Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, after President Bush made his first ever visit to India last week, I want to lend my personal support to the ever-improving relationship between the world's two largest democracies. His 3-day visit was another great step towards our two Nations' strategic partnership. The United States and India have made extraordinary progress over the last several years, and the path that lies ahead is critical to our improving relationship. Besides the U.S.-Indian civil nuclear cooperation deal, President Bush and Prime Minister Singh spoke about a number of important initiatives that would enhance cooperation in defense, counterterrorism, agriculture, energy and promotion of democracy. Based on their shared values of diversity, democracy, and prosperity, the growing partnership between the United States and India has created profound opportunities that are central to the future success of the international community. I appreciated that the President put some emphasis on the Kashmir conflict. He called for a solution agreeable to all parties and emphasized the need for ``tangible progress'' on the issue. The deep- seated hostility between India and Pakistan, of course, long predated the U.S. war on terrorism, but the conflict in Kashmir cannot be separated from it. Bush used his trip to urge the leadership of India and Pakistan to continue down the road to peace. Madam Speaker, last year India and Pakistan agreed to use confidence- building measures aimed at promoting trade and normal relations, and have begun to narrow their differences on the issue of Kashmir. I am encouraged by this recent effort to improve the security situation in Kashmir. I am also hopeful that cooperation between India and Pakistan can continue so we can finally sustain peace in Kashmir. Madam Speaker, there is also a growing agricultural cooperation between America and India shown by the India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture formulated last July. Fittingly, the President visited with farmers and agricultural scientists in the state of Andhra Pradesh, where some of the best modern cultivation methods and new farming technology are being implemented. As a Member from the Garden State of New Jersey, I believe it is important that we continue to help developing countries like India emulate technologies already adapted by the United States to increase farm production. We must support programs like those at Cook College, the Rutgers University agricultural school in my district, that are committed to providing agricultural solutions through education and research. Through their involvement in various international initiatives to promote modern research and development, Cook College and others are vital to global food production. Madam Speaker, energy cooperation is another strong aspect of the growing relationship between our two Nations. Just like the U.S., India is facing spikes in oil and gas energy prices, and they are searching for ways to fuel their rapidly growing economy. As developing economies continue to expand and existing industrial economies use more and more energy, global demand is leading to serious price increases. That is why we must work together to develop alternative sources of energy for homes, businesses and cars. We must find ways to promote the development of stable and efficient energy markets in India to ensure adequate and affordable supplies. I hope that over time, the U.S. and India can work together to find ways to lessen both Nations' dependence on foreign oil. It is critical that we reduce the world's dependence on oil from unstable nations that pose security threats to us and our allies. Last July, President Bush and the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, agreed that the U.S. would share nuclear technology for India's civilian energy use. Since then, chief delegates from both governments have been tirelessly negotiating the details of India's separation of nuclear power into civilian and military sectors along with establishing international oversight for India's civilian programs. At the conclusion of his trip, President Bush announced the details of an agreement that both parties have signed on to, and now all that remains is congressional approval, which I urge my colleagues to support when it comes under consideration. However, the President's trip to India last week should not be viewed merely as a way to complete the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Indeed, the President used his time accordingly to discuss all the issues of importance to the growing U.S.-India relationship, including peace throughout the region and cooperation on global issues like agriculture and energy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 proposes 20 percent more military aid to Azerbaijan than to Armenia. This request is a clear breach of an agreement struck between the White House and the Congress in 2001 to maintain parity in U.S. military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Mr. Speaker, the parity agreement is unfortunately a battle that the Armenian people have had to fight in the past. The fiscal year 2005 Presidential request was similar in that it called for more military funding to Azerbaijan. However, the Congress reversed the President to ensure military parity in the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. After that battle and the President's 2006 budget request that included parity, I thought the President's fiscal year 2007 budget would continue that policy. But unfortunately that was not the case. A lack of military parity would, in my opinion, weaken ongoing peace negotiations regarding Nagorno Karabakh, among other things. It will also contribute to further instability in the region, and it undermines the role of the United States as an impartial mediator of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Mr. Speaker, the government should not be rewarding the Government of Azerbaijan for walking away from the organization for security and cooperation in Europe's Key West peace talks, the most promising opportunity to resolve the Nagorno Karabakh conflict in nearly a decade. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the administration's budget also calls for drastic cuts in economic assistance to Armenia. I was discouraged to see that the President requested a 33 percent decrease in economic aid from $74.4 million last year to $50 million this year. Technical and developmental assistance and investment is essential to Armenia. This funding is key to democratic stability and economic reform in the country. Mr. Speaker, is this the message we want to send to our friends in Armenia? Do we want to cut economic aid to a country that is terrorized by its neighbors and is shut off on its eastern and western borders due to an illegal blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan? Mr. Speaker, in the coming weeks I will advocate to the Foreign Operations Subcommittee to restore military parity, to increase economic assistance to Armenia and to provide for humanitarian aid to the people of Nagorno Karabakh. It is incredibly important to reward our allies and to send a message to Azerbaijan and Turkey that ethnically charged genocides, illegal blockades of sovereign nations, and the constant harassment of the Armenian people will not be tolerated.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. I am opposed to this legislation for two reasons. First, and foremost, this legislation would completely eliminate any State or local food safety law that is not identical to requirements established by the FDA. Even laws that go beyond the federal requirements to protect their citizens would be pre-empted. For example, in my home state of New Jersey, a number of labeling requirements for milk, restaurant food safety and many other State laws would be completely negated, thereby placing the health and well-being of our citizens at increased risk. How is that good public policy? I also have to oppose this legislation for the way it has completely violated the legislative process. This bill has escaped any real scrutiny from the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over such food safety matters. No hearings were held, no witnesses were called to testify, and no effort was made to determine the actual impact this bill will have on the safety of our nation's food supply. It is clear that this bill was insufficiently reviewed and I fear that Congress is acting far too quickly to enact legislation that will have such sweeping affects. I believe improving the quality of our nation's food supply is one of the most important challenges facing Congress today. A vote for this legislation, however, would put consumers at increased risk. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration should have never approved a deal to allow the United Arab Emirates to operate at least six major U.S. ports. The administration claims it went through the proper process in approving the deal, but the administration did not conduct a 45-day investigation that is legally required. It would be nice if someone over at the White House would actually read the laws passed here in Congress. If the Bush administration had done its homework, they would have discovered that a 45-day investigation is mandatory in cases like this where the company is controlled by a foreign government and the acquisition could affect our national security. Had Congress not expressed outrage with the plan, a 45-day investigation would not be taking place today. However, investigation is simply not enough. I have absolutely no confidence that the Bush administration will conduct a proper investigation without pressure from Congress. Democrats and Republicans here in the House must stand against this proposal. We already know our ports are vulnerable. We should not add to that vulnerability by turning our port operations over to another country.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today marks a tragic anniversary for Armenians around the world. In late February of 1988, in the town of Sumgait, Azerbaijan, an organized attack on the Armenians of the town was carried out by Azerbaijani nationals. This 3-day rampage left dozens dead and hundreds injured. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the massacres in Sumgait, Azerbaijan, and the continued Turkish and Azeri aggression against the Armenian people. This massacre left dozens of Armenians dead, a majority of whom were set on fire alive after being beaten and tortured. Hundreds of innocent people received injuries of different severity and became physically impaired. Women, among them minors, were abused. More than 200 apartments were robbed, dozens of cars were destroyed and burned, dozens of art and crafts studios, shops and kiosks were demolished, and thousands of people became refugees. Mr. Speaker, these crimes were never adequately prosecuted by the Government of Azerbaijan, and most of its organizers and executors were simply set free. Despite the attempt by the Government of Azerbaijan to cover up these crimes, enough brave witnesses came forward to give an accurate account of the offenses. The Sumgait massacres are just another in a long line of Azerbaijan's aggressions against the Armenian people. The events in Sumgait were preceded by a wave of Anti-Armenian rallies that shook the city in February 1988. Almost the entire territory of the city, with a population of 250,000, became an arena for mass violence against its Armenian population. The attacks also marked the beginning of the violent Armenian- Azerbaijani conflict, which claimed nearly 30,000 lives and left over 1 million refugees. The continued hostilities in Azerbaijan and the military aggression against the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh in 1992 through 1994 led to the disappearance of a 450,000-strong Armenian community in Azerbaijan within a span of just a few years. Mr. Speaker, today many Armenians marked the anniversary of the Sumgait massacre by organizing a march here in Washington from the embassy of Turkey to the embassy of Azerbaijan in order to highlight the continued Turkish and Azeri aggression toward the Armenian people. The aggression I speak of, however, is still happening in a number of ways even today. There continues to be an organized effort to destroy historically sacred Armenian sites by the Government of Azerbaijan. Recently, there has been a documented video, evidencing the systematic destruction of a more than 1,000-year-old cemetery and historic carved stone crosses in the southern Nakhichevan region of Djulfa. There are also continued attempts by Turkey and Azerbaijan to strangle Armenia's economy and its people's ability to survive through economic aggressions. The over 10-year blockade of Armenia by Turkey and Azerbaijan cuts off a valuable trade route through the country and further isolates Armenia. These blockades have been denounced by the United States, the United Nations and the European Union, but they still exist as a way to starve the Armenian economy. The United States should do more to encourage the Turkish and Azerbaijani Governments to stop their illegal blockade of Armenia. Mr. Speaker, today, as the protesters walk the cold route from the Turkish embassy to the Azerbaijani embassy, the message should be heard loud and clear. It is time for the United States to do all that it can and to flex its geopolitical muscle in order to send a message that ethnically charged genocides, illegal blockades of sovereign nations and the constant harassment of the Armenian people will not be tolerated. This anniversary reminds us yet again of the historical injustice the Armenian people have faced, unfortunately, throughout their history.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to lend my personal support to strengthening the partnership between India and the United States, and today I rise to express my support for the recent civil nuclear energy cooperation agreement between the world's two largest democracies. I also urge my colleagues to support such an agreement when it comes under consideration in Congress. Based on their shared values of diversity, democracy and prosperity, the United States and India have a natural connection. The growing bilateral relationship between the United States and India is creating new and profound opportunities between our two countries. We have shared democratic values and national interests that have fostered a transformed relationship that is central to the future success of the international community, and that includes the global war on terrorism and slowing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Building this strategic partnership was unforeseen a few years ago, but its success is important in creating a strong democratic foundation in Asia. Mr. Speaker, India, which has long been a victim of terrorism, was the first to offer its services to the United States in its war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The Bush administration has made separation of India's military and civilian nuclear facilities an important benchmark by which to judge India's seriousness. In separating these facilities and placing the civilian ones under safeguards, it shows India's commitment to its role in the global community. Mr. Speaker, the United States-India civil nuclear agreement strengthens energy security for both the United States and India and promotes the development of stable and efficient energy markets in India to ensure adequate and affordable supplies. Development and expansion of U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation should, over time, lessen India's dependence on imported hydrocarbons, including those from Iran. Mr. Speaker, India is taking necessary steps to build its relationship with the international community. Although India has never been a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it should not be considered as a problem state with regard to nonproliferation issues. It has no record of proliferating dual-use nuclear technology to other countries. India understands the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and has agreed to key international nonproliferation requirements. Finally, Mr. Speaker, once the Bush administration outlines the details of the civil nuclear energy cooperation agreement, then Congress must begin steps to enact the changes necessary for implementation, and I would urge all my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to move in that direction and support it. The United States has established a remarkable strategic partnership with India, and a civil nuclear cooperation would be a great accomplishment. Its implementation is important for national security and for U.S.-India relations. Our two nations have made extraordinary progress over the last several years, and the path that lies ahead is critical to our improving relationship.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Congressman Joe Crowley (NY) and myself, I rise today to congratulate a Dr. Sudhir Parikh, a prominent Indian-American physician, activist and philanthropist, who was selected earlier this year to receive the prestigious Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award for 2006, the highest civilian honor bestowed by India on non-resident Indians. Every year, the Government of India nominates extremely worthy and valuable members of the non-resident community for this award who have made a difference to global well-being. It is clear that Dr. Parikh was chosen on his strong credentials. Dr. Sudhir Parikh, who migrated to the United States in the late 1970s and is a reputed allergist in the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, has made a significant difference in U.S.-India relations in the past several years. Dr. Parikh is a former president of the nationally recognized American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, as well as a former president of the Indian American Forum for Political Education. He used these prominent organizations to promote Indian-American issues in Congress and to raise awareness within the Indian community. Today, he serves as president to the Federation of Indian Associations, continuing his critical role in bringing our two countries together. He has contributed more than $2 million individually to various causes from cancer research to tsunami relief and rehabilitation of earthquake victims in Gujarat. Besides his individual efforts, Dr. Parikh also joined with organizations like the American Indian Foundation, Share & Care, the Nargis Dutt Cancer Foundation and the Art of Living Foundation to raise funds. As members of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, we are pleased to have a friend like Sudhir, who has helped tremendously in building the membership of the Caucus and helped set up a new caucus in the U.S. Senate. He is a tireless advocate for the Indian community's interests and the global interests of India. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Parikh is an asset to the Indian American community and his efforts are deserving of this great award. Sudhir fully embodies the commitment and values that the NRI Award represents.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Miami Herald got it right when it described the Republican Medicare prescription drug plan as an ``unmitigated disaster.'' For years, American seniors have been looking for help in paying for their prescription drugs. Republicans chose to pass a confusing law that forces seniors to go outside of their trusted Medicare to receive drug coverage from one of many private insurance plans. We have all heard stories of seniors leaving pharmacies without their drugs after being told their name could not be found in the system. Talk about incompetence. But then again, this prescription drug plan is another sorry example of how congressional Republicans have turned this House over to the special interests. Republicans chose to help the pharmaceutical and insurance companies rather than help the seniors who desperately need assistance with skyrocketing drug prices. Democrats have a plan to take this House back from the special interests so we do not have another prescription drug debacle in the future.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Richard P. McCormick, professor, dean, and historian of Rutgers--the State University of New Jersey, as well as president of the New Jersey Historical Society, who passed away on January 16, 2006. Having faithfully served the University and the State of New Jersey for over six decades, Dr. McCormick died after an extended illness at the age of 89. Born December 14, 1916, in Queens, New York, Richard Patrick McCormick moved to Tenafly, New Jersey, and attended Rutgers College, graduating with a bachelor's degree in 1938. In 1940, he earned a master's degree in history from Rutgers Graduate School-New Brunswick and then received his doctorate in 1948 from the University of Pennsylvania. After teaching in the history department for three years, Dr. McCormick was appointed the Rutgers University Historian in 1948, at which time he developed a full-year course on New Jersey's history. A prolific writer, Dr. McCormick was awarded the biennial book prize from the American Association for State and Local History in 1968 for his work ``Rutgers, a Bicentennial History.'' He remained at Rutgers where he chaired the history department from 1966 to 1969, chaired the Rutgers College Coeducational Committee in 1971, and served as dean of Rutgers College from 1974 to 1977. Following his retirement in 1982, Dr. McCormick remained active on campus and was awarded an honorary doctor of letters degree by the University, a rare distinction for faculty members. In 1990, he was inducted into the Rutgers Hall of Distinguished Alumni, and in 2002, the American Historical Association granted Dr. McCormick the Award for Scholarly Distinction for lifetime achievement. Additionally, this past fall, the Rutgers College Educational Opportunity Fund created the Richard P. McCormick Social Justice Award in recognition of his 1969 efforts to address African-American issues at the school, despite protests on three of the University's campuses. These honors, among others, depict a man of great worth who will surely be missed. Dr. McCormick is survived by his wife of 60 years, Katheryne Levis McCormick, as well as their daughter, Dorothy Boulia; son, the current president of Rutgers, Richard L. McCormick; and three grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to commemorate Dr. McCormick and to thank his family for the countless contributions that he made to the community and the State of New Jersey. His dedication to education, history, and activism will not be forgotten.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I introduced a bipartisan resolution expressing the disapproval of the Arab League's decision to hold its 2006 summit in Khartoum, Sudan. The resolution also calls on the Arab League, the government of Sudan, the Sudanese rebels and the world community to do all they can to end acts of genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Recently, the Arab League announced its decision to hold its annual summit in Khartoum. Doing so will only lend credibility to a country that is currently under sanction by the United States. The Sudanese government continues to allow acts of genocide to occur in the Darfur region and deliberately obstructs the African Union's ability to stabilize the region. Mr. Speaker, the current situation in the Darfur region of Sudan is dire. The U.N. estimates that as many as 180,000 have died, many of starvation and disease, and up to 2 million have been displaced. The Darfur conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a government-supported militia recruited from local Arab tribes, and the non-Arab rebels in the region. The Janjaweed has been implicated in a campaign of murder, rape and intimidation sponsored by the government of Sudan. Mr. Speaker, I do not need to remind this House of the horrors that we have turned a blind eye to in the past. The U.S. still will not recognize the Ottoman Empire's genocide of over a million Armenians from 1914 to 1921. It took us far too long to join the fight against the systematic state-sponsored persecution and genocide of the Jews of Europe during World War II by Nazi Germany. And of course our shameful disregard for the 937,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus that died at the hands of organized bands of militias during the Rwandan genocide. As the leader of the free world, we have a moral obligation to do all we can to stop genocide in all its forms. It was in 1998 when President Clinton said, and I quote, never again must we be shy in the face of evidence describing the failed U.S. response to the Rwandan genocide. Well, here we are, 8 years later, standing on the sidelines once again in the face of undisputable evidence. So in light of the current situation, why would the Arab League decide to have their annual summit in Sudan? I understand that the site of the Arab League summit is determined by an alphabetical order rotation. However, genocide calls for more than business as usual, and that is the attitude that the Arab League is now using. If there is one organization that has influence over the Sudanese government it is the Arab League. Member countries have a responsibility to rein in the Sudanese government and to do everything in their power to stop this genocide now. I believe the Arab League's decision to hold this 2006 summit in Khartoum constitutes an economic and symbolic reward and could even encourage the government of Sudan to continue to allow acts of genocide and other mistreatment against the people of Darfur. Mr. Speaker, the Arab League has a choice to make. Ignore a genocide and go forward with their planned summit or break the alphabetical tradition and send a message to Khartoum to do all it can to end the acts of genocide, to allow international peacekeepers to protect the innocent and to hold the Arab militia responsible for these acts accountable. This is an opportunity for the Arab League to lead. It is time for them to send the right message to the Sudanese government. I would urge my colleagues to join my resolution. It is bipartisan, expressing disapproval of the Arab League's decision to hold its 2006 summit in Khartoum. It is time to send a strong message that the Sudanese government should be reprimanded, not rewarded for their support of genocide.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to ask that my colleagues join me in supporting a resolution I introduced today that urges the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to engage positively in peace talks. I am deeply concerned about the ongoing violence caused by terrorism in Sri Lanka. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil, also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a group designated by the United States State Department as a terrorist organization. I hope this body can express its disapproval of the violence and instead voice full support for the resumption of constructive peace talks between both sides. For over two decades, there has been armed strife between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers, costing an estimated 65,000 lives. In a breakthrough agreement brokered by Norway back in 2002, the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers signed a cease- fire. Unfortunately, the Tamil Tigers have committed a number of violations, and the peace process has broken down. On August 12, 2005, Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister was brutally assassinated by a sniper, and it has been widely acknowledged that the LTTE members had targeted him for some time. Though LTTE has denied any involvement, past history demonstrates that the group never claims responsibility for their crimes. There is now clear evidence, for example, that the Tamil Tigers ordered assassinations of India's Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, President R. Premadasa, and others. These patterns indicate that the Tamil Tigers were likely involved in Mr. Kadirgamar's assassination. In addition to the death of Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister, the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission has recorded over 3,000 violations of the cease-fire agreement by the Tamil Tigers. These violations include assassinations and abductions, particularly the forcible abduction of children for armed combat and kidnapping individuals for ransom. This past December marked the bloodiest month since the cease-fire agreement came into effect in 2002. Nearly 70 people, about 40 of them from the Sri Lanka Army and Navy, have been killed as a result of the Tamil Tigers' guerilla actions. The Tamil Tigers continue to follow their past policy of denying any responsibility for these actions. Mr. Speaker, it is important that the U.S. continue to reject the actions and violent tactics of the Tamil Tigers and apply international pressure to request that they begin conducting themselves in a responsible and credible manner. We must insist that the Tamil Tigers demonstrate a willingness to change, abstain from violence, and establish their commitment to the peace process. The recent pledge to continue peace talks in February in Geneva, Switzerland, is encouraging, but it must include positive engagement by both parties. It is necessary that the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers renegotiate a cease-fire agreement and implement the agreement in a productive and successful manner so the hostilities do not resume. Without progress at the negotiating table, there is a real threat of another armed conflict. Mr. Speaker, Sri Lanka is Asia's oldest democracy and remains a close friend of the United States. As the founder and current cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka, I encourage the Bush administration to take the steps necessary to support Sri Lanka during these trying times and continue to strengthen ties between the United States and Sri Lanka. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in cosponsoring this resolution. Congress must convey the importance of a constructive peace process and urge both parties to cooperative in good faith in order to find a fair and lasting resolution to Sri Lanka's armed conflict. It is time we ensure peace in Sri Lanka as well as greater stability throughout the South Asia region.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 2, Peter R. Strohm was sworn in as a new member of the Mantoloking Borough Council. Joining him in taking the oath of office for a three-year term was incumbent John H. Jones. As the only Democrat on the seven member council, Mr. Strohm will be bringing a bipartisan spirit, years of legal experience and a desire to work long hours on behalf of the approximately 500 residents of Mantoloking, NJ, a beautiful, historic seashore community. He is a principal in the law firm of Rothstein, Mandell, Strohm, Must & Gertner in Lakewood, NJ, in which he has practiced for 35 years. He serves and chairs a number of committees of the Ocean County Bar Association and of the New Jersey Supreme Court, including probate, chancery, and judicial appointments. In 2000, he received the Professionalism Award from the New Jersey State Bar Association. He served in the past as an adjunct professor of law at Georgian Court University in Lakewood, NJ, and from 1968 to 1996, in the U.S. Army Reserve, from which he retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. Mr. Strohm received degrees from Washington & Lee, Columbia University School of Law, New York University School of Law, and the United States Command and General Staff College of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. I congratulate Mr. Strohm and Mr. Jones as they begin their terms in office. Although Mantoloking is a small community, it is busy tackling large problems, such a beach erosion, bridge construction and protection of the fragile seashore environment. I look forward to working with them and their county, state and federal representatives on these critical issues.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of the volunteers for Clean Ocean Action, an organization that has made tremendous efforts to clean up the Jersey Shore over the past 22 years. Clean Ocean Action, COA, was established in 1984 by individuals with a deep-rooted concern for the environment and a strong desire to help clean up our oceans and beaches. Today we can say with certainty that the waters of the New York/New Jersey Bight have benefited greatly from the efforts of COA, its volunteers, and the many citizens who have participated in COA activities. In the late 1980s, medical waste and other trash washing up on the Jersey Shore closed our beaches for an entire summer. Off our coast, eight separate ocean dumpsites collected all kinds of foul waste. COA and its volunteers helped lead the charge, in conjunction with Federal and State efforts, to keep trash off our beaches and close the dumpsites, and we can see the results every day. More than 30,000 Clean Ocean Action volunteers gather for biannual beach cleanups that have removed millions of pieces of trash and debris that typically wash up on our shores. COA compiles statistics on the trash collected during their sweeps, providing a very valuable tool to determine the leading source of debris pollution on our beaches and in our coastal waters. Having spent much of my career in elected office working on policies to protect our oceans and our coastline, I am keenly aware of the contributions that this organization have made to the Jersey Shore. The efforts of groups like the COA, and their unpaid volunteers often pass with little notice, but we all benefit from their work and we should support their efforts. Mr. Speaker, Clean Ocean Action is holding a brunch to thank its volunteers for their hard work. I urge my colleagues to join me in also thanking these volunteers as well as the hard-working staff that has done so much to clean up the Jersey Shore and protect the New York/New Jersey Bight.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to pay tribute and express my deeply felt gratitude to the service of Loretta E. Reardon, who serves as the staff advisor and special projects officer/ coordinator for the Deputy to the Commanding General at Fort Monmouth Army Garrison in Eatontown, NJ. Ms. Reardon has proudly served our government for nearly twenty-seven years. Throughout her career she has shown a total dedication to her mission. Ms. Reardon has been a mentor to employees and has always been an energetic team player. She has selflessly served Fort Monmouth as liaison to industry organizations on issues involving the command as well as Congressional offices on all federal matters. She has always quickly responded to special inquiries generated by my staff, and my colleagues in the New Jersey Congressional Delegation, and myself on a myriad of issues pertaining to Fort Monmouth such as Appropriation and BRAC issues. She was the eyes and ears for the command through multiple rounds of Base Realignment and Closures. She has been a steady and guiding force keeping Victor J. Ferlise, the Deputy to the Commanding General U.S. Army Communications--Electronics Command, on the right track for a number of years. In closing, her retirement marks a new chapter in her life. It also represents the loss of a member of the Fort Monmouth family. It will be impossible to replace her work ethic, her exceptional standards, her unparalleled skill, and her ability to make everyone she touched feel special. I want to thank Loretta E. Reardon for all she has done for Fort Monmouth, for the State of New Jersey, and for our country. I ask my colleagues to recognize the tremendous contribution that Loretta E. Reardon has made throughout her impressive twenty-seven year career.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the Pew Ocean Policy Commission put out a comprehensive report telling us that our oceans were in serious trouble. The Republican leadership quickly ignored the report, saying they wanted to wait for the results of the congressionally appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. And lo and behold, last September that commission came to the same basic conclusion: that our oceans are in peril from degraded waters, compromised resources, and conflicts between man and nature, and that immediate action is needed. They laid out some pretty pointed recommendations for Congress, and I would like to show this book, which is their recommendations. Over 500 pages at a cost of $10 million. It took them 3 years. They did a comprehensive report at a cost of $10 million. Well over a year has gone by and still the House Republican leadership has sat on its hands and done virtually nothing for our oceans. At the end of 2004, the Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee, on which I am the ranking member, held exactly one hearing on the U.S. Ocean Commission's recommendation. This year our subcommittee and the full Resources Committee have done nothing to comprehensively consider or address the commission's recommendations despite my repeated requests. What we have done instead is to hold a random assortment of hearings on a few areas that are mentioned in the commission's report, but without getting into any of the commission's recommendations. We seem to be highlighting the status quo rather than using the commission's recommendations to move forward. Now, today in the face of the Republicans' consistent refusal to comprehensively address ocean issues, we are now handed the emptiest of promises that this oceans task force would mean real progress in dealing with the commission's recommendations. We are not going to fall for that, Mr. Speaker. Democrats are going to oppose this task force because it does nothing. Its task will literally be to write a report on a report that itself is already quite prescriptive in its instructions to Congress. We don't need to study what is wrong with the oceans. We don't need more reports. What we need now is action, real action, not this task force. I would point out that the resolution says we are going to spend $400,000, that is on top of the $10 million that the U.S. Oceans Commission has already spent. That is taxpayer dollars. That does not count the Pew Commission. That, I think, was mostly private funds. And this is at a time when I keep hearing from the House Republican leadership about how we do not have any money and we have to cut expenses and we do not want to waste our money. Well, why are we wasting another $400,000 in taxpayers' money on a task force that does not even have any legislative responsibility? I listened to Mr. Hastings, who sponsored this resolution. He said that there is no legislative jurisdiction in this task force. And I have heard my colleague, whom I respect greatly, the gentleman from Maryland. He is my chairman and I respect him greatly, but he goes on to say that there are so many committees that have jurisdiction over this that we don't have the time to deal with it. Let me tell you, the House Republican leadership has no problem even ignoring committees and writing a lot of legislation in the Rules Committee when they want to get something done. I respect my colleague, but don't tell me that this Republican leadership needs another task force to write a bill, because I have seen bills written in the Rules Committee and come to the floor directly without even going to committee. I just don't buy it. The truth is the real obstructionists are the Republican leaders and the Republicans on the Resources Committee, not all, but most, who have refused to allow a comprehensive consideration of major ocean issues this entire year. And I mean not just haphazard hearings, but actually doing something that is meaningful. The majority proposes to ignore this issue for another 6 months by creating a task force that has no legislative authority and comes with no guarantee that we will be any closer to serious action than before we started. I want to say that my Democratic colleagues have specific recommendations that they have put in legislative form, and some of them are here on the floor. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has put together the Oceans 21 bill that has most of the government's issues that come out of the U.S. Commission report. He is a cochair of the Oceans Caucus. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has put forward the Fishing Quota Standards Acts, again adopting a lot of these recommendations. We also have the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Democrats have been out there with legislation that we would like to move through committee that adopt the recommendations of the U.S. Oceans Commission's report. We have alternatives. We do not need another task force. And I would point out over and over again I am getting very frustrated, and it may be obvious, with the fact that there is no action on the Republican side. The oceans are a tremendous resource for this Nation. The fishermen, the beach-goers, the coastal business owners in my district, they know this. They expect us to be working on problems facing our oceans. They would be quite disappointed to hear that the House leadership continues to ignore these problems and instead is choosing to avoid real action by studying this problem for another year. Again, the Pew Commission, U.S. Oceans Commission, they have sounded an alarm; and it is time to do something to save our oceans and what is in our oceans. Let us reject this unnecessary task force and get down to some real work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is very important that we vote no on this resolution. Essentially, it is going to accomplish nothing. I said before that, when Mr. Hastings, who is the sponsor, first spoke earlier today, he said that the task force will have no legislative jurisdiction. If you read section 3, Jurisdiction, under the resolution, it specifically says: The task force may develop recommendations and report to the House on the final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy making recommendations for a national oceans policy entitled, An Ocean Blueprint For the 21st Century. So, again, it says in the resolution, this is nothing but a report on another report which is already 500 pages, and $10 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on it. Why should we spend another $400,000 to come up with another report on the report with no legislative action? My democratic colleague Mr. Farr says he has a bill, Oceans-21. He is the co-chair of the Oceans Caucus, bipartisan legislation. He asked the gentleman from Maryland, when is there going to be a hearing on that? No answer. When is it going to be reported out? No answer. Why? Because this Republican Congress does not want to take any action on the ocean commission's recommendations. They just want to do another study, another report, another 6-month delay, another $400,000, $500,000 spent. It is ridiculous. We had the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) she said, why isn't her bill being reported? Now, I know my colleague from Maryland said, Well, we can't do this because this goes across so many committees' jurisdictions. That is really not a legitimate argument. The bottom line is that this House Republican leadership has taken bills, as I said many times, written them in the Rules Committee. The notion that they cannot get their act together and report out some of these bills, it just does not make any sense. I think that what we are seeing here is a delaying tactic. If you think about it, once this gets started, another 6 months, we will be halfway into the last year of this Congress, and we will basically see absolutely nothing happen. The only way that we are going to see action on the Ocean Commission's recommendations, the only way that we are going to see anything happen here is if we eliminate this task force and we demand and build pressure on the Republican leadership to report out legislation that has already been introduced that would enact the U.S. ocean commission's report. That is the main reason I believe why we must vote no on this legislation. It will accomplish nothing. It is simply another delay. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, as one point of clarification regarding the claim made by the gentleman, our chairman, that no select committee was formed to consider the Stratton Commission recommendations, I believe that the gentleman from Maryland was in fact wrong on that. The Senate specifically established a National Ocean Policy Study in the Commerce Committee for that purpose. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the role of the Grinch this year is being played by House Republicans. Rather than spreading holiday cheer this month, House Republicans have done their best to make life more difficult for millions of Americans. House Republicans want to force college students to pay an additional $5,200 in college loans. House Republicans plan to take away school lunches from thousands of school children who desperately need the nutritional value that these lunches provide. House Republicans are willing to cut the home heating assistance program for low-income families just before the long winter season. And House Republicans plan to penalize America's seniors who don't sign up for a prescription drug plan before May 15, despite all the confusing information that is coming out of the Bush administration. Mr. Speaker, it is time House Republicans changed their ways, because nobody wants to be around the Grinch in December.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan for organizing this Special Order tonight as a tribute to John Dingell. I did not really have any prepared notes tonight. I figured I would get up here and maybe write a few things down before I got up to speak. I have to say I have been here 17 years, and that seems like such a short time compared to the time that John Dingell has been here, 50 years; but I have had enough time in those 17 years to watch John and to realize why he is such a giant in this institution. I want to mention a few things. First of all, I think most important, John Dingell is so proud to be a Member of the House of Representatives, and he really sees the House as an institution. In the 17 years I have been here, I have watched as the House has been basically put down, denigrated, many times compared not favorably to the other body or to the other branches of government. No matter how many times I would come down on this floor, John would remind me about why the House was so important. It was the people's House, and we are elected here every 2 years because we are really more directly representative of the American people than any other institution here in Washington. He is proud to be a Member of this institution, and he wants to make sure that it continues as an outstanding institution. I think that is one of the reasons that he stayed here for 50 years, or more. We know it is going to be more, because he really thinks it is important to build the House as an institution and to make people proud to be Members here. The second thing he is so proud of is his committee; and, of course, it is my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee. If you have watched also in the last 10-or-so years, or maybe more, we have seen the committees sort of break down as institutions. The committees may be seen as less important. Their chairmen, even in the minority now as Democrats, seem less important. I think once again John feels that that is wrong, that the committees as an institution are just as important as the House as an institution and we need to be proud of them. We need to follow the procedure. We need to have jurisdiction that is defined. We need to have proper process. I think, again, he feels that the institution suffers if we do not follow proper procedure, if we do not follow the process, and he wants to build the institution, not tear it down. The third thing I want to say is that he is so proud to be a legislator. I think it was Dave Obey that said before, some people come down here to be a Congressman or to be a Senator, not to be a legislator and to legislate. He wants to get things done. He wants to get them done on a bipartisan basis, if possible; but, most of all, he wants to get them done. And he wants to hear from the other side. He wants to listen to what the other side of the aisle says. He respects the rights of the minority. When he was in the majority, and I was there, he always respected the rights of the minority, mainly because he feels that if a person is elected to come down here, then they should have a voice and we should listen to what they have to say so we can get good legislation passed. Another Member, I think it was Gene Green, talked about the oversight and investigative responsibility of Congress. Once again, John always stressed that. He believes that it is an important function of the Congress. When you think about it, it is not enough to just pass a bill; you want to follow up to make sure it works and it is carried out by the executive branch in the right way. So that is why oversight and investigation are so important, because if we need to make changes, then John wants to say let us make those changes, and he has been forthright in saying that regardless of who is in power, regardless of who is in the majority, that we have to take that oversight and investigation responsibility very seriously. Now, I have talked about the institutional aspects of John, which I think are so important; but I want to just say a couple personal things before I sit down. First of all, he is always someone that you can turn to for advice. I have not turned to him that many times; but whenever I have, he was always there and offered advice that was very valuable to me. Next, I want to say he is someone who you can trust. His word is gold. You can take his handshake to the bank, as we say, and that is, unfortunately, not true of every Member; but I think it is more true of him than any other Member, and I think he wants us all to be that way, and it is one of the reasons he is that way. The last thing I want to mention is Debbie. I see her sitting up there in the gallery, his wife. She has always been by his side, and she also believes in the House as an institution. I have to assume that part of that is because John believes in it, but I also think that she takes on sort of her own responsibility and her own views in that regard. But she shares his views on all the things that I mentioned, and I think those things are so important as well. So I want to thank Debbie as well. Again, I thank John for being a giant, not because of the legislation that he passed, and I know that it is important, but because of what he stands for and what he believes that this House of Representatives should be.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we all witnessed the heroic job that was done by the U.S. Coast Guard at the time of Hurricane Katrina. It was widely noted in newspapers and on television that while other agencies of the Federal Government fell down on the job, the U.S. Coast Guard upheld the motto that has been its standard of performance since its creation in the 18th Century: Semper Paratus, Always Ready. What is less well known is that the Coast Guard is unique among the armed services because it has, associated with it, a civilian support organization, the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. Since 1939, these volunteer life-savers have backed up the active duty Coast Guard by relieving the regulars of a number of tasks related to marine safety, search and rescue, and pollution monitoring and control. The 30,000 members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary serve as a force multiplier in these times of threats to our national security and their unpaid service enables the Coast Guard to fulfill its missions in this time of fiscal constraint. I would like to call special attention to the work of the 14 active members of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 014-05-05 of Edison, New Jersey. In the past year, these auxiliary members have conducted safety checks on 123 vessels, visited marine dealers and boatyards to distribute safety materials, conducted 3 dozen boating safety courses, and attended boat shows to stress to boat owners and prospective owners the importance of marine safety and the need to take safety courses to prevent accidents on the water. The Auxiliary helps maintain aids to navigation and conducts patrols using their own vessels. I ask my colleagues to recognize the contribution of Flotilla 014-05- 05 of Edison, New Jersey to the mission of the U.S. Coast Guard.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Republican colleague who just spoke, and he talked about how the first job of this Congress is to protect the jobs of the American people. I do not see that happening here. We are back now for a 2-week period here in the House and what do I hear is on the agenda? First of all, tomorrow is the Tax Reconciliation Act. This is the tax cut, if you will, for special interests, for wealthy people paid for with the budget cuts that we adopted, the Republican leadership adopted 2 weeks ago, cuts in student loans, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in housing, cuts in programs that help the average American. And they are doing that in order to pay for a tax cut they are going to vote on this week by the Republican leadership that would essentially help only the very wealthy and the special interests, the corporations. What else is on the agenda today? The Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, another free trade agreement that is going to mean loss of American jobs, outsourcing of American jobs to other countries. How many more of these are we going to have? How many more times am I going to come down to the floor and have the Republican leadership post bills that do not help the average American?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as one of the original authors of the BEACH Act five years ago, I rise in support of H.R. 1721 and thank my friend from New York, Mr. Bishop, for working to move this legislation forward. The BEACH Act of 2000 took major steps towards improving water quality testing and monitoring at beaches across the country, which is critical to protecting the health of beachgoers. The Act had three provisions: requiring states to adopt current EPA water quality criteria to protect beachgoers from getting sick; requiring the EPA to update these water quality criteria, developed in 1986, with new science and technologies to provide better, faster water testing; and providing grants to states to implement coastal water monitoring programs. The bill before us extends the authorization for appropriations under this third provision, which expired at the end of this fiscal year, until 2011. This is an important step because every coastal state now has a beach water monitoring program that relies on federal grant funding. However, we need to realize that there are still outstanding issues in the implementation of the other portions of the BEACH Act that merit Congressional involvement. In particular, EPA was to have completed new water quality criteria by October of this year to make sure that all Americans can feel safe swimming at the beach without worrying that they will get sick. My office has spoken extensively with EPA about this, however, and it seems that this will likely not be completed until 2011. EPA is spending nearly a decade studying water testing methods, waiting to collect data on freshwater beaches before even beginning to test marine beaches. This delay, likely due at least in part to insufficient funding from the Administration and this Congress, has prevented EPA from helping communities implement rapid water testing methods that could shorten the time for beginning and ending beach closures from two days to merely a few hours. Such an improvement would provide much greater protection to beachgoers and help shore economies by avoiding unnecessary closures. I intend to work with my colleagues here and with EPA to improve the implementation of the original BEACH Act and keep our coastal waters as clean as possible. In the meantime, I am pleased to see the House extend the grants program through this bill.