Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that. If I could just say one last thing, that is that the reason I feel so strongly about this is not only because I think it is important to have better environmental standards in the other countries, but also because if we do not, if we just allow these free trade agreements to go forward without these kinds of environmental safeguards, then what happens is ultimately our own environmental standards are threatened, because it becomes very easy for those countries to lure plants and companies, manufacturing, down to, say, Mexico.

Mr. PALLONE. What I have been doing over the last couple of days, Mr. Chairman, is I have put together a letter that I am trying, and some Members have already signed and I am trying to get more Members to sign, to the President basically saying this: That it is critical for the fast track to require that environmental concerns be directly addressed in negotiated agreements, rather than allowing environmental protection to be negotiated separately in unenforceable side agreements that do not adequately protect the environment. To that end, trade agreements negotiated under fast track should also be negotiated to include enforcement mechanisms that should hold governments to set environmental protection. I am not saying even with that that fast track is acceptable, but I believe very strongly that if we were able to get these kinds of inclusions in there, at least we would have a little better protection and know that something would be done on the environment other than negotiating additional side agreements that really have had no impact. One of the things I keep saying over and over again is we have to look at NAFTA as the example. I know a lot of people say, well, in voting or in reviewing fast track legislation, we should not look back at NAFTA. To me that makes no sense. NAFTA is the example that we have of what may result as a result of fast track. If the environment did not work with that, why should we believe it is going to work again?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the other sponsors of this amendment to come to this agreement that provides $1 million for the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. This is the level requested in the President's budget and is the first funding for this program in 2 years. The program is critical to coastal states because nonpoint source pollution is the leading cause of pollution along our Nation's coasts. I represent the New Jersey shore where our entire way of life, our economy and the health and safety of our residents is dependent on the quality of our coastal waters. I know that it is the same for coastal communities throughout the country. The effect of nonpoint source pollution on coastal areas can be devastating, as we have all seen over the last several weeks with what is happening in the Chesapeake Bay. I just want to say, according to a recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, coastal nonpoint source pollution is now the leading cause of beach closings nationwide. In fact, over half of the beach closings and advisories last year for which there was a determined cause, 893 of 1,627 closings and advisories were caused by nonpoint source pollution. We have come a long way over the last 25 years to cleaning up our Nation's waters, but now nonpoint source pollution is the final frontier in water pollution. But it is by working together as we are today that we are finally going to take this step and finally accomplish the goal of the Clean Water Act, and that is swimmable, fishable waters. This will go a long way toward accomplishing that.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on an amendment that will protect a resource in my district from being overutilized and depleted. This amendment, introduced by the chairman of the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans Subcommittee, serves to prohibit large fishing vessels from obtaining a permit and engaging in the harvest of Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel within our EEZ waters. I believe that we must prohibit large vessels from the Atlantic herring and mackerel fishery until accurate information has been collected. To date, no ship of this size has fished this vulnerable fishery. There is no way for us to know how a large vessel would effect the fishery. Mr. Chairman, large vessels have the potential of depleting any fishery and have it overutilized in a short amount of time. Large fishing trawlers are highly efficient and have the ability to harvest five or six times more than any vessel currently registered on the Atlantic Coast. Furthermore, the processing capacity of large vessels is so great that they, themselves, can fill fishing quotas. As a result, these ships would compromise the Atlantic herring and the Atlantic mackerel fishing seasons. Mr. Chairman, if you are not aware, stock quotas are spread over a number of ships and are not designed to be filled by a small percentage of ships. My fear is that a large, highly efficient ship could close a fishery and reduce its stock simply by the number of fish it can catch. I am also concerned with the National Marine Fisheries Service's ability to react to this fishery if overutilization occurs and the fishery needs to shut down. If a ship of this size is allowed to harvest this fishery, and there is a mistake as to the size of the herring and mackerel stock, we will have a problem. If we are to guess as to the size of the stock and its preservation, I would rather make the mistake on the side of conservation, no exploitation. In the past, we have encouraged highly efficient gears to fish underutilized stocks. In the 1980's we redirected efforts towards the shark species. At the time, sharks were considered to be underutilized. As a result, a drop in various sharks species has occurred. We must now take emergency measures in protecting those shark species. Mr. Chairman, have we not learned from our past mistakes? A vote in support of this amendment is a vote for conservation and a vote for the protection of one of our largest public resources. This is an opportunity for Members of the House to protect a fish stock not only for those fishermen whose livelihood depends on this resources, but for future generations of fisherman as well. As a member of the subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I strongly urge my colleagues to support and pass this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Republican colleagues this morning. It is amazing to me that they are still trying to obstruct campaign finance reform. Clearly, the time has come today for the House Republican leadership to bring up campaign finance reform for a vote on the floor. We know the Senate is doing it. Mr. Lott has said that he is going to bring it up. The President has sent a letter saying he will have a special session if necessary. But so far there is only silence by the Speaker and the House Republican leadership on the issue. They suggest it is for the future and certainly not for this session of Congress, and this has to change because the American people are demanding reform. There is simply too much money in the system. The average American does not feel that he or she matters anymore because wealthy individuals and corporations have all the influence. Mr. Speaker, bring up campaign finance reform for a vote on the House floor. We can move on bipartisan reform legislation. The American people demand it, and we should move on it immediately.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some of those who favor this motion by the gentlewoman which seeks to void the cost-of- living adjustment for Congress. I think that they are very far removed from the realities here. Our constituents, in my opinion, oppose efforts by Congress to carve out special treatment for themselves, for example, subsidizing activities here or perhaps special services that other Americans do not receive. But I think that they understand the concept of a COLA. It is an inflation factor. It is a cost-of-living adjustment. It is the same type of COLA or inflation factor that other Federal employees get, that members of the judiciary get, that Social Security recipients get, and many others get. In fact, it is a little less, a half percent even less than those. I think that we are really not relaying, if you will, to the American people what is really going on here if we continue to talk about it as somehow something privileged or something very special. It is not. That is the difference. I know that when I talk to my constituents, if I told them that we were going to vote ourselves a 15,000 or 20,000 or $25,000 pay raise, they would say, that's outrageous. You don't deserve it. But when we tell them that we are just giving ourselves a COLA and we proceed in the fashion just like other Federal employees, just like Social Security, just like so many other Americans, I think they understand that. I think they understand that all of us have to make a living and that over the years, inflation and costs go up, and that we are justified in doing so. I know that there has been some argument here about the way that we have gone about it. There is no question in my mind that the gentlewoman is perfectly justified in bringing up this motion today and having us vote on it and articulating what she is all about. But the basic philosophy behind the COLA makes sense. I think that if we settled with it, if we said, ``OK, we're going to have the COLA, and it's going to go on every year,'' we would get away from this whole idea of having to come to the floor and in some cases disguise what we are actually doing. It should be no different than other Federal employees. I understand why she is bringing up the motion, but I would urge that we defeat her motion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority in this House has done a disservice to the country in its continual effort to go after the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], who was duly elected and certified by the State of California. But one of the saddest consequences of the Republican witch hunt of this Hispanic Member has been to encourage former Congressman Bob Dornan into believing that he is still a Member of this body. Mr. Dornan has no business being on the floor of this House. I know the rules currently allow it, but he has violated that privilege by his conduct most recently when he accosted my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. I urge all my colleagues to support the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] to prevent Bob Dornan from returning to the House floor. But I fault the Republican leadership even more than Mr. Dornan that we have come to this sad state of affairs. They are to blame for encouraging Mr. Dornan, who has clearly lost the election but persists in thinking otherwise.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. He went from public school to very good universities. He was a Rhodes Scholar. He is really sort of the example of how everything can open up and, given equal opportunity, that people really can achieve great things, can become the President of the United States. I think all the Democrats are saying is we want that to be true for the next generation and generations to come. We do not want that opportunity to be lost, because it may very well be if we do not continue to prioritize the public schools. I think that is really what may be the reason why so many of us in our party feel so strongly about these education initiatives, because we have seen it ourselves. You and I were talking earlier about how many Members of Congress went through public schools and how oftentimes we will see those very same Members get up, sometimes on the other side of the aisle, and talk about vouchers or ways that we think will actually drain public school resources. Sometimes I just wish they would look at themselves in the mirror as an example at how they got here to these hallowed halls, so-to-speak, and it was mostly through public education. So do not tear it apart. Try to come up with ways that will improve it. That is really all we are saying. I mean, we keep saying it over and over again. We worked on it a lot with the budget in terms of higher education and providing more opportunity and more money that is available, and now we are saying we have to do the same thing with the secondary schools, with preschool, all the way to high school graduation.

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to say it is interesting what you said about President Clinton, because I think he has done more to basically be an advocate for prioritizing education on the Federal level than really anybody else. I watch him, and I have watched over the years how he has approached it. I think a lot of it just comes from his own background, having grown up in not a wealthy background by any means. I think his father had actually died before he was born or when he was 6 months old, and he had a rough time.

Mr. PALLONE. Just briefly, just to give you an example, I know for example in my local schools how difficult it is for them just to provide the curriculum that they would like to provide. In other words, if they do not have enough money to hire a teacher at the end of the year, they may not be able to have an advanced placement course or have a program for the disadvantaged or a sports program. You talk about starting to take the money away from vouchers from the public schools, even in a small way, even if it impacts 5 or 10 or 1 percent of their budget, that is going to mean no advanced placement classes, no tutorials for kids having a problem reading. They may have to abolish one of their sports programs, because they are on tight budgets. It is not pie in the sky where they have the opportunity to spend all kinds of money. Everything they do is watched. Most of it is subject to an annual referendum about how much they spend.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to say very briefly, I am not going to go into the rest of these things that outline what New Jersey is doing with its Goals 2000 money. We can go into it more. It is very effective. But I just want to say, the gentleman is so much on point. He talks about the public schools being the basis for the community. I think that is totally true. What I find is that it is true that my constituents talk to me about the need to improve the public schools. They recognize that there are problems. They recognize that the schools can do better, but they want them to do better. They want us as their elected officials to help in that regard. They do not want us to go for voucher systems which are basically going to drain the resources of the public schools and make it so that more and more people go to private school, whatever those schools happen to be, because the bottom line is that public schools historically have brought people together. They have been the equalizer, so to speak. They have been the vehicle for equal opportunity. We just cannot give up. Our constituents do not want us to give up. I think those who argue for vouchers and encourage voucher-type programs, they have basically given up on the public schools. They are telling us, oh, if we do the vouchers, that that somehow is going to benefit the public schools, and they are going to get better. Not true. It is the people who have given up on the public schools that want to go to a voucher system. That is not what the majority of our constituents want. They want us to do what we can do to improve the public schools and to provide them with adequate resources.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern]. I was listening to some of his comments before I came down on the floor. Obviously, both gentlemen from Massachusetts are very concerned about where we were going with the education system and want to do whatever they can to improve public education here in the United States. I know they have got some very good ideas which they articulated about how to go about that. One of the things that I am very proud of is that our party, the Democratic party, for the last few years and historically, but the last few years particularly, has stressed the need to upgrade education, not only at the higher education level in terms of providing finance assistance, loans, grants, work study programs, which we did as part of the balanced budget agreement, and we insisted that there be more money available for assistance programs to students so that they would have access to college and university education, but also now particularly we feel as Democrats that it is important to try to improve and provide additional resources for public schools, for secondary schools. We talked in the last few weeks on the floor about the need to upgrade infrastructure because schools are overcrowded, that we need to provide a program to provide funds to local boards of education so that they can fix up crumbling schools, address the concerns of overcrowding, because there are so many schools that need repair. We also talked about standards. One of the major aspects of the Democrats' program for education is to upgrade standards and provide for national standards and provide for ways to help the local boards of education to improve standards. One of the things that I think that we stress as Democrats is that this needs to be a partnership with the Federal Government. We all know that primarily States and local communities and local governments are the ones that have the primary responsibility for public schools. But there is no reason why the Federal Government cannot be a partner in that, particularly with regard to resources. I just want to say, one of the things that has been upsetting me a great deal in this appropriations bill, the Labor, Health, Education bill that we have been dealing with in the past few weeks here in Congress, here in the House, is that the Republicans repeatedly put up amendments which seek to attack and I think ultimately reduce resources that are available for public education. Today there was an amendment that would basically provide a block grant and eliminate Safe and Drug-Free Schools, School-to-Work, Goals 2000, teacher training programs. And I know that the Republicans who are sponsoring that amendment will say, ``Well, we are going to give the money back to the schools but we are not going to tell them what to do with it, so that is okay, they are still going to get the same amount of money.'' The bottom line is that Federal policy should, in my opinion, be based on what the needs are. We need safe schools. And Goals 2000 has been a very effective program, and the whole School-to-Work program. All these things have been very effective. I just want to give my colleagues an idea. In New Jersey when we talk about Goals 2000, which the Republicans also tried to eliminate last year, last year, in the 104th Congress, they had a whole series of cuts in elementary and secondary education which included significant cuts in Goals 2000. Goals 2000 is basically a way for the Federal Government to help individual States with their educational programs. Just to give my colleagues an idea, in New Jersey, with a relatively small amount of money, I do not know if I have the figure here or how important the figure ultimately is in terms of how much New Jersey got, but it was in the millions. It was several million dollars. And basically what they did was to use the money that came from the Federal Government to provide for schools to be safe from violence. We in New Jersey launched a multifaceted safe school initiative in December of 1994. And reported findings, as a result of that program, indicate a reduction in the number of reported incidents of vandalism and violence in New Jersey public schools for the 1995-96 school year. I can give you the specifics about how crime declined. This was as a direct result of Federal funding coming down through Goals 2000. I will give my colleagues some of the others, but I see my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge] would like to comment, and I would certainly yield to him at this time with your permission.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to say, I know earlier today the gentleman had spoken up at a meeting about the need for more enforcement, and I think the response was that, well, we need more money. Congress should appropriate more money for enforcement. I sort of laughed and said to myself, well, if we do not have the ability, if this body, if this House of Representatives and the other body are not going to appropriate the money to do the enforcement, to make sure the inspections take place, then we should not be supporting NAFTA and fast track. I want to say that if this same group of elected officials are going to say that we are not going to provide the funding to make sure these enforcement measures take place, then they should not be supporting NAFTA and should not be supporting fast track. I think my colleague from Ohio comes right to the point, because he is saying what are we going to put first here? We are going the put the mechanisms to make sure the laws are properly enforced; that the environmental laws are enforced; that there is not going to be the ratcheting down or the weakening of standards, whether it is labor standards or it is environmental standards. And once we have those guarantees in place, both here and in the country we are entering into this trade agreement with, then, sure, we can move toward free trade, but not have the cart before the horse, or whatever the term is, and that is what we are getting now. We are being told the most important thing is to have the agreement, because the flag of free trade is the most important flag and we have to wave that wherever we are in the world. And in the meantime we will try to use our good devices to try to convince some of these other governments that they should have better environmental standards or better labor standards. But that is secondary and we cannot really talk to them about that now because they might be offended by it and we have to enter these agreements and wave that free trade flag. I do not buy it, and I am glad the gentlemen with me here tonight do not buy it and, hopefully, we will not have a lot of other people buy it when this comes up a couple of weeks from now.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about the investors getting richer. Those are the only people who have benefited from this. I look at these agreements and say, OK, you have the United States and you have Mexico. As far as I am concerned, from the United States point of view, if as a result of NAFTA more people have jobs and more people have higher wages for the jobs that they have, or, similarly, that somehow the environmental standards go up in the United States, or looking at it from Mexico's point of view, that the wages of the Mexican citizens go up or that the environmental standards or cleanup is improved in Mexico, then we might say, OK. But here it actually makes it worse on both sides. The way I understand it, and I have it from my own district, I can give some examples, plants that have closed in my district, what is happening is our plants are closing, our workers are losing their jobs, or in order to make sure that the plant does not move to Mexico, they have to give up benefits or lower their wages. Then at the same time, when we look at the situation in Mexico, my understanding is that wages have actually gone down there. The same thing with the environment. The effort is to reduce our environmental laws and make them less stringent, because we are told that if we do not, the plant is going to move to Mexico. Similarly, in Mexico, nothing has been done to clean up any of the problems in the border areas, and the amount of pollution that is being spewed is even greater than before. So in reality, what is happening is things are being ratcheted down. The environmental standards and the air quality and the water quality in general between the two countries is getting worse, and the labor situation is getting worse. No one benefits. The thing that is amazing to me is that even though we have this experience that shows that no one benefits from either the environmental or labor or wage point of view, other than the corporations and those who have invested in the corporations, even though we have that experience that shows that no one has benefited, in the case of NAFTA, nonetheless, we are now being told to move on, let us get the fast track authority, let us enter into similar agreements with other countries, and do not worry about what happened with NAFTA. That is not a good example. Somehow, the situation in Mexico is an aberration, and that will not happen with the other countries. It is really hard for me to believe that we are being told to do this, based on the experience of NAFTA.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. I just want to start out by saying that I appreciate the remarks that my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], and also my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], have been making in talking about fast track, and also talking about the experience that this country has with NAFTA, and expressing their concern over where we are going with this fast track legislation. I know that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] have been doing special orders on this issue for a number of months now, and I have listened to some of it. I certainly agree with everything that the two of the gentlemen have been saying. They have really been taking the lead on this. I just wanted to very briefly, if I could, follow up and talk about the environmental aspect, because it is something that concerns me a great deal. What I find so strange is that the advocates of this new fast track authority, and I guess we are going to be voting on this probably within the next week or two, keep suggesting that somehow we should not even make reference to NAFTA and the experiences of NAFTA in deciding how to vote on fast track. To me, that makes absolutely no sense at all, because if anything, the best indicator to me of what might happen once this fast track authority is given, and if it is given, and these trade agreements are negotiated, that the best experience I have is the experience that we have with NAFTA. I was very much opposed to NAFTA. I voted against it. For those who at the time were having a debate on NAFTA, I remember distinctly how we were being told that if we were concerned about labor conditions, if we were concerned about the environment, that certain so-called side agreements were going to be entered into, and that those should basically alleviate the concerns of people like myself who felt that enough was not being done to deal with the environmental and labor issues. I did not buy that at the time, but it was sort of a bill of goods or whatever that was being sold to people at the time to try to persuade them to vote for NAFTA. Frankly, I think that the experience of the last few years with NAFTA has shown very dramatically that there was no result from those side agreements; that, in fact, labor conditions in Mexico got worse; that there were more job losses here in the United States as a result of the loss of jobs and the transfer of factories and manufacturing to Mexico. The same thing was true of the environmental agreement. The environmental side agreement was supposedly going to improve environmental conditions in Mexico, and what do we have? For the last few years we have more companies going down to the border area, polluting the area so the level of pollution has gotten worse, coming back to the United States, and having a negative impact on the United States. My understanding was there was about $2 billion in funds that was supposed to be used to clean up some of the toxic wastes and other problems on the border area with Mexico, and not one penny of that money has been spent so far. So for those who say, do not look back at NAFTA in deciding whether to vote for fast track, the only reason they are saying that is because NAFTA has been a failure.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 134 which, as you know, would authorize the use of the Capitol rotunda for an address by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Earlier in the year, I signed a letter to Speaker Gingrich with over 40 other members of the Hellenic Caucus requesting that the Patriarch have the opportunity to address Congress during his October visit. I consequently signed on as a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 134 when it was introduced just a few months ago and am naturally very pleased to see this bill on the floor today. On a related front, I hope to see H.R. 2248, another bill concerning His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, on the floor soon. This bill would authorize the President to present a Congressional Gold Medal to the Patriarchate--an honor from this body that I believe he richly deserves. Mr. Speaker, His All Holiness Bartholomew is one of the world's most important religious leaders. As the Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome, he is the 270th successor of the almost 2,000-year-old Christian Center founded by Apostle Andrew. In this capacity he serves as the spiritual leader of some 300 million people worldwide. He is also one of the world's most outspoken champions for religious freedom and human rights. In a recent interview with Time magazine Patriarchate Bartholomew provided some insight on the direction he wants to steer the Orthodox Church. ``The Ecumenical Patriarchate,'' he said ``wishes to remain only a church, one which is free and respected by everybody. We have lived side by side with Muslims and Jews, and we have developed trusting relationships with both. It is our belief that Orthodox Christians have a special responsibility to East-West rapproachment.'' These are, of course, the types of sentiments that are surely going to be reiterated by Patriarch Bartholomew, and well received by Congress, in October. Indeed, I know many of my colleagues are well aware of the struggles the Eastern Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul has had in exercising its faith free of persecution from the Turkish Government. To date, Patriarch Bartholomew has had no success in persuading the Turkish Government to reopen the Orthodox Church's theological school on Halki. The school was closed by the Turkish Government 25 years ago. It's closure, Mr. Speaker, has prevented the church from preparing new generations of religious leaders. I am proud to have joined with many of my colleagues in the 104th and 105th Congresses in support of legislation calling on the administration to use its influence with the Turkish Government to help secure religious freedom for Orthodox Christians in Turkey. To that end, I very much look forward to Patriarch Bartholomew's visit and to working with him to pursue religious freedom in Turkey and across the world. I think it is extremely appropriate to make our Capitol available for this purpose and urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important event that is taking place on September 16, 17, and 18 in Atlantic City, NJ. On that day, about 80 members of the 50th Battalion--veterans of the Korean war--will reunite to commemorate the tremendous contribution of the 50th Battalion from 1950 to 1955 and honor the soldiers who were injured and who died in many critical offensives of the Korean war. I am pleased to call as a friend the coordinator of the event, Peter A. Marone, and wish him great success for this reunion of Korean war heroes. These wishes also go out to the cocoordinator, Donald Sullivan of Absecon, NJ. Mr. Marone, former mayor of St. Pleasant, NJ, has reminded me of the tremendous contribution made by the 50th Battalion and I want to share a brief account with you. The goal of the initial invasion by our troops at Inchon in September, 1950, was to seize the vital rail and communications center of Seoul, seal off the main areas of escape to the north, and secure the port at Inchon and the airfields at Kimpo and Seoul. This incredible series of battles and troop movements was followed shortly by what was called ``The Christmas Miracle.'' By November 1950 the Korean war seemed all but over. The North Koreans were squeezed back to the Yalu River on the Manchurian border. It seemed the war was coming to an end. But on November 27, Communist China sent 120,000 troops into North Korea and pitted them against 15,000 U.N. forces in the East. There were many casualties among Marines and Army troops. In the following days, of the 15,000 U.N. troops encircled by the Communist Chinese, 12,000 became casualties. It was then that the chosen fighters of the 50th Battalion made their greatest contribution. By checking the Chinese forces in the mountains as part of a perimeter established around the besieged Hamhung, they enabled the escape of 100,000 North Korean men, women, and children to safety. I would like to recognize the courage of the participants in the Christmas Miracle, as well as all those who nobly served in the battalion in the following years. It is so important that current and future generations never forget the sacrifices and the bravery of the soldiers of the 50th Battalion as well as all the veterans of our wars.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that my colleagues' expressions that I have heard on a bipartisan basis so far this evening have been wonderful, and I think really express the deep sympathy that we share and the lesson I think that we have learned on a bipartisan basis, and, certainly, that all Americans, I believe, have learned from the life of Mother Teresa. I rise today to honor and remember her. Last week we lost, I believe, one of the world's greatest humanitarian leaders. Her death, which has touched the lives of people all over the world, has prompted an outpouring of grief and mourning worldwide. Just here in Washington, hundreds of flowers have been placed at the foot of the Indian Embassy in her honor. On September 6, over 2,000 people signed a condolence book at the Indian Embassy, and approximately 5,000 people attended a memorial service at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to mourn her death. As India's Prime Minister Gujral said of her death, ``The world is mourning.'' This Saturday, on September 13, it has been mentioned that a State funeral is being given for Mother Teresa, the highest honor that the Indian Government can bestow upon an individual. The First Lady is leading a delegation, which I am honored to join this evening. While such an elaborate funeral may seem to be somewhat at odds with her teaching and her way of life, the funeral gives the world the opportunity to remember a woman who has always given to others. Although small in stature, her heart was enormous. Despite receiving a pacemaker in 1989 and plagued by a series of heart attacks, her commitment to the poor and disadvantaged never ceased. Mr. Speaker, Mother Teresa was much more than a symbol or a figurehead. She lived by example. People from around the world recall stories in which she would tell flight attendants to pack leftovers for needy children and how she asked the Nobel prize organizers to cancel a banquet in her honor and use the money to feed the needy. The Order of the Missionaries of Charity, which she founded, is established in 120 countries, committed to serving and helping the homeless, the dying, and the hungry. While she was a Roman Catholic, Mother Teresa respected the religious practices of each of the individuals to whom she attended. She once told a friend when she was accused of converting Hindus to Catholicism, ``I do convert. I convert you to become a better Hindu, or a better Muslim, or a better Protestant. When you have found God, it is up to you to do with him what you wish.'' Mr. Speaker, we must not forget the work begun by this remarkable woman who saw God in the face of every human being. I am assured, just listening to some of the statements that my colleagues have made today, that her work will not be forgotten, and will be going on for time immemorial.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership continues to thwart Democratic efforts to bring campaign finance reform to the House floor for a vote. The Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], told Congress Daily earlier this week that he doubted campaign finance reform would come to the floor this fall. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that Americans are crying out for reform because they feel that too much money is spent in congressional elections. But what is incredible is that the Republican leadership wants more money spent in campaigns, and few, if any, restrictions on the contributions of wealthy individuals. Speaker Gingrich was recently quoted, and I see the chart here, saying ``Let any American citizen give any amount. Let everyone play. Let them buy all the ads they want. Let them send all the direct mail they want.'' Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Republican partisan self-interest is preventing them from acting in the public interest.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have made education a top priority this Congress, and our emphasis has been on improving public schools, including raising educational standards and addressing infrastructure needs. My concern is that the Republican leadership, after trying to make the deepest education cuts in history last year, are now emphasizing vouchers to pay for private schools as the way to reform our education system. In my opinion, vouchers will not help public schools; just the opposite. They will drain away resources that can be used to improve public school standards and rebuild crumbling or overcrowded schools. Americans overwhelmingly support the Democratic commitment to public schools. They want to make public schools safer, improve the quality of teachers, and get parents more involved in education. Let us not walk away from the public schools, but let us try to improve them. That is the Democratic Party position.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley] in expressing sympathy for the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell] on the death of the gentleman's father. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are determined to bring campaign finance reform to the floor, despite the Republican leadership's reluctance to do so. The problem with congressional elections is that they cost too much, and increasingly the average American cannot run for Congress. The public feels that their vote does not count because of the influence wealthy people have through their ability to contribute large sums of money to a campaign. My home State of New Jersey sets a very good example of a public financing system that we use for our Governor's race that is going on now. Contributions to the Governor's race, I should mention, are limited. But more important, the amount of private money is capped and then matched with public funds, so that the overall expenditures of the race remain basically even for Democrat and Republican candidates. I would like to see the same type of system for congressional raises. I believe the public would support this as an alternative to the current race for dollars. Democrats, Mr. Speaker, will continue to press for campaign finance reform.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, Democrats this week will continue our effort to improve our Nation's public schools. We believe strongly that every child in America should have access to quality public education. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership keeps trying to erode support for public schools. House Democrats' priorities for education include reducing overcrowding in schools, as well as rebuilding crumbling schools. The dire need to invest in the physical infrastructure of our schools is a matter that every Member of this body has become very familiar with in the last several weeks, and I am referring of course to the delayed opening of the school year right here in the District of Columbia. Because of the decrepit physical conditions of many schools in the District of Columbia, the opening of the school year has been postponed by a minimum of 3 weeks. Talk has surfaced in recent days that the 3-week extension may not be enough, and this is indeed a sad state of affairs. Many school systems across the Nation, including schools in my home State of New Jersey, are badly in need of physical improvements and other upgrades to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The General Accounting Office has noted that approximately one-third of all schools serving 14 million students are now in need of substantial repair or outright replacement. The GAO has also noted that half of the Nation's schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. Indeed, as school enrollment continues to grow in the coming years, the need for additional space and modern facilities will be more acute than ever. For this school year, 1996-97, elementary and secondary school enrollment was a record 51.7 million. That record has been broken by this year's all-time high enrollment figure of 52.2 million. In other words, from last year to this year, the record was broken again. To put it in perspective, there are more students enrolled in school now than there were when the baby boomers reached their peak school enrollment number in 1971. According to the Department of Education, school enrollment is projected to climb to a whopping 54.6 million by the 2006 school year. In addition to the need to repair decaying schools, we also need to modernize schools so our students will have the resources they need to compete in today's economy. The National Center for Education statistics have noted that only 4 percent of schools have enough computers to allow regular use by each student. Forty-six percent of schools lack the electrical wiring necessary for computers in all classrooms. A mere 9 percent of classrooms are currently connected to the Internet. More than half the Nation's schools lack the needed infrastructure to access the Internet or network their computers. The Department of Education estimates that over the next 10 years, 6,000 new schools will be needed in response to the increases in student enrollments. I wanted to mention, Madam Speaker, that in addition to the effects deteriorating schools can have on the health of children, we must also keep in mind the harmful effects that overcrowding and decaying schools can have on the quality of education to students. I know from my own experience in my own district, having gone around to some of the schools, how limited classroom space, cramming students in the gyms or labs or other facilities can really have a very negative impact on students' attitudes, as well as teachers' attitudes in the classrooms. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, the Democrats are making school construction one of our top priorities within our education agenda. Last night I was joined in a special order by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] who has introduced legislation that proposes to provide local school districts with 50 percent intrasubsidies for new construction and renovation. The plan includes a $5 billion Federal jump-start and has the goal of increasing school construction by 25 percent over the next 4 years. This is the type of thing that we need. We finished the budget about a month ago, and a big part of that was addressing the needs of higher education, more accessibility, more affordability for higher education. But right now there is this big gap in the whole effort to upgrade our education programs in this country, and a big part of that gap is the need for new schools and to upgrade existing, crumbling schools and to address the issue of overcrowding. I want to pledge that we, as Democrats, are going to make this a major priority. We are going to pressure the Republicans, the Republican leadership, into addressing this issue and endorsing a plan similar to that of Mrs. Lowey or some other plan that addresses the need for school construction. It is not something that is going to go away; it is something that is only going to get worse, and there is a need for a Federal partnership with local governments and State governments to address this issue.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. The gentlewoman is just talking about equal opportunity, and that is what it is all about. We want any kid regardless of where he or she is to be able to have the equal opportunity. They will not be able to unless we encourage some kind of standards and at the same time we improve the infrastructure. I want to thank both my colleagues for joining me and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] before. We are going to continue pressing this education issue over the next few weeks and over this Congress.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just add, because I know that we do not have a lot of time left, our whole purpose really in coming to the floor and starting this education initiative again after the budget is to try to get our colleagues on the Republican side to come together with us on some of these issues. That is how we started out with many of the tax credits and the plans that ended up in the budget that improve access and affordability of higher education and ultimately if we keep at it, we hopefully can get the Republican leadership, the majority leadership on the other side to come together on school construction and the overcrowding issue as well, as well as the need for national standards that we talked about last week.