Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this year, 1996, the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America is celebrating its 100th anniversary. As part of these nationwide commemorations, the Jewish War Veterans Department of New Jersey is having a military ball at the Officers Club, Gibbs Hall, Fort Monmouth, on Thursday, April 25. The Centennial Journal being issued by the New Jersey Department in conjunction with this important anniversary is dedicated to the memory of Stanley J. Wides, past department commander and executive director. Thursday's event is also an opportunity to honor past national commanders. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to pay tribute to the New Jersey Jewish War Veterans. The Jewish War Veterans is the oldest active veterans organization in the country, and it is an honor to work on behalf of their agenda and on behalf of those men and women who sacrificed so much to safeguard our freedoms here at home and to make the world safe and free for future generations. I wish them great success on tomorrow evening's ball at Fort Monmouth, and I look forward to continued partnership with this great organization with its long, distinguished and proud history.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, here they go again. My colleagues on the other side, the Republicans, are now talking about how they want to fix Medicare essentially by cutting Medicare and using the money to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. We had this all through 1995. Now they are trying to distort the information that came out in the New York Times about the Medicare trust fund, to go ahead with their radical plan to cut Medicare in order to pay for these tax breaks for wealthy Americans. Well, let me tell the Members that this trust fund is not broke. We know now that it has $126.1 billion in surplus. This small deficit that was incurred in the first 6 months of this year does not justify going ahead with this radical plan to cut Medicare and give back these tax breaks to wealthy Americans. The Republican leadership has refused to sit down with President Clinton and try to work on a bipartisan basis to come up with an answer for Medicare to make sure it is solvent. We are not talking about today. We are not even talking about the next few years. This insolvency, if it occurs, is I think 2001 or 2002. Do not let it be an excuse on the part of the Republicans to give these tax breaks to wealthy Americans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today, April 24, marks the 81st anniversary of the unleasing of the Armenian genocide, one of the most horrible events of the 20th century and probably in all of human history. Mr. Speaker, each year Members of Congress from both the House and Senate take time to honor the memory of the 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children who were slaughtered during the final years of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. I am proud to continue this congressional tradition today. I am joining with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and other Members from both sides in these 5-minute special orders. Mr. Speaker, between the years 1915 and 1923 in the Ottoman Turkish Empire, there were 1.5 million Armenians slaughtered and another 500,000 forced to leave from their homelands. What happened was not a series of random atrocities but a systematic policy of deportation, separation of family members, slave labor, torture, and murder. Although the killings finally ended in 1923, efforts to erase all traces of the Armenian presence in what is now eastern Turkey continued, such as the changing of geographical names and the destruction of Armenian religious and cultural monuments. This was the first genocide of the 20th century, a precursor to the Nazi Holocaust and the other cases of ethnic cleansing and mass extermination of peoples in our own time. We must call it by its correct name: genocide. Yet to this day, the Government of Turkey maintains its disgraceful policy of denying that the genocide ever took place. The facts contradict those denials. The historical record, including documented accounts from American eyewitnesses, proves that the rulers of the Ottoman Empire, conceived in the name of Turkish national ideology, planned and carried out a program to eliminate ethnic minorities, especially the Armenians. The record includes the eyewitness accounts of journalists and diplomats on the scene and the eloquent and horrifying testimony of the survivors. The historic record is clear. At that time the word genocide had not yet been coined, but genocide is what it was. Yet there were no Nuremberg trials. There has been no official atonement by the Turkish nation. In fact, statements by me and other Members of Congress about the Armenian genocide are routinely dismissed by Turkey's Ambassador to the United States. We must continue to persuade Turkey, the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars each year in United States aid, to officially acknowledge the truth, and in our own time we must insist that Turkey lift its illegal blockades of Armenia and accept the Armenian government's offer to normalize relations without preconditions. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the Turkish President came to Washington on a state visit. For anyone who has held out the hope that the President would offer an olive branch of reconciliation to the Armenian people, the visit was a major disappointment, though not a major surprise. The Government of Turkey refused to lift the blockade of Armenia and accept the offer of the Government of Armenia to normalize relations without preconditions. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, United States administrations have also avoided using the term genocide in describing what happened 80 years ago, no doubt under heavy pressure from the Government of Turkey. While President Clinton and his predecessors have acknowledged the Armenian people were the victims of tragic massacres, these Presidential statements have never sufficiently conveyed the full extent of the evil that occurred. Clearly this entire shameful and appalling period of history meets every definition of the term genocide. Earlier this month, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I, as cochairmen of the Caucus on Armenian Issues, asked our colleagues to join us in urging the President to make a much stronger statement acknowledging the genocide. Fifty-nine Members of Congress signed on. Last year many of us signed a similar letter. Sadly, although President Clinton last year issued a powerful statement, he carefully avoided the word genocide. I want you to know that I support President Clinton on many issues and he has shown strong support for many pro-Armenian initiatives. He has appointed a special United States negotiator for the Nagorno-Karabagh situation, and the United States Agency for International Development has devoted great resources to Armenia, but I have no problem putting the President on the spot on the question of calling the genocide by its proper name. It is very important and a clear-cut case of doing the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that while the purpose of our ceremony today is a solemn remembrance of a tragedy that affected an entire people, I would like to say a few words about the present and the future. The survivors of the genocide, their sons and daughters and grandchildren, have refused to accept the effort by the Ottoman Turks to destroy the Armenian people. In fact, in the decades since, the Armenian people have flourished. One of the most inspiring events of recent years has been the emergence of the Republic of Armenia, and we as Americans must support the Republic of Armenia. It has, through great difficulty, registered positive growth in its gross domestic product. It has moved forward with the process of democratization. It has been having elections. But the people of Armenia still need our help. They need American help now. Last year, in the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, again primarily through Congressman Porter's help, $85 million in United States humanitarian aid was provided to Armenia, plus an additional $30 million for development assistance. Last year's foreign operations bill also included the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which bars aid to Turkey for as long as Turkey blocks the delivery of United States aid to Armenia. There are a number of things our caucus has been doing, and I am sure other Members tonight will also talk about more of them. But the main thing, Mr. Speaker, is we must continue our support for the Republic of Armenia, improving relations between the two countries, because that is one way that we can make it clear why this genocide, when it took place 80 years ago, was so wrong and what the accomplishments of the Armenian people have been since that time. Mr. Speaker, today, April 24, 1996, marks the 81st anniversary of the unleashing of the Armenian genocide, one of the most horrible events of the 20th century, and in all of human history. Each year Members of Congress from both the House and the Senate take time to honor the memory of the 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children who were slaughtered during the final years of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. I am proud to continue this proud congressional tradition today. I am joining with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and other members from both sides in the aisle in a series of 5-minute special orders to commemorate this tragic anniversary. Other Members are submitting statements in writing testifying to their deep concern about this issue. Mr. Speaker, between the years 1915 and 1923, in the Ottoman Turkish Empire, 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered and another 500,000 were forced to leave from their homelands. What happened was not a series of random atrocities, but a systematic policy of deportations, separation of family members, slave labor, torture, and murder. Although the killings finally ended in 1923 efforts to erase all traces of the Armenian presence in what is now eastern Turkey continued, such as the changing of geographical names and the destruction of Armenian religious and cultural monuments. This was the first genocide of the 20th century, a precursor to the Nazi Holocaust and the other case of ethnic cleaning and mass extermination of peoples in our own time. We must call it by its correct name: genocide. Yet, to this day, the Government of Turkey maintains its disgraceful policy of denying that the genocide ever took place. But the facts contradict these denials: The historical record, including documented accounts from American eyewitnesses, proves that the rules of the Ottoman Empire conceived, in the name of Turkish nationalist ideology, planned and carried out a program to eliminate ethnic minorities, especially the Armenians. The record includes the eyewitness accounts of journalists and diplomats on the scene, and the eloquent and horrifying testimony of the survivors. The historic record is clear. At that time, the word genocide had not yet been coined, but genocide is what it was. Yet there were no Nuremberg trials. These has been no official atonement by the Turkish nation. In fact, statements by me and other Members of Congress about the Armenian genocide are routinely dismissed by Turkey's Ambassador to the United States. We must continue to persuade Turkey, the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars each year in United States aid, to officially acknowledge the truth. And in our own time, we must insist that Turkey lift its illegal blockade of Armenia and accept the Armenian government's offer to normalize relations without preconditions. Just a few weeks ago, the Turkish President came to Washington on a state visit. For anyone who has held out the hope that President Demirel would offer an olive branch of reconciliation to the Armenian people, the visit was a major disappointment--though not a major surprise. The Government of Turkey refuses to lift its blockade of Armenia and to accept the offer of the Government of Armenia to normalize relations without preconditions. Sadly, United States administrations have also avoided using the term ``genocide'' in describing what happened 80 years ago--no doubt under heavy pressure from the Government of Turkey. While President Clinton and his predecessors have acknowledged that the Armenian people were the victims of tragic massacres, these Presidential statements have never sufficiently conveyed the full extent of the evil that occurred. Clearly, this entire shameful and appalling period of history meets every definition of the term ``genocide.'' Earlier this month, Congressman Porter and I, as cochairmen of the Caucus on Armenian Issues, asked our colleagues to join us in urging the President to make a much stronger statement acknowledging the genocide. Fifty-nine Members of Congress signed on. Last year, many of us signed a similar letter to the President. Sadly, although President Clinton last year issued a powerful statement, he carefully avoided the word ``genocide.'' I support President Clinton on many issues, and he has shown strong support for many pro-Armenian initiatives. He has appointed a special U.S. negotiator for the Nagorno-Karabakh situation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development [AID] has devoted great resources to Armenia. But I have no problem putting the President on the spot on the question of calling the genocide by its proper name. It is so very important, and such a clear-cut case of doing the right thing. While the purpose of today's ceremony is a solemn remembrance of a tragedy that affected an entire people, I would like to say a few words about the present and the future. The survivors of the genocide, their sons and daughters and their grandchildren, have refused to accept the effort by the Ottoman Turks to destroy the Armenian people. In fact, in the decades since, the Armenian people have flourished. The Armenians who came to the United States and their descendants have made tremendous contributions to our business, professional, and cultural life. Armenians have made new lives and significant contributions in many other countries. One of the most inspiring events of recent years has been the emergence of the Republic of Armenia. Rising out of the ashes of the former Soviet Union, the Republic of Armenia has shown a remarkable resilience, a commitment to democracy and a market economy. And it has not been easy: Armenia has been squeezed by cruel and illegal blockades imposed by modern Armenia's two neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Some of the noises coming out of Moscow, about a reunited Soviet Union, are most troubling. In spite of these difficulties, Armenia has been the only former Soviet Republic to register positive growth in its gross domestic product. The Republic of Armenia also moves forward with the process of democratization, having held Parliamentary elections last year and planning for Presidential elections this year. But the people of Armenia need our help--American help--now. We must do everything possible to make sure that they get that assistance, and many of my colleagues are working equally hard. The foreign operations appropriations for fiscal year 1996 provided $85 million in U.S. humanitarian aid, plus an additional $30 million for development assistance. Last year's foreign operations bill also included the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which bars aid to Turkey for as long as Turkey blocks the delivery of United States aid to Armenia. We are working to have this provision reenacted, and to make sure that the administration strictly enforces this law. In addition, last year's foreign aid bill had a cut in aid to Turkey, as a direct statement of disapproval for Turkey's actions with regards to the Armenian blockade, as well as the mistreatment of the Kurdish people, its occupation of Cyprus and its generally bad human rights record. I find it incredible that a country that gets $600 million in U.S. taxpayers' funds can get away with blocking the delivery of American humanitarian assistance to its small, struggling neighbor. Another way we can help Armenia is by ending the illegal blockade imposed by Armenia's neighbor to the east, Azerbaijan. Current U.S. law blocks the provision of American assistance to Azerbaijan until the Azeris lift their blockade. Unfortunately, last year, legislation to waive this law was included in the foreign operations bill. This year, we will try to be more vigilant to make sure that Azerbaijan is not rewarded for failure to comply with the conditions of United States under the Freedom Support Act. Last year, Congressman Porter and I founded the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, to be a voice for a stronger United States-Armenia partnership and to better represent the interests of the Armenian- American community. We now have 49 Members, from both parties and all regions of the country. There is a lot of sympathy and moral support for Armenia in the Congress, in the administration, among state legislators around the country, and among the American people in general. But we should not kid ourselves: we are up against very strong forces, in the State Department and the Pentagon who believe we must continue to appease Turkey, and among United States and international business interests whose concerns with profits and sources of raw materials outweigh their concerns for the people of Armenia. In closing, let me pay particular tribute to the survivors of the genocide. The horrors you have witnessed and experienced are unspeakable. Yet we must never forget what happened to you, your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends, and neighbors. I will do all that I can to keep alive the memory of what happened to the Armenian people in the past--and to play a role in working for a brighter future for the Armenian people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California and point out how strongly I feel that what we are engaged in here today and what the Republican leadership is engaged in here today is essentially what I call a ``green scam.'' They are putting up the Coastal Zone Management Act for reauthorization, which is certainly a good bill, but they are putting it up a day after Earth Day, an effort to try and give the impression that the Republican majority and that their leadership is in favor of protecting the ocean environment. And, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is, from the very beginning, this Republican leadership, from the very beginning of this Congress in 1995, brought up what I call the Dirty Water Act, an effort to essentially gut the Clean Water Act and many of the provisions of that bill which passed the House but, fortunately, has not passed the Senate, has been stopped in the Senate, would have turned back the clock on efforts over the last 25 or 26 years to protect the ocean investment. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], my colleague, has been very effective in trying to get this CZMA Act out of committee and brought to the floor, and I want to congratulate him today for the accomplishment of bringing it here to the floor. But the fact of the matter is that many times the Republican leadership fought very hard to have this bill not brought out of committee and to prevent it from coming to the floor. And they also tried to take away all the funding from the CZMA. At one time I remember specifically there was no funding for the bill, and if it was not for the fact that he and some of the other Republicans that do care about clean water were willing to take a stand, we would not be here today. But that does not take away from the fact that the Republican majority and their leadership has been adamant in their effort to cut back on the Clean Water Act. I just want to mention a few of those things today. I am going to give out 2 big leaves to two individuals: The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] stated before, he talked about what he was trying to do to protect the environment. And, of course, now the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] was saying the same thing. But on five key votes, both gentlemen, the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from Ohio, joined with the Republican leadership five out of five times to vote against coastal nonpoint pollution control, for dumping more sewage in the ocean, something that I think is very important to me, that we not have ocean pollution in the dumping of sewage; against protecting wetlands; for gutting the Clean Water Act; and, finally, against allowing the EPA to enforce wetlands protection. This continues. They are joining with the Republican leadership on these points, and, therefore, I give both of them a fig leaf at this time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the previous speaker, the chairman of the committee, brought up this job-versus-the-environment issue, because I think it is really crucial. The fact of the matter is that a good environment mean good jobs and better jobs and a better economy. No better illustration of that took place than in 1988 when I was first elected to Congress. We had medical waste, we had sewage sludge washing up on the Jersey shore. Our beaches were closed. Billions of dollars were lost to the New Jersey tourism industry because we had dirty water. The Clean Water Act made it possible for us to clean up those beaches and provided the funding to do so by upgrading sewage treatment plants. Now that tourism is back, the people are back, the jobs are back. A good environment and a clean ocean means good jobs, and it means a bigger economy. Do not let anybody from the other side or anybody try to kid and to say that there is an issue here of jobs versus the environment. The two go together, and a clean environment means more and better jobs.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the previous speaker is supporting this bipartisan noncontroversial bill to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act, but this is really again just a fig leaf to hide the fact that Republicans have consistently voted against protecting the environment and the health and safety of the American people. On five key votes that I mentioned before, the gentleman from California who previously spoke four out of five times joined with the Republican leadership: first against coastal nonpoint pollution control; second, for dumping more sewage into the ocean; third, against protecting wetlands; and, finally, for gutting the Clean Water Cat, the dirty water bill that we mentioned before. So for the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), I give him his fig leaf.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again I am pleased that the previous speaker, who said that he represents part of the ocean coastline in the great State of Florida, which practically the whole State is along the coast, is supporting this Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization. But he deserves a fig leaf. He earned a fig leaf and he cannot hide behind it. He cannot hide the fact that Republicans and he have consistently voted against protecting the environment and the health and safety of the American people. On five key votes, the gentleman from Florida has joined with the Republican leadership four out of five times to vote for dumping more sewage into the ocean, against protecting wetlands, for gutting the Clean Water Act, and against allowing the EPA to enforce wetlands protection. So I give him his fig leaf that is duly earned.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, I am glad the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from California, is supporting this reauthorization of this CZMA. Again, she has earned her fig leaf and she cannot hide behind it, because she consistently voted against protecting the environment and the health and safety of the American people on five key votes. The gentlewoman joined with the Republican leadership five out of five times to vote against coastal nonpoint pollution control, for dumping more sewage into the ocean, against protecting wetlands, for cutting the Clean Water Act, and against allowing the EPA to enforce wetlands protection, and she earned a zero voting record from the League of Conservation Voters. So I present her with this fig leaf.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said, because I think it harks back to what the gentleman from Alaska said before when he talked about the ratings from this private property group and said that I had received a zero. He, on the other hand, the gentleman from Alaska, received a zero from the League of Conservation Voters for being antienvironment. If we track the votes that the League of Conservation Voters used and the private property rights group used, they basically used the same votes. If you get a zero on private property, you get 100 percent from the league, and vice versa.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say, that I believe that this battery recycling bill is an important bill, as is the Coastal Zone Management Act which I believe we will be taking up next. They are important to my district, to the State of New Jersey. But I think that what we are hearing from our side of the aisle is a tremendous frustration over the fact that major pieces of legislation that relate to the environment, such as the Superfund, which is before the Committee on Commerce, such as safe drinking water, such as the Clean Water Act, which already passed this House, that consistently over the last year, since the beginning of 1995, the Republican leadership has made an effort to weaken major environmental laws and also has made a major effort to cut back on the amount of money that is available through appropriation bills, through the budget bill for environmental enforcement. I was very saddened really to learn today that even though it is the day after Earth Day and even though the Republican leadership and my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce on the other side are bringing up these bills today that are important, that nonetheless, we continue to see an effort by Speaker Gingrich and the leadership to press on through the appropriations process in providing less money for environmental enforcement and also in insisting on continuing with these antienvironmental riders in the appropriation bills. We were out on the lawn in front of the Capitol just about an hour ago, Mr. Miller and myself, and also the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. And we were told that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the Republican leadership insist on antienvironmental riders that would eliminate the EPA's role in wetlands protection, eliminate the possibility of designating for Superfund sites, not allowing the EPA to proceed with standards for radon, even though in my home State of New Jersey that is a major issue because of the radon and radiation contamination that has been found in some of the drinking water in Ocean County. So we are extremely upset over the fact that the Republican leadership continues this effort to turn back the clock on environmental protection. As much as we are supportive of the bills that are coming up today, we insist upon the fact that we will make a point over the next few weeks and certainly over the next few months until such time as we are successful in stopping this Republican raid on the environment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, [Mr. Miller].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation. This is a bipartisan bill that is supported by the Clinton administration and was reported out of the committee unanimously last week. I will include in the Record a letter from the Clinton administration in support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I first became involved with this legislation because New Jersey has a very serious mercury problem. In February of 1994, the State released a study that showed some fish in over half of the State's lakes with elevated mercury levels. These fish reflected increased mercury levels in the atmosphere. In addition, the Asbury Park Press, a newspaper in my district, did an outstanding investigative report over a number of days on the dangers and sources of mercury. Mercury enters the atmosphere and the food chain in a number of ways, but among the most significant sources are coal-fired utilities and solid waste incinerators. Many of the components of garbage burned by incinerators contain mercury, and incinerators then release the mercury into the atmosphere, which then reaches the ground through rain, snow, and other precipitation. As its title implies, the bill deals with mercury in a comprehensive fashion, including a user fee on mercury air emissions, reduction of mercury in packaging, mandatory separation of mercury-containing items from the waste stream, and a requirement for an EIS in order to site an incinerator. At one time, batteries may have accounted for as much as 60 percent of the mercury being released from municipal solid waste incinerators, but today batteries basically do not account for anywhere nearly as high a percentage of the mercury emitted into the atmosphere. I think it is clearly important to recognize the battery industry for its accomplishments in this area. The industry has made tremendous strides in reducing the mercury content of batteries, and now we are considering legislation that is supported by the industry that bans virtually all mercury containing batteries. That is no small feat. But non-mercury-containing batteries also contain other heavy metals and chemicals which can prove hazardous to human health and the environment if they are incinerated or landfilled. The bill before us that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], myself, and others have introduced, and I have to specifically mention the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] who is the original sponsor of this bill in previous Congresses, but basically what this bill does for these other issues, such as nickel-cadmium and other hazardous items other than mercury, it provides a coherent national system of handling for batteries and products, it streamlines regulatory requirements for battery collection programs, and it encourages voluntary industry programs by eliminating barriers to funding the collection and recycling or proper disposal of used rechargeable batteries. I just wanted to mention one more thing, Mr. Speaker. At the hearings our subcommittee held, the EPA raised some concerns about certain provisions in this bill. I criticized the agency for bringing its concerns to our attention many months after the bill passed the Senate and had been introduced. Working together, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] myself, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and others were able to address these concerns. Among other things, the amendments adopted by the committee close unintended loopholes in enforcement, allow States to implement and enforce the act, and make clear that the Administrator can invoke the Solid Waste Disposal Act against those who fail to comply with the provisions of the bill. I also want to note one change that has been made to the bill since it left committee. This change as reported by the committee is a change to the bill as reported and clarifies that the Administrator of EPA may enforce title II against any retailer-importer who has knowledge of the general chemical content of the general chemical content of the imported battery. However, the change allows the defense where the retailer-importer lacks such information, because, for example, of the duplicity of the overseas manufacturer. I do not want to get into more detail. It is a good bill. It has bipartisan support. I commend the chairman and the other members, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for their involvement. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. My understanding, from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], was that he was going to be the last speaker and that he would close. Now that the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has spoken, I would ask to reclaim my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Upton]. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I just want to say I want to thank Ms. DeLauro, the gentlewoman, for raising the issue of the minimum wage. I believe we will eventually have a vote on the minimum wage. It is primarily, I believe, because of your efforts to force the Republicans to give us a vote. They do not want to do it. As you have mentioned, they are stalling, they will continue to stall, they are going to find every way around it. But already I notice that because of your activities and because you have raised the issue so often on the House floor, we have gotten to a position now where Speaker Gingrich and some of the others have said that they may have to or be forced to bring up a vote on the minimum wage. I think a lot of that has to do with your efforts. To me this is a very important issue. My own State of New Jersey actually has a much higher minimum wage, and it has worked very well. As you mentioned, with a minimum wage right now at $4.25 an hour, that adds up to $8,800 a year. To me it is an absolute disgrace that someone in America can work a 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year and only earn $8,800. Basically I guess what they have to do is go out and get a second job. When you are working 40 hours a week, what are you going to do, work another job for the same amount of time, and then make only twice that amount? My understanding is that a minimum wage worker right now is below the poverty level. It is just as easy to go on welfare rather than work for the minimum wage. Here we have a Republican majority constantly bringing up the fact, suggesting in some way part of their reasoning is they want to get more people off the welfare roles. This belies that. If they want to do that, they should raise the minimum wage. Otherwise we are basically saying that a person might as well go on the dole or get welfare from the Government. The other thing I was going to say is that I really do not see any one legitimately coming on the floor of this House and saying that the minimum wage should not be raised. I think that is why you get some of the Republican leadership like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip, making the statement that you showed before, where he says that fortunately such families do not really exist. The only way out of this is to basically say there is no such person, because if you say no such person, then you eliminate the need to raise the minimum wage. But of course there are people, there are a lot of people out there, who are just making minimum wage. There are a lot in my district and they have come up to me. They are young people, they are senior citizens, they are people from every walk of life. Let me just make a few points, if I could. I know we do not have a lot of time. I just think one of the most important aspects is how this is a good thing for the economy. An increase in wages will increase purchasing power and improve the quality of life for millions of hard working Americans, not only the wage earners, but the local economy. Greater purchasing power will bring more money to our local economies and in the long run provide more stability and jobs for many small businesses. The purchasing power of our minimum wage earners is the lowest it has been since the early 1950's. I know you pointed that out over and over again. One of the things that really gets me mad is when I hear Republicans talk about how an increase in the minimum wage will cause an increase in inflation. You have to be kidding me. You have the nerve to tell people who work for $4.25 an hour that they cannot have a modest 90- cent increase in their wages because you are worried about how it will affect inflation. I think there are a lot of things we can do in our economy to keep inflation at reasonable levels. But to tell hard working Americans that their below poverty levels will have that effect on our economy and inflation is ludicrous. Let me talk briefly about our home State of New Jersey and our experience if I could. We have already seen the wisdom of raising our minimum. It is now $5.05 an hour. This increase has been a complete success. We have increased the purchasing power of our minimum wage workers and they have used that increase to purchase more goods from our local grocery stores and department stores. This is not pie in the sky. There are studies that clearly show this on a bipartisan basis that the leaders in our State legislature and our Governor have pointed this out. It actually helped to keep our unemployment rate from growing too high, even with the downsizing and corporate restructuring that is so heavily affecting the State of New Jersey. It also provided for long-term growth. We have seen in New Jersey more jobs have been created and our economy has benefited from the higher wages. Let me say what I see in my own State, this is the right thing to do. I just want to join my Democratic colleagues, and a few Republicans, I think Ms. DeLauro has pointed out there are some Republicans that have joined us who are going to help us in our efforts to get this passed. This is ultimately going to benefit all Americans. I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut again for her work on this, because I know you do not like to take credit, but I think you have single- handedly done the most in this House to bring this issue to the floor.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, April 22, was Earth Day, the 26th anniversary of Earth Day. Because we were not in session yesterday, we had an opportunity to be in our districts and in my case in New Jersey and to celebrate the day by participating in various events and talking about some of the environmental issues that are important to America these days. It is very unfortunate though that last year, in 1995, when Speaker Gingrich and the Republican majority and the Republican leadership first took office and it was the 25th anniversary of Earth Day, we saw a systematic effort on the part of the Republican majority, the Republican leadership, to try to tear down 25 years of environmental progress that had been made on a bipartisan basis in this Congress and with the cooperation of Presidents, again both Democrat and Republican. Today, because of the fact that many in the Republican leadership-- specifically the Speaker--saw that the efforts, those efforts to tear down environmental protection, to weaken environmental laws, to not provide funding for enforcement and for investigation against polluters, because that effort did not meet a favorable response with the American public and because the polling the Republican leadership did showed very emphatically that the public did not like the antienvironmental tactics that the Republican majority here was taking, all of a sudden now we see Speaker Gingrich and the Republican majority saying that, or trying to give the impression that, somehow they are pro-environment. Today for the first time we have three or more environmentally friendly bills that are going to be brought to the floor of the House. It is no accident that it is the day after Earth Day. Just like planting trees and visiting zoos and other things that Gingrich had suggested that Republican Members do, now he is proposing legislation on the day after Earth Day to try to basically give the impression that the GOP is environmental friendly. They are not. Like a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing, many of the Republicans in this body are trying to give off the false appearance of concern for the environment and the health and safety of the American people. But they have worked consistently in this Congress to gut successful environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Superfund, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. They have voted to substantially reduce funding for key environmental agencies such as the EPA and the Interior Department. They have tied the hands of these agencies by attaching antienvironmental riders onto their appropriation bills. These bills that we will be voting on today are nothing more than a figleaf being used to hide the shameful voting record of many Republican Members on the environment. Unfortunately, the leaf they have chosen just is not big enough. I want to use this chart to talk about the battery recycling bill, which is going to come up today and is a very good bill; but many of the Republicans cannot hide, by voting for this bill today, their previous votes on issued that are related. For example, most of them voted--if I could turn this over, Mr. Speaker--basically against protecting children from arsenic in their drinking water. They voted against adequate funding for our Nation's toxic waste cleanup programs. They voted to stop the EPA from protecting Americans from exposure to arsenic, dioxin, lead, and other cancer causing pollutants and to allow corporate polluters to dump up to 70,000 chemicals into our Nation's rivers, lakes and streams and, finally, to allow industry to pollute our drinking water. I want to make certain that the American public knows what is going on here today on the floor of this House. I will be supporting these bills today, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the battery recycling bill, the national wildlife refuge bills, and I have supported pro- environment initiatives throughout this Congress. Unfortunately, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle cannot say the same. For that, we are going to give them today the figleaf award. The figleaf award is given to those Republicans, the majority of them, who are essentially using Earth Day antics to try to cover up their environmental records. Mr. Speaker, it is not fair. When I came to Congress in 1988, I came here because many of my constituents were concerned about the environment and hoped that by coming down here I could do something to turn around the dismal situation at the Jersey Shore where we had medical waste and a lot of debris washing up on our beaches and our beaches were closed. I am very proud to say that Democratic Congresses, in cooperation with Republican and Democratic Presidents over the last 8 years, have done a lot to clean up our water. But this Congress has tried to turn back the clock. The Republican majority and its leadership should not be allowed to hide what they are doing behind a figleaf.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans have almost come together on a budget that would carry us through the rest of the year, but the one thing that is holding it up are the anti-environmental riders that the Republican leadership insists on putting in the bill. Today they insist on environmental riders that would bar new listings under the Endangered Species Act, prevent the EPA from protecting wetlands, provide no drinking water standards to protect the public from radon, and also to limit and cap the number of hazardous waste cleanup sites around the country. It is no surprise to me that today the only reason we are held up on this budget bill is because the Republican leadership continues to insist on putting these anti-environmental riders in the appropriations in the budget process. It is because fundamentally, from the very beginning of this Congress, they took an anti-environmental stance because they wanted to cater to the special interests, the corporate interests, that wanted to continue to pollute and tear down our environmental laws that we have worked so hard for since Earth Day 1970. Mr. Speaker, I know we are going to hear all kinds of rhetoric today from the Republicans about how they are so pro-environmental, but the real test is if they would eliminate the environmental riders and not put them in the budget bill. All the rest is simply rhetoric for Earth Day.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico for those very kind remarks and, of course, say the same thing about him. I know this battery bill has been very important to him and the whole issue of battery recycling and concern for mercury in the atmosphere. I agree with him completely when he says that as much as we believe that this bill is important today and we certainly do want it to pass, that that should not take away from what the Republican majority and the Republican leadership are doing about the environment in general, and how they are continuing to try to move legislation on the floor of this House that would tear down the environmental protections we have had in place for a number of years. Particularly, today I found out in the Committee on Appropriations, although they are very close to agreement on a spending bill that would take us through the remainder of this year, that the disagreement once again is over environmental issues and over the fact that the Republican leadership insists on these environmental riders or antienvironmental riders that are placed in the appropriations bill that would, among other things, prohibit new Superfund sites from being designated, prohibit the EPA from designating standards for radon in drinking water, prohibit the EPA from being involved in wetlands protection, and the list goes on and on. So they are continuing their assault on the environment; that is, the Republican majority, at the same time they are making an effort today, or at least to seem to try to show today, that they do bring some environmental legislation to the floor. We cannot mask the fact that some of these measures like the battery recycling bill, even though they are very important, are small measures compared to the damage the Republican majority is doing to the environment. If I could just for a minute quote what I thought was a great editorial in yesterday's New York Times, just some of it, that is called ``Defunding Mother Earth.'' It says: There are many destructive proposals on the Congressional agenda, including several bills that would transfer millions of acres of public land to state and commercial jurisdiction. But the most urgent example of bad legislation is an omnibus appropriations bill now under consideration in a House Senate conference. The bill sharply reduces appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department and contains a dozen or so crippling anti-environmental riders. Today marks the 26th anniversary of Earth Day. In full knowledge of that, House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently formed a 77-member Republican environmental task force. Although 36 members of this task force earned ``zero'' ratings from the League of Conservation Voters for their routine support of anti-environmental legislation, many of them are likely to spend the week planting trees, visiting zoos and striking friendly poses next to recycling bins. But the best thing Mr. Gingrich could do for his country and his party would be to recognize that what counts here is content, not imagery--and remove those riders from the appropriations bill. Once again, we need to keep pressing the point that you cannot talk about the environment in a favorable way, and move some bills, and at the same time continue the assault on the environment to tear down the last 25 years of environmental protection since Earth Day.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 20, 1996, at the Hyatt Regency in New Brunswick, NY, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 65, of Perth Amboy, NJ, will hold its 100th anniversary dinner-dance. It is a great honor for me to join the members of Local No. 65 for this momentous occasion. The Carpenters and Joiners have consistently been a strong supporter and a tireless fighter, not only for the needs of their own members, but for the American worker in general. In a time when labor unions are being attacked and the gains that organized labor has made over the past century are under constant threat, I have stood up to defend the livable wages and good working conditions that have contributed to the creation of the great American middle class. Mr. Speaker, this 100th anniversary is a great occasion for us all to remember the important contributions that labor unions have made and continue to make to improve the quality of life at home and abroad.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. That is one of the main points that we are trying to make here tonight and that the gentleman is making very effectively, which is that we cannot be fooled, if you will, by the fact that we are not seeing legislation coming directly to the floor now to strike the Clean Water Act, for example. Because we are still having, with these stopgap funding measures, significant cuts in enforcement, in the ability for environmental agencies to actually operate and to enforce the law. That is continuing on a regular basis, and all efforts to try to sort of paper that over by suggesting that we are going to be a little better on the environment now is really nothing but smoke and mirrors.