Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to highlight the Pakistani Government's continued activities with regard to nuclear proliferation and cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. I am particularly concerned because Pakistan's leader, President Musharraf, continues to deny these activities and most recently in a New York Times interview this last weekend. Mr. Speaker, with regard to exchange of nuclear equipment, it is abundantly evident that Pakistan has clandestinely provided rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran with necessary equipment for bolstering their nuclear weapons program. In fact, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently reported that Iran has admittedly received support from Pakistan in obtaining centrifuges and other equipment that was used as a catalyst for creating its secret nuclear facility south of Tehran. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Bush administration has chosen to dismiss the information in this report, especially since the Pakistan-Iran link is so well defined, and since Pakistan is in complete violation of international laws forbidding exchange of nuclear equipment with countries like Iran. Last June when Presidents Musharraf and Bush met at Camp David, and this was last June, it seemed that the United States would no longer tolerate Pakistan's nuclear transfers to any country within the President's so-called axis of evil, but Pakistan is now guilty of such transfers to both North Korea as well as Iran. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Bush administration take appropriate action to punish Pakistan and to ensure that the same pattern of secretly supplying nuclear weapons to rogue nations does not continue. The other pressing concern that I would like to highlight this evening is Pakistan's continued terrorist efforts in Kashmir. In the past few months, the world has seen a significant uprising in the number and severity of guerrilla attacks in Kashmir. This is largely a result of evidence-based increased infiltration by Islamic militants at the line of control. Assessments by intelligence officials show that during the summer of 2003, the amount of infiltration was double the amount during the summer of 2002, and the number of murders and casualties of Indian Army men, civilians, and political figures in Kashmir has dramatically increased compared to last year. Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to wait for these numbers to continue to rise. President Musharraf's participation in closing the borders thereby restraining militants from entering Kashmir is the key. To this day he denies that he allows cross-border terrorism to take place, and, in fact, he still provides direct moral and military support to terrorists that he terms ``freedom fighters.'' The severity of the situation has also increased recently as terrorist training camps are reopening and as there has been a rise in the number of youth in Kashmir traveling to Pakistan to attend these camps. As a result of pressure from the United States after 9/11, there seemed to be a somewhat successful effort to slow down infiltration at the border and to close terrorist camps throughout Pakistan, but, Mr. Speaker, that pressure has subsided, and the results are quite tangible in terms of increased terrorist activity in Kashmir that has brought much suffering to its people. I urge the Bush administration to renew its role in ending global terrorism by pressuring Musharraf to enforce measures for ending cross- border terrorism in Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday's New York Times ran an editorial called ``Pakistan, a Troubled Ally,'' a title that could not have been more appropriate, in my opinion. The content of this editorial further strengthens my argument that Musharraf is pretending that he is not responsible for aiding Iran and North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program and furthermore that Musharraf is denying his role in promoting increased cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. I believe the United States has to respond to the numerous reports of nuclear proliferation in Iran and the increase in murders in Kashmir. Turning a blind eye to Pakistan's misbehavior in this stage of the game will surely further our own inability to promote peace and stability in the South Asia region, and beyond that the Middle Eastern and Far Eastern regions of the world. The United States has agreed to provide Pakistan with $3 billion in assistance for their help in the fight against terrorism. But, Mr. Speaker, before any of that money is provided, we must ensure that money is going to hands of a leader and a country that is, in fact, promoting nuclear security and ending terrorist activity. We have not seen a solid effort from President Musharraf on these vital issues, and before we can proceed with any assistance, these issues should be addressed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my concern regarding reports that President Bush has already approved cuts in loan guarantees to Israel and is considering further cuts. Last week I spoke on the House floor regarding a decision by the Bush administration to cut loan guarantees to oppose Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. As I stated last week, I oppose any cuts in loan guarantees. These guarantees allow Israel to rebuild after years of violence and economic decline and are critical to Israel's future. I am further disturbed by reports that the Bush administration is considering additional cuts in loan guarantees to protest Israel's construction of a security fence along the West Bank. Mr. Speaker, on a recent trip to Israel in August along with, I think, 29 other Democratic Members, I had the opportunity to view the security fence firsthand. While in Jerusalem, I toured border communities where Israeli citizens live in constant fear of sniper attacks and suicide bombings. This fence will provide a sense of safety and security to these border families and will help prevent continued attempts to derail the peace process through violence. In my meetings with government officials in Jerusalem, they acknowledged that the fences are temporary and can be moved or removed pending future peace agreements. Furthermore, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has shown that he is willing to work with the United States and has sent a diplomatic delegation here to continue discussions on the fence. However, until the Palestinian Authority dismantles the terrorist infrastructure, Israel must be permitted to take steps to protect their citizens from violence without financial retribution from the United States. Mr. Speaker, I just think this is the wrong decision by the Bush administration. That is why today I sent a letter to President Bush to urge him to reverse his decision to restrict loan guarantees to Israel and to reconsider any future restrictions. With the continued rise in violence, now is not the time to take punitive action against the Israeli Government. It is critical to our role in the region that the United States maintains its steadfast support of Israel and not undercut Israel's military and diplomatic authority or, most important, their ability to protect their citizens from harm and terrorism.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me indicate my strong support for this legislation. It is an important piece of legislation that I think deserves bipartisan support. The bill, as we know, seeks to secure land for Native Americans so they can provide desperately needed educational facilities to their young people. I believe that investing in education and Native American youth is something we can all agree upon. Specifically, the bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exchange approximately 143 acres, and I stress 143 acres, of land now under the control of the National Park Service for approximately 218 acres of land controlled by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Tribe. I would point out, and I know my colleague from Arizona mentioned part of this, in my opinion the National Park Service is actually benefiting from this land exchange because effectively they are getting more land. They are getting 218 acres, as opposed to having to give back to the Cherokee Nation 143 acres of land. In addition to that, the land that the National Park Service is getting is pristine. One could argue, it is actually better, and in a more pristine state, than the land that they are giving to the Cherokee Nation. As was mentioned by my colleague from Arizona, the land that the Park Service would obtain actually has two endangered species, where there is no indication that the land that the Cherokee Nation is going to receive has any endangered species. In addition to the fact that there is more land going to the Park Service, also the appraiser, and it was an independent appraiser who has done this type of appraisal for the Park Service before, indicated that the land that the Park Service is going to get is worth more and has a higher appraised value than the land that the Cherokee Nation is actually going to receive. So from an environmental point of view, as well as from a cost point of view, the Park Service is actually benefiting from the exchange. I want to stress that. If approved, the bill would provide the Tribe with the flat land necessary to build badly needed schools, as well as to add pristine land, as I said, to the National Park Service. There is an educational crisis now on the Eastern Cherokee Reservation. There is only one Cherokee elementary school, and it is in extremely poor condition. It was built almost 40 years ago by the Interior Department. It was designed for only 480 students. Today, over 700 students are housed in a dilapidated building that is run down and in dire need of repair. But most important, because of the school's location on a main road and its proximity to other buildings, the current facility cannot be expanded. The tribe needs this additional land to expand the school because they cannot physically do it now, and this road, this highway, is very congested. We heard testimony in the committee about the potential danger to the students from the existing facility, and that is why we need to have the land exchange. There are a number of reasons. I am just trying to make the case, Mr. Speaker, if I can, that there are a number of reasons why this should be done and why this bill should be passed today. Mr. Speaker, for too long Indian country has suffered from high unemployment and poverty. The only way to improve the lives of Indian children is to ensure that they receive the best education possible. I believe that one of the best ways to achieve this is to give students the best conditions for learning. I believe strongly that passage of this bill will help the Cherokee children achieve this goal. I do not really see any downside to the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and pass it today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Armenian Republic on the nation's Twelfth Anniversary of Independence. Today, citizens of Armenia, as well as people of Armenian descent here in the United States and around the world celebrate their independence from the former Soviet Union. Since its independence, nations have welcomed Armenia into the international. I am proud that this Congress has consistently voted to provide humanitarian economic development assistance to help Armenia transition to the development of civil society and to continue its transition to a free market economy. The United States has a fundamental national interest in bringing about stability in the strategically located Caucasus region and in supporting those emerging nations like Armenia that share our values. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that the tensions in the region subside and that the long-standing differences that divide the countries of the region are resolved. Winners and losers in the Caucasus will only foster greater insecurity and instability at a time when we need to bring everyone together to combat terrorism. I have been encouraged by Armenia's ongoing attempts to reach out to its neighbors--Turkey and Azerbaijan--in a constructive manner. Mr. Speaker, the story of the Armenian people is an unforgettable story of triumph over adversity and tragedy. Earlier in this century, in one of history's most horrible crimes against humanity, 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children were slaughtered by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. We must continue to remind the world that this genocide is an historic fact--despite the efforts of so-called ``revisionists,'' many of them funded by the Turkish government, to deny the truth--and to make sure that our Nation, the world community, and especially the Turkish nation come to terms with and appropriately commemorate this historic fact. Mr. Speaker, it was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that allowed the Armenian people to re-establish a state and a nation, to create a society where their language, culture, religion and other institutions would prosper. The people of Armenia have endeavored to build a free and proud nation, based on the principles of democracy and a market economy. The tiny, landlocked Republic of Armenia is surrounded by hostile neighbors, who have imposed blockades halting the delivery of basic necessities and greatly hindering economic development. Despite the dual blockades, Armenia continues to implement economic and democratic reforms. During the first 6 months of this year, Armenia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 12.5 percent in 2002. And during the last year, both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have publicly noted Armenia's economic progress. Despite this progress, I would like to say that the economic reality of daily life for the people of the Republic of Armenia continues to be extremely hard. Mr. Speaker, I hope that as we mark future Independence Days of the Republic of Armenia, we can look back with pride on building peace and prosperity in the entire Trans-Caucasus region, so that the people of Armenia and their neighbors can enjoy a stable and hopeful future. I hope that the Republics of Turkey and Azerbaijan will respond positively to Armenia's repeated offers to normalize relations. Specifically, I hope that Turkey will allow for the exchange of diplomats and allow the free flow of goods and people across the borders. And I hope that, with the active participation of the United States, we will resolve the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, in a manner that guarantees the security and self-determination of the people of Karabagh. Finally, I wish the Armenian people well on the occasion of their independence day, and, more important, in their ongoing effort to establish good relations with its neighbors and build a vibrant democracy so that their children may prosper in the homeland of their ancestors.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address disturbing developments in the Middle East, including setbacks on the Israeli- Palestinian road map, as well as new information on serious efforts to undermine peace and threaten American troops. Mr. Speaker, despite international efforts to corral his influence, it is no secret that Yasser Arafat continues to exert enormous influence over the Palestinian government. Israel has come to grips with Arafat's ability to derail the peace process and recently issued a decision to take steps to remove Arafat from power. In response, several Arab Nations yesterday introduced a resolution at the United Nations aimed to condemn Israel for this decision to thwart these efforts. The United States was forced to use its veto power and reject the resolution. Mr. Speaker, the world must recognize that Arafat is a roadblock to peace and that no peaceful settlement is a possibility between Israelis and Palestinians as long as he remains in power. I commend my government and specifically U.N. Representative John Negraponte for recognizing the threat Arafat poses and the importance of Israel's decision and then vetoing the damaging U.N. resolution. Unfortunately, while the U.S. diplomatic corps was working yesterday to support Israel and her interests, the Bush administration or at least it has been reported, Mr. Speaker, that the Bush administration announced it would reduce loan guarantees to Israel. This reported decision comes in protest to Israel's decision to build a barrier wall to prevent suicide bombers from crossing into Israel from the West Bank. This is a careless decision by the administration and only undercuts Israel's authority and ability to protect its citizens from suicide attacks. Furthermore, the loan guarantees will allow Israel to rebuild after years of violence and economic decline and are critical to Israel's future. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the report of this decision by the administration is either not accurate or, if it is, it is a decision that would be reversed. Because I do think it is a tremendous mistake; and I would oppose, and I hope that my colleagues in the Congress would oppose, any cut back in the low guarantees as suggested. In related Middle East news, evidence has surfaced that Syria is continuing its efforts to incite violence against Israel and is turning a blind eye to Islamic militants who slip across Syrian borders to kill American soldiers in Iraq. Yesterday, during testimony before a House Committee on International Relations subcommittee, U.S. Under secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton reiterated concerns that Syria refuses to cooperate with U.S. forces in the Middle East and has continued its support of terrorist groups in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. However, Under Secretary Bolton stopped short of recommending specific punitive action against Syria. When questioned by Members of the subcommittee, Under secretary Bolton stated that the administration has ``no opinion'' on legislation introduced here in the House that would place economic sanctions against Syria. While I commend Under secretary Bolton for his strong statements on Syria, the administration cannot stand by and continue to allow Syria to harbor and support terrorists without economic penalty. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to step forward and throw his support behind H.R. 1828, which is a bipartisan bill I have co- sponsored along with Democrats and Republicans, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. This legislation holds Syria accountable for its actions and would give the President the tools to impose penalties on Syria unless it corrects its behavior immediately. The Bush administration must show Syria that there are consequences for supporting terrorism and undermining peace in the region. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge the Bush administration to continue to serve as a strong ally to Israel both at the U.N. and here at home. It is critical to our role in the region that the United States maintain its steadfast support of Israel and efforts to protect Israeli citizens from harm and terrorism. And as part of that role, the United States must take decisive action against Nations who seek to corrode peace talks and promote violence against American soldiers stationed in Iraq.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed when I listen to the Republican side, because they are just so bent on the ideology of this, and I think that the motion of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and what the Democrats are saying is look at this situation practically. If you listen to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has said in the motion to instruct, it essentially says, look, we know those of us who are in rural areas, I am not, but we know these HMOs and these private plans are not working, for the most part, and if someone tries to get their prescription drugs through an HMO or managed care private plan, in many cases it is not going to be available, and they are not going to have access to it. It is the Republicans that basically are trying to impose an ideology and saying we must privatize, we must go this route, this is no alternative. All the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is saying is in a situation where the HMOs or the private plans are not available, we still have to guarantee drug coverage for those seniors in those rural areas that cannot get it through these private HMOs or other private plans. So let us have the Senate fallback that says you can get your prescription drugs through traditional Medicare. Now, I just do not understand why the Republicans keep insisting from an ideological point of view, well, we cannot do that; you have to privatize. They went so far as to suggest we have private contractors that provide Medicare services now, but that is the Federal Government as the ultimate insurer contract with some private company to provide the service. What you have done in this House bill is say that if you as an individual cannot find a private plan, you are out of luck. All the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is saying with this motion to instruct is let us have a fallback. Let us have an alternative for these people in rural areas when they cannot get the HMO to provide the service. What could make more sense? Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing as far as the reimbursement rate is concerned. I heard the colleagues on the Republican side say there is no cutback effectively in the reimbursement rate. Certainly there is. Many of us went to meet with the oncologists today, the cancer doctors; and they were talking about the negative impact on cancer victims because of this reimbursement rate. We have got to change that as well. Just follow the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). It is the practical way to do this, with this motion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to highlight a crucial issue that is beginning to take center stage in the Medicare debate, and that is the fate of employer-sponsored health coverage for retirees. As it currently stands, the House-passed Republican Medicare bill encourages employers who are currently providing retiree health benefits to drop that coverage. Unfortunately, the Republican bill states that any dollar an employer pays for an employee's prescription drug costs would now count towards the employee's out-of-pocket catastrophic cap. This disadvantages seniors with employer-sponsored coverage because it would be almost impossible for them to ever reach the bill's catastrophic cap over which Medicare would pay 100 percent of their drug costs. Without a doubt, many employers will simply stop offering retiree coverage. The potential loss of this valuable benefit that many unions and employers provide today was reported today in the New York Times. According to the front page lead story by Robert Pear, ``About 12 million of the 40 million Medicare recipients has retiree health benefits, usually including some drug benefits. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that one-third of the people with such drug coverage could lose it under bills passed in June by the House.'' Mr. Speaker, Republican conferees so far are unwilling to provide a final Medicare agreement that will provide seniors with an affordable, available and guaranteed prescription drug benefit that does not privatize Medicare. With the added threat of employers dropping retiree health benefits if a retiree is eligible for Medicare, we will no doubt have a public health crisis on our hands. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are promising tax credits and subsidies to employers in order to persuade them not to reduce or deny benefits to seniors. But these approaches do not work and the answer is very simple. Employer dollars being provided for retiree coverage should contribute towards the out-of-pocket cap on the Medicare benefit. This system would allow seniors to reach the catastrophic amount earlier in the year, the amount at which point Medicare would pay 100 percent of drug costs, thereby providing relief to employers and providing an incentive for them to continue providing retiree coverage. It is simple. I just hope, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow when President Bush plans to meet with the Medicare conferees, I would encourage him to ask the conferees to ensure that this important issue is addressed, because if all we do in passing a Medicare drug benefit is manage to basically eliminate employer-retiree coverage for drug benefits in health care, then certainly there is no point in having the Medicare agreement or the Medicare drug coverage at all. I would hope that this could be addressed. Otherwise, I would say that the Democrats will continue to raise this as an issue while the conferees meet because it is so important. And so many of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, have already talked to me about it and are very concerned about the possible loss of their coverage.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Second Baptist Church of Keyport. The Second Baptist Church is a pillar of faith, serving the Keyport community as well as the greater Bayshore community since 1893. The church's original congregation flourished under the leadership of its first minister, Reverend David D. Hall. Under Reverend Hall's guidance, the church was able to bring people of African-American decent together, forming a greater sense of community. The church has remained committed to Reverend Hall's vision, and has stayed an active member many community outreach programs for over a century. For example, members of the congregation have put countless hours of work into the Keyport Food Pantry and Manna House in Cliffwood. Furthermore, many members have volunteered countless hours to ministries that sponsor Global outreach, including the Asian Youth Ministries, a youth based worldwide mission stemming out of Red Bank, NJ. I am truly grateful to the Second Baptist Church's congregation for the work that they do and services they provide. The energy and compassion amongst the members of this church community is to be commended and admired. I would like to honor 13 individuals in particular who have given the Second Baptist Church many years of dedicated service. Mrs. Mary Alen, Mrs. Floretta Ball, Mrs. Nicie Hammond, Deacon Luther Jackson, Mrs. Josephine John, Mrs. Garnette Lawon, Mrs. Elizabeth Mackason, Deacon Leroy Mackason,, Mrs. Mary Major, Mrs. Eloise Schanck, Mrs. Gwendolyn Washington, Mr. William Washington, and Mr. William Williams. All of these men and women deserve to be celebrated for their faith and devotion in working toward a better community. I want to thank these 13 members as well as the whole congregation for dedicating their time to the Second Baptist Church on its 110th year of serving Keyport, NJ. All of its members should be proud of themselves for helping to build this church into what it is today--a place that fosters volunteerism and a deep sense of community. I would like to congratulate the Second Baptist Church once again on their anniversary and ask my colleagues to join with me in commemorating their 110 years of service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, that last sentence that I quoted says it all. House Republicans do not want to help these 1 million children. If they did, the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) would have responded to this letter. It is also clear that President Bush does not want to help these children either. It has been 99 days since President Bush advised House Republicans to pass this child tax credit legislation and send it to him so he could sign it. The urgency the President showed in June has clearly dissipated. Not once since then has the President urged Congress to send him a bill that would provide these 12 million children a tax credit. If that silence is not an indication of the President's true intentions, I do not know what is. Mr. Speaker, this a simple question of fairness. How can Republicans say it is fair to give a millionaire a tax break of more than $90,000, while giving nothing to millions of working families? Unfortunately, the simple answer is that as long as the Republicans remain in control of this House, we will not see fairness, for the simple reason that fairness can only occur when all Americans are represented, and under the control of the Republican leadership, unless you are part of the powerful privileged elite, your voice will simply not be listened to here.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. Every single American should be represented here. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has turned this House over to the powerful and the privileged. Week in and week out, the Republican leadership neglects middle and lower income Americans, and there is perhaps no better example of this intentional neglect than the child tax credit. How many nights will we as Democrats have to come to this floor to fight to provide for 12 million children of low income parents who were neglected by Republicans in their latest tax bill? Unfortunately, according to this morning's Roll Call newspaper, which I have here, we may be forced to continue our fight indefinitely. Why? Well, the chairman of the committee on Ways and Means, who is here on the floor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), according to the article, refuses to work out the differences between separate House and Senate bills passed earlier this summer. I have a quote here from the paper. Senator Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the conference, ``Complained that Mr. Thomas has been unresponsive to his entreaties to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.'' That is in this morning's Roll Call on the first page. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership just cannot be bothered. These 12 million children do not have any power. These 12 million children are not among the privileged. Therefore, why should the Republican leadership represent them? Why bother? Why can the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), not respond to the letter from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley attempting to work out differences between bills passed in the two Chambers? I heard the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), say that he was going to address the House later this evening, and I hope he does answer the reason why he has not been responsive to the Senate chairman's letter. In the article, Chairman Grassley is quoted as saying, ``I suppose I could call a conference meeting, but I'm not going to do that unless it is going to be productive. And right now, it doesn't look like it would be.'' Chairman Grassley concluded that the only way negotiations would begin was if Republicans felt some heat here on the floor from Democrats. Well, they are going to get it. We are going to be here every night, and we are going to keep making these motions to instruct, and I commend my colleague for bringing this up. Again, quoting Republican Chairman Grassley, ``The Democrats won't let it be dead, and I don't blame them. If I was them and the majority party wasn't doing something about it, I would make an issue of it too.'' Well, I am glad that Chairman Grassley feels that way, because that is certainly what we are going to do. We demand a response. It is not fair for the Republican leadership to be unresponsive. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed when I listen to the comments of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and she said that this plan, I assume she is talking about the House-passed plan, does not privatize Medicare. The fact of the matter is that this motion to instruct that gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) has so ably introduced and spoke upon, makes the point in his motion to instruct that the Republican House bill does exactly that. It does privatize Medicare. And the motion to instruct essentially has two points. One is that we have to get rid of the overall privatization of Medicare because in the House bill essentially it says you get a voucher and by the year 2010, if you do not go into a private plan for all of Medicare, not just for prescription drugs, then you have to pay more if you want to stay in traditional Medicare. So what happens is because you essentially force seniors to either take a private plan and find a private plan or this they do not want to stay and buy that private plan, stay in traditional Medicare, they have to pay more, you will eventually price traditional Medicare, fee-for- service Medicare, out of the market and the only thing left for the senior will be to take a private plan. That is exactly what the motion to instruct tries to get rid of, this voucher system, this premium support system, that essentially forces privatization on the senior citizens by the year 2010. The second thing that the motion to instruct tries to accomplish is to say that you do not have to join an HMO or a private plan to get your prescription drugs. Because if you look at the House plan there is really no way to get any kind of valid or valuable prescription drug benefit unless you join an HMO or some kind of private plan. And the second part of my colleague from Maine's (Mr. Michaud) motion to instruct says that unlike the House bill, we should adopt the Senate bill which essentially has a fallback and says that if you cannot find these private plans to provide you with prescription drugs, then you can stay in traditional Medicare and get the prescription drug benefit. I kind of resent the fact that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) not only says inaccurately that the Republican House bill does not privatize Medicare, but she even tried to denigrate the gentleman from Maine by suggesting that he did not know what he was talking about when he said that in fact it does privatize. And then she went on to talk about how in rural areas they are somehow going to be favorably received. Well, the problem that the motion to instruct tries to deal with is particularly of concern to rural areas because it is most likely those rural areas where you are not going to be able to find a private HMO or a private plan that would provide you prescription drugs. And if you do not have the fallback that is in the Senate bill that says you should get it under traditional Medicare and you are living in one of those rural areas that does not have an HMO, you are not going to get the prescription drug benefit. So it is totally inaccurate for the gentlewoman to say that this House Republican plan does not privatize Medicare. That is exactly what it does. It basically provides the incentive that if you want a prescription drug plan, you have got to go private to an HMO. And it goes beyond that by saying that in the long run, by the year 2010, you have got to have a private plan for all of your Medicare needs, otherwise you will pay an extra $500 a month or a year or $1,000 a year and eventually be priced out of the market. I have no idea where she is coming from on this issue. You have to vote for this motion to instruct if you want to make sure that we do not privatize Medicare. That is exactly what the Republicans have in mind because they do not like Medicare. They never liked it from the beginning. They want to force senior citizens to go into private plans and not have traditional Medicare.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, I suppose you could argue that, that if they really believed that this does not privatize Medicare, they should agree to the motion. I agree with the Democratic Whip. But the problem is they are privatizing Medicare and that is why they have to oppose the motion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my intention is to talk about the need for a prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare, but when I listened to the previous speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), he made it a point about the President's speech on Sunday night about how this $87 billion in new funding that the President is requesting for Iraq is going to have a direct impact on domestic programs, and I have to say it was very disturbing to me today to read in the New York Times in the lead story on the front page that some Republicans were suggesting that because of the additional needs for Iraq as outlined in the President's speech that maybe some of them would now reconsider whether they would support a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Let me tell the Members the Republican leadership in this House as well as the President have been saying for over 2 years that they are going to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors and there is no reason not to do it. The notion that somehow now we do not have enough money for it is bogus, given the fact that the Republicans passed all these tax cuts, a series of three tax cuts that now have put us into a deficit. In addition to that, the fact of the matter is if they were willing, which they have not been, to provide some kind of cost controls or some requirement that part of the Medicare prescription drug program would assume that the Secretary would negotiate lower prices for discounts, we would be able to afford a good prescription drug benefit. I do not want to hear and I am not willing to listen to those Republicans who are going to tell us over the next few months that we cannot afford a prescription drug benefit. It is their own policies that have put us into this deficit situation. It is their own policies that make it difficult for us to negotiate any kind of price reductions or put any kind of price controls in effect because they oppose it ideologically. It is interesting because earlier this week there was another article in New York Times that talked about the VA programs and how successful the veterans program has been in trying to keep costs down for prescription drugs, and that is because they negotiate price reductions. They insist as part of the VA program that when they buy drugs in bulk that they get a discount price. We should be doing the same thing here for seniors in general. We should provide a prescription drug benefit that takes care of all seniors, regardless of their income as long as they are eligible for Medicare and also a prescription drug program that goes directly to the issue of price by saying that the Medicare administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, should be empowered and should be mandated to reduce prices by negotiating price reductions because he now represents 40 million seniors who are part of the Medicare program. Instead, the Republicans, because I know the conference is now going on between the House and Senate versions of this Medicare prescription drug bill, we hear the Republicans still insisting on the fact that they want to privatize Medicare, give senior citizens a voucher, and tell them that they have to go out and buy private insurance at some point in the future if they want to continue with their Medicare program in general. And then we are told that if they want to get any kind of prescription drug program under the Republican proposal, that they have to join an HMO because if they do not join an HMO or some kind of private program, they will not get the prescription drug benefit. That is bogus. Today in the New York Times there was an article on page A-21 where they talked about fewer people on Medicare are being dropped by HMOs this year and the head of the Trade Association for HMOs was so proud of the fact that this year, or I guess next year, they estimate that only 39,000 to 40,000 Medicare beneficiaries will be dropped by their HMOs. So what? What about the fact that so many other seniors have been dropped by their HMOs in the last few years? It is estimated in this article that only about 11 percent of the 40 million seniors are now in HMOs or getting some kind of a drug benefit through their HMO. How in the world are the Republicans going to propose saying that the only way they get a prescription drug benefit is if they join an HMO, when only about 11 percent right now of seniors are in HMOs and fewer and fewer every day because even with this drop in the number that are essentially being dropped, there is still another 40,000 that will not be able to keep their HMO as a means of continuing with their Medicare? The bottom line is, and this is what the Democrats have said, there is an obligation on this Congress and this President to pass a prescription drug bill that provides a prescription drug benefit to all seniors, whether or not they are in an HMO or not, and the Medicare prescription drug proposal should not be used as an excuse to privatize Medicare in general. There is going to be a motion to instruct this week. I believe it is going to be proposed by my colleague from Maine, to make the point that the conferees should not require people to have to join an HMO to get their prescription drug benefit and that we should not be moving down the road of privatizing Medicare, and we need to pass that motion, but we also need to have some kind of way of dealing with the issue of price. Otherwise, we are never going to be able to afford this prescription drug benefit.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have said in the past, doing business with Cuba means doing business with Castro. So long as Castro maintains his stranglehold on every aspect of Cuban life, lifting any aspect of the embargo or allowing Americans to travel to Cuba could mean subsidizing Castro. Most Cuban tourist operations and resorts are owned and operated by fronts for the Cuban military and internal security services. These so- called ``companies'' funnel money directly into Castro's military, earning the regime the hard currency it needs to perpetrate its oppressive policies. Is that where Americans should be spending their money? Castro has come to rely almost solely on his income from tourism; formerly profitable industries like sugar now only represent a small amount of the island's income. Proponents of travel will lead you to believe that if only Americans were allowed to travel to the island, then the Cuban people would realize the great freedoms they are missing and rise up and demand political and humanitarian reforms from their leaders. But, Mr. Chairman, the people of Cuba are not ignorant. Most speak regularly with their families here in the U.S. and they are fully aware of their lack of freedom and opportunities. In fact, the people of Cuba have risen up in protest to their government, only to have Castro throw over 80 nonviolent opposition leaders behind bars, sentencing many of them to life sentences in subhuman conditions in Castro's jails. Tourist travel to Cuba will not increase purposeful contact with the Cuban people. Europeans and Canadians have been traveling to Cuba for years and clearly they have had no positive effect on Cuba's leaders or political machine. By lifting these sanctions with nothing in exchange from the Cuban government, we are betraying the very people these policies were designed to help. I urge my colleagues to join with me and oppose any amendments that lift travel restrictions or lift the embargo and to remain committed to their support of the Cuban people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 65th anniversary of the Indian Craft Shop at the U.S. Department of the Interior. This shop is one of Washington, D.C.'s most remarkable sites for Native American art enthusiasts. Originally established in order to provide an outlet for American Indian artists to market their work, the Indian Craft Shop has represented quality and authenticity in American Indian arts and crafts in our nation's capital since 1938. Over the years the craft shop has developed a national reputation for carrying a diverse selection of Native American art. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the efforts of places like the Indian Craft Shop, American Indian art, in all forms, has never been more alive and dynamic. Today, Native American art continues to be one of the most gratifying and exciting forms of art to collect. With over 45 Native American tribal groups' artwork on display, the Indian Craft Shop offers quality artwork to the novice as well as the skilled collector. American Indian art combines age-old tradition, innovation and talent that results in a wide variety of art for all levels of collecting, irrespective of whether you are beginning with a first time purchase or have been collecting for years. Craft areas represented in the shop include pottery, jewelry, quill and beadwork, kachinas, sculpture, weavings, basketry, sandpainting, fetish carvings, Alaskan crafts/ carvings and many other craft items. Through its tireless efforts, the Indian Craft Shop has successfully built a widespread appreciation for the skill and time involved in the crafts and the continuation of artistry through today's generation. Without a doubt the shop will continue to play a large role in expressing the livelihood of American Indian artisans and in the preservation of this country's only indigenous art. Therefore, on this day, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the 65th anniversary of The Indian Craft Shop.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the accomplishments of Mr. Wayne B. Salter, and his 30 years of service as a member of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks. Mr. Salter has held various positions within the order, actively living by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks' principles of ``Charity, Justice, Brotherly Love, and Fidelity.'' Since Mr. Salter's initiation into Long Branch, New Jersey's Elks Lodge #742 he has served as Esquire, Esteemed Lecturing Knight, Esteemed Loyal Knight, and Esteemed Leading, Knight. He has also held the position of Exalted Ruler for three terms, member of the Board of Trustees two times, Chairman of the Board, and Chairman of the P.E.R. Association. Mr. Salter is a stellar member of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, an organization that has been helping, and volunteering for communities all over the world since it's founding in 1868. This society is rooted in tradition with the goal to improve life for all. Mr. Salter has done just this, time and time again going above the call of duty. During his term as Leading Knight, Mr. Salter was secretary for the Leading Knights' Clinic as well as chairing most Lodge Committees. Mr. Salter's concern for the greater good of his community led him to take the position of District Chairman for Drug Awareness at which time the State Elks Peer Leadership Program was started. Mr. Salter has been an invaluable member to the Long Branch Elks Lodge having served on many different committees as well as chairing, the Elks House Committee and Public Relations Committee. For his devoted service, The Long Branch Elks honored him in 1993 by electing him to be Honorary Life Member. Today, Mr. Salter holds the office of Vice President of the South Central District of the New Jersey State Elks Association. The tireless amount of time and energy that Mr. Salter has given to the Benevolent and Protective order of Elks should be applauded. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Salter for the thoughtful, community-building work that he has been involved with for the past 30 years as a member of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor this evening to express my appreciation for the publication of the proposed rule for dietary supplement current good manufacturing practices, or GMPs. After many years of delay and inquiry, I am pleased that the Food and Drug Administration finally put forth this proposed rule earlier this year as required by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, also know as DSHEA. This is truly a step forward in health care and will help to ensure that the public has access to high-quality, safe dietary supplements. Overall, Mr. Speaker, I have found that the FDA's proposed rule works in favor of both consumers and the industry. The public should expect nothing less than safe and effective supplements, and it is encouraging to witness the government and industry joining together to provide consumers great confidence that supplements are free from contamination, accurately labeled and effective in improving personal health. The GMPs also provide guidelines that assist the dietary supplement industry in manufacturing safe, effective, unadulterated products. The industry fully appreciates the economic consequences of these proposed regulations and is prepared to invest in the future of the natural products that they sell. However, there are some concerns that will be expressed by both the public and the industry during the comment period, and I am hopeful that the FDA will be responsive, given the FDA's shared commitment to deliver products with only optimum health benefits. For example, Mr. Speaker, although the GMPs steer dietary supplement manufacturers down the right path, there are several outstanding issues that must be raised. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about finished product testing and the scientifically validated measures to be used. It is crucial that the FDA and the dietary supplement industry agree on the methods and scientific criteria required of product testing in order for consumers to compare products based upon the same standards. I recognize that the best standards are those developed from scientific and clinical research, and I have always supported efforts to promote research and development of dietary supplement products. It is imperative that the GMPs include incentives for stimulating clinical and scientific research. This research is important for establishing scientifically validated methods for dietary supplement testing and for providing uniform standards that can be accessed and utilized by consumers when comparing the health benefits of supplements. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the economic pressure that the GMPs will place on small companies, manufacturers and raw material suppliers with less than 500 employees, troubles me. Analysis shows that the cost of compliance for small companies is estimated at $100,000 the year of implementation and $61,000 the following years. The intent of this financial burden is to rid the market of unscrupulous players. However, small companies and mom-and-pop shops comprise approximately 90 percent of the dietary supplement industry, and I fear that many operations will be forced to go out of business due to the high cost of compliance. As currently proposed, it is estimated that up to 50 percent of the very small companies could go out of business and that product prices could increase by 35 percent. Retailers, small business manufacturers and consumers will ultimately have to absorb these costs, which will most likely result in fewer consumers being able to purchase dietary supplements. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that GMPs also place a fair amount of pressure, economic or otherwise, on the FDA once they are finalized. Enforcement of the rules will be costly. One way for the U.S. Government to minimize these costs will be to allow independent, third-party organizations to conduct inspections and certify establishments as if they were government inspectors. This is not a unique concept. For instance, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations accredits nearly all the hospitals in the United States. Another good example of industry and government cooperation is the memorandum of understanding that was established between the American Council for Food Safety and Quality, formerly the Dried Food Association of California, and the FDA. The MOU allows the association to inspect member facilities as if they were government inspectors. The program has paid benefits for all involved. The agency would realize reduced administrative cost burdens as inspection costs could be borne by the manufacturer, while also providing expertise and guidance, thereby allowing manufacturers to come into compliance with the new GMP regulations. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the FDA for finally coming forth with this proposed rule, and I remain hopeful that the benefits will include improved health as a result of better access to quality dietary supplements. It is imperative that the FDA use the instructive recommendations it receives during the comment period and that the public and the industry play a significant role in ensuring improved access to safe and effective dietary supplement products.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the accomplishments of Mr. Julian Batlan. Mr. Batlan is a truly remarkable individual. He is someone who has unconditionally volunteered his service time and time again to New Jersey's sixth Congressional District, the State of New Jersey, and to the United States of America. Mr. Batlan comes from a family steeped in rich and noble history. He descends from the first Jewish man to settle on the eastern shores of America in 1655, Mr. Jacob Barsimon. He is also related to Mr. Simon M. Levy who in 1802 was a member of the first graduating class of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Mr. Batlan, himself, has held his own and has reached the ranks of many of his highly esteemed relatives. His military record is stellar. Mr. Batlan is a decorated combat soldier, serving in World War II in the U.S. 1st Army, 1st Infantry Division in both the 7th and 9th Corps in the European Theater of Operations. He also fought on the fields during the Battle of the Bulge in Rhineland. For his bravery and wounds on the battlefield, Mr. Batlan has received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart. After the war, Mr. Batlan did not stop serving his country. He was able to successfully move from the stage of war to the realm of domestic service through his membership in the Jewish War Veterans. Mr. Batlan joined the Jewish War Veterans Elin-Unger Post 273 in June 1946. As the charter commander, he was instrumental in founding and organizing the Manalapan-Marlboro, NJ Post 972. Mr. Batlan was the first commander of the Jewish War Veterans Monmouth-Ocean County Council to ever be elected to two terms of office. Mr. Batlan pioneered the highly publicized, annual J.W.V public relations breakfast programs to encourage friendship and understanding between the Jewish and the Italian community. Mr. Batlan continued to unite different cultural groups when he established the Martin Luther King Jr. Brotherhood Breakfast to build bridges between the Jewish community and African- American Community. Mr. Batlan's strong belief in community building, has led him to serve as President of the Kiwanis International of Eatontown, NJ. He also served as the Scoutmaster of Troop 230, Boy Scouts of America, Linden, NJ. These different activities are just a handful of the many organizations that Mr. Batlan has helped to strengthen. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Batlan for his energy and vigor in serving the American people, through fighting for democracy in World War II to building bridges of equality today. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the distinguished Mr. Julian Batlan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. I appreciate it. But I have to respond to the Republican gentleman from Pennsylvania, because as much as I respect him, and I do, he is clearly trying to rewrite history in terms of what happened here with this issue. The bottom line is, and I think he has forgotten, the Republicans passed this huge tax cut that essentially ballooned the deficit. We are up to like a $500 or $600 billion deficit right now. And, lo and behold, all the checks were going to go out. The President got up and said we are going to send the checks out to all these people, a lot of them wealthy, some middle class. But all of a sudden everybody realized that the working poor, those families that were making between $10,500 and $26,000 a year, that their children, their 12 million children, were not getting the increased child tax credit. So, what happens? The President is embarrassed. The Senate is embarrassed. The other body immediately says, ``Well, let's do something real fast. We will give these kids and their families the extra child credit, but we do not want to balloon the deficit because we know the deficit is way out of control because of the Republican tax cut policies. So we will just lengthen a customs excise tax to pay for it,'' I think it was. They said, Look, we will do this but we will not increase the deficit and we are certainly not going to go for even more taxes to make the deficit even worse. Well, they passed it. Now, we figure, okay, the House will take it up and pass it too because the President of the United States said, This is a good thing. I agree with what the Senate did. It will not cause more problems for the deficit. It will just help these poor families. But what does the House do? The House passes this other big bill that will balloon the deficit even more, give more money primarily to wealthy people, and now my colleague from Pennsylvania says, well, the House bill is better. The bottom line is the House bill is never going to pass. We know that. Why will it not pass? Because it will increase the deficit. The Senate rightly will not pass the House bill because they know it is not just addressing the problem at hand which is the real problem that needs to be addressed to these poor children and these poor families, these working families, but rather just give more tax credits, more tax cuts to other people who do not need it and balloon the deficit even more. Mr. Speaker, I like the gentleman. I respect my Republican colleague from Pennsylvania, but he knows darn well this House bill is going nowhere. That is why there is no conference. I do not know if they have appointed the conferees, but the conferees never met. Why? Because the House Republican leadership has no intention of passing this bill. If they had any intention of passing it, they would have had the conference. I respect the gentleman a great deal, and I know he really believes that this House bill is the right way to go, and I respect him for that. But the gentleman knows it is never going to pass. The gentleman knows it will never go to conference. The gentleman knows it will never go to the President's desk. The President has said he wants to send a bill because he knows it is the only bill that will pass. So do not kid around here. I understand the gentleman really earnestly believes in it, but procedurally it will not happen. If it was going to happen, then the majority leader, the Speaker, would say, let us have a conference and let us try to work out the differences, try to persuade the Senate to pass something if they want. But they are not doing that. They are just ignoring it. What we are saying as Democrats is we are not going to let you ignore it. A promise was made by the President. A promise was made by the Republican leadership that they will address this issue, and they are not doing it. And it is irresponsible because these poor families need the money. If they got the money, they would go out immediately and spend it on basic necessities: food, clothing, whatever. It would be an economic stimulus. But that is not even the issue. It is an issue of equity. Why in the world should those poor families who are paying taxes, whether it is payroll, sales, property tax or whatever, why should they not get the money? They were getting the original tax credit. Why should they not get the increase like everybody else? Why should they not get the check in the mail? I got the check in the mail. I think it was $1,200 because I have three kids. Now, I do not really need it. I would rather see that it was going to poor families, to working families that have low income. It is just not right. It shows dramatically that the Republicans do not care. They are not compassionate conservatives. They may be conservatives, but they are not compassionate at all. I respect the gentleman a great deal, my colleague from Pennsylvania, but do not kid us and say this House bill is going anywhere. It is going nowhere. That is why we are not having the conference. The leadership is not taking it up. They told us it was dead, but we are not going to let them get away with it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, as we return from the August recess, we face the great challenge of passing a Medicare bill that will provide a good prescription drug benefit for seniors. Republicans in the House passed a bill in July, or June, earlier this year that caters to drug companies, HMOs, and that destroys Medicare. This is obvious for many reasons evident in the detail of the bill. However, I want to highlight two ways in which Republicans are killing the Medicare program and in the process contributing to the endless suffering and hardship of seniors nationwide. Madam Speaker, the Republican bill turns Medicare into a voucher program. This means that traditional Medicare will essentially be phased out by the year 2010. Seniors will find it difficult to stay in traditional Medicare because it will cost them more. They will only be able to afford the private insurance that is available with the voucher given to them by the Federal Government. By making Medicare a voucher program, seniors would be forced into private plans, the same companies that have said in the past that they do not want to cover seniors and have pitiful records of providing them care. Medicare HMOs have not been effective in providing health coverage to the more than 2 million seniors who have seen their coverage disappear over the past 5 years. In my State alone, in New Jersey, Medicare HMOs dropped almost 80,000 seniors from coverage after concluding that Medicare beneficiaries were not profitable. Madam Speaker, when Republicans are pushing seniors into private insurance plans that offer no stability or security, they are at the same time taking away the seniors' rights to choose and enroll in a dependable drug plan under the Medicare program. Under the Republican bill, a prescription drug benefit is essentially available only if they join an HMO, and Democrats, to the contrary, believe that a prescription-sponsored drug plan should be available to all seniors including those enrolled in traditional Medicare. Madam Speaker, the Medicare bill should offer a benefit to all seniors all across the country regardless of how many private drug-only insurance plans or Medicare HMOs are available in any particular area. All seniors should pay the same premium, the same deductible, the same coinsurance, and would have the same benefit. Democrats plan to offer a series of motions to instruct conferees that would ensure that the Medicare bill does not privatize Medicare and that it offers a guaranteed fallback prescription drug plan for all those in traditional Medicare. Madam Speaker, there are many provisions in the Republican bill that passed the House that are highly problematic. For example, the bill does nothing to reduce the cost of prescription drugs and forbids the Secretary from negotiating reduced costs of prescription. The Republican bill provides an inadequate benefit that should be called ``pay more, get less.'' And, lastly, the Republican bill encourages erosion of employer-sponsored coverage. Overwhelmingly, Madam Speaker, America's seniors want and deserve a guaranteed comprehensive and affordable prescription drug benefit that is part of basic Medicare. A meaningful Medicare drug benefit must be voluntary. It must be guaranteed for all. It must be funded adequately to attract widespread participation, and it must contain an effective mechanism to lower the costs of drugs. It must hold together the bargaining power of 40 million seniors, and it must contain a framework that could be expanded in future years. The House Republican plan does nothing to meet these tests, and it is now more important than ever to encourage our conferees of the House and the Senate to include measures that guarantee a Medicare fallback and that guarantee that Medicare will not be privatized.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I only have 2 minutes. I am trying to be nice, not critical. But the bottom line is this should not be ideologically driven. The fact that they are not paying income tax is not important. They are paying property taxes. They are paying sales taxes. In a State like mine in New Jersey, one could be paying a tremendous amount in property taxes and sales taxes and all kinds of other taxes, payroll taxes. So I am just asking my colleagues, do not be ideologically driven. Do not say we cannot do this because they have not paid income taxes. My colleagues on the other side have the power. This is a political decision that is being made here. The Republican leadership is making a political decision that they do not want to help these people. They want to go home. They do not want to go to conference. They want to go on break without helping these people. Mr. Speaker, the other body is not saying that. They are supportive of what we are saying here. They want to send the checks and help these people. The President wants to help. So keep in mind, this is an ideology. Forget the ideology. I ask my Republican colleagues to forget what they think about whether it is good or bad from an ideological perspective. The bottom line is that these people need help. The gentleman from Kentucky acknowledged that he himself was in that position, or his family was in that position. That is all we are saying as Democrats. We know a lot of these people in the Armed Forces. Some of them are serving in Iraq. They need help. We go home. We will see them. They are constituents. They are having a hard time paying the rent and putting food on the table. They need help. The economy is not good. We are not doing well. They are having a hard time. Maybe if this was a better time, we might say do not do this; but it is not. The economic times are bad, and my colleagues cannot run away from this. Mr. Speaker, it is the Republican leadership in the House that is preventing this from happening. I urge my colleagues on the other side to do it before they go home and before we have the recess and go on vacation.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Kentucky, and he expressed a lot of sympathy with the plight of the people, the working poor and the people that we are trying to get some checks to this morning. But I listened to the gentleman and I could not believe, because he was suggesting that he was powerless to do something to help the working poor and the children that have been left out and the parents who are not getting this check.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to draw attention to the continued plight of political prisoners locked away in Cuban jails. In March of this year, Fidel Castro began a campaign against political opposition. Over the course of a few weeks, Castro's regime arrested an array of political opposition leaders, including signers and supporters of a joint statement from the Cuban dissident community to the European Union, promoters of the Varela Project, members of the independent press, owners of independent libraries and members of Cuba's independent civil society. Inside of a month, the dissidents were arrested, arraigned, tried and sentenced, some receiving prison terms as long as 27 years. The prisoners were refused access to their wives and family, allowed little or no legal defense and were denied the ability to read the state's case against them. The Cuban Government provided no information about the trials and barred access to international journalists. However, that was only the beginning of Castro's reign of terror. Accounts of psychological torture, abuse and neglect have slowly begun to emerge from Cuba's prisons. Stories of rat- and bug-infested cells, beatings, solitary confinement and a lack of medical treatment seem to be the standard in Castro's prisons. The accounts are so horrible that they have led a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department to declare that ``the Cuban Government seems to be going out of its way to treat these prisoners inhumanely.'' The wife of journalist Hector Maseda, sentenced to 20 years, shared his accounts of bed bugs so rampant in one jail that prisoners cannot sleep. Family members of journalist Oscar Espinosa Chepe, who is suffering from liver disease and gastrointestinal bleeding, shared his stories of being denied medical care. His family fears he may die. The wife of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leyva, a blind dissident, recently presented one of his letters to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. In the letter he talks of the daily ``sawdust shower'' that he has been subjected to by a fellow inmate. Gonzalez writes that the substance ``gives me the sensation of millions of bugs constantly running all over me.'' He continues, stating, ``I don't know if this is a biological substance or a chemical agent. But I know that it is not insects because when I touch my skin there are no actual bugs that I can feel.'' Other prisoners, Mr. Speaker, complain of leaking cells, no sheets, no pillows and no eating utensils. Amnesty International recently declared the 75 dissidents and opposition leaders ``prisoners of conscience.'' These 75 convictions bring Cuba's total to 90 ``prisoners of conscience'' currently in Cuban prisons. This makes Cuba the country with the highest number of prisoners with that status in the Western Hemisphere. Various other organizations inside and outside Cuba place the number of political prisoners at more than 300. However, these are the stories and prisoner accounts that have managed to be leaked to the public. There is no telling what evils lurk in Castro's jails and what stories and horrors have yet to see the light of day. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me and condemn Castro's incarceration and mistreatment of the 75 dissidents and all of its political prisoners. Congress must send a strong message to Castro that the abuse of Cuban political prisoners has not gone unnoticed and will not be allowed to continue.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am from New Jersey, and a lot of the pharmaceutical companies are based in my District. But I have to tell my colleagues, when I talk to my constituents, when I have my town meetings, do my colleagues know what they say to me? They say, Congressman Pallone, we know the drug companies are never going to let the Republicans pass a decent prescription drug benefit. The only hope for us is if you pass this drug reimportation bill because that is the only way we are going to get low-priced drugs now at this time. They do not believe any of the stories about the problems with safety. Many of them are already getting their drugs from Canada, and they know exactly what the previous speaker said on the Republican side, which is these are FDA-approved facilities, these are FDA- approved drugs. We are already importing them in some fashion to the tune of about $15 million a year from overseas. So there is no reason in the world why we cannot pass this bill. Do not believe anybody when they talk about the safety. That is something that the pharmaceutical industry is telling my colleagues and sending over the airwaves in the same way that they are opposed to a decent prescription drug benefit. And they are opposed to any mechanism that would bring down the price. It is just a price. It is nothing more. Pass this bill and give the people a chance.