Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the Republicans are talking about saving and improving Medicare by cutting it. We just cannot believe that. If we talk about cuts to Medicare as well as Medicaid, it is going to have a direct impact on senior citizens, in the case of Medicare, and a direct impact on poor people with regard to Medicaid. There are only certain choices that exist when Medicare is cut. First of all, we will have higher copayments. Seniors will have to pay more money out of their own pocket, or they will have increased deductibles before they get benefits. Again, they will have to pay out of their own pocket. The other option is that the reimbursement rate to hospitals or doctors will go down. That means a lot of doctors or even hospitals will not accept Medicare patients. A lot of seniors in New Jersey now know they cannot find doctors who will accept Medicare or even Medicaid. The other option is that the hospitals simply reduce the quality of services, or do not provide the services that they normally do because they are not getting the money through a reduced reimbursement rate. There is a direct impact on hospitals, on the provisions of how medical care and health care is provided to senior citizens. There is no way around that if we make the cuts that are being proposed by the Republicans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the open rule but against the bill. I think it is very important that we do have an open rule without time limits on this legislation because it is so controversial, and I do believe that the bill makes fundamental changes to the Clean Water Act that are not in the national interest. I was very pleased to hear my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], speak before because he pointed out and reminded me about the fact that when we were first elected to the Congress, back in the mid or late 1980's, that a big part of our election was because we swore that we would come down here and try to stop ocean dumping and improve ocean water quality. The fact of the matter is that since those New Jersey beach closings in 1987 and 1988 the ocean water quality and the quality of our rivers and harbors have increased dramatically in the State of the New Jersey and throughout the country. People tell us every day, and in particular looking forward to the beach season this summer, they talk about how improved the water quality is and how many people want to come down to the shore and swim and enjoy our beaches and our water. We cannot turn the clock back, and my fear is that this is what this legislation does. It in effect turns the clock back and makes it very possible that, if it were to pass 5, 10, 20 years from now, our water quality would significantly decrease. I would want to mention a few things, and some of them were mentioned by my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], specifically about what the bill does and how it is dangerous. With regard to coastal run off, contaminated run off is the number one contributor to water pollution. The committee bill would end an existing program mandating States to draw up enforceable run-off control plans in coastal zones, replacing with a voluntary approach similar to an existing program in inland areas. Environmentalists and the EPA have said that our efforts should be directed toward making run-off programs enforceable, not voluntary. With regard to storm water, the bill would repeal an existing formal permitting process governing city and industrial storm water releases into service water, replacing it with a system emphasizing voluntary measures of compliance, again voluntary rather than mandatory. With regard to wetlands, by changing definitions, the proposed legislation would remove as much as half of the Nation's wetlands from protection. The EPA would also be stripped of its veto power of decisions by the Army Corps of Engineers to grant wetlands development permits. My colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], mentioned a substitute, and we also from New Jersey have several amendments that would try to improve and eliminate some of these more egregious measures that are in the bill. I urge my colleagues on the Democrat side to support the Saxton-Boehlert substitute. This substitute would eliminate some of the worst problems that exist in this bill. I was hopeful, however, that this would be the opportunity, during the authorization of the Clean Water Act, to actually improve the existing Clean Water Act, and so I have proposed, pursuant to this open rule again, certain amendments that would actually improve the existing law. I am not sure, and I think perhaps in this atmosphere it is unlikely that some of these will pass, but it is important to put them forward. One of them is the Clean Water Enforcement Act. We have noticed that with the existing Clean Water Act there has not been sufficient enforcement. In many cases it pays to pollute because the fines that are imposed for pollution or violating one's discharge permit are too small. The Clean Water Enforcement Act would go after the bad actors, the repeat violators of their discharge permits, require mandatory penalties and increasing penalties so that it does not pay to pollute. Another amendment that I will be proposing today under the open rule is something that my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], has repeatedly introduced and had passed in this House several times in previous sessions of Congress that would basically require a national program for beach water quality testing. In New Jersey we have a very good program that requires the testing of water quality before we decide whether beaches are open to bathers. I would like to see that included in the Clean Water Act, and again that would be a strengthening amendment. the substitute. Please support some of the amendments being put forth by those of us who would like to see the Clean Water Act improved.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take my 2 minutes if I could to talk about the economic impact of this bill. It is interesting because I think that many of the proponents have been making the argument, looking at the so-called cost-benefit or the risk assessment provisions and suggesting that somehow we need to revise the Clean Water Act during this reauthorization to look at cost-benefit and risk and other things which I might characterize as monetizing the Clean Water Act, something that was mentioned in the New York Times. From my perspective though and I think from that from many of the coastal states and other parts of the country, by severely weakening the Clean Water Act as this bill does it is jeopardizing many of our most important industries, most notably the tourism industry. In my part of New Jersey, in fact New Jersey as a whole, tourism is the No. 1 industry and we know that estimates are something like $400 billion a year in this country nationwide comes from the travel and tourism industry. We also have to note that clean water is very important to the fishing industry, a $55 billion a year industry in this great Nation and also concerns about drinking water. Everyone relies on drinking water, municipal drinking water or other drinking water supplies. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that by severely weakening the Clean Water Act we are in effect putting on our country and on our citizens and on our taxpayers a great deal of expense because if they lose the money that comes from travel and tourism, if we lose the money that comes from the fishing industry, if we are required to spend billions of dollars in the future to provide for better drinking water or cleaner water than ultimately the taxpayers and the country and the economic output of the country suffers. And I think that those who are urging that somehow weakening this act benefits the taxpayer because the taxpayer is in some way going to save some money is simply a false argument.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the substitute. Of course, I want to commend Mr. Saxton and the other cosponsors of this substitute. I think it is important Mr. Saxton mentioned in the beginning that this substitute adopts 75 percent of the draft of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster. So those who think that somehow the substitute is a radical document that is significantly changing the bill are wrong. But the substitute does make four major changes in four major areas to the substitute that I think are necessary in order to protect the Nation's water quality. With regard to wetlands, if I could go through the four, with regard to wetlands, it is a significant change for the better. As was mentioned, the bill itself classifies wetlands and specifically provides the takings language that has been looked at in this House before. I would submit that by doing the classification in the bill, you eliminate a significant amount of the Nation's wetlands, as well as wetlands in New Jersey, from any kind of supervision or any kind of regulatory process, and essentially you gut some of the wetlands protection that exists under the Clean Water Act. The substitute by contrast does not include the classification system, does not include the takings language, and actually encourages States to get more involved in wetlands protection and taking over Federal regulatory authority. Some of you know, I think, in our own State of New Jersey the Federal Government has actually approved New Jersey's wetlands program. This substitute would encourage that kind of delegation to the State and in effect encourages moving away from Federal regulatory control. With regard to the nonpoint source pollution under the Coastal Zone Management Act and storm water discharge, in both cases the existing statute provides for mandatory program and States are moving in the direction of providing adequate nonpoint source pollution programs, also storm water discharge programs. This bill that we have before us today would change the existing law and move essentially towards a voluntary system. A voluntary system will not work. Some States will adopt it and other States will not. We will not have a consistent program around the country to protect against nonpoint source and storm water discharges. Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the dredging provisions, because they are important. The bill right now changes the current Clean Water Act by essentially taking EPA out of the role of dealing with dredging of contaminated materials and disposal of contaminated dredge materials. I think that is wrong. Essentially what the committee bill, or the committee mark does is to say that the Army Corps can provide and decide when contaminated dredge materials will be disposed, where they will be disposed, and also allows the Army Corps to provide for waivers against the very criteria that the corps might establish for disposal of contaminated dredge material. I think that that is wrong. The EPA is our Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA should be involved in deciding whether or not we are going to have sites for disposal of contaminated dredge materials and where those should be and when it should be permitted and certainly when those waivers should be granted. If you look at this substitute, it really makes some significant changes in these four areas, which are vital and increasingly more important to preserving our Nation's water quality, because as we know, the point source pollution increasingly has been dealt with. Our Clean Water Act has dealt with point source pollution, and we have made significant progress on that. When you talk about wetlands preservation, nonpoint source, storm water discharge, these are the areas over the next 5 or 10 years where we need to make significant progress on trying to improve the Nation's water quality. If we move toward a voluntary system and get our EPA out of the process, if we declassify wetlands so that much of the wetlands of the Nation is no longer provided or included under any permit program, we are not going to see the goals of fishable and swimmable waters under the Clean Water Act met over the next decade or the next 20 years. So I wanted to say how important I think it is for all of us to support this substitute. It is a bipartisan substitute, and the sponsors have really crafted some excellent legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I listened to what the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] said, and again I know of his distinguished career, both here in Congress as well as having been a member of the Coast Guard, but I, listening to him, believe in some ways he was making the case for the Traficant amendment, even though I know that was not his intention. He said that the small boat stations tend to get involved with the local community. They are almost like the church. I have to agree. But that is the very reason why the Coast Guard presence is necessary to small boat stations. Again, I would reiterate that one of the propositions that the Coast Guard is putting forward is that somehow when these stations close, that other State or local or nonprofit organizations are going to take up the slack. The bottom line is, and I will use my own station at Shark River in New Jersey as an example, the only reason why those other organizations are involved, like the auxiliary, is because of the presence of the Coast Guard. If the station closes and there is no permanent Coast Guard presence there with full-time personnel, then it would be impossible in most situations for the auxiliary, and particularly in these times with downsizing of State government and local government, for the State government to step in. In my own State of New Jersey, that would not happen. The marine police has downsized and has less money today than it did a few years before. The gentleman also mentioned modernization. It is true of course there have been a lot of changes in their technologies now. But those technologies are not that helpful for those in the immediate scene. Back in 1988, when they closed the Shark River station, sure, between 1988 and now there are more helicopters and new technology, but everyone on the scene will tell you the presence of people, of full- time Coast Guard personnel, at the location, in the inlet, in this case Shark River, and you could use it throughout the country, their immediate response is what is necessary, the fact that you have the people there, the hands on situation. The chairman mentioned the $6 million in savings that is cited by the Coast Guard. Once again, I know our ranking Member, Mr. Traficant, has noted that the actual cost is closer to $2.5 or $2.6 million. That $6 million is for consolidation and a lot of other things that are part of this plan. It is not specifically for closing the stations. We are talking about probably $2 to $3 million being saved. I know that seems like a lot, but in the overall scheme of things, when you are talking about 23 stations and you are talking about risk of life, it is not a lot of money. Some stations, it was mentioned by the chairman, have men working 90 hours a week. We are not saying in this Traficant amendment that resources cannot be shifted around. The billets, as they say, or men, can be shifted, so some stations have less personnel and others more. What we are saying is we do not want the stations closed. Some of them maybe can get by with less personnel or can rely through a combination on auxiliary or other volunteer efforts, but they cannot be closed and cannot not have a full-time Coast Guard presence. I have to stress, you know, one of the issues that is being raised here is that the Coast Guard maintains that at some of the stations the amount of search and rescue has not increased significantly in the last few years. I will point out, in making their analysis for this streamlining plan, they did not take into consideration, and they will tell you they did not, all the other functions that have been added by this body and by the Federal Government to the Coast Guard. They did not include the increase in dealing with environmental laws, fishing laws, in drug trafficking prevention. All of these extra things we have put on the Coast Guard for the last few years are being carried out at a lot of these small boat stations. They are on the increase. The amount of traffic in a lot of these locations is also on the increase. It is ridiculous for us to assume that with all the extra burdens for us to assume that with all the additional pleasure craft that exist at these various locations around the country that somehow the amount of work has been reduced or somehow we are going to be able to get by without the presence of these stations. if we talk, and I know many of us have during the break, we went back to our districts. I had a town meeting, and I talked to the people in the vicinity of my station. They were horrified to think that the station would close. The experience in 1988 showed that it does not work. Let us not put our population, our constituents through this again. Support the Traficant amendment as the only way to go to assure that lives are saved and let the Coast Guard presence continue in these various communities. requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Ohio. Certainly it is well- intentioned, but I must point out that this amendment, if adopted, represents the ultimate in micromanagement. This amendment says to the U.S. Coast Guard, which is charged with safety, says to them: Congress is telling you you are not allowed to manage your own operations. Congress knows better than you about safety. Congress is telling you you cannot close a single Coast Guard station. Indeed, many of these stations are over 100 years old, when row boats, yes, row boats were used as the means of getting out to perform search and rescue operations. But it is not 1896. We are approaching 1996. And, therefore, we should recognize the advances in technology and modern capability and give the Coast Guard the freedom to make these kinds of decisions, particularly when GAO has looked carefully at their proposals and GAO has concluded that not only is the process used by the Coast Guard reasonable but that they reviewed them and they endorse what the Coast Guard is attempting to accomplish. It is extremely important that we give this flexibility to the Coast Guard. And I would emphasize that in committee, in order to be certain that we were not going to give safety a second place position in these considerations, we included in the bill language that requires the Secretary of Transportation to determine that safety will not be diminished before any search and rescue station can be closed. So I say, let us recognize the Coast Guard as modernized. The Coast Guard, indeed, cares about safety. That is their mission. And we should not tie the hands of the Coast Guard by telling them that what they were doing in 1896 they still must continue to do in 1996. For all of those reasons, I urge the defeat of this well-intentioned amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, as part of the general debate, I wanted to indicate very strongly that this is a good bill other than the fact that the Coast Guard has proposed closing these 23 stations around the country. The problem that I see, and again the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] already pointed it out, is that, when these closures occurred back in 1988, for a period of time there were deaths, and there were serious incidents that occurred without the Coast Guard presence, and we do not want that to occur again. We have had documentation of the problems that occurred when many of these stations that are now proposed for closure were, in fact, closed going back 6 or 7 years ago. I always try to look at these things from what I would call a cost- benefit analysis, if my colleagues will. Think about what we are talking about here. The Coast Guard has estimated that closing these stations will save about $6 million. Various estimates that have been composed today go lower than that, to 3 million, or perhaps $2 million, but all of those things assume that a certain number of lives will be lost because of these stations being closed. Again I find that unacceptable. One of the biggest problems that I have also with the proposed streamlining and closure of the stations is the fact that it assumes that State, or local or nonprofit agencies will take up the slack, that somehow, if we close these stations, that the State; for example, in New Jersey the State Marine Police, or the local municipal fire department, or the Coast Guard Auxiliary, are going to step in and pursue those search-and-rescue functions. It is not the case. That assumption is a false one. I say to my colleagues, if you look at my own State of New Jersey, our own State Marine Police has been downsized considerably during the last few years. The local fire departments in some cases may have a boat or some person who has some knowledge of boat safety, but not enough to step in, and even when we talk about the Coast Guard Auxiliary and suggest somehow they're going to take over this responsibility, let me assure you that, if the station closes and there is no regular Coast Guard personnel at that station, the Coast Guard Auxiliary won't be able to perform these function either. One of the beauties of the Auxiliary is that they work with the Coast Guard, so what we're saying over and over again is this is not an acceptable solution. We need support for the Traficant amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend my colleague from Oregon for proposing this amendment. As the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] said, in terms of the background of it, it is very similar to the previous amendment, but I do want to commend the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], because he has, in effect, identified a source of funding in the Coast Guard to pay for us keeping open these small boat stations. As was mentioned by some of the speakers in the debate on the Traficant amendment, this is really a question of priority. We all know we have a limited amount of funds and that we have to prioritize where we spend those funds. But the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is saying the priority should be on saving lives and keeping open those Coast Guard stations which over the years have generated support not only with Coast Guard and Federal money but other auxiliary moneys and volunteer efforts to continue the search and rescue operations and the other things that the Coast Guard is involved with. It certainly makes sense, in my opinion, to eliminate a private jet, clearly something that is frivolous and not needed. There have to be other ways the Commandant can go about traveling from one place to another and save the money by striking that item from the budget. Now, I know the amendment does not go so far as to actually mandate that be done. I personally would not have a problem with that, but what he is saying is he is setting forth the Coast Guard has to make a decision and decide which is the higher priority. I think there are very few of us that think that eliminating the jet and keeping these stations open is not a higher priority. I support the amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Oregon for bringing this option to the floor of the House.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the two gentleman, my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], for putting together this legislation. In particular, both of them have been supportive of language which was placed in the bill that would ensure public participation on all striped bass management plans. Many people who are involved with striped bass management know that there is a large and vociferous group of recreational fishermen out there who become very concerned about any changes that are made in the management plan. One of the things that they continually tell us is that they want to be involved at every stage in whatever management plan changes are put forward. This bill and the language that is in the bill guarantee that public participation will do what is necessary to make sure that they have their opportunity to be heard. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] for their cooperation in putting that language in the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to commend the Committee on Rules, as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, for supporting an open rule on this Coast Guard authorization bill. I did want to say, though, that I totally, 100 percent agree with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the ranking member, that his amendment, the Traficant amendment, if you will, is the only amendment that will assure that the 23 small boat unit stations are not closed. I remember because when I was first elected to Congress back in 1988, they had recently, the Coast Guard had recently proposed closing a number of stations, Coast Guard stations around the country, including the one that I represent at the Shark River Inlet. The effects of those closures at the time were widespread. I think many Members know that over the years, the Coast Guard committee and this Congress have added more and more responsibilities to the Coast Guard, whether it be to enforce against drug trafficking, to enforce our environmental laws, to enforce our fishing laws. More and more work every year goes to the Coast Guard, and at the same time we have been providing some additional funds for the Coast Guard. But to suggest, as this small boat unit closure plan does, that all of a sudden now there are this minute 23 stations around the country that are no longer needed at a time when the amount of incidents, search and rescue incidents as well as all of the other jurisdiction the Coast Guard now has, and that traffic increases every year, to suggest this is the time to make these kinds of closures I think makes no sense. In addition, although I understand there are amendments out there and the rule provides for an open rule where all of these amendments can be heard, all of the other amendments, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] said, will basically allow the Coast Guard to close these 23 stations and others and look for some sort of alternative, either the State or locality or auxiliary, to step in and perform those functions also, let me assure my colleagues in the State of New Jersey it is not possible through our State of New Jersey through our marine police or Coast Guard auxiliary or local fire departments or whatever to step in and take over the responsibilities that the Coast Guard has at these various stations. That is why it is very important we pass the Traficant amendment today. I appreciate the fact we have an open rule, and I also appreciate the fact that the chairman, Mr. Coble, has tried very hard to do what he can to cooperate with those of us who are concerned about these closures. But I sincerely believe the only way we can make sure that the closures do not occur is by passing the Traficant amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the Clean Water Act and the reauthorization that the House will begin to consider tomorrow and for the remainder of this week. The Clean Water Act, as we know it, in my opinion, and the resources it protects are in jeopardy pursuant to this reauthorization that we are about to consider tomorrow. In the committee process, waivers and exemptions have been expanded while bill-strengthening amendments repeatedly met with defeat, and the result of this legislation which we begin with tomorrow, H.R. 961, in my opinion, will be deterioration of over 20 years of clean water efforts, efforts that have successfully moved us in the direction of fishable, swimmable waters. With H.R. 961, esoteric costs and benefits will rule the day at the expense of human health and safety and protection of invaluable natural resources. If H.R. 961, Mr. Speaker, as it now exists, is passed it will be more difficult, in my opinion, to explain to my constituents and others why they cannot fish in local streams, why they are losing business due to beach closings and other reductions in recreation and tourism, and why their property values have decreased or why their drinking water is not usable. I would hope over the next few days, as the number of amendments are proposed on the House floor that would seek to strengthen the Clean Water Act and reauthorization and bring back, if not improve, the existing law, that we would see many of our colleagues join in targeting a number of detrimental provisions of H.R. 961, of which I would like to list a few. One is the existing waivers for combined sewer overflows and industrial pretreatment. Another is ocean discharge in place of full secondary treatment. Another is the loss of wetlands protection, the abolition of the coastal zone nonpoint source program, the erosion of the Great Lakes initiative, the elimination of the EPA from dredged material disposal decisions, insufficient enforcement and lack of citizen rights provisions. Mr. Speaker, if I could just read some sections of an article that appeared in the New York Times on April 2 which outlines some of the problems with H.R. 961. It says, and I am reading from sections, that the Clean Water Act of 1972, the existing bill, has done much to make America's water fishable and swimmable. Experts in both parties regard it as the most successful of the environmental mandates passed in Congress since Earth Day 1970. However, the new provision we are about to consider tomorrow in H.R. 961 blasts so many holes in this law it is hard to know where to begin. Basically, they would demolish the underlying strategy of the original act. The 1972 law conceded it was impossible to measure the dollar benefits of clean water against the costs of cleaning it up. So, in fact, if industry was instructed to use the best available technology to control pollution, even though that may not be the perfect answer, it has worked. The new law, by contrast, would postpone any further improvement in water quality unless it could be provided the benefits in health, swimmable, fish stocks are worth the cost. That means monetizing the value of a cleaner environment, a nearly impossible process. The bill that we are going to consider this week would relax national water quality standards, provide certain industries with further exemptions from whatever laws remain on the books, and make voluntary a program that now requires States and cities to control storm water pollution. Not least, it would reverse a 25-year effort to preserve diminishing wetlands. Scientists now estimate there are 100 million acres of wetlands remaining in the United States, doing what the wetlands do so well, filtering pollutants an nourishing organisms essential to the food chain. By drastically narrowing the definition of what a wetland is, the bill would make millions of acres available to developers and the oil and gas industry. In brief, the bill we are about to consider would make it much easier for polluters to pollute. Mr. Speaker, I have to decry this legislation because I know for the last 7 or Jersey shore we have seen a steady increase in water quality. Beaches that in 1988, when I was first elected, were closed and were not available for tourism and were basically making almost impossible for the Jersey shore to come back economically, those beaches are now open, the water quality is improved, my constituents are looking forward to a great summer beginning the end of this month. But they can not believe that this House or this Congress would seek to gut, if you will, the very legislation that has made that possible. I hope that many of my colleagues over the next few days will join with me in passing some strengthening amendments so that the Clean Water Act will continue to be viable into the next century.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today, the Republicans are over 2 weeks late in producing a budget. I believe the reason for the Republican delay is that they do not know how they are going to keep all of their promises. Part of their answer to balancing the budget is to cut Medicare by over $300 billion. This means that seniors will have to pay on average an additional $900 in out-of-pocket expenses. Now, Speaker Gingrich is claiming that any Medicare cuts will be used to keep Medicare solvent. Of course he forgets to mention that Democrats have already worked to keep Medicare from going bankrupt in the past. In addition, it was Democrats, last year, who put forth an effort to reform health care and save Medicare. I believe in balancing the budget and have always voted in support of a balanced budget, but I feel that any Medicare reform needs to arise in the context of health care reform. It is rising health care costs that are contributing to the deficit, not senior citizens.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], for participating in our special order. As many of you know, he has been a long-time advocate of human rights in this House. Next, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] and now yield to

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for those insightful remarks. And I think particularly his reference to what Turkey is doing today with the Kurdish population points out very well that the problems that we face from Turkey historically with Armenia have not gone away, and they are continuing now in a different form against another minority people. I also wanted to say I was with your wife, Kathryn, in Times Square a couple of weeks ago when we did the commemoration there, and I do not think I have ever heard anyone speak so well about the problems that Armenia faces and the Kurds face, and she really expressed such passion over the issue. I know she has been over there so many times, and she just summed everything up better than certainly I could say or certainly any of us could say on this issue, so thanks again.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] for her comments, and now I yield time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], and next I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo], who I believe is maybe the only, but certainly one of the, Armenian Members of Congress.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. I yield now to the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead].

Mr. PALLONE. I just want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her remarks. It is particularly I think appropriate that you conclude our special order. I know we have other speakers. I just wanted to say one thing. One of the things I noted over the weekend, as you know, the last week was also the occasion when we commemorated the Nazi Holocaust. I was with many of the victims of the Nazi Holocaust over the weekend and shared thoughts with some of them. But the one thing that was outstanding and the big difference, if I could make the comment, is that those victims of the Nazi Holocaust at least knew that the German Government recognized that it occurred and that people today in Germany hold commemorations and basically say they are sorry for what occurred. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Government of Turkey or in fact most of the people of Turkey, many of whom are not aware of what happened 80 years ago. That is why we have to continue with our special order. We have to make it so the day comes when Turkey takes notice of what happened and the same type of commemoration occurs in Turkey as takes place now in Germany with reference to the Nazi Holocaust.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman from California for those words. I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I intend to use some of this 60 minutes for myself, and then yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], who are here. We are here basically to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Mr. Speaker, April 24, 1995, marked the 80th anniversary of the unleashing of the Armenian genocide. Each year, Members of Congress from both the House and the Senate take time to honor the memory of the Armenian men, women, and children who were slaughtered by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. I am proud to continue this proud congressional tradition today. In my capacity as the cofounder, along with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I will be working with many of my colleagues on behalf of continued support for the people of Armenia and for the significant Armenian-American community. I will also work to continue to press for the modern Republic of Turkey--a NATO member and recipient of hundreds of millions in United States aid every year--to finally accept responsibility for this crime against humanity and express its sorrow and contrition. I also believe we should continue to use the means at our disposal to force modern Turkey to lift the blockade it has imposed on Armenia. I know many of our colleagues feel the same way. Mr. Speaker, today's occasion is, of course, a time for solemn reflection on the suffering of a people, the Armenians, as well as the larger question of humanity's capacity for evil. Yet, it is also time for us to celebrate the human capacity of resilience, the ability even of people faced with the most unthinkable disasters to rebuild their shattered lives. This capacity to overcome unimaginable horrors can be seen on the individual level in the faces of the survivors, a group of whom attended a very moving reception here on Capitol Hill today. On the national level, the struggle for survival and the sense of hope for the future can be seen by the very existence of the independent, democratic Republic of Armenia. On April 24, 1915, 200 Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders from Istanbul were arrested and exiled--in one fell swoop, silencing the leading representatives of the Armenian community in the Ottoman capital. This date is thus the symbolic beginning of the genocide. Over the years from 1915 to 1923, 1.5 million men, women, and children were deported, forced into slave labor, tortured, and exterminated. What happened in the Ottoman Turkish Empire during the years 1915-23 was more than a series of massacres in a time of instability, revolution, and war. It was the first example of genocide in the 20th century, a precursor to the Nazi Holocaust, and other cases of ethnic cleansing and mass extermination in our own time. But, unlike the case of Germany, which officially accepts its guilt for the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi regime and has made restitution to many of the victims, modern Turkey continues to deny that the Armenian genocide took place. There were no Nuremberg trials, no concerted effort to aid the survivors and let them give their testimony. While various Turkish sources express the view that certain unfortunate incidents took place, it denies that any Armenian people ever took place. In fact, many Turkish accounts actually suggest Armenians deserve a share of blame for having stirred up trouble in the Ottoman Empire--while vastly understating the number of victims. It is not entirely clear why Turkey continues to deny the truth of its past--perhaps concerns about reparations claims may be one reason, combined with a misguided sense of national honor. In any case, it is a disgraceful policy, refuted by the historical record. Americans should continue to press Turkey's leaders to finally acknowledge the truth-- even if it is a diplomatic irritant in United States-Turkish relations. U.S. Administrations have avoided using the term ``genocide'' in describing what happened 80 years ago. While President Clinton and his predecessors have acknowledged that the Armenian people were the victims of tragic massacres, these Presidential statements have not sufficiently conveyed the full extent of the evil that occurred. Earlier this month, Congressman Porter and I, as cochairmen of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, asked our colleagues to join us in urging the President to make a much stronger statement acknowledging the genocide. Sixty-eight Members of the House of Representatives signed this letter to the President. Although the President's statement was strong and moving last week, it still failed to use the word genocide, a very important issue. We will continue to press the administration on this, as well as future administrations. The preponderance of evidence about the historical fact of the genocide against the Armenian people is strong and undeniable. The U.S. National Archives holds the most comprehensive documentation in the world on this historic tragedy--more than 30,000 pages. Of course, I personally have seen some of this. The United States Embassy in Constantinople, Istanbul, as well as various consulates, closely monitored events in Turkey, and received reports from other countries to which some Armenians had escaped. This information is specific and detailed, collected from eyewitness accounts. Newspaper accounts from this period also provide strong documentation, based on a wide variety of sources, of wholesale, ethnically based killings of Armenians. Formal protests were made by the United States Ambassador Henry Morgenthau to the Turkish Government. American consular officials and private aid workers secretly housed Armenians, distributed aid, and helped in their escape to other nations--at great personal risk to themselves and in direct defiance of Turkish orders not to help the Armenians. The first-hand accounts of U.S. government officials, journalists and aid workers on the scene provides a vast amount of objective evidence of the genocide, including information on: deportation, massacres, refugee camps, condition of deportees, confiscation of property, methods of deportation, policy of extermination, execution of the male population, mistreatment of women and children, forced conversions, use of slave labor, malnutrition and starvation, cases of resistance, survivors, orphanages and resettlement of survivors. All of it is very well documented. After the genocide occurred, there was some effort to bring the organizers of the genocide to court, or to justice. Some of the organizers of the genocide were court-martialed in absentia in Paris after World War II. But no attempt was made to carry out the sentences, many accused war criminals were set free and no serious efforts were made by the Allies to assist the Armenian victims. In fact, the Allies, after the First World War, caved in to Turkish nationalist demands that no Armenian independent state be created. Revised peace treaties did not even mention Armenia or Armenians. Armenians who returned to their homes in Turkey were again driven out. Armenian place names were changed, and Armenian cultural monuments were destroyed. The geographical term ``Armenian plateau'' was changed to Eastern Anatolia. Thus, the Turks attempted to obliterate not only the Armenian people, but any vestiges of their culture. The 3,000-year presence of Armenians in Asia Minor had come to an abrupt end by 1923. With the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe during the 1920's and 1930's, and the outbreak of World War II, the Armenian genocide was largely forgotten. It is said that Hitler, when planning the Nazi strategy of conquest and extermination against the Jews, remarked: ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Most of the survivors of the genocide have since died, while the few who are still living are extremely old now. But their sons and daughters, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will continue to speak out for generations to come. Remembering the Armenian genocide is important not only for the Armenian people. Many school districts in this country have developed curricula on issues of genocide, and it is important that these programs be promoted and expanded to expose children of all ethnic groups to the facts of history. The survivors of the genocide and their descendants have made great contributions to every country in which they have settled--including the United States, where Armenians have made their mark in business, the professions, and our cultural life. 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. In spite of these difficulties, last year, Armenia's was the only former Soviet Republic to register positive growth in its gross domestic product. Given the industriousness and proven determination of the Armenian people, I am confident that this small, emerging nation will become an economically viable, self-sufficient nation in the near future. I wanted to give a little background about what our caucus on Armenian issues has been doing to help promote the Republic of Armenia. A few weeks ago, I testified before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations that oversees foreign aid to call for U.S. assistance to at least remain at its present level of $75 million. In addition, I will be working to maintain United States participation in the International Development Association, a World Bank program that has assisted Armenia with $145 million in support for earthquake reconstruction, power and irrigation systems, and transition to a market economy. I hope I'll have strong support from my colleagues. I know many members of the Armenian Caucus are here today and will speak after I speak. I believe 1995 will be a critical year for the Republic of Armenia, and the United States can play a major role. These programs are not handouts: by helping Armenia to get on its feet we can help establish a strong and stable member of the international economic community, a viable market for American goods and services and a market for other emerging nations. Given the terrible suffering of the Armenian people during the Ottoman Empire and their repression under the Soviet Empire, I believe we have a moral obligation to support the Republic of Armenia. Another way we can help Armenia is by ending the illegal blockades imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Current United States law blocks the provision of American assistance to Azerbaijan until the Azeris lift their blockade. We must continue that provision of the U.S. law. I also strongly support the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act which bars United States assistance to any country that blocks delivery of United States humanitarian assistance, in other words, Turkey. I find it incredible that a country like Turkey that gets $600 million in United States taxpayers' funds can get away with blocking the delivery of American humanitarian assistance to its small, struggling neighbor. While in Washington many know that the Turkish Prime Minister told President Clinton a few weeks ago that Turkey would open an air corridor to Armenia, but frankly this is a very minor step, and even if it does not change the need for the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. We still have to insist on reopening the land routes, and we should continue to link United States aid to Turkey to that country's international behavior. Earlier this 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 35 Members, from both parties and all regions of the country. In closing, I want to pay particular tribute to the survivors of the genocide, some of whom made the trip to Washington today. Many of us who are in the Chamber now were at a reception that was held earlier today where many of the survivors were present and some spoke. The horrors that they witnessed and experienced are unthinkable. We have to remember what happened to them, their families, their neighbors, their friends. And I want to pledge to their survivors, their children, grandchildren, that they have friends in this United States Congress who are committed to keeping 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. The bottom line is we have no choice, Mr. Speaker. The Armenian genocide was really the first genocide in this 20th century, but the problem remains that the Turkish Government has not recognized it, and until the day comes when we can see the Prime Minister of Turkey come here to Washington and recognize the genocide and see the type of commemoration of the genocide in all places, in all towns and villages in Turkey, then I do not think that we can rest. I think the lesson of history is we cannot forget the past, and that is why we are here today to commemorate this 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who is the cofounder and the cochairman of our Armenia caucus.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the special order just given.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 30, 1995, the Les Turchin Chabad House at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, will hold its annual dinner in Somerset, NJ. For 15 years, Chabad House has served as a focal point for students seeking to supplement their educational experience with a deeper sense of culture, faith, and fellowship. By rediscovering and embracing regular observance of the Torah, the Students of Chabad House have gained spiritual insights and a strong sense of values that will be of invaluable support throughout their lives. And for parents who naturally worry about the influences that their children will encounter at college, Chabad House offers the assurance of a positive environment. I would particularly like to extend my congratulations on the construction of the new Les Turchin Student Center, which will further the good works of Chabad House. Mr. Turchin's tireless dedication to the community serves as an inspiration to us all. The founder, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Tops Appliance City has somehow found time to lead an extremely impressive fund-raising effort to make the Chabad House a reality. The new Chabad House will provide a synagogue, a kosher kitchen, and dinning area for 300 students, and housing for 48 students. The Publication Office will house L'Chaim, the university's student-run newspaper, and The Chabad Times, the largest Jewish newspaper in central New Jersey with a circulation of 60,000. A unique array of programs for the community will bring Rabbis and volunteers to shut-in, hospital patients, nursing home residents and prison inmates. Family services will be provided and expanded, including family counseling and a drug prevention program. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to pay tribute to Chabad House at Rutgers, to Les Turchin for his hard work and energy in making the new facility a reality, to all the religious leaders and volunteers who make these programs work and to the fine young men and women who, by embracing their timeless and enduring heritage, are working to make their campus and their community a better place.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 22, Poricy Park in Middletown, NJ, will celebrate its Silver Jubilee. It is a great honor for me to pay tribute to this wonderful resource for the people of Middletown and the surrounding communities of Monmouth County. Owned by Middletown Township, Poricy Citizens Committee, a private, non-profit group. The park includes a Nature Center, opened in 1978, and restored historic buildings. Mr. Speaker, Poricy Park has a long and illustrious history. In 1667, John Throckmorton received a grant of lands that included the area where the park is now located. Part of the land was purchased in 1767 by Joseph Murray, a Scots-Irish immigrant from Londonderry, who joined the Monmouth Militia during the Revolutionary War and was murdered on his farm on June 8, 1780. The farmhouse and barn are still standing at the site. Owned by the Murray family until 1861, and a series of other owners thereafter, the land functioned as a farm until 1972. The creation of the farm was born of the efforts of the Poricy Park Citizens Committee who, in 1969, worked to save this area from development. The Committee raised more than $7,000 to secure properties, which were turned over to the Township. This donation began a process of acquiring lands that ultimately led to the acquisition of the current 250 acres. Almost three-quarters of the land is left undisturbed, for nature to manage. There is a hardwood forest, a pond, wet meadows and a freshwater marsh. There is a 60-acre area of open fields, the ecology of which supports hawks, mice, foxes, woodchucks and dozens of varieties of field wildflowers. Interest in historical restoration efforts began in the late 1960's, with work beginning in earnest in the late 1970's, leading to the Murray farm buildings being registered as a New Jersey historic site. Some 600 programs are presented every year for schools, community groups and the general public, attracting some 13,000 visitors per year. There are programs for arts and crafts, a store and an artisan market. None of the great work at the park would be possible without the hard work of volunteers. Mr. Speaker, Poricy Park represents one of the best examples I know of dedicated community activists and local governments working together, pooling their resources and creating something special to benefit of all the community. Poricy Park is an excellent resource that preserves the special history and natural beauty of Central New Jersey. I am honored to pay tribute to this great facility and all the fine people whose hard work and dedication has made it all possible.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 30, 1995, Mr. David B. Crabiel, director of New Jersey's Middlesex County's Board of Chosen Freeholders, will be presented the Hubert H. Humphrey Friend of Labor Award at the 4th annual Middlesex AFL-CIO awards and scholarship brunch. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to pay tribute to David Crabiel, a dedicated family man who has, since he became the youngest member of the Milltown Rescue Squad at age 16, selflessly dedicated his adult life to public and community service. Having been in public service as an elected official in various positions since 1960, Mr. Crabiel has held himself to an exemplary standard of citizenry. Entering public life as a councilman, in 1967 Mr. Crabiel was elected mayor of Milltown, a position in which he served for 11 years before being appointed to the Middlesex County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Elected a freeholder after his appointed term expired, Mr. Crabiel served on the board through 1991 and was reelected in 1993. Wielding a distinguished record of leadership and service, he has, unsurprisingly, risen to a leadership position on the board, where he currently serves as Freehold director. While this record is impressive by itself, it tells only have the story. In addition to the public positions he has held, Mr. Crabiel has generously donated his talents to several different community causes. To cite just a few examples, he has served as honorary chairman of the Melvin H. Motolinsky Research Foundation, as a member of the board of directors of the Cerebral Palsy Association, and as honorary cochair of the Middlesex County Human Relations Commission. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honor for me to pay tribute to a man whose life has been dedicated to the betterment of his community and the service to others. Personifying altruism through public and community service, Mr. Crabiel has truly set a standard which members of all communities would do well to follow.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 13, 1995, a retirement dinner will be held for Mr. Feliciano ``Nino'' Giordano, the Deputy Director of the Research, Development and Engineering Center for the Army's Communications-Electronics Command [CECOM] at Fort Monmouth, NJ. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to pay tribute to Nino Giordano, a man who truly epitomizes the American dream. A native of Italy, Mr. Giordano immigrated to the United States in 1956. He holds degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fairleigh Dickinson University and Northeastern University. Mr. Giordano has had a distinguished career with the Army, lending his technological expertise and leadership skills to the ongoing effort to keep our armed forces the best equipped and most technologically advanced in the world. In his current capacity, Mr. Giordano is involved in managing the organization and has responsibility for directing strategic and operational planning for all technical programs to achieve the digitization of the battlefield. Prior to his current position, he was the Center's associate director, with responsibilities for electronic and signals warfare, night vision and reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition systems. Previously, he served as the Program Executive Officer, Strategic Information Systems, and directed the management of the Army's worldwide upgrade of strategic command and control capabilities. He also directed the acquisition, development, testing and fielding of Army and Defense Communications Agency communications and information systems on a worldwide basis. Now, I know that some of this terminology sounds like a real mouthful, but what it boils down to is leadership on the cutting edge technology that makes U.S. forces the best in the world. The American people, and the world, had a chance to see that technology in action during Operation Desert Storm, when United States forces routed the Iraqi forces with stunning speed and effectiveness. While we rightly pay tribute to the heroic fighting men and women who made that victory over tyranny possible, we should remember the highly talented and dedicated civilian professionals whose technological breakthroughs give our soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel the edge they need. People like Nino Giordano, working at top-notch facilities like CECOM at Fort Monmouth. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to pay tribute to Nino Giordano, whose distinguished career has been dedicated to preserving and enhancing the national security of our country. Although most Americans are probably unaware of the breakthroughs that Mr. Giordano has worked for, we can all rest easier knowing that he has served his adopted country, and the cause of world peace and stability, so well.