Steven Rothman

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is Brain Tumor Awareness Week. Each year, over 100,000 people in the United States alone will be diagnosed with a brain tumor. Unfortunately, the general public is not that familiar with this disease. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children under 19, the third leading cause of cancer death for young adults ages 20 to 39. Brain tumors attack the essence of what it means to be an individual. They ravage the control center for thought, emotion, and movement. The developing minds of children are especially susceptible. There are over 100 different types of brain cancers, making effective treatments very complicated and expensive. There is no proven cure for most malignant brain tumors. Congress needs to appropriate increased funding for the National Cancer Institute and provide a strong investment in brain tumor research. We need to give patients as many options as possible to ensure quality cancer care and improve long-term survival. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to educate themselves about brain tumors, and as we head into the heart of the appropriation season, to support increased funding for the National Cancer Institute.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Reverend William H. Hargrave, who retired last year as the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Englewood, NJ. As the former mayor of Englewood, NJ, I was witness to some of the many wonderful ways in which Reverend Hargrave lifted the spirit of his congregation and his community over a career that spanned three decades. During his tenure as pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church from 1973 to 1999, Reverend Hargrave led his congregation with faith and great distinction. As an eyewitness to his work as a pastor, I want to make several observations about the Reverend's remarkable career. As a pastor, Reverend Hargrave had the great talent to bring people together-together in prayer and together to help build the spiritual foundation of his church. From his work with the youngest member of his congregation to the oldest, Reverend Hargrave had a gift that is the mark of any truly successful leader; he used his God-given power to unify people. Whether he was working with a member of his Board of Deacons or with the youngest member of the youth choir, Reverend Hargrave was able to unify people in pursuing a common goal. And for Reverend Hargrave, that goal was always in keeping with what was best for his congregation and what would most benefit the people of Englewood. I also want to convey my deep appreciation for the Reverend's foresight in paving the way for the future of Ebenezer Baptist Church. By being an integral part of the ``mortgage burning'' by helping oversee the purchase of the Hall House, and by acquiring a new church organ, the Reverend was moving to ensure that his church would prosper well into the 21st century. For the parishioners of his church, for the residents of Englewood, and for the people of the State of New Jersey, Reverend Hargrave's tenure at Ebenezer Baptist Church was indeed a fortunate and blessed time. A time of progress, a time of great faith, and an era where hope, spread by his good works, thrived. I wish Reverend Hargrave every happiness on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a longtime friend and colleague, Charles F. Ryan, who will be inducted as President of the Bergen County Bar Association Friday, May 5, 2000. This is another milestone in Chuck's outstanding career, which is distinguished by his constant dedication to using his expertise in the law to improve the lives of people throughout Bergen County, New Jersey. After serving three years of active duty in the United States Marine Corps where he rose to the rank of Sergeant, Chuck pursued a Bachelor's Degree at the University of Notre Dame. Chuck then came home to New Jersey, where he earned his law degree at Rutgers University. Ever the activist, Chuck involved himself in the Young Lawyers Section of the Bergen County Bar Association, first as a member and later as its president. For four years, Chuck also co-edited the Young Lawyer Section's publication, Hearsay. The success of Hearsay led the Bergen County Bar Association to establish its own newspaper, Barrister, for which Chuck has been a valued contributor and author of the ``Family Law/Around the Courthouse'' column. One common denominator in Chuck's work is that he constantly strives to expand access to the legal system and make it work better for those involved. Chuck represented the Bergen County Bar Association for five years on the Board of Directors of Bergen County Legal Services, and helped develop the Legal Services Board's annual Pro Bono Award Program which recognizes the contributions to the public good made by lawyers and law firms in the Bergen County. In this same vein, Chuck founded the Alternatives to Domestic Violence Lawyers Referral Panel 14 years ago, and he remains a coordinator on the panel to this day. Chuck gathered lawyers from throughout Bergen County practicing matrimonial law, with particular experience and knowledge in the area of domestic violence, to provide emergency consultation and representation to victims of domestic violence. These lawyers agree to accept no fees, or work on a sliding- scale fee, according to the ability of the client to pay. With this expertise, the Bergen County Bar Association tapped Chuck two years ago to establish and co-chair the Bergen County Domestic Violence Pro Bono Lawyers Project, which has recruited and trained 89 lawyers to represent domestic violence victims. Fittingly, Chuck was honored last year by both the New Jersey State Senate and the New Jersey General Assembly for his tireless efforts on behalf of victims of domestic violence. Though these accomplishments testify to Chuck's efforts in the professional arena, he is also an active member of the Bergen County community. Chuck is married and is the father of four children, and works in both private practice and as a prosecutor in Park Ridge, New Jersey. He is a former Commander of the Midland Park/Wyckoff Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 7086, and is Director of the Midland Park Chamber of Commerce. Chuck has also been a coach on the Midland Park Soccer, Little League Baseball, Little League Softball, and Girls Basketball teams, and has served as a guest lecturer on family law at Montclair State College and Rutgers Law School. Mr. Speaker I have been fortunate to know and work with Chuck Ryan for the past 20 years and I am proud to count him as a dear friend. I wish him the best of luck on his induction as President of the Bergen County Bar Association, and expect him to thrive in that position as he has in every other task he has taken on in his life.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to address this colloquy, if you will, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and thank him for agreeing to participate. As the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials knows, I am extremely disappointed that the Federal Communications Commission's recent approval of non-commercial low-power LPFM radio stations did not address existing commercial low-power FM translators operating in counties where there are no allocated commercial FM stations and no commercial FM stations can be allocated. Although the residents of northern New Jersey can choose from dozens of New York City FM stations, those stations ignore Bergen County, New Jersey's need for local news, traffic reports, school closings, public service announcements and other important local information. Even though Bergen County, New Jersey, gave birth to FM radio in the 1930's, Bergen County has no commercial FM station of its own and none can be allocated to Bergen County under present Commission rules. Commercial FM translator W276AQ in Fort Lee, New Jersey, in my district, Jukebox Radio, brings valuable local news, traffic, weather, public service announcements, school closings, and other important information unavailable from any other source on the FM broadcast band. It is translated into a Class A FM signal 75 miles away from Bergen County. Bergen County residents should not be forced to depend on FM service in this manner. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), I believe that existing commercial low-power FM translators licensed in counties with a population of 800,000 or more, and where there is no licensed or commercial FM station, such as that in Bergen County, New Jersey, should have the opportunity to immediately begin broadcasting with local origination. Although we were not able to resolve this issue in this bill, I urge the gentleman to raise this issue in conference and include language to this effect when the House and Senate conferees meet. With that hope, I am going to support the bill, and thank the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the memory of the 1.5 million martyrs of the Armenian Genocide. I want to begin by thanking the co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus, Representatives John Porter and Frank Pallone, for organizing this special order which pays tribute to the victims of one of history's most terrible tragedies. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 398, the ``United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution.'' This bill rightly calls upon the President of the United States to provide for appropriate training and materials to all U.S. Foreign Service officers, officials of the Department of State, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide by familiarizing them with the U.S. record relating to the Armenian Genocide. Further, H.R. 398 calls on the President to issue an annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide on or about April 24, to characterize in this statement the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide, and also to recall the proud history of U.S. intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide. Mr. Speaker, since my election to Congress in 1966, I have worked to affirm the historical record of the Armenian Genocide and have sought to respond directly to those who deny what was the first crime against humanity of the 20th century. As the eminent historian Professor Vahakn Dadrian wrote in a brief prepared on the Armenian Genocide last year for the Canadian Parliament, ``When a crime of such magnitude continues to be denied, causing doubt in many well-meaning and impartial people, one must refute such denial by producing evidence that is as compelling as possible.'' I share this belief and for that reason I strongly support the goals laid out in H.R. 398. I look forward to working hard to secure this worthwhile bill's passage by the House International Relations Committee and further, by working to ensure that it secures broad, bipartisan support when it is considered by the full House of Representatives. Again, I thank Representatives Porter and Pallone for organizing this special order and I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 398.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my introduction of a House Resolution designed to re-authorize the creation of the United States Assay Commission. The Assay Commission was established in 1792, and operated uninterrupted until 1980 when it was finally abolished. During that time, it was the oldest continually operating committee in the federal government and brought in individuals to maintain oversight over a narrow aspect of the executive branch. Originally authorized as part of the nation's first Mint Act of April 2, 1792, the purpose of the Assay Commission was to examine the nation's coins on an annual basis and certify to the President, Congress, and the American people that gold and silver coins had the necessary purity, the proper weight, and necessarily, value. Among the earliest members of the Assay Commission, statutorily, were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Alexander Hamilton. Starting about 140 years ago, some members of the general public were invited to participate, and when the Coinage Act of 1873 was passed, it codified that the President had the authority to appoint members of the Assay Commission from the general public at large. That practice continued for more than a century, though after 1970 there were no longer silver coins to review when their production was discontinued. By the time that the Assay Commission was abolished in the Carter Administration as part of the President's re-organization project, it no longer had any valid function; the nation did not produce gold or silver coinage, whether of a circulating or of a commemorative nature. Starting in 1982, the Mint again began producing contemporary commemorative coinage from .900 fine silver. By 1984, gold commemorative coins for the Olympic games were added, and since then the U.S. Mint has produced and sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gold, and silver commemorative coinage. Since 1986, the Mint began producing gold, silver and platinum bullion coins which are widely traded the world over. Mr. Speaker, in the mid-1980's, lacking the outside oversight previously provided by the Assay Commission, a problem was discovered in one of the Mint's bullion products. It appears, from the records, that some fractional gold eagle coins (those weighing less than ounce) did not have the proper fineness or weight in gold. This caused a serious marketing problem in the Far East, and confidence in this uniquely American product went by the wayside. Today, the United States Mint is a business that, were it privately- controlled, would constitute a Fortune-500 corporation. The monetary bulk of this product--not the circulating coins--are gold, silver, and platinum. With the re-emergence of U.S. produced gold, silver and platinum coins, I understand that an Ad Hoc group of former presidential appointees, all former Assay Commissioners, has suggested that it is time to restore Assay Commission oversight of the U.S. Mint. I share this Ad Hoc group's belief that the Mint's operations will only be enhanced by restoring the historic role played by the Assay Commission. Mr. Speaker, an article advocating the restoration of the annual Assay Commission written by Fair Lawn, New Jersey Mayor David L. Ganz, recently appeared in Numismatic News, a weekly coin hobby periodical. I would ask that this article be reprinted, in full, in the Congressional Record. I urge my colleagues to help me re-authorize the Assay Commission by cosponsoring the legislation that I have introduced today. [Article appearing in Numismatic News (Weekly), October 5, 1999] Time To Consider Reviving the Assay Commission (By David L. Ganz) Let me set the stage. A quarter century ago this past February, Richard Nixon was in the final throes of his star- crossed Presidency, though no one yet suspected that Watergate was about to become his ultimate downfall and lead to probable impeachment. American coinage of 1974 was devoid of silver, and private gold ownership had been illegal since 1933, except for rare and unusual gold coin of that era or earlier, unless the Office of Domestic Gold & Silver Operations gave a rarely sought, seldom-granted license to acquire the particular specimen. As Washington hunkered down for a difficult winter storm, the White House press office was readying a press release that would surprise many for the number of Democrats and other non-supporters of President Nixon that were to be listed--not the so-called Enemy's List, but actually a designation to public service. The weeks before had been trying for the applicants, many of whom had written letters, sent resumes, asked political contacts for a personal boost, responded to background checks that were initiated by government staff, followed up by security agencies interested in potential skeletons that could prove embarrassing to the White House if found in a presidential appointee. First inklings of what was to transpire probably came to most individuals in the form of a telephone call on Friday, Feb. 8 from Washington, asking if the prospect could be available for official travel the following week on Tuesday. Arrangements were strictly on your own, as were virtually all of the associated expenses in traveling to Philadelphia. What this preparation was for was the Trial of the Pyx, the annual Assay Commission, a tradition stretching back to 1792, and at that time, the oldest continually operating commission in the United States government. First of the commissions, which were mandated by the original Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 were deemed so essential to the confidence of the public in the national money that section 18 of the legislation directed that the original inspectors were to include the Chief Justice of the United States, the Secretary and Comptroller of the Currency, the Secretary of the Department of State, and the Attorney General of the United States. This was neither a casual request nor one that was considered so unimportant an aide could attend. The statute is explicit: this who's who ``are hereby required to attend for that purpose'', meaning that in July of 1795, chief justice John Jay, Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Attorney General William Bradford may have gathered. In the Jefferson Administration, consider this remarkable group: Chief Justice John Marshall; Secretary of State (and future president) James Madison; Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, Attorney General Caesar Rodney might all have been there. By 1801, the statute had been amended to add the United States District Judge for Pennsylvania as an officer at the Annual Assay, and by the time that the Act of January 18, 1937 Flash forward to 1974. The call comes from Washington. A trek begins to Philadelphia, where it has begun to snow. Dozens of people from all across the country come to serve on the Assay Commission, all traveling at their own expense. Starting in the midst of the Truman Administration, a serious numismatist or two had begun to be appointed. Some who assisted the government in some numismatic or related matter were similarly given the honor. Among the early appointees: Max Schwartz (1945), the New York attorney who later became ANA's legal counsel; Ted Hammer (1947), John Jay Pittman (1947), Adm. Oscar Dodson (1948), and Hans M.F. Schulman (1952). Some came by air (from California); others drove. I came by train, on Amtrak's Metroliner, leaving from New York's Penn Station and arriving an hour and a half later at Philadelphia's station by the same name. Those who came in February, 1974, gathered off Tuesday evening, Feb. 12, at the Holiday Inn off Independence Mall, and unlike years when there were only one or two lobbyists, this was a banner year. (I almost did not attend; having started law school just three or four weeks before, I had to petition the Dean of the School to permit the attendance lapse and honor the presidential appointment). My classmates, as we have referred to ourselves over the succeeding quarter century, included some then and future hobby luminaries: Don Bailey (former officer of Arizona Numismatic Association), John Barrett (Member of several local clubs), Dr. Harold Bushey, Sam Butland (Washington Numismatic Society V.P.), Charles Colver (CSNA Secretary), David Cooper (CSNS v.p.), George Crocker (S.C.N.A. president), Joe Frantz (OIN Secretary), Maurice Gould (ANA governor), Ken Hallenbeck (past President, Indiana State Numismatic Assn.). Also: Dr. Robert Harris, Jerry Hildebrand (organizer World Coin Club of Missouri), Richard Heer, Barbara Hyde (TAMS Board member, sculptor), Philip Keller (past president of the American Society for the Study of French Numismatics), Reva Kline (member of several upstate New York coin clubs), Stewart Koppel (past president, Aurora, III. Coin Club), Charles M. Leusner (Delaware Co. Coin Club). Rounding out the Commission: Capt. Gary Lewis (past president of Colorado-Wyoming Numismatic Association), Fred Mantei (past president Flushing Coin Club), Lt. Col. Melvin Mueller (member of many local and regional clubs), James L. Miller (COINage Magazine publisher), John Muroff (Philadelphia Coin Club member), and Harris Rusitzsky (Rochester Numismatic Association member). I was also a member (law student and former assistant editor, Numismatic news). This rather remarkable group of men and women, the White House and Mint joint announcement announced, were appointed by the President ``from across the nation. . . . The 25 Commissioners, working in such varied fields as medicine, dentistry, law, engineering, forestry Early in its history, and indeed, into the first half of the 20th century, the appointees were either political themselves, or politically connected. Ellen (Mrs. Irving) Berlin, Commissioner 1941, was one example; Mrs. Norweb (1955) was another. So was Sen. H. Willis Robertson (1962), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and father of television evangelist and presidential hopeful Pat Robertson. William Ashbrook, a member of Congress from Ohio who sponsored the legislation chartering the ANA in Congress, served six times between 1908 and 1920. Albert Vestal, a member of Congress from Indiana, served consecutively from 1920-1925. There were many other Congressmen and Senators through the years, as well. I recall meeting in the lounge of the Holiday Inn and suggesting my old friend Maury Gould to be the chairman of the commission. The fix was already in: the California delegation had already agreed, and lobbied other members, to elect Barbara Hyde to that honor. The work that we did was largely honorific, but there was a brief moment when some of us thought that the actual results of an assay were under-weight--which mint officials regarded as calamitous, and of sufficient importance to re-weigh the parcel in question. (It passed the test, and as was the case in most years, pro forma resolutions prepared by mint staff were signed by all of the commissioners). But that does not say that the description of the work done by the Assay Commission remains irrelevant. To the contrary, unlike 1974 which examined the nonprecious metal coinage of 1973, today there are silver, gold and platinum bullion coins, and numerous commemorative coins, and related items that circulate the world-over. There is accountability within the Mint, but at present, the Mint's primary accountability is to Congress, and to the coinage subcommittee in the House, and the larger Senate Banking Committee on the other side of Capitol Hill. If there is a problem, it remains largely unknown to the public at large, except in case of acute embarrassment. In April, 1987 for example, the U.S. mint was accused of having grossly underweight fractional gold coins--a move that nearly scuttled the entire effort of the program to market into the Far East. The Assay Commission having been abolished in 1980, there was no voice of authoritative reassurance, for the mint denied that there was even a problem--when it was clear that the fractionals had not been properly assayed and were lightweight in their gold content. Abolition of the Assay Commission came in two stages. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter declined to name any public members to the Commission, ending a practice of more than 117 years duration. The F.T. Davis, director of the General Government Division of the President's Reorganization Project, got into the act. ``We are conducting an organizational study of the Annual Assay Commission,'' he wrote me on Sept. 6, 1977. ``The study will focus on possible alternative methods of carrying out the functions of the Commission.'' I prepared a memorandum for Davis at his request, answering several specific questions, careful to take no position on its continued validity. Earlier in the year, in a major law review article proposing a ``Revision of the Minting & Coinage Laws of the United States'' which was The die was already cast, however, and the Carter Administration (having already declined to name public members) simply let the Assay Commission wither away until, in 1980, it expired with the passage of Public Law 96-209 (March 14, 1980). The irony is that only a short time later, the Mint was once again producing precious metal coinage. As the new millennium is on the verge of commencement, a movement initiated by former commissioners (most of whom are members of the Old Time Assay Commissioner's Society, OTACS for short), has talked about proposing revitalization of this old commission. There are reasons why it could succeed, and some why it should. There are a number of reasons why the Assay Commission ought to be reconstituted, and any proposal to do so will require a legislative initiative in Congress. Toward that goal, I was asked by an ad hoc advocacy group to try my hand at it. If you've got an interest in the Assay Commission, perhaps you'd care to send a note to your Congressman or Senator (U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. zip for the House 20515, Senate 20510) with a copy of this article, and the draft legislation. You can encourage them to do the rest.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great scientist and entrepreneur on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Dr. Endre A. Balazs, who now lives in Fort Lee, NJ, was born in Hungary on January 10, 1920. He received his medical degree from the University of Budapest in 1943. During his studies in medical school D. Balazs began his life-long research into the medical uses of hyaluronan (HA)--a key molecular building block of the intercellular substances of the body. As the world's foremost authority in the use of HA, Dr. Balazs started work on its medical application in the 1960's. His work on HA eventually led to the discovery of new therapeutic treatments that have made certain medical procedures safer and have accelerated post- operative healing periods. More recently, Dr. Balazs has introduced new methods to treat arthritis, an ailment that afflicts millions of Americans. Soon after completing his studies at the University of Budapest in Hungary, Dr. Balazs traveled to Stockholm, Sweden, where he continued his research on the structure and biological function of sulfated polysaccharides and HA at the Karolinska Institute--the medical school of Stockholm. In 1951 he emigrated to the United States where he accepted a position in the Department of Ophthalmology at Harvard University. In 1970 Dr. Balazs cofounded the Boston Biomedical Research Institute and became its first executive director. In 1975 he became the Malcolm P. Aldrich Research Professor of Ophthalmology at Columbia University in New York. He is the founder and for 25 years has served as editor in chief of Experimental Eye Research, the first international eye research journal ever published. He also is a founder and former president of the International Society for Eye Research. In 1981 Dr. Balazs and his wife, Janet Denlinger, started Biomatrix, Inc., a firm involved in the development of hfyaluronan derivatives for medical applications and skin care. Today, Biomatrix is a publicly owned company that is based in Ridgefield, NJ. Over the years, as both an educator and a businessman, Dr. Balazs has supported the research endeavors of many young scientists and physicians. In recognition of his efforts, the international ophthalmic research community has established the Endre A. Balazs Prize, an international award for outstanding research efforts by scientists. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Dr. Endre A. Balazs is my constituent. I wish him and his family the very best as he continues to bring to his work the energy, devotion, and innovation that has made him such a successful individual.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of ``The Wartime Violations of Italian-American Civil Liberties Act.'' I want to begin by thanking the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee for helping bring this worthwhile resolution before the full House today. Too few Americans know that during world war II Italian Immigrants in America were classified as ``dangerous aliens'' during World War II. And too few Americans know that many of these Italian immigrants were shipped to internment camps. In fact, during World War II, over 10,000 Italian immigrants to our country were removed from their homes and over 52,000 others had to endure strict curfew regulations. I stand here today in support of this resolution because it is the moral responsibility of the United States Government to acknowledge this mistreatment of Italian-Americans during World War II. Understand, while over 500,000 Italian-Americans were fighting to defend our nation in World War II, many of their families in the United States were being forced to carry photo ID cards and were unable to move freely throughout the country. This resolution rightly calls on the President to acknowledge the suffering caused by the Federal Government's policies towards law abiding Italian-Americans during World War II. It directs the U.S. Justice Department to publish a comprehensive report detailing the U.S. Government's unjust policies towards Italian- Americans during World War II. More importantly, this Justice Department report will include an examination of how the civil liberties of all Americans can be protected in times of national emergencies in the future. Mr. Speaker, my fellow House members, the time has come for us to recognize the enormous suffering endured by Italian-Americans during World War II. I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile resolution.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey in honoring Mary Bustillo Donohue of River Edge, New Jersey for her contributions to the Garden State. The Hispanic Bar Association will be presenting its Outstanding Service Award to Mary on November 6, 1999. Throughout her life and career, Mary Bustillo Donohue has embodied the values of tolerance, patience, fairness, vigilance, and excellence. From working as a teacher for 26 years at Paramus Regional Catholic High School and as professor of Spanish Literature at Seton Hall for seven years, to serving on the Board of Chosen Freeholders in Bergen County, to being a dedicated member of her church, Mary has helped build a New Jersey grounded in family and community. The residents of Bergen County and throughout New Jersey, including myself, have all benefitted from Mary's efforts on our behalf. Whether it was as a Councilwoman in her hometown of River Edge, or as a member of the Governor's Hispanic Task Force For Excellence in Education, or as the Honorary Chairman of the New Jersey State Democratic Hispanic Caucus Center for the Advancement of Women in Politics, Mary has exemplified what it means to be an active member of her community. She is a role model to us all. On a personal level, I have been privileged to know Mary as a friend for more than 10 years, and now to be working with her as an invaluable member of my staff. Working with Mary has provided me with an even greater insight into her personal commitment to her neighbors and community. She has played an integral role in my efforts to serve all residents of the Ninth Congressional District in New Jersey and I am grateful for her outstanding work. Mr. Speaker, there are few people more deserving of an award recognizing excellence in community service. Mary Bustillo Donohue is one of these people and I am pleased to join the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey in honoring her.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the East Rutherford Educational Community in recognizing December as ``Marlene Coviello Month'' and in paying tribute to Marlene Coviello on the occasion of her retirement from the East Rutherford school system after twenty- three years. Throughout her career, Marlene's teaching was characterized by a true commitment to her students' learning and her unending enthusiasm for imparting knowledge to them. Her integrity, sense of responsibility, and professionalism made her a role model, not only for her students but for her colleagues as well. Marlene Coviello's resourcefulness and creativity as an educator enabled her to meet the changing needs of her students in the constantly evolving field of education. By teaching her students to love learning, she demonstrated why these qualities are a teacher's greatest assets. Her smile, sense of humor, and vivacity define her as an individual and illustrate why her fellow teachers enjoyed working with Marlene and why her students learned so much from her. Marlene's determination and strength of character enabled her to prepare the children of East Rutherford for the challenges of adulthood. I would like to join Marlene Coviello's students, family and fellow teachers in wishing her the very best as she prepares to embark on the next chapter in her life and in thanking her for twenty-three years of service on behalf of her community.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, first let me correct my colleague and friend from New Jersey. On page 3 of the Justice Department's letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), they say specifically they oppose the portion of the bill with regards to the Oregon law. They are in favor of the palliative portion but oppose the Oregon portion. That is clear. Now, let me read from the substitute: ``The purpose of the act is to enhance professional education in palliative care and reduce excessive regulatory scrutiny in order to mitigate the suffering, pain and desperation many sick and dying people face at the end of their lives in order to carry out the clear opposition of the Congress to physician-assisted suicide.'' That is the substitute. We are against physician-assisted suicide but we want to foster palliative care to the tens of millions of Americans suffering chronic, debilitating, horrible pain. Now, the doctors in this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, are on both sides of this question. The doctors in the major organizations in the United States are on both sides of this question. Most of the nursing organizations are for the substitute. Why? Because they know that there is a chilling effect, a real one, on doctors in prescribing pain medication if the underlying bill is passed and we reject the substitute. If you are against the Oregon law, go to the Supreme Court and throw it out. But do not affect the ability of tens of millions of Americans to get the pain relief that they need. Vote for the substitute that says we are against physician-assisted suicide but we want doctors to be able to prescribe pain medicine to relieve the pain of people suffering horrible, debilitating pain in their last weeks and days of life.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, a lot of people would like this debate to be about physician-assisted suicide because many of us are against physician- assisted suicide. I am against physician-assisted suicide. That is not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether the underlying bill, 2260, will so intimidate doctors across America that they will not prescribe the pain medications to the children, men, and women who are begging for it. Not because they want to die but because they do not want to suffer agony. They want to live as long as they can, but not in pain. But my colleagues who want this bill want to make it a physician- assisted bill. Why? Because they did not like the physician-assisted law in Oregon and, instead of going to the United States Supreme Court to get that referendum in Oregon declared unconstitutional, they have decided to use this route. The question is, is that so bad? Yes, it is bad, because by using this route and the controlled substances Federal law to go after the Oregon referendum that the people passed twice, they are affecting tens of millions of other Americans whose doctors will be inhibited and chilled from prescribing the pain medications that those tens of millions of children, men, and women are asking for. This is not a debate about physician-assisted suicide. If they wanted to get rid of the Oregon physician-assisted suicide bill, let them go to the Supreme Court and have it declared unconstitutional. Do not intrude in the doctor-patient relationship. There is already an untreatment of pain in America. Do not make it worse. It is not necessary. We are all against physician-assisted suicide. I urge my colleagues, those who are against physician-assisted but believe there needs to be more care for people in pain, more pain medication, then pass the substitute and reject the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Oncology Nursing Society and American Nurses Association support the Johnson substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Here are the facts, Mr. Chairman. There is an undertreatment of pain in the United States of America because doctors feel inhibited they will be sued civilly in the medical malpractice suit. What does the underlying bill do? It adds additional fear to doctors that they will be sent to jail and lose their license. How do we know they are fearful of this? Half of the doctors groups have said they do not support this bill. Most of the nurses organizations do not support this bill. Instead, they support the Johnson-Rothman substitute. So we know doctors and nurses are being chilled now. They are telling us do not pass that underlying bill. If my colleagues do not like physician-assisted suicide, which I do not, which most Members of Congress do not, and they do not like the Oregon physician-assisted suicide bill, go to the Supreme Court and get it thrown out. But do not chill doctors giving of pain medication to the tens of millions of children, boys and girls, men and women in America and the other 49 states because of not liking Oregon's law. Let us deal with pain for the millions of Americans in pain. Deal with the Oregon constitutional situation in the Supreme Court. They are trying to make this a physician-assisted suicide sanctity-of-life issue. We all believe in the sanctity of life. Address that separately before the Supreme Court. Let us give people in agonizing terminal pain the ability not to kill themselves, but to get the pain medicine they are asking and begging for. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) in opposing the bill. Make no mistake about it, the bill in question deals with pain, excrutiating, horrible pain, the kind of pain that afflicts literally tens of millions of Americans, chronic pain, terminally-ill pain. What is the difference? Well, what is the story here in America with regards to providing pain medication to those tens of millions of Americans who so desperately need the pain medication? Well, there is a consensus in the United States, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, everyone agrees. There is an undertreatment of pain in the United States of America. Why? Primarily we are told because doctors feel intimidated if they give too much pain medication to those patients in terrible pain who are asking for it, they do not want to die, they just want pain relief, because the doctors are afraid of a civil medical malpractice lawsuit. So what does the underlying bill do? It provides for a criminal penalty against doctors, 20 years in jail maximum. It provides license revocation, if a DEA drug enforcement agent can go through the pain prescription of every doctor prescribing pain prescription in America, and this drug enforcement agent feels the pain medication might have been intentionally overdone. Now, if one thinks there is a chilling effect on doctors providing pain medication now, wait till H.R. 2260 if this bill gets passed. Hopefully my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who agree with me, and there are many of us, will support the substitute. What does the substitute say? It says we are against physician- assisted suicide. We are against physician-assisted suicide. It says we want more research into pain medication. We want more understanding amongst doctors about the right way to prescribe pain medication. But what it does not have, what the underlying bill has, is it does not provide this criminal penalty against doctors and license revocation. It keeps our eye on the ball. We are talking about providing pain relief for those millions of American children, men and women in agony, dying horrible deaths. So why would my colleagues, some of them, be wanting to introduce this bill in the first place? It is clear, and they say so quite candidly. They do not like the Oregon physician-assisted suicide law. Many of us do not. I voted against physician-assisted suicide here in the Congress, as did the majority of my colleagues. We do not like the Oregon physician- assisted suicide law, but do not have a law. Go to the Supreme Court. Get it thrown out if it is unconstitutional. But do not have a law that will affect all 50 States, tens of millions of Americans who are suffering who need pain medication. Do not affect all those Americans because one does not like the law that the people of Oregon twice chose in referendum. If my colleagues do not like it, ask the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional, but do not cause so much suffering. Some of my colleagues will say, well, there is a law like the one we want to introduce today in Congress passed in a couple of States, and pain medication went up, and they had no problem. Well, those State laws did not involve the Drug Enforcement Agency having the right to review every single prescription for pain medication that every doctor in America is going to prescribe. It goes against common sense. If one is a doctor and now the DEA can come in to review one's records of every pain prescription one prescribes, it would go to intimidate. The Drug Enforcement Agency should be going after the drug cartels in South America. They should not be looking at every single pain prescription that every single doctor in America prescribed. We need pain relief. We need doctors and local medical societies, the majority of whom support the substitute and are against the bill. The majority of the nurses associations in America are for the substitute and against the bill, while the doctor organizations are split. What you have here is obvious. Doctors are conflicted. They are afraid. They are uncertain. The nurses who are the last line of defense, who treat these terminally-ill patients writhing in pain, they are almost unanimous against the bill and in favor of the substitute. So if my colleagues want to deal with pain in America and they do not want to inhibit doctors from providing the pain medications that tens of millions of Americans are going to be affected with, vote against the bill, vote for the substitute which says we are against physician- assisted suicide. We want more doctors to prescribe pain medication, not to kill the patient, but to provide the relief that they are begging for in their last days and months on Earth. But do not put them in jail. Do not threaten to put them in jail. Let the States' local medical societies who each have their own traditions and customs and have worked on the details of these bills for so long, let them deal with it appropriately. I ask my colleagues to support the substitute.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague. The gentleman was very clever. Even though he is a physician, he spoke like a Philadelphia lawyer, and he said this bill does not provide criminal penalties if they do nothing wrong. But if they did in the opinion of the Drug Enforcement Agency, then the doctor can go to prison.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, he said that. And then he said, to clarify it, there will be no jail time if they do not do anything wrong, or words to that effect. Because if they do do something wrong in the opinion of the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is now being called upon in this bill to look into this, they can go to jail and they will lose their license. Again, the question is, if we are concerned about pain medication, let us pass a bill about pain medication. That is the substitute, which is also against physician-assisted suicide. And if my colleagues did not like the Oregon referendum of physician-assisted suicide, as I do not, then go to the Supreme Court and declare it unconstitutional. Do not let the tens of millions of American children, men, and women suffer because they do not like the Oregon law. Change the law, get it declared unconstitutional, and leave these patients and doctors alone.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by thanking my dear colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). He put together a wonderful bill to help protect Federal law enforcement animals, invited me to get on right away, and we worked together with our Subcommittee on Crime chair, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the entire committee to move this piece of legislation forward in a bipartisan manner. Last week, we did the Patients' Bill of Rights in a bipartisan manner. This week we are going to do the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act in a bipartisan manner. Who knows what is next? Hopefully, this is the start of something good. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1791, the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act. Most people think of those who protect us in law enforcement as dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line daily, make innumerable sacrifices, take enormous risks, put their families and their lives in jeopardy, and that is true. They represent the thin, blue line that separates civilized society from anarchists and criminals; and we have to do all in our power to give law enforcement people the tools, the resources, and the support that they need to do their job. But there are other living creatures who assist us in our law enforcement endeavors, and they are the dogs and the horses who work with our law enforcement personnel to sniff out drugs, to apprehend the bad guys who are fleeing the scene, and to otherwise keep order in our society. Mr. Speaker, I spoke this morning at a high school in Wallington, New Jersey, and among the many other things we talked about, I told them I was coming today to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and my other colleagues to pass this Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act to protect those dogs and Federal police dogs and horses who are intentionally injured or killed by criminals. And they said, gee, is that not a law already? And I said, well, no, it is not. It is the law in several States in the United States, but it has never been the law of the land, the Federal law. So I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and others for bringing this matter to our attention, allowing us to work to put this matter finally to rest, to protect those brave police animals who do so much for our society. Mr. Speaker, it is not just the cost of the animals, which is significant in a tight budget; there are tight budgets of the Federal level, State, county and local, and we know that there is a significant investment of thousands of dollars in the purchase and the training of police dogs and police horses. It is also the time and the energy of the humans who have to train them, care for them, and oversee their well-being, as well as lead them in the course of their daily work. But beyond the mere costs, we can also, I think, recognize that these are the lives of animals. And so while this is a bill for law enforcement, to give law enforcement the tools, protect their resources that these animals certainly are, it is also to recognize that these are living creatures that we want to protect, not just like a desk or a chair that a criminal would destroy to flee a crime or to obstruct a pursuit of law enforcement men and women who are following him or her, but these are police animals who we want to protect as well. So this law would give the discretion to a judge to impose a fine of up to $1,000 and the discretion to impose some kind of jail time if the animal was disabled or died, and that that was the intention of the perpetrator, to injure or disable or kill the animal. The offender would be subject to a fine not in excess of $1,000 and will be imprisoned for up to 10 years in the discretion of the judge. Again, this is a law that was a long time in coming, and certainly very necessary. We live in a very dangerous, hostile world with lots of problems facing the United States of America. We have lots of problems here at home, and we need to deal with them as well. Last week was the Patient's Bill of Rights, and now the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act. Hopefully, we will get together in a bipartisan fashion to do who knows, maybe even to pass a budget. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1791, and I thank my colleagues for their support as well, and I urge the entire House to do the same.