Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, we must seriously begin to address the problem of the Nation's uninsured and the skyrocketing price of health insurance. Unfortunately, the plan the President is expected to outline tonight will do nothing to cut down on the number of uninsured because a tax deduction simply is not going to be enough to make insurance affordable to low and middle-income workers. In most cases, individual health plans are more expensive to purchase and provide considerably less coverage, but the Bush administration is under the false impression that their tax deduction will provide enough of an incentive for uninsured workers to sign up. At the same time, the Bush administration falsely believes they can begin to target the cost of health care premiums by taxing employee- based health benefits. This is nothing more than a tax increase on middle-class workers who have been lucky enough to secure good benefits through their job. Quality health benefits provided by employers should be the norm; and as policymakers, we should not discourage it. The President's proposal is a non-starter for me, Madam Speaker. But I am hopeful that I can work with the Bush administration to begin to solve some of our health care problems.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week, on the night of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, I attended a truly amazing event in the West Side Community Center in Asbury Park, New Jersey. The city of Asbury Park is in my congressional district, and has been plagued in recent months by gang violence. It is a phenomenon shared by many New Jersey municipalities, including my hometown of Long Branch nearby, which recently witnessed several gang murders. Mr. Speaker, redevelopment has come to Asbury Park, all the outward signs are of a seaside resort that is coming back big time. So why, you might ask, the gang violence? Why the murders? One of which took place right in front of the West Side Community Center where the Dr. King celebration took place. The truth is that the plight of the have-nots, that other America, has gotten worse in the last few years. The event was organized by the Reverend Kevin Nunn, leader of Spirit of Truth World Vision Outreach in Asbury Park. More than 15 local clergy testified to the difficulty of young people in getting an education, avoiding drugs, and preventing a return to prison because of lack of economic opportunities. The recreation programs which had been the backbone of the West Side Community Center are at risk because of lack of funding. Now, Mr. Speaker, the most important theme I can convey about Monday night's event was the message of hope. Dr. King was invoked as the example of love, peace and harmony among those of all races and creeds, and he was a symbol that pervaded the audience as the speakers talked about the need to vote, to go to church and unite as a committee. Reverend Nunn and most of the clergy who spoke at this meeting are directly involved in bringing shelter to the homeless, food to the needy, and promoting economic opportunity. The people present Monday night are proud Americans, but they need help. They are certainly not looking to government to solve all their problems, but they believe that government can make a difference, and it is up to us as their representatives to make the changes necessary so they can continue to have hope. Mr. Speaker, Senator Bob Menendez and I will soon introduce legislation to address the issue of gang violence. The bills will have three main goals. Our first goal is to provide after-school programs for students so they have a place to go instead of joining a gang. The type of recreation and mentor programs that were discussed in Asbury Park at the community meeting I attended could benefit from the grant set up by this legislation. The second goal is to prevent recidivism, the idea that people who leave jail don't get caught up in a gang once again because they have no job, no family or home to return to after jail. The legislation expands adult and juvenile offender demonstration projects to help with post-release housing and promote programs that hire former prisoners. And last, the administration addresses better police enforcement as well as gang suppression initiatives. At the Asbury Park meeting, the cries of ``Stop the Violence'' came up repeatedly. The legislation will direct more resources to towns to create a new COPS grant program and put more police on the street. Penalties will increase for those convicted of gang crimes, and particularly those using firearms, and communities would be empowered to create their own task forces to implement antigang initiatives. Now all of these ideas require more dollars, and on the day when President Bush is making his State of the Union address, I want to make one very serious point about Federal resources. We can't, as a nation, continue to escalate the war in Iraq with no positive consequences for America at a continued drain of hundreds of billions of dollars. President Bush needs to reverse course and redeploy our troops out of Iraq. The money and manpower are not only needed on the fight against terrorism elsewhere, for example, in Afghanistan, but also at home, to fight the criminals on our streets. The need is not only for more policemen, but for the housing, health care education and life support needs that will make it possible to get rid of the poverty that I saw on Martin Luther King Day in my community of Asbury Park.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of President Bush's State of the Union speech, in which he will undoubtedly be searching for support for his plan to send additional troops to Iraq, I fear that the President and his administration are neglecting the real front in the war on terror, and that is Afghanistan. It is because of this neglect that the Taliban has made a resurgence in both Afghanistan and western Pakistan. In October, President Bush said that ``al Qaeda is on the run'' and claimed that we are winning the war on terror. The fact is that attacks by jihadists have increased over the last 3 years. In addition to the tragic bombings in Madrid and London, violent incidents linked to al Qaeda have occurred in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and elsewhere in the Middle East. Investigators discovered that the man behind the London bombings, Mohammed Siddique Khan, spent significant time in western Pakistan prior to the bombings. He was in the area of Pakistan that shares the border with Afghanistan, and this area has grown to be one of the most problematic regions in America's war on terror. Mr. Speaker, the problem stems from late 2001, when American forces pushed al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. The group did not disappear, but rather jumped the border to western Pakistan, where it has set up a network of training camps. A former American intelligence official who worked in Pakistan has claimed that over 2,000 foreign fighters are currently in the region. The details of insurgent attacks on the ground in Afghanistan are very disconcerting. Suicide attacks have increased from 27 in 2005 to an alarming 139 attacks in 2006. Instances of roadside bombs have more than doubled from 783 in 2005 to 1,677 in 2006. And, Mr. Speaker, we are hardly winning this war. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice must push Pakistani President Perves Musharraf to take action against Taliban militants in the western region of his nation. After the attacks of 9/ 11, President Musharraf offered his support to the United States by vowing to search for Taliban fighters and Islamic extremists in western Pakistan. However, he has failed to live up to his promise, as reports show that Taliban fighters seem to be flourishing in western Pakistan. And it appears that Pakistan's agencies, particularly the large and powerful ISI, have been promoting the Islamic insurgency. According to press reports, NATO has captured nearly 200 members of the Taliban, including Pakistanis, who have described in detail the ISI's support of the Taliban. Last week Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said that al Qaeda ``continues to plot attacks against our homeland from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan.'' President Bush must listen to Negroponte and others who see the realistic side of the war of terror, a war that we are not winning because the President is too focused on the failed war in Iraq. By sending additional troops to Iraq, in a sense escalating the war, the President will continue to undermine the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. In fact, some reports have stated that a portion of the proposed 22,000 additional troops moving to Iraq will be pulled out of Afghanistan. It is simply unacceptable for the President to continue to risk American lives in Iraq in a war we cannot win while the real terror threat continues to grow in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, if the goal of the war on terror is to prevent future incidents of terrorism in the United States and abroad, President Bush must shift his focus away from Iraq and return it to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He must work with President Musharraf to eliminate extremist training camps in western Pakistan and acknowledge that the real epicenter of the war on terror is Afghanistan and not Iraq.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last year during the political campaign, House Democrats promised to pass six pieces of legislation if the American people trusted us with control of the House. The American people were looking for a new direction and turned to us to get them there. In the first 3 weeks of the new Congress, we have not disappointed. Democrats have delivered on all six promises. During 100 hours we have increased the minimum wage, implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, cut student loan interest rates in half, repealed preposterous welfare handouts to Big Oil, approved Federal funding for promising stem cell research, and provided our government the ability to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for America's seniors. Six major pieces of legislation passed by this House within the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress. And this legislation begins to move our Nation in a new direction, one where the needs of all Americans are finally addressed here on the House floor. These six pieces of legislation will produce real results for the American people, and that is why they garnered such strong bipartisan support over the last 3 weeks. And this is only the beginning.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 73) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to bring attention to the full blown violence taking place in Sri Lanka. The last round of talks in Geneva ended up in a failure, and there are no signs of new negotiations. There is no peaceful solution in sight, and it is the civilians who are desperately suffering. Since 1983, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has been in a military confrontation with the Government of Sri Lanka to win a separate ethnic minority Tamil state. Since last April, more than 200,000 people have been displaced from their homes by the escalation in violence and insecurity. And this is in addition to more than 310,000 people who were displaced previously due to the conflict. Now, because of this violence, the main highway connecting the two major areas in the north and east region of the country is closed, forcing civilians to use tortuous routes to reach safety. In recent months about 20,000 people have fled through jungles and treacherous waterways towards the government-controlled territory. Thousands who have not fled are trapped in eastern Sri Lanka and caught between the intense crossfire. Every day there are more news stories highlighting the increasing casualties among the civilian populations, especially children and young adults. Violence continues in other parts of the island nation as well. And many civilians have been killed in air raids and bus bombings in recent weeks. Families live in constant fear, anxiously hoping for their security. Now, meanwhile, Madam Speaker, access for humanitarian agencies has been a growing problem over the past year. Civilians in Jaffna in the north and in the affected districts of the east have had great difficulty obtaining necessary food and medical supplies. Both the government and the Tigers should commit to providing humanitarian agencies with unregulated access and full support. Madam Speaker, the army says the civilians are being used as human shields by the Tamil Tigers. The Tigers deny this claim and accuse the army of targeting civilians to facilitate their forthcoming offensive. And regardless of blame, innocent civilians are dying. After nearly 25 years of violence, it is clear: there can be no military solution to the conflict. A negotiated political settlement must be reached, and that one will have to be fair to all of the ethnic communities living in the country of Sri Lanka. I am deeply troubled by the worsening situation in Sri Lanka, Madam Speaker, and it must be addressed by the United States. I commend the commitment by the Bush administration to provide funding for refugees, but I strongly urge President Bush to further U.S. involvement to help secure a lasting peace. Last week I added my name to a letter urging President Bush to appoint a special envoy for Sri Lanka. The letter is being circulated by my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Rush Holt. And I urge my colleagues to also sign on. By naming a special envoy, the U.S. can create a personal monitoring presence in the country and make recommendations for steps to lead to peace. Sri Lanka, more than ever before, needs U.S. engagement.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for those very kind words. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which already passed the House by voice vote last November and was well on its way to becoming law until it was held up in the other body. I have reintroduced the bill with Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, who is, of course, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Sires) who is also here to speak on the bill, and also Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is a very simple bill, designed to provide the Edison Memorial Tower Corporation additional time to raise funds to match a Federal grant. The Edison Memorial Tower is a 131-foot tower built in 1937 on the exact spot where Thomas Edison's original Menlo Park laboratory was located in New Jersey. It was built to commemorate Edison's work and is connected to a museum displaying many of the inventor's creations. Unfortunately, the tower has suffered more than $3 million worth of water damage. The Edison Memorial Tower Corporation, which oversees the tower, was designated as a recipient of Federal funds under the Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin Act, which we passed in 1998. That funding became available at the beginning of last year but required a non-Federal match. After reading a document published by the Mint, the Tower Corporation originally thought that they could use State funds to pay for the match. Unfortunately, they were informed recently by the U.S. Mint that they could only use funds raised from private sources. Once they realized this, the Tower Corporation approached me for help since they were faced with the need to raise more than $300,000 by the end of 2006 to reach the statutory deadline for applying for the Federal funding. That is why I introduced the legislation to extend that deadline by 6 months, to give them adequate time to raise private funds. I would point out that the board of the Tower Corporation has assured me and the Committee on Financial Services that they will be able to raise the necessary funds in 6 months and that they would not request another extension. We all know that Thomas Edison's contributions to our society are too numerous to count, but by creating the modern light bulb at this location he is one of America's most recognized thinkers and inventors. The Memorial Tower helps celebrate his achievements and salutes the spirit of innovation that he fostered. We need to pass this to ensure that the Memorial Tower can be repaired and serve not only as a memorial to a great man, but also as a symbol of America's potential for technological innovation and achievement. Lastly, Madam Speaker, I just would like to thank sincerely my colleagues, first of all Chairman Frank, and, of course, Ranking Member Bachus, for their willingness to move this bill, and the leadership on both sides of the aisle for putting it on the suspension calendar so early in this new Congress. I want to thank, again, first of all, Eric Gordon, my staff person sitting to my left, who worked so hard on this, and also the hard work of Jamie Lizarraga on the Democratic staff of the Financial Services Committee which has been critical to moving the legislation. Joe Pinder of the Republican committee staff has also been quite helpful, and I thank him as well. I thank my two colleagues, both the gentleman from Georgia and my Republican colleague, for the statements they made today. This bill will go a long way towards ensuring that we can preserve an important landmark saluting a great American, and I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, as we begin the third week of this new Congress, it is important that the American people know what we have accomplished so far on their behalf. During our first week in session, we changed the rules on how this institution works, cutting ties between lobbyists and lawmakers, and reinstituting commonsense pay-as-you-go budget rules. Last week we began our 100-hour agenda, passing four pieces of legislation that will help the American people live better and healthier lives. We increased the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years. We passed legislation giving the government the ability to fund promising stem cell research. We passed a bill that allows the government to negotiate better prescription drug prices for American seniors. We passed long overdue legislation instituting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that should make our Nation safer. And we are not finished yet. This week we will make college more affordable by cutting interest rates in half on student loans and investing in biofuels by repealing unnecessary tax breaks to Big Oil. Democrats are delivering on the promises we made to the American people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I did not support the resolution authorizing the Iraq war, and I continue to believe it was a mistake, and that we should redeploy our armed forces out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Needless to say, I adamantly oppose the President's latest proposal to escalate the war, the so-called ``surge.'' Now, part of my concern over the Iraq war is that it continues to distract U.S. policy, both foreign and domestic, from more important concerns. The threat of international terrorism is real, and it came home to us vividly after 9/11, but the focal point of our war against terrorism should be Afghanistan, not Iraq. While our soldiers continue to die in Baghdad and we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, we are neglecting the situation in Afghanistan and its environs, particularly Pakistan, where bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban grow stronger every day. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday the New York Times did a front page story on the NATO struggle in Afghanistan, which stressed how the Taliban were coming back. The likelihood is there will be a new spring offensive by the Taliban as early as February, next month. The article went on to say that corrupt and ineffective leadership have turned people against the central government and its U.S. allies, and that U.S. reconstruction efforts are a failure. Mr. Speaker, if there is any place where the United States should be stepping up its efforts, both in terms of resources and manpower, and where we would have international support, again, in terms of other countries' troops as well as other countries' resources and money, it would certainly be Afghanistan. The U.S. was directly attacked from there by bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives, and they were of course harbored by the Taliban. So you might ask, Mr. Speaker, why does President Bush get on national TV last week and stress the need for a surge in Baghdad and reconstruction dollars for Iraq, and not prioritize Afghanistan instead? In addition, President Bush continues to appease the military dictatorship in Pakistan, which effectively encourages and provides safe harbor in its frontier territories to the Taliban. President Bush talks about democracy in Iraq, but what about democracy in Pakistan, which is much more likely to achieve democracy if the U.S. did not prop up the Musharraf dictatorship. The media, Mr. Speaker, has reported many times that al Qaeda and the Taliban operate freely out of Pakistan where they maintain training camps and receive the support of Pakistan's ISI, the equivalent of the American CIA. Last fall, the Pakistan government entered into an agreement with the Taliban. In return for not conducting raids into Afghanistan, they were guaranteed effective control of certain frontier regions of Pakistan. However, the incursions by the Taliban into Afghanistan continue while the Musharraf government left the Taliban alone in these areas of Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the U.S. has the opportunity for nation- building in Afghanistan that will continue to elude us in Iraq. Afghanistan's economy is increasingly dependent on drugs; in other words, the opium crop which has expanded while the normal economy falters. Afghanistan needs a major infusion of resources from the United States and its allies to prevent a Taliban resurgence. I simply ask, Mr. Speaker, as we debate President Bush's surge in Baghdad over the next few weeks, think about the alternative in Afghanistan. Let's not forget where the real U.S. and global threat of terrorism both started and continues this day.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern this afternoon and my opposition, indeed, to the renomination of Robert Hogland by the Bush administration as U.S. Ambassador to Armenia. And I also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, for his continued opposition to the nomination. This makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reviewed the nomination of Mr. Hogland, had hearings, asked extensive written questions as followup in the last session of Congress, and it was clear that Mr. Hogland's nomination could not pass the Senate. In fact, could not even pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was essentially sent back to the administration at the end of the lame duck session. And I am, frankly, surprised that the President has renominated Mr. Hogland under the circumstances. The problem continues to be, on the one hand, that the administration has not offered any meaningful explanation of the reasons for firing the last U.S. ambassador to Armenia, John Evans. We all know the reason why Mr. Evans was terminated. It is because he articulated the fact that the Armenia genocide occurred. Historically. The U.S. policy has been to, basically, announce and accept the fact that the tragic events of the Armenian genocide occurred. But when anyone within the administration actually calls it genocide, immediately they are seen as a bad actor, and consequences follow from that. And Ambassador Evans came to the United States. He was out in California. He was involved one afternoon or evening in a discussion about the tragic events that occurred between 1915 and afterwards, and he used the term ``genocide.'' It may sound like no big deal to anybody else, a historical fact that almost every government in the world recognizes, that the U.S. has historically acknowledged. But the very fact that he used that term incurred tremendous opposition from the Turkish Government. And from that day on, his days were numbered as the ambassador to Armenia, and eventually he was terminated and Mr. Hogland was nominated in his place. Now, last session, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considered Mr. Hogland's nomination. Mr. Hogland failed to adequately respond to the questions asked by the Senators and, I would add, this is on a bipartisan basis. This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. This is on a bipartisan basis. The members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked him a number of questions and Mr. Hogland would not clarify the U.S. policies denial of the Armenian genocide. In many instances he did not respond to specific Senators' questions, and he diverted his answers by responding with what seemed like prepared talking points and went to extreme lengths to avoid using the term ``genocide.'' Additionally, in response to a written inquiry from Senator John Kerry concerning Turkey's criminal prosecution of journalists for writing about the Armenian genocide, Mr. Hogland referred to these writings as allegations. Now, let me say, the U.S. has historically taken a leadership role in preventing genocide and human rights. But the Bush administration continues to play word games by not calling evil by its proper name in this case. Instead, they refer to the mass killings of 1.5 million Armenians as tragic events. That term, Mr. Speaker, should not be substituted for genocide. The two words are simply not synonymous. There are historical documents that show that the genocide cannot be refuted. But somehow the Bush administration continues to ignore the truth in fear of offending the Turkish Government. Now, again, I don't think that our Nation's response to genocide should be denigrated to a level acceptable to the Turkish Government. And it is about time that this administration started dictating a policy for Americans, not for a foreign government like Turkey. This lack of honesty, in my opinion, by the Bush administration is simply not acceptable. The American people and this Congress deserve a full and truthful account of the role of the Turkish Government in denying the Armenian genocide. Now, let me just say one more thing before I conclude this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. There is no way, in my opinion, that Mr. Hogland is going to be confirmed because of his policy, because of the fact that he continues to articulate a policy of denial. And I fear, myself, that it would make no sense to send an ambassador from this country to Armenia who cannot articulate the genocide. So I simply ask that this nomination be opposed again in the Senate, and the Bush administration realize that it can't submit it, and that they simply withdraw the nomination.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, a principal goal of this new Democratic majority is to make health care more affordable for all Americans, and that is the reason I rise in strong support of H.R. 4. This legislation will help lower prescription drug costs for our Nation's seniors and the disabled by simply repealing the provision inserted by the Republican majority into the 2003 law that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a national embarrassment, in my opinion, that we have the tools to lower drug prices for America's seniors and the disabled and yet we do not utilize them. It is simply time for a new direction. This provision that we are repealing never made any sense, except to the pharmaceutical industry. My colleague who is controlling the bill on the other side talked about reality and talked about irony. The reality is that this provision was inserted by the pharmaceutical industry, a special interest, because of their alliance essentially with the Republican majority. And the irony is that that gentleman continues to talk about saving money when in reality we would save a tremendous amount of money by having this provision repealed. That savings, as Mrs. Emerson said, could actually be used to increase the quality of the program, perhaps by filling up the donut hole or doing other things that would make it possible for seniors to have even more access to prescription drugs at a lower cost. Now, my Republican friends point to the fact that seniors may be receiving lower prices thanks to negotiations between private drug plans and drug manufacturers. But I will argue that significantly more savings could be achieved, and a majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, agree that the government should be given the choice to further lower drug costs through negotiations. This is a no-brainer. Let us try it. It makes sense. Common sense alone tells us that the collective purchasing power of 43 million seniors will undoubtedly be a powerful bargaining tool in lowering drug costs. In their opposition to this legislation, Republicans and their special interest friends are using two arguments that are contradictory. First, they say price negotiations will have little impact in reducing drug costs; then they turn around and say we are killing innovation. How can we kill innovation if our legislation has no chance of lowering drug costs? Both of these statements can't be true. In fact, both are false. The truth is these are the same worn-out scare tactics our Republican friends in Congress and the administration have used against us before. These scare tactics will no longer work in this House where the Democrats have the majority, and this new Democratic majority is moving forward with our promise to make health care more affordable and more accessible. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4. I know we have some Republicans joining us on this because it is simply common sense.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3. I was listening to the previous speaker, my colleague on the Republican side, and I have to say all we are really saying with this bill is we should have options and that those options should be allowed to proceed. I believe strongly, regardless of your ethics or your theology, that the way this bill has been crafted by the gentlewoman from Colorado there is no reason why anyone here should not support it, regardless of how they are thinking of this theologically or from an ethical point of view. Each day we wait to lift the ban that President Bush has placed on advancing embryonic stem cell research is another day that we waste in discovering new cures for the chronic diseases and medical conditions that so many of our friends and families suffer from. Instead of embracing the potential embryonic stem cell research holds in developing new life-saving and life-enhancing therapies, the President has chosen to cater to the fringe of his party and has continually blocked this important legislation from becoming law. This misguided policy has significantly impeded scientific progress over the years and needlessly placed American lives at risk. As a result, States like my own, New Jersey, are moving forward with their own initiatives to advance embryonic stem cell research. The State legislature in New Jersey and the Governor recently signed legislation setting up stem cell research institutes in my town, in my district, New Brunswick, and in two other parts of the State. But the State should not have to go it alone. We need to leverage Federal, State and private dollars in order to unlock the potential of embryonic stem cells in the quickest fashion possible and bring new life-saving therapies to the patients who need them. An overwhelming majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research and their representatives in this Congress should do so as well. The time has come to put an end to these absurd restrictions. There shouldn't be restrictions. Today, let's vote for hope for millions of Americans and pass H.R. 3.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats promised that if the American people trusted us with control of Congress, we would take America in a new direction. So far, we have made good on our promise to break the link between lobbyists and legislation, and we reinstituted pay-as-you- go budgeting. But our work is not done. We are now in our first 100 hours of legislation, and already we have passed legislation that will make America more secure by implementing the independent 9/11 Commission recommendations. Today, we will give Americans a much-needed pay raise by increasing the minimum wage; later this week, we are going to begin making health care more affordable by giving the Federal Government the ability to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices; and tomorrow we are going to give hope to millions of Americans by allowing stem cell research. Next week, we will also move down the path to energy independence by ending subsidies to Big Oil and investing in renewable energy. Democrats promise to deliver so we can take America in a new direction.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 46) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, first let me say how happy I am to see our Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey, who I would mention to my colleagues was the Speaker of the General Assembly in the State of New Jersey, so he certainly knows what to do in the Speaker's chair. Great to see you up there this evening. I come to the floor this evening to once again call on Dr. Ian Paisley and the Democratic Unionist Party to support peace and justice in Northern Ireland and not get in the way of creating a truly devolved government. I call on my colleagues to support the ``New Beginning'' policy envisioned in the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent Patten Report, even as Northern Ireland tackles the controversial issue of setting up a fair and effective criminal justice system. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called Sinn Fein's leadership under President Gerry Adams ``remarkable,'' and I certainly agree. Despite a long history of unfair treatment and attacks by unionist paramilitaries and others, Sinn Fein is moving down the path to devolution by supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and working with the criminal justice system. In order for the citizens of Northern Ireland to have a police force they can respect and cooperate with, they need to be assured that power sharing will be restored and officials will ensure sufficient accountability to prevent the types of abuses that have plagued the Catholic community in the north for so long. Mr. Speaker, the community of Northern Ireland and all of the political parties must be involved in the process to create a New Beginning to Policing. Since the Patten Commission Report in September 1999, much progress has been made in terms of increased recruiting of Catholic officers, establishment of district policing boards, and increased oversight and accountability of the police service. The St. Andrews Agreement, issued this past year, showed that the path to restoring critical political institutions should include support for and devolution of policing. Sinn Fein has taken the bold step of moving forward to support the policing institutions, and now Dr. Paisley seems to want to stay in the past instead of recognizing that it is time to move forward with a police service and a government that respects and represents all the people of Northern Ireland. Mr. Speaker, I again commend Gerry Adams, the leadership of Sinn Fein, Prime Minister Blair, and the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahearn, for all their hard work and courage in moving the peace process forward. It will not be easy to overcome the troubling history of discrimination and distrust between communities in Northern Ireland. I hope, however, that Dr. Paisley and the membership of the Democratic Unionist Party will put aside the politics of the past and become a partner in moving towards a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, securing the safety of the American people is our number one priority as elected officials. To do this we must look at all facets of homeland security and take all necessary precautions seriously. Democrats have pledged to address the matter of homeland security comprehensively by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Of their 41 recommendations made over 2 years ago, many have been only partially implemented and others have not been implemented at all. Because of this delay in addressing the Commission's recommendations, we still have major holes in our homeland security system. More than 5 years after 9/11, only 5 percent of containers entering U.S. ports are screened. In addition, most air cargo is not screened at all, and our first responders are still unable to communicate with each other during an emergency. Mr. Speaker, Congress can no longer ignore the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. This week we will have an opportunity to better secure our Nation by beginning the process of approving these recommendations.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to voice my strong opposition to President Bush's apparent decision to send up to 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Tomorrow evening the President will try to persuade a very skeptical public that more troops are needed in Iraq. But regardless of the number he suggests tomorrow night, I will oppose any efforts to escalate the war by sending additional American troops. Mr. Speaker, it appears President Bush has learned nothing from the results of the 2006 election, nor has he listened to the suggestions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group or his own Joint Chiefs of Staff who said as late as last month that they saw no reason to send more troops to Iraq. Instead, President Bush has chosen to stick his head in the sand, not listen to anyone and continue on a course that is not going to make Iraq any safer for either our brave troops or for the Iraqis themselves. It is time to bring an end to the war in Iraq. President Bush has lost the support of the American people who have grown frustrated by the continuing loss of American troops. They are rightfully asking the question, why must our troops continue to serve as referees in a civil conflict between Sunnis and Shias? Mr. Speaker, there was a new Washington Post ABC news poll released this morning. And only 17 percent of Americans support sending more troops to Iraq; 17 percent is not a mandate for anything, in my opinion. And it is time for President Bush to finally listen to the American people. Many of us woke up on New Year's Day to the headline of ``3,000'' bannered across our newspapers. We have now lost more than 3,000 soldiers in Iraq. Now, how many more are going to have to die before the President realizes that there is no possible U.S. military solution in Iraq? Some supporters of the President's plan are going to claim that if we bring our troops home now, the more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers that have died over the past 3 years will have done so in vain. But I could not disagree more. These men and women fought admirably for our country and will certainly be remembered as heroes. But the question now is whether or not we want to risk thousands more American lives for a war that we so obviously cannot win. Since the inception of this war, we have seen little evidence of progress in Iraq. In fact, the violence has only intensified to the point that a report released from the President's own Pentagon concluded that violence in Iraq was at an all time high just last month. And last month was the third deadliest month for American troops since the start of the war with insurgents claiming 111 soldiers lives. Now, our troops know that the situation in Iraq is getting worse every day. They are speaking about IEDs, the improvised explosive devices used by the insurgents, which are now bigger and more complex. The Bush Administration has tried troop escalation before, but it has never worked. Last summer, the President touted a plan that sent more troops into Baghdad, similar to what is expected to be proposed by him tomorrow. But while the violence subsided for a couple of weeks, by the end of August last year, violence was again on the rise, and it continued to escalate for the remainder of the year. Based on these facts on the ground, why would the President even consider sending more troops to Iraq? Why would you put more American lives in harm's way when we know that previous troop escalations have not been successful in reducing violence and decreasing the number of insurgents? Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to begin to bring our troops home. The President has said that increasing troops is a sacrifice we have to make to win this war. But I think truly it is time for him to admit that risking more American lives for this failed war is a monumental mistake.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, is the Speaker this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to congratulate the Rutgers Scarlet Knights on their recent victory over Kansas State in the Texas Bowl. Last Thursday the Scarlet Knights cruised to a 37-10 victory over the Kansas State Wildcats, capping their memorable season with the first bowl win in school history. Running back Ray Rice led the winning effort with 170 yards rushing and a touchdown. Wide receiver Tim Brown scored two touchdowns, which, combined with Rutgers' stifling defense, was more than enough to put away Kansas State. The defense held Kansas State under 200 total yards and did not allow an offensive touchdown. Coach Greg Schiano led his team to an 11-win season this year for only the second time in Rutgers' history. In his five short years since becoming head coach at Rutgers, Coach Schiano has turned the program around from a 2-9 record in the basement of the Big East to an elite football program near the top of the BCS standings. And Coach Schiano has received national recognition as the coach of the year, as well as Big East honors as coach of the year. Mr. Speaker, also deserving of recognition are university president Richard McCormick and Rutgers athletic director Bob Mulcahy. During their tenure, Rutgers athletics, particularly the football program, has reached a high standard athletically and academically. The American Football Coaches Association has recognized Rutgers football for a high level of academic achievement among student athletes. Additionally, Rutgers student athletes have played a large role in the community by becoming involved with toy drives, hospital visits, and blood drives. Mr. Speaker, the hard work, dedication, and teamwork exhibited by the Rutgers football program embodies the highest traditions of scholar athletes and serves as an inspiration to all New Jerseyans. And once again I would like to congratulate the entire Rutgers athletic program and the university as a whole for this remarkable achievement. I look forward to cheering them to even greater success in the future ``in that noisy college town on the banks of the old Raritan.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank Mr. Barton and Mr. Dingell for all their hard work on this NIH bill. As was mentioned, this is the first time in 13 years that we have had a reauthorization of the National Institutes of Health. This is an important piece of legislation because the National Institutes of Health are the world's premier research medical center and the key focal point for medical research in the United States. On September 26, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 6164 with a vote of 414-2. The Senate recently passed that bill with amendments, which is the bill before us now. Those amendments helped clarify provisions in the bill and therefore improve it. So every Member who voted for H.R. 6164 on September 26 should feel comfortable voting for this bill this evening. I wanted to mention that the bill before us also includes provisions with regard to the SCHIP, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This is another reason we should be supporting the legislation this evening. This part of the legislation would provide the money necessary to help a number of States, including my own, avert a funding shortfall in their State Children's Health Insurance Program. Specifically, the bill will redirect existing unspent SCHIP funds from fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to help States that will not have sufficient funds to maintain their existing programs. States forfeiting unspent funding will be held harmless by capping the amount of funds that will be donated to $20 million. Thanks to this compromise, we can prevent many States from having to limit eligibility, increase cost- sharing requirements or restrict benefits. Keeping these programs intact is critically important for the health and well-being of our Nation's children. Since its inception, SCHIP has been an integral part of reducing the number of uninsured children. But last year, for the first time since 1998, the number of uninsured children in the country actually increased, and even more children will go without coverage if Congress does not act tonight to avoid the funding shortfall currently projected for next year. Again, I would like thank my colleagues Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton, as well as their staffs, who helped work out this compromise, as well as our Senate counterparts. Thanks to our efforts, we will help preserve access to health care coverage for millions of low income children, as well as their families. Finally, Mr. Speaker, while we have temporarily prevented a cut to the SCHIP program tonight, we must not forget that there are still approximately 8 million American children who currently have no health insurance, many of which are eligible to participate in SCHIP. Reauthorization of the SCHIP program must be addressed early next year and we must work together to help expand coverage and increase participation. Failure to do so will undoubtedly jeopardize the health of those most vulnerable in our Nation, our children. I would like to thank everyone again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3546, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act. By some estimates, the dietary supplement industry is a $20 billion industry. Over half the American population regularly uses dietary supplements, with as many as 60 percent of Americans using dietary supplements daily in an effort to maintain or improve their healthy lifestyles. Many responsible dietary supplement companies and manufacturers already voluntarily report serious adverse events associated with their products to the FDA. However, in order to ensure the safety of consumers, all companies should be required by law to report such events. This bill accomplishes that goal. The legislation before us today would amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that the manufacturer, packer or distributor of a dietary supplement or over-the-counter drug notify the FDA within 15 business days of any serious adverse event reports it receives that are associated with one of their dietary supplements or over-the-counter products. A serious adverse event is described as a health-related event that results in death, a life-threatening experience, in-patient hospitalization, a persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or congenital anomaly or birth defect. Adverse event reports provide an early warning signal to the FDA about potential product problems, like product contamination or adulteration, tampering, bioterrorism and ingredient safety issues. By requiring that this information be submitted to a single source, manufacturers increase the likelihood that problems will be identified more quickly and fewer consumers will be affected. Although the FDA currently receives adverse event reports from consumers, health care providers, poison control centers and even many manufacturers on a voluntary basis, this legislation will ensure that a greater number of serious adverse event reports are transmitted to the FDA for review. Consumers should be assured that when a serious incident happens, the manufacturer will be held responsible for informing the Federal agency that regulates these products. Adverse event reporting by the manufacturer is already required for other FDA regulated products, such as medical devices, prescription drugs and certain over-the-counter- drugs. It is time that we require the same reporting standards for dietary supplements, and this change will help protect consumers and build greater confidence in the safety of dietary supplements. Again, I would like to thank Senators Hatch, Harkin and Durbin, as well as all the industry and consumer groups who worked hard on developing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Rahall, for all his contributions in getting this to the floor this evening. I know it was not easy to get us here to achieve the consensus that we have tonight. I would also like to thank on the other side of the aisle obviously our chairman, Mr. Pombo, and Mr. Young as well. I know this will be the last day, I guess, that we have this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, but I want to say that throughout your tenure as the chairman of the Resources Committee, I could always count on you to be honest and forthright about everything. And even though oftentimes we did disagree, there were many times when we agreed on different matters. So I want to thank you for your tenure and obviously look forward also to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) as our ranking member. He is another person who speaks his mind and certainly manages to get things done. I want to support this legislation. I think that it is a very important and comprehensive bill that updates our Nation's fisheries management laws, but I want to mention two provisions that are critically important to my constituents in New Jersey at the Jersey shore. First, it includes legislative discretion allowing the Secretary of Commerce to extend the rebuilding time frame for summer flounder. I, along with many of my colleagues from New Jersey, particularly Mr. Saxton, strongly believe that existing law gives NMFS the administrative flexibility to avoid making drastic cuts in next year's summer flounder quota, but the service consistently refused to use that flexibility. We are thus granting a legislative extension of the rebuilding time frame to force the administration to take action and avert drastically low quotas for this important fishery. While the resulting quotas will still be the lowest ever, this language will avoid a dramatically low quota that could have resulted in a virtual shutdown of the entire fishery. I am also glad to see that this bill contains a provision intended to improve data collection from the recreational sector. Anglers in my district have long known that the MRFSS system is widely inaccurate in estimating recreational landings and is completely inappropriate for use in stock allocation decisions. The language in this bill will help by requiring the secretary to improve the program to ensure accurate data collection and incorporate the results of a recent National Research Council report. I am also glad that the provision prevents a fee from being imposed until at least 2011, preempting an administration proposal to implement a license that could have cost up to $35 annually for the right to fish. I will acknowledge that the overall bill is far from perfect. There are provisions in here that I am not completely happy with. And there are other items I would have liked to include. But I know that neither the fishing nor the environmental community are completely happy with every single word, and probably that means it is a very good bill. This bill does represent an overall improvement in the management of our Nation's fisheries and strikes a balance between conserving stocks and ensuring productive fisheries. It is my fervent hope that this bill will bring some greater sense into a fisheries management system that to the average angler seems confusing at best and completely irrational at worst. We here in Congress have a duty to closely examine the outcomes of this law and closely oversee its implementation by the administration. Again, I thank all my colleagues and particularly our chairman and ranking member. I forgot to mention the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and I apologize, for all your work in putting this together. Thanks again, too, Wayne.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor a group of young individuals from Journey for Humanity, of which I, along with my Armenian Caucus Co-Chair, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Knollenberg, had the opportunity to meet with last month. Their goal is to raise awareness and recognition of the Armenian Genocide, as well as other human rights atrocities occurring around the world today. Last month the group arrived in Washington, having walked across the country. The 3,000-mile Journey for Humanity walk began approximately 5 months ago in Los Angeles, CA with the support of the Armenian Assembly of America. Since then, the marchers have crossed a dozen states and held rallies in eleven major U.S. cities to honor the victims and survivors of all genocidal acts and advance the cause of genocide prevention. The group marched twenty miles a day until it reached the Nation's capital. Although the walk officially concluded, the Journey continues with hopes for a documentary and a book to archive their efforts at genocide awareness and prevention. They also have plans for a series of lectures across college campuses to promote this important human rights message. For decades we've all heard the words ``never again,'' yet we continue to see the same type of horrors happening today. With the death toll in the Darfur region of the Sudan nearing 400,000, these young people hope to show the importance of learning from the past and to prevent future genocides. As descendants of genocide survivors, these young men and women carry the memory and live in the reality of the consequences of genocide. As Americans, it is our collective responsibility to inform our country about atrocious crimes against humanity, in an attempt to prevent future episodes. I commend their courage and passion, as well as the Armenian Assembly, for their efforts in raising public awareness and affirmation of these crimes against humanity. I heartily support their endeavors. Mr. Speaker, next Congress I, along with my Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Joe Knollenberg and my fellow Caucus colleagues Adam Schiff and George Radanovich, plan to re-introduce a resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide. The truth of the past must be told and acknowledged as a first step to genocide prevention. I encourage all Members of this body to cosponsor this important resolution.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to particularly thank my colleague from the State of Florida for the time. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for consideration of H.R. 6346 because under today's marshal law and the closed rule before us, no amendments were made in order. I oppose this legislation, and I particularly want to reference a provision which allows the administration to revoke India's competitive need limitations waivers on certain items after 6 months. Although India continues its economic development, the vast majority of Indians are still desperately poor. The GSP program has become very important to India's smaller businesses, such as the jewelry industry. Approximately 325,000 workers employed by the Indian jewelry industry, many of whom are from the countryside and are extremely poor, depend on GSP benefits. By providing alternative employment opportunities, the jewelry industry is helping to address the challenges India faces with increasing unemployment and desperation in rural areas, particularly for vulnerable populations such as women and low-skilled workers. It has afforded workers and their families access to basic necessities, such as basic education and health care. From a development standpoint, restricting GSP benefits for India would have an adverse effect on this progress. These workers will simply lose their jobs, putting a tremendous burden on them and their families. In addition, India is an important source of diamond jewelry to American jewelers today. Revoking these benefits would significantly increase the cost of many jewelry products for jewelers and their customers here, causing real harm to the industry in the United States. The contention for revoking these benefits is to allow smaller GSP beneficiary countries to develop this industry. However, it would not increase sourcing from these lesser-developed countries or from domestic sources here in the United States. Instead, the U.S. market would simply turn straight to China, which is extremely cost competitive and has a well-established industry. So I urge the administration to disregard the authority that is given under this bill to revoke India's competitive-need limitations. I hope the President will recognize the importance this program has on India's poor. Again, I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule and also on the subsequent bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have no objection.