Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the deeds of Adrea Cohen of Belleville, New Jersey on this the occasion of her Retirement and Testimonial Dinner. Adrea is being honored tonight because of her 25 years of service to the township of Belleville and the Belleville Public Library and Information Center. It is only fitting that we gather here tonight in her honor, for she epitomizes caring and generosity of spirit. Adrea Cohen has served as Director of the Belleville Public Library and Information Center since 1993. She began as its Assistant Library Director in 1974 after completing her second Masters Degree in Library Science from Pratt Institute. Cohen also holds a Master's Degree in History from Montclair State University. She has taken graduate courses in history at Harvard University, where she was schooled under the President of the Library of Congress. Adrea was formerly a tenured teacher of English, history, and literature in the City of Passaic, from 1958 to 1964, a school librarian in the City of Passaic from 1964 to 1966, she was a supervisor of student teachers for Montclair State University, and a teacher of ESL (English as a Second Language) and she also taught English in the Wayne and Passaic Adult Schools for 15 years. Many people in the community of Belleville, New Jersey have benefited from Adrea's vast commitment to civil programs. She has been made a Paul Harris Fellow by the Rotary Club, as well as served as their public relations chair. She was the literature chair of the Woman's Club, and Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce. She is a past president of Zonta International of the Greater Wayne area. She has served as president of the administration section of NJLA and is still an active member of the first regional library cooperative. She has served as president of libraries in focus, a Cablevision consortium for Essex County libraries and has actively videotaped over one hundred programs at the library for the past ten years, which have appeared on local cablevision. She has also held a yearly Martin Luther King, Jr. event at School No. 9 in Paterson, New Jersey, and has worked closely with local artists and photographers whose work she has displayed in the library. In the spring, Adrea will be honored by Kappa Delta Phi, New York University, as Educator of the Year for her library directorship and contributions to the community. The award will be presented to her by the United States Ambassador and deputy governor, Dr. Inez Bull. Adrea has been married to Roy Cohen for 37 years, and has two children, Pamela and Bonnie Cohen. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you please join me, our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives, Adrea's family, friends, and coworkers, the Belleville Library and Information Center, and Township of Belleville, New Jersey, in thanking Mrs. Adrea Cohen for all her years of service to the community and congratulating her on her well deserved retirement, her presence will be greatly missed.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chief Robert J. Pizzuti of Montclair, New Jersey, an outstanding individual who has dedicated his life to public service. He will be honored this Friday, April 9, 1999, by parents, family, friends, and professionals for his 43 years of outstanding contribution to the community through his outstanding leadership of the Montclair Fire Department. Chief Robert Pizzuti personifies public service through his true commitment to firefighting and the people of Montclair, New Jersey. Robert J. Pizzuti was born on Willow Street in Montclair, New Jersey on the first day of January, nineteen hundred thirty five. He attended Immaculate Conception School in Montclair from first grade until eighth, where he then attended Montclair High School, where he graduated in 1952. After graduating from high school Chief Pizzuti fought in the Golden Gloves as a Welter Weight, weighing in at 147 pounds, where he was very successful winning a numerous amount of awards. In 1953, he joined the armed forces and served for the next two years as a soldier in the Army. While there he attended a leadership school at Camp Chaffee in the state of Arkansas. Chief Pizzuti was released from the Army on September 13, 1955. In June of 1956, Chief Pizzuti took his first Fire Exam and passed scoring the highest grade on the exam. He was officially sworn in as a firefighter on August 1, 1956. Chief Pizzuti has continued to serve on the Montclair Fire Department for 43 years and has performed in a variety of positions. He was sworn in as Lieutenant FireFighter on December 10, 1968, then as Captain on March 6, 1980. He was sworn in as Deputy Chief FireFighter on August 14, 1984, then as Acting Chief on October 1, 1990. Finally on July 1, 1991, Mr. Robert Pizzuti was sworn in as Chief Robert Pizzuti of the Montclair Fire Department, and it is in that capacity in which he has served for the last eight years. He is a member of the F.M.B.A. and is also the Sergeant at arms of the Chief's Association. Chief Pizzuti has been acknowledged by many groups over the years for his civic awareness; the March of Dimes, Christ Church, the Borough of Glen Ridge, the New Jersey General Assembly, the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Youth Summit, and the Montclair Optimist Club, to name just a few. Chief Pizzuti has also been involved with First Night in Montclair, as well as coaching softball, baseball, and football. Chief Robert Pizzuti has been married to Eleanor Majewski since May 18, 1957. And they have five children; Diana, Tracy, Robert Jr., Robin, and Thomas. He and his wife are also grandparents to seven grandchildren and they are presently expecting their eighth. Mr. Speaker, since I took office in January of 1997, Chief Robert Pizzuti has been a member of my Eighth Congressional District Public Safety Committee that has been so instrumental in counseling me on issues of importance to those who are charged with saving lives every day. In fact, Chief Pizzuti was one of the forces behind the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act which I recently introduced in this esteemed body. This law will provide federal grants directly to paid, part-paid, and volunteer fire departments to hire more firefighters, train firefighters in state-of- the-art techniques, and better equip firefighters so that they can more effectively save lives. It was in large part to Chief Pizzuti's imagination and initiative that this innovative piece of legislation was crafted. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you please join me, our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives, Robert's family, friends, and co-workers, the Montclair Fire Department, and the Township of Montclair, New Jersey, in thanking Chief Robert Pizzuti for all his years of service to the community and congratulating him on his well deserved retirement, his presence will be greatly missed.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the legislation that has been put on the agenda today. I happen to disagree with it. If I listen to those people who have been in support of this legislation, we could have worked out a compromise on this. That is the sad part about it. To imply that Democrats are against local review is simply untruthful. What we are saying is that this local review must be done at a specific time so that there is time for the Census under the law, under the law, and under the Constitution of the United States to do scientific methodology. That is what this debate is all about. My city in 1995 was one of three in the entire Nation that dealt with the scientific foundation of what we are debating today. It worked. Each one of those towns had their populations increased because of the state of the art of scientific sampling. It was not polling and it was not guessing, and it was accurate.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention Ms. Adrienne Giordano of Belleville, New Jersey. Adrienne Giordano wrote this letter for a school project reflecting the impact that Cancer has had on the families of its victims, and how it has had an impact on virtually every family in America. Adrienne's expressions are viewed through the eyes of a young girl as she watched the devastation of Cancer on her family members. This essay was written out of pure emotion and it is her insights that have made an impression on me. Her essay reads as follows: When I was young I had two sets of healthy and out-going grandparents, or so I thought. I grew up thinking that way until I was about six years old. At that time, my dad told me that my grandma, his mom, had cancer since he was a young boy. However, she was now in remission and was supposedly doing quite well. By the time I was nine, I found out that my grandma's cancer had returned, but she hadn't told anyone for five years or so. From that point on, my family and I saw her go in and out of hospitals for a few years. Each time she was out, she would make the best of it even though she was suffering inside. She became very ill at one point and the doctors said that she would die within a couple of months. To make matters worse, my other grandfather went into the hospital for cancer too. He became very sick, in fact to the point that he could hardly speak, or even breathe. The thought of living without my grandpa as a part of my life was very difficult for me. In words I cannot express the pain inside of me, although it couldn't possibly amount to the pain that he was going through. He was suffering but showed it rarely, but then again how could he not, he was in a hospital, on a floor with dying cancer patients who were waiting to die. He had to deal with what he had and how it was going to be. There was no say in what was happening to him, as a healthy man for all of his previous life nobody though that he would ever be this sickly, and either did he. About four months after he went in, he passed away. Although I knew it was coming, it hit me hard and it hit my heart. I thought that I would go through some sort of emotional grieving stage, but I didn't, my feelings stayed bundled up inside until the days of the wake and funeral. On those days I cried more that I ever had in my whole lifetime. But I had to move on and keep the joyful memories in the back of my mind. Every time I feel upset or wondered, ``Why them, why such wonderful people, what have they done to deserve this?'', I looked back to all of the good times they had, and what wonderful lives they had to remember. Sometimes thinking about how they loved life and cherished each moment of the day made me realize that their lives weren't only misery and fighting this deadly disease, but enjoying the good times, and making the best of the bad. Weeks passed after the death of my grandfather and by then my grandma had gathered enough strength to pull through. Once again, she was released from the hospital, but inside I knew that the fight wasn't over yet and she would soon return to the halls of the sickly dying cancer patients. I had seen her fight for so many years, and the story repeated itself, in the hospital and out, and back in again. What could make me think that this time would be different? It was the same and always the same, I knew that one day she would take the final punch and the fight would finally end. As I predicted, she went back five months later. Although I've seen her go in and out of hospitals for as long as I could remember, when I saw her that time I noticed something different. She seemed as though she was sick of cancer and tired of fighting it. A couple more months passed and it looked worse and worse. The most upsetting thing for me to deal with was that I was losing two grandparents, who are two of the most important people in the world to me, to a deadly disease that killed millions each year, CANCER! By that time I didn't want to hear another word about cancer, and I wished and prayed that it could be cured, and quick. But it did exist and there wasn't a cure. It felt like an evil monster that had corrupted my grandparents bodies. In May of 1998, my beloved grandmother died. I will never forget that day, it was one of the worst days of my life. Inside I was torn up and my heart was shredded to pieces, then I realized that my grandparents wouldn't be able to take part in my life ever again. I remember thinking to myself how I wished they could be alive again just the way it was. However, as I look back at those thoughts, it was selfish of me to want them to be back in the hospital, dying and suffering from cancer, because that was the way it was, and now I take back those wishes. Also I realized that the memories I had with them in the past have become priceless and those are the memories that I will remember them in the future. I can finally say that I am relieved that my grandparents aren't suffering anymore and they are in a peaceful place. It is now very important for me to think about all people, not just myself, I have to understand that some people aren't as lucky as I am, I am healthy and out- going and I should cherish every moment of life. Things come and go, including health, but you should never lose your happiness and the love for the people who love you. Mr. Speaker, please join me, our colleagues, Adrienne's family and friends in wishing her continued success in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the Speaker for indulging us, and thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and also the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). One final point, Mr. Speaker, if I may. We have had three bills from out of the Committee on Small Business, all bipartisan. I think this is an example of the direction we should be going, and if we can do it, everybody else can do it. So I salute the majority party and I salute the chairman and subcommittee chairs for doing this. I think this is very important; significant. Not only the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, but what we are attempting to do in our committee. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I wish to thank the gentlewoman from New York, our subcommittee chairperson. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction of the Committee on Small Business, I rise today to encourage quick passage of the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999. I believe it is an outstanding piece of legislation that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. During my tenure in the New Jersey legislature, Mr. Speaker, I was on the committee that recommended a reduction in unnecessary regulations, and I think that is one of the reasons why we are here. It is stated in our purpose of being. I believed then, as I do today, that reducing bureaucratic red tape is essential to unlocking the great potential of our small businesses. This will be the third consecutive Congress that this measure was considered. Unfortunately, on the two earlier occasions, the Senate failed to act. I hope as the 106th Congress gets underway, the Senate will join us in passing this legislation and sending it to the President for his signature. It is long overdue, Mr. Speaker. Small businesses are powerful job creators, both in New Jersey and throughout this great land. Efforts should be made to increase their profitability and productivity, not hinder them, and that is exactly what this common sense measure does. The importance of small businesses cannot be emphasized enough. The fact is that they are the backbone of our economy. My State of New Jersey is a great example. Of the 213,000 full-time business firms with employees in our State, 98.5 percent are small businesses. The income of small businesses, including sole proprietors and partnerships, rose 4\1/2\ percent to $16.4 billion in 1998. Small businesses in any State are leading our economic growth, particularly in the last 4 or 5 years. Of the over 17 million new jobs created over the past 6 years, close to 80 percent have come not from our Fortune 500 companies, but from those small businesses that we see in our neighborhoods, day in and day out. Despite this growth, the problem of red tape is clear. It has been estimated, and the gentlewoman from New York pointed out quite succinctly, that the American public spends an amount of time and effort equal to $510 billion, 9 percent of the gross domestic product, in order to meet the Federal Government's information needs. To suit our purposes, what we require in paperwork now amounts to 9 percent of the gross domestic product. I find that to be quite unbelievable, but true. Small businesses bear a disproportionate share of these costs. To use an extreme example, some small businesses are required to file forms with up to 50 different Federal, State and local agencies. We think we understand what that means, and I think I do, but no one understands it unless they are a small businessperson doing it. That is an incredible fact of life. That is one of our purposes for being here, is to shrink the arm of government. It is too long, goes into our productivity, and goes into the profits of small businesses. These bureaucratic demands can literally strangle a small business. The small business entrepreneur needs to focus on expansion, customer service and the bottom line, not on filling out paperwork for hours upon hours to keep some other bureaucrat in business. The aim of this Paperwork Elimination Act is to maximize economic growth by minimizing the burden of Federal paperwork demands. It does this through the use of electronic information technology. The bill before us will reduce this burden by requiring all Federal agencies to provide the option of electronic submission of information to all those who must comply with Federal regulations. As we approach the 21st century, the technological advances that are now commonplace in the private sector should be an integral part of the way our Federal agencies do business. It is important to remember that the measure will in no way hinder the ability of small businesses and individuals without access to computers or modems to comply with Federal paperwork requirements. The measure merely requires Federal agencies to provide an electronic option to those who desire it. This legislation is not a mandate on small business and there is no requirement that a small business needs to computerize. This is a win- win situation for everyone involved. Small businesses, Mr. Speaker, play a critical role in our economy and have been an integral part of the economic growth we have enjoyed in recent years. Before us is sound legislation which allows small businesses to focus on job creation, to focus on productivity, and to focus on expansion while bringing the Federal Government into the information age. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I want to commend the chair of our subcommittee, and the overall chair, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent). Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 6, House Resolution 10, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have not to this point formally announced how I would vote on these four articles of impeachment. In reaching my decision, I have weighed not only my constitutional duty and this President's fate, but I have weighed what vote is the right one for the country at this time. I have concluded that this President can and should continue in office for the remainder of his elected term. In making my decision, I have looked carefully at the words of our Framers, particularly the founder of my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, Alexander Hamilton. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton not only outlined what offenses rise to the level of impeachment. He also left us a clear, unambiguous warning against the dangers of unruly partisanship in this process. Hamilton spoke of offenses that are an ``abuse or violation of some PUBLIC trust,'' and ones that ``relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' The President's misdeeds, as wrong as they are, were NOT acts against the society as a whole. In fact, he was exonerated of any wrongdoing that fit that definition. In that same passage, Hamilton stated that a partisan impeachment ``threatened to agitate the passions of the whole community . . . to divide it into parties . . . to connect itself with pre-existing factions . . . and to enlist their animosities, partialities, influence and interest.'' Ironically, our colleague on the other side, Mr. Linder, echoed Hamilton's warning just a few months ago, saying, ``One party cannot impeach the other party's President.'' Well, this is exactly what has happened in this body. This process has been driven solely by those in one party--the majority party--the very path Hamilton told us to avoid. No one has denied that the President acted in a manner unbecoming of the high office he is privileged to hold. His actions are NOT, however, offenses that rise to the level of treason, bribery or other ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' In short, these are reprehensible acts for which the President should surely be punished. That punishment should fit his misdeeds. Censure is the appropriate penalty, but we have been denied this option by those driving this process for fear they will not extract the ``pound of flesh'' they seek. My colleagues, I urge you as you cast your vote to look to history and the real facts in this case, and to look beyond partisan interests as the Constitution requires, and vote ``no'' on these articles of impeachment.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have not, to this point, formally announced how I would vote on the four articles of impeachment. In reaching my decision, I have weighed not only my constitutional duty and this President's fate, but I have weighed what vote is the right vote for the United States. I have concluded that this president can and should continue in office for the remainder of his elected term. In this famous passage in the Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton, who has been quoted many times today, who founded the town I am from, Patterson, New Jersey, I am a patriot, too, Hamilton stated that a partisan impeachment ``threatened to agitate the passions of the whole community . . . to divide it into parties . . . to connect itself with preexisting factions . . . and to enlist their animosities, their partialities, their influence and interest.'' Ironically, our colleague on the other side, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) echoed Hamilton's warnings a few months ago when he said, and please remember what he said, one party cannot impeach the other party's president. He said it, Members heard it. I ask them not to do what they are going to do.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention Bishop William Henderson who will be honored for his efforts in helping the sick and spiritually deprived. Bishop Henderson has preached God's uncompromised word for more than 40 years. During his stewardship, Bishop Henderson has ministered to hurt people in the tri-state area of New Jersey and in the New York City area as well. He is responsible for ordaining countless people and was the catalyst by which Reverend Theresa Nance was ordained. He has an exemplary record in reaching out to the indigent and the sick. For more than 20 years Bishop Henderson was employed as a nurse in area hospitals of Buffalo, New York. His healing hand aided the sick and suffering to regain their health through the healing Word of God and his impeccable nursing skills. He retired several years ago. Bishop Henderson is married and is the father of three children and has unique ministry. Though he preaches throughout the land to large congregations, he has never shied away from preaching at storefront churches or other churches which have not yet found a location. He can be found constantly reading the Bible and teaching. The El-Bethel congregation worships virtually seven days a week, and Saturdays being no exception. Bishop Henderson has often said he leave the church doors open on Saturdays for area residents who may not have a church home, but would like to worship God at a local church. In spite of the years he has battled illness, Bishop Henderson never allowed his ill state to keep him from preaching God's Word. ``In sickness and in health'' has been his credo regarding his commitment to the work of the Lord. Children and adolescents flock to his church because he exudes great love for them through a firm hand. Like the Apostle Paul, Bishop Henderson has planted churches around the world, including the continent of Africa. The body of Christ is blessed to have such a devoted servant in its midst and it's proud to recognize his life-long efforts. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, Bishop Henderson's family and friends, and the State of New Jersey in recognizing Bishop William Henderson's many years of outstanding and invaluable service to the community.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention Pete Tirri, President of the Paterson Education Association (PEA). Pete is being recognized this evening for his 25 years of service to the PEA. Pete was born and raised in Paterson, New Jersey. He attended the local public school system, graduating from School #12 in 1960 and from Central High School in 1964. Upon graduating from Central, Pete attended Paterson State College, now known as William Paterson University, and graduated in 1968 with a degree in Social Studies. In 1974, he graduated from William Paterson College with a Master's degree in Teaching and 1980, he received a Master's degree in Education with certification in Administration and Supervision. Pete's service to the Paterson Education Association began in October 1973, as a member of the negotiating team. He has also been involved in the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), having served on the Delegate Assembly (DA) or an alternate DA member throughout his career and as Chair of the Urban education Committee. Pete served also as the NJEA legislative contact for the late State Senator, and Mayor of Paterson, Frank X. Graves. Currently he is chairing the Working Conditions of the NJEA and is a member of the Executive Board of the Passaic County Education Association (PCEA). From 1980 to 1986, Pete served on the Pequannock Board of Education and is currently serving on the New Jersey State Board of Examiners, a position to which he has been reappointed to several times. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, Pete's family and friends, and the State of new Jersey in paying tribute to Pete Tirri's 25 years of outstanding and invaluable service to the Paterson Education Association.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Section 117 of the Treasury Appropriations Conference Report now part of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which passed the House of Representatives on October 20, 1998. This Section arose out of a need to assist American victims of terrorism in recovering assets of states that sponsor terrorism in order to help satisfy civil judgments against such state-sponsors. The purpose of this provision is to put teeth into the laws that this Congress has passed regarding those nations who sponsor terrorism. I would like to briefly comment and clarify the operation of Section 117. Subsection (f)(1)(A) clarifies existing law to allow the post- judgment seizure of blocked foreign assets of terrorist states to help satisfy judgments resulting from actions brought against them under Section 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(7), the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's exception to immunity for acts of state sponsored terrorism involving the death or personal injury of a United States national. Subsection (f)(2)(A) establishes requirements upon the Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State to assist in locating the blocked assets of terrorist states in order to facilitate attachment and execution. Section (d) allows the President to waive the requirements of Subsection (f)(2)(A). Section (d) does not, however, allow the waiver of subsection (f)(1)(A), as that subsection modifies existing law, but imposes no ``requirement.'' The intent of Congress is clear and unambiguous. The provision under discussion, Section 117, is designed to send a message around the globe to those nations who sponsor terrorism. That message is straightforward--your assets are no longer protected from justice. The United States will no longer sit idly on the sidelines when our citizens and children are ruthlessly murdered in acts of state- sponsored terrorism. When a Court of competent jurisdiction has determined that a terrorist state has sponsored acts of terrorism resulting in the death or personal injury of a United States national, any and all of their assets in this country may be attached and executed to satisfy the judgment. The reality of significant financial loss to terrorist states will be a critical deterrent to further acts of terrorism targeted at the citizens of this country.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, a one-year ban is a reasonable and just response to the countries that have defied international law and compromised the security of our own Nation. As to the issue of the World Trade Organization, all I can say is that we do not represent the World Trade Organization. We represent the American people. They want action. They do not want consultation, they do not want negotiation, they do not want litigation. They want jobs. And that is what we are here to uphold, and that is what we should be standing for today. Everybody should be voting yes on this resolution. Members of this body did not take an oath to uphold and protect GATT; we took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. Do it! And the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power and authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations--not the WTO. Finally, the President took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States--not the WTO. That's what we're asking the President to do: uphold the trade laws of the United States.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we have Federal investment in roads, bridges and prisons, but when it comes to schools for our kids this is a loss of home rule all of a sudden. Bunk. For the Federal Government to help local communities pay the interest on capital bonding for school construction which would provide relief for our kids and relief for parents who pay the bill whether or not they have kids in those schools or not, this is our opportunity for better schools. This is our opportunity, and we need more teachers to help reduce class size, particularly for kids between the grades of pre-K and fourth and fifth grades. We need property tax relief in many States in this union, and this is the way to do it. One suggestion in conclusion: Why do we not give up the words, the simplistic liberal and conservative words? Mr. Speaker, the jig is up. They do not work any longer. We all know that the environment in which our children learn plays a direct role in the education that they receive. If we want our children to succeed in a modern economy, we must provide them with modern schools. That is why I adamantly support school construction and modernization funds. Unfortunately, the majority party does not want to provide our schools with these much needed construction and modernization funds. Instead, the Republicans believe that we should block grant our education funds to the states. Unfortunately, we have already found out what happens when we block grant these funds. In the 1980s, the federal commitment for these grants decreased by 52 percent. I am afraid that we are headed in the wrong direction on our elementary and secondary education policies. Every day, we see a new study which shows just how important it is to educate our children in an adequate facility, with a well-trained teacher and a class size of about 18. Block grants do not provide the solutions. The Democratic education agenda does. We must fix our crumbling schools by helping states and local school districts afford the costs of modernizing and building more than 5,000 schools. In my district in New Jersey I found that almost one quarter of the schools were built prior to the completion of World War I. More than half of the schools were built before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The old age of these schools is leading to problems with their physical condition and 88 percent of them say they need at least one significant repair. The facts are clear. Our schools are old and they are overcrowded. The average class size in these schools is an astounding 23.9 students. And if that is not enough, the problem is sure to get worse as we experience the projected increase in enrollment. Our children can't learn when their desks are in hallways and overcrowded cafeterias. We know that smaller class sizes are the key to raising academic achievement and improving classroom discipline.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 320, a measure which signals our support for the Baltic people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and condemning the Nazi- Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression of August 23, 1939. In 1939, emissaries of Hitler and Stalin signed an agreement known as the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression. This pact illegally divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. One year later, the Soviet army invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in fulfillment of the Nazi- Soviet agreement. This occupation ruthlessly suppressed the ethnic identities of the three Baltic countries. The illegal incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union was a unilateral act of force with no legal basis in international law. Under Soviet occupation, there was seizing of property, rigging of elections and mass deportations. Mr. Speaker, during this grim time, the United States never recognized the Baltics as part of the Soviet Union. In 1990, the Baltics reestablished their independence and shed the yoke of Communist domination. Since that time, each country has been working diligently towards democratic reforms, including religious freedom, which we have talked about so many times on this floor, and movement toward effective free market economies, which we have talked about so many times on this floor. That is why this measure is necessary. We need to demonstrate our support for the Baltic countries. They are embracing democratic values. Not surprisingly, Lithuania this year elected a Lithuanian-born American citizen, Valdas Adamkus, as their new President. In fact, Lithuania will most likely be the first Baltic country to be ready for NATO membership. And why not? The Baltics would like to gain membership into NATO. Russian leaders have stated recently that any territory formerly part of the Soviet Union should still be considered under the Russian sphere of influence, unavailable for membership in NATO. We cannot allow Russia to dictate what NATO is about. We cannot allow Russia to dictate what this country, the United States, is all about. We must continue to build bridges to freedom, international freedom throughout the world. These emerging democracies need full United States support. That is exactly what this measure does, Mr. Speaker. It reaffirms the United States policy of not recognizing the illegal occupation of the Baltics, and it reiterates our support of the United States-Baltic Charter which was signed earlier this year. We need to fan the fire of democracy and freedom in these countries. Let us help the Baltic people realize their dreams and secure a prosperous and democratic future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important measure. And let us continue to build bridges. Let us continue to build bridges and not be afraid to risk the building of those bridges.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the Honorable Peter C. Eagler of Clifton, New Jersey. Peter is being honored this evening by the Clifton Democratic Club for his many years of invaluable service to the community. Peter Eagler is a lifelong resident of the City of Clifton. In 1972, he graduated from Paul VI High School whereupon he entered Fairleigh Dickinson University as an undergraduate. He graduated from Fairleigh in 1976 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Russian Area Studies. Peter has been employed by the New Jersey Highway Authority in Woodbridge since 1977 and is also a Coordinator for the PNC Bank Art Center, formerly the Garden State Art Center. He previously worked as an Assistant Coordinator for the Art Center and as a Coordinator of Heritage Festivals. Peter's career in politics began back in 1974 when he was first elected to serve on the Clifton Democratic County Committee. He then became an active participant in several campaigns in North Jersey including being County Coordinator for Jimmy Carter's Presidential campaign, County Coordinator for Jim Florio's 1977 bid for Governor, member of the Steering Committee for Gloria Kolodziej's campaign for City Council, and County Coordinator for both Gary Hart's Presidential Primary bid and the Freeholder campaign in 1984. Peter also served Jim Florio's campaign again in 1989, as an advisor to the campaign's Ethnic Coordinator. In 1990, Peter ran for a seat on the Clifton City Council and was elected. In 1994 and, again in 1998, he was re-elected to serve on the Council. As a member of the Council, he has served, and continues to serve, as liaison to the Planning Board and the Environmental Advisory Board, Chair of the Certificate of Occupancy Committee, and a member of both the Recreational Task Force and Real Estate Committees. In 1995, Peter ran unsuccessfully for Freeholder but ran again and was elected to the Board of Chosen Freeholders in 1996. As Freeholder, Peter served as Chairman of the Community Services, Education, and Recreation Committee. In November 1997, the Democratic Party gained a majority on the Freeholder Board and in January of 1998, Peter was chosen as the new Director of the Freeholder Board. Outside of his political involvements, Peter is also an active member of the community. He has been President of St. John Kanty's Parish Council (1975-1977), Administrator of Hamilton House (1981-1987), member of Passaic County's Sesquicentennial Commission (1985-1987), the Governor's Ethnic Inaugural Committee, the Clifton Historical Commission (1975-1990), and the Lakeview Civic Association. In December 1993, he was ordained a Subdeacon in Holy Apostles Church. Currently, Peter serves as a Trustee of Holy Archangel Broadcasting and is a Coordinator of the St. Nicholas Program at the Hamilton House Museum. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and Peter's family and friends in paying tribute to one of North Jersey's most dedicated servants of the community, the Honorable Peter C. Eagler.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, just for a change of pace, today I wish to bring to your attention the end of an era in my hometown of Patterson, New Jersey. Today marks the last day of the tenure of public safety director Bill Dolan, who served in the capacity for 11 years and as a cop for 43 years in the Silk City. As the former mayor of Patterson, I feel that this occasion should be recorded in the annals of the Congressional Record. In the day of sunshine friends, let me tell you about a true friend. Bill Dolan served our Nation in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean conflict. In 1956 he joined the Patterson police department and in 1987 he was appointed public safety director by my predecessor in the mayor's office. Mr. Speaker, being the top public safety official in a big city is like no other job in government. Director Dolan was responsible for the largest department in Patterson's municipal government and overseeing the police and the fire divisions. During his tenure, Bill Dolan not only modernized his department, but he was at the helm of public safety. It was a big job. He performed it with honor, courage, dignity, and class. I ask that my colleagues join me, the 150,000 residents of Patterson, and Mayor Martin Barnes and city council members in honoring Bill Dolan and congratulating him on his exemplary service to the people of Patterson and the Garden State.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss a matter which is of great importance to my district and the Nation as a whole. This measure before us should be defeated. It seeks to extend fast track authority for 4 years. As such, it sets our national trade policy as we approach and then enter the 21st century. No one doubts the fact that we live in a global economy. No one doubts that if we are to retain our preeminent position in the world we must lead from a position of economic strength. For me, global leadership in the arena of international trade means that fair trade should not be subordinated to the notion of free trade. There is very little reciprocity in our trade agreements. We must trade with other nations on an equal footing. Mr. Speaker, with such an horrific Asian economy, those goods are going to be flooding our markets in the next 2 months, 3 months, 2 years. The ships are coming into San Francisco ports now full with foreign goods. They are leaving half filled with our goods. They will leave with a quarter filled by the time this Asian crisis really hits our shores. This is the worst time to have fast track. The proponents of fast track argue that we need it based on what they perceive as the successful NAFTA policy. They point to the creation of 311,000 jobs. I take exception to this figure and cite an alternative one which states we have lost 600,000 jobs because of NAFTA. Now is not the time for fast track. Fast track is about jobs. It is about time that we stopped exporting our jobs. It is time that we protect our jobs. And it is time that we had fair trade agreements instead of the ones that have been placed before us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat fast track resoundingly. It is not enough if we just slam it down with a few votes. We need total victory here, because we need a fair trade policy.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, first to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), who have helped, each of them, to begin to reestablish the integrity of this body. If I did not mean it, I would not say it. When our institutions are under attack, they choose not to be timid. They choose not to be the yellow light. They choose to come forward. Every one of the folks on each side stated what they wanted to state in all honesty. We were very frank with one another. This is about restoring integrity to the Congress of the United States of America. We propelled the discussions. Who would have thought we would be here today in February of 1997? It was our wildest imagination. I want to thank each of them. I am honored to have served with them and the members of the committee. This is not a day of proponents or opponents. This is a day for this body to come together, to be very clear where we stand on campaign finance reform. Good luck to the gentleman from Connecticut; good luck to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have heard pretty horrible things on this floor, but I just heard the worst that I have ever heard. To say that someone has the time to fill out a Medicaid form but does not have the time to fill out a census questionnaire misses the whole point. What if you never got a questionnaire in the first place? Oh, there is the rub. I have heard on this floor a tremendous amount of discussion with little anchor in reality. I have been in two censuses. The enumerators worked very hard to find those people who either, one, did not fill out their questionnaire, or two, never got one in the first place. But in order to get to those people, you have to know where they live. You have to have a housing unit on your form. The secret, by both Democrats and Republicans, and past administrations have admitted this, the secret to getting an accurate census is to have accurate addresses. In a five-family house, if we have 22 mailboxes, that should give us a clue that we are not going to be able to do this by questionnaire alone. They missed the whole point, and they do it deliberately. They do it deliberately. This is serious business we are talking about. We cannot call someone who ran the Census under President Bush out of a Democratic liberal think tank. Give me a break. She believes that there is a way, through statistical methods, to come up with an accurate sample. We need to count as many as we can possibly find, and as possibly have filled out census forms, but there will always be those groups or families within units who are never contacted; who do not even know, perhaps, that a census is even going on, for all kinds of reasons, some real and some unreal. But get to the heart and the practice of doing a census. Then we can come to an agreement on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Alysa Flatow was a student at Brandeis University. She was a woman of great character, both in life and in death. Those who received her organs can attest to the kind of woman she was. Her heart was successfully transplanted to a 56-year-old man who had been waiting for a year. Her liver was donated to a 23-year-old man; her lungs, pancreas and kidneys to four different patients. Her corneas were donated to an eye bank. New Jersey will not forget Alysa Flatow or the struggle and trauma her family have gone through as a result of this heinous act and this senseless loss of a promising young woman. Mr. Chairman, we have had enough victims. We do not need to victimize the family any longer. Personally, I have had enough of negotiating leverage, quote unquote. It is time that we stood and stood tall for the Flatow family.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the 1990 Census was the first in history to be less accurate than its predecessor. It missed millions of Americans, predominantly children and minorities. Virtually every expert agrees that the way to get the most accurate census possible is by using modern scientific methods to supplement the traditional head count. The Census Bureau's plan will not only produce the most accurate census, it will save literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Using the methods employed in 1990 will cost close to a billion more dollars and still miss millions of Americans. We cannot let this happen. Funding the Census Bureau for only 6 months will cripple its ability to adequately plan and prepare for the largest peacetime mobilization undertaken by the U.S. Government. We must take the guessing out of the census. For these reasons, we must today support the Mollohan amendment which strikes the provisions that restrict funding to the Census Bureau as they prepare for the 2000 census.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to maintain the express advocacy standard championed by the Shays-Meehan legislation, and we need to do that, we cannot go halfway on this. The distinguished whip, the distinguished leader from the other side, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) knows that quite well. This is a complex issue. Folks listening and watching are trying to still figure out what is the difference between soft and hard money, maybe like some Members. But there is a very, very severe distinction here. We are not saying in Shays-Meehan that the candidate or dollars cannot be spent on behalf of the candidate by other groups. What we are saying is it must be hard money or else it is wrong and it is banned. The whole purpose of this legislation is to ban soft money. We know how that has grown. We are talking about two political parties that have raised $67 million between them in the first 3 months of this year. So we can really boil this down into two very basic things. There are those of us on both sides of the aisle who believe there is too much money in politics, too much money in our campaigns.

Mr. PASCRELL. If the average, Mr. Chairman, if the average campaign costs $660,000, we know that we cannot put a cap on it due to a Supreme Court decision, but working together I am sure we can come to specific advocacy issues of ourselves, such as banning soft money. Because if you have $10 to spend in your campaign and not $660,000, and third- party advocacy groups can spend whatever they wish, that is not controlling expenditures in a campaign. The gentleman knows it, and I know it. So I believe this Shays-Meehan is simply attempting to ban soft money so that all of the hard money that is spent is disclosed. That is a critical issue, Mr. Chairman. We want the dollars, we want the names and the addresses of people who contributed to our campaigns. That is a very underlying argument within Shays-Meehan, disclosure, the banning of soft money. And the sooner we do it, the better. I think that this is what this is all about, what we are going to open up here, and trying to go in the opposite direction. What we are going to open up is more advocacy, more issue advocacy, more spending of money, not only 6 months or 6 weeks but 6 days before a campaign. I believe Shays-Meehan is on target. I believe we cannot equivocate. This amendment is a poison pill.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the National Academy of Sciences just turned over. To compare sampling with guessing or to compare sampling with any other methodology, they each are very different. It does not mean polling. Polling is a very different kind of situation. Sampling is science. Polling is not. You show me the definition where they both mean the same thing. What you have done is confused those definitions, on purpose, so that we in arguing sampling are going to fall into your trap about guessing and polling. They are very different.