Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my Republican colleague's remarks, and I do have a great deal of respect for the gentleman, but I have to take issue, I should say, with some of the comments he made. First of all, as much as he discussed about how the situation has improved in Iraq, and I am not sure that that is the case, but he did talk about how the U.S. has spent so much money on Iraq, in reconstruction in Iraq, and hospitals, schools, other activities, the bottom line is that much of that money I think would have been better spent here. When I was home during the district work period, I think most people know that the Congress was in recess from the end of July during the time of the Democratic convention until last week during the Republican convention, and I heard constantly in my district office at the forums that I held, at the open houses at my offices, about the problems that Americans were facing, people who had lost their jobs, people who had tried to find another job and found another job that paid less or did not provide the same benefits, people who had lost their health insurance; and I really do not believe that the situation the gentleman described about the economy is at all rosy. The economy is not doing well. The average person is really feeling squeezed because what is happening is they work harder, and, as the gentleman mentioned, productivity is up, but wages are not keeping up with it, and Americans find themselves working harder, earning less money, and facing increased costs for gas, schools to send their kids to college, and health insurance. They are really not very optimistic about the future of the economy, because the situation seems to be getting worse over the last 4 years. So this evening I wanted to really pose, and I see some of my colleagues are here, so I would like to start with some of them, but I would really like to pose the question about whether or not over the last 4 years Americans' lives have improved or gotten worse. I think for most people, the answer is definitely that they have gotten worse. When you ask people are they better off today than they were 4 years ago when President Bush began his Presidency, the answer is no, they are not better off. I realize that my Republican colleagues spend a lot of time talking about how the situation has improved in Iraq; but, frankly, I think in many ways the money that has been spent in Iraq for reconstruction, for sewers, for hospitals, for education, has been spent at the expense of what could be done here, because as we know, many Americans really face increased costs and the inability to access health insurance, the inability to send their kids to the college of their choice, the inability in many cases even to be able to find an apartment or to pay for the gas so they can go to work. I know that I do not want to always be pessimistic, I like to think optimistically, but the picture that the Republicans paint and the picture painted at the Republican convention last week about a rosy America and things getting better and jobs being more available, these things just simply are not true. The economy is not doing well. The job situation is not good. Most importantly, Americans feel increasingly that they work harder and that they have to pay more and that they get less. I have some of my colleagues here tonight. I see the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is here. I know she also waited through the last hour listening to our Republican speaker. I would like to yield to her at this time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just wanted to say if you listen to the President during his acceptance speech at the convention, he said that he was going to do all these things for seniors. Of course, he trumpeted the so-called prescription drug benefit that kicks in in 2 years, in 2006, which I think is a sham. But when asked about this 17 percent increase in premiums for Medicare part B, he said, oh, that is because health care costs have gone up. But what he neglected to mention was the biggest factor in this increase is the fact that with that prescription drug so-called benefit, which you and I realize is really not going to be a benefit in 2 years, so much money has gone to the insurers that that is resulting in the part B increase in premium going up 17 percent. There is a link between the two. So, once again, they say we are going to help the seniors, and the reality is that their health care costs are going up tremendously. We have not had an increase like that in part B in anybody's memory. I do not know if there has ever been that much of an increase. A lot of it is linked to this sham Medicare prescription drug benefit because so much money is going to the insurers and not actually coming back to the seniors, not to mention it does not even go into effect for a couple of years.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have to say, when I had the open houses, and at my typical open house I will have 100 people show up at one of my offices, that was the biggest concern. People had lost their health insurance, were not able to get it on the job anymore. Again, the problem that I see is that this Bush administration talks about how they are going to improve access to health insurance, how they are going to improve access to college, No Child Left Behind. But when you talk to the people, the reality is things are getting worse on every one of these fronts. We saw statistics 2 weeks ago, a report came out, that said we started out with 40 million uninsured 4 years ago. Now it is 45 million. Just an example.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming. He is always out there in front on all the health care issues and certainly tonight was no different in that respect. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go back to this issue that I mentioned a couple times this evening about how people are working harder but not sharing in the gains. And I particularly mention this because I guess 2 days ago was Labor Day and my Republican colleague tonight talked about productivity and increased productivity, that that was such a positive value in the economy. There was an article in the New York Times that was actually on Labor Day this past Monday, that was essentially trying to highlight this issue of increased productivity, or Americans working harder but not sharing in the gains. It was an op-ed piece by Bob Herbert that was entitled ``An Economy That Turns American Values Upside Down.'' Why Americans are ``working harder but not sharing in the gains.'' I thought that that was so relevant because it kind of goes back to the whole issue of the middle-class squeeze that many of my Democrat colleagues were talking about tonight. I just wanted to reference certain sections of this article by Bob Herbert because I thought it was so much on point. He begins by saying that the Labor Department reported last week that 144,000 payroll jobs were created in August. And he wants to put that, of course, in perspective: ``The number was below market forecasts. It was also below the number of jobs needed to accommodate the growth in the unemployment age population. In short, this was not good news. It is only by the diminished job creation standards that have prevailed since the last recession that any positive spin could be put on last month's performance.'' President Bush has been out there talking about how great it was that these 144,000 jobs were created in August. And what Bob Herbert is saying is that this is a spin that has been put on it when the reality is that over the last 4 years we have lost so many jobs. He says, and I quote again, ``After almost 3 years of recovery, our job market is still too weak to broadly distribute the benefits of the growing economy. Unemployment is essentially unchanged, job growth is stalled, and real wages have started to fall behind inflation. Prolonged weakness in the labor market has left the Nation with over 1 million fewer jobs than when the recession began.'' Of course, when President Bush first took office, this is the worst position in terms of recouping lost jobs in any business cycle since the 1920s. Essentially we have to go back to Herbert Hoover in order to see a situation where so many jobs have been lost. Then Herbert goes on to say what is happening is nothing less than a deterioration in this standard of living in the United States. And this is what I really wanted to talk about is that regardless of the number of jobs, the bottom line is that the standard of living is going down because people have to work harder and make less money. He says, ``Despite the statistical growth in the economy, the continued slack in the labor market has resulted in a decline in real wages for anxious American workers and a marked deterioration in job quality.'' From 2000 through 2003, there was a $1,500 loss in median household income, or basically a 3.4 percent decrease. We have a 3.4 percent loss in real income juxtaposed with a jump in productivity. ``This is the part of the story that spotlights the unfairness at the heart of the current economic setup in the U.S. While workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, they have not participated in the benefits of their own increased productivity. That does not sound much like the American way. ``Today's workers have lost power in many different ways through the slack labor market, government policies that favor corporate interests, the weakening of unions, the growth of lower-paying service industries, global trade capital mobility, the declining real value of the minimum wage, immigration and so on. ``The end result of all this is a trait of American families struggling just to hang on rather than to get ahead. The benefits of productivity gains in economic growth are flowing to profits, not worker compensation. The fat cats are getting fatter while workers, at least for the time being, are watching the curtain come down on the heralded American dream.'' I mean, I understand what my Republican colleague said earlier when he was trying to paint a rosy picture of the economy getting better. I do not even think that is true, but the bottom line is, regardless of any growth in the economy, it is not benefiting the average worker. That is why when we go home, myself and my Democratic colleagues, and we hear from our constituents, they are very pessimistic about the future because they realize that even if they have a job, that they are working harder and not making any more money in real terms and the prices for everything continue to go up. Mr. Speaker, in the time that I have left, I just wanted to be critical, because I do not know how else to put it, of the President and the Republican convention and the way they portrayed the sort of rosy picture about America. If you think about it, 24 years ago when Ronald Reagan was running for President, he asked American people the same question that I asked tonight, and that is, are you better off today than you were 4 years ago, but last week at the Republican national convention, every speaker that came to the podium simply ignored that question. President Bush refused to highlight any meaningful domestic accomplishments in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention. My question, Mr. Speaker, is why are Republicans so afraid to ask the American people if they are better off than they were 4 years ago, and I think that the reason is because both the President, as well as the congressional Republicans, are smart enough to realize that if they ask the American people that question the answer for the most part would be a resounding, no, we are not better off. This is what my Democratic colleagues were saying this evening. In fact, Mr. Speaker, President Bush's leadership on the economy has been lacking since the very early days of his administration, and I just want to get into some of these statistics about the job losses because I think they are so important. As I said, last Friday the Department of Labor announced that 144,000 jobs were created during the month of August. That number is more than 100,000 jobs fewer than the 250,000 jobs the Bush administration estimated would be created each month this year. Over the last three months, the administration has not come close to hitting any of these estimates. President Bush will certainly now be the first President since the Great Depression, since Herbert Hoover, to have lost jobs on his watch. Unless the economy creates 900,000 over the next few months, which is not possible really, the President will not have created one net job over the last 4 years, and if we contrast that with the economic record of President Clinton, before President Bush, Clinton created more than 20 million net jobs during his 8 years in office. It is no wonder that the Republicans do not want to talk about their economic record and did not talk about it last week at the Republican National Convention. Last year when the President was touting another round of his tax cuts, which I think clearly benefited the elite and more than the average American, the White House predicted that the cuts would create 2.1 million jobs in the 7 months after the passage of that tax cut bill. But what actually happened during that period? Only 296,000 jobs were created, 1.8 million short of the President's prediction. There is no indication that the tax cuts are helping the economy or that they are helping create jobs, none whatsoever. The economic reports were so bad that President Bush's advisers refused to endorse the President's own Economic Report in which the administration predicted 2.6 million jobs would be created this year, and I think it is a good thing that the administration backed away from those estimates because there is no way its policies can create 2.6 million jobs this year. One of my Democratic colleagues tonight talked about outsourcing, and I think that is an important factor in the issue of job loss under this administration. One of the major reasons for the current job recession is the increased exporting of high-paying, white and blue collar jobs overseas. I mentioned an example with the gentleman who came to my office who lost his job with Frigidaire, an air conditioning plant in Edison, that basically moved to Brazil, and we lost 1,500 jobs in my district. Earlier this year, the Ford plant in my district closed, leaving more than 900 New Jersey employees without jobs. We do not even hear President Bush talking about the outsourcing issue or the fact that jobs from New Jersey and other States are being shipped overseas. Earlier this year, we learned 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. This is the whole free-trade theme, if you will, or spin that the President puts on the whole issue of jobs going overseas, but I mean, the bottom line is our economy can continue to grow; but if it does not grow by creating jobs here and the jobs are created overseas, that seems like that is okay with President Bush but it is not okay with me. It is certainly not okay with my constituents. If you listen to what the congressional Democrats and Senator John Kerry have been saying, we support abolishing tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas, and I do not know what to say. I do not know how you force the President to address this issue of outsourcing. He simply does not want to do it because I do not think he thinks that it is really a bad thing, and so he is not going to address it. The other thing I wanted to talk about, and I talked about briefly when I mentioned this Bob Herbert article, about how the jobs that are being created, they pay substantially lower than the jobs that they replace. If you can, imagine losing your job and then searching and searching for another comparable job, only to realize that you are going to have to take a big pay cut. Well, that is what constituents who came to my office during the August break told me that was happening to them. The new jobs being created are paying more than $9,000 less than the old jobs that they replaced on the average in the United States. Families are being squeezed by falling incomes and rising costs. According to a Census report released last month, the typical family's income has fallen more than $1,500 under George Bush, and essentially what you are seeing is Americans are worse off today because of the President's economic policies. Now, this is not true if you are wealthy. If you are a wealthy individual, you are doing fine, but it is the middle class that is essentially struggling, and instead of coming up with proposals that will help the middle class, the President chooses tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Overall, you end up with a 1.6 million job loss. I talked tonight about how on many fronts we hear from the President or from the congressional Republicans that they are going to address some of these problems and that they are going to deal with some of the problems of the middle class squeeze. Of course, if you listened to President Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, he certainly puts a spin to suggest that somehow he is going to address health care costs, he is going to address the high cost of education, he is going to address the need for job training when someone loses their job. But if you look at the actual record, and this happens to be true on so many domestic policy issues, you find that, in reality, what the Bush administration says is not what they actually do, and I just wanted to give a couple of examples that relate back to some of the issues that my colleagues mentioned tonight, and then I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned the whole job training issue, about how the President promised that there was going to be money for job training when people lost their jobs. In a second term, this was again in the President's acceptance speech last week at the Republican Convention, the President pledged to ``double the number of people served by our principal job training program.'' I talked about the guy who worked for Frigidaire in my district who was not able to get the job training that he was promised and ended up not being able to get another job when he lost his job at Frigidaire. In his 2005 budget, that is, the budget that we are now working on, the President proposed to cut job training and vocational education by 10 percent. That is $556 million from what Congress pledged to those programs in 2002. So the President says in his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention that if he is re-elected he is going to double the number of people served by principal job training programs, but his current budget proposal would actually cut job training by 10 percent. Absolutely inconsistent. He talked in his acceptance speech about increased funding for community colleges because we know that a lot of people who are middle class send their kids to community college because they cannot afford a 4-year college, not to mention private 4-year college. Last year, the Bush administration proposed cutting the largest direct aid initiative to community colleges, the Perkins Program for technical vocational training, from $1.3 billion to about $1 billion. So here he is again, the President is saying in his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, increased funding for community colleges. In reality, his budget that was proposed for the next fiscal year cuts money for community colleges. The biggest program that middle class people rely on in terms of direct funding for college education is the Pell grant proposal. In his speech he pledged to expand Pell grants for low and middle income families, but for the last 3 years, Bush has proposed freezing or cutting Pell grants, and that despite pledging in 2002 to raise Pell grants to a $1,500 limit, the maximum Pell grant is currently $4,050. So, again, I can mention the health care issues, I could mention Medicare prescription drugs, education, job training. In every one of these areas, every one of these domestic what I would call priority areas, if you listened to the President's speech last week, he said we are going to address this and we are going to help the average American, but in reality, the policies for the last 3 or 4 years have done exactly the opposite. Finally, I just want to say, if you listened to the President's speech last week at the Republican Convention, he renewed his calls to make his tax cuts permanent. This morning again I listened to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) talk about how over the next few weeks we are going to extend the tax cuts. The reality is that the only people that are going to benefit from these policies are high-income households. Estimates based on data from the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution, a tax policy center, show that if the tax cuts are made permanent that the top one percent of households will gain an average of $58,200 a year. By contrast, people in the middle of the income spectrum will secure just a 2.5 percent increase in the after-tax income, with average tax cuts of $655, a little more than 1/90th of what those in the top 1 percent would receive. So, again, these tax policies have failed. They have not turned around the economy. The economy is not improving by any standard. The only people that are benefiting from the tax policies and the Republican economic policies are essentially the very wealthy, the people that are in the top 1 percent income bracket. I started out this evening, Mr. Speaker, by asking the question, are you better off than you were 4 years ago. Clearly, the answer is no.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention one other thing. I was so glad my colleague mentioned about the housing market, because one of the other things that the Republican Member who preceded us talked about as to why things were better was he talked about low interest rates and linked that to homeownership. Of course, I am not advocating higher interest rates. I think that low interest rates are a good thing, although they have actually gone up a little bit in the last couple of months. But my colleague pointed out how often times, and this is certainly true where I am in my district in New Jersey, that people simply cannot afford the homeownership, even with the lower interest rates. And what I find is happening where I am in New Jersey, I live along the coast, so the housing market has gotten so ridiculous in terms of the price of a home or even an apartment or a condo or co-op, that what is happening is any new construction is being purchased by people who have a lot of money for investment. So the people who need a new home are not able to afford it, but the people that are buying the homes are investors, or a condo or co-op unit, who then seek to rent it out or something. And I am not saying this is always the case, but my colleague is right about the prices for homes. It is just completely out of reach. What is happening is that the people who live in my hometown of Long Branch, but it is not just Long Branch, are traditionally losing their homes and have to leave. And I do not know where they are going, certainly going to leave the district because they simply cannot afford the high prices. So even though low interest rates help many times, they help the wealthier person who will buy a second or third home rather than the younger person who is trying to buy something because they cannot afford the prices. It is absolutely true.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. One of the things, before me there was a Republican who spoke, and somebody that I admire a great deal, but he cited the reasons why the Republicans feel the economy is getting better. And some of them I thought were so off base. The one that was the most off base was he talked about how productivity had increased over the last 4 years. And that is true. But the problem is it has not benefited the worker. In other words, when I was home in New Jersey, not only did I hear from people about how they had lost their job or they had lost their health insurance, but I also heard, I found another job, I have a job, but I have to work harder and I am not getting paid as much. And that is the other reality, which is that, yes, productivity is going up, people are working harder, but they are not benefiting from it. Their real wages have decreased significantly over the last 4 years, and they do not have the pension benefits, and they do not have the health insurance benefits. And my colleague, again, some of the things that the Republican colleague said I agreed with. He talked about character and how important it was for people to have good character and a sense of responsibility. And I think that is all true, but we are talking about people who are willing to work, in many cases work harder by his own acknowledgement than they did 4 years ago, but they should benefit from that. They should not be faced with less income in real dollars or the inability to pay for health insurance. It is one thing to talk about character. I think Americans have a lot of character in the sense of responsibility, but they just find themselves working two jobs and in some cases three jobs and not bringing home the same amount of money in real terms that they were 4 years ago. That is the tragedy of it. It really is. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, because we need to point to personal examples to show how the policies of this administration are impacting real people, and I think that that is really one of the best. I am sure that is one of those tax loopholes that was put into the jobs bill, or whatever that bill was called, the tax bill of the Committee on Ways and Means at the request of the small aircraft companies, and it is just incredible. I want to yield to the gentleman from Maine, but first, one of the people that came into my office when I had an open house one day, and I said it was mostly about health care and the loss of health insurance, was a guy from Edison, New Jersey, which is my largest town, and he worked for the Frigadaire plant, which made refrigerators, air conditioners, that kind of thing, and the plant closed this year and there were 1,500 jobs, they all went to China. And he came to my office because under the Job Retraining Act or something that Republicans, whenever they pass these trade bills, they say oh, do not worry, because we are going to provide all kinds of retraining. And as my colleagues know, President Bush has cut all of the retraining money, so whatever was promised out there when you lost your job that you are going to get retrained, most of that has disappeared. In New Jersey, it has pretty much dried up, the Federal dollars. So he came in and he actually found a job which paid a little less and did not have quite the benefits of the one he lost, but still was a pretty good job. In order to get it, he had to go through some training program that was supposedly funded by the Federal Government. When he showed up at the training program, they told him that the money had been cut, there was not any more money. So he actually lost the job. It was an opportunity to find a job that paid a reasonable amount, and he lost the job because the training money was not there. Every promise that we get from this administration, whether it is prescription drugs, or expanded health care, or more opportunities for college, or retraining, if you lose your job, it just all ends up being not true. I mean I do not know how to say it. I do not want to say it is a lie, but it is just not true. The funding is not there, the programs are not there. It is just a lot of hype, and that is what we are getting and continue to get from this administration. But I want to thank the gentlewoman for providing a really good example. Thanks. I yield to the gentleman from Maine, one of our champions on the health care issue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I know I started out asking the question, are you better off than you were 4 years ago, and I was primarily focusing on it from an economic point of view. But as the gentlewoman points out, from a security point of view as well, we can easily say that in the aftermath of 9-11, we can say that the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission and the idea of making the homeland more secure, we can really not make the case that that has happened either under this administration, so I think that is a good point that the gentlewoman makes. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, President Bush promised in his convention acceptance speech to honor America's seniors by giving them immediate help. The very next day, his administration announced the largest Medicare premium increase in the program's history. This year most Medicare beneficiaries paid $66 a month for physician services. Thanks to the President's action, these monthly premiums will rise more than 17 percent, forcing seniors with tight incomes to fork over about $78 per month. Now, President Bush tried to blame the premium hike on rising health care costs, but he ignores the fact that the Medicare bill he and Republicans fought so hard to make law is also responsible for these record increases. That is because the law gives insurers billions of dollars as an enticement to keep seniors on their rolls. Seniors deserve better than the treatment they are receiving from President Bush and congressional Republicans. Democrats continue to support a prescription drug law that would provide meaningful assistance without forcing up Medicare premiums.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the health care crisis that continues to affect Native Americans in this country. For far too long, Native Americans have suffered from a lack of access to quality health services, resulting in increasing amounts of Native Americans that suffer from a wide range of diseases and illnesses. Mr. Speaker, language from a report commissioned by the Federal Government in 1928, 75 years ago, to study the health status of Native Americans is just as true today as it was then. And the language states, ``The health of the Indians as compared with that of the general population is bad. The existing evidence warrants the statement that both the general death rates and the infant mortality rates are high. The prevailing living conditions among the great majority of the Indians are conducive to the development and spread of disease. With comparatively few exceptions, the diet of the Indians is bad. The housing conditions are likewise conducive to bad health. The inadequacy of appropriations has prevented the development of an adequate system of public health administration and medical relief work for the Indians.'' Mr. Speaker, this excerpt is from a report commissioned by the Federal Government in 1928, over 75 years ago; but to my disbelief and to the disbelief of millions of Native Americans, not much has changed. Indeed, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights just came out with a draft report studying the current status of the Native American health care system that cites similar trends from a 1928 report. The main reason why there has been such limited success in improving the health status of Native Americans is that the Federal Government has failed miserably to live up to its trust obligation to provide quality health services to American Indians. Mr. Speaker, the United States Government has a moral and legal obligation to provide for the health of Native Americans. This Federal obligation is the result of Native Americans ceding over 400 million acres of tribal land to the United States. In return, the Federal Government entered into a number of agreements that promised to provide health care services among many other benefits to Native Americans. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report notes that specifically Native Americans are 770 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 427 percent more likely to die from diabetes, 280 percent more likely to die from accidents, and 52 percent more likely to die from pneumonia or influenza than the rest of the United States, including white and other minority populations. These statistics are appalling, and I think they are just plain heart breaking. There are many reasons why this health status of Native Americans continues to be poor, such as social and cultural and structural barriers, but the number one reason why American Indians and Alaska natives suffer disproportionately from a poor health status is because the United States Government refuses to invest the funding needed to improve the health status for Native Americans. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is willing to expend nearly twice the amount of Federal dollars to fund health care services for Federal criminals than it spends on health care services for Native Americans. How does that seem fair? Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government can and must do better by American Indians and Alaska natives. The first step towards achieving that goal is reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This legislation is designed to provide parity between Native American health care and the rest of America. The bill enjoys the support of Indian country and bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Yet it languishes in this Congress, awaiting the administration to submit its views. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to press upon the Bush administration to send its statement of administration policy to the Congress so we can pass this important piece of legislation. The longer we take, the longer Native Americans will continue to suffer.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will attempt to do something it has never done before, strip our courts of hearing cases on the Defense of Marriage Act. Eight years ago, I opposed DOMA because I felt it was a blatant act of discrimination against gays and lesbians. To this day, I believe Republicans forced the issue in 1996 because it was a Presidential year and they wanted to divide the country in a desperate search for votes. It is 8 years later, and Republicans are at it again. Last week, they were embarrassed in the other body when they could not even muster a majority on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Since that did not work, why not strip the courts of authority to hear cases regarding DOMA? The court-stripping bill would, for the first time in our Nation's history, take from a group of Americans the right to appeal to our courts. It is also extremely dangerous in that it would lead to the possibility of Congress stripping other issues from judicial review in the future. It is bad policy; but in an election year, Republicans simply do not care.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, just 3 days prior to the release of the 9/ 11 Commission report critical of the Bush administration's lack of attention on terrorism, a 7-month-old FBI investigation of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was leaked to the media. The timing of the leak is sort of curious. Previously, the Bush team has used national security information and memos to disparage 9/11 Commission members who they did not like. Now, tomorrow, the 9/11 Commission is preparing to release their report, and we know it will be bad for the Bush administration. We know we were not as safe as we should have been on September 11, and we still mourn the thousands who died that day. The Bush administration opposed the creation of the commission. They fought against giving the commission enough time to complete its work and tried to limit the documents the commission could see. President Bush and Vice President Cheney sought to limit any questions they received from the commission and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tried to avoid testifying publicly at all. Now, the commission's report is done and the questions it raises are, Are we as safe as we should be today? How much progress have we made in correcting homeland security deficiencies? Unfortunately, the Bush administration has a lot of work left to be done.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you this evening in recognition of the extraordinary work and tireless efforts of Dr. Tracey Lewis, Dr. Judith Simon and the Chiapas Mission for Sight. Dr. Tracey Lewis, in particular, is a constituent in my district, a dear friend as well as an exemplary individual, and she has chosen to lend her expertise and talent towards a very noble cause. I urge my fellow colleagues to take a moment to acknowledge the invaluable service that the Chiapas Mission for Sight has offered to countless individuals in one particular developing region of the world. The Chiapas Mission for Sight aims to provide primary eye care and surgery to the native Indian living in Ocotepec, Chiapas, Mexico. Thus far, they have completed three successful missions, and as a direct result, hundreds of individuals in dire need of eye care and treatment have received proper medical attention. Originally a branch of the Chiapas Project of Newton, New Jersey, and funded in part by the Rotary Club of Newton, this year the ophthalmology group has grown and formed its own mission dedicated solely to vision care. The group's focus is providing medical service to the population of Ocotepec and the surrounding villages, which exceeds 1 million people. Of this population, many suffer from blinding cataracts, which is a problem inherent to Ocotepec and its surrounding villages, because of the exposure to significant sunlight and very poor nutrition. The nearest town, Tuxtla, Gutierrez, is a 4-hour drive, and sadly, the natives of the village earn less in 1 year than what it would cost to travel to Tuxtla to undergo cataract surgery. Oftentimes short-staffed, with donated medical and surgical supplies, the volunteers work around the clock to provide the natives the medical attention they so desperately need. Lack of funding has not deterred Tracey Lewis or the organization what it can to accomplish its goals. In fact, every doctor and most of the volunteers cover their own expenses, making their mission all the more charitable. On the last mission, the group examined over 400 patients with significant eye disease, and due to limitations in staffing, surgery was triaged and performed only on those fully blind in both eyes. Currently, the Chiapas Mission is seeking volunteers who will be trained to perform vision screening and assist in the operating room. These volunteers will travel with the group and serve as assistants to the doctors. In this remote region, plagued by poor hygiene and lack of proper medical and dental care, Tracey Lewis has quickly realized that a little does go a very long way. Inspired to take on this cause by her 9-year-old son, Tracey has demonstrated a remarkable ability to not only take on such a Herculean challenge, but to enthuse so many volunteers to do the same. Today, as we discuss health disparities within the United States, it is imperative that we are also aware of the stark disparities between our country and regions around the world. In this age of scientific discovery and medical advancements, it is unfortunate that those in developing countries are not able to reap the benefits of modern medicine. As we in Congress hear about these numerous volunteers that travel to remote villages and devote themselves to the restoration of vision to the blind people living there, let us rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every man, woman and child all around the world, including the United States, not go another day without proper primary care and adequate medical assistance. Mr. Speaker, once again, I commend the Chiapas Mission for Sight as it provides a shining example of the impact individuals can make through self-sacrifice and goodwill. Assisting those living in poor conditions with critical medical treatment truly demonstrates what can be done through benevolence and hard work.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Republican friends what they have accomplished here in the House this year. We have been here almost 8 months, and we have yet to pass any meaningful legislation into law. Republicans will list off countless bills that they have passed here in the House. Some of them are actually recycled from last year. We do not actually have to vote on them again, but because Republicans do not have any new ideas, they have to bring up old bills that have already been passed but have yet to be signed into law. House Republicans will blame the other Chamber. They will say they have passed all sorts of legislation but because the other Chamber does not see things their way, they cannot come to a suitable compromise. House Republicans can pass all sorts of legislation, but unless it becomes law it is meaningless. Let me remind my Republican colleagues that they control the White House, the Senate and this House. Yet Congress is being forced to work without a budget because Republicans could not come to an agreement amongst themselves. At the end of this week, Congress adjourns for 6 weeks. Yet congressional Republicans cannot point to one congressional achievement. Talk about a do-nothing Congress.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, we had more proof that middle- and low-income workers are still feeling the economic squeeze when it comes to making ends meet. Last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings of production workers, non- management workers ranging from nurses and teachers to assembly-line workers, fell 1.1 percent last month. That is the steepest decline since the recession of 1991, and makes up the lowest level of weekly pay since October 2001. While weekly pay is at its lowest levels in over a decade, middle- and lower-income workers are feeling the squeeze thanks to ever- increasing education, health care, and gas prices that are rising at rates much higher than the stagnant incomes. Let us consider a middle-class nurse in my State of New Jersey whose income fell 1.1 percent last month. How can this nurse afford the average $2,700 increase in health care premiums that New Jersey families face this year? How can this nurse and her family afford the $1,600 increase in college tuition costs? How can this nurse afford the more than $2,000 increase in child care costs? These increases would be difficult to keep up with if the nurse was actually receiving cost of living raises, however, it is impossible to meet with rising costs when you are actually seeing a cut in pay. There is no doubt it is becoming more and more difficult for these middle-class families to make ends meet. You would think this disappointing news would concern President Bush. After all, he already has the dubious distinction as the only President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch--1.8 million private sector jobs have been lost over the last 3 years thanks to the economic neglect of President Bush and Republicans here in Congress. Instead of showing any concern, the President has said that our economy does not need boom or bust type growth. The President ought to tell that to the millions of families around America that are struggling to make ends meet. The economic record of President Bush and the Republican House of Representatives has been an utter failure, and the President's statement that an economic boom is not needed today shows he is clearly out of touch by the economic realities middle-class Americans presently face. You do not have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, two members of the President's own party have voiced concern about the economy and the President's inability over the last 3 years to ease the economic concerns of both the unemployed and the middle class. Last week, Senator Voinovich from Ohio signaled his frustration with the Bush administration when he stated, and I want you to keep in mind this is a Republican Senator from Ohio I am quoting, ``Despite these overwhelming problems facing our Nation's manufacturers, I must say I have yet to see any significant action on behalf of the Bush administration to respond.'' Now, that is a member of the President's own party admitting that the administration has not properly responded to the economic hardships many Americans now face. And, last week, another Republican Senator said the President's economists gave him bad advice on the impact his tax cuts would have on the economy. I am quoting Charles Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate committee that writes all the tax laws. He said, ``U.S. President Bush should have been more skeptical about economic predictions regarding jobs created by tax cuts totaling $1.7 trillion over 10 years.'' Grassley continues: ``His economists screwed up and Bush was not right in not questioning his economists.'' Now, again, that is a Republican Senator admitting that the tax cuts President Bush and Congressional Republicans have been touting as the answer to our Nation's economic problems will not actually create jobs or help middle-class families. It is nice that some within the Republican Party are finally realizing that their tax cuts for the wealthiest have not trickled down to the middle class. Maybe these statements from Republican senators will serve as a wake-up call not only to President Bush but also to Republican leaders in Congress that our Nation needs a real economic stimulus plan. You cannot actually fix a problem until you admit a problem. And, unfortunately, President Bush is still in denial that the economy needs fixing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). It is time for the United States to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide, which is fully documented in the U.S. Archives and through an overwhelming body of firsthand governmental and diplomatic evidence. Despite the overwhelming evidence, the Turkish government and its paid lobbyists have through threats and blackmail sought to prevent the United States from properly commemorating the Armenian Genocide. Morally it is wrong for the American people to be complicit in the Turkish government's efforts to deny the suffering and death of 1.5 million people. I would also like to point out that Turkey's recognition of the Armenian Genocide would represent a meaningful step towards its acceptance into the European family of nations. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is time for this body to stop defending and funding a government that continues to deny its own history and refuses to break with the pattern of intolerance established by past Turkish governments which dealt with minority issues by committing genocide against Armenians, massacring and driving Greeks from its shores, restricting the rights of Christians to worship, and denying the existence of its Kurdish citizens. I would like to add that I am joined in my support of this amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member for their support and leadership in ensuring funding for Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), my co-chair of the Armenia Caucus, for all that he did in the subcommittee. Through their support, $65 million was allocated to Armenia in economic assistance, and an additional $5 million was allocated in military assistance and $5 million was secured for assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh. I am pleased with these levels of aid, and I would like to reiterate my steadfast support for maintaining these levels as we go to conference. I am particularly pleased with the fact that parity was restored in the levels of military aid given to Azerbaijan and Armenia. When the Bush administration's budget was released, I was quite troubled that the FMF request for Azerbaijan was four times as high as the request for Armenia. This imbalance simply could not be allowed. When the President waived section 907 of the Freedom Support Act in the aftermath of 9/11, a commitment was made by the Bush administration of parity in any military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Because Azerbaijan continues to blockade Armenia and also has threatened Armenia militarily, it is more important than ever to maintain parity in military aid between the two Nations. Additionally, it is essential that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh receive the aid and assistance that they need. I support the language directing the USAID to spend $5 million in fiscal year 2005 for programs in Nagorno-Karabakh. This support is in our country's interests and will help alleviate the conditions of the people there. Lastly, I would like to thank again the subcommittee for maintaining a high level of economic assistance to Armenia in order for the country to overcome the dual blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey, which continues to impede Armenia's economic well-being. Despite the dual blockades by Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia continues to implement economic and democratic reforms, which have met with considerable success. While Armenia continues to make important reforms, as long as Armenia suffers from blockades on its east and west borders, continued and robust U.S. assistance is necessary to help minimize their impact. I want to thank the subcommittee again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that even though the CIA repeatedly told the White House that it did not have any strong evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda, Vice President Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration went ahead and characterized a close relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in an attempt to justify going to war in Iraq. Despite these findings, Vice President Cheney refuses to back down and continues to say that there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For almost 4 years now, Vice President Cheney has abused his power, working with oil and gas executives in secret on an energy policy that only benefits those companies, refusing to tell the American people the specifics of that energy task force, supporting no- bid contracts for his former company, Halliburton, and misrepresenting his continued financial ties to that same com- pany . . .

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 713, and I want to say I am a practical person. The main thing is that the fence works. It saves lives. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of attacks and the number of suicide bombings. And basically the fence is doing exactly what it was designed to do, save lives. It promotes peace. It is a mechanism for peace. On a trip to Israel last year, I had the opportunity to view the security fence firsthand, and there I toured communities on the outskirts of Jerusalem where Israeli citizens live in constant fear of sniper attacks and suicide bombings. This fence provides a sense of security to these border families and will help prevent continued attempts to derail the peace process through violence. I was thinking about a statement that Robert Frost made about how good fences make good neighbors. That is the case here. This is a vehicle for peace. We should all support this resolution. I strongly support Israel's right to defend their citizens from terrorist attacks. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution because, practically speaking, the fence works, and it should be allowed to continue to have the opportunity to work.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could just say, in addition to that, I am sure it would have influenced the vote here in the House. I did not vote for the resolution in part, in large part because of what the gentleman said, which is that I thought that there needed to be more of an effort to reach out to our allies and not act unilaterally. But I distinctly remember being on the floor that day and having Members come up to me and say that they were going to vote for the resolution to go to war because of the representations that were being made by the President. They said, the President is telling us he has this information, and we believe him, and that is why I am going to vote that way. So I will say I have no doubt that it might have gone the other way on the resolution if, as the gentleman said, it had not been represented by this administration, both the President and the Vice President, that there was more than enough evidence to prove that the weapons of mass destruction were there. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and I agree. If we do not enshrine democracy and say that is the main thing we are about, then we might as well forget it. I think that was my colleague from Ohio's point as well. I think we have maybe a few minutes left. I want to say I started out tonight talking about elections in a sense because I became very upset last night when I saw my Republican colleagues get up and basically malign Senator Edwards, the Democratic choice for Vice President, and the attack dogs were out in full force. And basically they kept saying that Edwards did not have the experience to be Vice President, and how he only represents the interests of the trial lawyers. After I listened to everything that we collectively said this evening in our hour or so, it made me realize that Vice President Cheney's life story and life experience certainly did not compare in any way to Senator Edwards. I wanted to ask the question because I asked a few questions when I started, would you rather have a Vice President whose experience outside of Washington comes from running a corporate giant that was, during the time he was running it, doing business with the nations that engage in terrorist activities or all the other things that we have talked about here tonight, or would you rather have a Vice President like Edwards who worked to defend the little guy against the corporate giant? Every time they bring up lack of experience or the trial lawyer experience of John Edwards, all I keep thinking is that he spent his time as a trial lawyer looking to defend the little guys against the very corporate giants that the Bush and Cheney administration essentially come from. And unlike Cheney, Edwards spent decades fighting for families and children hurt by the indifference and negligence in many case of these large corporations. And he was standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their lawyers in a sense. And he was always helping families to overcome the challenges. I could give you some examples but I am not going to do that tonight. But I just, it just really riles me when I hear the Republicans stand up for these guys for this team, the Bush-Cheney team, who obviously come from the oil industry, always out there with the corporate interests, certainly based on what we said tonight in Cheney's case continues to march to the tune, if you will, of these corporate interests including the company that he was in charge of for so many years. Then we have got Senator Edwards who on the other hand was always out there fighting for the little guy. Needless to say, I think it is time for a change and if you are ever going to put the experience of these two candidates for Vice President against each other, there is no way that you are going to do anything but vote for Senator Edwards. With that I wanted to thank my colleagues again. I thought they were really great tonight, and I appreciate the comments that they made, particularly those concluding comments about our democracy being at stake which is the thing that we cherish the most.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last year Republicans here in the House approved the prescription drug bill that did more to help the pharmaceutical companies than senior citizens. The pharmaceutical companies can continue to charge outrageous prices because Republicans refuse to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate better prices for seniors in the government. The pharmaceutical companies also benefit from the fact that Republicans also refuse to allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs from other countries. My colleagues probably heard of seniors taking bus trips across the border into Canada to purchase their prescription drugs. And that is because drugs in other counties, including Canada, cost 40 percent less than they do here. This year alone experts at Boston University estimate that Americans would save $59.7 billion by paying Canadian prices for brand name drugs, and, yet, Republicans refuse to include a provision in their legislation that would provide seniors with this much needed assistance. Why would Republicans pass a prescription drug bill that helps the pharmaceutical companies out more than the very seniors who have been waiting for help? What one of the reasons is that the Bush administration's main negotiator on the bill, then Medicare administrator Tom Scully, was actually looking for a job with the very pharmaceutical companies at the same time he was hammering out the final Medicare legislation. Mr. Speaker, there is no better indication that Medicare administrator Tom Scully was working on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies than when he refused to provide critical information to one of my democratic colleagues on the actual cost of the Medicare bill. Last week the Bush administration announced that Tom Scully did, indeed, threaten to fire Richard Foster, a career civil servant, if Foster told Congress that the Republican prescription drug bill would actually cost more than they previously thought. Now, unfortunately, even though the administration has admitted that, Scully cannot be punished for withholding this information to Congress. He no longer works at Health and Human Services. Guess where he works? He now lobbies for the drug companies. Now, Mr. Speaker, my democratic colleagues and I, we really feel very strongly that we have to continue to fight this new Medicare law and will work to provide seniors a meaningful benefit within the Medicare system. We still can have a good law. Today, thanks to the tenaciousness of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) we are going to vote on an appropriations bill amendment that allows for the safe reimportation of prescription drugs. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) offered the amendment in committee last week. Republicans tried to block it but they failed. And that is because it is the right thing to do. Seniors need help now with lower drugs costs and the reimportation provisions that Democrats inserted into the agriculture appropriation bill. I think it is a good start. Democrats have also filed a discharge petition on a bill that would finally allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for cheaper prices on behalf of the more than 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. The bill we want to bring to the floor ensures that the government will use the purchasing power of millions of seniors to negotiate lower drug costs just like we do for the veterans health care system. And this would lower prices by about 50 percent. Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to truly help seniors with the prescription drug bills, we have to do something about the outrageous and skyrocketing costs. That is the key. Republicans and the pharmaceutical companies shamefully refuse to address the cost issue. As I have stated before, Democrats will continue to work on behalf of America's seniors and continue to fight to pass legislation that finally addresses the high cost of prescription drugs.