Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, as is reflected in the Congressional Record, I was granted an official leave of absence for Tuesday, October 12, 1999. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote 493--H.R. 493 to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended the Hillory J. Farias Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act--I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall vote 492--S. 800 to Suspend the Rules and Pass the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act--I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall vote 491--H. Res. 303 on Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree, as Amended, Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives urging that 95% of Federal education dollars be spent in the classroom--I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support of the Rohrabacher amendment and oppose the gentleman from Illinois' attempt to, I believe, either circumvent, undermine, use whatever word you wish. I think in the area of trade that the jig is up, and that the American people will no longer tolerate trade agreements where we wind up, and this is not a trade agreement, I understand that, where we wind up as the monitors of the world. It does not work that way. WTO has not worked, our trade agreements to the South and to the West have not worked for the simple reason that there is no teeth, and we are depending on good will. Yet we read in the paper just a few days ago, ``Five Clothing Makers Agree on a Settlement, Sweatshops on Saipan Bring Class Action Suit,'' and the likes of Ralph Lauren, Donna Karan, the Gap, Tommy Hilfiger, Wal-Mart, go down the list, have to be reminded of the obligations and the undermining of the American ethic of work in our own country. Enough is enough is enough. If it takes the government to remind these great corporations, where our wives and our loved ones shop day in and day out, to even see on those labels, ``Made in the USA,'' tags which now consumers understand have nothing to do with where the product is made. That product, with that label, ``Made in the USA,'' once made sense, once had power. It meant that the product was made within our borders. It no longer means that, does it? We are opening up windows and doors and sides of buildings every day. These trade agreements, and OPIC is part of that scene, simply give credibility to those who want to isolate America. That is not the gentleman from California's intent. It is not my intent. The Rohrabacher amendment is very simple. It seeks to prohibit OPIC guarantees from being used for investments in manufacturing facilities abroad. Our Nation has suffered enough job loss in manufacturing. We do not need to subsidize the creation of jobs abroad. We need to end exporting jobs from America. We need to do it today. OPIC will be fine for another time, not now. The jig, as I said, is up. It has been exposed. We protect the very businesses who put labels on products, be it textiles or machinery, all the same, that have nothing to do with the location, the geography where the product is made. How can we stand here and defend that and support opening our doors to that kind of lunacy? For those of us who are concerned about job loss, concerned about the working conditions at all of the plants in the article that I referred to, we have another example to point to with this settlement, quote-unquote, as if we needed one more. The amendment would in no uncertain terms end an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for OPIC to fund overseas industries that might compete with domestic American industry. We need to stop exporting our jobs. We need to go back and strengthen manufacturing within our own shores. On one side of our mouth, we talk about we are a Nation of immigrants. Yet this is how immigrants earned their identity in America, by working with their hands and making the products from their own sweat and their labor. We do not honor the commitment we made to immigrants in this great American society of ours by undermining the tenet to strengthen American jobs.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we have indeed been making history since we started this debate last evening. Americans do not have to wait for their State to catch up in protecting them when they become ill, in protecting their interests. If there is hurt, then HMOs are going to have to withstand the scrutiny that doctors and hospitals withstand right now. I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). There are a tremendous amount of similarities between what he wants to do and what is in the Dingell-Norwood bill, no doubt about it. I detect, if I may, and I hear the fears portrayed by my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Lindsey), from the proponents of this substitute. But I also hear the fears and the anxiety of actual human beings who have to deal with the bureaucratic maze that is in front of them when they are ill. If I have to err, if I have to make a mistake, I believe, in good faith, we should make it on the side of the patient. What that means is that all the things that we agree upon in similar pieces of legislation should not be shortstopped because we cannot agree on where that limit is if one has to go to court. There are built-in processes right within this legislation internally that protect us from those fears and those anxieties which Members have expressed. That is why I cannot vote for this substitute, but I applaud the gentleman's efforts.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), great Americans, for providing a great service to all of us on a managed care bill which I think will work. But there are Members of this House that are working against this consensus by introducing substitutes that in no way equal the comprehensive approach. We have heard a great deal of hysteria in the past few weeks about how Norwood/Dingell will expose our small business owners and employers of all shapes and sizes to massive new litigation threats. If my colleagues read the bill, and I would suggest that they read the bill, on page 99 it says very specifically in Section 302 that the bill ``does not authorize any cause of action against an employer, or other plan sponsor maintaining the group health plan, or against an employee of such an employer.'' It is a ruse. They have provided a ruse. Why do they not tell the American people the truth instead of standing out there with the money changers as they were yesterday as we walked here to do business?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for this terrific piece of common sense legislation. The amendment that I bring to the floor does not seek to undo any of the positive aspects of the bill. Instead, it improves upon an already outstanding bill by addressing one of our Nation's silent killers. While there is a growing awareness of the devastating impact that breast cancer has on American women, there is still a misguided belief that cancer and cardiovascular disease are men's diseases. My amendment simply seeks to shine the light on this misinterpretation. These misconceptions have kept us from realizing that these debilitating and deadly diseases have been historically understudied when it comes to their effect on women. In fact, it was not until the last decade that we have pushed the scientific and medical communities to study how diseases specifically impact upon women. As we all know, cardiovascular disease is the leading killer in this country. Approximately 960,000 Americans die of cardiovascular disease each year. What is not well known is that more women die of this disease each year than men. Women have different heart attack symptoms than men. Therefore, they are frequently misdiagnosed. Where a man may have chest pain, left arm numbness, a woman may have a shortness of breath and stomach pain, symptoms that are seen in many other conditions, not just heart attacks. Although women live longer than men, they typically suffer from other chronic disease which mask heart attack symptoms. Women also die of heart attacks at greater rates than men do. The lack of research in women's health issues has also been seen in cancer research. Cancer is the second leading killer in women, with lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer death. Significantly, over the past 10 years, the death rate from lung cancer has declined in men, but has continued to rise in women. Women also suffer from breast, colorectal, cervical, and ovarian cancers at alarming rates. Although ovarian cancer has the lowest incidence of death, this is the deadliest of all cancers. Let me explain for a second what I mean. One woman in 55, will develop ovarian cancer over her lifetime, one in 55; yet the 5-year survival rate for ovarian cancer is 35 to 47 percent. In contrast, prostate cancer has a 5-year 87 percent survival rate. We all agree that we have reached a day where we must study these diseases further. We must also come to an understanding that diseases affect men very differently than they affect women. Gender-specific research is critical in the move toward better treatment. Just as we must focus on rural and urban and underserved populations, we must also focus on the studying and treating women in the most beneficial, cost-effective, and safe way. The Health Research and Quality Act gives such an opportunity when it comes to studying heart disease and cancers in woman. That will help us meet our shared goal of providing the best of all care. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, there is much in this bill that I find to be particularly worthy. Unlike last year, when the Members of this House fought for months over the details of this legislation, the conferees were able to return a final product to this House that a majority of people on both sides of the aisle could support. In particular, I am pleased that this Congress has finally provided our hard working federal employees a 4.8% pay raise. The pay gap between government workers that make this country function and white collar workers in the private sector grows every year. This situation, which failed to be redressed until this year, has negatively impacted the hundreds of thousands of households that are headed by government employees. As a result of the bipartisan agreement embodied by this conference report, thousands of government workers will have an easier time making ends meet. The Conference Report on H.R. 2490 also contains several other important provisions. First, it makes good on the promise that this Congress made to the American people in the last Congress when we tried to make the Internal Revenue Service more consumer friendly. We do this by fully funding the I.R.S., which will use the funds to continue the administrative reforms necessary to fulfill the intent of H.R. 2676 (P.L. 105-206). It also continues to require health plans that cover federal employees to make contraceptives available as part of their prescription drug coverage. This will assist family planning and reduce abortions. I further applaud the provision in the section funding the United States Customs Service that requires our customs officers to curb the discriminatory treatment of minorities at agency check points, as well as the funding for the crucial fight against drug trafficking. I could detail more provisions in this conference report that I support, but suffice it to say that I would have voted for this bill had it not been for one provision, the cost of living increase for Members of Congress. For that reason alone, I cast my vote against H.R. 2490. When I was elected to Congress in 1996, I was, in essence, hired by the people of the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey. Prior to Election Day 1996, I made an agreement with these people to take the salary of the job that they hired me to do. Implicit in this arrangement was my promise to neither vote for nor accept any pay raise prior to another election. When the Members of this House voted to increase our own salaries in 1997, I voted against it. When my paycheck demonstrated the effect of this pay raise, I returned it to the United States Treasury. My stance on this issue is intensely personal, and I have no expectation that others should follow my lead. It is simply a matter of keeping my word to those I represent. Unfortunately, my colleagues in the 106th Congress have again deemed it necessary to raise their own pay. This deed was accomplished via the same tactic that was used last year, a procedural vote that I would contend that less than half of the people inside the Beltway understand, much less the American people. This is regrettable. If we are going to raise our own pay, it should be done via a straight up or down vote in circumstances that we can all understand. A pay raise should not be tucked in an appropriations bill that almost all of us could support without its presence. There is much here that I want to support. However, to do so would be to break the agreement that I made with the people of the Eighth Congressional District over two years ago. Many say that your word is your bond and I couldn't agree more. I am not willing to sacrifice mine to make a politically popular vote.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, as a freshman lawmaker in the 105th Congress, I joined a bipartisan coalition of fellow freshmen in crafting legislation that would reform our fatally flawed campaign finance system. I am proud to say that we were able to bridge the partisan gap that too often pervades our debate over legitimate public policy. We crafted a bill that Members on both sides of the aisle could support. Our freshmen task force, remember what it was called, literally drove the debate when it seemed dead, and later joined the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to defeat a number of poison pill amendments that would have killed any chance of comprehensive reform. My friends, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Allen), were effective voices during the debate last year. The bill our coalition supported is and was a good bill. It drove the debate. As I voted against my own bill last year, I plan to vote against the Hutchinson substitute today, not because it is not an improvement over our current system, but because we are offered an opportunity for what I believe is a better bill, a bill that would not be voted on this evening if it were not for the courage of both the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), and those who believe in productive change. Mr. Chairman, we must again pass Shays-Meehan and send a message to the American people that a bipartisan coalition in this body shares the same view of 90 percent of Americans. Ninety percent of Americans believe in this view. Our current campaign finance system needs real reform. It is time to stop making money the deciding factor in American politics and to restore power to where it belongs, with the American voter. We have all of us here helped to disenfranchise the average voter, making him or her feel helpless to have an impact on the American governmental system.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, today we will be debating a piece of legislation that could more than any other single act put an end to the troubling cynicism of the American electorate, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. In our Nation, the birthplace of modern democracy, our citizens are less likely to vote than any other country in the rest of the industrialized world. While there are other factors that influence this disturbing trend, the perception that our elections are bought and sold rank at the top. The numbers are staggering. In 1998, over $781 million was contributed to us, we, congressional candidates. In the last presidential election, the Clinton and Dole campaigns spent a combined $232 million. What has this got to do with free speech? The time has come to restore some sanity to our electoral process. The leadership of the House is again trying to submarine the Shays- Meehan bill by making several poison pill amendments in order. That is why we must take the courageous decision today, Mr. Speaker, and pass the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for the Hinchey-Frelinghuysen amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The amendment is simple. It suspends the VERA program. What we need to do is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a program that is fair to all veterans. If what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has just enunciated can be documented, this is an embarrassing situation, Mr. Chairman, for the veterans and those of us who think we are helping to provide for those veterans in the State. VERA has selective memory and selective facts when they determined where the dollars are going to help our veterans. How horrible that the veterans find themselves in what we are calling here and defining as a sectional war. It almost reminds me of the debate on transportation that was in this hall, these halls. I remember that distinctly. Many of our veterans are not even registered. Most veterans do not even know what their benefits are. Mr. Chairman, that is indeed an embarrassing situation. So while the age of vets is different in the State of New Jersey and while the type of illness is different in the State of New Jersey, in the tri-State area I might add, what we need to do is take a look at this program very, very carefully. Congress will provide $1.7 billion more for veterans medical care, yet for many veterans services they will be cut and medical providers will be reduced because many parts of the Northeast and Midwest will loose. To those veterans who cannot move to Florida, I could not believe what I heard before to be very frank with my colleagues. With all due respect, the veterans equitable resource allocation program which re- directs money from one region of the country to another region of the country to pay for veterans who live in other parts of the country to me needs to be totally examined. God, if our veterans do not deserve better, who do? The fact is that the VERA system is not equitable to all veterans. The amendment sends the message that VERA is not working, and it is not. The VA should develop a truly equitable plan. Members of the military put themselves at great risk to protect American interests around the world. In return for this service the Federal Government made a commitment to both active duty and retired military personnel to provide certain benefits regardless of age, regardless of where they lived. Our veterans helped shape the prosperity our Nation currently enjoys. It is our duty to ensure that commitments made to those who serve are kept. The VERA system is simply not working. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment because it brings equity to all veterans and not just the select.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 57. I find it interesting that many of the same folks who talk about political espionage are here defending trade. To those who argue for us to continue putting the leaders of Beijing above the workers of America, I ask them to please listen for a moment. This is hypocrisy. After years of hearing the same arguments for most- favored-nation trading status, it is time for this Congress to say enough is enough. Extending this status to China has failed to produce the results we want. We still see unconscionable human rights abuses, which we would not tolerate in other countries. We still see nuclear weapons proliferation, which we have not tolerated in other nations. We still see a widening trade deficit every year. The annual exercise of reviewing and renewing China's NTR status has been a complete failure. It is an annual exercise in futility. America needs a new approach. The data tells us what we need to do today. We are told we need to engage China in order to achieve our economic goals. Let us get beyond the rhetoric and look at the facts. We are on track to surpass last year's deficit with China, not close the gap. If the trend continues, our trade deficit would reach $66 billion. What does this huge imbalance mean to American taxpayers, American workers? China has engaged that strategy to manage trade, not normalize trade. It ignores intellectual property rights, it evades restrictions on Chinese textile exports, and has put the Great Wall up to prohibit foreign products from entering the market. The U.S. levies an average NTR tariff rate of 2 percent on the Chinese. They levy a 17 percent rate on NTR trade. This is a one-way street. We should think about the families in America, and stop holding our noses and allowing this unfairness to continue.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. After 6.5 years of putting our fiscal house in order, the Republican leadership has put forth a tax package that returns us to the days of irresponsible tax schemes and ballooning deficits. This leadership tax bill fails our seniors, fails our students, our military, our veterans, and our hard-working middle-income families. Sixty-five percent of the tax relief, so-called, goes to the top 10 percent of the taxpayers, and over half goes to the top 5 percent. The Congressional Budget Office, whose numbers are always touted by the other side, says their plan even spends more than non-Social Security surpluses, $24 billion more. The Republican lockbox for Social Security has Jesse James as the security guard. In contrast, the Rangel substitute strengthens Social Security and Medicare, contains $250 billion in tax cuts aimed at those who need the help, including child tax credits, marriage tax relief, long-term care for the elderly and school construction funding. It is an interesting fact of life that when this tax cut they talk about really balloons is when the baby boomers are going to be eligible for Social Security. Who is going to pay for this tax cut?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Small Business and as a veteran myself, I rise today to encourage the swift passage of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999. It is an outstanding piece of legislation that will go a long way in assisting the veterans of our Nation. Last week our chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) once again demonstrated their commitment to passing meaningful bipartisan legislation when our committee voted unanimously in support of the measure now before the House. I want to credit both of them for their dedication to our Nation's small businesses and to our nation's veterans. H.R. 1568 will help veterans who are attempting to start their own small businesses. It will accomplish this in several ways: First, by creating an Associate Administrator for Veterans Business Development at the Small Business Administration. The bill ensures that veterans will have full access to all SBA programs and will guarantee them a seat at the table, and they have earned it. It will accomplish and establish a national veterans' business development corporation which will organize public and private resources to help assist veterans with financing and advice. The legislation will establish also within a very successful SCORE program the appointment of a national veterans business coordinator. The program is comprised of retired executives who provide advice and technical assistance through a network of volunteers. And lastly, this measure provides a 5 percent goal for government contracting with small business concerns owned and controlled by service disabled veterans. We have adjusted the wheels of other SBA programs, Mr. Speaker, in order to respond to the needs of women and minorities. We are right to do so today for veterans. We need to readjust them to respond to the needs of our veterans, and that is exactly what this bill accomplishes. Members of the military put themselves at a great risk to protect American interests around the world. And in return for this service, the Federal Government has made a commitment to both active duty and retired military personnel to provide certain benefits. With the measure before us today, we attempt to go beyond those benefits that the VA provides. We aim to bring veteran owned businesses into the winners circle of those small businesses that thrive and prosper year after year. As a veteran, I have always maintained a personal commitment to protecting the rights of those who have served, and I have striven to be an advocate on their behalf. Two weekends ago in our district, we had a veterans registration drive, Mr. Speaker. Four hundred fifty veterans signed up, bringing those heroes to the point where they can access the benefits they have earned. Many of our veterans do not even know what they are entitled to. We cannot sit by idly and let that exist. This bill is another aspect of that commitment to those who have made the ultimate commitment to our Nation. It will ensure that veterans have greater access to capital and business training programs, and for those entrepreneurial veterans, among them 48,000 in my own district, I believe throughout America making access, making veterans available and reaching out to them in a very positive way is what we should be all about. I believe this measure will lower the barriers they face, our veterans, help them build and develop businesses that will flourish. Our veterans helped shape the prosperity our Nation currently enjoys. This bill, will help these veterans share in that very prosperity. It is the right thing to do. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1568, the Veterans Entrepreneurship Small Business Development Act of 1999.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, last week New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Cozier struck down a law passed by the legislature in New York that would have repealed the commuter tax for New York residents, but kept that tax in place for out-of-State residents. Mr. Speaker, there are two major issues here. The bigger issue, which has not even been addressed today, is what the Supreme Court did just a few days ago when it tied the hands of the Congress of the United States of America in the issue of States' rights. The bill by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) becomes even more important, more significant, and more timely. Read that decision, I ask Members from both sides of the aisle, the 5-4 decision. That is the big issue that is involved here. New York City's Council responded to the ruling by stating that the city would immediately appeal the ruling. Wonderful. It is my sincere hope that Justice Cozier's ruling and H.R. 2014 will give the city pause. As I stated when the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) introduced this bill several weeks ago, New Jerseyans do not mind paying for their services they use in the State of New York. We are not simply talking about New York and New Jersey here, we are talking about every State in the Union where the possibility exists of inequity. This does not mean that our commuters should become an ATM for a State that does not want its own residents to pay their own way. That is political nonsense. The action of New York's legislature takes parochialism to its irrational extreme and invites tit for tat countermeasures that will only hurt one group in the end, of course, the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the passage of H.R. 2014 will put an end once and for all to those fruitless attempts to pass harmful tax increases on those people who cannot hold these New Jersey legislators accountable, the residents of New Jersey and Connecticut.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PASCRELL. Does the gentleman support that?

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I just listened to what the gentleman said very carefully. Would the gentleman be willing to recommend to those who want to appeal the decision of the court to remove their appeal, and maybe we would not have a need for this decision?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was granted a leave of absence for Friday, June 18, 1999 after 12 noon. At that time, I received word of a family emergency at home in New Jersey and immediately left Washington D.C. Following are the votes I missed and how I would have voted: Representatives Sessions and Frost amendment (No. 8) to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act: On rollcall No. 239, I would have voted ``nay''. Representative Goode Amendment (No. 9) to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act: On rollcall No. 240, I would have voted ``nay''. Representative Hunter Amendment (No. 10) to H.R. 2111, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act: On rollcall No. 241, I would have voted ``nay''. Representative Rogan Amendment (No. 11) to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act: On rollcall No. 242, I would have voted ``yea''. Representatives Conyers and Campbell Amendment (No. 12) to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Act: On rollcall No. 243, I would have voted ``yea''. On Passage of H.R. 2122: On rollcall vote No. 244, I would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was granted a leave of absence for today, Friday, June 18, 1999 after 12 noon. At that time, I received word of a family emergency at home in New Jersey and immediately left Washington D.C. Following are the votes I missed and how I would have voted: Representatives Sessions and Frost amendment (No. 8) to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act: On rollcall No. 239, I would have voted ``nay''. Representative Goode Amendment (No. 9) to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act: On rollcall No. 240, I would have voted ``nay''. Representative Hunter Amendment (No. 10) to H.R. 2111, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act: On rollcall No. 241, I would have voted ``nay''. Representative Rogan Amendment (No. 11) to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act: On rollcall No. 242, I would have voted ``yea''. Representatives Conyers and Campbell Amendment (No. 12) to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Act: On rollcall No. 243, I would have voted ``yea''. On Passage of H.R. 2122: On rollcall vote No. 234, I would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding time to me. I stand with the major police organizations of the United States of America for America's children. That is where I stand. That is where I stand. How many children are still alive because of safety caps on medicine bottles? How many children are still alive because of childproof cigarette lighters? Is this government intervention? No, it saves lives. That is what it is all about. I urge my colleagues to see through the myths, put aside the partisan rhetoric, and do what is right: Vote for the McCarthy amendment. That is what we should be doing.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a question: What do the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Police Foundation, the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, Black Executives Research Forum, what do they all have in common? They support waiting 3 business days, like we want, like the McCarthy proposal has put forth. What do we know that they do not know? That is a question Members must ask. I am tired of hearing about liberal organizations. Are these liberal organizations? What is their hidden agenda? They have to deal with this day in and day out, the police officers of the country. They know what they are talking about. They look at this firsthand. Let us look at the record. Just this year in the State of Michigan, this year, February 6, 1999, a twice-convicted domestic violence batterer; April 24, 1999, a person convicted of domestic assault and battery, were stopped because of the three-day rule. They would be out on the street today doing their business.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, with all civility, Congress is still divided between those who believe there is too much money in our campaigns and those who believe there is never enough. We sell democracy short if we think the voters are not watching our electoral behavior. They are becoming very interested in how we handle campaign financing. Last year, the freshman campaign finance bill was used as interference in getting Shays-Meehan to the floor. With the discharge petition from both sides, we accomplished a vote. We do not need any obstructions now. Let us get on with it. Let us restore credibility to the electoral process now, not later. Shays-Meehan needs to be voted on before Memorial Day. We can do this in a bipartisan way. I appeal to my colleagues, let us conclude this debate in a civil tone. I think it is the best for America.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Alonzo Moody of Paterson New Jersey, an exceptional individual who has dedicated his life to public service. He will be honored this Thursday evening, April 8, 1999, by family, friends, and professionals for his outstanding contributions to the community. Mr. Speaker, Alonzo Moody was born the sixth child to the late Allard Moody, Sr. and Mary Jane Moody. He has been married to his wife Sarah for 28 years and is the proud father of three sons; Malik Ali Angaza, Zatiti Kufaa, and Kwesi Tacuma. Alonzo earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in the field of Urban Planning from Ramapo College of New Jersey in 1976. He also attended Honolulu Business College from 1968-1969 in Hawaii, majoring in Systems Analysis. He has worked for the Department of Human Resources and the Paterson Youth Services Bureau for the past twenty five years as Executive Director. His responsibilities include supervision and administration of programs, with direct accountability for their use in the community. He also coordinates all youth agency activities within the City of Paterson. Mr. Moody directs and supervises two youth agencies and fifteen staff members. On October 21, 1998, Mr. Moody was appointed and sworn in as Deputy Mayor of the City of Paterson by the Honorable Mayor Martin G. Barnes. As Deputy Mayor, he oversees issues involving youth, families, and recreation. In March of 1992, Mr. Moody became Director of the Alexander Hamilton Development Resident Management Youth Program. He implemented homework study hour, a variety of recreational activities, counseling services, and other activities for the youth of the Alexander Hamilton Housing Development during the evening hours. Since 1991 Alonzo has been serving as a member of the Paterson Board of Education. From 1977 until 1989 Alonzo and his wife Sarah have served as Children's Haven House Parents, providing a nurturing and supportive family environment for eight boys ages eight to fourteen placed by the Division of Youth and Family Services. Alonzo served as an Assistant Basketball Coach at Passaic County Community College in 1979. From 1973 to 1980 he was an administrator for the Children's Shelter, Community Youth Worker Probation Counselor for Passaic County Probation Department and Director of the Youth Summer Twilight Program for the Catholic Youth Organization. From 1966 until 1969 Mr. Moody also served in the United States Air Force, as an Airman First Class. Many community organizations have benefited from Mr. Moody's participation. He was a former member of the Paterson Task Force for Community Action, Inc.; the Community Action Day Care Center, Inc. Board of Directors; and the Paterson YMCA Board of Directors. He currently serves on the Eastside High School's Home School Council, RISK, NJ Black United Fund; Passaic County Youth Commission; Municipal Drug Alliance; Village Initiative Executive Board, Children's Haven Board of Directors; and the Minority Concerns Committee. Mr. Speaker, over the years, Mr. Moody has touched the lives of many people in his community. His warmth of spirit and caring nature has inspired an enormous amount of people. We are all gathered here tonight as a testament to Alonzo and to thank him for all that he has done for the well being of his fellow man. Mr. Speaker, please join me, our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives, Alonzo's family, friends, and colleagues, and the City of Paterson, New Jersey, in commending a truly great man.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Robert H. Holster of Clifton, New Jersey, an outstanding individual who has dedicated his life to public service. He will be honored this Friday, April 9, by parents, family, friends, and professionals for his many years of outstanding contribution to the community. It is only fitting that we are gathered here tonight in his honor, for he epitomizes caring and generosity of spirit. Bob Holster has a truly storied past, starting with his education from my alma mater, Fordham University, where he graduated in 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts in Education and a minor in Education Psychology. In 1974, Bob attended Colombia University, where he received his Masters of Art in Curriculum and Instruction Specialization. Recently in January of 1999, Bob received his latest achievement, by earning his Doctorate Degree in Administration and Supervision from Fordham University. This educational background serves as the foundation for the outstanding work he is doing each day on behalf of our students. Educated in Passaic, New Jersey, Bob understands that a successful future for any individual is built upon a strong education. Toward that end, he has served the Passaic School System with distinction for two decades. This exemplary career includes eight years as the Director of Curriculum and nearly six years as Assistant Superintendent of Schools for Curriculum and Staff Development. In both roles, Dr. Holster helped to shape the path of learning for thousands of young people in his community. His tenure has most recently included six years as the Superintendent of Passaic's Public Schools. His tenure has been marked by innovation, steadfast leadership, and an unwavering commitment to each and every student in Passaic, New Jersey. Superintendent Holster has been recognized many times for his community service, including being named Passaic City Man of the Year in 1987, Lions Club Man of the Year in 1994, and the prestigious ``Dissertation Choice Award'' from his alma mater Fordham University in 1995. On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, over the years I have not only come to know Bob Holster as an outstanding educator, but I am proud to call him a genuine friend. He can always be counted on in tough times and in good ones as well. It is thus with distinct pleasure and privilege that I say these words. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you please join me, our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives, Bob's wife Sharon, his family, friends, and co-workers, the Passaic School System, and the City of Passaic in thanking Superintendent Robert Holster for all his years of service to the community.