Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan amendment, and support the chairman's opposition. Mr. Chairman, this is a measure which would cut the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by $300 million. This amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This wolf is ready to attack our students. By drastically cutting this program, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and other Members of this House would be responsible for pulling our children out of safe educational settings and sending them to empty homes and to unsafe streets. The gentleman's State, Wisconsin, has 19 programs. Our State, New Jersey, has seven. We have been planning for this for over 6 months. Now the gentleman is going to pull the rug out from what we believe is going to be a very successful program because it has brought together many segments of the community for something that is worthwhile, something very tangible, and something very educational. Mr. Chairman, this would dismantle new programs. It would stop us looking to other places where these programs should be implemented. This amendment would cut over $260,000 in one system alone. That is Passaic, New Jersey. I ask for the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about bipartisanship in terms of the estate tax. And indeed that is what happened. But how about some partisanship in terms of the education of our children? We cannot balance the budget on the backs of kids who cannot defend themselves. I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment to significantly increase funding for our Nation's children. Many of my colleagues have emphasized on both sides of the aisle that this amendment could be a lifeline perhaps. It will ensure that our children have a chance for a better education and growth opportunities. In my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, we have seen the tangible benefits of so many of the programs. These are not puristic victories. These are victories of substance with children who would have no other means of support in the classroom. Our Head Start and after-school programs have brought thousands of children into nurturing environments. In an age of unprecedented wealth and the lowest peacetime unemployment rate, cities like Paterson and Passaic still have double-digit unemployment. I understand tomorrow we even introduce an amendment to cut the after-school programs that are already in existence. This is unconscionable.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the deeds of a man whom I and countless others consider to epitomize justice and fairness, the Honorable Amos C. Saunders of Totowa, New Jersey. Judge Saunders was recognized on Monday, May 15, 2000 at the Brownstone House in Paterson, New Jersey, because of his many years of service and leadership in the courtrooms of Passaic County, New Jersey. He marked the end of his stellar career when he retired on March 1, 2000. It is only fitting that Judge Saunders be honored in the annals of this great body for his unwavering efforts in the name of the law. For the past 23 years Judge Amos Saunders has become one of the most well respected Superior Court Judges in the State of New Jersey. Judge Saunders has presided over criminal, civil and family courts and was the judge in Passaic County with the most judicial experience. Judge Saunders last sat in the Chancery Division, in which he served for the last 10 years. In doing his job, Judge Saunders' motto was, ``Use your common sense, be practical, read all the papers and listen.'' It is by these words that he served as judge, but anyone who knows Judge Saunders knows that these words simply understate his jurisprudential excellence. As a leader in the judicial community, Judge Saunders' rulings have often served as both a precedent and a resource for other judges. As a judge in the Chancery Division, Judge Saunders had the opportunity to handle probate, estate cases and injunctions. Over the years, however, Judge Saunders perhaps became best known as a nationally respected expert on the legal aspects of the sport of boxing. He handled many high profile boxing cases in his court including those of the prominent boxing promoters Lou and the late Dan Duva and Don King. In 1997, the International Boxing Digest magazine listed Judge Saunders as number 16 in the list of boxing's 50 most influential people. Born in Paterson on March 9, 1934 and raised in Paterson and Fair Lawn, New Jersey, Judge Saunders has spent his years in dedicated service to the community. Judge Saunders received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. Upon graduation he enrolled in Columbia Law school in New York where he received his law degree in 1958. During the first 18 years of his career, Judge Saunders worked as a private civil attorney from 1959 until 1977. In 1977, Judge Saunders was appointed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County by then Governor Brendan T. Byrne, and took the bench on December 7, 1978. In addition to his work in the courtroom, Judge Saunders has served as a lecturer for the National Judicial College. He is also the founding president of the Justice Robert L. Clifford American Inn of Court. In addition, Judge Saunders served as Administrative Judge to the Bi-State Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. In his retirement Judge Saunders has expressed interest in focusing on a new career, his family, his golf game, fishing and travel. In March of 2000 he began work at Carlet, Garrison and Klein, LLP in Clifton, New Jersey as Counsel to the Firm in Mediation and Arbitration. He currently resides in Totowa with his wife Janet, his high school sweetheart. The couple, who married in 1955, has three children and three grandchildren. As a Congressman and former mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, I can say that Judge Amos Saunders has one of the finest judicial minds in the State of New Jersey. Furthermore, one of my sons, David, had the honor of serving as Judge Saunders' judicial clerk in 1995 and 1996. I know that Judge Saunders has had a profound effect on his life. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Judge Saunders' family and friends, the County of Passaic, the State of New Jersey and me in recognizing the extraordinary dedication, commitment and enthusiasm of Judge Amos C. Saunders in his service to the judiciary and to the people.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the deeds of four distinguished servicemen, who were honored on Friday, May 26, 2000 by the Puerto Rican Parade of Paterson 2000/Desfile Puertorriqueno, Inc. 2000 in coordination with Memorial Day. It is only fitting since these soldiers, Fernando Luis Garcia, Euripides Rubio, Jr., Carlos James Lozada and Hector Colon Santiago are among the 3,400 plus brave men that have merited the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force that can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. The Medal is generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor. The world lost four truly remarkable people when these four brave men perished while in the line of duty. Fernando Luis Garcia served as a Private First Class in the United States Marine Corps, Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division. He entered the service in San Juan Puerto Rico. He was born on August 14, 1929 in Utuado, Puerto Rico. The stellar life of Fernando Luis Garcia was cut short when he was killed in Korea on September 5, 1952. An excerpt from his citation notes, ``He was intrepid in his service as a member of Company I, in action against enemy aggressor forces. PFC Garcia unhesitatingly chose to sacrifice himself for the life of another Marine. His great personal valor and cool decision in the face of almost certain death, sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Naval Services. He gallantly gave his life for his country.'' Euripides Rubio, Jr. attained the rank of Captain in the United States Army in Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division, RVN. He entered the service at Fort Buchanan in Puerto Rico. He was born on March 1, 1938 in Ponce, Puerto Rico. The military exploits of Euripides Rubio were marked with bravery and valor. He started his tour of duty on July 10, 1966 and lost his life on November 8, 1966 in Tay Ninh Province, Republic of Vietnam. He was 28 years old. His citation shows he was feted for, ``Braving withering fire, aiding the wounded, unhesitatingly assuming command and selflessly exposing himself to enemy fire. Captain Rubio's singularly heroic act turned the tide of battle, and his extraordinary leadership and valor were a magnificent inspiration to his men.'' His name can be found on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC on the wall panel 12E, row 44. Carlos James Lozada served his country at the rank of Private First Class in the United States Army, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade. He entered the service in New York City, New York. He was born on September 6, 1946 in Caguas, Puerto Rico. The venerable Carlos James Lozada began his tour of duty on June 11, 1967. He was struck down, while missing, at the age of 21. He died on November 20, 1967 in Dak To, Republic of Vietnam. Part of his citation reads, ``PFC Lozada apparently realized that if he abandoned his position, there would be nothing to hold back the surging North Vietnamese solders and that the entire Company withdrawal would be jeopardized. He made this decision realizing that the enemy was converging on three sides. His heroic deed served as an inspiration to his comrades throughout the ensuing four-day battle.'' His name is inscribed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall panel 30E, row 45. Hector Colon Santiago's rank was Specialist Fourth Class. He served in the United States Army, Company B, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Division. He entered the service in New York City, New York. He was born on December 20, 1942 in Salinas, Puerto Rico. A remarkable individual, Hector Colon Santiago began his tour of duty on October 23, 1967. He died at the age of 25 on June 28, 1968 in Quang Tri Province, Republic of Vietnam. A portion of his citation states, ``Specialist Fourth Class Santiago-Colon distinguished himself at the cost of his life while serving as a gunner in the mortar platoon of Company B. He heroically sacrificed himself to save the lives of those who occupied the foxhole with him, and provided them with the inspiration to continue fighting until they had forced the enemy to retreat from the perimeter.'' His name is etched in the wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on panel 54W, Row, 13. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, the Puerto Rican Parade of Paterson 2000/Desfile Puertorriqueno, Inc. 2000, Puerto Rico, the United States and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable achievements and sacrifices of Fernando Luis Garcia, Euripides Rubio, Jr., Carlos James Lozada and Hector Colon Santiago. Each of these men was cited for, ``Conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.''

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the deeds of a remarkable person, Rabbi Dr. Eugene Markovitz of Clifton, New Jersey, who will be recognized on Sunday, June 11, 2000 because of his 50 years of service as the spiritual leader of the Clifton Jewish Center. It is only fitting that he be honored, for he has a long history of caring, generosity and commitment to others. Rabbi Markovitz was recognized for his many years of leadership in Clifton, which I have been honored to represent in Congress since 1997, and so it is only fitting that these words are immortalized in the annals of this greatest of all freely elected bodies. The 50-year relationship between Rabbi Eugene Markovitz and his congregation has added much to the rich history of the State of New Jersey. In addition, it has provided many years of friendship and leadership to the Clifton and Passaic Jewish communities and the community at-large. Born in Romania, Rabbi Markovitz moved to America when he was 15 years old. His father, already living in the United States, brought him to this country along with his mother and five siblings. His father was a rabbi in Lexington, Massachusetts. Later in 1938, the family moved to New York. During these early years he worked at Wilson's meat packers. He spent most of his youth in Coney Island. At Yeshiva University in New York, Rabbi Markovitz received both his bachelors and doctorate degrees. After he was ordained he worked as a student rabbi in Dover, New Hampshire. It was the small steps in the beginning of his career that taught him the fundamentals that would make him a role model to the people that he now serves. In 1950, the Rabbi moved to Clifton with his wife Klara. The two lived in Middle Village. Working together with 60 to 75 other families he helped create a new Jewish congregation in Clifton. The Clifton Jewish Center's popularity grew throughout the years. Often attracting 50 to 100 new members a year. People came from Passaic, Paterson, Newark and New York. Services for the Jewish Center used to be held in the Grand Union on Clifton Avenue and junior congregation services were in the Clifton Theater. In the 1950s the Hebrew School increased in size dramatically, so the building was expanded in 1958. The Jewish Center reached its peak in the late 1960s and early 1970s with 350 children attending Hebrew School each year. The congregation under the leadership of Rabbi Markovitz has had many significant achievements. First, the Hebrew School helped to produce six rabbis. In addition, the annual silent Kol Nidre appeal is a wonderful accomplishment. Noted for his civic involvement, the Rabbi is active throughout the City of Clifton. He is noted as the spiritual leader of the Clifton Jewish Center and as a good friend of the Clifton/Passaic community. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Rabbi Markovitz's family and friends, the Clifton Jewish Center, Passaic County, the State of New Jersey and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable service to the community of Rabbi Dr. Eugene Markovitz.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the deeds of the acclaimed film producer, Saul Zaentz of Passaic, New Jersey, who was feted on Friday, May 19, 2000. It is only fitting that the Second Ward Educational and Charitable Foundation, Inc. in cooperation with the Passaic Board of Education celebrate the dedication of the auditorium at the William B. Cruise Memorial School Number 11 as the Saul Zaentz Auditorium because of his remarkable talents and contributions to the entertainment industry and society as a whole. He is honored for his professional successes and never forgetting his roots. Saul Zaentz was born on February 28, 1921 in Passaic. He has produced only eight movies since 1975, yet three have won the best picture Oscar. These are The English Patient (1996), Amadeus (1984), and One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975). In addition, his film The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) was nominated for multiple Oscars. He has a three-film version of the J.R.R. Tolkien epic Lord of the Rings trilogy in production. The first of the three, The Fellowship of the Ring, is due out in December of 2000. In 1978, he produced an animated film version of the book. The 76-year-old's effort, The English Patient, won nine Oscars. The making of The English Patient is a story in itself. Saul entered a partnership with 20th Century Fox for the film, but the studio insisted on big-name casting. Unwilling to compromise, he found another backer in Miramax. Because of the size of the budget, the producer also persuaded the entire cast and crew to defer half their salaries until the film recouped its costs. In addition to winning an Oscar for The English Patient, Saul garnered the honorary award, the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. This only adds to a lifetime of achievement. The special award goes to, ``creative producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production,'' according to Academy rules. The audience at the 1997 Academy Awards, the night of his triumph, was filled with actors and other film professionals who have worked with Saul. They all gave him a standing ovation. In 1937, Darryl F. Zanuck, Jr. won the first Thalberg Award and Saul was the 33rd winner. The previous time the Academy conferred the award, in 1995, it went to Clint Eastwood. This native of Passaic, who struggled for years to bring The English Patient to the screen, was given the Producers Guild's Darryl F. Zanuck Award as producer of the year. He also received its Eastman Kodak Vision Award for his ``special cinematic vision'' and took home a Golden Laurel marking his movie as the best drama of the year. Although it is only eight years old, the guild's awards have a near perfect record for predicting the best-picture Oscar. As a producer Saul's filmography includes many notable productions. In addition to his Oscar winning ventures, he has produced At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991), The Mosquito Coast (1986) and Three Warriors (1977). He served as Executive Producer for Payday (1972). In One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, he took an uncredited turn as an actor, playing the captain on the shore when the boat returns. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Saul's family and friends, the Second Ward Educational and Charitable Foundation, Inc., the Passaic Board of Education, the City of Passaic, the State of New Jersey and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable achievements of Saul Zaentz.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention to the deeds of the 65th Infantry Regiment from Puerto Rico, which was recognized on Friday, May 26, 2000 because of its many years of service and leadership. The regiment, honored by the Puerto Rican Parade of Paterson 2000/Desfile Puertorriqueno, Inc. 2000, is celebrating a century of service to the nation and the 50th anniversary of its participation in the Korean Conflict. The 65th Infantry Regiment was organized on March 2, 1899; one year after United States Military Forces occupied Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War. The group began as a volunteer force charged with defending the island. Even though it was an active Army Regiment, Puerto Ricans that enlisted or were appointed as officers in the 65th could expect to spend their entire military careers in Puerto Rico. In 1917, one year after Puerto Ricans were granted American citizenship, the 65th was reorganized as the Puerto Rican Regiment of Infantry. In 1920 it became the 65th Infantry Regiment. During World War 1, the 65th Infantry protected the Panama Canal Zone against Germany and other opposing nations. After the war, they returned to garrison duty in Puerto Rico. During World War II, the 65th moved first to Panama in January of 1943, then to France in September 1944. The 65th fought in several European battlefields, including, the decisive skirmish near the River Arno, the Ardennes and other key engagements along the French and Italian borders. The unit also carried out civil actions and security duties such as guarding high-ranking Nazi officials during the Nuremberg trials. The 65th became a highly decorated unit during the second World War, with members earning the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars, 90 Purple Hearts, 22 Bronze Stars and 1,367 Combat Infantry Badges, After the war, the group returned to garrison duty in Puerto Rico. On September 23, 1950, the 65th Infantry Regiment entered the Korean Conflict. This unit, the only segregated Hispanic unit in the Army's history was composed mostly of native Puerto Ricans. In Korea the group participated in nine major campaigns, saw intense action and distinguished itself with gallant combat performances. It became one of the most highly decorated army units in history. These honors include a United States Presidential Unit Citation, a Meritorious Unit Commendation, two Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citations and the Greek Gold Medal for Bravery. The men of the 65th Infantry, the ``Borinqueneers'' as they came to be known, were awarded four distinguished Service Crosses, 155 Silver Stars, 562 Bronze Stars and 1,014 Purple Hearts among other awards. Borinqueneers is a word indigenous to Puerto Rico meaning, ``native islander.'' The United States Army dissolved the 65th Infantry Regiment in 1956. On February 15, 1959 the 65th Infantry became a regiment in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard. Today the 65th Infantry continues its proud tradition of service as part of the 92nd Infantry Brigade. In 1992, the National Guard honored the unit with a Heritage painting. The scene depicts the regiment conducting a bayonet charge against a Chinese division in Korea on February 2, 1951. More than 61,000 Puerto Ricans served in the Korean Conflict. More than 6,000 served in the 65th. In addition, more than 732 Puerto Ricans lost their lives in Korea. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Puerto Rican Parade of Paterson 2000/Desfile Puertorriqueno, Inc. 2000, Puerto Rico, the United States and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable contributions of the 65th Infantry Regiment from Puerto Rico. Throughout its 100 years of service, the 65th has always lived up to its motto, ``Honor and Fidelity.''

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the deeds of a remarkable person from my district, Robert Foster of Clifton, New Jersey, who was recognized on Friday, May 12, 2000 at the Optimist Dinner because of his many years of service and leadership. The Clifton Optimist Year 2000 Friend of Youth Award was conferred upon him at a dinner held at the Clifton Boys and Girls Club. It is only fitting that he is honored, for he has a long history of caring, generosity and commitment to others. Robert was recognized for his many years of leadership in Clifton, which I have been honored to represent in Congress since 1997, and so it is only fitting that these words are immortalized in the annals of this greatest of all freely elected bodies. Each year the Clifton Optimist Club recognizes a special person for his work with youth. This year the award is bestowed upon Robert, Director of the Boys and Girls Club of Clifton. He is an excellent choice for this honor because he embodies the theme ``Friend of Youth'' with his dedicated service and affiliations involving the children of the City of Clifton. Robert is a graduate of Springfield College in Springfield, Massachusetts. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Recreation and Leisure Services from the school in 1980. From the time of his graduation, twenty years ago, until the present day, Robert has worked at the Boys and Girls Club of Clifton, Inc. improving the lives of young people. He began his career as the Teens/ Social Recreation Director of the club. In January of 1986 he became the program director for the organization. This change brought him a greater range of responsibility. The time spent working as the Teen/ Social Recreation Director instilled in Robert the attributes necessary for him to become a stellar force in the community. It was the small steps in the beginning of his career that taught him the fundamentals that would make him a role model to the youths that he now serves. Known for a questioning mind and an ability to get things done, Robert was promoted to his current position of Director of Operations in September of 1991. He is responsible for the daily operations of the Boys and Girls Club of Clifton. The club currently serves 2,200 youths from the ages of two and a half to seventeen. Robert continually touches the lives of the people around him. This is exemplified by his club affiliations. He is a member of the Clifton Optimist Club and is a Clifton Stallions Soccer Club Trustee. In addition, he is a member of the Clifton Board of Recreation. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Robert's family and friends, the Boys and Girls Club of Clifton, the City of Clifton and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable service to the community of Robert Foster.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the deeds of a remarkable organization, the Consumers League of New Jersey (CLNJ), which was recognized on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 because of its many years of service and leadership at a dinner celebration in West Orange, New Jersey. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the group, so it is only fitting that these words are immortalized in the annals of this greatest of all freely elected bodies. Since 1900, the Consumers League has fought for the rights of consumers. Congress used ideas from CLNJ testimony in the U.S. Home Equity Loan Consumer Protection Act, to prohibit ``rate rise surprise.'' Congress also adopted a CLNJ measure to help save homes from foreclosure, by giving homeowners a chance to pay their mortgages through bankruptcy payment plans. The league helps people shop for credit with a pamphlet on low-cost credit cards. Consumers League also helps low income consumers with its ``rent to own'' campaign. Consumers League of New Jersey is nonpartisan. CLNJ does not make endorsements nor does it contribute money to candidates. They give people an honest opinion, and try to persuade elected officials to help consumers. In the early 1900s children worked in factories, and many of the protections of modern life which we take for granted were nonexistent. Consumers League struggled for 35 years before its original agenda of safe food, safe working conditions, prohibitions on child labor, promotion of minimum wages laws and union protections, was enacted into law as the New Deal. CLNJ has always been ahead of the country in its vision of justice. It was not until the New Deal that many of the reforms championed by CLNJ became law. CLNJ was a founding member of the National Consumers League (NCL), and worked with NCL and unions to bring about change. CLNJ also took up the cause of the ``watch-dial'' radium poisoning of female workers in Essex County, New Jersey. In the 1960s and 1970s, CLNJ leaders spoke out for consumer protection laws, credit laws, usury limits, and enforcement of minimum wage and child labor laws. They looked into supermarket prices. They also went to the fields to support migrant farm-workers. Rutgers University of New Jersey has considerable archives about the early and middle years of CLNJ history. From 1985 onward CLNJ has fought for consumer rights and basic justice. For fifteen years they promoted lower interest rates by publicizing lower interest credit cards. They gave away tens of thousands of credit card pamphlets. CLNJ also lamented bank mergers, which resulted in fewer choices, higher prices for consumers and interest rates that never went down. In addition, CLNJ supported the Fair Lending Coalition. They also helped enact New Jersey's Basic Banking law. From 1986-89, CLNJ's President was a member of the Federal Reserve Board's Consumer Advisory Council. The president opposed ``checkhold'' delays. The common ground discovered between CL and bankers proved to be the formula which Congress enacted into law: the Federal Reserve must process checks quicker, and banks must end the long holds. In addition, the president supported Truth in Savings, which was also enacted. CLNJ fought against weakening New Jersey's Secondary Mortgage Loan Act. When the Legislature legalized abuses, less than one year later, CLNJ testified before the United States Senate in 1987 about home equity loans, or as CLNJ put it ``charge a blouse, put a lien on your house.'' Congress banned what New Jersey had approved: the ``rate rise surprise'' (the power to change a home equity contract after you borrowed significant funds). Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, the United States of America, the State of New Jersey and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable service to the community of the Consumers League of New Jersey.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I am at the same podium, but this is a terrible deal. We have lost our moral compass. We really have. It is a bad deal for the United States, and it is certainly a bad deal for New Jersey and my district, the 8th Congressional District. We are expected to lose, according to the government's own reports, over 22,000 jobs. We have been granting NTR each and every year for the past 20 years, and what have we seen? What has happened? Human rights, labor rights, environmental rights, national security interests have gotten worse year after year; and it has been documented. So with this vote, the downward spiral will continue to plummet. Mr. Chairman, 875,000 jobs lost, sucked out of the economy. Not only has NTR been disastrous, but our increasing trade with China has done nothing to foster this so-called reform. Last week, the World Bank, over United States objections, agreed to provide $232 million in loans to the government of Iran against our wishes. The State Department stated that giving support to Iran will, quote, send the wrong signal, the State Department said, to their government. That government which is regressive, intolerant, non-Democratic, aggressive. Does that sound familiar? The irony, of course, is that these are the same people in the State Department who are spending night and day trying to send the Chinese Government the wrong signal about PNTR. We need a no vote for America tomorrow.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to address something we started to talk about last evening, and that is the vote we will be taking probably tomorrow on China and our trade relations with China. The minority leader wrote a book last year, An Even Better Place, America in the 21st Century, where he dismissed as ludicrous the contention that expanded trade fosters democracy in China. ``America has to stand for something more than money,'' the Minority Leader said, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. It seems to sum up what we have been saying, we opponents. We are not or do not wish to cut off relationships with China and the Chinese people. In fact, our argument is not with the Chinese people, our argument is with the authoritarian government which has tortured, which has beaten down any dissidents, any opposition. Strictly on the issue of security, the proponents of permanent trade relations with China, normal relationships, whatever we wish to call them, they have been talking first about the jobs that would be created, and then when they could not win that battle, they switched to the issue of national security. Three points. My main thrust is jobs this morning. We know that in these past 10 years, China has targeted up to 18 intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States. Two, during this same period of time, we signed an export control waiver which allowed the top campaign fundraisers in aerospace companies to transfer sensitive missile guidance technology to China. Number three, during the same period we shifted the prime satellite export responsibility from the State Department to the Commerce Department. In the sequel to ``sleeping with the enemy,'' I would imagine this is pretty consistent. This in no way is going to strengthen the security of the United States. This deal is a bad deal. The worst part of the deal is for the American workers. As China seeks entry to the World Trade Organization, and as our trade deficit with China soars to record heights, $70 billion by the end of this year, at least, our manufacturing jobs are being sucked from our shores away from our workers. This is critical to understand, because if we are not going to help produce more jobs in America and sustain the economy, the robust economy that we have, then where will jobs be created, if not in America? These jobs are going to places like China, where there is no regard for labor, where there is no regard for human safety, and where there is no regard for environmental or health standards. I find that it is best to take a step back and look at exactly what is happening. Granting PNTR to China would strip America's ability to keep check on the Communist regime. Granting PNTR to China says that China has gained our trust and approval, and I would be saying that I believe this trade deal is the best thing for the people of my district. But as I mentioned last night, I did have a nightmare on Thursday evening, after standing with the 60 dissidents east of the Capitol here. I dreamt with horror that there was an uprising in China, as there are many dissidents who are afraid to speak up at this moment, and that this great country, this pillar of democracy in the world, the greatest democracy that the world has ever known, stood alongside of the authoritarian, totalitarian Chinese government to put this insurrection down. That is a horror show. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, for his tremendous leadership, in standing up for working people worldwide. I am pleased to join him here today. There is a reason that the proponents of this flawed deal have been touting the national security and ``theoretical'' reform benefits they see in this package. Because they know that the argument that this bill is good for our working families is just plain wrong! As China seeks entry to the World Trade Organization, and as our trade deficit with China soars to record heights, our manufacturing jobs are being sucked from our shores, away from our workers. Those jobs are going to places like China where there is no regard for labor, safety, environmental or health standards. When dealing with issues such as this, I find that it is best to take a step back and look at exactly what we are doing. What does this vote mean? Day after day I try to work with firms, be they manufacturing, or textile, or other small businesses, to see what I can do to assist the business in reaching its fullest potential. How can I vote on Wednesday to send these businesses and jobs overseas? Normal Trade Relations? This does not seem normal to me! I cannot stress enough, the mistake we will make by passing this bill later this week. I understand that unemployment is at its lowest, and that the economy is soaring. But workers are making less money than ever. After NAFTA, we saw tens of thousands of good jobs, with benefits, and security go South to Mexico. What has increased has been the number of temporary workers. Companies have been hiring people to work full time jobs, without health plans, without protections, not on salary. The bottom line is that this is not a government in China that we have been able to trust. It has broken every commitment it has made with the United States of America. It has broken every trade agreement it has signed with the United States over the past 10 years. Supporters of PNTR claim that China will buy our imports. But I do not see the infrastructure or the wealth in China to accept any substantial amount of American merchandise. Business does not want to sell cars to China, they want to build cars in China. Over the past ten years, our trade deficit with China has ballooned from 7 billion dollars to 70 billion dollars! There is currently a 6- to-1 ratio of imports to exports. Supporters of this flawed bill claim that we need PNTR to see our economy grow. That fact is however, that China has had NTR over the past twenty years, and things continue to get worse. We are taking a bad deal and making it permanent. In the United States, we have seen a dangerous shift from a production to service based economy. This deal threatens the tremendous creative spirit of our nation with the prospect of exploitation overseas. I will not vote for a proposal that is downright dangerous to our society at large. We can and will not surrender our manufacturing base, our production, our jobs. Manufacturing is tremendously important to my district. There are 1,114 manufacturing firms who employ 57,000 workers in the Eighth District, and these firms are critical to our infrastructure. Granting PNTR to China would strip America's ability to keep check on the communist regime in China. Granting PNTR to China says that China has gained our trust and approval, and I would be saying that I believe this trade deal is the best thing for the people of my district. I will not do that, because this is a bad deal for our workers. The numbers do not lie. If PNTR is granted, New Jersey will see 22,276 jobs lost over the next ten years. The United States as a whole will suffer a net job loss of 872,000 jobs over the same ten years. Proponents like to talk about job creation, but they do not like publicizing the job loss on our side. The real job creation will be in China, where U.S. businesses will flock with their factories. They will go there to pay thirty-three, thirteen, even three-cents per hour in sweatshops that are basically workshops from a maximum- security penitentiary. Big business in America wants to exploit a labor force that cannot go on strike for higher wages, or for better conditions. It wants to take advantage of a labor force that is oppressed by its government. In fact, China has prison labor camps listed among its manufacturing companies! Why is this year any different? Why is this trade deal any different? What has China done to gain our trust, besides stealing of our nuclear secrets? China is not all of a sudden going to play by the rules. They will not limit their imports. China will not be a good trading partner, because there is no enforcement or reason to be. With permanent NTR, we will have thrown in our last chip on keeping China in check. This deal is bad for my district, New Jersey, and the country. I stand with environmentalists, veterans, human rights activists, and most importantly, working families, to oppose this legislation. The timing is wrong, and the deal is wrong. Now is not the time we should not vote to rubber-stamp a failed trading arrangement into infinity. Trade rights should be a privilege to be earned, not a right merely handed out!

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. I would like to start by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his leadership in this area. Frankly, I have seen enough ads and watched enough of them, so I do not need any retort or debate at this point. Our argument is not with the Chinese people, and we need to be very clear about this, but I had a horrible dream the other evening. I dreamt after standing with those dissidents in front of the Capitol, I dreamt that there was an uprising in China against the authoritarian dictatorship, and that we in America sided with a government which we have helped prop up. That is a nightmare. Have we lost our moral compass altogether? The New York Times can try to anesthetize this all it wants in its editorials and its big ads, but it does not change. This vote is not a referendum on one billion people who are forced to live under communist tyranny; this vote is about America's relationship with the Chinese government. We have lost our moral compass to listen to the administration and to leadership in this House about where we are to go on this vote. There is a reason that the proponents of this flawed deal have been touting the national security and theoretical reform benefits they see in this package. They know that the argument that this bill is good for our working families is plain wrong. As China seeks entry into the World Trade Organization and as our trade deficit with China soars to record heights, our manufacturing jobs are being sucked from our shores, away from our workers. Those jobs are going to places like China, where there is very little regard for working people, very little regard for their safety, very little regard for the environmental conditions within which people work, very little regard for health standards. When dealing with issues such as this, I find it is best to step back and look at exactly what we are doing. What does this vote mean? Granting PNTR to China would strip America's ability to keep check on the communist regime in China. Granting PNTR to China says that China has gained our trust and approval, and I would be saying I believe this trade deal is the best thing for working folks in my district, in your district, the gentleman from Oregon, in your district, the gentlewoman from California. I will not do that, because this is a bad deal. The numbers do not lie. In New Jersey, we will lose 23,000 jobs. In the United States as a whole, we will suffer a net job loss of 872,000 jobs over the same 10 years. We are not creating jobs in America, we are creating jobs in China. And why are we creating jobs in China? Proponents like to talk about job creation, although lately they have quieted that message, but they do not like publicizing the job loss on our side. The real job creation is in China, where United States businesses will flock with their factories. Do you remember the words, in May of 1999, by the former Chief Economic Adviser to President Clinton, when she wrote in Business Week Magazine the following. Think of American workers reading this, hearing this, whether they are in machine shops, whether they are in the textile industries, whether they are making shows, whether they are farmers. Think of them hearing these words that she wrote: ``The only big change to American markets with China trade would be in the textile industry, which is currently protected by quotas slated for elimination under the WTO rules. China is among the world's lowest-cost producers of textiles, and one of the great benefits of WTO membership would be the elimination of U.S. quotas.'' For an addendum, ``lowest cost producers.'' There is the rub, because we could talk about every one of those industries that I have just mentioned. What we are going to see is corporate America, part of corporate America, move offshore more jobs into China. Why? Let us listen to what Ms. Tyson said: ``Because China is among the world's lowest cost producers of textiles.'' Yet, and here is the second rub, when my wife goes into a department store to buy a Liz Claiborne dress, she is paying exactly the same amount of money most of the time as if that dress was made in the United States; and we know it is made for from $7 to $15 in China, Korea, Honduras, in Mexico, you name it. Well, where did this money go? Whose pockets are enhanced? How can we stand before the American people and argue moral principles are involved here and that is why we should vote for WTO, that is why we should vote for permanent recognition of trade with China? What a sad day. It is pathetic, and I do not care whether it is coming from that side of the aisle or in my own party. It is not acceptable. I have not lost my moral compass, and I will tell that to the President, I will tell that to the folks on the other side who are in the leadership. You know the movie, you know the movie, it was a very nice movie, it was a very interesting movie, Sleeping With the Enemy. It was a great movie. I guess we missed the point. They will go there, these corporations, and pay, as the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, they will pay 33, 13, even 3 cents an hour in sweatshops. We are condoning this by our actions. We are propping up a dictatorship that has sold to countries military secrets, missile secrets, missiles aimed at us. The report is clear. We have all been briefed, and when we have been briefed that means it is in The New York Times. Nothing special ever goes to a Congressman. It is there. It is part of the record, and there is no two ways about it. So I say to Ms. Tyson, come to Patterson, come to Pittsburgh, come to Toledo and tell the folks who work hard to make ends meet in America, to bring food home to their families, tell them they will be better off when their jobs shut down. Today we had a press conference. Little did I know that one of the factories right in back of where I had the press conference is shutting down, 110 more jobs. While we do little patterning here, the manufacturing is moving offshore. We have lost our moral compass. This is not normal trade relations by any stretch of the imagination. Our trade deficit with China grows from $7 billion 10 years ago to $70 billion; and if NAFTA is any model, and the administration will tell you there is a big difference, and while I hope there is a big difference, everything you told us about NAFTA did not come true. It had better be different. What is the difference, if you export the jobs to Mexico or if you export the jobs to China? We say ``give us your tired, your weary.'' We say ``come to America'' to immigrants. We say ``our doors are open.'' Then the very jobs that immigrant is working in are the very jobs that we are shipping to the very places they came from. The irony of it all. We do not need permanent trade relationships with China right now. It is bogus. What we need to do is make a commitment to the Chinese people that we will never surrender our moral compass, and that the only thing we want to be permanent is their commitment to freedom. When the Chinese government begins to change, not just by innuendo, but by reality, then, then we can talk about PNTR for this great democracy of the United States.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the balance of our time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, in the next hour, many of us in the Congress will lay out what our position is on the China trade vote, which is to come up in a very short period of time. The time has arrived for a vote on what is now commonly referred to as permanent normal trade relations, or PNTR, for China. We used to call this MFN, or most-favored-nation status. I suppose the proponents thought PNTR sounded kinder and gentler. But bad policy is bad policy, no matter what we call it. So here we are again. This year, the vote is a little different. If annual NTR was not bad enough, this year we are going to vote for permanent NTR status for China. Our argument is not and should not be with the Chinese people. This vote is not a referendum on the 1 billion people who are forced to live under Communist tyranny. This argument is about America's relationship with the Chinese government. What has the Chinese government done to deserve PNTR? They have not improved the living conditions of their people as China is one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world. China is a country that does not tolerate political dissent or free speech. In the New York Times this past Monday, we see story upon story. This government uses executions and torture to maintain order, to persecute religious minorities, and to violate workers' rights. The State Department report on human rights practices in China is filled with atrocities. Our trade with China has increased, and yet human rights practices are getting worse. Some feel that American jobs will be lost if PNTR is not passed. The growth in exports would generate 325,000 new jobs. This will not match the over 1 million jobs lost in the United States due to rising imports from the low wages in China. This is a net loss of an additional 817,000 jobs, on top of the 880,000 jobs already lost due to our current trade deficit with China. How can we do something so great in raising the minimum wage for our workers, for our families, and in the next breath give first-class treatment to a nation that features slave labor prison camps as part of its manufacturing community? And have they made strides to make our trading privileges reciprocal? Has our trade deficit decreased? No, it is now $68.7 billion and climbing, an increase of 14.6 percent, a 6 to 1 ratio of imports to exports, the most unbalanced relationship we have had in trade in United States history. But I do not see the infrastructure in China to accept any substantial amount of American merchandise. Who, making 13 cents an hour, can afford to buy an automobile? Why would the Chinese government purchase American software for their computers when they already run pirated versions of our own software? We have seen the failure of NAFTA to improve the living conditions in Mexico. This deal is not any different. Maybe China has acted favorably with regards to weapons proliferation. Let us look there. No, they have failed on that front as well. The People's Republic of China refused to join the Missile Technology Control Regime, despite President Clinton's offer in 1998 to support full participation. China is the only major nuclear supplier to shun the 35-nation nuclear suppliers group that requires full scope safeguards. They rejected entry into MTCR as well as NSG. And the administration's reaction is to bring up this final vote? Is this our response? It simply does not make sense. This vote determines the message we are going to send to the Communist government in China. Are we going to vote to give permanent most-favored-nation status to China, thereby giving tacit approval to the Chinese government's practices and policies? Would that really be the normal thing for us to do? Or can we make a stand for a change here and now? Let us have a novel idea. Let us say, no, your policies are not acceptable to the people of the United States. Our workers, our clergy, our families say no. This is not a government in China that we have been able to trust. They have broken every commitment they have made with the United States of America. It has broken every trade agreement it has signed with the United States over the past 10 years. This year will not be any different. I see no reason to end our annual renewal at this juncture in time. We should not vote to rubber-stamp a failed trading arrangement into infinity. That fails our people and it is wrong. Trade rights should be a privilege to be earned, not a right merely handed out. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I thank him for his leadership, as well. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. PASCRELL. We have to get one, two, three more speakers in.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and I thank the speaker for your patience and endurance.

Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Report on Texas A&M Bonfire

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is National Hospital Week, when communities all across America honor the individuals that make hospitals the foundations of our community. This year's theme sums it up very nicely: ``Touching the Future With Care.'' It recognizes the health care workers, volunteers, and other health professionals who are there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, curing and caring. An example of this dedication is the Caritas Connection at St. Mary's Hospital in Passaic, New Jersey. The program won the American Hospital Association's prestigious NOVA Award, which recognizes hospitals' innovative and collaborative efforts to improve the health of their communities. The Caritas Connection is a collaborative project created by St. Mary's Hospital and the Sisters of Charity to focus on the needs of a large urban immigrant population. The majority of the resident workers are in factories with low pay, long hours, and no benefits of job security. It is this type of partnership that lifts us, and I felt it fitting during National Hospital Week to bring this success to the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment by my estimable colleague from California, Congresswoman Waters. As a former Mayor of a large city, I know a thing or two about depending on Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) to pay for services and housing for poor communities. And let me tell you--there is never enough money in the pot to meet the needs of those communities. I think the proposals made here today are great. I think creating incentives for teachers and police officers to move into distressed communities is a great idea. Mixed income communities provide lower income neighborhoods with much-needed role models and opportunities. But let us be very clear about the funding for these changes. The money for these proposals we are discussing here today will have to come from the same pot of money that is currently set aside for the very neediest of Americans. And there isn't enough of it to go around. Today the floor is filled with talk about the need to reinvest in our communities. What I want to know is--when we are all back here in the fall debating the budget, will we be as committed to these programs--to these communities--as we are today? Will we be willing to put our money where our mouth is today? I support this underlying legislation. We should work together to revitalize those areas that need our attention. If we are going to take these programs beyond their intended mission, we should be prepared to increase the funding necessary to add each of the groups we want to make eligible. We cannot stretch dollars too thin at the expense of the people we say we are trying to lift up. I look forward to working with the sponsors of this legislation to ensure that the funding is in place to meet our shared goals.