Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago this past April, the people of Northern Ireland, Great Britain, and the republic of Ireland entered into a peace agreement, commonly referred to as the Good Friday Agreement. This legendary accord set out a framework that would allow Northern Ireland to govern itself and provide for a rule of law that was responsible to all people in the north of Ireland. Unfortunately, 6 years later, much of the agreement has been stalled, derailed or simply never implemented. Mr. Speaker, it is almost 2 years now since Prime Minister Blair suspended the power-sharing government of Northern Ireland, and almost 10 months have passed since elections were held in Northern Ireland to the Belfast Assembly. However, the peace agreement remains stalled and no elected Assembly members have been permitted to take their seats. I believe it is essential that the Good Friday Accords be fully implemented for a true and lasting peace to be achieved in Northern Ireland. The Assembly must be reinstated immediately and let the process continue. Later this week, we see our best opportunity for the reimplementation of these Accords. All the parties to the agreement, including Sinn Fein, the DUP, and Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern, are set to meet at Leeds Castle to try and work out a solution to reinstate the Belfast Assembly and get the Good Friday Agreement back on track. Recently, Prime Minister Blair was quoted in press reports stating that this may be the last chance to save the Good Friday Accords. Also, rumors are circulating that if an agreement is not made at Leeds, Prime Minister Blair will return Northern Ireland to direct rule of the British Government. Mr. Speaker, this is simply unacceptable. While I agree that a solution must be found to reinstate the Accords, I think Prime Minister Blair's words may be too harsh. We cannot allow these monumental Accords to be just discarded. Too much hard work and negotiation has gone into the process, and we are too close to a final peace to just throw it all away. However, the negotiations at Leeds do give me great hope. Having all parties at the same table in a formal setting with only peace as a priority is the most positive development since the elections were announced more than a year ago. Now it is up to Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern to force the hand of Reverend Paisley and the DUP, the Democratic Union Party, ensuring that any deal brokered is in fact in good faith. Ian Paisley and the DUP have been holding the peace agreement in Northern Ireland hostage for too long. All other parties are ready to reinstate the Assembly and the Good Friday Accords. Blair and Ahern cannot allow this radical party to continue to halt the peace process. I am concerned if Prime Minister Blair does not keep the DUP in check during these negotiations, the Good Friday Accords will fall by the wayside. Mr. Speaker, while the DUP is a major political party in Northern Ireland, their constituency is not so large that they should be able to stop the peace from progressing. I want to remind Mr. Blair that he has the ability and the means to implement the Accords with or without the cooperation of Reverend Paisley and the DUP. The Good Friday Accords have been approved by the voters of Northern Ireland, Great Britain, and the Republic of Ireland. Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern have a responsibility to exercise the people's will. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Good Friday Accords are the vehicle to peace, and no matter the circumstance, the leaders in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland should not walk away from the process. We are too close to peace to let it all fall apart.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to remind the American people about the Republican Party's cozy relationship with our Nation's corporate interests. This relationship has been extremely beneficial to America's corporate elite, but has been extremely harmful to America's middle class. It is necessary for me to remind the American people of this relationship because Republicans are now doing everything they can to run away from the relationship. Republicans are hoping the American people forgot that Vice President Cheney worked behind closed doors with corporate executives from the oil and gas companies to write an energy bill that benefited them with billions of dollars while doing virtually nothing to help middle-class Americans with rising prices at the gas pump. Republicans are hoping the American people will forget President Bush misled the American people into supporting the war in Iraq and rushed to war with absolutely no plan to win the peace. Last month the President finally admitted that he miscalculated in Iraq, but now Republicans would like the American people to forget such comments. They would also people to forget that the war in Iraq has now cost the American taxpayer $200 billion in which billions of dollars have gone to another corporate friend of the Bush administration, Vice President Cheney's old company, Halliburton. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are hoping the American people forgot that while their own Medicare director was negotiating a final Medicare prescription drug bill, he was interviewing for jobs with the very pharmaceutical companies that benefit from the new Republican Medicare law. This same director, Tom Scully, illegally kept critical information about the costs of the Medicare bill from Congress, which most likely would have killed the controversial bill before it became law. But Republicans would like the American people, particularly the 40 million seniors who depend on Medicare and who deserve a real prescription drug benefit, to forget that the new law benefits the pharmaceutical companies and only provides a minuscule benefit to senior citizens. Republicans also would like the American people to forget that they have been doing the work of America's corporate and special interests for the last 4 years to the detriment of the best interests of America's middle class. Mr. Speaker, Senator Kerry and congressional Democrats will take our country in a new direction and put the middle class first. Despite what President Bush and congressional Republicans promise over the next few months before the election, they will continue to put the narrow interests of the few ahead of the middle class. Let me talk about some of these special interests this evening, Mr. Speaker, if I can. Let us just look at the record of the Republicans over the last 4 years. Republicans have accomplished many of the goals that corporate interests have set forth with no concern about how these goals would impact middle-class America. I want to just talk about the economy first, and then I will maybe yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, who I see has come down here to join me. On the economy, the Republican mission has been accomplished for companies seeking tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, but not for America's workers. The Bush administration needs to create more than 900,000 jobs in 2 months, over the next 2 months, in order to actually create its first net job. Now, one would think that the administration would be doing everything possible, looking at every creative solution, to get Americans back to work; but, instead, what we see is the Bush administration taking the side of the corporate interests. They are not worried over the fact that in the next 2 months they are not going to be able to create almost 1 million jobs to show a net job gain. The Bush administration would like the American people to forget that the centerpiece of its supposed economic stimulus plan was a provision to eliminate the amount of taxes paid by individuals on stock dividends. Economists concluded that this handout to the President's corporate friends would not create high-paying jobs to the middle class. Three years later, after this tax cut was put in place, it now turns out that the economists were right. Instead of creating jobs for the middle class, President Bush hit them with a $364 billion deficit, something our children will be forced to pay off in the future. All this not to create one single job; remember, we have a net loss right now of almost 1 million jobs, not to create one single job but, instead, to help inflate the wallets of President Bush's corporate friends. Now, one would think that the administration would be against companies moving jobs overseas. We have heard about the outsourcing, Mr. Speaker, many times over the last year. But earlier this year, we learned that the Bush administration views the movement of American factory jobs and white collar work to other countries as a positive transformation that will, in the end, enrich our economy. How many of the administration's economists said that outsourcing was a good thing? The administration stated exactly that in the President's economic report for 2004. This was the President's own economic report for this year. Now, no wonder President Bush thinks that our Nation's economic forecast is rosy. He is not concerned about creating jobs here in the United States. As long as the economy continues to grow and the President's corporate interests continue to make record profits, that is fine with him. President Bush cannot be too concerned about his dismal job creation record since he refuses to discontinue his administration's policy of giving tax breaks that shift American jobs overseas. Now, by contrast, if I could, Mr. Speaker, Senator Kerry and congressional Democrats want to help middle-class Americans by ending special tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs and creating tax incentives for companies that keep jobs here in America. Those are the companies that we should be rewarding, those that will keep the jobs here, not send them overseas. Congressional Democrats have also long supported a transportation bill that would stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs all over the Nation and provide much-needed transportation modernization funding. That transportation bill is stalled because the administration refuses to support the necessary funding that is also supported by some Republicans in this Chamber. Now, I know the gentlewoman from Florida would like to have some time. I just wanted to say, one of the things, before I yield to her, one of the things that I cannot forget when I look back over the 4 years of the Bush administration is that 4 years ago, in January, when the President first took office, and by March, he took office in January, and by March of that year it was looking like the economy was starting to falter, and the congressional Democrats met in a caucus. We had a special caucus meeting, and we came up with an economic stimulus package, because our feeling was that if we were able to provide an economic stimulus, transportation projects, infrastructure, sewer plants, money than went back to the States for all kinds of activities, school construction, hospital construction, that that would make it possible for the economy to keep moving along and not fall into a recession. But the congressional Republicans and the President, President Bush, absolutely refused. Their answer was, we are not interested in that kind of economic stimulus that creates jobs, that provides infrastructure; we just want tax cuts. And then by, I guess, the spring or the summer of that year, they had implemented the first round of their many tax cuts. The bottom line is it is 4 years later, all the rhetoric about how the tax cuts were going to turn the economy around has simply proven to be false, and the only thing that would have made a difference then, and I think still would make a difference now, if there was some sort of economic stimulus package that dealt with infrastructure, particularly as I mentioned the transportation bill; but I really believe that at the time, if we had worked on a bipartisan basis and not implemented these tax cuts, but rather implemented an economic stimulus package, we would not be in the situation we are now where there is a net loss of almost 1 million jobs since President Bush took office. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for joining me tonight, and I yield to her.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, first of all, let me thank the gentlewoman so much for not only coming here, but also for what the gentlewoman is asking. I am not leaving; I am here with you. I like to go back and forth, and I certainly have a lot more to say tonight. Let me also say, before I start getting into the issue, I am so glad the gentlewoman mentioned Claude Pepper. I was elected the year he left, and I remember because it was a Presidential year. I think it was the year that the first President Bush was elected, and I got to meet him at the convention. Sometimes, when we talk about procedure, people fall asleep because they figure we are going into procedure, so what does it all matter. But one of the things that I was so determined to do when I got here in 1988, because of Claude Pepper, is that I wanted to be on the Select Committee on Aging, which he had chaired for many years. And when that committee met, they did incredible oversight. They would have hearings on a regular basis, looking into the Medicare program. I would tell the gentlewoman right now, if that committee still existed today, we would never have had the problems that the gentlewoman is talking about and this misrepresenting by the Republican administration about what is going on with the Medicare program. One of the biggest criticisms I had was that in 1994 when Republicans took the majority and Gingrich became Speaker, was that they got rid of the select committees, including the aging committee which I served on. Because even though Claude Pepper had not been there, and I think it was the father of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) who was the chairman, we did such a good job in terms of oversight. And once that committee was gone, the oversight function of the programs for the seniors just disappeared, and I blame the Republicans for that, frankly. I know that is not what the gentlewoman is talking about, though.

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is absolutely right. The premium increase is very significant. It is the largest one we have had in the history of the Medicare program: 17 percent.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it has gone from basically $66 to $78, about an $11 increase, the biggest we have ever had. President Bush says it is because of the high costs of health care. That is simply not the case. The bottom line is there are two major reasons why this increase is so high. One is what the gentlewoman mentioned, when they passed the so-called, and I call it ``so-called'' because it really is not a Medicare bill, it is a privatization bill. When they passed their so-called Medicare prescription drug bill, they increased the amount of money that would go to the HMOs, the insurers in general, but particularly the HMOs, in order to entice them to cover senior citizens. And the result is that a significant amount of this increase, and this increased premium is going to go to pay those HMOs and those insurers to entice them to get into the Medicare program which, as the gentlewoman knows, most of them do not want to get into any; and no matter how much money you give them, they are probably not going to get into it. The second thing is they have been raiding the trust fund. Just like Greenspan was saying a couple of weeks ago during the break, he got up and talked about how the Social Security Trust Fund was running dry, same thing with the Medicare Trust Fund. Why? Because the Republicans are borrowing the money to pay for their tax cut. There is a huge deficit. Where is the money borrowed from? The Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund. Now, these funds in the last year of the Clinton administration were starting to build up the money that they had so that they would not be bankrupt at all. I mean frankly if we had not had those tax cuts I would predict within 5 or 10 years the trust fund would be so solvent for both Medicare and Social Security that we would not even have a problem for the next generation or two, but no, they could not do that because they wanted to give back those tax cuts. If we read that, that increased premium, another significant part of it, goes into the trust fund to replenish the trust fund. So what are we talking about here? This is Republican, Bush administration policy that has caused this big increase. As my colleague said because you are giving the money to insurers, the HMOs primarily, and also to replenish the trust fund because they borrowed from it to pay for the deficit, which has been generated by their tax cuts and all this for a Medicare prescription drug program bill which as you went on and described is practically worthless. In fact, I would say it is a detriment to the program. It is not bad enough, as my colleague says, that there is a specific prohibition on negotiating prices. I mean, if they did not put a specific prohibition, the Medicare administrator would have been able to do that because as my colleague knows, right now with the VA, with the veterans, with the military, the DOD and the Veterans Affairs are allowed to go in and negotiate price reductions because they have the power now of all these veterans and military. That is just a natural thing that you would do in a capitalist society. I mean, we are all about negotiation and bargain. That is what capitalism is all about, right? But, no, because the drug companies did not want that to happen, they specifically put in a prohibition on negotiating prices so the government and Medicare administrator could not negotiate the prices. When I hear my colleagues say, well, we had to do that because somehow it would be un-American for the Medicare administrator and others to negotiate prices, we are already doing it with the VA and the military. What is un-American about going out and trying to get a bargain? I thought that is what capitalism was all about. It is unbelievable to me. I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleague, when it comes to the procedures around here, I mean we could talk on. You are absolutely right. Everything is orchestrated from the White House, and any notion that any legislation that the President wants would not come up for a vote or that the President does not want, it is all orchestrated and you gave an example before of where we were talking about the Medicare bill. One of the things that was so amazing to me was how that vote was orchestrated. One of the criticisms that I mentioned when I started out this evening is how the Medicare administrator Tom Scully orchestrated this whole vote in the House, and when his own actuary Foster said to him that the cost of this bill was going to be significantly more than what the Bush administration had told the Congress and what the congressional Republicans had suggested, the administrator told the actuary that if he revealed that information to Congress he would be fired. As a consequence, the Congress never got the information about the actual cost of the Medicare bill. My colleague knows that there were many on the Republican side of the aisle that did not want to vote on that bill because they thought it was going to be too costly, and they did not like, for whatever reason, the cost, and now we know the GAO came out with a report last week that said that Scully's action was illegal, it was illegal for him to deny that information to Congress. He was told by the GAO that he had to refund his salary from the day he threatened to fire the actuary who had the truth about the cost. My colleague talks about procedure, I mean they are literally not giving Congress information in an illegal fashion. How can we even vote on anything around here if we cannot get the true facts about what the costs are? Now that we know that it was illegal, well, the Department of Health and Human Services says we are not going to go after him for the money, he does not have to give back the money, and he said he is not giving back the money. Where did he go? He went to work for a law firm that represents all the drug companies that benefited from the bill. You talk about the procedure. I will never see the disgrace that we had that night of the vote. You know we had 218 votes on that board against the bill. There is absolutely no question that the will of this House of Representatives was to defeat that Medicare prescription drug bill because almost all the Democrats and a significant number of the Republicans knew it was a bad bill, it was not going to accomplish anything and probably suspected it was going to cost a lot more than that was represented by the administration. I looked on that board. I have never in my life seen a situation where the majority have voted against the bill and there was not anybody left who was going to make a difference who had not voted, and we sit here for 3 hours in the middle of the night until the President gets on the phone and calls enough Republicans. He invites Vice President Cheney to change the votes. You try to tell me that they are not directing what goes on the floor of the House of Representatives? What kind of a democratic process is that where the House has voted and 218 people have voted and said this is a lousy bill and I do not want to vote for it and we sit here for 3 hours while the White House twists arms and who knows what they promised people. One guy, they told him what, was Smith, I guess, from Michigan.

Mr. PALLONE. They told him they were going to deny his son the nomination to replace him if he did not change his vote. I mean, this is the kind of thing that was going on. When you talk about procedure, I totally agree with you. They control the process from the White House. Do not let anybody tell you they do not.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, and I do not know, I do not have the information in front of me, but there was a strong suspicion that AARP was looking to sell this Medicare prescription drug policy, and again it is an example of corporate interests holding sway around here because somebody is trying to make a buck. I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman again. She made a comment before about who represents the majority, and not that I am looking to take away from the electoral college, because I know that is the way we elect the President under our Constitution, and I am not going to get into the specifics about what happened in Florida, because the gentlewoman knows much more than I do about what happened. But the bottom line is, there is no one who can contest the fact that President Bush lost the majority. He lost the election in terms of the majority, in terms of the actual number of people who voted, by half a million people. Half a million less voted for him than for his opponent. So I often wonder, when I come down here and hear some of the things he says, it is not difficult to figure out that he is not representing the majority, because, clearly, the majority did not elect him. Nobody on either side of the aisle is contesting that, the fact that the man lost the popular vote by almost a half million people, which is a huge amount. Beyond that, I want to say to the gentlewoman that I did not vote for any of those appropriations, nor did I vote for the war either. We know now that the war has already cost over $200 billion. These figures that come up about 80, or 80 here or there; it is well over $200 billion already. And one of the biggest things that worry me beyond the actual cost of the war is this money that is being spent to rehabilitate or redevelop or whatever the term is in Iraq. We talked earlier about infrastructure here in the United States and how, over the last 4 years, as Democrats, we wanted an economic stimulus package, whether it was new school construction or new highways or new hospitals. Well, that is what is going on in Iraq. Millions and millions of that money is being spent for reconstruction in Iraq. And I am not talking about damage that was done as a result of the war; I am talking about new buildings. I will never forget, they did not do it this year in September, but last September, in 2003, there were a couple of my Republican colleagues who, with glee, came to the floor and brought bookbags. They had just come back from Iraq, and they had these bags loaded down with bookbags and books and pencils and paper and everything, the American eagle on the front of it. And they proudly displayed them here in the well and said, Look, every schoolchild in Iraq today got one of these bookbags with these books and papers and pencils. And I looked at it, and I even got on the floor, I believe, at the time and said, You know, I have schools in my district, and I am not one of the poorest in the State, believe me, where nobody has anything like that. Not only does the school not issue it, but the kids cannot even afford to come to school with the pencils or the paper. Now, I am not trying to begrudge anybody anything, but, to me, it is an outrage that we are spending all this money in Iraq, and we are not spending it here in the United States. It is just outrageous.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, absolutely. I remember, years ago, and it may be before the gentlewoman was here, that the Republicans, when we were in the majority, because I was here from 1988 to 1994 when the Republicans took the majority, and we would get procedural motions on a regular basis from the Republicans about unfunded mandates, how the Democrats were passing legislation and not providing the money to back it up. Clearly, No Child Left Behind is the biggest unfunded mandate that ever existed around this place. The gentlewoman is absolutely right. We do not hear anything about that now because they just want to talk about how wonderful the program is. But there is no money for it, not anywhere near what there was supposed to be to fund it. I wanted to go back, and maybe the gentlewoman does not want to stress this Halliburton thing so much.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I have to just talk a little about it, because I have some of the statistics. The gentlewoman had asked about some of the statistics concerning the money.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, this is what I have. This is a Congressional Research Service report that was issued several weeks after he made that statement on, I guess it was on Meet the Press, and Cheney made a statement that he severed the ties with the company, got rid of all his financial interests, has had no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind, has not had now for over 3 years. Despite those claims, the Congressional Research Service issued a report several weeks after that Meet the Press interview, and they concluded that, because he receives a deferred salary and continues to hold stock interests, he still has a significant financial interest in Halliburton. And they said, basically, he has $433,000 in stock options. Basically, his deferred salary is about $200,000 a year. That is what he gets deferred, because of these stock options, about $200,000 a year that he gets from Halliburton. This notion that somehow he does not have a financial interest anymore is just nonsense.

Mr. PALLONE. That is correct, if you take the whole value of it. I think it gives him about $200,000 a year for the rest of his life. But if you take the whole value of it, that would be right. The other thing I wanted to say is that, when we talk about Halliburton and what they have done in Iraq and the illegal activities, we are not making this up. I just wanted to give some facts. First of all, Halliburton has acknowledged, so this is not myself or the gentlewoman making this up, they have acknowledged, and I quote, ``They accepted up to $6 million in kickbacks for their contract work in Iraq.'' They admitted that. Second, they are now being investigated by the Pentagon for overcharging the American Government for its work in Iraq. They face criminal charges in a $180 million international bribery scandal during the time that Cheney was the CEO. They have repeatedly been warned by the Pentagon that the food they were serving 110,000 U.S. troops in Iraq was dirty. And a Pentagon audit found blood all over the floor of the kitchens that Halliburton supplies all over in Iraq. And, finally, Halliburton is getting around an American law that forbids doing business with rogue nations. Thanks to a giant loophole, Halliburton is able to do business with Iran, of all nations, through one of its subsidiaries in the Caymen Islands. So here we go. In World War II, they called these war profiteers. If you were a war profiteer in World War II, it was like you were the worst person on earth. People would not even talk to you. They would not have anything to do with the company. Here, they are profiting off the war in this fashion, and we do not hear anybody from the administration talking about it in terms of their wanting to sever their ties or they do not want them to continue doing their work. They continue to get all these no-bid contracts as we speak. It is just unbelievable. So I do not know if the gentlewoman wanted to say anything else, but the other thing I wanted to mention tonight when we talk about these special interests, because it still has not been resolved, is this whole issue of this energy task force. When he first became Vice President, one of the first things Cheney did was establish this task force that was supposed to come up with a new energy policy. Groups like the Sierra Club and a few other groups that wanted to find out who was on this task force and who was behind this task force, because this was a secret task force, they had to go all the way to the Supreme Court because Cheney and Bush refused to give out the information about who sat on this task force. Now, the gentlewoman and I can speculate, but, obviously, they were trying to hide something, probably some oil and gas CEOs that were involved in this thing. And to this day, they do not reveal the names of the members and what this task force was about. And when they finally came up with the legislation from this task force, all it did was help the oil and gas companies. As the gentlewoman and I mentioned, one of the biggest problems the average American faces right now is the rising cost of gas. I do not know what is going to happen this year with home heating oil again. These guys, both Cheney and President Bush, were from the oil industry, and they continue to hide who was involved in this energy task force in coming up with this energy policy. Fortunately, that bill, which passed here, has not passed over in the other body, so it has not become law. And I hope it does not between now and the end of the year. But this is just another example of playing right into the corporate interests. It just never ceases. If the gentlewoman does not want to add anything else, I will conclude this evening, Mr. Speaker. But I just wanted to say, once again, that, if we look at the record of President Bush and the congressional Republicans, there is absolutely no indication that they are shifting in any way their emphasis away from the special interests to the middle class. They have squeezed the middle class families. When I was home during our August break, I had open houses. I had hundreds of people showing up at my offices, and they all had the same problem: I lost my job; my job went overseas; I tried to get money for retraining, and the money was not there. The public is just being squeezed.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I do not understand the whole phenomena. Somehow, in some Republican minds, and I am not saying all of them, because I know there are some that do not agree, but certainly the majority and the leadership seem to think that somehow unemployment compensation is somehow welfare or some sort of giveaway. They refuse to acknowledge, I think, that people have paid into it while they worked, and they just seem to think somehow it is some sort of giveaway to people who do not want to work. These are people that have tried to look for a job and have not been able to find one. You have to show that in order to get the benefits.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me give the gentlewoman an example, and I have used this example before, but I will use it again. I mentioned all the people that came into my office for the open houses. The one thing that very much stuck in my mind was a gentleman came, and I will not mention his name, who had worked for the Frigidaire plant in Edison, my largest town. The plant closed, and 1,500 jobs went to China. Everybody lost their jobs, good jobs, union jobs, health benefits, good pension, the whole thing. Under one of the bills that was passed here, in the event that you lose your job because it goes overseas, and I have not favored these trade bills, but regardless, it provided that there was going to be, absolutely, retraining programs for these people if a plant closed and so many jobs went to China or some other place overseas. This guy comes into my office, and he had actually found another job. I do not think it paid as much or was as good, but it was still a good job. It required retraining. He went to the Federal office or maybe it was a State office with Federal dollars to do the retraining to qualify for the job. They told him we do not have any more money. Federal dollars had been cut back, and there was no money. This was something that was authorized and required under the law. There was no money from the Federal Government to do it, he was not able to get the job. He is sitting home not working. It is unbelievable. As the gentlewoman says the promises, if you lose your job overseas, we are going to retrain you, we are going to give you a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and it is absolutely not true. When I go home, that is all I hear. I call it the middle class squeeze: Rising prices, health care, higher education costs, and gas prices. At the same time if you have a job and are not keeping up, even those people who have a job, they are getting less real dollars and the prices keep going up, and nobody in the Bush administration seems to think anything is wrong. That is reason enough why we have to have a change in November. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for joining us this evening.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, President Bush has attempted to turn attention away from his dismal domestic record by scaring Americans into believing his administration is the only administration that can keep them safe and by proposing a litany of new domestic programs without any specifics on what they entail and how he would pay for them. The President hopes Americans forgot 9/11 happened on his watch, that he and his administration refused to listen to his own terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, who warned that the possibility of a terrorist attack needed to be taken seriously. President Bush also hopes Americans forgot that it took him several months to back the Department of Homeland Security, time that could have been better used securing our ports and borders. And now, after more than a month of saying he would not support giving complete budgetary authority to a newly created intelligence director, the President is now moving closer to that 9/11 Commission recommendation. But closer is not good enough. Time is of the essence and the President continues to sidestep these critical homeland security issues. His latest proposal only gives the new director control over 70 percent of our Nation's intelligence budget. Of course, the Republican leadership here in Congress ignores the urgent need to act on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Last week, Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that he thought it was, and I quote, highly inappropriate to call for immediate passage of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I guess the majority leader would prefer we continue to delay. It has been 3 years. How much longer would the majority leader like us to wait? Mr. Speaker, Republicans also would like the American people to forget that they have been doing the work of America's corporate and special interests for the last 4 years to the detriment of the best interests of the middle class. Senator Kerry and congressional Democrats will take our country in a new direction and put the middle class first. Despite what President Bush and congressional Republicans promise over the next few months, they will continue to put the narrow interests of the few ahead of the middle class. Let us just look at their record over the last 4 years. Republicans have accomplished many of the goals corporate interests have set forth with no concern over how these goals impact middle class Americans. The Republican mission has been accomplished for companies seeking tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, but not for workers. We have lost more than one million jobs. This administration still says outsourcing American jobs is a good thing, and they still insist on giving companies tax breaks that ship American jobs overseas. But profits are record high at Halliburton. If only Bush and congressional Republicans fought half as hard for the middle class as they have for Halliburton's no-bid contracts, maybe middle class families would not be hurting so badly. The Republican mission has been accomplished for drug companies but not for our seniors. Seniors are still splitting their pills in half because prescription drug prices have soared so high. The Republican mission has been accomplished for insurance companies but not for families struggling with high health care costs. While premiums skyrocket, insurance companies continue to rake in record profits. The Republican mission has been accomplished for big oil companies, not for middle class families struggling with the record high cost of gas. Average families are paying $580 more in gas prices while oil profits rise and the Saudi royal family profits. Bush has made America more dependent on foreign oil and failed to invest in alternative technologies and conservation. Mr. Speaker, in looking at this record, why should Americans believe President Bush and congressional Republicans would change their emphasis away from the special interests to the middle class in the future? Republican policies have squeezed middle class families. While earnings for middle class families have fallen over the last 4 years, health care costs have increased by more than $2,000, education costs are up more than $1,200, and energy costs are up 40 percent. Despite the Republican rhetoric, their actual record is clear. Why should Americans expect anything different from them in the future?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important resolution, and I thank both of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for introducing this important resolution. Despite recent sanctions put on Syria pursuant to the Syria Accountability Act by our government and warnings that the sanctions will continue until Syria ends their support for terrorism, Syria continues to play host to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. We know Hamas took responsibility for the suicide bombings in Israel a couple of weeks ago, and yet Syria continues to harbor Hamas leaders. Despite claims that Syria is not an occupying force in Lebanon, recent reports indicate that Syria forced the Lebanese government to keep their hand-picked president in office for another term, basically violating the Constitution of Lebanon. So the fact of the matter is that Syria continues to interfere in Lebanese affairs and is, in fact, an occupying force. Syria has committed a laundry list of human rights abuses not only in Lebanon but also against its own people. It has imprisoned hundreds of political prisoners without charges, including two journalists from Lebanon who wrote editorials against Syria's occupation. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on several occasions regarding Syria's systematic oppression of the Syrian Jewish community. Those Jews who remain in Syria, and there are very few, they nonetheless face constant terror and intimidation from Syria's secret police, nightly curfews and have been forced to carry special identification cards. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this resolution. Syria has proven to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and it is critical that we urge the international community to take a stand on Syria's abysmal human rights record.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, while I respect my colleague from Arizona, I do not think this is the right time or right vehicle to consider this issue. As we have seen time and time again, the Native American Caucus has been unified on amendments and bills that benefit Indian Country. Today that is not the situation. Mr. Chairman, as Members know, I have been a long supporter of both tribal sovereignty and workers rights, as have many in this body. But the amendment we are considering now could have far-reaching implications on these issues and should not be acted upon in a hasty fashion. Several States, such as California and New York, have previously worked out agreements with Native American tribes on this very issue. Currently, similar negotiations are underway to find a more permanent solution for all of Indian Country. Even if the Hayworth amendment is passed today and becomes law, it is not a permanent fix. We will be back here again next year debating the same issue. We should be looking for a permanent solution, and we should allow all parties to continue to work out an agreement and not move this amendment today.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very important and should be supported. There has to be some consequence of the Medicare Administrator giving the wrong information to Congress about such an important bill and knowing full well that he was giving that wrong information to Congress. I mean, keep in mind that Mr. Scully was told by Mr. Foster what the actual cost would be, and knowing full well that information, and knowing that if that accurate information had been given to this body, we would never have passed the bill, but he still refused to give it and actually sought to even penalize Mr. Foster, or threatened him, if the accurate information was given to us. The Department has said that they are not going to ask Mr. Scully for the money back for his salary. Mr. Scully has said that he has no intention of returning it to the government. So there is simply no penalty for giving inaccurate, false information to this body that they know to be false. That is a terrible thing, no consequences. How can we operate as a body when the actuary's information is not given to us, and there is no consequence for that even though the GAO says it is wrong?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate again my sense of outrage over this 17 percent increase in Medicare Part B premiums, which is basically $11 a month for America's seniors that is soon to go into effect. President Bush said, well, this is because health care costs have gone up, but what he does not say is it is actually the result of Republican policies. The Republicans passed their so-called Medicare prescription drug bill, which we know is a sham, does not even go into effect until the year 2006, but what that bill did was to give a lot more money to insurers, and, as a result, the cost of Medicare premiums are going up. The fact of the matter is that this 17 percent increase that is unaffordable for many seniors is a direct result of Republican policy and the Bush administration's policy, and it has to stop. We need a change of administration. We need a President, John Kerry, who is going to worry about senior citizens, address their needs, address the rising costs of health care, address the Medicare concerns, provide a true prescription drug benefit. This premium increase is just an indication of what we would see over the next 2-years if the Republicans continue in power in this House. It has got to stop. Seniors should wake up and see the result of the Bush policies and what it means for their Medicare program.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide bombings in Israel last week and to urge my colleagues to support Israel's continued construction of the security fence to protect their citizens from further terrorist attacks. I also ask my colleagues to join with me in calling on the Syrian Government to turn over the leaders of Hamas, the terrorist organization that has claimed responsibility for these and countless other attacks in Israel, currently operating in Damascus. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, two buses were simultaneously bombed in Beersheba, a city in southern Israel, killing 16 passengers and injuring 97 others. It is no coincidence that the city chosen by Hamas for the attacks is in a region of Israel that is not yet protected by the security fence. Hamas terrorists were dissuaded by the fence and an Israeli military presence in other areas and opted for an easier and more vulnerable target in Beersheba. These attacks are further proof that continued construction of the security fence is necessary for the protection of Israeli citizens. Mr. Speaker, the security fence is doing exactly what it was designed to do: save lives. Since the fence's construction, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of suicide attacks. This was the first suicide attack in Israel in 5 months. There have been only nine suicide attacks in Israel this year, down from 23 last year. While even one attack is clearly too many, the fence is clearly making a difference. For those in the international community who questioned the route of the fence, the Israeli Government has stated that the fence is temporary and can be moved or rerouted contingent on future peace agreements. Furthermore, the Israeli Government has also proven its willingness to reroute the fence. When the Israeli Supreme Court declared early this year that a section of the fence impeded on the civil rights of Palestinians living in the area, the fence was, in fact, moved. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on several occasions here on the House floor of my visit to Israel last year and my opportunity to view the security fence firsthand. After my visit, I believe very strongly that we need to support Israel's right to protect their citizens. This fence provides a sense of security to border families and to outerlying cities like Beersheba that remain unprotected. The fence will help prevent continued attempts to derail the peace process through violence. Mr. Speaker, another point that I want to mention that is related to the terrible attacks in Beersheba is the issue of Syria's decision to continue to turn a blind eye to Hamas and other terrorist organizations that operate within their borders. I ask my colleagues to join with me in calling on the Syrian Government to immediately turn over the leaders of Hamas to the Israeli Government for their responsibility in last week's attacks. I fully support continued U.S. sanctions against Syria provided for under the Syria Accountability Act. If we are serious about achieving lasting peace in the region, we cannot allow Syria to continue to play host to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups.