Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could just interrupt for a second, what happens from my experience is when I go to the senior centers in my district and I talk to the seniors, I do not have to say anything because essentially they have already figured it out. You know how it is. Senior citizens look at everything. They read all the material, and many of them just tell me they have calculated this is a voluntary program, it does not take effect for another 2 years, very much aware of the fact that it is not going to help them for the next 2 years. They just see it as a political ploy to get through the next election. Then when they actually sit down and figure out how much they have to pay out of pocket versus what they are going to get in terms of benefit, they say, Why would I sign up for it? It is essentially a volunteer program. You do not have to sign up for it.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman bringing it up. It is 100 percent paid for with taxpayer dollars, and these taxpayer dollars are being used to pay for these videos and these advertisements. This is a continuation of the New York Times editorial: ``Actors were hired by the Department of Health and Human Services to pose as television journalists purveying faux upbeat `news' segments about the expanded Medicare coverage. The hope is that TV stations will air them as their own. In one version, anchors are offered a script in which they promise that `reporter Karen Ryan,' an actress, will explain the details of the new drug plan. ``This sleight of hand openly deepens doubts about White House credibility on a complex issue. The public deserves straightforward information about the changes in Medicare, and Federal agencies should not be engaging in political spin. This is no way to run a democracy nourished by information and taxpayers' money.'' Now, again, I am just reading my colleagues the editorial of the New York Times. As my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Brown) mentioned, this is taxpayers' money. This is not political campaign ads on behalf of the President's reelection. These are taxpayer funds.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, an international consulting firm that specializes in monitoring the pharmaceutical industry released a report that showed that prescription drug spending in the United States rose 11 percent last year, and Mr. Speaker, I have heard President Bush plans to highlight his health care achievements this week, and undoubtedly he will boast about the passage of his prescription drug legislation. However, Mr. Speaker, seniors have already done the math and realize that the President's law will not help them with the ever-increasing costs of their prescription drugs. Just consider, a senior who now spends $1,000 a year on prescription drugs will end up paying at least $857 a year under the law passed by the Republican majority here in the House and signed into law by the President. Seniors with bills of $5,000 a year will still pay at least $3,920 under the Republican law. I do not understand how the President can tout this law as helpful to seniors when you look at those statistics. The trouble is that both the House Republican leadership and the President are having a difficult time selling this bad prescription drug law to seniors. Back when we were about to vote on this bill last year, the President was having a difficult time selling the plan to some of my fellow Republican colleagues right here on the House floor. In order to overcome the skepticism that not only most of the Democrats but even some of the Republicans had, President Bush and his administration got involved in some questionable activities that continue today. Now, these activities are outlined in an editorial yesterday in the New York Times which was titled ``The Actuary and the Actor,'' and I do not like to read the entire editorial usually in the newspaper, but I have to this evening, Mr. Speaker, because I just think that this New York Times editorial says it all, about how this administration is essentially misleading the public with regard to this Medicare bill, just like they misled many of my colleagues on the Republican side who ended up voting for the bill that night when we sat here for almost 3 hours before the voting was closed. The New York Times editorial is as follows: ``An Orwellian taint is emerging in the Bush administration's big victory last year in wringing the Medicare prescription drug subsidy from a balky Congress. The plan is being sold to the public through propagandistic ads disguised as TV news reports, and it turns out the government's top Medicare actuary was muzzled by superiors during the debate about the program's price tag. ``Richard Foster, one of the government's foremost Medicare experts, says he was ordered not to provide requested information to Congress last fall when doubts were being raised about the drug benefit's cost. The administration denies this, but a ranking former official has confirmed Mr. Foster's story. As the bill was being considered, Mr. Foster privately cautioned that its cost could amount to as much as $600 billion, while the White House publicly stuck to the Congressional Budget Office figure of $400 billion over 10 years. The administration eventually conceded a cost of $534 billion, but only after the bill was safely signed into law. ``With program in hand, the administration then attempted to rally support, and take political credit, with government-produced TV ads masquerading as news reports. Actors were hired by the Department of Health and Human Services to pose as television journalists purveying faux upbeat `news' segments about the expanded Medicare coverage.''

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to me. The whole idea was to take this video with the actors and hope a station would use it and think it was the real thing.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to use the entire hour, but I did want to come to the floor tonight to discuss a troubling issue that seems to be becoming more and more rampant within the Bush administration and within the back rooms of the Congressional Republican Caucus, and that is the revolving door of powerful lobbyists turning in their corporate lobbying cards in order to undermine the programs they are supposed to strengthen within the administration, a revolving door where Republican congressional staffers leave Capitol Hill, but continue to advertise their relationship with their former Republican boss, relationships they claim can get their clients anything they want with Republican legislation. Mr. Speaker, before I get into that discussion, I want to talk about another revolving door, this one at the White House and Camp David. Today the Associated Press reports that President Bush opened the White House and Camp David to dozens of overnight guests last year, including at least nine of his biggest campaign fund-raisers. According to the Associated Press, more than 270 people have stayed at the White House since President Bush took office with at least the same number spending the night at Camp David. The President appears to be opening the White House and Camp David to the highest bidders. Members may remember the controversy surrounding President Clinton and how he allowed guests to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Republicans came to the floor and were aghast at that. At the time, candidate Bush also expressed his outrage over what he said was happening at the White House. In fact, during a debate with Al Gore in 2000, then-candidate Bush stated, ``I believe they have moved that sign `The buck stops here' from the Oval Office desk to `The buck stops here' on the Lincoln bedroom, and that is not good for the country.'' Today, the Associated Press article clearly shows that President Bush has changed his tune. The story lists nine of Bush's biggest fund- raisers either sleeping over at the White House or at Camp David. First, there is Mercer Reynolds, an Ohio financier, who is leading Bush's campaign fund-raising effort. He stayed at both the White House and Camp David. Then there was Brad Freeman, a venture capitalist who is leading Bush's California fund-raising effort, and he has raised at least $200,000 for President Bush's re-election campaign. Freeman also stayed overnight at the White House. Then there is William DeWitt, who also raised at least $200,000, and who also spent the night at the White House. The list continues. I do not want to take up my whole hour, so I am not going to go over the whole list. Over the last 3 years, the President's credibility has been tested from creating jobs to the issue of whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; and now we learn that President Bush, who sharply criticized President Clinton's actions in allowing people to stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom, is doing exactly the same thing. Nine of his largest contributors have spent the night at the White House or Camp David. As a candidate, Bush criticized these same actions. Mr. Speaker, the door at both Camp David and the White House continues revolving with President Bush's campaign contributors coming in and out. And as President Bush said, the buck does not stop at his desk. The buck stops with these campaign contributors as the President opens the White House and Camp David to the highest bidder. Mr. Speaker, since President Bush entered the White House more than 3 years ago, the buck has also been passed to administrators who have acted in the best interests of the corporate interest rather than the best interest of the American people. On Valentine's Day, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who is the co-chair of the Democratic Policy Committee, released a 21-page report that was titled ``How the Republicans Have Turn the Government Over to Special Interests.'' In the report of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) he stated, ``Pick almost any issue of public concern, water quality, food safety, defense contracts, pension security or health insurance, and you will find that at every level of the Bush administration, powerful roles and key agencies have been turned over to industry advocates who in many cases have long opposed the very programs they are now charged with implementing.'' Imagine that, the Bush administration has appointed former industry officials to run national programs that they oppose. Let me give a few examples from the report of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). The first one I would like to mention is when President Bush appointed David Lauriski, the Assistant Secretary for Mine Health and Safety at the Department of Labor. Lauriski's background was 30 years in the coal industry. No wonder last June Lauriski's department issued controversial industry-friendly regulations that would cut down the amount of coal dust testing in mines. In addition to promoting industry-friendly regulations at the expense of miners' health, the report cites a whistle-blower in Lauriski's department who alleged in a complaint that Lauriski awarded no-bid contracts to former business associates and friends and that he pressured investigators to approve an inaccurate report on the devastating coal slurry spill in Kentucky. This is the guy that President Bush appointed to supposedly ensure that miners working in coal mines around our Nation are safe. Another example from the report of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is when President Bush appointed William Hansen as the Deputy Secretary of Education where he was in charge of, among other things, overseeing the department's direct college loan program which competes with private lenders. You ask where was William Hansen before he joined the Bush administration. Well, Hansen served as CEO of a trade group representing private lenders, and he founded a PAC that gave contributions to Federal candidates who favored private lenders over the department's direct loan program. Even worse, Hansen testified before Congress against the direct loan program; and yet somehow President Bush determined that he was the perfect person to run the direct loan program. Based on Hansen's past, we should not be surprised that on his watch the Education Department cut off marketing for the direct loan program and stopped competing for new schools to offer the direct loans. The Bush administration even proposed selling the direct loan portfolio to private lenders. After weakening the direct loan program, Hansen left the Bush administration last July to become the managing director of education services for the Affiliated Computer Services, an information technology business that specializes in outsourcing solutions to commercial and government clients. Four months later, that company was awarded a $2 billion contract from the Department of Education. Mr. Speaker, these are just two examples, not even a half page, in this 21-page report that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) put together. There are many other examples that probably will be brought to the floor or discussed further on other nights. Within the Bush administration, it is clear that a revolving door has been created in which corporate leaders come in and work for the administration for a period of time, weakening popular laws that benefit the American people. Unfortunately, this revolving door does not only exist within the Bush administration. It also exists here within the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and it should stop. The revolving door within the Republican majority is becoming so widespread if you picked up the newspapers the last week or so, you would think that was the only thing going on up here on Capitol Hill. There was a front page story in last Thursday's Roll Call, which is the Capitol Hill newspaper, one of the Capitol Hill newspapers. The first headline in last Thursday's Roll Call read, ``Revolving Door Snags Hill Aide.'' There is a subheading, ``Taylor Staffer Negotiated Lobby Contract While on House Payroll.'' Roll Call reports that Robert France, the former top aide to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), negotiated a $60,000 lobbying deal on House time. The negotiations came 2 months after the aide was able to secure a $750,000 appropriations projected earmarked to his boss. This revolving door, my question is, Where does it end? Ken Gross, an ethics and campaign finance lawyer told Roll Call, ``People are certainly able to seek jobs, cashing in on their background and experience on the Hill.'' Gross continued to say, ``If there is evidence of this person working as a staffer on legislation that would especially benefit this company while he is talking to them about going to work for them, that would be troubling.'' Yet that is what seems to go on. Going back to the front page of last Thursday's Roll Call, there is another headline that says, ``McCain Seeks Files in Abramoff Probe.'' This article surrounds actions first discovered by The Washington Post several weeks ago in which the paper discovered Jack Abramoff, a White House lobbyist, and Michael Scanlon, a former aide to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), persuading several Indian tribes to pay their firms more than $45 million over the past 3 years. Senator McCain is now investigating these payments. The Scanlon-Abramoff investigation is a perfect example of how Scanlon used his relationship with his former boss, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, to influence legislation. When Republican Leader DeLay was asked about how both men promote their ties to him, he stated, ``I have no idea how their operation is or what it is.'' DeLay continued, ``What I can tell you is that if anybody is trading on my name to get clients or to make money, that is wrong and they should stop it immediately.'' Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting statement. I wish it were true. However, we have to consider that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has played an instrumental role in the K Street Project, a database that tracks the party affiliation, Hill experience, and political giving of every single lobbyist here in Washington. The K Street Project was featured in a July 2003 edition of the Washington Monthly, and the article stated back in 1995 that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) compiled a list of the 400 political action committees, along with the amounts and percentages of money that had recently been given to each party. Lobbyists were then invited into the office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and shown their place in friendly or unfriendly columns. A veteran steel lobbyist told Washington Monthly that the House Republican leadership ``assembled several large company CEOs and made it clear to them that they were expected to purge their Washington offices of Democrats and replace them with Republicans.'' The House Republican leaders also demanded more campaign money and help for the upcoming election. According to the article, the meeting descended into a shouting match and the CEOs, most of them Republicans, stormed out of the meeting. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) essentially is telling lobbying firms around Washington whom they can and cannot hire. He also has worked hard to place former aides in key lobbying and trade positions. The practice is so well known that these former aides are known as ``graduates of the DeLay school.'' And yet, with a straight face, the majority leader tells reporters, ``If anybody is trading on my name to get clients or make money, that is wrong and they should stop immediately.'' Well, it does not seem to be very believable. Tonight, as I said, I have been talking about a revolving door, a door that swings for the Republican corporate interests but shuts in front of everyday Americans. Whether it be the President opening rooms in the White House and Camp David to the highest bidder, or the administration hiring many of its key officials to advocate on behalf of policies they have opposed in the past, or the questionable actions of former Republican staffers who are functioning in a climate created by the majority leader, it is just unacceptable. I know that the media has been paying a lot of attention to this, and I think it is important that we bring it out. I do not want people to think that this is always the case, but it certainly is a strong indication that the President and the Republican leadership in the Congress have been essentially involved with this revolving door for some time, and let us just hope it does not get any worse.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to commend the gentleman for coming to the floor this evening and discussing the issue of these trade groups and the impact on the outsourcing, and I really believe that this is the most important issue facing the country right now. I just wanted to come and maybe I could ask you a couple of questions relating to what you said. I thought it was very interesting, I read an article a couple of months ago, maybe it was less, in the New York Times, about NAFTA, and I voted against NAFTA. I voted against Fast Track. I think the only one of these I may have voted for was the Jordan one because they had negotiated it so that there were sufficient labor and environmental safeguards, but generally speaking, I have opposed all these major trade agreements exactly because I am worried that we give away the store and we do not provide any protections that arrive at what I call fair trade. Even the President, if you listen to him, will say that even though he is a free trader, he believes in fair trade in the sense that there is supposed to be some reciprocity, but as you point out, that reciprocity never exists. There is never anytime that I can remember when the President invoked any rule or said that we were going to, as you said, file a WTO complaint or complain about other countries' treatment with regard to trade. Anyway, this article said that with regard to NAFTA, essentially the United States lost big time. Mexico, interestingly enough, lost big time because their standard of living and their workers wages actually declined I think during the time that NAFTA. It said the only country that may have gained somewhat was Canada, and I am not an expert on this. They said the reason for that was the Canadian government basically involved themselves in what you might call economic nationalism. In other words, they knew they were getting into this NAFTA agreement, they knew that some jobs were going to be lost, but their system provides that at the government level, if some jobs are lost to the U.S. or to Mexico, that they quickly figure out areas where they can train people and basically take over through national policy the manufacturing or whatever it happens to be, and they provide very generous benefits to people who lose their jobs so they do not lose their pension or their health benefits or whatever else. So it was sort of their aggressiveness and their willingness to be involved in figuring out where to be aggressive in terms of trade that made them a winner, so to speak. Again, these are gross generalizations, but I was listening to what you said because it seems like we do not in any way involve ourselves in what you might call economic nationalism. Nobody in the Bush administration is in charge, or even I guess would imagine that they would try to look at the flow of trade in the way to try to take an advantage for American workers or protect American workers. And even if you look at the European countries, if somebody loses their job, they usually have something, some wages or some income or some benefits that they can live on. It is almost like we just cry uncle. We say, okay, we are going to sign all these free trade agreements; we do not really care. Let the chips fall where they may. We lose jobs, it does not matter. Everything is outsourced; it does not matter. It is this complete lack of concern about the American worker, which I think was epitomized with the President's economic report, which the gentleman mentioned several times, where his chief economic adviser, whatever his title is, said that outsourcing was a good thing. I completely agree with the gentleman. If you take this to its extreme and say we are going to sign more of these free trade agreements, which the President is now negotiating with Central America and there have been several that have passed here in the last couple of years, Singapore, I forget there are so many, and there are more he is negotiating, now Morocco, I think, is ready, if we just say it is okay, laisse faire, or whatever the word is, I just do not see any end to it. There is no way we are going to compete. I guess my question to the gentleman is, Is it really true a lot of these countries, the gentleman mentioned China, practice economic nationalism? They take advantage of these free trade agreements to either subsidize an industry or capture a market and we do not do anything of that sort? I wanted the gentleman to comment on that.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, the reality is when we challenge the President, the gentleman from Oregon, myself, and others, and say, look, your economic report that came out essentially says that that is your policy, let the jobs go wherever they want, we do not care, whatever, this will save American consumers, the President and a lot of Republicans here in the House backed off from that and said, oh, no, we really do not mean that. I think they realize if they say it the way we just did, which is essentially the way the economic report of the President said it, it is just not acceptable. Nobody buys that. Rationally you cannot sell that, so to speak, to the American people. So now they are backing off and saying we really did not mean outsourcing was good, but they have not changed their policy in any way. They are still trying to negotiate all these free trade agreements without any safeguards.

Mr. PALLONE. The amazing thing, too, is we saw a document yesterday, and I do not remember the name of it, but I will kind of summarize it, that basically showed that as far as the economy was concerned the stock market continues to go up, there is still a demand in the United States for manufactured goods, and so far the consumer spending is out there, people willing to spend money and buy things; but the big flaw in this economy and the reason why we are not doing that well economically is because of the loss of jobs. So if we just managed to somehow practice, I call it economic nationalism, I do not know if that is the word, and say, okay, look, we are just not going to let all these jobs go overseas, we are going to be careful about it, we are going to demand that American companies hire people here, we may pass certain laws that make it more difficult for them to send jobs or production overseas, that probably the economy would be in pretty good shape. The jobs would be there. It is not like we are a poor country. It is just that we are shipping everything overseas without any regard whatsoever for our own public.

Mr. PALLONE. That is amazing.

Mr. PALLONE. The gentleman is exactly right. I have actually had discussions with Republican colleagues, and they have said to me, well, you act as if the economy is not doing well; and they point to all these indicators like the stock market and productivity and all these different things. And I just kind of stare at them and say, well, what does that matter if people do not have work, if people do not have jobs, if people do not have income? Ultimately, we will suffer, because if we do not have jobs, we will not be able to buy anything. What was it Henry Ford said? I am not going to be able to build cars unless people can afford to buy them. It just seems like you cannot convince the President or the Republican leadership that somehow the job problem is a problem. They do not buy into the idea that it is a problem, yet they will not admit that their policies are what they are. They just continue to say, well, this will solve itself somehow. This will come around and the jobs will be created. The President keeps saying, well, we are going to create more jobs next month, and then the February report came out and said there were no new private sector jobs net resulting. So I am just sort of baffled. Because I go home and this is what people talk about to me, they talk about how they had an IT job and it went overseas. I talked to some physicians the other day who told me that now their x-rays are shipped overseas, and they have them back the next day. The public just sees this gradual creeping up of every type of employment being lost overseas, and we just keep passing these free trade agreements. It is just very frustrating to me because I think that this issue has to be addressed. And it does not seem like it is that hard to address it, yet we do not see any effort on the part of the Bush administration to do anything about it.

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has just pointed out, which is important, is that we do not have to accept what is happening. In other words, some people have said, okay, we have already signed some of these free trade agreements, they are in effect, the WTO is in effect, the U.S. is in it. But the bottom line, as the gentleman pointed out, is there is a lot we can do. First of all, we can sort of review all these agreements. I think it was John Kerry who said that once elected President that he would spend like the first 6 months reviewing all the existing free trade agreements to see to what extent they are harming the United States. And as the gentleman pointed out, the U.S. can file complaints with the WTO, can investigate how these other companies subsidize things and dump them in the United States. There are a lot of things we can do that this administration is not doing. And most important, stop signing new free trade agreements with other countries. Because I guess the majority of countries still do not have free trade agreements with the United States, and so simply not continue the policy until we review it and see how we can protect ourselves.

Mr. PALLONE. It is just amazing. I was at a clothing store for kids with my wife buying some things for the kids, and I searched throughout and I think I counted 50 countries that were on the labels, and the only thing I could find that was made in the United States were some socks. And then another day I was at Cracker Barrel on the way back to New Jersey on 95, and I had to wait in line, so I just looked around to see if there was anything made in the U.S. I found one shawl, or something like that, that was made in North Carolina. A cotton shawl. That was the only thing in the place. As the gentleman said, they were certainly no more expensive than the other things in the store. They looked like they were on the way out. Once they were sold, I felt like I was looking at the last item. My own town of Long Branch was a major textile center. My grandmothers on both sides both worked in textile factories and raised the kids that way. The Bush administration does not do anything to try to promote American manufacturing or American jobs. They basically follow this policy that it is okay for everything to flow out of the country. It has got to stop. Maybe because they have refused to acknowledge that is their policy is something, but unless they actually change their policy in day-to-day operations, it is not going to make any difference.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, we got another reality check as to how, after 3 years in the White House, President Bush still has not figured out how to create jobs for Americans here in the United States. The February job numbers illustrate how the economic policies of President Bush and the Republican Congress still are not creating jobs. Last month, only 21,000 jobs were created by the American economy. That is 21,000 jobs. The Labor Department also revised its numbers for both December and January, stating that 23,000 less jobs were created during those 2 months than when it was first reported; and this means employers have added an average of 61,000 jobs per month since August, well below the 150,000 new jobs economists said were needed to keep pace with population growth. If the jobs recession does not end soon and the economy does not create 2.1 million jobs this year, then President Bush will be the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over an economy in which he did not create one net job; and yet the President continues to say that the best way to create more jobs in the upcoming month is for Congress to make permanent all his tax cuts, the tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit our Nation's wealthiest Americans. I would just like to know, Mr. Speaker, when is the President going to learn? Congressional Republicans cut taxes year after year, and the jobs they predicted would be created have never become a reality. Last year, when the President was touting another round of tax cuts benefiting our Nation's wealthiest elite, the White House predicted the cuts would create more than 2.1 million new jobs in the 7 months after its passage. And what actually happened during that period? Only 296,000 jobs were created, 1.8 million short of the President's predictions. Now President Bush says he is going to create jobs, but he is about as good at predicting job creation as he is in advancing policies that create those jobs. He is not very good at it, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that is why President Bush and some of his leading economic advisers are now backing away from their own ``Economic Report of the President,'' in which the administration predicted that 2.6 million jobs would be created this year. Just one week after release of that report, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans refused to embrace President Bush's own economic projections. One would think the Bush administration would be concerned about the job losses, but last month we learned that President Bush and his economic advisers view 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. The President's chief economist, Gregory Mankiw, made national headlines when he said, ``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradeable than were tradeable in the past, and that's a good thing.'' President Bush supported this view in his annual economic report in which he wrote: ``When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically.'' Mr. Speaker, how can we have economic success if we send jobs overseas, but do not create enough new jobs with comparable wages here in the United States? I think it is about time that the Bush administration realizes that shipping jobs overseas and cutting taxes for the wealthiest elite in our country will not create jobs. President Bush and congressional Republicans have had 3 years to turn this jobs recession around. They have totally failed. It is time for Congress to pass measures that will encourage companies to keep jobs here in the United States, and it is time we level the playing field and protect American jobs here rather than exporting them overseas.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to once again express my concerns regarding the inhumane treatment of political prisoners in Cuban jails. Almost exactly 1 year ago today, Castro began his devastating crackdown on Cuba's pro-democracy movement. Knowing that his actions would be overshadowed by world events in Iraq, Castro took the opportunity to arrest over 70 nonviolent human rights advocates, pro- democracy leaders and independent journalists. Inside of a month, the detainees were tried, sentenced, and locked away in Cuban prisons. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call attention specifically to the plight of 20 of the prisoners arrested in the crackdown last year. These 20 dissidents, many in their 50s and 60s, are suffering from advanced illnesses, and in many cases are being denied medical care. They suffer from a variety of serious health problems, including kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and extreme weight loss; and many of their conditions have worsened. I would like to relay the account of one specific prisoner, Oscar Espinosa Chepe, a 63-year-old economist sentenced to 20 years in the crackdown. Espinosa is suffering from advanced cirrhosis of the liver and has lost over 40 pounds since being jailed. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, his wife, Miriam Leiva, says of his condition, ``They are killing these people. I am convinced he was taken out of our little house for a death sentence which is supposed to be slow and painful. I do not know if I will be able to see him tomorrow or next month, or if they will just come to me and say, `You may come and visit his grave.' '' Leiva gave her husband's account of a cell, stating that it has no windows or running water and that the lights are left on 24 hours a day. She states that her husband is unable to eat and has a fungal infection covering both of his legs. Mr. Speaker, this is not an isolated account of one prisoner. Many similar stories of neglect and subhuman conditions have been reported by prisoners themselves and through their families. Several prisoners who suffered heart attacks before being jailed are now suffering from worsening heart disease because of the lack of medical care. Another prisoner now requires a kidney transplant because prison conditions have further damaged his already weak kidneys. And chances are, more stories like this are going to continue to come out of Cuba's jails. You see, about half of the 75 jailed in the crackdown last year remain in so-called ``punishment cells'' that measure only 3 feet by 6 feet, have no ventilation or running water, are subject to the extreme summer heat, and are infested with insects and rats. And even those prisoners who enter jail healthy will likely face health problems in the near future. Mr. Speaker, as expected, Castro continues to deny the Red Cross and other human rights organizations access to these jails. He remains defiant about the arrests even as Cuba's relationship with friendly nations continues to deteriorate. I urge my colleagues to join with me in calling on Castro to immediately release the most gravely ill prisoners and to grant the Red Cross immediate access to Cuban jails. It is critical that Congress not stand by and allow these human rights atrocities to continue and allow Castro's mistreatment of his prisoners to go unchecked. A year ago when this crackdown occurred, there were many of my colleagues, some who actually are sympathetic to Castro, who came down to the floor and expressed outrage over what was going on with these prisoners. I am just afraid that a year passes and now all of a sudden there is not much mention or thought about them because people tend to forget. The bottom line is that the situation is growing worse and Castro has not shown any interest in doing anything to turn the situation around. I think it is important that we continue to speak out and point to the prisoners' plight, lest they be forgotten.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I know my colleague mentioned the fact that the Supreme Court should act on this collectively. My understanding is that on Tuesday of this week, March 2, the Supreme Court issued its first collective statement related to the controversy surrounding Justice Scalia, and basically said they would let Justice Scalia decide by himself whether he should sit in on this case in which the Vice President is the named plaintiff. Again, I think that is unfortunate, because I do think that since Justice Scalia has been so reluctant to recuse himself, the likelihood that he would do it on his own is probably less than if the Court as a whole made that decision. But, nonetheless, we can still hope that if we continue to talk about this and bring it up that maybe he will recuse himself. I have some statistics about the current justices recusing themselves from cases, and the fact is many have recused themselves in many cases. Chief Justice Rehnquist, for example, has recused himself 299 times since he joined the Court and Justice Clarence Thomas has recused himself 199 times. So it is not unusual for that to happen. I still, for the life of me, do not understand why in this situation, which is so high profile, that Justice Scalia does not simply say, look, I will stay out of this one. I will recuse myself and I will not allow myself to participate. It seems like it is a very simple thing that could be done, and I do think it is important for us to continue to bring it up. Because the bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that this energy task force has played a very important part in energy legislation that was developed here. And the whole concept of the appearance of impropriety on behalf of both the Vice President and the Supreme Court is at stake. So we are bringing this up tonight, myself and the gentleman from Washington, but we are going to have to come back here again and bring it up because this case will be heard in April and there is still the opportunity for Justice Scalia to heed the advice of the litigants, the Sierra Club and the other public advocates who have asked he recuse himself in this case.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to urge Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from a case that the Supreme Court will hear this year regarding Vice President Cheney. I am also here this evening to voice my concern over another example of Vice President Cheney abusing his power as Vice President to continue to keep secret documents that would significantly impact our Nation's future energy policy. Madam Speaker, for 3 years now the Vice President has done everything he can to keep the record of his energy task force secret. This secret task force developed President Bush's energy policy, a policy that was then made into legislation here in Congress, legislation that is now stalled in the other body. Nevertheless, the end result of this task force and of that legislation was bad energy policy. There is no doubt that the energy industry succeeded with its influence during these secret closed door meetings in crafting an energy policy that benefited them rather than benefitting Americans who at the time desperately needed relief from high energy prices. For 3 years now the Vice President has refused to let the American people know who made up this White House energy task force. For 3 years now the Vice President has refused to let the American people know how and why the task force came to the conclusions it did about energy policy. And finally, after 3 years of hiding the information, it appeared that we would finally get some of the information Cheney was fighting so hard to keep secret, thanks to the Sierra Club and another conservative group called Judicial Watch who jointly sued the Vice President and the energy task force, seeking an accounting of energy participation in crafting the Bush administration's destructive energy policy. There was a Federal district court order that said that the administration as a result of this suit had to provide information about participation from these industries, which the Bush administration refused to do. The Bush administration claimed constitutional immunity from such inquiries. But the Federal court rejected the Bush administration's contentions and pointed out that the administration was attempting to ``cloak what is tantamount to an aggrandizement of executive power with the legitimacy of precedent where none exists.'' So what happened is that the district court basically at the request of the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch insisted that the members of the energy task force had to be made public. Now, you would think under normal circumstances that the Bush administration or the Vice President would say okay, the court has now ruled on this. They have said that this secret energy task force has to be made public effectively and at that point would simply say, okay, we will make the information public. But no. Refusing to give in, Vice President Cheney then appealed the court decision, asking the D.C. District Court to make new law that would effectively shield the Bush administration from any scrutiny. In my opinion that is the height of arrogance. Here we have a district court saying that information about this task force should be made public. What is the real harm? I cannot imagine that there would be any harm in making it public, but he nonetheless insisted that he will not go along with the district court's opinion. And the Bush administration actually went to court and asked the court to shield President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the rest of the administration from any scrutiny from opening up this energy task force. Now, what happened, of course, is that the court denied the Bush administration's request. And so what did Vice President Cheney then do? Well, he appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. And on December 15 of last year, the Court agreed to take the case and the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments next month in April. An interesting phenomenon though is that 3 weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case on December 15, just 3 weeks later Justice Scalia, a member of the Supreme Court, and one of his children accompanied Vice President Cheney on an Air Force II flight from Washington, D.C. to Morgan City, Louisiana. There, according to news reports, Justice Scalia and the Vice President were guests of a Wallace Carline, president of an energy services company, and they went on a duck hunting vacation. Neither the Vice President nor Justice Scalia made this duck hunting vacation public. Had it not been for the investigative work of the Los Angeles Times we might still not know that these two spent several days together hunting duck in Louisiana. After the vacation made national headlines, Justice Scalia offered the following response. He said, ``Social contacts with high level executive officials, including Cabinet officers, have never been thought improper for judges who may have before them cases in which those people are involved in their official capacity. For example, Supreme Court Justices are regularly invited to dine at the White House, whether or not a suit seeking to compel or prevent certain presidential action is pending. I expect that all of the justices were invited to Vice President Cheney's annual Christmas party. The invitation was not improper, nor was the attendance.'' That was Justice Scalia's response. Madam Speaker, let me say I do not think this response by Justice Scalia is acceptable. I do not think, Madam Speaker, you would expect the American people to believe that a social dinner in which hundreds of people are gathered at the White House is the same as spending one- on-one time with the Vice President on his jet, on the American taxpayers' dime. You spent days of quality one-on-one time with the Vice President, and that is certainly difficult than quickly exchanging a hello at a White House social gathering with hundreds of other people. In case you think or someone thinks it is my own prejudice because I happen to be a Democrat, you do not have to take my word for it. The media and the American public are also not buying Justice Scalia's explanation for this duck hunting vacation. And I just wanted to quote several comments from editorials in newspapers around the country commenting on this conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest. The San Diego Union Tribune said, ``As legal experts point out, a private hunting trip is not a simple social event. It is extremely personal access by a litigant to a judge hearing his case.'' The Charlotte Observer in North Carolina made the following observation in their editorial comments. ``When a judge goes on a 3-day hunting trip in Louisiana as the guest of a man who is at the center of a case before the Supreme Court, that is hardly the kind of casual social contact that most people would consider innocuous.'' Then we have a New York Times editorial, ``Vacationing with a litigant in a small group outside the public eye raises a far greater appearance of impropriety than attending a White House dinner.'' I could give you other examples, Madam Speaker, as well. I think the New York Times went on to say or I would like to go on to say that I think it is quite ironic that the man hosting the two men, Wallace Carline, made his fortune in the energy sector. He was the one that hosted the Vice President and Justice Scalia, and he of course is an energy corporate executive. And some of the newspapers commented on that as well. The Salt Lake Tribune editorial page noted, ``Perhaps the businessman, Wallace Carline, of Diamond Services Corporation, was a member of the secret advisory committee that Cheney convened to draft the administration's pro-oil energy policy. Perhaps he was not. Whether the public ever knows that is up in part to Mr. Hunting Buddy Scalia.'' The point is we do not know what the conflicts are in terms of Mr. Carline because we do not know whether he is on the energy task force. If we found out that he was on the energy task force, which is one of the things that this suit is trying to determine, then that would indicate even more strongly the nature of the conflict of interest. But I do not think there is any doubt that this vacation serves as a conflict of interest, and because of that Justice Scalia should recuse himself from hearing the Cheney case. One has to understand that the issue here is not just the actual conflict but the appearance of it. Those of us who went to law school know that when you talk about ethics and the issue of whether a judge should recuse himself from a case, it is an issue not only of a potential conflict but also the appearance of conflict. And I do not think there is any question that the appearance of conflict is here because of the fact that this case involving the Vice President was imminent before the Supreme Court and that Justice Scalia would have to make a ruling and a decision on the case. I want to point out that it is not just Justice Scalia who is responsible for the conflict of interest. Vice President Cheney should have realized that vacationing with a Supreme Court Justice not even 3 weeks after the court agreed to hear his appeal had the appearance and was a conflict of interest. I think the Vice President, unfortunately, seems to be willing to do anything to ensure that the records of this energy task force are never made public. I do not really understand, Madam Speaker, what the Vice President is trying to hide. Would it be embarrassing to the administration to have to admit that every member of the task force was an oil or gas executive? Probably. But thinking about it, that really would not be anything new. I do not know that anybody would really be surprised by that. So I am beginning to think that there is something else that is being hidden here. What could be so damaging in these documents that the Vice President and the Bush administration do not want them released? We could speculate that somewhere within these documents there is proof that the Bush administration was looking at taking out Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in order to take control of that nation's rich oil reserves. Well, interestingly enough former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stated in his recent book that Vice President Cheney strongly suggested U.S. intervention in Iraq well before the terrorist attacks of September 11. Additional evidence exists that Cheney played an early planning role in the war in a national security document dated February 3, 2001, months before September 11. According to a report in the New Yorker Magazine, the top secret document written by a high National Security Council staffer, ``directed the NSC staff to cooperate fully with the energy task force as it considered the melding of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy, the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.'' Now, I am just speculating here and I know others have speculated in this same manner, but really that is all we can do right now because the Vice President refuses to allow the American public to see these documents from his energy task force. I would like to point out incidentally, Madam Speaker, that I do not understand why congressional Republicans are not demanding that these documents be released by the administration. Of course, some of my colleagues on the Democratic side have been asking for it. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who tried for months to get the administration to turn over these documents from the energy task force, he said it best in my opinion during a floor speech last week after the General Accounting Office refused to force the Vice President to turn over the documents. And this is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said. He said, ``The hypocrisy about this issue on the Republican side is simply breathtaking. During the 1990s it was Republicans in Congress who embarked on a concerted effort to undermine the authority of then-President Clinton. Congressional committees spent over $15 million investigating the White House. They demanded and received information on the innermost workings of the White House. They subpoenaed top White House officials to testify about the advice they gave the President. They forced the White House to disclose internal White House documents, memos, e-mails, phone records, even lists of guests at White House movie showings; and they launched countless GAO investigations into everything from President Clinton's health care task force to his working group on China permanent normal trade relations. Yet we do not see anybody on the Republican side insisting, even after the court has said that it should be, that any of the documents be released from this energy task force. How different is that in any way from President Clinton's health care task force or his working group on China permanent normal trade relations? We do not see any difference. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) continued in this speech when he said, ``And if the White House resisted, these same leaders insisted that Congress and the public's right to know was paramount.'' Defending his numerous demands for White House records, for example, one of my colleagues, who I respect a great deal, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), insisted on the House floor that public disclosure of the facts is the essence and, in large part, the purpose of congressional oversight. The American people have a right to know the facts. Other Republican leaders reiterated this message over and over again on countless television shows. So when President Clinton was President and he had task forces on health care, on China, on other issues, the Republicans insisted that this was a right-to-know issue and that the records of the White House task forces, such as the health care one, had to be made public, that this somehow was a fundamental issue that went to the public's right to know; but now we do not hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans here in Congress, saying that the energy task force records should be made available, the document, the members of the energy task force should be made available. Frankly, I do not see the difference. It seems to me the same right- to-know issue exists with regard to the energy task force under President Bush and Vice President Cheney that existed with regard to similar-type task forces under President Clinton. The bottom line is that on the Republican side oversight does not seem to be a priority anymore, not when it comes to a President who is of their own party or a Vice President who is of their own party. Normally, I would not restate one of my colleague's statements, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) was right in what he was stating about access to these documents; and I think that he, being the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Government Reform, is frustrated because Republicans here in Congress no longer seem to care or play any role to oversee the actions of this Republican administration, and I think that is a very dangerous precedent for the future of our country. Now that the Republican majority has given up its oversight ability, the only ones who can now force Vice President Cheney to hand over these documents is the Supreme Court, and I do not know exactly, Madam Speaker, how we can effectuate that; but I do think that we need to speak out. We need to speak out and say that under the circumstances, Justice Scalia must recuse himself from this case; Vice President Cheney must be forced essentially to turn over these documents. I would hope that the Justice would take this action on his own. I would hope that the Vice President would take this action on his own, and we would not have to have these lawsuits occur. But until such time as they agree to do so, I also think it is important for us as Members of the Congress to come down on the floor and speak out because this is just another example, in my opinion, of the Republican Party's abuse of power and a very bad example because it basically nullifies our ability to know what happened in this White House energy task force which was essentially instrumental in putting together the legislation that is now pending in the other body, that passed this House, that is the basis for our national energy policy. I see one of my colleague from Washington is here, and I appreciate his coming down; and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the various points he made, but if I could develop a couple of them because I think some of them were particularly incisive. First of all, the gentleman started off by talking about the reputation of the Supreme Court being at stake here. I think that is true. I have to say that I came to this issue initially because of my concern over the policy aspects. In other words, we have this energy task force which made recommendations and became the basis for legislation that moved in the Congress. And, frankly, I feel that most of that work should have been done here in the Congress. In other words, we have committees, we have hearings, we introduce bills, and we move forward with legislation on something as important as this. But as the gentleman and I both know, in this case, almost everything that was in the legislation that was moved here by the Republican majority came out of this task force. So unlike the normal circumstance where somebody introduces a bill, we have a committee hearing, we have witnesses, we develop the legislation, it comes to the floor, and there is all this public input, which there was public input, that did happen in this case, but the seeds of this were developed in this secret task force. We do not come to the floor and complain about these problems with the abuse of power by the Republicans just because we are Democrats. We worry about the impact on public policy and whether or not it is good public policy in terms of our energy independence, for example, because of maybe who was involved in putting this legislation together. So I did not come to this, is what I am trying to say, by reference to the Supreme Court and the reputation of the Supreme Court, but I think the gentleman justly brings up the fact that that is a very important part of this; the trust and the ability of us to believe that the Supreme Court is going to make a very fair decision. That is probably just as important here as what the energy policy is that came out of this task force. When the gentleman mentioned that, I was looking at this New York Times editorial from last Saturday, which I had quoted earlier before the gentleman came down to speak, and I am not going to read the whole thing, but it is right on point in the last two paragraphs as to what the gentleman said. The New York Times editorial from February 28, last Saturday, reads: ``The law says a Federal judge must recuse himself from proceedings where his impartiality might be questioned. What matters, the Supreme Court has held, is not the reality of bias but its appearance. By vacationing in a small group with Mr. Cheney and taking things of value, Justice Scalia indicated an appearance of bias in Mr. Cheney's favor. It raises an appearance of partiality and should have been avoided.'' Then they go on to say, ``the recusal rules protect not only litigants but also the court itself. Justice Scalia's actions have again made the court fodder for late night comedy, as it was after the 2000 election. If Justice Scalia stays on the case and votes in Mr. Cheney's favor the Court will no doubt face more criticism. Justice Scalia should recuse himself either of his own volition or with the encouragement of his colleagues.'' Of course, they are referencing back to the Presidential election and the Court's decision in the Presidential election. But the point is it is the Supreme Court itself whose reputation is at stake, as the gentleman pointed out. And they have had problems in the last few years, so they do not need another problem. Also, it is not really the issue of whether or not they actually discussed this litigation, because we do not know that, but the appearance of it, which is really what this is all about. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman once again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week, peace negotiations finally resumed over the 30-year Cyprus conflict. After reaching the end of the road last March, thanks to what was described at the time by officials close to the negotiations as intransigence on the part of Turkish- Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash, the Turkish-Cypriot leader finally agreed to return to the negotiating table with Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos. The framework by which the two are now negotiating is a plan written by the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. While the Secretary General's proposal serves as a starting off point, it should by no means serve as the final agreement to finally unify the nation of Cyprus. Last year, Mr. Speaker, I visited Cyprus for the first time. And while I believe it is critical for a unified Cyprus to join the European Union later this year, I also believe that the framework agreed to between the two sides must lay the foundation for a democratic government to thrive for many years to come. Unfortunately, there are parts of the Annan plan that makes it virtually impossible for an established government to function. In fact, there are sections of the plan that would make the island country less democratic than it was after an agreement imposed against Greek Cypriots during the Cold War back in 1959. Mr. Speaker, the Annan plan in my opinion is undemocratic. Under the plan, a parliamentary system would be created with two legislative bodies, a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The Senate shall be composed of 48 members with a requirement that half of those Members, 24, come from Cyprus and the other half come from the Turkish Cypriot side. Keep in mind that the Turkish Cypriot minority only makes up 18 percent of the islands. The Annan plan gives that 18 percent equal footing with the 82 percent of the Republic of Cyprus population. How is that democratic? Then in addition to that in the Chamber of Deputies, the Annan plan says it too shall consist of 48 members elected on a proportional basis, but both the Turkish Cypriot side and the Republic of Cyprus side are guaranteed a minimum of one-fourth of the seats. And the significant advantage for the minority does not end there. The Annan plan states that laws be enacted by a majority vote in each of the houses as long as at least one-fourth of the senators from each of the two component states comprises the majority vote in the Senate. This means that the 18 percent holds a virtual veto over any legislation being passed. Mr. Speaker, if we compare the Annan plan to our own government here in the United States, let us say that the Democrats and Republicans each held 50 seats in the Senate, something that actually happened a few years ago. You remember how difficult it was for both sides to govern. If fact, it created a position in which one Republican, Jim Jeffords, actually left the Republican Party in order to become an Independent. Now, if just being 50-50 is not hard enough, imagine if the U.S. Senate could not pass any legislation without one-fourth of the Republican side agreeing with the Democratic side, or vice versa. There is no way we could govern under those conditions. How can we expect Cyprus, a country which has been torn apart for almost 30 years, to govern under these same circumstances? I do not mean to be critical of U.N. Secretary Annan. He has done a fantastic job of trying to meet the unrealistic threats of Turkish leader Denktash. Furthermore, the government of Cyprus has consistently agreed to negotiate within the frame of the U.N. proposal. The Annan plan is a good draft, but that is all it is. It is critical that not only the United Nations but also the Bush administration and the State Department realize that in its current form the Cyprus government would not be able to govern. These concerns, as well as several others, must be addressed before any real peace agreement can be reached. I want to conclude by saying again, the Annan plan was supposed to be a basis for negotiations and everyone agrees that is certainly the case, but it should not be the final outcome. I am afraid that our own administration, the Bush administration, the State Department, are trying to put pressure on the Cyprus government that they have to agree to the Annan plan just the way it is and that no changes can be made. That is not only unfair, I think it leads to an unworkable situation in the long run. We have to realize that as much as the Annan plan is a good basis for negotiation, it should not be the end result because if it were, I think in the long run it would actually be to the detriment to the future government of a united Cyprus.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, finally some of my Republican colleagues are waking up and seeing the fiscal mess that they have created here in Washington. This morning, the headline in The Washington Post read: ``Some GOP Lawmakers Aim To Scale Back Bush Tax Cuts.'' Mr. Speaker, somebody really ought to tell the President about this. He is still running around the Nation telling anyone who will listen that he wants Congress to make all of his tax cuts permanent. These are the same tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and have turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. The article in The Washington Post quotes my Republican colleague, Christopher Shays, the vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, as saying, and I quote, ``We would be foolish to extend all the tax cuts now.'' Again, these are the words not of a Democrat but of a Republican, the vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, saying that we would be foolish to extend all the tax cuts right now. I ask, what is turning some Republicans against their President on this issue of tax cuts? Maybe they finally realized the true ramifications of their fiscal insanity over the last 3 years when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said just last week that fully implementing President Bush's tax cuts would require cuts in Social Security down the line. Chairman Greenspan's comments illustrate the destructive effects of reckless Republican economic policies, policies that have led to record budget deficits, lower economic growth, and a substantial risk to the Social Security benefits that millions of seniors depend on. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office 3 years ago, the projected budget surpluses were enough to cover the cost of Social Security during the baby boomers' retirement years. When then-Governor Bush was campaigning for the Presidency, he promised that any tax cuts he proposed would leave Social Security solvent. That was candidate Bush. But 3 years later, Chairman Greenspan says that, due to the fiscal situation this Republican Congress and President Bush have created, Congress may be forced to begin cutting promised Social Security benefits. My Democratic colleagues and I will not let this happen. Hardworking Americans have paid a portion of their wages into Social Security their entire careers, and Washington has always known that we have an obligation to pay them benefits when they retire. Instead of making American seniors pay for the Bush administration's fiscal recklessness, the President should work with Congress and get their spiraling deficit under control. Democrats, Mr. Speaker, believe that fiscal responsibility is the way to create prosperity for America and secure the retirement of America's seniors. The government needs to get back to balanced budgets and fiscal discipline as soon as possible to ensure that we can protect the Social Security trust fund for future retirees. My Democratic colleagues and I believe that our parents and grandparents should be able to enjoy their golden years and not live in fear of poverty. Another reason some Republicans may now be skittish toward making all tax cuts permanent would be the latest estimates out of the Congressional Budget Office. Last Friday, CBO estimated President Bush's budget for the upcoming year would generate $2.75 trillion of additional Federal debt over the next decade. CBO also says that, despite the President's claims, his budget fails to cut the deficit in half by 2009. Could it finally be that some Republicans are realizing what many of us on this side of the aisle have known for almost 3 years, that President Bush lacks any credibility on our Nation's fiscal situation? In order to prevent a total fiscal collapse, it is time for President Bush and my Republican colleagues to face reality and repeal the President's tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. It is time President Bush and congressional Republicans stand with our Nation's children who will be forced to bear the brunt of the cost of their fiscal irresponsibility. It is time the President and congressional Republicans stand with our Nation's seniors and baby boomers that need Social Security and Medicare strengthened, not raided. Chairman Greenspan and the CBO have sent a wakeup call to Washington Republicans, and I hope after reading this article in today's Washington Post that some of those congressional Republicans are finally listening.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I have the opportunity to recognize an outstanding woman, Mrs. Gina Cayne, for her distinguished efforts creating the Jason David Cayne Foundation, a non- profit organization dedicated to assisting the families of deceased spouses. Mrs. Cayne spent her youth in Marlboro, New Jersey where she met her childhood sweetheart and future husband, Mr. Jason David Cayne. In 1992, Jason and Gina wed, and Jason began his career trading Municipal Bonds. His success led him to a partnership with the firm of Cantor Fitzgerald in 1995. Six years later, during the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, Jason's life came to a tragic end. He was survived by his wife and three children. However, in the wake of tragedy, the community reached out to Gina, and provided for her every need while she grieved for her beloved husband. After this difficult period ended, Gina was so thankful of the help of the community that she decided to return the favor, and try to bestow the same generosity to other victims of tragedy that results in the loss of a spouse. Gina created the Jason David Cayne foundation in October of 2003 to assist with the immediate burden that families face when losing a spouse. In addition to financial assistance, the foundation provides help with organizing finances, and finding counseling that is required from the loss of a husband or wife. Mr. Speaker, for overcoming the overwhelming loss of her husband, and in the wake of such tragedy, creating a foundation to help others like herself, Mrs. Gina Cayne deserves praise. I would like to extend my gratitude to Mrs. Cayne for her service to the grieving families of Monmouth County. In addition, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a remarkable woman who's career in non-profit work has positively shaped the lives of all her foundation touches.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate my colleague from Ohio's comments. Regardless of how he has to phrase it, I think the bottom line is that there is a major inconsistency between what the Vice President said and what the reality is in terms of the amount of money and his connections to Halliburton. I have to say, though, ``60 Minutes'' did a report, I guess this was at the end of January, and I know that many of us have mentioned this before about this Halliburton subsidiary that is doing business with Iran. To me, although everything that we have mentioned is pretty bad, when this came out on the ``60 Minutes'' program back at the end of January, I was really more outraged by this than even all the other things that Halliburton was involved with. This was on January 25, as I said, on ``60 Minutes.'' Correspondent Leslie Stahl who was doing the report, the concern was on behalf of William Thompson, the New York City comptroller who oversees the $80 billion in pension funds for New York City workers or employees. What he was speaking about was the fact that New York City employees' pension funds are basically invested in several companies, including Halliburton, that through subsidiaries do business with the countries that President Bush has referred to as rogue nations, such as Iran and Syria, Libya and others. I just wanted to zero in on Halliburton. We could talk about the others, but tonight we are talking about Halliburton because of the potential conflict of interest with the Vice President. What was said on ``60 Minutes,'' again, and this is a quote, in the case of Halliburton as an example, this is Mr. Thompson speaking, they have an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands that does business with Iran. That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands, a building owned by the local Caledonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean island because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate- friendly. Apparently the law says that an American company cannot do business with one of these rogue nations such as Iran, but you can get around it in some way because the law does not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by non-Americans. But I would venture to say that even that loophole is being violated by Halliburton in this case because in this ``60 Minutes'' interview, I guess they actually went to the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and they were not allowed to enter the building with a camera so they went in with a hidden camera and were introduced to David Walker, the manager of the local bank where the subsidiary is registered. ``60 Minutes'' figured, well, they would find some kind of operation here, some kind of business, but to their surprise they were told by David Walker, the manager of the bank, that while Halliburton Products and Services was registered at this address in the Cayman Islands, it was in name only. There was no actual office there or anywhere else in the Cayman Islands and there were no employees on the site. They were told, the ``60 Minutes'' reporters, that if mail for the Halliburton subsidiary comes to this address that they reroute it to the Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Mr. Walker went on to say, the bank manager, and I quote, ``If you understand what most of these companies do, they're not doing any business in Cayman per se. They're doing international business,'' says Walker. Would it make sense to have somebody in Cayman pushing paper around? I do not know. And it is mostly driven by whatever the issues are with the head office. So what is basically happening here is the head office in Houston of Halliburton is calling the shots. Nobody is working at this local subsidiary. It does not even have an office. It has simply been set up so that Halliburton can do business with Iran. Think about it. Iran is on the list of rogue nations. You cannot do business with them. Of course, Iran exports terrorism around the world. So essentially Halliburton is benefiting from terrorism. Here we are. The President said that the reason we went into Iraq was because of the war against terrorism. The biggest company that has the contracts, no-bid contracts, in Iraq is Halliburton, which was formerly headed by Vice President Cheney. They set up a subsidiary, probably contrary to the laws of the United States, that does business in Iran and Iran exports terrorism around the world, probably into Iraq as well, for all I know. To me, it is unimaginable to think that the United States taxpayer is paying this company Halliburton which has had all these abuses but the biggest abuse of all in my opinion is that they are getting around the law and making money in Iran, which in turn is exporting terrorism that could potentially be used against the United States. I see my colleague from Washington State is here. I am pleased to see that he is joining with us tonight and would yield to him.