Steven Rothman

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding this time to me. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) for his leadership on this issue, and I urge all my colleagues to support House Resolution 322. Over the past several weeks the people of northern New Jersey have learned what many victims of disaster have already learned, that rebuilding lives can be a long and painful process and that the Federal Government needs to be there to help them in their time of need. My heart goes out to the people of my district and to North Carolina and around the country who have suffered so grievously given this natural disaster. From the Hackensack to the Saddle Brook to the Pasaic, the rains that spilled the waters of New Jersey's rivers onto our communities caused tremendous damage, heartache, and loss. Memories that were encased in family heirlooms and photographs and other priceless possessions were lost. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars in communities that were lost when the rains swept away literally a lifetime of savings and investment. For the people of my district the effects of this disaster will continue to be felt for weeks, months, and years to come. I have been encouraged by the quick response of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Within hours teams arrived in New Jersey to start the difficult process of assessing the full extent of the damage and providing assistance. I also want to commend New Jersey's volunteers and those professionals, the police, fire, first-aid, emergency response personnel, phone, gas and electric company workers, local elected officials and all the volunteers who did such an outstanding job during the flooding and its aftermath to help their neighbors. These heroic men and women put their lives on the line many, many times, and made many, many sacrifices to help the people of our region. But now that the winds and rains have subsided from Hurricane Floyd, the Federal Government must be there. People debate whether there is a role for government. Well, there surely is a role for the Federal Government in the case of a natural disaster no one could have predicted. And in New Jersey, where we are the second lowest in terms of returning dollars from Washington, we send our tax dollars to Washington and we are the 49th State, almost the lowest ranking, to get money back from Washington. This is now when we need Congress' help. This is now when we need some of our Federal dollars back to us in New Jersey. I urge all my colleagues to support those efforts and to support House Resolution 322.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I just wanted to say that we have people without drinking water who must boil their drinking water and still people without power or phone service. So this is, as my colleague knows, because he has spent so much time over the last few days working on this, this is a real tragedy. The local people, the police, fire, ambulance, emergency services, the people in the power companies and phone companies have done their best to rally. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time. Together, we in Congress can help these people and rebuild our communities.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, first allow me to convey my sincerest condolences and sympathies to the people of North Carolina. This has been such a terrible natural disaster, unprecedented in anyone's memory. I can only imagine the suffering that the people of North Carolina have already experienced and what lies ahead for them. Our prayers are with my colleagues and the people they represent, and we will do our part here in this body to assist my colleagues in assisting them. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the effect of Floyd's fury that was felt in my State of New Jersey. We are now in the process of rebuilding our lives in the Garden State, lives that almost without exception were touched by Floyd. In my district alone, it was not just the people who live near bodies of water. Virtually every single body of water, whether it was a lake or a stream or river overflowed its banks in unprecedented ways. There are countless tens of thousands of homes all through my district where basements were flooded, first levels were flooded, no, not much loss of life, thank God, but tremendous suffering, heartache, loss of worldly possessions, yes, but thank goodness not much loss of life. But our people will be spending a great many weeks and months rebuilding their lives as they try to come to terms with what happened in the wake of Floyd. I will tell my colleagues what they say the amount of damage in New Jersey just in northern New Jersey alone, $500 million worth of damage. In addition to the flooding of the homes and businesses and towns washed out, phone service was out. In my neck of the woods in northern New Jersey, a million people were without phone service beyond just their own little towns, more than a million people. Thirty-five thousand people had no phone service whatsoever. There was no wireless cell phone service which we rely on a great deal in northern New Jersey, no fax machines, no ATM machines. Now my colleagues can say, well, why did this happen. We had families who were unable to check in on their loved ones, whether children checking in on their parents or vice versa if they lived out of town. We had patients unable to find their doctors, doctors unable to reach their patients. We had businesses unable to communicate with their customers, the customers with their businesses, suppliers with businesses. How could this have happened? Well, I have asked that we undertake a Federal inquiry into how a vital industry, a vital utility such as the phone company, could have permitted or how they handled in fact Floyd's aftermath with so many million people and more without phone service for 3, 4, 5 days. Tens of millions of dollars were lost in terms of business alone, notwithstanding all of the heartache and emotional isolation felt by so many in my communities. Well, the switching facility is apparently located near a body of water that had flooded and overflowed its banks in 1977. We are going to learn more about the details, but it is critical that in the year 1999 we find out why there was no redundancy, no duplication of switching devices, which would have prevented all together this tremendous lack of telephone service and the lack of disruption and damage to people's lives and businesses. I am meeting with representatives from the phone company tomorrow. And we have a great many dedicated men and women who work for the telephone companies who did their utmost to prevent disruption, but I am afraid that there may need to be a new way of thinking on behalf of those planning for the worst. Y2K, the year 2000, is coming upon us. There are always the potentialities for accidents or, God forbid, terrorist incidents. If we are not prepared in the metropolitan area of New York and New Jersey for these kinds of disasters, natural and humankind, what can we look forward to around the country? That is why we are conducting a federal investigation and will hold hearings on what could have been done to prevent that kind of tragedy. As my time runs out, I just want to say to the people of New Jersey that we are fighting here in Congress for them, and I ask my colleagues to join me. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional minute.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Philip J. McLewin's twenty-five years of leadership and service on behalf of the Bergen County Central Trades and Labor Council, AFL-CIO, including sixteen years as President of the Council. It is a unique honor and privilege for me to acknowledge Phil's extensive efforts on behalf of working men and women. In addition to being a fierce advocate for workers, he has been a good friend and I will miss working with him on those issues that are important to America's families. For over two decades, Phil's extraordinary leadership has brought an unprecedented brand of determination and purpose to the cause of the labor community of northern New Jersey. Thanks to Phil's advocacy, working men and women of Bergen County can go to sleep at night secure in the knowledge that they have a safe workplace, fair wages, and a reasonable pension. During his tenure as President of the Bergen County Central Trades and Labor Council, Phil built the organization into an important voice for working families, and turned it into a source of pride for its membership. The number of local unions affiliated with the Council doubled and participation of its members increased tenfold. As the founder of the Council's community service program, the United Labor Agency of Bergen County, Phil created an agency committed to helping those workers who have encountered hard times. By providing New Jersey's union members with both the opportunity and the means to help their fellow workers, this agency has imbued the workers of northern New Jersey with a sense of togetherness and pride, and has even grown into a national model for community service. Phil's recognition of the integral role that our nation's unions have played in making America prosper has earned him the law and respect of northern New Jersey's labor community. His commitment to the Bergen County Central Trades and Labor Council is unparalleled and serves as a model of excellence for all those who care about working men and women. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my thanks and gratitude to Philip J. McLewin and I hope that his next endeavor is a successful as his last one has been.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me see if I can remind my friends in this body that we are talking today about the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999. We are talking about the Iran Nonproliferation Act. We live in a hostile and dangerous world. One of the reasons why the world is so hostile and dangerous is because there are nations like Iran who are committed to wreaking havoc in their region and literally all over the globe. If Iran were to be successful in its intended desire to send weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, and nuclear devices, not only to our friends and allies in the Middle East but to our friends and allies in Europe, they also would love to develop and have intended to develop the technology to send those weapons of mass destruction to the United States of America. That is why I support the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999. So it is important for us to keep our eye on the ball here in Congress, and note that with regard to this law that we are proposing, we want to remind everyone that it is Iran, as well as Iraq and North Korea, who make this world dangerous, but this bill has to do with Iran. I would also like to say it is a reminder to nations like Russia and China that the Congress of the United States will not forgive their assisting Iran in developing these weapons of mass destruction and the technology to deliver these weapons to not only the United States but to our allies around the world. There is a great deal of wishful thinking with regard to our enemies. We in America would like to believe that people around the world have as good intentions, as warm hearts, as we do. Not everyone is like us. The people of Iran need to create a government in Iran which will stop threatening the peace of the world. That is not the case yet. Iran is a danger to the world. It must be isolated, it must be stopped, until they are ready to join the family of nations in peace. This legislation will help.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Joseph Gold. Thought to have been the oldest living Marine in the country, Joseph Gold passed away at the age of 107 on Wednesday, August 25, 1999, in Tenafly, New Jersey. In so many respects, Joseph Gold was a genuine American hero. A native of Cleveland, Ohio, he enlisted in the Marines at the onset of World War I and served as a distinguished member of the American Expeditionary Force. As part of one of the first Marine contingents to fight in Europe, Mr. Gold fought in the historic battle of Belleau Woods. It was at this battle in 1918 that he and his American comrades fought through a dense forest and ultimately captured terrain from well entrenched German forces. Only about 2 months ago, on July 8, 1999, the French Government, in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the end of World War I, awarded Mr. Gold the French Legion of Honor. This prestigious award, granted to Mr. Gold, was a well deserved tribute to a true American patriot. I want to express my condolences to the Gold family on the passing of their father, grandfather and great-grandfather. I also want to express my admiration to the Gooney Bird detachment of the U.S. Marine Corps League who arranged to have an honor guard ceremony at Mr. Gold's funeral. Joseph Gold was an extraordinary person, whose legacy to our Nation is a story of selfless sacrifice and a story that all Americans would do well to remember.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the 25th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus. As Greek-Cypriots around the world mark a tragic day in their nation's history, hundreds of people joined hands in a circle of hope around the U.S. Capitol to ask for Congress' help in making Cyprus whole again. All the commemorations held today marking the 25th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus highlight one of the great and continuing tragedies of the 20th century. With 37% of Cyprus currently occupied by Turkish forces, with 1,618 Greek-Cypriots still unaccounted for from the conflict, and with over 200,000 Cypriots displaced from their homes since 1974, it is long past time for the United States to lead the international community in addressing this great injustice. We, in this body, have passed resolution after resolution urging Turkey to withdraw its forces from Cyprus, urging Turkish-Cypriot leaders to renounce ``declarations of independence'' that they have issued in defiance of international law. And in the United Nations, the Security Council has consistently and forcefully urged Turkey to end its military occupation of over a third of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus. These efforts, coupled with vigorous diplomatic initiatives sponsored by the United States and the European Community, remain central to securing a final settlement that will end the artificial division of Cyprus. It is my firm belief that today and every day, Congress has solemn obligation to support a just and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem. A solution which must follow the precepts laid down in United Nations Security Council 1250, which was adopted on June 29, 1999 and which in part reads, ``. . . a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty.'' In short, the House of Representatives should serve as a guiding force in the pursuit of a reunified Cyprus, an island nation where all citizens enjoy fundamental freedoms. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I am of the belief that the solution to the Cyprus problem resides in the will of the United States and the international community to renounce the violence that divided Cyprus a quarter century ago and to affirm that the reunification of Cyprus is a priority. The resolutions concerning Cyprus that we in this body consider and pass, those passed by the EU and other distinguished international organizations, are all important. They are important because they uniformly call on Turkey to abide by international law by withdrawing its troops from Cyprus and in so doing, serving to advance a swift and certain resolution to the Cyprus problem. I support the speedy resolution of the Cyprus problem and look forward to a day when the unification, not the division, of Cyprus is celebrated in this body and around the world.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), my colleague and good friend, for his kind remarks. We have worked together on many, many issues in a bipartisan way of importance to the people of America and I think for the interests of the abused and unjustly treated around the world. And, as always, I am grateful and pleased to work with the gentleman on this issue as well. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this resolution, H. Con. Res. 117, on May 25 of this year to address a deeply troubling development at the U.N. Sadly, the United Nations is again on the verge of reverting to its bad old ways that we thought they had dispensed with in the 1970s. I am talking about the United Nations once again using its resources and the American taxpayers' money to bash the only democracy in the Middle East and America's strongest ally in the Middle East, strongest military, economic and cultural ally, the State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, this is at a time when, if peace is not at hand, the atmosphere for peace in the Middle East is as great as we have seen in quite a long time. What happened? On February 9 of this year, February 9 of 1999, the United Nations General Assembly in an Emergency Special Session decided to call for the reconvening of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Now for those who do not follow the U.N. and the Geneva Convention, the Fourth Geneva Convention has not been convened for 50 years. So what was the Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly to call for the first reconvening of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 50 years all about? Well, we know what the Geneva Convention was supposed to be about. In 1949, it was established in the aftermath of the Nazi atrocities in Europe to deal with the protection of civilians in time of war. So what is going to happen now on July 15, a handful of days from now, unless the United States and world leaders intervene? According to the General Assembly of the United Nations who has now directed the convening of the Fourth Geneva Convention after 50 years, on July 15, the Geneva Convention is to be brought together to condemn the genocidal crime of house construction in Jerusalem by Israel. Can my colleagues believe it? Now, when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, when China conquered Tibet, during the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf War, the invasion of Kosovo by Serbia, all the carnage brought forth upon millions and millions of people was the Geneva Convention called for to be reconvened? No. In dozens and dozens of places over the last 50 years around this planet, millions of people have literally been tortured, enslaved and slaughtered, but the U.N. never called for the reconvening of the Geneva Convention. Only now in February of 1999 because of what they call Israel's crime of home construction in Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, if it was not so destructive of the truth, destructive of the meaning of the words, destructive of the mission of the U.N., destructive of the purpose of the Geneva Convention, it would be laughable. But this is no joke. Everyone voted for this resolution at the U.N. in the General Assembly except for America and Israel. What should we do about it? In a couple of days, notwithstanding the fact that we have the totalitarian leaders of Syria and Chairman Arafat and the President of Egypt saying we have a new day, a new era of peace that is on our doorstep, and the new duly elected President of Israel, Mr. Barak, espousing such a compelling and poetic commitment to peace between Israel and its neighbors, when all the parties at issue are speaking of an atmosphere of peace, reconciliation and commitment to finding a compromise for all the peoples of the region, what does the U.N. General Assembly do? They try to destroy the purpose of the Geneva Convention, humiliate and degrade the truth, and reconvene the Fourth Geneva Convention to condemn housing construction by Israel. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased that the Committee on International Relations last week condemned this action and voted to pass H. Con. Resolution 117. I am asking my colleagues in the House of Representatives also to pass H. Con. Resolution 117 which does four things: It commends the United States State Department for opposing these efforts to politicize the Geneva Convention. It urges our State Department to continue its opposition against the U.N.'s plans to convene their anti-Israel Geneva convention, which is set to occur on July 15, a handful of days from now unless the leaders of the U.N. and other leaders in the world stop it. It also calls on member states of the United Nations to join America in opposing the politicization of the Fourth Geneva Convention. And it, lastly, urges the U.N. General Secretary, Kofi Annan, and Switzerland, the host country, to refrain from assisting in the convening of this conference. Modest steps, considering what is at stake: the integrity of the U.N., the integrity of the Geneva Convention, and justice. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 117. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are real issues of dispute in the Middle East. There are territorial futures. There are issues of security. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) said, there is a process that has been agreed to by all the parties, the Oslo Peace Accords, by which the parties would sit down, one across the table from the other, and resolve their differences peaceably. Our action today does not prejudice what will happen in those discussions. We wish them well. What we are doing today is saying as a Nation a few things: Number one, that the free people of the United States of America will not tolerate the abuse of the United Nations by those nations who wish to use that forum to bash the only democracy in the Middle East, who happens to be America's number one military, economic, and cultural ally in that entire region and has been so for 50 years; and that we in America, we, the free people in the United States, will not stand by while totalitarian, dictatorial regimes represented in the U.N. at the General Assembly call for the convening of the Geneva Convention after 50 years, only to bash housing construction in Israel, and to have ignored 50 years of slaughter, torture, and torment upon millions and millions of human beings around the world by dictators and thugs; and that we, the free and strong people of the United States, will stand by our number one ally in the region, the State of Israel, even when we are outnumbered at the U.N. by those who would seek to destroy that forum as a forum for truth and justice. So, Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), our ranking member, for their support on this and many other issues where we have worked so well together and their support for this particular House Resolution 117. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I say this: I agree with the gentleman from Arizona that this puts a disturbing light on many of our efforts to have our debt to the U.N. repaid. I for one believe that it is unconscionable for us to have such a debt at the U.N. and not have it be repaid. I believe there has been progress at the U.N. But when the member states of the U.N. and the U.N. Secretary and the General Assembly participate in this out and out Israel bashing, which is absurd, unjust, unfair by any measure, and sets a terrible precedent for the abuse of the Geneva Convention process, then we cannot ignore it. We must let those who voted in favor of this U.N. General Assembly resolution know that we will not forget their participation in this effort. We will remember. We will not forget what they have done. It only hurts the cause of the U.N. I may differ with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) on the repayment of the debt, but I do agree with him that this does not make their case any better when they allow this forum to be abused in such a way.

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

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), and I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for their support in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 144. This resolution serves as a reminder that three humanitarian aid workers are now being held unjustly in Yugoslavia. These three CARE workers in the organization called CARE were arrested and falsely accused of espionage. They were wrongly convicted by a Serbian military court and received sentences ranging from 4 to 12 years. Let me tell a little bit about the background. Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace are two Australian nationals who were employees of CARE. They were detained on March 31, 1999, and later accused of operating and managing a spy ring and being employed by a spy ring. Branko Jelen, who is a citizen of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was arrested 1 week later on the same charge. A couple of months later, on May 29, 1999, a Serbian military court dismissed every element of the original indictment against these three CARE International humanitarian workers. But then the court, the same day, at the same moment, proceeded to convict these three individuals on an entirely new set of charges, namely, as they said, passing on information to a foreign organization, namely CARE International; and then they sentenced Mr. Pratt to 12 years' imprisonment, Mr. Jelen to 6 years' imprisonment and Mr. Wallace to 4 years' imprisonment. This charge, which they introduced on the day they dismissed all the other charges, was introduced at the time they read the verdict. They said, ``You are hereby charged with providing information and you are hereby sentenced.'' Can my colleagues imagine that? And that was a court of law. Mr. Speaker, needless to say, it did not provide any opportunity for these three individuals to present any defense to the charges that were instantaneously imposed upon them along with the sentence. It appears that these three CARE workers were convicted simply of providing situation reports, a standard in the providing of services by CARE International where the workers in the field provide situation reports about the security, about the humanitarian needs in the locale that they are working in. It raises concerns about the ability of any international humanitarian relief organization to provide relief services anywhere around the world if by merely providing a situation report can get someone convicted, albeit without a trial, of spying. Leaders around the world, including U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Finnish President Ahtisaari, have raised this issue and have also sought the release of these men. Mr. Speaker, we as the United States Congress and as an American people need to let all humanitarian workers around the world know that we will fight for them if they ever get unjustly imprisoned. We will let Yugoslavia know by the House's action that we demand the immediate release of these three international humanitarian workers under the employ of CARE, one of the world's largest international relief and development organizations. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 144.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, recent advances in modern medicine, especially in the area of pharmaceutical innovation, have yielded extraordinary benefits for all Americans, but especially for our seniors. In fact, over one-third of all the medicines approved by the FDA in the last decade have targeted diseases that are common in the elderly; and while these medicines are good and beneficial for our seniors and all Americans as a whole, the fact is that some of these drugs are very expensive. Those seniors that depend on Medicare for their health coverage are especially affected by the high costs of medications because the Medicare program in most cases does not cover the cost of prescription drugs. This past week I sat in a living room in my district in South Hackensack, New Jersey, and heard from seniors about the financial hardships they must endure to pay for their medications. Mr. Speaker, America's seniors should not have to choose between paying their rent each month or buying the medications that will save or extend their lives. I commend President Clinton for raising the level of national debate on prescription drugs for America's seniors, and I urge all of my colleagues to rise to this challenge for the seniors of today and for the seniors of tomorrow.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2014. This legislation is important to protect the ability of people to live in one State and work in another. Very simply, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on nonresidents. H.R. 2014 was introduced 3 weeks ago, after the State of New York repealed its commuter tax for suburban New Yorkers who commute to work in New York City; but the State of New York decided that the hundreds of thousands of commuters from New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania who commute into New York City should continue to be taxed. Had the New York Supreme Court not recently held this law unconstitutional, it would have gone into effect on July 1 and would have amounted to an unfair tax of several hundred dollars per commuter per year. With 240,000 New Jersey residents working in New York City alone, the result of this law would have been to give a huge tax break to the suburban residents of New York at the expense of suburbanites in New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as well as being blatantly unfair, the New York law is blatantly unconstitutional. Two hundred twenty years ago, the framers of the Constitution decided that they did not want 13 separate fiefdoms once they decided to declare ourselves one Nation. They did not want members from one newly-formed State to have to show a passport at the checkpoint or a borderline of one of the new other 13 States in our new United States. They passed the Constitution to prevent that. In particular, the Privileges and Immunities clause in article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution says, and I quote, citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, unquote. The law passed by the State of New York flies in the face of the United States Constitution. It clearly gives privileges to commuters from the suburbs of New York at the expense of commuters from the suburbs of New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. The New York law also violates the Commerce clause of the United States Constitution, which allows citizens to travel freely throughout the different States of the United States. It also violates the due process and equal protection clauses, which protect Americans from being discriminated against unfairly by the States or the Federal government. The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that States may not impose a tax on nonresident taxpayers simply because they reside in another State. Fortunately, last Friday the New York Supreme Court held that the New York law is unconstitutional. However, this ruling does not change the need for us today to act here in the House of Representatives. The State of New York could still appeal the ruling, and the New York Court of Appeals could reverse the lower court's decision. It is imperative that this matter go forward today; that H.R. 2014 pass today, not just for the residents of New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, but for the residents of every State in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, a tax that unfairly penalizes Americans solely because of the State that they live in is inherently unconstitutional and un-American. It deserves to be overturned. Thus, I ask my colleagues to pass H.R. 2014.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I joined my Democratic colleagues in signing a discharge petition to force the Republican leadership here in the House to bring the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights up for debate and a vote. The Republican leadership refuses to permit debate and a vote on the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights. The Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights is based on a revolutionary idea that managed care should be more about managing the health of our loved ones than managing the profits of the HMOs. We need to ensure that treatment decisions are made by a patient's doctors, not by an HMO accounting clerk; that patients can enforce their rights by taking HMOs to court if the HMO wrongfully denies surgery, specialists, hospitalization or other medically necessary care that causes the death or injury to the patients. Moderates on both sides of the aisle have endorsed the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights, but the Republican leadership here in the House of Representatives refuses to allow us to debate and vote on it. I urge my Republican colleagues to persuade your Republican leadership here in the House to allow debate and a vote on the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for yielding me this time. It has been a great privilege and pleasure to have worked with the gentleman from Indiana on this amendment. He has been a leader on so many issues of concern to parents and schoolchildren, and his expertise and his dedication to the area of education is unparalleled in this House, and it has been an honor to work with him. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to join with him as a cosponsor of this amendment. I thank the Committee on Rules for allowing our amendments to be joined together. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Rothman amendment. It is very straightforward. This amendment would allow a State or a local government to use this Federal grant money to purchase or lease metal detectors for their public elementary or secondary schools if they so choose. It is a terrible reality today that our schools are not as safe as they once were. Many children are afraid to go to school because they are afraid they are going to be shot. Tragically, these fears are not unfounded. The school shootings in Conyers, Littleton, Jonesboro, Springfield, Paducah, and Pearl have taught us that children are bringing guns to school. Worse, they are using them to shoot and kill other children. The schools in America are trying their best to deal with this problem in a variety of ways, but I believe that the only way to ensure that guns are kept out of schools is to install metal detectors. But as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said, not every school will wish to exercise this option, and that is their right and their judgment as a local school district making this kind of local decision. But other school districts may feel that metal detectors are the way to go and are necessary for their districts. One thing we have learned is that metal detectors work. They have worked in the airports for the last 25 years. When the Federal Aviation Administration, in response to a horrific wave of terrorism that terrorized our Nation, decided to install metal detectors in our airports, they have worked. The amount of guns and terrorism brought on our airplanes has declined dramatically. We can and should have the same result for our schools and schoolchildren. Did they eliminate terrorism? No. Did they address the root causes of airplane hijackings? No. And so metal detectors in schools will not on their own address all the problems of gun violence or eliminate the root causes of juvenile crime. They will not even force parents or compel parents to spend more time with their children or to take more of an interest in their children's lives, or even to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of their children in the first place. But what metal detectors will do is keep guns out of our schools. We have, as a body, and as a Democratic Party, tried to address the whole host of reasons for gun violence and juvenile crime. But this amendment deals with keeping guns out of schools. I will just tell my colleagues a little bit about Elizabeth, New Jersey, my State, where 4 years ago they decided to install metal detectors in the middle schools and the high school. There has not been one single gun brought into those schools since metal detectors were installed. Why has every school in America that has wished to install metal detectors not done so? Because it is expensive. Walk-through metal detectors can cost up to $8,000 apiece. Hand-held metal detectors can cost several hundred dollars. Now, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) says, this is not a Federal mandate. It is an option for local school districts to make the choice whether to use this Federal grant money for metal detectors or some other safety devices in their own judgment for their own school need. Some schools will not apply for metal detectors, but those who will should know that they will then have the ability to get some of this Federal grant money for metal detectors which will be effective in keeping guns out of their schools. Metal detectors are one effective way to make our schools safer, and local school districts should have this choice. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, this week we have addressed the issue of juvenile crime by passing some important measures. We have voted for mentoring programs, after-school programs, juvenile witness assistance programs, toll-free hotlines for anonymous student tipsters, and we have even voted to help local communities install metal detectors for their schools. Only one substantive step and the most important step needs to be taken: taking the guns out of the hands of the children. Mr. Chairman, I am a Democrat who believes in the second amendment right to bear arms; the right to bear arms by responsible adults. There were many factors that contributed to the recent school killings: lack of parental involvement, the prevalence of violent, cruel and sadistic video games, television shows, and movies. But when all is said and done, the main culprit was the easy accessibility of guns to the children. Mr. Chairman, some people think that Americans cannot do two things at once. They think that it is impossible to allow law-abiding adults to own guns while at the same time restricting children's access to guns. They underestimate the intelligence and the ability of the American people to recognize and respond to the need for responsible gun control measures where our children are concerned. Most Americans and most Democrats support common-sense gun legislation that allows law-abiding adults to have guns, but keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and children. The Senate has already done their job: Passed common sense gun laws. Now it is up to the House to do the same. It is up to us not to fail our children. I urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy-Roukema and Conyers- Campbell amendments. Let us not let our children down.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my deep appreciation to a remarkable citizen of both America and Israel, David Raab of Teaneck, NJ, who will soon be moving to the State of Israel. As so many people in the Jewish community in New Jersey and across the United States already know, David has been, for decades now, a tireless pro-Israel activist. And through the years, he has shown an almost magical ability to bring people together for the purpose of strengthening America's alliance with their number one ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel. For this, David Raab deserves the admiration and respect of all people who care deeply about the need to ensure the safety and security of Israel and her citizens. I have known David as a dear personal friend and as an outstanding leader and member of a number of distinguished Jewish organizations. I have also known David as a devoted father and husband, a successful businessman, and an individual committed to making his community and neighborhood a better place to live. In all these respects, David has been supported by his loving wife Leah and his three children, Yitzhak, Aviel and Aliza. As David and his family prepare to depart for Israel, I want to publicly thank him for the advice and counsel he has generously offered over the years to me and members of this august body on matters concerning Israel and the entire Middle East. Whether it was helping craft a strategy to secure justice for Israel at the United Nations, or helping Members of Congress focus on the need to transfer to the United States those Palestinians suspected of killing Americans in Israel, David's advice has always been highly valued by members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. I will miss David and wish him the very best as he begins a new and exciting chapter of his life in the State of Israel.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1501. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe that the grant programs it contains will be effective in helping our States and local governments combat juvenile crime. It adds the money necessary for antidrug, youth gang and youth violence programs. It provides more money for youth probation officers and prosecutors, more money for drug courts and gun courts, and more money for valuable after-school programs. But, unfortunately, there are those in this body who would try to amend this bill with poison pill amendments that should be, at the very least, debated and voted on separately from our juvenile justice bill. I do applaud what my chairman, the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Hyde), is trying to do by offering amendment number 112. I respect the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Hyde) greatly. Unfortunately, that bill goes too far in trying to protect our children from explicit sexual or violent material. On the whole, it does some good things. But its cure is so extreme as to practically kill the patient. It does not strike the common-sense balance between protections for our children and retaining our constitutional liberties. It is so broad as to be unconstitutional and unenforceable. We cannot ban parents from singing ``Rockabye Baby'' because it contains the image of a child falling out of a tree. Nor can we ban books like Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn because they contain some levels of violence. No, I do believe that there is too much violence, cruelty, and sadism in our culture; and I do believe that it occurs too frequently on television, in movies, in video games, and even in the lyrics of songs on the radio. But parents have to get involved and do their jobs to monitor what our kids watch on television and how long they can watch television, to keep children out of movies that they are not old enough to see in the first place, to keep them from renting R-rated or PG-13-rated movies if they are not old enough, to install smut-blocking censoring devices on their own home computers, and to keep guns out of their own children's hands. Yes, we must get the parents involved as one key element in addressing youth violence, as well as keeping guns out of the kids' hands. We can protect our children without outlawing everything from nursery rhymes to classic books and movies. The juvenile justice bill that I cosponsored did so many wonderful and important things. It was adopted in a bipartisan fashion by Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are now about to impose poison pill amendments on a bipartisan juvenile justice bill for some ideological reason or perhaps some other good-faith reason. But it is the wrong thing to do. Let us debate these other amendments separately and pass a clean, bipartisan juvenile justice bill.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation, in a colloquy at this time. Mr. Chairman, the loud noise generated from aircraft is having a negative impact on the quality of life and public health for thousands of residents living in areas with aircraft noise problems. In my congressional district, much of the aircraft noise is generated from the older, general aviation aircraft. At Teterboro Airport, which is located in my district, roughly 15 percent of the aircraft are still equipped with the louder stage-1 or stage-2 engines, and these 15 percent of the aircraft account for 90 percent, 90 percent, of all of the aircraft noise violations at that airport. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the GAO, at the request of leaders from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is conducting an investigation into aircraft noise to determine whether planes weighing less than 75,000 pounds should abide by the stricter stage-3 noise levels. Is that the chairman's understanding?

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

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking member.

Mr. ROTHMAN

Mr. ROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I am a Democrat who believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but a Democrat who believes that we need gun control to keep guns out of the hands of our children. There are plenty of causes of the violence in Littleton and in Georgia: parental neglect, teacher neglect, those young people who fired those weapons and committed those crimes, violence, sadistic and cruel videos and movies, and video games. But the number one culprit is the guns that the kids use to kill the other kids. Some people say we cannot do two things at once in America, we cannot enjoy the right to bear arms and go hunting and use our guns lawfully and at the same time enact laws to keep guns out of the hands of 12- and 14-year-olds. They are wrong. They underestimate the intelligence and ability of Americans to do two important things at once, recognize our right to bear arms, but protect our children. The Republican leadership must stop its efforts to water down and delay reasonable, common-sense gun control that keeps guns out of the hands of our children. I urge my Republican colleagues to get their leadership to allow reasonable, common-sense gun control to be passed in this House.