Donald Payne

Mr. PAYNE

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

Mr. PAYNE. By way of background, Mr. Chairman, I want to state that just 2 weeks ago my amendment to retain Title I statewide programs at a 50 percent poverty threshold was approved with bipartisan support by the Committee on Education and the Workforce during our Title I markup. Unfortunately, through legislative maneuvering, this amendment was overridden by members of the committee while we were returning from a recessed meeting and I was out of the room, and a new title created by lowering again the threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent. This action was a major setback. This move created a new title that lowered the threshold to 40 percent. This action was a major setback in the fight to provide each of our schoolchildren with a fair and comprehensive education, and my amendment will rectify that. It calls to strike the last provision in the bill that lowers the poverty threshold for schoolwide programs to 40 percent. What that simply means is that, as my colleagues know, Title I funds are designated by the number of poverty students in the school district. The 40 percent threshold means that 60 percent of the students in that school do not have to qualify as poverty and, therefore, robbing schools with high number of poverty students from the scarce resources to go around. Although this year's bipartisan effort to re-authorize Title I addressed many of the causal factors of the educational gap, and as a former teacher in a Title I school, I fear that certain portions of this bill will work to actually widen the gap even further. Current law states that in order for a school to be eligible for schoolwide programs the school must have 50 percent of its student population come from poor families. Schoolwide programs are programs that may be provided to the entire student population of a school, not just the most financially or educationally disadvantaged. Traditionally these schoolwide programs have been targeted to schools with higher concentrations of poverty because the performance of all students in such schools tend to suffer. Further, schools with high percentages of lower-income students receive significantly large Title I grants, grants that can make an impact on a schoolwide level. Regardless of these facts, the bill before us calls for yet another reduction in the poverty threshold for schoolwide program eligibility, reversing sort of a reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor to give to those who are more fortunate. My amendment stops this unnecessary unfair reduction and calls for the retention of the 50 percent poverty threshold. Opponents of this amendment may claim that lowering the poverty threshold will give schools more flexibility in establishing schoolwide programs. However, given the comprehensive nature of schoolwide programs, it is our responsibility to ensure that we meet the needs of the poorest schools which, in turn, have the lowest levels of schoolwide achievement. Research shows that the 50 percent poverty threshold should be retained because that is the level where we begin to see negative effects on the entire school population. School poverty levels below 50 percent have much smaller impact on the achievement of the entire school population. For example, nonpoor students in schools between 35 and 50 percent poverty have about the same reading achievement level as schools falling between 20 and 35 percent poverty. Therefore, setting the poverty threshold at any level below 50 percent would be insufficient and arbitrary. This program began in 1965 with the War on Poverty, and at that time the threshold was 75 percent poverty level. In reauthorization 5 years ago, we then saw the poverty level drop from 75 percent to 50 percent. Now we have seen this amendment come in to reduce the poverty threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent, and many in our committee feel that there should be a 25 percent threshold, which of course will eventually eliminate the program of its natural intent. Title I began as a critical portion of the 1965 War on Poverty to help our Nation's most disadvantaged students. Let us pass this amendment to ensure that our most disadvantaged students in schools do, in fact, benefit from this crucial piece of legislation. Our Nation is one Nation indivisible under God, and we should try to provide opportunity for all of us to meet the new challenges of the new millennium.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment very briefly on the comments of the gentleman that just preceded me. The chairman indicated that the 50 percent Title I has been working, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and that when they moved down from 75 to 50 percent that we have seen success. Why not then leave it at the 50 percent? Secondly, the gentleman said that we are not shifting money around; we are simply authorizing, we are an authorizing committee. He is portraying a point that those schools now that are eligible, that would be 40 percent, they are simply going to apply for the money and therefore the pot remaining the same will simply reduce the amount of money to the higher poverty schools. It is just like having a pot for FEMA. We do not stop and say we only have a certain amount of money and all of the tragedies and natural disasters we have are limited. We come up to the amount. We do not do that with education. I would just like to say that we are moving money by moving the formula because those now who qualify will take the money.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in total opposition to the Academic Achievement for All Act, H.R. 2300. I must admit that the other side has a tremendous ability of making names sound good. If one listens to the names, how can one be opposed to this? The AAA. When one is on the highway, and one is looking for help, what does one look for? They look for the AAA. They come there to rescue; they come to give assistance; they get to you when you need someone, when you are someone in need. So the AAA sounds like a great title for this bill. But what does the AAA do here? We now have this H.R. 2300 which eliminates the following Federal education programs, turns them into block grants, without any kind of adequate accountability: Title I compensatory education to help disadvantaged children, eliminated; class size reduction, eliminated; safe and drug-free schools, eliminated; Goals 2000, eliminated; Eisenhower Professional Development Training for Teachers, one of our great presidents and generals, named after him because of what he exemplifies, eliminated; vocational education, eliminated; emergency immigrant education, eliminated. But what does it do? It gives flexibility to States. It allows governors to do what they want to do because they know best, it says. What will it do? It will allow vouchers for private schools. So what we are saying is the defederalization of the 7 percent that the Federal Government had, and it dilutes targeting for special needs populations. It would result in significant funding shifts among localities. It would weaken accountability of Federal funds. The reason that the Federal Government became involved in education was because we found that the States turned their backs on those who were most in need. That is why the Federal Government came in and said we should have Title I programs, we should have Goals 2000. We ought to have School-to-Work so that we can have youngsters who are not going to college to be prepared for work. So what does this do in one fell swoop? It takes it all out. What would it do? It would allow the use of public funds for private school voucher programs. It assumes that there are no legitimate national education priorities. When the Sputnik went up back in the late 1950s, early 1960s, when Russia was ahead of us in science and technology, our government came together and said we will have a national defense program. What was the national defense program? It was to put money in education so that we could put out engineers, so that we could put out scientists, so that we could beat the Russians to the moon; and we did, because we had a Federal national priority. Now we are saying we have no longer any need for national priorities; we have no more a need for the government to focus on specific problems that we see in our society and say we need to overcome that, since the States are derelict in their responsibility. So along comes the AAA; and the AAA says, just let the governors do the right thing. We know they will do the right thing because, of course, to become a governor, one has to be right, right? Wrong. Governors before took the funds and did not distribute them properly. Federal funds make up a minute 7 percent of total school revenues compared to State and local contributions; and these Federal resources must be targeted, that is the reason that we say the Federal Government should not dictate overall education policy. But there are some specific areas that we feel that the Federal Government wants to see more accountability, wants to see us engaged, and this bill just blindly trades flexibility for greater accountability. We have to hold people accountable. So as we move into the new millennium and we see these tricky names coming up, the AAA, we are finding that this is going in the wrong direction; and I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 2300.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gender equity act and the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), to restore the current gender equity provisions in education, specifically, the 25-year-old program to help combat gender bias in the classroom. I listened to my colleague from the other side who talked proudly of his daughter who did 1550 on the SATs and did not need any help from the gender equity program. That is great, and I think he should be very proud. But I do not think that every child has the privilege of having a father who happens to have been a hero, a pilot, a person who had the privilege of being in a very prestigious position. I do not think that everyone has the advantage of having a father who is a Member of the United States Congress. As we know, there are only 435 of us. It is totally illogical for people to go from the particular to the universal. The first thing I learned in basic logic is that we cannot say, because I did it or my daughter did it, everybody should do it. That is like saying, therefore, we should have 260 million presidents of the United States because a person makes it. This is totally illogical. So as we take this debate forward, let me just say that women are still being discriminated against. Women still are paid only 75 cents on the dollar, but that is a 25-percent increase from the way it was 20 years ago when they only made 54 cents on the dollar. Women still, at age 65, will get less than 60 percent of what men will get from Social Security when they retire. We have heard from the National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity at the present rate, 5 years from now the poor will be made up almost entirely of women and children. And we call this phenomena feminization of poverty. We look at the Congress, 10 percent are women. Even State legislatures are only 25 percent. So people say we do not need this gender equity. We need to keep it at the local level with schools. We must continue to fight for job equity, for pay equity, for credit equity, for insurance equity, for pension equity, for fringe benefit equity, for Social Security equity through legislation, through negotiations, through education and litigation even. We must continue to have women break through the glass ceiling of the executive suites and break loose from the sticky floors, the dead end, low-wage jobs that keep women in poverty. So when we hear people talk about there is no more need for this, I think we are going to set the clock back. I think we are moving ourselves in the wrong direction. As we move to the new millennium when we talk about the great opportunities in the future, we are taking away from women who have fought and struggled inch by inch to move themselves a little bit higher to then say we are going to push them back on the rough side of the mountain, they cannot continue to move forward in the manner in which they have been doing. So I commend the women who have put this resolution in, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) to say let us continue the gender equity provision, let us not turn back the clock. We have been here for 25 years and it has been successful. Why take success and turn it around into failure? It makes no sense. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring an issue to this House's attention. I would like to make public an article on the BAYS case. To the consternation of Argentine officials, the Buenos Aires Yoga School (BAYS) affair is assuming a rising profile on the sparsely populated plains of U.S.-Argentine relations. More than 50 Democratic and Republican House members have now sent letters to President Menem asking him to halt in the persecuting of the literary and social organization. The 300-strong group, which includes some illustrious intellectuals, has shrunk from a peak membership of 1,000 due to the unremitting harassment it has suffered at the hands of the authorities. For six years, the case has been enmeshed in Argentina's stygian court system, which has been classified by several international business groups as being among the world's most corrupt. Six years ago, when the case first broke, the local press saw BAYS as an Argentine version of Jonestown, even though not a single reporter bothered to closely investigate any of the specious charges lodged against it. Argentina's journalists now see this as a potboiler performance which many have come to regret. After a first wave of tabloid journalism faded, a code of silence descended on the case until recently, when several young BAYS members, with no budget, came to Washington and proceeded to work Congress in search of the justice they were denied in their native country. President Clinton has now written two letters on the case, expressing his concern over the apparent malfunctioning of proper legal procedures. He has also asked that the U.S. embassy in Buenos Aires ``encourage Argentine authorities to respond fully to congressional correspondence on this matter.'' Bewitched and bewildered The BAYS case was originally presided over by Judge Mariano Berges from December 1993 until November 1995 when, after a short interregnum, it was taken over by Judge Julio Cesar Corvalan de la Colina. As a result of these excesses, Berges was brought before the Argentine Congress' Impeachment Committee on charges of non-professional behavior involving 138 irregularities and several serious crimes regarding BAYS alone. Radical Party members on the committee supported Berges, which startled many observers wary of the Party's corruption problems stemming from the Alfonsin-led Radical government of the 1980s. But, in spite of its delegation's stance, the entire Impeachment committee moved to indict Berges for abuse of power and failure in his public duties. He insisted that BAYS had ``cast a spell on him,'' and then withdrew from the case. Although no ultimate action was taken, the case eventually was handed over to Corvalan, who now presides. Dr. Corvalan, Psychiatrist Instead of applying responsible jurisprudence in the BAYS case, Judge Corvalan grossly compounded his predecessor's malfeasance. Engaging in flagrant misuse of his powers, Corvalan emulated the worst practices of the Stalinist era by condemning BAYS members on grounds of poor mental health, without considering due process. Corvalan, who was appointed to the bench under the Argentine military junta (and maintained his position due to Alfonsin's intervention), declared the two BAYS members ``mentally incompetent,'' and awarded legal custody over them to their long-estranged mothers. His ruling was upheld by an Appellate Court, even though the psychological exams of the BAYS defendants were administered by a court-appointed forensic team, and showed them of sound mind. These mental health specialists also established that one defendant has been sexually abused by her family. If this wasn't Argentina--a country featuring daily scandals--it would be inconceivable that a judge, ignoring expert testimony and with no concrete evidence, would award custody of a 27-year old woman to the very person who she previously had charged with sexual depravity. After being armed with such powers, the mother promptly filed a bondage suit against BAYS in the name of her daughter. After a recent mission to Argentina by the Council on Hemisphere Affairs, the members expressed their concern in a letter to President Clinton: ``The Delegation found many legal and judicial irregularities. . . .'' Argentine human rights organizations have begun to denounce the anti-BAYS actions committed by judicial officials. Nobel laureate, Adolfo Perez Esquivel found that Corvalan's ruling on BAYS ``begs to be investigated,'' and the famed Mothers of Plaza de Mayo concluded that he had violated Article 16 of the International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights. The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo maintained that Corvalan's actions ``are similar to those committed against citizens during Argentina's dirty war. . . .'' Corvalan's removal from the BAYS case has been requested before the Council of Magistrates, a new institution that evaluates judicial impropriety and instances of corruption. The case is now being heard by its ``Accusation Commission,'' headed by Radical Representative Cruchaga. Thus, the case was destined to be dismissed, but due to the persistence of Council member Miguel Angel Picchetto, who argued that the charges against Corvalan must be heard, Cruchaga announced that because of the ``international interest'' in the case, a hearing would be held. The petition for relief filed by the BAYS defendants has been warmly supported by, among others, the distinguished physicist and human rights figure Dr. Federico Westerkamp, the Argentine League for the Rights of Man, and members of the Argentine House Human Rights Commission. The proceedings against Corvalan are attracting wide dissemination because challenging the judge's multiple transgressions is seen as an important milestone in Argentina's laborious struggle to earn the emblems of an authentic democracy and to somehow neutralize judicial and political corruption.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words of the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I rise in opposition to H.R. 2606, the conference report on foreign operations appropriations. This moves us in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the conference report moves us into a dangerously low budget. We have the conference agreement, which provides $12.6 billion. It is nearly $2 billion below the President's request and $1 billion less than last year's bill. The low level of funding is untenable. It will be impossible for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in the world's community with an inadequate foreign affairs budget. Nearly every major account in the conference report is underfunded. And one specific initiative, the Africa accounts, are nonexistent. The omission is particularly troubling, as it signals a lack of support for the recent strides made by countries in Africa. The development fund for Africa is being cut 40 percent from last year. $175 million is cut from essential loans for the poorest countries. $155 million is cut from global environmental protection programs. $87 million is denied for debt relief initiatives for the poorest countries in the world. $50 million is cut from African development loans. $200 million is cut from economic development and democratic building in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. $35 million is denied for the Peace Corps, where we just agreed to move our numbers up to 10,000 volunteers. Many Members from both sides of the aisle said it was great. So what do we do? We approve 10,000 and cut 35 million. The gentleman talked about $12 billion, how outraged people from South Dakota were. I think I am in a time capsule where we are back 200 years ago. I never heard such an egregious, outrageous statement. Here we are going to give $782 billion back to the wealthiest people in this country, and we are talking about cutting $2 billion back from the poorest people in the world and that people in this country are outraged. I think we live in a society that some people are really very, very narrow visioned; and I believe that we must regain our position in the world. I think that the President is absolutely right. I stand a hundred percent behind his veto.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great man, a great statesman, a man of great compassion and a visionary who believed strongly in Africa's ability to forge a prosperous future of unity and peace. Former President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania passed away today in London at age 77 after losing a 2-year battle with leukemia. Known affectionately throughout Africa as Mwalimu, or ``teacher'' in Swahili, President Julius Nyerere was the father of Tanzanian independence and a symbol of Africa's hope as it emerged from the shadow of European colonial rule. He led the drive for the independence of his East African nation from British rule and became the country's first president in 1962. In 1979, in defiance of the Organization of African Unity, President Nyerere sent troops to Uganda in response to the intense suffering of the Ugandan people under the brutal dictatorial regime of Idi Amin Dada. That operation--one of the first humanitarian missions of its kind--would help set a legal precedent for peacekeeping missions all over the globe. Nyerere stepped down as president in 1985 after 23 years in office to devote his time to farming and diplomacy. He worked tirelessly to negotiate an end to the violence that has plagued central and southern Africa in the past decade. Most recently, Nyerere's efforts were directed toward mediating an end to the bloody civil war in neighboring Burundi, where more than 200,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed since 1993. Nyerere wrote eight books mainly on development and socialism in Africa and Tanzania in particular. He also translated William Shakespeare's plays ``Julius Caesar'' and ``The Merchant of Venice'' into Swahili. A Roman Catholic, Nyerere was married and had eight children. The current President of Tanzania, President Mkapa, has announced that a state funeral will be held for Nyerere in Dar es Salaam early next week.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting today's resolution, and commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for House Resolution 322, expressing sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Floyd. We can all imagine how tragic and terrible and disheartening it must be to lose the very basics of life, to see your home and all your possessions lost because of uncontrollable acts of nature. In the wake of the havoc wreaked by Hurricane Floyd, however, there has been a silver lining. That is that people have been drawn together in a spirit of humanitarian concern as thousands of volunteers from churches and community organizations have come forward to offer assistance to those who are facing hurricane-related hardships. They have provided shelter and food and clothing, and most importantly, moral support during this time of crisis. In my home county of Essex, we have had a serious problem with flooding and malfunctioning traffic lights which has endangered public safety. Fortunately, everyone pulled together with Federal and State support. We have been able to begin rebuilding and repairing the damage caused by Hurricane Floyd. I am pleased that President Clinton responded favorably to the request by New Jersey and other States affected by the hurricane to be designated Federal disaster areas so we can obtain much needed relief from FEMA and other Federal agencies. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my sympathy to the victims of Hurricane Floyd all across the Atlantic East Coast who have been displaced from their homes or who have lost loved ones. They remain in our thoughts and in our prayers, and we will continue to offer our full assistance as the task of rebuilding gets underway.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2606--the Conference Report on Foreign Operations Appropriations. The report moves us in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the conference report moves us into a dangerously low budget from foreign opps. Let me just say that we spend less than 1% on the total foreign aid budget when we spend almost a trillion dollars on defense and other related expenses. People in my district when polled thought that we spend close to 15% on foreign aid. Recently, Governor Whitman suggested that we cut foreign aid to less developed countries. That's greedy and fails to accomplish what we are all about. How can we take away the meager $1 a day that we give to 1.3 billion of the people in these nations that depend on this. The conference agreement, which provides $12.6 billion in funding, is nearly $2 billion below the President's request and $1 billion less than last year's bill This low level of funding is untenable--it will be impossible for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in the world community with an inadequate foreign affairs budget. Nearly every major account in the conference report is underfunded, and one specific initiative, the Africa accounts, are nonexistent. This omission is particularly troubling, as it signals a lack of support for the recent strides made by the countries in Africa. The Development Fund for Africa (DFA) is being cut almost 40% from last year (512 million). I know the other side will point to the other accounts like Child Survival that has funding for Africa. Let me say that the DFA traditionally supports less developed countries and the grassroots programs. Other egregious funding cuts include: $175 million cut from essential loan program for the poorest nations; $157 million cut from global environmental protection projects; $87 million denied for debt relief initiatives for the poorest countries; $50 million cut from African development loan initiatives; $200 million cut from economic development and democracy-building programs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America; and $35 million denied for Peace Corps programs, just months after Congress voted to support the expansion of the Peace Corps to 10,000 volunteers. It is abundantly clear that this Foreign Operations bill just won't work. It will not allow the U.S. to continue to operate its important international programs at current levels, and will undoubtedly detract from the stature of the U.S. in the international community. We have learned from recent events that foreign assistance is a good investment--the dollars we spend today help avoid expensive national security crisis tomorrow. This bill will curtail our ability to help prevent the conflicts and curb the poverty that lead to instability throughout the world. We cannot adequately pursue our foreign affairs priorities with this conference report. And not only does this bill underfund existing needs, but it ignores emerging global needs, such as earthquake recovery in Turkey and Taiwan, peace implementation in Kosovo, and debt relief for the world's poorest countries. We urge you not to settle for this dangerously underfunded bill. Vote ``no'' on the Foreign Operations Conference Report.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding. I commend the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for her perseverance, and the persistence and leadership she has shown by being a physician, and we are so happy to have her. But I also would like to add that we are in good company, because the Speaker pro tempore tonight is also a person who has done work on river blindness, and has donated his time and effort and resources to try to help people who are much worse off in another part of the world. I commend him for his work. Mr. Speaker, we are in a crisis. The issue of HIV and AIDS in this country is one of the most serious problems we must grapple with. Since the AIDS epidemic began in 1981, more than 640,000 Americans have been diagnosed with the disease, and more than 385,000 men, women, and children have lost their lives. I have been at the forefront of fighting against AIDS since the 1980s, when it was not quite as acceptable to talk in public about this dread disease. In 1989, when I was first elected to Congress, I called a congressional hearing in my district of Newark, New Jersey, to sound the alarm on the epidemic that everyone was ignoring. In 1991, I introduced the abandoned infants bill, which was approved in the House. This was a bill to protect abandoned infants, some of whom were infected with HIV virus, and for other programs to assist them. I was outraged at the lack of attention being paid to this disease, a disease that was and still is killing people every day in every community. This past reluctance to address the problem that was staring us in the face is one reason why we have such a grave situation today. While we have advanced in that respect, we cannot rest on our laurels because the problem still exists and it is growing stronger with every passing day, especially with regard to people of color. For example, African-Americans make up only 12 percent of the population, but account for 45 percent of all reported HIV-AIDS cases. African-American women account for 56 percent of women living with HIV- AIDS, and to me, the most sobering statistic, African-American children account for 58 percent of children living with the disease. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we are dying, and something must be done. The Clinton administration has worked with the Congressional Black Caucus to address the disproportionate burden of AIDS in racial minorities by funding money to those communities most affected. Together, we fought a hard battle with the majority party to secure an additional $156 million on targeted initiatives to address racial and ethnic minorities. A local Newark group fighting against AIDS with drama is Special Audiences, which recently received one of these grants. This increase in funding is a good start, but it is simply not enough. Right now AIDS is the leading cause of death of African- American males between the ages of 25 and 44, the leading cause of death. This is unacceptable. Our young black men represent our future, and this terrible disease is killing them off. In order to address the AIDS issue effectively, we need to tackle the problem at all levels. First, we need to increase awareness of the disease. The difference in response from my first hearing on AIDS to this forum tonight is like the difference between night and day. The awareness of the disease has increased dramatically, and that is a good indication that people want to be helped. Secondly, we have to educate people on the dangers of this disease. This means everyone. AIDS is a killer that affects every segment of our population and every age group, from children to elderly adults. Without properly educating people, we will find ourselves in a much worse situation down the road than we are today. Finally, we must encourage better treatment and health care for those who have the disease. The disproportionate number of AIDS cases in the African-American population is not due to the lack of medical technology or advancements. Rather, it points to the limitations that African-Americans face in access to health care. The medicines and treatments are out there. They are effective, but we do not have access to them. That is wrong. Let me conclude by saying there is a common bond between all of these strategies. They are all contingent on increasing the Federal funding, and ensuring that these funds are targeted to the population that needs it the most. Our struggle against AIDS and the AIDS epidemic is far from over. Our efforts now are extremely important to the future of each and every citizen of the country. Every concerned individual needs to take an active role in the fight against AIDS. We must wake up, and we must make a concerted effort at both the Federal and grassroots level if we are truly determined to defeat the AIDS crisis.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues here in the House of Representatives a very special event which will take place on Tuesday, September 14, 1999. On that date, the campus of New Jersey's William Paterson University will undergo a transformation which, in itself, exemplifies their commitment to their mission of providing quality instruction in an environment of leadership and diversity. This transformation is the renaming of one of the University buildings in honor of a remarkable person, the late Gloria S. Williams. This ceremony marks a truly historic event, the first time that a structure has been named for an African-American on the campus of William Paterson University. Gloria S. Williams, a native of Newark, excelled throughout her educational career here in New Jersey. She began her quest for knowledge in Newark's public school system and it eventually led her to William Paterson University where she received her Bachelor's degree in Business Administration with a minor in Economics. Throughout her rich life, Gloria S. Williams made certain to place the needs of others before those of herself. This selfless behavior was evident in her decision to share her knowledge and experiences as a teacher in the Paterson School District after her college graduation. Her experiences at William Paterson University was not simply limited to an undergraduate education. As an undergraduate, Gloria was an employee of the University and immediately following graduation she remained with the University as a dorm assistant and summer camp coordinator. After that, her career at William Paterson flourished. Gloria held many important positions including Residence Hall Director, Assistant Registrar, and ultimately she was named Associate Director of the Advisement Center where she was well known for always having on open door. Because of Gloria's rich involvement with others and with William Paterson University, it is a fitting tribute that the University chose to name a building in her honor. Gloria S. Williams was also very active in the church. As a youngster she was a member of St. Luke's A.M.E. Church where her parents, Daisy and O'Donnel Williams, were lifelong members. While living in Wayne, New Jersey, Gloria joined New A.M.E. Zion Church, where she served diligently on the Scholarship Committee. After returning to Newark and joining St. James A.M.E. Church, Gloria realized her ambition to become a religious counselor. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in congratulating William Paterson University as they honor Gloria S. Williams in this way. Her life story embodies all the aspects that educational institutions strive for--determination, diligence and dedication. By naming a building in her honor, William Paterson University will preserve for future generations the admirable legacy of a great woman, Gloria S. Williams.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Representative Hinchey and my colleague from New Jersey, Representative Frelinghuysen. The so-called Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) is anything but equitable. In fact, it is having a devastating effect on our New Jersey veterans. The men and women who loyally answered the call to military service in our nation now feel forgotten. The dramatic reduction in funding as a result of the VERA program has resulted in eliminated services, reduced personnel and long waits for medical attention. Many of our states' veterans are older; in fact, New Jersey's 750,000 veterans are the second oldest in the nation. Medical needs are much greater for the aging veterans population. Many require nursing home care or special attention for age-related conditions. Mr. Chairman, the veterans of my state of New Jersey supported our nation when we needed them. Let's not turn our backs on them at a time in their lives when they need our support. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Hinchey-Frelinghuysen amendment.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues here in the House of Representatives to join me in honoring a very special person whom I am proud to call a friend, Mr. Tom O'Hara, as he celebrates 30 years of service with the New Jersey-based Prudential Insurance Company of America. As a former executive at Prudential myself, I am very gratified that a person of Tom's caliber has rendered so many years of service to the company. After graduating from Mount Saint Mary's College, Tom received his law degree from Georgetown Law School. First joining Prudential in 1969 as a tax lawyer, Tom's extraordinary interpersonal skills, exceptional problem solving ability and reputation as a ``doer'' led to his advancement to the position he holds today, Vice President in the Law Department of the company's Washington, DC office. Tom has served as President of the Business-Government Relations Council, Chairman of the Business Roundtable Washington Steering Committee and as Chairman of the American Council of Life Insurance's Legislative Strategy Committee. An active member of his community who has contributed his time and talents to many worthy causes, Tom serves on the Board of Trustees of Mount Saint Mary's College, on the Board of Trustees of the United States Capitol Historical Society, and on the Board of Directors of Wolf Trap Associates. Tom and his wife Patti have four children. His close-knit family embodies the virtues of strength, compassion, faith and concern for others. In memory of their late daughter, Tom and his wife generously established the Kelly O'Hara Scholarship Fund to help deserving young people attain a college education. A person who enjoys the outdoors, especially the shore, Tom has been a runner and is now a golf enthusiast. He is also an avid sports fan, and because I am a graduate of Seton Hall University, we enjoy a friendly rivalry as we root for opposing teams at sporting events such as the Seton Hall/Georgetown or Giants/Redskins game. Mr. Speaker, the completion of 30 years of service is indeed a remarkable achievement based on hard work, loyalty and tenacity. As Tom marks this milestone, I know my colleagues join me in congratulating him for a job done and wishing him all the best in the future.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the implication of the so-called ``Workplace Preservation Act'' is clear--passage of this bill will do nothing more than unnecessarily delay the adoption of a standard for ergonomics in the workplace. As a matter of fact, the only thing preserved by H.R. 987 is the employers' ability to further exploit the hard-working American laborer. Since 1990 the number of workers that have suffered from MSDs totals over 5 million people. Adoption of this bill won't do anything to help our workforce, rather it would only ensure that another 1 million workers will suffer the same fate. And as if these 5 million injured workers isn't enough evidence that something has to be done, we have studies from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Academy of Sciences that conclude that musculoskeletal disorders can be reduced and prevented through ergonomic intervention in the workplace. The evidence is comprehensive and clear this request for more research is a weak attempt to stall the adoption of safe ergonomic conditions for our hard-working laborers. We already know what must be done to provide our workforce with safe working conditions and we therefore owe it to every American worker to vote against this bill, H.R. 987.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the problems with H.R. 1995 are abundant in nature, however, one of its greatest flaws deals with the lack of language about the school counselors of this country. H.R. 1995 eliminates over one million personnel from eligibility for professional development under Title II of ESEA. Without the assistance of other school personnel, undue burdens and demands will be placed on teachers. TEA will actually increase, not decrease, the workload and responsibilities of teachers. H.R. 1995 decreases local flexibility to train and hire needed school personnel--America's schools need school counselors, the recent school shootings remind us that students have needs that must be served by qualified counseling professionals. H.R. 1995 eliminates pupil services from eligibility for professional development by completely rewriting title II of ESEA. H.R. 1995 limits students with disabilities access to education--by eliminating professional development for pupil services, school staff will be unprepared to meet the special needs of students with disabilities. These are just a few of the shortcomings with H.R. 1995, if we are in this for the children, how can we simply sit back passively and allow such grossly inadequate legislation which blatantly ignores those who fight so hard for the welfare of our children--school counselors.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the Goodling amendment. The Goodling amendment, which was the Democratic substitute in committee, which was not allowed to go through, but I am pleased at the wisdom of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to revise this, so for that reason I do support the Goodling amendment. Having said that, the Republican Teacher Empowerment Act of 1995 is simply another Republican attempt to pull the wool over America's eyes by giving a grossly inadequate piece of legislation a very deceiving title, as we have seen in many of the labor laws, such as the FAIR Act, the Act to have in working laws more time for people to have off, but it ends up with doing away with overtime. So we have seen these wonderful titles to bills, but what this act really does is that the Republican Teacher Empowerment Act threatens the future of the Clinton-Clay classroom reduction program by allowing funds to be diverted to other uses, even without even having to address the shameful overcrowding in classrooms. I recall several books written by Jonathan Kocar, a person who talked about the inadequacy of education. He talked in one book of savage inequalities. In a second book called Children in Trouble: A National Tragedy, Jonathan Kocar talked about the inequity in funding and talked about the oversized classes in rural and urban areas and talked about the fact that property tax is the base for most education. So, of course, if one is fortunate enough to be affluent, to live in an affluent city, to live in an affluent community, much more money goes towards education; but if one happens to live in a poor city that has no economic base, a city where industry has moved out, a city where it is difficult to attract in new businesses, then the young people in those communities lack an adequate education. So the Federal Government has stepped in from time to time and said, let us make up for these inequities. As a result, we have large class sizes in urban areas because there is not the economic base to have equal class size and President Clinton said that each classroom, from kindergarten to grade 3, should have no more than 18 students in its classroom. Well, this bill prevents the President Clinton-Clay class reduction program from going in, and I think it is wrong. H.R. 1995, if it passes, has targeted funding and districts that need most of the money will not get it. This includes not only urban districts but rural districts. This also fails to provide separate funding for professional school development, including school counselors, an amendment that I had introduced but failed to get through committee to have school counselors in elementary schools, where we need to start with counseling. It eliminates funding that the States and local districts use for standard-based reforms. This fails to provide a separate stream of money for funding the class size reductions. I think that the Martinez substitute is the only way to go. It preserves funding to reduce class size, and it does not convert this funding into a block grant. As we have seen in previous funding and school flexibility acts, we have seen Title I practically eliminated where it does not matter the poverty of children, as Title I, which first started with an 80/20 match has now been eliminated down to 50/50. Until now, Title I eligibility is not even a factor in many instances. The substitute of Martinez also adds $1 billion more to H.R. 1995 for teacher recruitment and training and adds $500 million more for training special education teachers. The substitute guarantees that no school will receive less than their current funding. I think that when we come to vote, although as I have indicated the provision dealing with the Goodling amendment is positive, I believe that we should strongly support the Martinez substitute. I think that we should vote against 1995.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).