Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and I particularly appreciate when he began and talked about this notion that I think we do hear down here from time to time, that somehow it is your own fault. In other words, the reason why you do not have health insurance or the reason why your children do not is because it is your own fault and you have not done something about it. I think this New York City report by the public advocate really belies that, because it points out that the overwhelming majority of the uninsured, not only children but adults, everyone, are working people. And that, in fact, many of them are, or a significant percentage, are actually working in large corporations. So these are people that are working. These are people, in some cases, that are working more than one, two, or even three jobs, and yet their employer does not provide the health insurance and they do not have the option because they cannot afford the health insurances. Quickly, and I am quoting from the summary of this New York City report, it says the majority of uninsured New Yorkers work. One-half of New York City's uninsured residents between the ages of 18 and 64, because, of course, after 65 you have Medicare, they had full-time jobs in 1995. And among uninsured 35 to 53 years old, 62.8 percent were employed full time. Interestingly enough, again the uninsured are employed in both large and small companies. While nearly 30 percent of New York City's uninsured workers were employed in companies with 10 workers or less in 1995, a large percentage, 22 percent, had jobs with companies with a thousand or more employees. So the bottom line is what is happening not only in New York but across the country is that more and more people, even if they work for large corporations, they simply have taken away health insurance and they are not providing it to their employees. So this is something that is happening across the board for working people primarily. So that whole notion about it is your own fault is just not the case. I want to yield now, Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman from Texas, who I know is very concerned about children's issues in general.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years congressional Democrats have been focusing their attention on addressing some of the most important health care challenges facing this country. Last year Congress took a small but important step in the right direction when it passed the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance reform bill. Because of that bill, citizens who change jobs will continue to receive health coverage, insurance companies may no longer deny individuals health coverage when they switch jobs due to preexisting medical conditions. Although congressional Democrats were happy to see Republicans join us in passing this important piece of legislation, we did emphasize at the time of the bill's passage that we believed much more needed to be done. And as a result of this belief and as a result of the GOP's refusal to consider any other health issue other than portability, Democrats immediately set about to build on the momentum the passage of the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill created by pushing for legislation that would make health care available to every child in this country. There are now about 10 million uninsured children in the United States. To combat this problem, Democrats incorporated a children's- only health care plan into their family-first agenda. The plan was not only developed because Democrats believe our children deserve better health care, it was developed because of the recognition that today it is increasingly harder for even those parents with jobs to secure health insurance for themselves let alone for their children. Unfortunately, we have not made any progress on this issue because the Republican majority has refused to allow our plans to move forward. We are 2 months now, 2 months, into the 105th Congress, and the Republicans who are the majority do not have anything of major importance for the Congress to consider. Unlike Democrats and the President, they do not have a plan to ensure that all children have access to health care nor do they appear to have any intention of letting our plan move forward. The American people sent us here to develop legislative solutions to societal problems, such as providing health care to uninsured children. Every day we waste is a day another sick child goes without health insurance and we cannot continue to let this happen for moral as well as financial reasons. A couple of days ago I brought the House's attention to a report that was issued by the New York City public advocate, Mark Green. It basically talked about the growing number of New Yorkers who are living without health insurance. I know today that I am joined here on the floor with one of my colleagues from New York, Mr. Serrano. The report, as the New York Times put it, quote, is filled with disturbing information that has implications for the entire country. We are going to be talking with my colleagues from New York and from Texas about this report this afternoon. And although it does deal with New York City, I need to stress that the phenomena and the conclusions and findings that it comes to really apply all over this country, to every State and every city. With respect to children, the report found that between 1990 and 1995, the proportion of uninsured children in New York City rose 6 percent. In 1990, 14 percent of children had no health insurance. By 1995, that figure was 20 percent. One out of every five kids in the largest city in the country has no health insurance. Overall, the report found that the number of uninsured children under age 18 in New York City rose from 277,500 in 1990 to 323,800 in 1995, a one-sixth increase, more than twice the increase in the adult population. The trend is particularly distressing when it is recognized that not only was Medicaid expanded during the same period to include more children, but that New York State has an insurance program for children as well. Its own insurance program. And despite that, the number of uninsured children continued to increase. This report underscores the need to expand, not decrease, the accessibility of health care to children. In short, it underscores what congressional Democrats have been saying since last year: that portability is good but it is not enough. We need to build upon the Kennedy-Kassebaum amendment by adding a children's-only health program. Before we can do that, I have to stress we must convince the Republicans to let us move forward. Yesterday, Democratic leaders Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle sent a letter to the Republican leaders Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott once again asking them to join the Democrats on making progress on this issue. I think the New York City public advocate's report illustrates just how important it is to begin the process of passing a children's-only health bill. Considering nothing, which is what we are doing here every day, day after day, and adjourning, in this case today at 12 noon, especially with the problem growing, as plans to confront it sit on the shelves collecting dust, I believe, is irresponsible and inhumane. I hope the Republicans accept our invitation to move forward and deem the issue of providing health care to our children worthy of congressional attention. I do not think it is too much to ask and I, for one, and I know my colleagues will continue to be here every day over the next few months until we see the majority take some action on this issue. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield to my colleague from New York, Mr. Serrano.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of the Members, and again issue our challenge to our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. Once again, I think we had one vote today on the Journal, on the Journal of the previous day, and no other legislative business, and it is only Thursday. I personally, and I know all of us, are getting frustrated coming down here day after day and not really doing anything. This is an issue, children's health care, that needs to be addressed immediately. We will continue to call upon our colleagues in the Republican leadership on the other side to address this issue this Congress, and as soon as possible.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today the House Democratic leader, Dick Gephardt, and the Senate Democrat leader, Tom Daschle, are sending a letter to Republican leaders Gingrich and Lott calling on Republicans to move forward on expanding health care coverage for children. Many Democrats, including the President, have developed proposals to ensure all children have health insurance, but to date Republicans have offered no plan while outright refusing offers from the President and congressional Democrats to incorporate a children-only health insurance program into a bipartisan congressional agenda. Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the New York City public advocate, Mark Green, released a report on the growing number of uninsured citizens in New York. Among the report's many disturbing findings was that between 1990 and 1995 the proportion of New York's children who have no medical insurance increased by 6 percent. As of 1995, nearly 20 percent of New York's children, 1 of every 5, did not have health insurance. And an equally troubling finding was that some 22 percent of uninsured citizens, many of which are parents, actually work for companies of more than a thousand people. Mr. Speaker, I believe the writing is on the wall: Those parents who work for large companies are finding it difficult, as are many, to adequately provide health insurance for their children.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, over the last several weeks I have been coming down here to the House floor to discuss the topic of education in America. As most Americans know by now, the President and congressional Democrats have developed a comprehensive plan to address the Nation's most pressing education needs. To date, the Republicans in Congress have given very little indication of their thoughts on the President's plan. Despite indications from the American people that education is indeed one of the most important issues facing Congress today, Republican leaders have ignored Democratic calls to immediately begin examining our proposal to strengthen education in America. Nor have they offered any plan of their own to address the varieties of challenges confronting our education system. Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on how the President's plan will affect the lives of people from my home district, New Jersey's Sixth Congressional District, which comprises part of Monmouth and Middlesex Counties. I want to do this by sharing two letters, one from each county of my district, that touch on two prevalent education problems which the President and congressional Democrats have developed plans to confront. The first of these problems concerns the difficult time many parents are encountering while trying to meet the runaway costs of college education. Not too long ago, Mrs. Barbara A. Pflug of West Keansburg wrote to me trying to make sense of the challenges she and her husband are trying to overcome. She writes in a letter to me: Dear Congressman Pallone: Please try to help me understand what is happening. My oldest son has just finished his freshman year at Rutgers University. We are both teachers and have worked continually for the past 25 years. We had planned to save money for our boys' college expenses but never had that leftover money to invest. We do not have an expensive life-style. The cost of living in this area has continually gone up. We do not spend our money foolishly. We did not take a vacation and cannot afford a new car. Our properties and other taxes are sky high and we know we pay extra for things like automobile insurance and hospitalization to help people who cannot afford it. We are told that Social Security may not be there when we need it and to start saving for our retirements. We need three lifetimes of working to do all of these things. We should be saving now for our retirement, but that is out of the question with three boys who need to be college educated. The bulk of responsibility is on the parents and we cannot even claim this expense on our income tax. It is an overwhelming hardship. I just do not get it. Please tell us what we are doing wrong. That is from their letter. Well, I want to say that Mrs. Pflug and her husband are doing nothing wrong. Like millions of parents across the country, they are working hard to make ends meet, sacrificing so that their children will lead better lives. As Mrs. Pflug explains: The bulk of the responsibility is on the parents when we cannot even claim this expense on our income tax. It is an overwhelming hardship. Mr. Speaker, the President and congressional Democrats realize that, as Mrs. Pflug put it, the overwhelming hardship of paying for college is indeed an expense that every American family ought to be able to claim on their income tax. To that end, we proposed a $1500 refundable tax credit for all students in their first year of college and another $1500 in the second year if they stay off drugs and earn a B average in the second year. We are also proposing a $10,000 tax deduction for any year a family has education expenses. I would say to Mrs. Pflug that the Democrats have recognized the need for education tax breaks and have developed a plan. I would also encourage Mrs. Pflug to encourage her family to keep working hard. Democrats in Congress are working hard for families like hers; we are waiting for Republicans to join us in making education tax breaks for the working family available so their lives will be just a little better and a little easier. The other letter, Mr. Speaker, I want to read from today concerns the dire need many schools across the country have for repair or outright replacement: ``Dear Frank,'' writes Ms. Ann Ricciardi of Edison, the largest town in my district, ``I look to anyone willing to speak for children and their parents for help in resolving a critical problem affecting most children in our State. Our buildings are deteriorating to the point where we are sacrificing the health and safety of our children and teachers.'' And Mrs. Ricciardi continues to write: Almost every roof in our schools needs repair. Of 17 schools, 11 require significant repair. Schoolchildren sit next to buckets and garbage cans catching rainwater in bad weather. We rely on substandard classrooms and trailers to address increasing enrollment. Our son is in second grade and has almost his entire education in front of him. With no hope in sight for change, we will be forced to consider leaving for his future success. Many of our friends and neighbors are discussing the same issue. School financing, charter schools and the introduction of technology are the most significant problems for most families today. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Ricciardi's situation and concerns mirror those of millions of parents around the country. And she could not be more right. Something absolutely needs to be done. That is why the President has proposed the school construction initiative to repair the Nation's ailing school infrastructure. Under the President's plan, the Federal Government will provide a $5 billion jump start for the necessary investments in the Nation's school buildings. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say that these letters just indicate remotely the magnitudes of the educational problem. The problem needs to be addressed. It is a real problem that the average American faces.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to draw attention today to an article that was on the front page of the New York Times that found through a recent survey that the number of uninsured in New York City is dramatically on the rise. I am talking about the national crisis of health insurance and the fact that increasingly more and more Americans have no health insurance. This of course was in New York City, but it has implications nationwide. Interestingly enough, the biggest problem is with children, children that have no health insurance. We know that the President has put forward a proposal to expand health insurance options for children so that more and more children are insured, and I think that this report, which I will call more attention to in the next few weeks, really explains why that is important. It says right here that most uninsured families in the city make between $15,000 and $45,000 a year. These are working people. And the report found the number of children without insurance has gone up twice as fast as the number of adults. This was a report that was put out by the New York City public advocate Mark Green, and in his report it also finds that the proportion of children who have no health insurance rose to almost 20 percent in 1995, up from 14 percent in 1990. The report is very informative because it really throws aside a lot of the myths that we have about who is not getting the health insurance. It is the working people, it is the children, it is the people that have a lot to contribute to this society, and we need to address it in this Congress.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as the cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I traveled to the Republics of Armenia and Nagorno- Karabagh in late January to learn more about the courageous struggle of the Armenian people as they try to build self-sustaining economies and protect their land and freedom. In Armenia, I met with government officials to discuss the role of the United States and Armenia in preserving the security and economic viability of Nagorno-Karabagh, where peace is threatened by the territorial aggression of Azerbaijan. Earlier in the week, on January 27, I was most honored to be the first Member of Congress from the United States to speak before the Nagorno-Karabagh Parliament. I am providing my colleagues with a text of the speech in hopes that it will help educate them to the serious problems faced by the Armenian people and enable Members to cast votes in the future that could ease the suffering in that troubled part of the world. Mr. President, Mr. Foreign Minister, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honor for me to address the elected legislature of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabagh. As an elected legislator myself, I see you as my colleagues and friends, fellow-Parliamentarians and fellow-democrats. Yet, to my deep regret, your service to your homeland is not generally granted the same recognition and respect that my status as an elected official of my country grants me around the world. This situation must change. You have earned the right to be accorded the respect of the international community as the legitimate representatives of your land and your people. I hope that my visit to Karabagh, and especially my presence in your legislative chamber today, will contribute in some small way to a growing international recognition that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabagh is a reality. Just about one year ago today, I had the privilege of meeting with President Kocharian and Foreign Minister Ghoukasian during their visit to Washington. While the President and Foreign Minister were accorded meetings with Members of Congress, I regret that they were not accorded the type of official welcome from the U.S. Administration that they deserve. Despite the lack of official recognition, the visit of the President and Foreign Minister did a great deal to advance the cause of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabagh, solidifying support among the Armenian-American community, educating many U.S. foreign policy leaders, and forging new bonds of friendship and understanding. When we met, the President expressed his hope that he would be able to return the hospitality that was shown to him by friends of Karabagh during his visit to the U.S. last year. I am proud to accept that offer now. I appreciate the hospitality that has been shown to me, and I look forward to reporting back to the American people about the courageous struggle of the people of Karabagh to defend their land, their independence and their freedom. Before I outline some of my ideas and hopes for how our two peoples can grow closer in friendship and partnership, let me tell you a little bit about myself and why I have come here to your seat of government. I represent the Sixth Congressional District of the State of New Jersey. The densely populated, ethnically diverse State I represent includes a significant number of Americans of Armenian descent. Survivors of one of history's most monstrous crimes, the Genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, thousands of Armenians came to America in search of a new life. Many arrived with little more than the shirts on their backs. Yet these immigrants, these survivors, and their sons and daughters, grandsons and grandaughters, have flourished and thrived, becoming one of America's most successful, well-educated and affluent ethnic groups. While there has for many years been widespread support for the Armenian people among U.S. lawmakers, I felt that these efforts lacked a certain focus and cohesion. So, two years ago, I founded an organization within the Congress of the United States known as the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues. I invited my colleague, Congressman John Porter of the State of Illinois to serve with me as co-chairman. Although I am a Democrat and Mr. Porter is a Republican, we put aside our partisan differences to work for common approaches to support the Armenian people. In just two years' time, the membership of the Caucus increased to 54--Democrats and Republicans, from all regions of the vast United States of America. Always there to support our efforts is the Armenian Assembly, whose support has made my visit here possible. The Caucus has provided a forum to educate Congress and the public about developments in the Republics of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh, and a vehicle to advocate in support of the interests of the Armenian people. From the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans have demonstrated their solidarity with the Armenian people--in the Diaspora, as well as in the Republics of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. America has sought to provide support for the people of the newly declared Republic of Armenia, through humanitarian assistance, development aid, the leveraging of capital investment and the facilitation of cultural and educational contacts. The Freedom Support Act of 1992 contains many important provisions intended to engage the U.S. with the Republics of the former U.S.S.R. One provision of that law has made it possible for hundreds of Armenian students to visit the U.S., stay with families, go to schools and even come to Capitol Hill in Washington. Meeting with these bright young people, talking about democracy and hopes for the future, has been one of the real pleasures of my job. Another very serious and significant provision of that landmark law, Section 907, prohibits direct U.S. Government assistance to the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan until that country lifts its blockade of Armenia and Nagorno- Karabagh. Preserving this law has been one of the major goals of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues. We have had to withstand very strong opposition from the well-financed Azerbaijan lobbying campaign. In the summer of 1995, during the debate on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, the legislation that provides for America to honor its commitments and protect its interests overseas, Congressional friends of Armenia were successful in maintaining the law. I want to pay particular tribute to my friend and colleague, Congressman Pete Visclosky of the State of Indiana, a member of the Armenian Issues Caucus, for his leadership in maintaining the ban on aid to Azerbaijan. While I support diplomatic solutions, blockades not sanctioned by International bodies must be regarded as illegal. Current law prohibiting direct non-humanitarian U.S. government assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan is the correct policy. I will continue to lead the opposition to all attempts to weaken these sanctions until and unless Azerbaijan stops strangling Armenia and Karabagh. I regret to report to date that the U.S. Government has not provided any direct humanitarian assistance to the people of Karabagh. As many of you are aware, in 1996 the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation that would have authorized direct U.S. humanitarian assistance to Karabagh. Unfortunately, the final version of the legislation that was signed into law did not allow for U.S. humanitarian assistance to be provided to Karabagh. This was a mistake for several reasons. First, the fact that the final political status of Nagorno-Karabagh has not yet been determined should not be an obstacle to providing humanitarian assistance. The objective of humanitarian assistance is to save lives and is not intended to bestow political status or challenge the sovereignty of a state. Whatever the nature of a conflict, humanitarian operations must be clearly, distinguished from political and military efforts to achieve peace. Second, humanitarian assistance should be provided on the basis of need anywhere in the world. And I know that there are serious needs that are not being met in Karabagh. Third, in order to be an honest and impartial broker, the United States should provide humanitarian aid to all in the region who need it. Such a policy would send a strong message that the United States is dealing fairly with all sides. The unimpeded, unencumbered flow of humanitarian assistance is a universal principle. I will work in the coming year to ensure that U.S. humanitarian aid to Karabagh is provided on the basis of expected needs. While on the subject of the delivery of humanitarian assistance, I wanted to point out another major initiative of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues: passage of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This law states quite simply that countries which block the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to another country will themselves be ineligible for receiving humanitarian assistance. While the legislation does not single out any country, it would clearly include the Republic of Turkey. Turkey is a recipient of huge amounts of U.S. military and civilian aid. Yet this country is engaged in the unconscionable blockading of the Republic of Armenia. The Corridor Act has become a matter of law. Unfortunately, a waiver provision in the law has made enforcement less effective. Our task is to step up enforcement, to keep the pressure on Turkey to do the right thing and lift the blockade. Removal of the blockade would go a long way toward relieving the suffering of the people of Armenia and Karabagh, and would form the first major confidence building measure to bring peace, stability and, ultimately, economic prosperity to the Caucasus region. My friends, in America we have an expression that our differences amongst ourselves must end at the water's edge. Travelling as both a citizen and an elected representative of the United States of America, I am conscious of a certain obligation to defend the policies and positions that my country holds. Yet, as a citizen of a democracy, I believe in the need to speak out against those policies and positions with which I disagree. More than 20 years ago, when I was studying international law and diplomacy, I learned that there are two major guiding principles in resolving disputes: territorial integrity and self-determination. In the case of Karabagh, I am concerned that U.S. policy, and that of other nations, leans too heavily on the side of territorial integrity--even though the borders were drawn by the dictator Stalin to divide the historically Armenian region of Karabagh from the rest of the Armenian nation, and despite the fact that the Helsinki Final Act allots equal value to self-determination and territorial integrity. Of course, the economic clout of oil interests seeking to curry favor with Azerbaijan is a very strong factor influencing policy in the region. I am not opposed, in fact, I specifically support the exportation of Caspian Sea oil across Armenia--but not at the expense of the freedom and independence of the people of Karabagh. Indeed, upon my return home, it is my intention to meet with our new Secretary of State, the Honorable Madeleine Albright, to report on my findings and to urge greater support for the interests and needs of the people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. I have met on several occasions with the U.S. Special Negotiator for Karabagh, who recognizes that the situation in Karabagh is essentially without precedent and will require creative diplomacy to solve. I intend to maintain that dialogue. People of good will can have principled differences, yet continue to work toward a common ground. America truly wants to play a helpful role in resolving this dispute-- and I mean an honorable resolution, not a solution dictated upon the people of Karabagh. We must see to it that the people of Karabagh are guaranteed their security and right to self-determination. Never again should the Armenian people be subjected to the pogroms, massacres and deportations that occurred in Azerbaijan in 1988. It is my belief that if the question of Karabagh were settled on the basis of principles proposed by Azerbaijan, the people of Nagorno-Karabagh would be in constant fear of genocide, deportation and massacre. It seems to me that the only way to promote long-term peace and stability is to respect the right of self-determination for the people of Nagorno-Karabagh. Unfortunately, the international community almost categorically rejects all self-determination claims. This approach is not only ineffective, but it often can prolong conflicts. A blanket rejection of all self-determination claims does not take into account that self-determination movements, such as the Karabagh movement, are not all alike and therefore ought to be treated differently. With respect to the negotiations, the OSCE Minsk Group's mandate makes clear that the final status of Nagorno-Karagagh's status is to be negotiated. I believe that any predetermination by the negotiators jeopardizes prospects for a peaceful and negotiated settlement. Furthermore, no substantial progress can be made in negotiations without the direct participation of Nagorno- Karabagh. Clearly, Azerbaijan's refusal to recognize Nagorno- Karabagh as a direct party to the conflict defies logic and precludes serious negotiations. Currently, a cease-fire is in effect, and I hope it holds for the foreseeable future. Azerbaijan and Karabagh have exchanged prisoners of war and accomplished other agreements. Yet this cease-fire is fragile, and does not constitute the basis for a permanent solution. Azerbaijan's current refusal to recognize Nagorno-Karabagh as the second party to the dispute is neither constructive nor realistic. To the extent that the positions taken by the U.S. and the international community are contributing to Azerbaijan's intransigence, we must reassess those policies in light of the effect they might be having. The Republic of Armenia must play a special role in the peace process. I am spending most of this week in Yerevan in meetings with government officials, and discussions over Armenia's future role as guarantor of Nagorno-Karabagh's security and economic viability, pursuant to international agreements. The people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh have turned adversity and devastation into advancement, economic progress and the hope for a future based on long-term peace. Surrounded by hostile neighbors, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh look to the United States and the international community for support in their commitment to democratic principles and a market economy. As the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I am here to learn more abut the plight of the Karabagh people and to promote a peaceful solution to the conflict. Clearly, the people of Karabagh have shown their courage and determination to fight for their homeland--to die for it, if necessary. Nagorno-Karabagh's Army of Defense has shown the ability to control strategic territory. Your sovereignty is not just a matter of future discussion or negotiation--it is a matter of fact. In establishing an independent homeland, you have won the war. My goal and my pledge is to help you win the peace.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. The other two issues that I hear so much about, again from constituents, one is with regard to school construction and modernization, because there are so many schools now that really do not have the funds or they have to raise property taxes or whatever in order to pay for new construction or modernization. We know that it is very difficult to learn if one is in a building where the infrastructure is such that the ceiling is leaking or it is not properly ventilated or whatever it happens to be. I think that the President brought forward the need for that in ways that maybe a lot of us on the Federal level have not really been aware. Essentially what he is proposing, from what I understand, is sort of a Federal-State-local partnership so more of that modernization can be done. But I know even in my district, which is pretty much a suburban district, there are a lot of schools that have the need for upgrading and modernization and the school boards simply do not have the funds to pay for it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman for particularly making reference to the higher education initiative that the President has put forward. Because as much as I think that all parts of his 10-point plan are significant, the higher education initiative I think is particularly important because all we hear constantly or at least I do, and I am sure you do, from our constituents is how difficult it is to afford to send their children to college, whether it is public or private school or whether it is two years or four years or a graduate or professional school. Basically what the President is proposing here is building on existing programs like the Pell Grant Program, like the Work Study Program, like the Direct Student Loan Program, and trying to make those programs more accessible to more people, but at the same time coming up with new initiatives in terms of the tax deductions and the Hope Scholarship Program so that there are even more, if you will, opportunities, expanded opportunities to pay for higher education. I know that certainly in his first term, in his first 4 years as President, and obviously with the cooperation of the Congress, he was already able to make some expanded opportunities available with the AmeriCorps program, basically allowing students to work to pay back their student loans. And even with that, we constantly hear the need for more expanded opportunities for higher education. Right now that is the education issue that I hear the most about, even though the others, I am sure, are just as important.

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing that surprises me is we have already received some criticisms to the President's suggestion of national standards. One of the 10 points, in fact, I think it is the first of his 10 points, that we set rigorous national standards, with national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math to make sure our children master the basics, this has been criticized already, that it is a bad thing to establish Federal standards. I think the President made it clear he was not mandating these standards. He was basically saying the Federal Government can establish these standards and create incentives, if you will, to have the schools meet those standards. Again, that is the way I see the Federal role. The Federal role can well be, let us establish the standards and then the various school districts in the States on a voluntary basis try to meet them. I was kind of shocked to see some of our colleagues on the other side suggest that somehow that that was interference and that was a bad way to go. I really believe that, as much as the decisions about education will continue to be made and should continue to be made by the local school boards, there is nothing wrong with the Federal Government trying to help out and provide some kind of a basic standard.

Mr. PALLONE. If we look again at every one of the initiatives in his 10-point plan, every one of them basically is organized so that the Federal Government is basically providing an incentive to local school boards. It is not only the national standards we talked about, but the idea of a talented and dedicated teacher in every classroom, the 100,000 master teachers through some sort of national certification, a teacher for every student to read independently and well by the end of the third grade, expand Head Start. Head Start, I hope, has gotten to the point now where everybody on both sides of the aisle recognizes its value, but I guess like everything else it is a question of how much we will provide for it. In my district--again, I have been to many of the Head Start programs-- most of them have waiting lists. Most of them have a lot of kids that really cannot take advantage of the program, and it works very well. We need to expand it. What he is basically saying is that his budget would expand Head Start to cover one million children by 2002 so that essentially every child who is eligible would have the opportunity to participate in Head Start.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and I also want to say that obviously, for both of us, this is the beginning of our effort to try to continue to bring our colleagues' attention to the fact that the President's education program needs to be enacted, and that we need to move on it as quickly as possible. Obviously, we feel very strongly that that is the case. Most of what is in the President's program was basically put forward with the Democrats' family first agenda last year. I think it is really crucial that we keep making the point that we need to move on it; that we cannot waste any time, because it really can make a difference in terms of investing in our future and that bridge that we keep talking about to the next century. So I thank the gentleman again and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to spend some time discussing the topic of education in the 105th Congress. I just heard my colleague from Texas and the emphasis he put on education, and obviously the President has stressed it as his No. 1 priority. He did so in the State of the Union Address just last week. The Democrats, of course, as part of their families first agenda that they put forth in the last Congress have continued to prioritize education as an issue that the Congress must address that in particular should be addressed as soon as possible. The President and congressional Democrats have basically developed a very sweeping plan to make investments in every level of the Nation's education. And in so doing, Democrats have also filled the void that I think has existed since the opening days of this session. I should say by contrast that so far we have seen very little in terms of specifics from the Republican side of the aisle. We really have no indication of whether they are going to be receptive to the President's or the Democrats' education agenda. I was certainly disappointed today when, rather than spend time on a substantive issue such as education, the Republican leadership brought forward votes on the term limits. We spent the entire day arguing over term limits. I would say that there are many people in Congress that think term limits are important and certainly it deserves to be debated on the House floor. But I think it borders on irresponsibility to waste time examining term limits when there are issues of true importance awaiting consideration such as the President's education agenda. Term limits do not teach children to read. They are not going to help repair our decaying schools or meet the rising cost of college. I would also point out that hopefully we are beyond the situation that we faced in the last Congress where the Republicans were attacking Federal education with unprecedented vehemence upon assuming the majority for the first time in 40 years. Two years ago, the Speaker proposed the largest education cuts in history and voted to slash, basically put forward an agenda to slash education programs by 15 percent or $3.6 billion. Local school districts across the country braced for and eventually suffered the worst pursuant to that GOP agenda in the last Congress. They actually forced Government shutdowns that delayed the ability of school boards to plan for the coming academic year. Among the billions of dollars that the Republicans wanted to cut from longstanding and successful Federal programs in the last Congress was a $1.2 billion cut in title I, basic grants. They of course started to receive a lot of objection from the public about those cuts. Eventually they were restored after, I think, they realized that the American people did not want, did not want to see the kinds of cuts in the title I basic grants program. I thought it was rather interesting that just recently Chairman Kasich's Committee on the Budget praised the very program it advocated gutting in 1996, noting that title I is, quote, ``One of the most important Federal programs for local schools.'' I guess we have to say at least we are happy that now we see the Republican leadership saying that these education programs are important, and hopefully the kind of cuts and the shutdowns that we saw in the last Congress are behind us. Let me just say that the President's budget puts forth or the President puts forth a 10-point plan to invest in education, the one that he detailed in his State of the Union Address. It really looks at every aspect of education, whether it is preschool, whether it is secondary school education or college education and the cost of college education. The new education plan essentially addresses most of the, or many of the pressing problems that face the country today in terms of our educational system. Because some 40 percent of the Nation's fourth graders are reading below the basic level, the President has proposed the America reads challenge to ensure every child can read independently by third grade. Because some 60 percent of the Nation's schools are in need of major repair or outright replacement, the President has proposed a school construction initiative. And because the cost of college continues to outpace the rate of inflation, Democrats have proposed tax breaks to help parents and students pay college tuition. So if we look at this 10-point plan, which I will develop a little more as we go on this evening, we can see that it is an effort really to address education needs at every level. Again, I hope that we see the Republican side of the aisle recognize that these initiatives are important, that they can make a difference and that we move forward with this education agenda. Instead, as you know, last, in the last session of Congress, we saw the GOP leadership going so far as to actually not only talk about massive cuts in education and voted for them but even talk about dismantling the Department of Education. Again, I hope that the effort to say that we do not need a Federal Department of Education goes the way of all these massive cuts that they were proposing in the last term. Instead we see some real progress in trying to move on some of these education initiatives. I would like now, if I could, to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, one of the new Members from Massachusetts. I know he is very concerned about the education issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, while Democrats and the President have developed sweeping plans to strengthen our education system and provide health care for the 10 million children in this country who currently have no coverage, the Republicans have offered no specifics in return. Instead of immediately turning Congress' focus to programs that make a real difference in people's lives, like tax breaks to help pay for college, the repair of decaying elementary schools and insurance for uninsured infants, today instead the GOP has scheduled a vote on term limits. If history is any indication, Mr. Speaker, time will show the GOP's interest in term limits today is nothing more than a delay tactic. Term limits will do nothing for schools badly in need of repair. Term limits will not teach a child to read or ensure our children receive medical attention when they fall sick. I think we have a lot more important things to consider and we do not have time to waste. The sooner the Republican leadership learns this, the sooner we can provide quality education and health care to our children instead of spending the time today on term limits.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for too long our political system has been in need of an overhaul. Our political campaigns last too long, they are too negative, and they cost far too much. Each year this country breaks the record-setting campaign spending of the previous year, and the end is never in sight. By some estimates over $2.5 billion was spent on the 1996 elections. Mr. Speaker, clearly the system has become obscene. Last week President Clinton came to this Chamber and he challenged this House to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. He set July 4 as the deadline. I believe the House can certainly pass reform legislation by then and declare itself independent of the fundraising tyrant that plagues our system. We all know that this is not a new issue. It is not an issue that needs to be studied and spoken and lobbied forever. The Members of the House know the issue of campaign finance reform, and they know it well. There is not one credible reason why the Republican leadership cannot get finance reform to the floor by the President's deadline. In fact, before the Republicans were in the majority, the House had passed campaign finance reform legislation. However, it was vetoed by President Bush. When campaign finance reform laws were first created following the Nixon Watergate scandal, the goal was to get money out of the system and disclose to the American people exactly where the money was coming from to finance Federal campaigns. Over 20 years later, there is more money than ever in the system, and it is not being fully disclosed to the American people. To begin with, the explosion of what we call soft money has infused more money into campaigns than ever before; nearly $881 million in soft money, which is about 73 percent of the increase since 1992. This soft money comes from corporate and other sources specifically barred from campaigns by Federal law, and it has seeped into the system over the years and is now completely out of control. Our campaign finance laws need to be tightened when it comes to the issue of soft money. Another problem is independent expenditures. Various well-funded interest groups from either side of the political spectrum will target their political opponents and spend millions to defeat them. However, these millions will not count toward the current contribution limits, and the target of the independent expenditure has to raise even more money to stay competitive. Finally, the cost of the campaigns themselves have completely gotten out of control. Television costs, between production and broadcasting, have gone through the roof. The same is true for radio. And any aspiring politician living in New York, Chicago, or the Los Angeles media market knows that the costs there alone may be the sole reason that keeps him or her from running. They simply cannot afford it. The fact that someone should be scared away from running for office merely because they do not have the money, I believe, is a tragedy. How many good honest councilmen or small town mayors or clever businessmen or women were kept from going further in public service because they lacked the money? How many great Congressmen and Senators have left us because they were just sick of the fundraising chase and had enough? How many millionaires will decide to run for Congress and win not on the strength of their ideas but on the size of the bank accounts? Mr. Speaker, if we do not have campaign finance reform on the floor by July 4, we may just end up a Congress of millionaires and not of the people. Although it is still fairly early in the session of Congress, there have been several good campaign finance reform bills already introduced in-house. I just wanted to mention some of them. There is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] which seeks to implement voluntary spending limits, lower media costs, and eliminate soft money. This bill is the House version of the Senate McCain-Feingold bill that President Clinton endorsed. There is also another voluntary spending limits bill introduced by my colleague from California (Mr. Parr]. There is even a bill proposing a constitutional amendment to put limits on campaign spending. Clearly, the membership of this House is ready to tackle the issue of campaign finance reform and get a bill passed by July 4, the deadline set by the President. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that the leadership, the Republican leadership, are ready to meet the President's challenge because I think it is clearly one of the most important issues facing this Congress this session.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans were in the minority, they would often challenge the Democratic leadership of the House to implement comprehensive campaign finance reform. We are now in the 3d year of the Republican majority, and the Speaker in fact has only brought one campaign finance reform bill to the floor, a bill, and I should mention that the Republican leadership knew would fail, and did in fact fail by over 250 votes. I guess the Republicans' fervent quest for reform has been tempered by the power of being in the majority. Campaign finance reform again is not a new issue to this Congress by any means. In fact, the House had passed a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill when Democrats were in the majority, but, as I mentioned previously, this was vetoed by President Bush. Last week President Clinton came to this Chamber and challenged this House to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. He made it a priority of his administration. He set July 4 as the deadline. I believe the House can certainly pass reform legislation by then. I think it would be a true test of our democracy, and it certainly is a challenge we must face this session.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the month of February 1997 marks the 1-year anniversary of the inaugural edition of The Asia Observer. In the 12 months since the launching of this weekly newspaper, the Asia Observer has provided timely and insightful coverage and analysis of the South Asia region, including India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal. In addition to its coverage of overseas news, The Observer also provides information on domestic issues and trends affecting the immigrant community. I value the information provided by The Observer, ranging from security issues, to trade and investment to cultural matters. The paper has proven itself to be a solid addition to the ever-growing ranks of what is often referred to as the ethnic media--a term I use with great reluctance because it does not do justice to the truly multicultural quality and international outlook of the excellent publications addressing issues confronting the Asian-American community. We live in an era when relations with Asia are assuming ever-greater importance in United States international concerns. Here at home, people who trace their ancestry to Asia constitute a growing force in our business, professional and cultural life.Yet, I regret to see that there has recently been unfair scrutiny directed at Asian-Americans, while people of Asian descent continue to grapple with discrimination and mistreatment. Thus, while the Asia Observer is targeted primarily for a South Asian-American readership, I hope that the larger American community will make a better effort to understand this important part of the world--and to get to know the people of South-Asian descent who are making such a positive contribution to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, as a nation of immigrants, we should value the contributions of people who come to America seeking a better life for themselves and their families, who come into our country legally, who work hard and play by the rules. As the founder and cochairman of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, I believe we should devote more attention to improving and expanding relations between the world's two largest democracies, India and the untied States, and redouble our efforts to represent the needs and concerns of the more than 1 million Americans of Indian descent. Last year, when the Asia Observer published its first issue, I joined with other elected leaders--including Members of this Body--in extending my congratulations and well wishes. I am delighted to be doing the same on the newspaper's first anniversary. I wish to express my appreciation for Mr. Surinder Zutshi and his talented, hard-working staff, and urge them to keep up the good work. I look forward to reading the Asia Observer for many years to come.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union address last night President Clinton announced an ambitious plan to strengthen our Nation's education system and in so doing rightly placed the issue of educating our children at the top of the Nation's most important priorities. The President's plan spans across the entire spectrum of education. He had 10 points. For the youngest children, he called for an expansion of Head Start; for elementary schoolchildren, a program to ensure that they can read independently by the third grade; for our high school students innovative incentive programs to encourage them to obtain at least 2 years of college; and for parents and students alike, struggling to meet the runaway costs of college, a variety of tax breaks and adjustments to existing loan programs that will make everyday life a little bit easier. Last year, Mr. Speaker, when the President sent his budget to Congress, the Republicans responded by offering the largest education cuts in history. To demonstrate the seriousness of their opposition to the President's education agenda, they then proceeded to shut down the Federal Government two times while calling for the abolition of the Department of Education. Their attacks on the education system continued throughout the election cycle, with GOP leaders, most notably Bob Dole, picking fights with the teachers unions. In announcing his education plan last night, the President rightly called for Republicans to leave their partisan agenda at the classroom door. It is my hope that the Republicans will accept the President's invitation and join congressional Democrats in our efforts to provide quality, affordable education to every American. I know, Mr. Speaker, that we will be dealing with these education issues for a long time, and certainly dealing with them in the next few weeks and the next few months, but I think that the President's call that we should put our partisan differences at the classroom door was really crucial. Education is the most important issue facing this Nation and the President's 10-point plan really is a significant beginning to solving the problem of making sure that we provide an adequate education system for every American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in December I and about 30 other Democrats sent a letter to President Clinton requesting that he include a program to provide assistance to the Nation's 10 million uninsured children in his budget that he would submit to Congress, and I am naturally very pleased that in his State of the Union Address tonight the President will announce a proposal to have Medicaid cover the 10 million children who currently lack health insurance. In millions of American working families both spouses work and yet neither works at a job that offers health insurance benefits, and while Medicaid provides coverage for children and families near or below the poverty level, many working families make more than the Medicaid threshold but not enough to afford health care premiums, and as a result millions of working parents remain unable to provide any health insurance whatsoever for their children. Hoping to expand upon the progress made by last year's passage of the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, congressional Democrats have been working hard to develop ways to address this problem. Indeed, many Members here in the House, including myself, are working on legislative proposals to remedy the problem. But I believe that making health insurance available to uninsured children really should be a central part of what we do in this Congress. It was part of the Families First agenda which was developed by Democrats last year to help the average American family meet the costs of everyday life, and the attention the President will give this issue tonight is sorely needed. It is my hope that Republicans will join the President and congressional Democrats in recognizing that making health insurance available to all children is perhaps the most important issue we will examine here in the next 2 years.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight when President Clinton gives his State of the Union Address he is going to discuss his plan to prepare our country and our children for the 21st century, and the heart of this plan addresses an issue that I think is very much on the minds of most Americans and that is education. The President's plan to strengthen our education system contains some of the very ideas that congressional Democrats developed last year as part of our families first agenda. As many Americans learned last year, the family first agenda is a comprehensive plan designed to improve the lives of the average American family, the mother and father who basically go out and work every day to provide for and improve the lives of their children. At the center of the President's and also last year's congressional Democrats' education plan are two targeted tax breaks, a $1,500 HOPE scholarship and a $10,000 tax deduction for tuition and training. Now the HOPE scholarship program will provide all students with a $1,500 refundable tax credit in their first year of college and another $1,500 in the second year if they work hard, stay off drugs and maintain a B average. While the $1,500 was designed to meet the costs of the average community college, it can be put toward the costs of any tuition bill, not just the community college. And the goal we had in mind when we first developed this plan was not only to help pay for the costs of college, but to work toward making 2 years of postsecondary education as common as a high school education. To complement the HOPE scholarship the President and congressional Democrats will be working to make a $10,000 deduction for tuition for college, graduate school, community college, and certified training and technical programs. The deduction would be available on a per family basis--this is a little different than the per student basis in the past--and will be accessible for any year any family has education or training expenses. These targeted tax breaks, in my opinion, will surely direct us toward our goal of making education less expensive and more affordable for all Americans. There are, however, other elements of the President's education plan that I would like to mention briefly, Mr. Speaker. One concerns the Pell grants. This year the President will propose, and I can assure you that congressional Democrats will support, the largest increase in Pell grants in 20 years. Now the Pell grants of course are the foundation for student aid for low and middle-income families. The grant would, as proposed, the changes proposed, actually increase by 25 percent, raising the maximum award by $300 to $3,000. The President's proposal would extend eligibility for 218,000 new students over age 24 and raise the total number of Pell grant recipients to over $4 million, and this is a significant achievement in my opinion. With regard to the Stafford loan, which is the traditional national direct student loan program, the President will also propose cutting student loan fees from 4 to 2 percent on a need basis and some other changes in the Stafford grants that will basically make them more affordable. There are other elements of the President's plan to make higher education more acceptable, more accessible I should say, and affordable for all Americans, including a tax free education savings program that would allow families earning less than $100,000 to set up IRAs, individual retirement accounts, from which they can make penalty-free withdrawals for education. All these things are basically working together to try to make it possible for more and more students to go to college. I personally should say that I took advantage of the work-study program when I was in college, and the current work-study program is also expanded under the President's proposal, boosting the number of students who earn education dollars from the program to 1 million by the year 2000. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the President and congressional Democrats have an ambitious agenda to make college accessible and affordable to everyone, not just the wealthy, and I hope that in a bipartisan spirit we will see the Republicans join us in our efforts to improve the Nation's higher education system. I just want to talk about one more thing that I think is important that the President will be talking about tonight, and that is the need for funding for construction. Right now about 60 percent of the Nation's schools are in need of major repair or outright replacement. The President's school construction, paid for within the context of a balanced budget, would jump start the process of improving the physical structures in which our children are taught. Under this plan, school construction would increase by 25 percent over the next 4 years. A number of these Federal initiatives are needed, I believe, very strongly, and again, we are not talking about huge new programs that are going to bust the budget, but we are talking about very small initiatives that can really make a difference in the average person's life, and that is what our Democratic family first agenda is all about. The President will be talking about the education components and other components of it tonight, and I hope that we can see swift action in the 105th Congress on these initiatives.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 20, 1996, Pilgrim Baptist Church of Red Bank, NJ, will celebrate its 100th anniversary. It is an honor for me to pay tribute to this great milestone. Pilgrim Baptist Church was founded in 1896 and has remained in Red Bank throughout that entire century of service to the community. The church's founders--who included the parents of one of Red Bank's most renowned citizens, the great bandleader Count Basie--held services in their own private homes until they were granted permission to share the facilities of the Calvary Baptist Church on Bridge Avenue. In fact, the name ``Pilgrim'' evolved because the founders of the congregation had to go from house to house when Calvary was not available. In 1905, the Rev. William B. Scott was called to pastor the church and his tenure lasted for 11 years, during which time the small congregation was able to purchase the parcel of land at Pearl Street. The year 1910 marked the begining of the construction of the historic ``Little Pilgrim'' on Pearl Street, which still stands and now houses St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church. Following Rev. Scott, Reverends D.K. Askew, W.B. Hebron, and W.B. Neal served as pastors. In 1945, the Rev. Henry L. Morgan was installed, and he would go on to serve for 25 years. With an increasing membership, in 1955 the congregation purchased its present building at 172 Shrewsbury Avenue. The Rev. Kenneth Grayson succeeded the Rev. Morgan, serving from 1971 until 1975. The Rev. Millard W. Harris, Jr., Pilgrim's current pastor, was installed in January 1976. Under the leadership of Reverend Harris, the membership of Pilgrim has continued to grow. At the same time, the church has purchased rental properties on Earl and Leonard Streets, purchased vehicles, expanded the sanctuary, and built classrooms that house the Head Start program. Mr. Speaker, it is great honor to pay tribute to Pilgrim Baptist Church for its 100 years of service to God and community. The Reverend Harris, officers of the church, and all the members of the Pilgrim family have made--and continue to make--a huge difference for the entire Red Bank and Monmouth County area. While the Pilgrim family can be proud of their first century, I know that their thoughts and prayers are clearly focused on continuing that legacy into a new century.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Republican colleagues outside the Capitol yesterday saying how they are going to go home and tout their commonsense accomplishments. I would say that nothing could be further from the truth. Looking at the Congress and the Republican leadership, they shut down the Government twice for nearly an entire month, wasting $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money. They abandoned a balanced budget by essentially proposing extreme proposals for tax breaks that would primarily benefit wealthy Americans. They voted for the largest education cuts in history, essentially abandoning our Nation's children. They undermined crime fighting efforts by voting to kill the COPS initiatives by the President that would put 100,000 new policemen on the streets, and they voted to roll back 25 years of bipartisan progress on environmental protection. These are the accomplishments of the 104th Congress, and as far as I am concerned, the sooner the Gingrich Congress is put to rest, the better.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on September 30 of this year, Mr. Mike Guigno, special projects officer for the directorate of public works at Fort Monmouth, NJ, will be retiring after 56 years of distinguished and exemplary public service. I am proud to have the opportunity to commend Mr. Guigno for this service and congratulate him on his retirement. As all of those who know Mike Guigno are aware, his record is truly an outstanding one. Having joined the National Guard in 1939 and served his country in World War II as part of Headquarters Company, 114th Intelligence and Reconnaissance, he established himself as a public servant in the earliest days of this professional life--a fact which the Fort Monmouth community would discover a few years after the war when he was transferred to the post engineers in October 1950. Since that time, Mr. Guigno's career has been nothing short of a model of excellence. He has worked tirelessly to improve Fort Monmouth and his work, which included a 1970 visit with President Nixon to discuss problems affecting the fort's community, will never be forgotten. The numerous letters, certificates and awards he has received in recognition of this service--most notably selection as the 1989 Fort Monmouth Civilian Employee of the Year and 1995 U.S. Army Material Command Public Works Support Executive of the Year--ensure the Fort Monmouth community will forever be in his debt. Indeed as a co- chair of the Save Our Fort Committee, a grassroots organization committed to improving Fort Monmouth, it is with great pleasure that I express both the public's gratitude, and my own, for all he has done. Mr. Guigno's family, wife Marguerite, son and daugther-in-law Victor and Cyndee, and sister Theresa are surely proud of him as well. Undoubtedly the road he has paved to get to his final position of special projects office of the directorate of public works--including that outside of professional life, which led to frequent participation in local church parish activities--has undoubtedly enriched their lives. Mr. Speaker, as this long and honorable list of accomplishments indicates, Mike Guigno's life has been full and his record of public service stellar. In short, he has set an example of citizenry that all should follow. In closing, I once again, congratulate Mike Guigno and thank him for a lifetime dedicated to improving the life of his fellow citizen.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the committee and the ranking member for including in this legislation the text of H.R. 3911, which establishes the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, NJ. I had introduced this bill earlier this session at the request of Assemblyman Bill Pascrell who is also the mayor of Paterson, NJ. It was a major piece of legislation that former Congressman Herb Klein had tried to get through this House. It is very important for the people of New Jersey, Passaic County and particularly, of course, for the residents of Paterson, NJ.

Mr. PALLONE

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