Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, in my State, of course, we have so many opportunities like that. The list is endless. I mentioned that we have more Superfund sites than any other State. I think we have over 6,000 hazardous waste sites that have been identified by the State of New Jersey outside of Superfund, most of which would be eligible for a brownfields initiative. Obviously, the Federal government needs to do more in that respect, as well. I would like to think of ways, as the gentleman is pointing out, to do progressive things on Superfund, on brownfields, on other hazardous waste and other types of environmental cleanup. That is really what I hope that the gentleman and I and others who are concerned about the environment would be concentrating on. We do not want to spend our time trying to prevent good laws from being gutted, which is essentially what we have been doing for the last couple of months. My district, I think the gentleman knows, a significant part of it is along the Jersey shore, along the ocean. When I was first elected in 1988, I was really elected on an environmental platform, because that was the year when all of the beaches were closed. The tourism industry is number one in New Jersey. People think of New Jersey as the petrochemical State, but we actually earn more dollars in New Jersey from tourism than even from the petrochemical industry. I think we were losing $5 billion that summer because the beaches were closed. A number of initiatives have been taken since then in Congress on a bipartisan basis, as well as in the State legislature. When the current EPA administrator, Ms. Whitman, was the Governor of New Jersey, she presided over a lot of these initiatives to clean up the ocean. Yet now we see the opposite happening here on the Federal level. One of the things that happened in New Jersey that was used as an example nationally, and now faces a budget cut, was the Beaches Act. New Jersey was the first State in the country that passed a law that said that we had to do testing on a regular basis during the summer months when people can swim at the Jersey shore. We have to test the beaches, and if they do not meet a certain Federal standard, then the beach has to be closed. Rather, we have to test the water, and if it does not meet a certain standard, the beach has to be closed and it has to be posted that one cannot bathe. This was a result of the wash-up of all the debris in 1988. We put this into effect, and I and some Republicans on the other side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) was a sponsor with me, we actually moved a bill in the last session of Congress called the Beaches Act that implemented that nationally. It was signed by President Clinton I guess in October, before the end of the last session. That said that now every State would be mandated to do the same type of testing for water quality, and close beaches and post signs and publicly announce if the water quality was not up to snuff. We authorized $30 million under that legislation that was signed last fall to implement that program. Again, our EPA administrator, Ms. Whitman, was touting that program early in this administration, about how it was a great program and it was modeled after New Jersey. Then when I saw the budget a couple of weeks ago, I saw that the President's budget, instead of appropriating $30 million, it appropriated something like $2 million or $3 million, which would not even allow more than a handful of States to implement the program. So again, it just seems so unfortunate. I do not want to keep harping and being so partisan about it, but it just seems so unfortunate that at a time when there are a lot of progressive things that could be done, proactive things that could be done around here, like what the gentleman just described, we still have to talk about just trying to make sure that things do not get worse. I do not want to be pessimistic because I am still optimistic, but it is unfortunate to see what we have had to contend with in the last few months.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he is bringing up, I think, a very important issue. In sort of a general sense, when we talk about the environment, there are a lot of new technologies and new ways of doing things that really can make a difference. That is one of the reasons I find what I have been seeing from this administration so disappointing, because I really believe that the environment and industry or business can work together, and that there is no reason why a pro-environment position cannot be also a pro-jobs creation, or a pro-economic development position. Certainly, when we talk about new technologies, that is so true. Last week during the congressional recess we did a bus tour, I guess it was last Wednesday, where myself and the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Holt and Mr. Pascrell, went to various parts of the State to highlight some of the concerns we had with what the Bush administration was doing. One of the stops was in Linden, New Jersey, which is a town that has a number of utilities and also refineries. We were there with Public Service Electric and Gas, which is one of our major utilities in the State. They were actually building a new plant that was going to be gas-fired, natural gas-fired, and that was replacing some older oil- burning plants to generate electricity. They estimated that the new plants would cut down on the amount of carbon dioxide by one-third. I just could not help it, I am standing there and talking to these business leaders, people representing the utility, who by no means would be perceived as Democrats or liberals or anything like that, and they are just explaining why this can be done and how easy it is to do, how it saves money and cuts down on carbon dioxide. For the life of me, I do not understand the theory of this administration. The gentleman talked about the energy efficiency of air conditioners, as the gentleman mentioned before. We can talk about so many ways. In fact, the United States really is taking the leadership in terms of new technologies that would cut down on air emissions, and make it so that not only us but other countries would not continue to contribute so much to the problem of global climate change. These are new technologies that we can sell to other parts of the world that would create jobs here at home because they are high-tech. There is absolutely no reason to perceive that environmental initiatives are somehow going to be too expensive or lose jobs or hurt industry. I think it is just the opposite. It is just another reason why I am very concerned about what is happening with this administration. We talked about the budget. I think the gentleman mentioned renewables. I believe that with regard to research on renewable resources, solar power, wind power, that the budget the President came in with cuts the amount of research money in half. This morning I was down with the group of American Indians that are concerned about the environment, I think it is called the National Tribal Environmental Council. I spoke with them. It is amazing to me, they were talking about how, with wind resources in the Great Plains area, we would actually be able to generate enough power through wind on the Great Plains to produce enough electricity for the whole continental United States, the 48 States outside of Alaska and Hawaii, if we were to take that initiative. The ability and the will is there if only this administration would wake up. I do not want to keep harping on it, but the gentleman said it when he pointed out that historically these issues, these environmental concerns, have been bipartisan. The great conservationist leader was Teddy Roosevelt. It was Richard Nixon who signed so many of the environmental laws that we are talked about tonight in the seventies. I think what happened, and frankly I am going to be partisan, now, when we had the changeover in the Congress from Democrat to Republican and we had Newt Gingrich come in as the Speaker, all of a sudden there was this great interest on the part of the Republican leadership to do the bidding of big business, big oil, big mining companies. That is what we are seeing with President Bush as well. Most of the decisions that he is making seem to be contrary to a lot of the Republicans in his own party, but he is catering to the big oil and the big mining and these other special interests that are very shortsighted about the future and what can be done. So again, I know we have to keep up the effort here, but I think there is good reason to feel that we can change things, because what is being done by this administration is not only not in the best interests of the country, but it does not even make sense from an economic development point of view or a money point of view, ultimately, I do not think.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon who has always played such a leadership role on environmental issues for organizing this special order this evening. It is 2 days after Earth Day, but this is the first day that we have been back and can talk about Earth Day. I want to express my disappointment with the Bush administration and what has been happening for the last 3 or 4 months since President Bush took office with regard to environmental issues. Sunday was the 31st anniversary of Earth Day, and I took part in those first Earth Day celebrations when I was in college at that time in Vermont. I have watched pretty much over the 30 or 31 years since the first Earth Day, we have seen significant progress on environmental concerns. I know in my own district we have done a lot to clean up the ocean along the Jersey shore. We have seen the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, all of these major pieces of legislation which have made significant progress in cleaning up the environment. So it is very disappointing to see President Bush in the actions that he has taken in the last few months basically, I think, try to reverse that trend in very negative ways. I am joining the gentleman from Oregon tonight in saying that not because I am looking to attack President Bush and just say the Republicans are bad and be partisan about it, that is not my goal. Madam Speaker, what I want to do is see this administration change course and basically recognize that the environment is a major concern of the American people and that these problems are not going to go away and we need to take progressive steps to improve the quality of our environment. But it is disappointing, and I want to outline if I could maybe in 5 minutes or so where I see major problems in what the President has done in the last few months, but at the same time kind of show a bit of optimism about what I think we can do to change it so that he does not continue on this course. And I want to talk about energy policy first and then talk about some other environmental issues. With regard to energy policy, and you already mentioned it, this signal about not really caring about global climate change, scrapping the Kyoto treaty and maybe suggesting that we not talk about it much in the future, I think is a grave concern. Also the President's switch on carbon dioxide, to say that is not one of the air emission controls that we are going to put in place. And although we have not really received the report, I guess, of Vice President Cheney's energy task force, that is going to come around mid- May, we keep hearing that the energy goals of this administration are more production of fossil fuels rather than conservation, and they do not talk about increased technological efficiency or much about the use of renewables. Much attention has been focused on ANWR, that we should start drilling in ANWR and possibly other offshore areas around the United States. Mr. Speaker, I find it particularly unfortunate, because we keep seeing signals at the same time that President Bush is saying these things and doing these things, these negative things, we keep seeing signals that the consensus, not only the American people, but the Congress I think, is very much to the contrary of most of his public pronouncements. I got a little whiff of that again, if you will, this weekend when my former governor, now the EPA Administrator, Christie Whitman, suggested that the Bush administration may be backing off from drilling in ANWR. But as has been the case so often with Mrs. Whitman, the White House came back after she made those statements and sort of scolded her for her comments and said that they are going to continue the effort to try to drill in ANWR and to get congressional authorization to do so. I think that Whitman was really basically commenting on the political reality, that the votes are really not there for ANWR in the Senate and probably not in the House as well. Basically, I think she was indicating that there really is a consensus in the Congress, I believe in both Houses, not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I see so many things like that, when we think about every one of Bush's major pronouncements that I have been critical of: the Kyoto Treaty, the CO2 emissions. We have to realize that over the last 6 months or over the last year, there has really been a bipartisan consensus of most Democrats and some pro-environment Republicans, who have expressed support for the global climate change talks. We have recognized that this is an issue that we have to deal with. With regard to CO2 emissions, we have had a number of pieces of legislation introduced in this House on a bipartisan basis that would address the CO2 emissions through market trading legislation. I have introduced a bill like that. I think also, if we look around at some of the utilities in various parts of the country, including in my home State of New Jersey, we have seen them start to implement new technologies that would actually cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. So it is just very unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, I believe that these positive forces, these pro- environmental forces here in the Congress, have not gone away, and maybe they are underground right now; but hopefully, over the next few months or certainly this session of Congress, we will see them come forward with the support of the American people and demand that we address global climate change, demand that we address CO2 emissions, and not allow drilling in the ANWR. I just wanted to express to my colleague with regard to those energy issues that I really am a lot more optimistic about what is going to happen here, even though I keep hearing these negative pronouncements on the environment from the Bush administration. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to talk about a couple of other areas that are not energy-related, but fall within the rubric of my subcommittee. I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Environment and Hazardous Materials, and we have jurisdiction over Superfund, over Brownfields, over safe drinking water, and if I could just comment briefly on some of those issues. It was very disappointing to me to see President Bush's efforts to tear down the environment and the good legislation and the good initiatives that we have had in the past also translated into his budget. I mean, if we look at the budget, it is a cutback in the Department of Energy, it is also a cutback in the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. In my home State, we have more Superfund sites than any other State in the country, so we really care about Superfund and whether the funding is going to be there to actually do cleanup. What President Bush proposed in his budget is that for the next fiscal year, we could clean up only 65 Superfund sites as opposed to the 85 sites on the average that we have cleaned up in the last 4 years under the last administration. But even more important, he did not include the Superfund corporate tax in the budget as a method of paying for cleanup. Now, that may have been okay in the last few years when the Republicans cut it out of the budget that President Clinton submitted, because we still have money in the trust fund to pay for a significant portion of Superfund cleanups. But if we do not reauthorize the corporate tax this year or even next year, we are simply going to run out of money in 2003. There will not be any money from the Superfund Trust Fund to pay for cleanups. I do not see us going ahead and allocating money out of general revenue sources to pay for it. So that program is also seriously threatened. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Oregon mentioned our problem with safe drinking water. Again, I could talk about what this administration is doing not only with standards with regard to arsenic, but also with the infrastructure. We have heard about the way he just threw out the arsenic standard and basically was not willing to change the status quo down to the 10 parts per billion that was recommended by President Clinton and also by the National Academy of Sciences. Well, again, I guess in part because the President and this administration realize that this is a problem that the American people do not like to ingest arsenic, over the last week or so we have seen the EPA Administrator, Mrs. Whitman, come out again and say, oh, no, we are going to set up a new rule, we are going to take a year and study this, but I promise that by the next year, we will impose a rule that cuts back at least 60 percent on the existing standard. Well, I can figure out what 60 percent is of 50 parts per billion, but I know it does not get down to the 10 parts per billion that President Clinton proposed. So, again, they are playing games. She came out and said that she has convened this new panel at the National Academy of Sciences and asked them to look at the arsenic standards, but again, I get the impression from what I read and from what people tell me that this panel is somewhat rigged and that it is not inclined to adopt a more strict standard. In the same way, I saw Mrs. Whitman come before our subcommittee a couple of weeks ago and talk about the tremendous need for resources, Federal or otherwise, to address the backlog of infrastructure needs for clean water in various States and various communities around the country. There was a report that she mentioned actually that came out in February that identified $102.5 billion in infrastructure needs for safe drinking water. But when we looked at the Bush budget and when it came out a couple of weeks ago while we were back in our districts, it actually level-funded the amount of money that would be available for these infrastructure needs. So we have $102.5 billion in needs and authorization in Congress for $1 billion, and Bush's budget comes in at $823 million. So needless to say, there is a real gap between what the Bush administration has said in the past or during the campaign about environmental issues and what the EPA Administrator continues to say about concerns that she has for environmental issues, and what this administration actually does and its actions to address those issues. I am also concerned about the fact that we have reduced the amount of funding at the EPA. We are not going to see enforcement of a lot of the good environmental laws that are on the books. However, again, I do not think the public is going to stand for this. I really believe that ultimately this Congress will heed the public's wishes and not go along with a lot of these pronouncements that are coming out of the White House. But I know that we have to continue to identify all of these different negative actions that are being taken by this administration against the environment, and we have to speak out and we have to tell people over and over again what they mean, because a lot of them are not easily explainable and they are happening so quickly over the last 3 or 4 months of this administration that it is even hard to keep track of them. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon again for his part and what he is doing to try to bring attention to this. I think we have an obligation not only today in remembering Earth Day, but throughout the next 2 years of this session, to constantly focus on what this administration is doing to gut environmental concerns.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight to celebrate the anniversary of the struggle the Bengalis went through to become an independent nation 30 years ago on March 26, 1971. I visited Bangladesh a year ago with President Clinton at this time and was impressed with the progress that the country has made. The people and the government received us very warmly as we visited the capital Dhaka and the surrounding cities. Madam Speaker, the independence of Bangladesh was hard fought. In 1970, a strong opposition within the masses arose in east Pakistan against the injustices and discrimination levied on the Bengali people. In the early spring of 1971, Pakistani forces moved in and ruthlessly tried to suppress the uprising with death squads and indiscriminate killings. Indira Gandhi, the prime minister of India, became very vocal in her opposition to Pakistani oppression and in 1971 the Indian army was sent in to help the Bengali fighters. In 12 days' time, the Bengali liberation force, with the help of the Indian army, drove the Pakistani forces out of the region and Bangladesh was born. I salute the brave Bangla fighters, as well as the soldiers of the Indian Army who stood firm together to help the dream of a free Bengal nation become a reality. Madam Speaker, U.S./Bangla relations have been developing positively since Bangladesh's declaration of a free republic in 1972. Current U.S./Bangla relations are excellent as demonstrated in several visits to Washington by the Bangladeshi premiers over the last 20 years. In 1995, First Lady Hillary Clinton visited Bangladesh. The current prime minister of Bangladesh, Ms. Sheikh Hasina, also visited the United States in 1996 and 1997. Relations between Bangladesh and the United States have further strengthened since the participation of Bangla troops in the 1991 Gulf War Coalition. The Bangladeshi soldiers also served jointly with the 1994 multinational force in Haiti. The current government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, elected in June 1996, has indicated that it will continue along the path of privatization and open market reforms but progress has been slow. In the government's first year, real GDP growth of 5.7 percent and inflation of 2.6 percent were the best figures in the 1990s. We must collaborate in many ways with Bangladesh and continue our aid package to Bangladesh, and I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for starting the Bangladeshi caucus. I have joined the same and hope to work with him for Bengali issues. Under Madam Hasina, Bangladesh pursues a positive foreign policy based on friendship with all and malice towards none. While relations between the United States and Bangladesh are good, clearly there is ample room for improvement. One such area I believe U.S./Bangla relations can be improved is trade. Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the African- Caribbean trade initiative that was introduced last year. The initiative gives only textile industries in Africa and the Caribbean duty free access to U.S. markets. A stark reality has to be understood that presently Bangladesh derives 76 percent of its foreign reserves from these exports. Taking this market away, most of which is the U.S. market, would deal a very heavy blow to the democracy of Bangladesh as it struggles to improve the conditions of its people. Another important area where we can help, and I think my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) again has drawn attention to this, is the arsenic poisoning occurring in the drinking water wells in the Nawab Ganj district in Bangladesh. In the early 1970s, UNICEF, in an attempt to bring clean drinking water to the Bengali people, dug two wells to access shallow water ducts. At that time, arsenic testing was not conducted and arsenic's inherent slow-working poisonous effects were not recognized. I ask my colleagues to urge the current administration to work on a long lasting solution for this problem affecting a great number of Bangladeshis. Madam Speaker, on this historic occasion of Bangladesh's 30th anniversary of independence, we must show our sincere appreciation for all that Bangladesh is doing to improve itself and express solidarity with its democratic principles of governments in progress. I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in celebrating this occasion in wishing Bangladesh the very best of success in the years to come.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), my colleague, and I know that everything the gentleman is saying is so true. Just to give two examples, quickly, one is, I was with President Clinton last year at this time in March in India. And we had a ceremony, it was just outside the Taj Mahal, where we announced cooperation between India and the United States on a number of environmental issues that specifically related to clean air. There is no question that India, being the sort of leader within the developing countries, is looking to see what the United States is going to do on CO2 and other emissions before they are going to act. Because they say, look, most of the problem is coming from the developed country. If you are not going to take the initiative, then why should we when we are economically underdeveloped? India was more than willing to play that role, but they are not going to do it if the United States does not take the leadership on it, that is for sure. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing the gentleman mentioned about coastal States. My district is a coastal district. In fact, there are certain parts of it that are no more than a few blocks wide from the ocean. I will tell the gentleman that my constituents are very concerned about the impact that global climate changes are going to have on the rising sea level. We have to put in place these beach replenishment projects every year that costs us millions of dollars, and that is not going to work any more if the sea level continues to rise. This is not pie in the sky. This is real.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I woke up this morning and I read on the front page of USA Today that President Bush is doing a terrible job on highly significant environmental issues. I suppose that is no surprise to my colleagues here in the well or here in the House Chambers. Yesterday the Bush Administration abandoned more stringent restrictions on the amount of arsenic allowed in tap water. Arsenic is a known carcinogen, I think many people know. The week before, President Bush broke a campaign promise to the American people that he would work to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; and carbon dioxide is, of course, a greenhouse gas that causes and is a major factor in global warming. I also read in the paper this morning that the Bush administration is planning to restrict new mining limits in the next few days. Of course, we have not heard about that yet, but it sounds like just another indication that this administration is essentially anti-environment. Mr. Speaker, I ask, what is the President going to do for the special interests tomorrow? I do not think there is any person, average person, or any group of concerned citizens, that asked the President to abandon these more stringent restrictions on the amount of arsenic in water. I doubt very much that there was a group of citizens who told him he should go back on his campaign promise and not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This is coming from the special interests. This is coming from the corporate special interests, oil interests, mining interests, coal interests, who contributed to the President's campaign and who now are calling the shots with this administration at the White House on these very important environmental issues. The reason that I am so concerned about it, Mr. Speaker, is because we are talking about the health and the safety of the average American, the air we breathe, the water that we drink. These are not environmental issues that we have any doubt about what the impact is going to be. We know that if these carbon dioxide emissions are not regulated in some way, that a lot more people will get sick from the air. We know that if the arsenic levels are not reduced in drinking water, that a lot more people will get cancer from arsenic. So it is really almost mind-boggling to think that this administration, in such a short time, has come down so hard, if you would, on the side of those who would seek to deregulate or weaken, or certainly not improve, environmental regulations that need to be improved. Let me talk initially, if I could, about the carbon dioxide change that the President had. He did not change his position on carbon dioxide until four Republican Senators sent a letter to him on March 6. Until that time, not only during the campaign, but even in the first few months we heard from the EPA administrator, Christine Whitman, the former Governor of New Jersey, my former governor, that a consensus had been essentially built in the White House, in this administration, to regulate CO2. But after that letter was sent on March 6, the President broke his promise, because special-interest lobbyists pressured him to do so. We know that Vice President Cheney basically pulled the rug from under the EPA administrator and insisted in his capacity as the chairman, I guess, of this new Energy Task Force that carbon dioxide not be regulated. But, again, I think this is symptomatic of what we are going to see with this administration, broken promises on protections that we need for the environment and for the American people. I hope it does not continue, but every indication is that it will. Let me briefly mention, Mr. Speaker, about the carbon dioxide emissions, because I want everyone to understand that the reduction in carbon dioxide that myself and other environmentalists support is not a crazy idea that is just supported by a bunch of eco-freaks. In fact, numerous large multinational corporations have adopted company-wide targets to cut global warming pollutants that include carbon dioxide. One of President Bush's most loyal supporters, the Enron Corporation, has urged the President to create a credit-trading system for carbon dioxide in a manner very similar to a bill I introduced in Congress and that I will be reintroducing shortly, where we use a trading system, which is essentially a market approach to try to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions. I have worked, frankly, with both utilities and environmental groups in creating what I consider a workable emission-reduction plan, and I know that there are solutions other than ``business as usual,'' in other words, the idea of simply throwing the environment aside in the name of economic development. Utilities and environmentalists can work together to come up with a program that reduces carbon dioxide. It is not a situation where you have to choose between the environment and industry, or you have to choose between impacting people's health in terms of the air they breathe versus the cost of producing energy. Now, in making the statement that was made yesterday on the second issue, to roll back protective standards on the amount of acceptable arsenic in drinking water, I think the Bush administration crossed the line even further in terms of not caring about the public than they did even with the carbon dioxide emissions, because here we are talking directly about an issue that studies have shown will directly impact the number of people that have cancer. Arsenic, I do not have to tell anyone, is an awful substance that can cause bladder, lung, skin and other kinds of cancer. The proposal to reduce the amount of arsenic from an acceptable level of 50 parts per billion, which is the status quo, to 10 parts per billion, is actually something that was endorsed by the European Union and is in place for the countries that are part of the European Union, and also adopted by the World Health Organization. So the United States now, instead of being in unison with Europe and most of the world, is now keeping with a standard that was adopted in the forties about the level of arsenic that you can consume in your water. According to the National Academy of Sciences, exposure to arsenic at the current standard, 50 parts per billion ``could easily result in a combined cancer risk on the order of 1 in 100.'' This level of risk is much higher than the maximum cancer risk typically allowed by the Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Most of the time when we are talking about what is acceptable, we are talking about a case where maybe 1 in 10,000 people would be impacted. When you talk about 1 in 100, that is an incredible risk and could impact millions of people, maybe tens of millions of people. The interesting thing about the administration's announcement yesterday also with regard to the arsenic levels is that once again my former governor, now the EPA administrator, Christine Whitman, actually admitted that the 50 parts per billion was unacceptable and that the standard needed to be lowered significantly. She said it twice in the statement that she put out from the EPA. Yet at the same time, she said that the 10 parts per billion was not a standard that there was a lot of scientific agreement on. I would say once again that I know that Mrs. Whitman is trying to be helpful and trying to suggest that the standard needs to be lowered even though the Bush Administration does not want to do it, but I would point out again that we know that a lot of the countries in the world, part of the European Union and the World Health Organization, have adopted the 10 parts per billion, so you cannot say it is not a standard widely accepted. In fact, it is widely accepted. Finally, I wanted to mention, before I move on to some of my colleagues that are going to join me today, this latest report that the Bush administration is proposing to suspend new environmental regulations on hard-rock mining that were put in place over industry objections on President Clinton's last day in office. The Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management is to announce supposedly today that it is reopening the revised 38-09 regulations, giving the government new authority to prohibit new mine sites on Federal land. Again, we cannot allow the administration to move forward with this attack on our health and the health of the environment. We are talking about water and air quality, the key components of life. We do not want our constituents, Americans, living in fear; and I think that we are just seeing more and more of these ill-advised choices by the Bush administration. I know that some of my colleagues today are probably going to talk about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well. I would yield to the gentleman from Oregon, if he likes, at this point.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. What I wanted to do was just comment briefly on the arsenic and then yield to our colleague from Maine. The one thing that I noticed that my colleague from Oregon talked about, the special interests with regard to this arsenic level in drinking water; it is interesting, because yesterday, when the EPA administrator former Governor Whitman announced that they were, in fact, going to stick with the status quo and not lower the arsenic level standards, contrary to what had been proposed, it was the same day that there was an article in The Washington Post which was called, ``All Decked Out, But Will Runoff Ruin the Well.'' It was by the American Wood Preservers Institute which was worried that this new arsenic standard would have a negative effect on their ability to produce this pressure-treated wood product. Basically, what they do is they produce the kind of wood product that, I guess, is coated with a material that preserves it, what we see on decks or boardwalks or docks around the country. It said in the article that the stakes are high. Obviously, this organization was trying to get the standard to stay the same. It says, ``The stakes are high for the wood preservers because 98 percent of the lumber sold for outdoor purposes, mostly northern pine, is treated with CCA at some 350 plants. The plants use about 144.5 million pounds CCA annually and about 37 million pounds of that mixture is arsenic. They sell 5 billion board feet annually. I was thinking to myself, because of what the gentleman said, about our own constituents. I live in a shore district, so it is true that a lot of the places we go on the boardwalk or on the docks we see, I assume, this kind of coated wood. Can we imagine for 1 minute that anybody who had a dock or was using a boardwalk would not sacrifice that if they knew that the alternative was that their drinking water was going to be contaminated and they had a 1 out of 100 chance of getting cancer from the arsenic. Our priorities, or the administration's priorities, are unbelievable that this kind of an organization would come in and say, we have to continue to manufacture this processed wood and we are going to not be able to sell as much, or it is going to cost us more. That is what we are dealing with here, that kind of industry. The average person is going to say, charge me more for the deck, but at least keep the water so that I can drink it. It is just incredible to me. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that the month of April is Child Abuse Prevention Month. Throughout the month, thousands and perhaps millions of individuals from around the country who are working to reduce child abuse will be wearing blue ribbons to draw attention to this monumental national concern. Prevent Child Abuse--New Jersey is undertaking the blue ribbon campaign in my state with a kickoff event on March 28. This organization serves as a national model for how a statewide group can make a difference in combatting a serious social problem. By establishing local partnerships, PCA-NJ helps communities, strengthens families and supports parents through parenting programs, education and training, advocacy and public awareness programs. Valuable PCA-NJ programs include the Parent Linking Project, which provides comprehensive services to teen parents and their children at school; Healthy Families, under which intensive, home visitation services are provided to overburdened parents of newborns; Every Person Influences Children, which sponsors parent education workshops for parents and training for teachers to incorporate life skills and character education into daily curricula, and the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Initiative, which undertakes case management and counseling programs for teens to build self esteem and help them make healthy choices. In addition to the Blue Ribbon Campaign, PCA-NJ also sponsors many public education and community awareness efforts, including a speakers' bureau, loaned materials under the New Jersey Parenting Education Resource Center (PERC); and a web site and 800 number for information and other resources. Mr. Speaker, in New Jersey, each year, over 80,000 calls are made to the N.J. Division of Youth and Family Services by concerned citizens and professionals reporting suspected child abuse and neglect. This figure for just one state gives us an idea of the extent of this shameful problem in our country--the most advanced, educated and prosperous nation in the world. It is my hope that drawing attention to this problem, as we are doing in New Jersey and around the country with the Blue Ribbon Campaign, will eventually and dramatically reduce the incidence of child abuse.]

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on March 25, as has been mentioned, Greece celebrates its 180th year of independence. I am here tonight to praise the society that represents, in a historical sense, the origins of what we call Western culture and, in a contemporary sense, one of the staunchest defenders of Western society and values. There are many of us in Congress, on both sides of the spectrum, who are staunchly committed to strengthening and preserving the ties between the Greek and American people. I would particularly like to thank the co-chairs of our Hellenic Caucus, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), for their fine leadership and tireless efforts to strengthen the ties between our two countries. Just 2 years ago, after the Greek people began the revolution that would lead to their freedom, one of our predecessors in this Chamber, Congressman Daniel Webster, referring to the 400 years during which the Greeks were ruled by the Ottoman Empire, observed, and I quote, ``These people,'' the Greeks, ``a people of intelligence, ingenuity, refinement, spirit and enterprise, have been for centuries under the atrocious and unparalleled Tartarian barbarism that ever oppressed the human race.'' The words Congressman Webster chose then to describe the Greek people, intelligence, ingenuity, refinement, spirit and enterprise, are as apt today as they ever have been. In the years sense, Americans and Greeks have grown ever closer, bound by ties of strategic and military alliance, common values of democracy, individual freedom, human rights, and close personal friendship. In the early 20th century, Greece stood by the United States in World War I when Hitler's war machine decimated Europe in the middle of this century. Greece again stood on the same side of the United States to repulse the greatest threat to freedom and human decency the world as ever seen and, I might add, at great cost to the Greek people and the Greek nation. History has shown that the historic battle of Crete, in which the indomitable spirit of the Greek people forced Hitler to delay his planned invasion of Russia, was one of the most important battles of the Second World War. From the outset of that war, Greece showed its true character as a nation of courage and honor, devoted to freedom and self-determination. World War II's aftermath left Europe mired in the Cold War; and Greece, a NATO ally to this day, once again answered the call. Greece showed its national valor and sense of historic mission, joining forces with the United States and preserving and protecting the freedoms enjoyed today by an unprecedented number of the world's people. The qualities exhibited by the nation of Greece, Mr. Speaker, are a reflection of the strong character and values of its individual citizens. The United States has been greatly enriched as many sons and daughters of Greece made a new life in America. They and their children and grandchildren have enriched our country in countless ways, contributing to our cultural, professional, commercial, academic and political life. The timeless values of Greek culture have endured for centuries, indeed for millenia. As Daniel Webster noted, 400 years of control by the Ottoman Empire could not overcome the Greek people's determination to be free. But I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, to this day the Greek people must battle against oppression. For almost 24 years now, Greece has stood firm in its determination to bring freedom and independence to the illegally occupied nation of Cyprus. Like their forefathers who were under the control of a hostile foreign power for four centuries, the Cypriot people hold fast in defiance of their Turkish aggressors with every confidence that they will again be a sovereign nation, and they will. The United States must be on their side in both the fight to secure that freedom and the celebration to mark the day when it finally arrives. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to congratulate the Greek people for 180 years of independence and thank them for their contributions to American life.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that my colleagues join me in supporting legislation that I reintroduced today that would permit the admission into the United States of nonimmigrant visitors who are the spouses and children of permanent resident aliens residing and working in this country. This legislation is intended to fill a void in our current immigration policy that has resulted in permanent resident aliens, people who have come into this country legally and who are gainfully employed, being separated from their spouses and children often for periods of several years. This bill would simply make it easier for family members to come to the United States on a temporary basis with provisions to penalize those who overstay their visas. Its goal is to alleviate the human hardship of prolonged family separation. Mr. Speaker, the legislation would eliminate the implication that the existence of a petition for permanent residence implies that an applicant will not return to his or her home nation and would remain in the United States after the expiration of a temporary visa. This equitable solution simply grants to immigrant family members the same opportunity to visit the United States as all others desiring to come here as visitors or students. The legislation anticipates the possibility that some may violate the terms of their visas by overstaying the period for which the visa provides. It penalizes spouses or children of permanent residents who overstay their visas by allowing the Secretary of State to delay their permanent visa petitions for one year if visa durations are violated. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues may remember, last year in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, Congress took a step in alleviating this hardship. The Omnibus bill created a new V nonimmigrant visa category. This new visa would be available to spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents who have been waiting 3 years or more for an immigrant visa. The recipients of this temporary visa would be protected from deportation and granted work authorization until immigration visa or adjustment of status processing is completed. However, while this new program has good intentions, Mr. Speaker, 3 years is still too long to be apart from one's loved ones. My bill would immediately expedite the process in allowing foreign-born immigrants to see their family for a short period of time before they are eligible for the V visa. My legislation would not nullify the V visa, but rather provide for temporary visas in the interim. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that this proposal will receive strong support from Members of Congress, particularly members of our Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, and other Members who agree with the need to address this inequity. The issue of spousal and child reunification has been identified as one of the top domestic priorities of the Asian- Indian community in the United States. With the India caucus members working together, enactment of this bill would be an opportunity for the caucus to make its presence felt in another substantive way. Furthermore, this proposal has already received significant support from some of America's major corporations, particularly in the information and communications sectors, who recognize the importance of allowing their valued employees to have greater contact with their families. The bill is, by its very nature, an interim measure in order to allay some of the misunderstandings that may arise. It should be pointed out that the legislation will not result in an increase in the number of immigrants admitted annually. It will not have an impact on the labor market, and it will not have any adverse effects on any government social programs since the spouses would not be entitled to these benefits. It is a very modest proposal intended only to bring some relief to families separated by unfortunate administrative delays.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to Monmouth University in West Long Branch, NJ, which captured the Northeast Conference basketball championship Monday night. This gives Monmouth University a berth in the NCAA basketball tournament, the second time it has qualified for the national championships. Monmouth defeated St. Francis of New York 67-64 under the leadership of four-year head coach Dave Calloway. I congratulate Coach Calloway and his team for reaching this impressive milestone. Monday night's achievement offers me the opportunity to highlight Monmouth University--an outstanding educational institution located near the seashore in Monmouth County, NJ. I have always been very proud of ``Monmouth'' which has educated thousands of my constituents over the years with the highest academic standards. In recent years, it has grown from a small college to a university. It now has a total student population of 5,635 and an outstanding faculty of 220. It features the only B.S. and M.S. program in Software Engineering in New Jersey, not to mention many other innovative academic offerings. Originally its only large campus building was Wilson Hall--the summer home of Woodrow Wilson when he was President. In 1961, Monmouth College was bequeathed the summer home of the wealthy Guggenheim family for use as library. Both structures are on the National Register of Historic Places. Since then, many impressive campus buildings have been constructed including one named after my predecessor, Representative James J. Howard. The success of the Monmouth ``Hawks'' basketball team has in many ways paralleled the growth of Monmouth University as an educational institution. I congratulate them on their success and wish them the best of luck on their near and long-term endeavors.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to speak about the continued relief efforts in India after the massive 7.9 earthquake that rocked the nation in January. After the earthquake, I came to the floor to request USAID to double the amount of assistance it was sending to India, from $5 million to $10 million. Today, more than $13 million has been sent. This is a good start; but clearly, the $13 million is not enough to address the continued struggles India, particularly Gujarat, is facing at this time. The havoc on the ground in terms of human suffering must be understood. Our friends in India will be facing monsoons very soon. We must move fast to ensure all support possible to prevent epidemic and further tragedies in the earthquake's aftermath. Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address five strong areas where I think we could continue to help. Several of these ideas were discussed at a subcommittee hearing of the Committee on International Relations by several of my colleagues who visited the region after the earthquake. First, I ask the World Bank and the Asian Development Fund to move quickly to approve India's petition for soft-window or low-interest loans funding. The ADF recently finished its appraisal of the Gujarat disaster and increased its earlier estimate of aid loans from $350 million to $500 million. This increase in the appraisal by the ADF clearly demonstrates the terrible need on the ground. The President of the Asian Development Bank has pledged his support, and I laud him for that; but currently this proposal is held up before their board. The board is meeting late March to decide the $500 million funding for ADF's Gujarat Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project. Now normally the Asian Development Fund does not offer concessional loans to India due to India's size, but clearly Gujarat is in the midst of a great human and fiscal disaster and definitely merits these loans. We as a donor country can and must ask the ADF to make this exception. Second, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Office of Management and Budget to improve 416(b) disaster mitigation funding. This proposal sent by nongovernmental organizations in India to the U.S. Department of Agriculture allocates estimated relief at 60,000 metric tons of vegetable oil and other commodities, valued at over $32 million for this year. This proposal, originally designed for aid to the entire country, is now being focused on Gujarat in light of the earthquake. We must understand that this region suffered a horrible drought in the last 2 years, so this is an emergency within an emergency. The proposal has gone through technical reviews, has received positive endorsements from USAID, State Department, and the Department of Agriculture, but is still stalled at OMB. I encourage OMB to release this funding for India immediately. Third, Mr. Speaker, we must focus on detailed talks between the Indian National Government and FEMA to help create a FEMA-type model for India. Currently, there is an active debate in India about creating an agency like FEMA, and the Indian Government has shown great interest in collaborating with the U.S. Government. The FEMA talks are currently in the how-to stage. We must move quickly so we can implement the plans expeditiously as possible. Fourth, Mr. Speaker, we must also work with local governments in India to help create a local response system similar to ones we have in the United States, in Fairfax, Virginia, and Miami, Florida. This would certainly improve rescue operations and help minimize loss of life in the crucial hours after disaster has struck. In addition, we should have technical experts from the earthquake- prone areas such as California work together with the Indian officials to create appropriate public-warning procedures, routine earthquake drills, civilian protection mechanisms, and earthquake-safe foundation structures. We must share the lessons we learned from the devastating Northridge earthquake in California in 1992 to help Gujarat rebuild itself, as well as prepare for such future disasters. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must focus on creation of a better U.S. rescue response system around the world. The current system, while successful in rebuilding procedures, needs revamping of its international rescue response procedures in the immediate hours after an emergency. Switzerland, the UK, and Israel were on the ground in India within 48 hours to start rescue operations while it took the U.S. Government more than 72 hours to get our first official relief efforts there. USAID is considering prepositioning resources by setting up ground offices in disaster-prone regions of the world to expedite aid disbursement during calamities. I support setting up such an office in India. An important thing for us to understand is how vital a strong India is for U.S. interests. With India increasingly showing signs of political strength and stability, and stronger restraint in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, we must demonstrate that we stand by our friend in their hour of need. Indians are not looking for handouts. They are very strong, resilient people who can and will rebuild Gujarat back. However, we must not leave them alone in coping with this devastating earthquake. Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask my fellow colleagues to stand strong with me in pushing these recommendations immediately for long-lasting support to India.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House Floor today to voice my concern regarding the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, originating in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, bypassing Armenia via Georgia and ending at the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Over the last few years, despite the reluctance of major U.S. oil companies, the Clinton administration promoted the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which many experts are now questioning. Cato Institute analyst Stanley Kober recently noted at a foreign policy briefing that the pipeline, far from promoting U.S. interests in the region undermines them. Another report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace knows that pursuit of this pipeline only exacerbated tensions between the United States and Russia and did little to advance U.S. interests. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear today that I strongly oppose the current plans for this project that is expected to cost $3 billion. It is my hope that the Bush administration will take into account these reports and thoroughly examine the need for this proposed pipeline route. I am not encouraged, however, by recent reports that the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, seems to believe that the pipeline would provide the West with a greater amount of oil, thus cutting down on the U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern countries for oil. I am here today to say that this is not the case. In fact, with reserves estimated at approximately 2 to 3 percent of the world's total, experts note that Caspian oil reserves will have no significant impact on world oil prices. The Bush administration also seems to be under the impression that by building a pipeline in this volatile area of the world, that strained relations between affected nations would begin to heal. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this is not the case. In fact, I believe that the pipeline could make relations in the region a lot worse. At the very least, we should wait until peace is achieved in the region. The presidents of Armenian and Azerbaijan just concluded a round of talks in Paris. It is my hope that a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict will be found this year. We should focus our efforts and attention on the peace process instead of wasting our resources on a commercially nonviable pipeline. President Bush's support for the Caspian oil pipeline was first announced several weeks ago by Ambassador Elizabeth Jones, special advisor to Bush on Caspian energy policy. At that time, Ambassador Jones said that the oil companies find the project commercially viable and that the project would only happen if ``it is determined that there is money to be made there by commercial companies.'' Mr. Speaker, I am baffled to hear that the ambassador believes this project would be profitable to the participating oil companies. American oil companies, after years of exploration, still have not found any commercially viable oil fields. Many, in fact, have pulled out. Realistically, the only way that this plan can be feasible for these oil companies is if the United States Government and other governments subsidize the project. Amoco president Charles Pitman might well have said just that when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 4 years ago. At that hearing Pitman said, and I quote, ``I encourage Congress and the administration to promote the strategic interests of the United States by helping make the Baku-Ceyhan route economically feasible.'' Since these companies have already said that the project is not economically feasible on its own, the only way to make it feasible is with a substantial subsidy from the U.S. Government. Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the other reason Ambassador Jones gave for the Bush administration's supporting this pipeline: the belief that it would bring sovereignty and economic independence to the Caspian states. While proponents of this pipeline argue that it would strengthen the economic independence of states like Azerbaijan and Georgia, it is also very probable as outlined in the Cato and Carnegie reports that the pipeline plan would bring more tension to the area, already beset by instability. Mr. Speaker, Armenia, which is completely bypassed by this pipeline, already suffers at the hands of a dual blockade from the east from Azerbaijan and from the west from Turkey. Azerbaijan has used its influence to ensure that Armenia would not benefit economically from the pipeline. Ilham Aliyev, son of Azerbaijan's president and a vice president of the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijani Republic, told the Azerbaijani newspaper Baku Tura in early January, and I quote, ``Azerbaijan's position remains unchanged. The pipeline will not go via Armenia under any circumstances.'' This would explain why the pipeline, which avoids the most direct route from the oil fields to the Caspian to Ceyhan, would be brought through Armenia. In fact, the pipeline route takes great pains to avoid Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. This is simply unacceptable, and the U.S. should not subsidize this plan in any way which serves to further isolate Armenia. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I request that the Bush administration reconsider this decision and withdraw any support for the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. I ask the Bush administration to take a fresh and honest look at pipeline policy in the region and take steps to ensure that all countries of the Caucasus are included in east-west energy and trade routes.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 3, the Amerigo Vespucci Society of Long Branch, N.J., my hometown, honored Al Rescinio as Man of the Year. I am proud to say that Al is a constituent and friend who has made innumerable contributions to our community, our county, and our state. Al was born and educated in Long Branch and later graduated from Upsala College with a degree in business. He worked for the international organization of certified public accountants, Haskins & Sells, while he and his wife Marge raised their four children. These children, who no doubt are Al's greatest source of pride and satisfaction, are now all successful professionals--individuals who are in turn making their own contributions to society. In 1968, Al started his own firm, Umberto Rescinio, C.P.A. Since then, he has participated in many national organizations and charities, giving back to those in need some of what he earned and achieved throughout his career. Locally, he has been affiliated with the Monmouth County Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission and the NJ State Planning Council of Central Jersey. He has received many awards and citations for his contributions. On March 3, members of the Amerigo Vespucci Society honored him and thanked him for helping to raise the $62,000 that was donated this year to local charities by the Society. On that night, it was apparent how one man and one civic-minded organization can make a big difference in the lives of the citizens of their community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, within the last week, a report investigating the state of human rights in Pakistan was released showing that no significant improvements have been made to restore a democratic government in that country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is growing evidence that seems to suggest that General Musharraf will put off national elections perhaps until January 2003, the deadline required by the nation's Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the House floor numerous times over the last couple of years to voice my strong opposition to a 1999 coup that ended democratic rule in Pakistan. In October 1999, Pakistan Army Chief Musharraf led a coup against civilian Prime Minister Sharif and then proclaimed himself the nation's chief executive. Musharraf also suspended Pakistan's constitution as well as its representative bodies, including the National Assembly and the Senate. Musharraf says he will abide by the Supreme Court's deadline to return the nation to democratic rule, but I do not believe that January 2003 is soon enough. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress should voice its opposition to the Pakistani coup. We should go on record and collectively state that we will not tolerate the overthrow of an elected government. I cosponsored a resolution back in 1999 with former Congressman Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut that would accomplish this goal. The resolution was approved by the Committee on International Relations less than a month after it was introduced and less than a month after the coup. Unfortunately, after passing in committee the legislation was never seen again and never came to the floor of the House for a final vote. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed that the 106th Congress never went on record in opposition to the coup in Pakistan, and I would still like this Congress to do so in light of these latest reports. The ability of the military to seize power away from an elected government should not be tolerated. The human rights report, released this week by the State Department, which included some documentation collected by the independent group, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said that, quote, citizens continued to be denied the right to choose or change their government peacefully. The report also included disturbing news that the Musharraf regime has taken, quote, steps to control the judiciary and to remove itself from judicial oversight. This so-called control over the judiciary could explain the reason why the nation's Supreme Court gave Musharraf 2 years to rule. Another concern, Mr. Speaker, was that human rights abuses, which have been a problem in Pakistan for years, have not improved, even though goals were set at a conference on human rights at the beginning of last year. I should point out that Musharraf was very critical of human rights abuses that occurred under Sharif's watch, but after more than a year in office, Musharraf has not made any significant changes. Mr. Speaker, other major human rights violations are also taking place across the border by General Musharraf and his government in India's state of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan's role in sowing death and destruction has been going on for years, but received world attention in 1999 when Pakistani military leaders, many of whom were involved in that year's coup d'etat, precipitated a major crisis by unleashing an attack against Indian positions in the area of Kargil, along the Line of Control that separates Indian and Pakistani controlled areas of Kashmir. Pakistan's actions were condemned by the United States and the international community, and Pakistan was forced to essentially withdraw. Over the past 2 years, the attacks by Pakistani forces on Indian army positions have continued, causing casualties on both sides and threatening the stability of the entire South Asia region. Another State Department report, released last year and investigating terrorism around the world, notes that ``Kashmiri extremist groups continued to operate in Pakistan, raising funds and recruiting new cadre.'' It blames these groups for numerous terrorist attacks against civilian targets in India's state of Jammu and Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned that Pakistan is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists and the training of terrorist activities. That same State Department report looking at terrorist activities around the world found that the locus of terrorism directed against the United States continued to shift from the Middle East to South Asia. Mr. Speaker, each of these reports sheds light on what is really going on in Pakistan. It is important that we not only be aware of these situations but also be willing, both the new Congress and the new administration, to call upon the current government in Pakistan to change the situation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 16, H. Con. Res. 39, Tuesday February 27, 2001, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for coming down here and joining me, as he has on so many other occasions. Quickly, the gentleman is absolutely right, we have been talking about this for 4 years. I think we were very hopeful during the campaign when we heard President Bush then talk about these issues, the HMO reform, prescription drug benefit, that we were going to see quick action on it. Even in the beginning of the Congress, at the time of his inauguration a month ago, it seemed like this was going to be a priority. We have heard very little about it. We have heard about the tax cuts, about defense spending, we have heard about a lot of other issues. When he unveiled his prescription drug benefit, it was almost like it was not even important. I just hope that that turns around, but we are certainly going to make sure that turns around. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I did want to indicate that I only plan to use about 20 minutes of the hour this evening, and then I would like to turn over the rest of the hour and yield to the gentlewoman, one of my colleagues from Ohio, who will be out here later, who is going to be talking, I believe, about Black History Month. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take to the floor, to the well, this evening, to talk about health care, and essentially to map out why I believe very strongly in this session of Congress we have an opportunity, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to enact some health care reforms that will ensure more access to health insurance to more Americans, many of whom, about 40 million, do not have any kind of health insurance right now; and, secondly, that we enact a true HMO reform, along the lines of the Patients' Bill of Rights, a bipartisan bill that passed the House of Representatives last session, unfortunately, it did not become law, in order to reform HMOs. Third, I think that we should enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries. I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that these measures can pass in this Congress on a bipartisan basis. I have to say I was a little concerned, I did not plan to talk about tax cuts tonight, but when I heard my colleague on the other side of the aisle who was here in the well before me, I do become concerned that if the tax cuts that are being proposed by the President become too large, so that the entire surplus, or most of the surplus that we now have, is used up, we not only face the potential of having a deficit situation again, with all the bad ramifications for its economy, but it would make it impossible for the types of things that I am talking about tonight, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, increased access to health insurance for many who do not have it, these types of things would be impossible to pass. So I would ask my colleagues, when they look at these tax cuts, which all of us support tax cuts, and I certainly would like to see one passed, that it not be so large that it puts us back into a deficit situation or does not allow us to implement some of these needed health care reforms. What I want to start out, if I could, Mr. Speaker, is by saying that when I talk about expanding health insurance and access to health insurance, I think you know in previous Congresses we have worked, for example, to expand health insurance for children, the so-called CHIP program, which now allows children whose parents make more than would be eligible for Medicaid, and who mostly are working, are now allowed in their individual States to enroll in a Federal program so their kids are covered by health insurance. However, during the course of the last campaign it was quite clear that the Democrats felt very strongly and still feel strongly that the CHIP program needs to be expanded to include adults, the parents of those children who are in the CHIP program. It was very interesting, because during his confirmation hearings the new HHS Secretary, Secretary Thompson, actually said that he would like to see parents whose children are in the CHIP program be allowed to enroll in the program as well. I mention that because I think even though this was a Democratic idea, it is something obviously that is supported by the current Health and Human Services Secretary, who is a Republican. So, again, I hope that we see some of our Republicans coming along with this proposal. The other thing the Democrats have been championing for some time is the idea that people between the ages of 55 and 65 who are not eligible for Medicare now be able to buy into Medicare, the so-called ``near- elderly.'' I would venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that if you were able to enroll all the kids that are now eligible for CHIP, and then expand the CHIP program to include all the parents whose children are in CHIP, and then expand Medicare so that the near-elderly, 55 to 65, could sign up, we would go a long way towards solving the problem of those 40 million Americans who work but who have no health insurance. I would like to see that done on a bipartisan basis. Let me also mention the Patients' Bill of Rights, the HMO reform. It is abundantly clear to me that in the last Congress, even though the Patients' Bill of Rights was a Democratic initiative, the HMO reform, we had a number of Republicans who came forward and voted for it here in the House; and we had some very prominent Republicans who took the lead on it, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who took the lead on it. Why can we not pass that bill? We should be able to in this Congress. I know that most of the Republicans did not vote for it in the last Congress in the House, but there is no reason why we cannot do it. President Bush comes from the State of Texas. Texas has a Patients' Bill of Rights, or an HMO reform, very similar to the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights proposal. Let us see what we can do to get it passed on a bipartisan basis. Finally, let me talk about the prescription drug benefit. I know when I go home and talk to my constituents, the seniors in my district, the biggest concern they have is the fact that Medicare does not cover prescription drugs, and many of them cannot sign up for Medigap programs or cannot get into an HMO where prescription drugs are covered, or may have been in such an HMO and had their coverage dropped as of January 1 of this year. So we need to enact a prescription drug program under Medicare. Everyone in Medicare should be eligible for prescription drug coverage, regardless of income, regardless of age, regardless of disability. I wanted to talk if I can tonight, again I said I want to limit the amount of time that I took, because I want to yield to some of my colleagues, but I just want to develop a little more what the Democrats have been saying with regard to HMO reform and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. What the Democrats have been saying is they want a strong enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. This strong legislation with regard to HMO reform should include protections for all Americans and in all health plans. It should assure access to all emergency room care when and where the need arises. It should guarantee access to specialists when patients need it. It should guarantee access to a fair and timely internal and independent external appeals process, so patients can address disagreements with their health plans. It should have meaningful enforcement for patients who have been harmed as a result of health plan decisions. It should assure access to clinical trials and assure patients can keep their health plans. If I could summarize what the Democrats have been saying about HMO reform and the Patients' Bill of Rights, basically we are saying we want medical decisions no longer made by the insurance company or the actuaries, but by the patients and their physicians. We want to switch it so that now those medical decisions are made by the patients and their physicians. And we want it that if the health care plan, if the insurance company, denies you care, that you have a right, either internally or through some arbitration, to review and to appeal that decision and have it reviewed by somebody who is not part of the insurance company. Finally, that you have the right to sue if all else fails. Those are the basic tenets of what we think are important for HMO reform. Now, I have to say I was a little disappointed, because many of us, both Democrat and Republican, both House and Senate Members, most prominently Senator McCain as a Republican, Senator Ted Kennedy a Democratic, leaders on health care issues, just a week ago we had a press conference. I was there along with some House Members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the lead sponsor among the Democrats in the House in the last session, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), one of the lead sponsors on the Republican side in the House, and we put forward a new Patients' Bill of Rights that is very similar to what was on the law in Texas, is on the law now, was there when President Bush was the governor, and very similar to the Patients' Bill of Rights that passed the House last session. It actually went even a little further than some of us would have liked by limiting punitive damages that patients can recover. That was introduced last week on a bipartisan basis; and we were hopeful that President Bush, who talked about what existed in Texas during his campaign and how good it was, would go along with it. But, unfortunately, very quickly thereafter we saw the President's spokesman saying that this new bill, very similar to Texas law, very similar to the Patients' Bill of Rights in the last Congress, was not acceptable. In fact, I had a quote here from a letter that was sent, that the President wrote in the letter to the House and Senate GOP leadership, and he said he does not believe any bill currently before the Congress meets his principles. So, again, I do not know what kind of games the President is playing. It seems to me that he should get on board this bill, with so many Republican Senators, so many Republicans in the House, on a bipartisan basis, and support it, because we need HMO reform and we need it now. I am going to continue to speak out every night or as often as I can here on this issue, because I think it is important and it should pass and it can pass. Let me just talk a little bit, for about 5 minutes, about the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The Democrats have certain principles, and I am just going to go through them very quickly. We are saying the Medicare prescription drug benefit should be accessible and voluntary for all beneficiaries. Everybody in Medicare should be eligible for it, not just low-income people, not just certain people, everyone. It should be affordable to beneficiaries, it should be competitive and have efficient administration, because we do not want any waste, and it should provide high-quality and needed medications. Let me develop those a little more. When we talk about accessible and voluntary, we say it should be an option for all beneficiaries, not limited to low-income beneficiaries, and provide an option to those with few or no choices. It should be also available, whether or not you are in a traditional fee-for-service Medicare or you are in an HMO managed care. It should not matter. You are still eligible for the prescription drug benefit. It should ensure adequate access to pharmacists. Just as an idea, just to give you a little more detail about what we proposed, and we talked about it and tried to pass it in the last Congress, we are talking about $26 per month in the first year that covers 50 percent of total premium costs, no lower premiums for low- income beneficiaries. I mean, if you are below a certain income, you would not pay any premium, is what we are saying. And there would be privately negotiated discounts gained by pooling beneficiaries' purchasing power, so we can keep the cost down. I am not going to get into all the details this evening, but I just wanted to give you an idea of what the Democrats have been proposing and why it is so different, unfortunately, from what President Bush proposed just a few weeks ago. This disturbs me a great deal, because during the course of the campaign, President Bush said, gave the impression, I thought, that he wanted a universal Medicare prescription drug benefit that everyone would be eligible for and all Medicare beneficiaries would have access to. But he is not proposing that. This was, I guess, on January 31, just a few weeks ago, he unveiled his prescription medicine proposal called Immediate Helping Hand. It establishes block grants for States to provide prescription coverage for some low-income seniors and some seniors with catastrophic drug costs. His plan limits the prescription coverage to Medicare beneficiaries with incomes up to 35 percent above the poverty level; in other words, $11,600 for individuals, $15,700 for couples, and seniors with out-of- pocket prescription spending of over $6,000 per year. That is the catastrophic coverage. What does this mean? Most Medicare beneficiaries will not be able to get this prescription drug plan. It is not universal. I think that is a terrible thing, because I will be honest, if I can use my own home State as an example, in New Jersey if one is below these guidelines that the President has proposed, they automatically get what we call a PAAD program financed with casino revenue funds, so one only pays about $5 for prescription drugs. It is the people above that that are hurting, middle-income people that have no access to a prescription drug plan, in most cases. Just to give an example about how few people the Bush plan would cover, for example, a widow with $16,000 in annual income and $5,000 in annual drug spending would be eligible for no help at all because she is below the income, but she is not getting to that $6,000 catastrophic coverage for the rest of the year. Also, administering through the States, through block grants, it is not going to work. A lot of the States are not going to do it. The National Governors Association actually opposes it. Already some of the Senators have opposed the Bush plan. Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who is going to have so much input on this, he called the proposal dead before its arrival. I say, good. I think it should be dead before its arrival, because I think the bottom line is that we have to come up with a prescription drug plan into Medicare that covers all Medicare beneficiaries and is not just limited to low- income individuals, and that is not basically run by the States but run like Medicare, just like the Medicare program, throughout. That is what we need. Again, we are going to be out here on a regular basis, the Democrats, talking about why this is necessary, not because we want to be partisan, because I do not think there is anything partisan about Medicare prescription drugs or HMO reform or coverage for more people who do not have health insurance. The bottom line is, the Democrats believe in certain principles. We know some of the Republicans will come along with us, but we need to have more come along with us, and we need the support of President Bush if we are ever going to get anywhere with this. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), one of the co-chairs of our Health Care Task Force, who has been outspoken on this issue and many others.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to two individuals from New Jersey whose outstanding community service has earned them the title of ``Man and Woman of the Year'' and the seats of honor at the Order Sons of Italy in America dinner February 11 in Hazlet, New Jersey. This year's Woman of the Year is Manalapan Mayor Mary Cozzalino, the youngest female Italian-American elected official in the State of New Jersey. In addition to the many official, civic and volunteer contributions she is making to the citizens of Manalapan, she is also Police Commissioner, overseeing the security in this still-expanding Monmouth County Community. This year's Man of the Year is Franco Minervini, a nationally- renowned sculptor whose highly-acclaimed works of art frequently express his Italian-American heritage. Mr. Minervini not only being honored for his artistic achievements. As former commissioner of the Commission for Social Justice, he is being honored for his hard work on fighting and exposing discrimination against Italian Americans. Almost all of us who serve in the House are fortunate to have Sons of Italy lodges in our district, so it is important that we be occasionally reminded of the tremendous services the Sons of Italy perform for our community and for health and education of our families. During the past 38 years, the Sons of Italy foundation has awarded over $25 million in scholarships to Italian-American students. The Sons of Italy also provide funding for medical research on genetic diseases, homes for orphans, victims of natural disasters, international issues, and law enforcement support projects. So, I would like to congratulate the Sons of Italy for its many years of commitment to helping others and for the selection of Franco Minervini and Mary Cozzalino, two individuals who embody the ideals and the goals of this fine organization.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I come to the House floor this morning. Last Friday, as we know, one of the most destructive and devastating earthquakes hit India. And the area hit hardest by the quake was Gujarat, an area where a majority of Indian- Americans in my home district of New Jersey come from. Many of these Indian-Americans today are still waiting to hear whether or not relatives and friends are still alive. I want the millions of Indian-Americans to know that my prayers remain with them as the struggle to find victims and provide assistance to the wounded continues. Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we have before us today says two very important things: first, that, as a country and as a Congress, we express our deepest sympathies to all Indians for the tragic losses suffered as a result of last week's earthquake; and, second, the resolution voices this Congress' belief that we must substantially increase the amount of disaster assistance being provided by USAID and other relief agencies. This is critical. As of today, USAID has already sent $5 million in emergency supplies to the area most devastated. This is a good start, but we must do more. That is why I have asked President Bush to immediately double the amount of money being sent to India through USAID. I believe that we will need to do more in the future, but this assistance will make a huge difference in the lives of those who are now suffering. I just lastly want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the new chairman on the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, for introducing this resolution in such a timely manner. I ask that my colleagues support this resolution so that the nation of India and millions of Indian-Americans here in the United States know that they are not alone in helping the victims of this devastating event.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Robert T. Healey of Burlington County, New Jersey. Mr. Healey is a son of the Great Depression and like the great souls that showed America a better way during that time, his life has been one of resiliency. In 1954, Mr. Healey received his Jurist Doctor degree from University of Pennsylvania Law School. Mr. Healey was admitted to the bar in all state and federal courts in New Jersey. He was also admitted to the practice of law in the U.S. Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He recently retired as senior partner of Healey, Mueller and Tyler to give full time interest to several ``Viking'' business ventures in which he serves as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. He has chaired the National Coalition to Save Jobs in Boating, the Atlantic City Marine Expo and is the President of the New Jersey Boat Builders Association. Mr. Healey has also worked in several philanthropic ventures throughout his life. He is the President and principal benefactor of Living Bridges International, a nonprofit foundation working to assist needy-at-risk children. The foundation has helped build two schools in Mexico and helps provide 2400 hot meals per day for Mexican children. Mr. Healey has also been very active in his church and civic duties and has served as the vice-chairman of the Lumberton Township Economic Development Authority. The honorable Mr. Robert Healey is now a hearty retired grandfather with seven grandchildren and resides with his wife and three children at Gleneayre Farms in Lumberton, New Jersey. The wise philosopher Socrates once asserted that an unexamined life is not worth living. Mr. Healey, I salute you in saying that your examined life, dear sir, was truly worth living.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the changes in the House rules proposed by the Republican leadership. For months now, the American people have been hearing an abundance of talk from the Republican side about the new era of bipartisanship. Well, in their first act, the Republicans have brought forth a set of changes in the House rules, with no consultation from the Democratic side, and will attempt to ram these changes through on a partisan vote. Democrats only heard about the changes after the decision was made. Mr. Speaker, in a move to appease and reward just one of the conservative Members, the House leadership has abolished one full committee, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and has stripped another, the Committee on Commerce, of its long-standing jurisdiction over securities issues. Mr. Speaker, you claim that this move is rooted in substantive changes and not politics, but this does not pass the straight-face test. For what substantive reasons have you placed the jurisdiction of our financial markets in the hands of the committee that wrote the laws which brought us the savings and loan debacle? For what substantive reason are you hurting the career of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the rightful heir to the chairmanship of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services? Is it because she is a woman? Is it because she is a moderate? Or is the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) being passed over because she has not raised enough money for your campaign coffers? I would say to my colleagues, it is politics as usual for the Republican leadership and the 107th Congress. By their own hand they have written a document to govern this institution which rewards conservative politics and political fund raising at the expense of diversity and bipartisanship. I would urge my colleagues to oppose these rule changes. Vote no on the resolution.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and I agree that I cannot lay claim to Dr. Reddy, because he is from the gentleman's part of the country. I will say that about a year or two ago, Dr. Reddy started a chapter of the Indian-American Friendship Council in New Jersey. They are now very active, and I have been to some of their meetings where there were maybe 200 or 300 people, and so even though he is from California, his name and his activities have now spread to my great State as well.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take some of the time this evening before I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), to talk about the activities of the Indian American Friendship Council. I noticed that the previous speaker, and I guess he is now in the Chair, I wanted to say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) who is now presiding over the House of Representatives as the Speaker was, with myself, the founder of the Indian American Caucus and the Indian American Friendship Council which the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I are about to talk about, and worked very closely with the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans from the beginning when it was founded to try to bring the United States and India closer together, and to also deal with some of the concerns and issues that the Indian-American community had here in the United States. One of the accomplishments that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) made, and I am sure he is very proud of, is the fact that the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans has grown now. It is actually the largest caucus in the House of Representatives. The gentleman's involvement with it from the very beginning was a very important part of its success. Let me say that not only do I appreciate the gentleman's contribution, but I know that the Indian-American community appreciates it a great deal. Whenever I go to any event whether there is an Indian- American community, they constantly make reference to the fact that the caucus has been successful, what we have accomplished, and talk about the various things we have done. I just wanted to pay tribute to the gentleman as well this evening on another aspect of the many things the gentleman did during his career here in the House of Representatives. Let me say, the reason that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I are talking specifically about the Indian American Friendship Council is because this session of Congress, which will close this evening here in the House, I think was one of the most successful Congresses in terms of trying to bring the United States and India closer together, and making not only our colleagues in the government but I think the American people in general aware of the need to increase warm relations between the United States and India. When I was about to get up this evening and mention the contributions of the Indian American Friendship Council, and I looked on their website, I noticed that the lead theme, if you will, was ``Bridging the world's two greatest democracies.'' That is what the Friendship Council is all about, trying to bring the world's two greatest democracies together. Over the 7 or 8 years now that we have had the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, I think we have accomplished a lot in that regard. If I go back 7 or 8 years, at that time many people I think both in India and in the United States thought of the two countries as not only not partners, but maybe even I would not say enemies, certainly, but maybe on opposite sides of the fence on many issues, whether it was the economy or the development of trade or security issues, or whatever. Certainly over that last 7 or 8 years we have accomplished a lot to change that, and the Indian American Friendship Council has played a role. I wanted to give particular thanks this evening to Dr. Krishna Reddy, the founder and still the president of the Friendship Council. One of the things that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle certainly cannot forget is that every year in the summer, usually I think it is in July, the Indian American Friendship Council has a big event, basically a day-long conference, which concludes with a banquet in the evening where many Members of Congress participate. I think there is more participation by Members of Congress in that conference and in that banquet than any other event put on by the Indian-American community here in Washington. It is because Dr. Reddy and the people involved in the Indian American Friendship Council who really go out of their way to make it clear that Congressmen and Senators are important, and that the only way, if you will, that we can accomplish the goals of bringing the United States and India closer together is by having the community work with Congress and work with their Members of Congress to accomplish that goal and to basically say what their concerns are. I went through again the Web site of the Friendship Council, and I saw a list of about 10 goals that the Friendship Council tries to achieve, and every one of these is, I think, very significant in terms of U.S.-India affairs, as well as the role of the Indian American community. I just wanted to, if I could, very quickly list these. The goals basically say, and the first one is to forge better overall ties with an emerging power that is the world's largest democracy, better ties within the United States and India. That is in general. Second, to give concrete expression to our shared democratic values and our interests in strengthening evolving democracies. What they mean by that is that the council has played a major role in getting the Indian American community involved in government, involved in civic affairs, whether that means registering to vote, getting out to vote, or working for candidates, or lobbying in a positive way in Washington or a State capital for candidates. The third goal is to urge Indian progress towards global nonproliferation and security norms; very important, and not an easy task, because we know that with the detonating of nuclear weapons or the testing, I should say, of nuclear weapons in India a few years ago, there was a major concern about whether India will continue on the path towards nonproliferation. The council has made it clear that that is the path that both the Indian government, the U.S. Government and all governments should proceed down. Nonproliferation is a goal. I commend the Friendship Council for having that goal. Fourth is to maximize our partnership and trade investment and information technology exchanges with one of the world's largest economies, and one of the world's largest middle classes. We do not even need to comment on that one. Obviously, there has been a tremendous growth in trade between our two counties. There are tremendous opportunities in the information technology field. Indian Americans have played a major role obviously in the information technology field here in the United States as well as in India. Next is to broaden and deepen our relations with the world class Indian players in the vital area of information technology. Again, we have explained that, and, furthermore, to enhance our joint efforts on urgent global issues including terrorism and narcotics. When President Clinton went to India in March, and in that historic visit, which the council had been urging for a long time and Dr. Reddy have been preparing the way for for a long time, one of the major issues that was addressed was terrorism. And it was also addressed when Prime Minister Vajpayee came here to the United States before the House of Representatives in September, and significant progress has been made between the two countries on the goal of trying to get rid or trying to address international terrorism. And another goal was team up to protect the global environment with clean energy and other initiatives where Indian leadership is essential. When I was in India with the President in March, we made some major progress with regard to environmental concerns. We were at a hotel next to the Taj Mahal when an agreement was signed between the United States and India to try to improve the environment, to improve access to energy. And, again, the Friendship Council had been in the forefront of trying to stress the environmental and energy needs and the fact that our two countries, one, the United States, being the leader in the developed world and the other, India, being a leader in the developing world on these environmental and energy issues. Finally is to join hands in the global campaign against polio, HIV/ AIDS and other public health problems. Dr. Reddy, himself, is a dentist. He is very concerned about public health. He has been honored by the Indian government and by other organizations here in the United States, because of his concern, his public health concerns; and obviously, this is another area where the Friendship Council has been playing a major role and many members of the Indian caucus have taken the leadership in trying to improve the public health environment in India. Let me just say that I just want to conclude my portion, if you will, of the Special Order by saying that I really admire the work of Dr. Reddy and the Indian American Friendship Council. I know that many of my colleagues do. This is a bipartisan organization that works with Democrats and Republicans and certainly will continue to do the excellent job they do in the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).