Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Providence Pediatric Medical Day Care, Inc., for its valuable service to New Jersey's most medically challenged children. Providence provides world class medical day care with ongoing monitoring and assessment by professional nurses for a broad range of illnesses and medical conditions. Serving an overwhelmingly inner city infant population, the company works with parents to help advise them on health conditions and care standards that can be followed at home.

On April 22nd, 2005, Providence will hold an official grand opening of its new corporate office in West Berlin, New Jersey. They currently employ 65 professional staff, and operate three pediatric medical daycare centers in Camden, Lawnside, and Pleasantville, New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, Providence Pediatric provides essential services to some of the neediest people in our community. I applaud them for their hard work, and I wish everyone at Providence the best of luck in their new office.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my friend's amendment.

When there is a decision being made to site a plant which, if there were an accident, could be catastrophic, I think that the people who make the decision whether to build the plant or not should be politically accountable to the people who live in the place where the plant is going to be sited, they should have visited the place where the plant is going to be sited, and they should have some clue as to what the locality is of where the plant will be sited.

The issue is who gets to decide, a stranger or someone intimately familiar with the community.

For all those who believe in home rule, vote ``yes'' on the Castle amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the shameful imprisonment of Mr. Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, a pro-democracy activist in Cuba who has been jailed for his outspoken leadership in the Cuban democracy movement.

Mr. Garcia is the regional coordinator for the Christian Liberation Movement in Santiago Province. Through this leadership position, he has mobilized many Cuban youth for democratic change, and has focused on accomplishing the movement's chief objective: to unite citizens that are willing to defend and promote human rights and achieve changes in the Cuban society through peaceful means.

As part of the March 2003 crackdown on Cuban dissidents in which 75 prodemocracy activists were arrested by the Castro regime, Garcia was captured and sentenced to serve 25 years in prison. The prosecution had originally requested that Garcia receive the death penalty. Currently jailed in a prison located in Western Cuba, Garcia is being held over 1,000 kilometers away from his wife and two young sons.

Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia has dedicated his life to achieving positive change in Cuba. He has worked in an effort to bring the basic rights that we enjoy in the United States to the Cuban people, and has been imprisoned for 25 years because of these efforts. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the United States Congress continue to oppose the Castro regime and adhere to the travel and aid sanctions that are currently in place for Cuba. Mr. Garcia, along with his brother Luis Enrique and activists such as Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, have been willing to risk their freedom so as to ensure that their fellow countrymen can truly be free. They need and deserve the support of the United States, and I ask that my colleagues join me in urging that the Administration call for their immediate and unconditional release.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the people of Lebanon, who have stood up against fear and oppression, and have embraced the idea of a democratic future. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese patriots have taken to the streets of Beirut to demand national self-determination and real democratic rule. Their courage has led to the withdrawal of Syrian forces, and created the opportunity for a peaceful transition of power.

Lebanon's history has not been an easy one. The 15-year civil war begun in 1975 produced national upheaval and chaos, and pitted ethnic groups against each other. It left around 100,000 people dead, and the country in total disrepair. The civil war ended in 1990, but Syrian forces continued to occupy Lebanon. Syria, one of the region's foremost supporters of terrorism, has been heavily involved in Lebanese politics, and has used fear and intimidation to suppress the voice of its people. The citizens of Lebanon have bravely taken a stand against terrorism so as to inspire a truly free, democratic society. Now that Syrian forces have begun to withdraw, there is an opportunity for Lebanon to create a social and political contract that establishes the rights of each individual regardless of religion, race, creed, or ethnicity. It is vital that Lebanon continue its progression towards a true democratic peace by holding free and transparent elections, on time, as scheduled, under the supervision of international observers.

The Lebanese people have recognized that there exists an alternative to the brutal, autocratic governments of the past. They seek a new beginning, and a new voice. Their courage has begun a process of reform that has sent ripple effects across the broader Middle East and around the world. I admire their courage to stand up against terrorism and peacefully demand change, and encourage my colleagues to voice their support for the citizens of Lebanon and recognize their historic movement towards democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the recipients of the 2005 Alice Paul Equality Award: Vivian Sanks King, Esquire; Jennifer S. Macleod, Ph.D; Ruth B. Mandel, Ph.D; and the Honorable Sylvia B. Pressler. These remarkable individuals have helped to build a more just reality for women in New Jersey and beyond.

For 20 years, the Alice Paul Institute has worked to empower women and girls to become leaders in their communities, careers, and daily lives. Born in Mt. Laurel, NJ, Alice Paul was a lifelong advocate for equal rights for women, and led the final campaign for women's right to vote. She authored and lobbied for the Equal Rights Amendment, a much needed piece of legislation that would guarantee the equality of rights under the law for all persons regardless of gender.

The recipients of the 2005 Alice Paul Equality Award have all demonstrated a strong commitment to advancing women's equality throughout their lives. Vivian Sanks King, Esquire, currently serving as Vice President of Legal Management and General Counsel of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, is a community leader in the health law field, and is one of the first African- American attorneys appointed to head the legal department of a major academic medical center and university. Dr. Jennifer Macleod is an outspoken advocate for women's equality: she is a leader in the fight for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, and was a co-founder and first president of the first NOW chapter in New Jersey. Dr. Ruth Mandel, currently the Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, teaches and writes about U.S. women's political leadership, and has received numerous distinctions for her extraordinary public service. The Honorable Sylvia Pressler, recently retired, served as the presiding judge for administration of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. She was the first female appellate law clerk and the second woman ever to

serve on the appellate court. These four remarkable women deserve our thanks for their outstanding work on behalf of women in New Jersey and everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, there remains today an equality gap between women and men that contradicts the basic principles of our great Nation. With the tireless efforts of the Alice Paul Institute and the 2005 Alice Paul Equality Award honorees, this gap is being closed. I thank all those who have sought a more just America through the advancement of equality for women, and encourage my colleagues to support this cause in the U.S. Congress. Together we can continue to create better opportunities for all women.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened over the pain and suffering of Ms. Schiavo and her family. This is a tragedy of great depth.

I cannot imagine the pain that Ms. Schiavo has endured. As a husband, I certainly can empathize with Mr. Schiavo. As a father, I can empathize with the feelings of Ms. Schiavo's mother and father.

My feelings for the pain of this family are precisely the reason for my position on this bill. In the first instance, tragic choices such as those confronting this family should be made by the family itself. In a case such as this, in which the family cannot come to a consensus, the courts are the proper place for decisions to be made.

The Florida courts have examined this matter in great detail for a very long time. For any legislative body--least of all the Federal legislature--to impose its will is an abuse of its power.

Excruciating decisions such as this belong first to families, and only if there cannot be agreement within a family--in the courts. The political process is the least appropriate place for such a decision to be made.

Mr. Speaker, my statement on March 10, 2005 during consideration of H. Res. 144 was specifically about my support for the Pascrell/Menendez/LoBiondo Pay-to-Play amendment, rather than the rule itself. Most importantly, I would like to thank Representatives Pascrell, Menendez, and LoBiondo for their steadfast work on ensuring that New Jersey maintains the right to reform its ethical standards.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the rule, H. Res. 144, to the TEA-LU, H.R. 3, bill, which makes in order the Pascrell/Menendez/LoBiondo Pay-to-Play amendment. The consideration of this amendment is crucial to restoring the integrity of New Jersey's government and to protecting federal funds allocated to the State.

New Jersey government and politics are long overdue for a cleansing. For too long, New Jersey taxpayers have paid a corruption tax--the cost of decisions made to benefit campaign donors rather than taxpayers. At the present time, the New Jersey legislature is attempting to restore its integrity by barring companies, who have made political contributions to a state government or political party official, from receiving state contracts worth more than $17,500. This is a critical component of the State's reform package and must be enacted and maintained for genuine change to occur in New Jersey.

Standing in the way of New Jersey's cleansing is the US Department of Transportation, USDOT, who has cited concerns that our State's pay-to- play reform would illegally stifle competition for government contracts. New Jersey has challenged the USDOT's decision in the court. Currently, the case is pending.

To weed out the corruption that has plagued our State and resulted in our citizens mistrust of their government, the Pascrell/Menendez/ LoBiondo amendment is essential. Consideration and subsequently the passage of this amendment are imperative for New Jersey to attain real ethical reform.

Again, I commend the Rules Committee for declaring the Pascrell/ Menendez/LoBiondo Pay-to-Play amendment in order today and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, while I did not support the Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization bill that was passed by this body, I would like to thank Chairman Boehner, as well as the Republican and Democratic Committee staffs, for assisting me in adding two significant amendments to the bill.

The first of these amendments relates to domestic microcredit, and ensures that local one-stop centers may use funding to provide information about the benefits of microcredit lending, and the local institutions that provide such loans, to individuals partaking in entrepreneurial training. The second amendment creates a demonstration project which will provide funds to industry consortia for the purpose of workforce training and development. Businesses, institutions of higher education, employee representatives, and workforce development community-based organizations within an industry will be able to join together to identify and address workforce needs within their given industry. These funds can be used to advance worker skills, conduct analyses of skill deficiencies and plans to address them, and develop rigorous training and education programs related to employment in high- growth, high-wage industries. The amendment creates a ``win-win'' for employers and employees, as it would help employers improve their workforce, and allow employees to obtain the skills necessary to advance their careers.

Again, I feel strongly that these amendments will result in positive changes to current law, and I thank Chairman Boehner as well as the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Education and the Workforce Committee for their assistance.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time.

I am opposed to this bill because it reflects a misunderstanding of the proper way to build a successful career and a gross misinterpretation of our constitutional tradition.

With respect to its misunderstanding of the best way to build a career, I think that these personal retraining accounts, although clearly well intentioned, have exactly the wrong effect on an unemployed person. The purpose of workforce investment is not to move a person from a position of unemployment to a position of employment for a while. The purpose of the workforce investment is to move a person from dependency to opportunity and eventually to prosperity. The great dividing line in the American economy is whether one has 2 years of college or not. People with more than 2 years of college tend to have stable jobs and high and rising incomes. This bill says to a person who is laid off from an industrial industry or some other employer like that take the first job that comes along.

As the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) said, they are virtually compelled to do that. The first job is not always the best job. But, more importantly, from the public's point of view, it may be a temporary job. It will move the person from a period of unemployment to a brief period of reemployment to another period of unemployment. Our goal should not be temporary employment. Our goal should be opportunity and prosperity in the long run.

With respect to the constitutional misinterpretation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) will offer an amendment later in this debate that needs to be adopted. We are not opposed to faith-based organizations continuing the work they are presently doing in job training. They do a great job and they should continue. If the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) amendment passes, that work will not be discontinued. If the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) amendment passes, here is what will happen: We think that with Federal money a religious organization should not be able to say we will not hire Catholics to serve meals at a clinic. We think with Federal money, an organization should not be able to say we do not hire Jews to do job training. We think with Federal money, people should not be able to say we do not want evangelical Christians or Muslims or Buddhists doing job counseling.

This country started because we wanted to get away from religious persecution and discrimination. It is an abrogation of our constitutional traditions to enshrine that in the law, and that is what this bill does. The gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) amendment corrects that mistake and it should be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, next month my family and I will observe my wife's Jewish tradition and recite the ancient story, the Passover at our family seder. Later this month, I will honor my religious tradition and commemorate Christ's crucifixion on Good Friday and his resurrection on Easter Sunday. And today I will honor the principles behind the United States Constitution and vote for the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) amendment.

The principle here is that when an organization takes Federal money, it takes with it the responsibility not to discriminate. I do not think we should ever have a situation in this country where an organization takes taxpayers' money collected from everyone and then says if they want to be a job counselor in our agency, they cannot be a Catholic, they cannot be Jewish, they cannot be Muslim, they cannot be an evangelical Christian. Our religious organizations are free and should remain free to discriminate with their own funds. That is the religious liberty that our friends on the other side refer to correctly. But that liberty does not extend to the power to use someone else's money to subsidize the practice of one's religion. That is the establishment of a religion which is specifically precluded by the first amendment of the Constitution.

It would be a travesty to reject the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) amendment. It would be wholly consistent with the religious principles of this country to adopt it. I would urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, in the most significant alteration since 1996 to the United States-Japan Security Alliance, the United States and Japan listed in a joint statement on February 19 the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan Strait issue as a ``common strategic objective.''

It goes without saying that Taiwan welcomed the move; China on the other hand responded in an irate fashion.

The joint statement comes at a time when China's continued refusal to renounce the use of force against Taiwan is already highlighted by China's announcement 2 months ago that it will enact its so-called ``Anti-Secession Law'' in the beginning of March--a law which may be used to justify a military attack on Taiwan if Taiwan formally declares independence.

Additionally, China published a Defense Policy White Paper in which it threatened to ``crush'' Taiwan if the island declares independence, and in which it states that it is the ``sacred responsibility'' of the PRC army to stop Taiwan from ``splitting the country.''

The ``Taiwan Relations Act,'' which has regulated the United States- Taiwan relationship since 1979, specifically states that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with China in 1979 rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means; and that the United States considers any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.

This ``Anti-Secession Law'' is a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific, and therefore of grave concern to the United States. I believe it is crucial that we and Japan publicly oppose China's Anti-Secession Law and its Defense White Paper, for these constitute an extremely aggressive move against Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, United States policy must remain clear that nobody but the people of Taiwan has the right to determine the future of Taiwan. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding the recent joint statement by the United States and Japan, and reaffirming our continued support for the people of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on February 15th, 2005. One to recognize the contributions of Jibreel Khazan (Ezell Blair, Jr.), David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain, the ``Greensboro Four'', to the civil rights movement and another to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, Florida, as the ``Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building.'' Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on both rollcall 32 and rollcall 33.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor the first graduating class of the Respond Culinary Academy, an innovative vocational program that provides youth with essential vocational skills needed for success when they return to their homes and communities. A collaborative effort between the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission, Respond, Inc., and Union Local 54, the program looks to help juveniles transition successfully back into their communities by preparing them for jobs in the restaurant industry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Jeff Green, Shawn Harris, Ron Gatewood, and Raafat Hanna for their work in providing an invaluable service to their homes and communities. I would also like to honor John DiDonna, Tim Wilson, Remel Ortiz, Kevin Hicks, and Levond Clemmons, who have successfully graduated from the Respond Culinary Program. May their success in this program help them realize their full potential for rewarding and successful lives.

Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 2005 the United States Congress lost one of its finest Members with the passing of Bob Matsui. Recently re-elected to his 14th term by an overwhelming margin, Bob was an outstanding leader, beloved by his colleagues in Congress and his constituents alike.

As the third ranking Democrat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and the Ranking Member on the Social Security Subcommittee, Bob served as an outspoken champion for the preservation of our social security system. In addition, Bob was a member of the Executive Board for the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), one of the most active caucuses in Congress. The trust and respect that his colleagues had for him was demonstrated last Congress, when he was elected as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

As we convene to begin the 109th Congress, it is important that we all pause to remember the noble work that Congressman Matsui had accomplished during his 26 years in these halls. I would ask that all of my colleagues also keep his loved ones in their thoughts, including his beloved wife Doris; his son, Brian; his daughter-in-law, Amy; and his granddaughter Anna. Bob Matsui was a great man, as well as an outstanding leader, and his service to our great Nation will never be forgotten.