. Let us pass this common sense, the Gilman-Markey neutral resolution, so that our decision is based on the complete review of the terms of the agreement and not just rush into rubber-stamping an agreement that we may later come to regret.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the major environmental organizations, some of which were strong supporters of NAFTA in 1993, have expressed their opposition to the current fast track proposals moving through the House and Senate. The National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, and Defenders of Wildlife have joined with the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and dozens of other grassroots environmental organizations around the country who oppose this legislation. The debate currently raging over fast track is not a question of whether the United States enters into a global economy, it is a question of how we participate in that economy, and whether we should sacrifice the rights of workers in this country and around the world in the name of free trade. It is a question of whether we should capitulate to multinational corporations which would bargain down the environmental protection standards of nations around the world in the name of competitiveness. Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot afford to encourage a race to the bottom when it comes to preserving the global environmental or the rights of workers to a safe workplace and a fair wage. We should vote down this fast track legislation when it comes up at the end of this week.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleagues on the other side, particularly the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] when he talked about innovation. We are all for innovation. I think the Democrats have clearly shown that we would like to see innovative programs in the public schools. But what we are saying is that that innovation should not be through private education, it should be through public education. We went down a couple of weeks ago when the Republicans brought up the school vouchers bill in the D.C. schools to the Brent School, I think it was, just a couple of blocks from the Capitol. What we saw was a very innovative program in the public school, a public school that was doing great with tutoring programs, with some innovative programs in various ways. In my home State of New Jersey through Goals 2000, I can give Members a whole list of innovations that are being accomplished in the public schools in New Jersey. That is a great thing. Innovation should be done, but it should be done in the public schools. Do not give up on the public schools. And I am afraid that is what my colleagues are doing. They are saying that they want to help the public schools, but this is just taking resources, scarce resources, away from the public schools. This money today comes from an innovative approach in the classroom fund in title VI block grants which are used for innovations in the public schools. If they keep draining away the resources from the public schools to use them for a voucher program, there is not going to be anything left for innovative programs in the public schools. The Republican leadership has been steadfastly against public education. They wanted to abolish the Department of Education. They have repeatedly slashed funding for public education in various Congresses, going way back. So do not tell me that what we hear about today is trying to help the public schools through some sort of competition. That is not true. If my colleagues want to help the public schools, then put the money where their mouth is; put it in public education, do not take it away from title VI programs. And that is what I see happening here over and over again in this Congress, started with D.C., where they have some of the most serious problems in terms of need for renovation and repairs and could use that money to fix up the schools, and now trying to expand this terrible voucher program nationwide.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Washington diplomatic corps is about to lose one of its brightest lights with the departure of Shymala B. Cowsik, the Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of India. Ms. Cowsik will soon conclude her distinguished 2-year tour of duty in the United States. In her all too brief tenure, Ambassador Cowsik has been a force in the steadily improving relations between the world's two largest democracies, India and the United States. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Cowsik has been no stranger to Capitol Hill during her tenure. She has worked tirelessly to educate Members of Congress and their staff about the ongoing economic liberalization process in India, and the possibilities for an ever closer relationship in the fields of trade and investment. Of course, international relations are not just based on economic factors, and Ambassador Cowsik has played a major role in helping to guide a complex and expanding bilateral relationship based on shared values of democracy and human rights, respect for the rule of law, and a growing appreciation for the cultures and traditions of each other's country. Ambassador Cowsik has had an eminent career in India's Foreign Service. She has served as India's Ambassador to the Philippines, and has held major posts in Thailand and Yugoslavia. She now moves on to serve as India's Ambassador to Cyprus. As the co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian- Americans, and as a Member of Congress representing one of the largest Indian-American communities in the United States, I consider ties between the United States and India to be of the utmost importance in our Nation's foreign policy. While we still have a ways to go to give Indo-United States ties the priority they deserve, the momentum is clearly moving in the right direction. In the last 2 years, those efforts have made giant strides, and the excellent work of Ambassador Cowsik has played a major role. We will miss her, even as we wish her every success in continuing to represent and serve her nation with the highest distinction and dignity.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the last two speeches by my Republican colleagues. I have to say I am truly amazed at the pace of the Republican leadership's antipublic education drive. The Republicans are determined this fall to make every effort to drain resources from public schools and funnel Federal dollars into private schools. A few weeks ago the Republicans narrowly passed a bill to force vouchers on the D.C. schools. Today, amazingly, they will try to bring their voucher experiment into schools throughout the country, and they are paying for it with Federal dollars that should be used to improve the public schools. Mr. Speaker, vouchers are just the first step in a Republican effort to dismantle the public schools. Since taking control of Congress, the Republican leadership has repeatedly tried to shut down the Education Department and slash funding for public schools. Democrats want to improve the public schools rather than tear them down. We put forward an agenda for first-class public schools that included money for school construction, purchases for computers. Let's improve the public schools. Do not let the Republicans tear them down.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 560, I was in the well of the House Chamber, and the Speaker did not notice that I was trying to vote. Had I been recognized, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to thank my colleague from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] for organizing this special order tonight. I was not here when the gentleman began, so I do not want to repeat what he has already said. But I did want to say that I am proud to join with the gentleman in paying tribute to this great moment in the history of the 20th century, which receives far too little recognition in many of our history texts about World War II. Throughout history, the Greek people have been champions of freedom and self-determination, and their heroic actions against the forces of Hitler and Mussolini were instrumental in defeating fascism in the 20th Century. I am sure the gentleman mentioned about how when Greece entered the war on the side of the Allies when the country was invaded by Mussolini's forces, that exactly 57 years ago today on the morning of October 28, 1940, the Italian Minister in Athens presented an ultimatum to Greek Minister Metaxas demanding unconditional surrender. The Prime Minister response to this unacceptable demand was as simple as it was eloquent, ``Oxi,'', or Greek for ``No.'' The Prime Minister and the King both went on the radio that morning to rally the Nation, and a general mobilization was declared. Mussolini's forces invaded Greece on that fateful day, but there was a very spirited resistance from the Greek people, and then the Greek Army actually launched a counteroffensive, driving the invaders back into Albania. Of course, Hitler's forces eventually came into the war and subdued Greece, but not without significant resistance. In May of 1941, when the Nazis launched an airborne invasion on the Island of Crete on a scale unprecedented in history, the Germans again had to fight a very significant resistance, probably one of the greatest resistances in the whole history of World War II. I just wanted to say, if I could, to my colleague and to those who are listening this evening, that the heroism with which the Greek people fought essentially delayed Hitler's planned invasion of Russia by about three months, and essentially made it possible ultimately for the Allies to win the war, and made it more difficult for Germany to expand the areas that it sought to conquer. The Greek resistance movement also continued for four years during the war, and they suffered horrendously for their resistance. The Germans executed thousands of civilians and randomly decimated entire towns, villages and communities. I know that in my district, in Asbury Park, a few years ago I went to a commemoration, I do not remember the details, but a commemoration of one of the smaller towns in Greece that was just totally annihilated, every man, woman and child was killed. I think we have to resolve that to ensure that the Greeks who fought this resistance movement did not suffer in vain. It is important for us to bring it to the attention of our colleagues and to the American people that we never forget the role the people of Greece played in defeating fascism, and that is why I am very proud this evening to be joining with my colleague from New Jersey in this special order. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] and my other colleagues this evening in paying tribute to a great moment in the history of the 20th century which receives far too little recognition in many of our history texts about World War II. Throughout history, the Greek people have been champions of freedom and self-determination. Their heroic actions against the forces of Hitler and Mussolini were instrumental in defeating fascism in the 20th century. On October 28, 1940, Greece entered the war on the side of the Allies when the country was invaded by Mussolini's forces, as part of an attempt by the Axis powers to seal off the Balkans from the south in support of Hitler's invasion of Russia. Exactly 57 years ago today, on the morning of October 28, 1940, the Italian Minister in Athens presented an ultimatum to Greek Prime Minister Metaxas demanding unconditional surrender. The prime minister's response to this unacceptable demand was as simple as it was eloquent: ``Oxi,'' Greek for ``No.'' The Prime Minister and the King both went on the radio that morning to rally the nation, and a general mobilization was declared. Mussolini's forces invaded Greece on that fateful day. Despite their technological superiority, the Fascist invaders faced spirited resistance from the Greeks. On November 14, the Greek Army launched a counter-offensive, driving the invaders back into Albania. In February 1941, the Italian Army launched further attacks, but tough resistance and a harsh winter nullified many of these efforts; a second Italian offensive in March of '41 similarly met with strong Greek opposition. Finally, the Nazi German war machine was mobilized in an effort to rout the Greek opposition, both on the mainland area of Greece and on the island of Crete--in an effort to fulfill Hitler's ominous promise to ``make a clean sweep in the Balkans.'' It took Hitler's forces some five weeks, until the end of April, to subdue Greece. In May of 1941 the Nazis launched an airborne invasion of Crete on a scale unprecedented in history. With lightning speed, the Germans dropped some 20,000 troops on the island by air; in addition, the Germans and Italians launched a land invasion, sending troops by sea from the occupied Greek mainland. The ensuing battle put up by the people of Crete and other Allied forces against the superior Nazi war machine was one of the most significant of World War II. And though the Germans won the battle and took the island, they did so at the highest possible cost--they would eventually lose the war. Karl Student, the Nazi General in charge of the invasion, called the battle ``the fiercest struggle any German formation had ever had to face . . .'' The German High Command would never again attempt an operation of that size. The heroism with which the Greek people fought delayed Hitler's planned invasion of Russia by three months. There were heavy losses on both sides. Strengthened by the knowledge that they were defending a concept--democracy--that had originated from their homeland, Greek civilians, including women, children and the elderly, joined the battle against the Fascists, suffering terrible losses, but also inflicting serious damage on their enemies. The Greek resistance movement for the remaining four years of the war zealously fought the occupying Nazi force. They suffered horrendously for their resistance; the Germans executed thousands of civilians and randomly decimated entire towns, villages and communities. Let us resolve, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that they did not suffer in vein. We here in Congress should do our best to ensure our citizens never forget the role the people of Greece played in defeating fascism. Indeed, we honor ourselves by honoring not only a Prime Minister, but an entire people who dared to say ``Oxi,'' ``No,'' in the face of a seemingly overwhelming enemy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today the House rejected by a convincing margin a motion to instruct the conferees on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, which would have resulted in thousands of legal immigrants being forced to leave the country. I was proud to join with the majority of Members of the House in opposing this proposal. I rise to express my appreciation for the vote today in this body, which represents a victory for fairness and justice. The result here in this Chamber today also shows that this body can work together in a bipartisan fashion on sensible and fair legislation to maintain the integrity of our immigration laws, while still keeping the doors of immigration open to those who play by the rules. Speaking in opposition to the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] was a diverse cross-section of Members from both sides of the aisle, including both the chairman and the ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations, as well as the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and the Democratic leader. Speaker after speaker, Democrat and Republican alike, cited the indisputable reasons for opposing the motion to instruct and for supporting permanent extension of Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations legislation. Mr. Speaker, as we heard during today's debate, Section 245(i) allows certain immigrants who have fallen out of status to have their papers processed here in the United States in order to become permanent residents, rather than forcing them to return to their home country to apply. Those covered by Section 245(i) must pay a $1,000 fee before obtaining their visa. Last year, these fees generated more than $200 million for the INS, 80 percent of which is earmarked for INS detention purposes. Mr. Speaker, 245(i) does not change the order in which a person's visa is processed. Contrary to the claims made by some during today's debate, it does not give illegal immigrants the right to live in the United States. If we had passed the motion to instruct today, we would have torn families apart and deprived many families of their sole source of support. We would have forced the mother of children who are U.S. citizens to be separated from those children. We would have forced children who have grown up in the United States to wait out their applications for permanent residence in countries they barely know, and deprived many businesses, including small businesses of valued employees. We would have lost services of foreign-born doctors, providing much needed care to medically underserved areas, and forced many churches and other houses of worship to lose valued participants, many of whom give their services voluntarily, and we would also have imposed a 30 percent increase in the caseload that our embassies and consulates around the word must deal with. So I have to say, we have heard strong signals of support for permanent 245(i) from businesses, from churches, from professional organizations, labor unions and community groups. Our State Department has benefited from the $100 million in additional annual revenues, while the reduced caseload in our consular offices overseas has freed up additional resources for providing resources to Americans traveling abroad and to enhanced anti-fraud efforts. Given the belt tightening we have imposed on the State Department in recent years, it only makes sense to maintain a program that reduces costs and frees up resources. Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from New Jersey talk about the Statue of Liberty. We are a Nation of immigrants. The American dream that attracted many of our ancestors still has profound meaning for people from around the world, from Latin America to Africa, from Ireland to the lands of the former Soviet Union, from India to the Far East. We must guard against illegal immigration and punish those who deliberately violate our immigration laws, but we should not punish those who came here the right way, who played by the rules and who are simply the victims of an innocent mistake or a bureaucratic error. Permanently extending 245(i) is not only the rational thing to do from an economic standpoint, it was the morally right thing to do. I was proud to vote to defeat the motion to instruct the conferees. This House, Mr. Speaker, can be proud for defeating this motion and for supporting fair and rational immigration law once again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 286, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Honorable Walter H. Capps.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, today Speaker Gingrich will bring to the floor the Republican private education savings account proposal. This bill will do nothing to improve public schools. It is just another tax break for wealthy Americans to help them pay for private schools. We already provide tax-favored savings accounts to help parents pay for college education expenses, both public and private. But there is no reason to expand this to pay for expenses from kindergarten to 12th grade at private schools. The money should instead be invested to improve public education from K to 12. A Democratic alternative that will be proposed today would use the money for interest-free bonds made available to public schools to pay for school construction and repair, purchases of equipment and teacher training expenses. Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Democratic alternative. Let us improve public education rather than siphon Federal dollars for private schools. Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues: Do not give up on the public schools.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed at the effort by my Republican colleagues, the Republican leadership, the Speaker, to continue this effort to chip away at public education, not prioritize public education, and put all the emphasis on private education and private schools. This is just another example of it. These private education savings accounts proposals are not going to do anything to improve the public schools. There is no way you will convince me of that. It is just another tax break for wealthy Americans to help them pay for private schools. I think that the point really here is that whatever amount of money, whatever pot of money is being generated here or being saved here, however we want to characterize it, should be used for public education to improve our public schools. My colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has a proposal, a substitute amendment that would take this money and instead of putting it to private schools from K to 12, the money would be used to help pay the interest on bonds that school districts could use to renovate their schools, to build more schools if they are overcrowded, to use for equipment in the public schools, to use for teacher training. What the Democrats have been saying over and over again is, yes, our public schools are good in most places. They need to be improved. If we are going to spend Federal dollars, if we are going to set up programs where we spend Federal money, then use it to help the public schools, use it for infrastructure, use it for teacher training, use it so they can hook up to the Internet. Do not start to emphasize and put all the priority on voucher systems and savings accounts that primarily encourage people to go to private schools. That is not the American way. If people in this country decide they do not want to take advantage of the public education system or do not want to participate in the public education system, that is their prerogative. But then let them spend their own money. I have to say, I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], that this is primarily something that benefits the wealthy. I do not think that we should look at it primarily that way, but it does benefit the wealthy. I agree that this is primarily benefiting the wealthy. There is absolutely no question about that. If we look at the chart, the information that is provided by the Treasury Department, overwhelmingly this is going to benefit people in the higher income brackets. That also makes it unacceptable. But I want to stress that over and over again what we are hearing from the Republican side of the aisle is to give up essentially on the public schools. Let us find different ways, whether it is vouchers in the District of Columbia or it is this private school education savings account, let us find ways to encourage people and help those people who want to send their kids to private schools. That is wise use of Federal dollars. There is a lot of innovation taking place in public schools. There is a lot of examples where public schools have done things to improve basic skills, education, teacher training within the public schools. Let us encourage those things with the small amount of Federal dollars that we have. Let us encourage innovation in public schools and let them improve public school education in this country. There is absolutely no reason to go this way.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. One of the ironies, you are talking about Johnston County, but when we had the debate two weeks ago on the D.C. appropriations bill, and there was the proposal which actually passed after some strong-arming here to include a voucher system within that for about 2,000 D.C. school kids, and I just thought it was so ironic, because if there is any school system that has greater needs in terms of dollars, for example, for infrastructure, their schools were closed down for three weeks in the beginning at September because the judge ruled they were unsafe and wanted the schools to be fixed up or renovated before they started the school year. What we as Democrats were saying in that debate is, you know, spend this voucher money, if you will, to better train the teachers, to fix up the schools, to improve academic performance. One of the things we did the day of the vote is a number of us went down, we did a little march where we went from the Capitol, from the House chamber here, down to a local public school, the one that was very close to here called the Brent School. It was only a few blocks away. But talk about innovative ideas. Like Johnston County, they are out there trying to improve the public school system in various ways. They have started a very innovative tutoring program, an after-school program that has again brought up not only the grades, but the proficiency, if you will, of the students. So basically now Brent School is a success story for the District of Columbia. When we went there at the end of our march, we talked to some of the teachers and students. It was amazing to me. First of all, the building looked good. Secondly, I noticed a lot of students were wearing uniforms. I was not able to find out if that was a requirement or whatever, but that was something they were trying that was a little different. Maybe not every school wants to have uniforms, but they were trying it out. And it just sort of upset me to think that here is a public school within the District of Columbia trying to make improvements, having success in various ways. Let us encourage that. Let us try to get more schools within the District to do that, with how many millions of dollars is going to be made available for these school vouchers? The same thing is true around the country. Your principles that came out of your Democrat Education Task Force, some of them involved spending money, and there will be some Federal dollars available. We know we do not have all the money in the world, and it is still primarily locally controlled, what the schools do. But it just makes no sense, it seems to me, when there are these innovative ideas, when you show in Johnston County what can be done to siphon that money away in the ways proposed two weeks ago, and in another way to be proposed tomorrow by the Republican leadership. Mr. Speaker, I would yield back my time, and ask that the balance be given to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, just two weeks ago Speaker Gingrich forced this House to pass a publicly-financed private school voucher program in the D.C. appropriations bill. This provision initially failed to pass the House, but the Speaker held the vote open and basically twisted his fellow Republicans' arms to change their vote. In spite of this near failure, Speaker Gingrich will take another step at cutting public education. He will bring to the floor this week another bill to pour taxpayer dollars into private and religious schools. It is called an education savings account, but would primarily benefit wealthy families. Democrats have an alternative that would use the money for school construction bonds to help public schools that are in disrepair or in need of new construction. Mr. Speaker, let us improve public education rather than siphon Federal dollars for private schools. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: Do not give up on the public schools.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the other point that the gentleman made in his agenda, and again, his task force agenda, the Democratic task force agenda, was about efficient and coordinated use of resources. There was a very important point incorporated under that rubric which says, coordinate the services for children and families through local consortiums of education and social service providers. What I find in my congressional district, and I am sure this is true in many parts of the country, is that many times the school districts are too small. If they want to provide certain types of services, or address certain educational needs, they need to get together with other local school districts. A small amount of Federal dollars would help a great deal in that, as well. Just to give an idea, in my home county, Monmouth County, over the years they have tried to get the schools together on a county level to set up various schools that address particular needs. For example, we have a MAST program, M-A-S-T, which is the Marine Academy of Science and Technology. Students from the various county schools can enroll there. The county set it up at one location along the shore, actually, in my district, where they had basically marine and science programs for 4 years. The students have to participate in like a naval training program, similar to the Navy officer reserves, but this is on a high school level. There is a physical element. I do not know if I would call it a military element, but there is a physical element to it. But then they spend their time dealing with marine resources, specialty courses on oceanography and various aspects of marine resources. There are similar schools that have been set up on a county level for other purposes like that, whether it is sciences, or there is talk now with regard to arts programs. I think the schools individually could not do that, but if they get together with some kind of consortium either through the county, the State or whatever, then they can set up something like that. Then again, that is the innovative idea. It is public. These are public school dollars that are being used to set up specialty type schools. I know this type of thing is a very important part of the gentleman's agenda, as well.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on what the gentleman mentioned. When we talk about the need to address school infrastructure, whether it is building new school buildings or renovating those that have deteriorated, the gentleman knows we have mentioned before this initiative that was essentially recommended by the President, the $5 billion to help pay the costs of school construction bonds or the interest on school construction bonds, which the Republicans rushed and insisted that it not be part of the balanced budget agreement. The reason why it was not I think was very unfortunate, but it is still out there, something that the gentleman's task force supports and many of my Democratic colleagues support. We stressed that money would not be just used for buildings, but could also be used for the Internet, for rewiring, for making improvements so that the Internet or various computers, whatever, could be utilized in schools, because obviously one of the infrastructure needs, as the gentleman mentioned, that a lot of the schools do not have in this country is to address the high-tech problems, wiring, the types of things that make computers and the Internet available. So that is important. That was actually the third point of the gentleman's task force agenda. But I just wanted to, in the small amount of time that we have left, go into another area which the gentleman mentioned in the task force, the Democratic task force recommendations. That is support for local plans to renew neighborhood public schools. It sounds like a generic term, but when we break it down, they talked about specific things: Federal assistance for communities committed to renewing their public schools; Federal support for local school renewal plans that are developed and implemented by the community; plans to address such considerations as parental involvement, teacher training, technology enhancement. A lot of this involves getting the community as a whole involved and at the same time getting individual parents or caretakers involved. That is so important, and it also shows how much the Democratic proposals, if you will, the task force proposals, want to build upon the community and upon parental involvement. Oftentimes when we talk about addressing education on a Federal level and providing funding on a Federal level, we get accused from our colleagues on the other side of saying, well, you want the Federal Government to control the public schools. It is just the opposite. We want more parental involvement; we want more community involvement. We simply want the dollars to be made available, because we know that is where the crunch is. A lot of times they do not have the dollars. If the gentleman maybe wants to discuss a little more the types of ways that communities can get involved when they get a small amount of Federal resources, because I think it is so important, I will yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the other thing, too, when we talk about innovative programs like that where we get schools together on a county level or whatever to do something innovative, it is often difficult to get the local board of education to contribute dollars to something like that because they are locally based, and they figure it is taking it away, and so on. So that is a perfect example of where the Federal dollars become very attractive, and become a tool to provide excellence and to improve and provide more opportunities for public education.

Mr. PALLONE. The point is, we like to provide more alternatives, more choices, as the gentleman stated, but within the context of public education. We do not want the dollars taken away from public education. If we want to use the money to start some innovative programs at the existing schools, or to send kids in some sort of consortium, that is fine. I know there have been a lot of experiments within, say, one school district, say it is a city and there are many elementary schools, in providing parents choices within the public school system. They can go to one school or another. But that is public dollars. That is still public education. There is a big difference between that and a voucher program that takes those dollars and uses it for private education.