Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, do not believe the FDA or the drug companies on this bill. They do not have any credibility. If you think about it, the bill says that these products can be imported for FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities. We are already importing drug products from these types of facilities in these various countries that are mentioned in the bill. If the FDA had a problem with it, why are they not shutting down the facilities? They are not credible when they tell you there is a problem because they have the authority to shut them down if they are not safe or they think the product is causing a problem here in this country. The drug companies, forget that. They have no credibility at all. They have told you to oppose reimportation. They told you to oppose any kind of Medicare benefit that has a negotiated price reduction. They told you to oppose Hatch-Waxman and any kind of generic drugs being used in some type of competition. They have no credibility. They are only concerned about price. They only want to make sure that their profits are secure. That is all there is here, and I do not believe that we are going to get Hatch-Waxman reform. I do not believe that we are going to get even a Medicare benefit. This is the only alternative for the seniors to lower prices. This is it. Vote for it. Do not vote against it. Do not leave those seniors hung out to dry.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record an editorial that was in my local newspaper, the Asbury Park Press, on Sunday relative to the Medicare prescription drug issue; and I want to highlight a couple of statements that were made by that editorial. It says, ``Both Houses of Congress have passed what they describe as historic plans to extend prescription coverage to Medicare recipients. They are historic all right. They begin to chip away at one of government's most successful programs. Medicare has worked well for millions of seniors since its inception in 1966. Its administrative costs of 2 percent are far lower than those of private insurers. The notion that competition in the private marketplace will provide consumers with more choices, driving down the cost of drugs is a tired philosophy that has failed to deliver promised benefits in the areas of health care, transportation, energy and telecommunications. Providing extended coverage to their existing Medicare program would offer better benefits for less cost, be far more efficient and easier for recipients to use and be less prone to the vagaries of the marketplace, quick to abandon those that they cannot make a profit from.'' [From the Asbury Park Press, July 13, 2003] Drug Plan a Placebo Both Houses of Congress have passed what they describe as historic plans to extend prescription coverage to Medicare recipients. They're historic all right; they begin to chip away at one of government's most successful programs. Rather than turning it over to HMOs and private insurers as the Republicans in Congress want to do, Medicare should be expanded to include an affordable, guaranteed prescription drug component, as Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and others prefer. Both the Senate and House versions of the bill are fatally flawed. Even the most vocal supporters of a prescription drug benefit have expressed severe reservations about the legislation, including the American Association of Retired Persons. Among our many concerns: Both bills fail to adequately address the problem of skyrocketing drug prices. A study released last week found that the price of drugs most commonly used by the elderly rose more than three times the rate of inflation last year. Because co-pays and deductibles under the proposed plans are pegged to the cost of drugs, coverage will become unaffordable unless spiraling prices can be brought under control. The co-pays and deductibles are too high and the benefits too meager. The two versions would cover an estimated one- third of the annual cost of drugs up to $4,500 and up to two- thirds of drug bills exceeding $12,000. The version supported by Pallone would cover 80 percent of the costs. The House version could dismantle New Jersey's Senior Gold and Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled programs and force seniors to enroll in far less generous plans run by HMOs and other private insurers. The Senate version, the lesser of two evils, would allow for the continuation of Senior Gold and PAAD. The House bill does not guarantee coverage in areas where private firms are unwilling to write policies. Employers are likely to reduce retiree benefits, leaving millions with less coverage than they have today. According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, 37 percent of retirees with employer prescription drug coverage would lose it. The substantial coverage gaps are confusing and are likely to discourage enrollment in the program. By allowing highly subsidized private insurers to offer supplemental benefits, relatively healthy people will be drawn to private coverage, losing their choice of doctors and increasing costs to taxpayers. Medicare has worked well for millions of seniors since its inception in 1966. Its administrative costs of 2 percent are far lower than those of private insurers. The notion that competition in the private marketplace will provide consumers with more choices, driving down the cost of drugs, is a tired philosophy that has failed to deliver promised benefits in the areas of health care, transportation, energy and telecommunications. Providing extended coverage through the existing Medicare program would offer better benefits for less cost, be far more efficient and easier for recipients to use, and be less prone to the vagaries of a marketplace quick to abandon those it can't make a profit from. The two bills on the table are driven more by politics than a sincere desire to give seniors the affordable, life-saving and life-enhancing drugs they deserve. Seniors and senior organizations should insist that their elected representatives hold out for a comprehensive program that offers real relief, not just a placebo.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the ranking member on the subcommittee and the chairman of the subcommittee and also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the cochair of the Armenia Caucus, for the increased funding for Armenia that is in the Foreign Ops appropriations bill. The administration had requested only $49.5 million for humanitarian assistance to Armenia this year, and the subcommittee increased the funding by $20.5 million. Basically, it is $70 million now. In addition, they allocated $2.5 million in foreign military financing and $900,000 for International Military Education and Training, as well as $5 million in assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh. I will say, Mr. Speaker, of course, the overall funding for the former Soviet states that was recommended by the administration was significantly lower, so this amount still does not reach the $90 million that Armenia received last year. But I know that the subcommittee was working with tremendous constraints, and so what they accomplished to get us up to the $70 million was truly exceptional. I am hoping, of course, that during the conference with the Senate, we can do more, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to mention how important this aid is. Armenia continues to be blockaded on both sides by Turkey and Azerbaijan. There is a continued need for humanitarian assistance. There continue to be improvements in the Armenian economy in their efforts to achieve a market economy, but unemployment is still very high in the majority of the population. So this type of assistance is important, and the fact that the subcommittee and the members on a bipartisan basis were willing to increase the funding is certainly appreciated.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, this Thursday Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul is scheduled to visit the United States for meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Powell. On the eve of his visit, I come to the House floor to highlight two serious issues: first, the ongoing blockade against Armenia; and, second, the nearly three-decade-long occupation of the northern third of the sovereign Island of Cyprus. Madam Speaker, for the last 11 years, Turkey has imposed a crippling blockade against Armenia. The blockade clearly runs afoul of U.S. and international law. In fact, both the U.S. Government and the European Community have repeatedly called on Turkey to lift their campaign of attempting to starve an entire nation. Turkey's denial of U.S. and international assistance to Armenia is in violation of their commitments to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which they have signed. Madam Speaker, Turkey's blockades not only affect Armenia, they affect the entire South Caucasus region. By choking off a major transportation region across the Caucasus, Turkey is stunting the growth of the economies of Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and even Turkey itself. I urge the administration to take an active role in pressing Foreign Minister Gul to open the border with Armenia. The administration has consistently supported the development of normal relations between Armenia and Turkey and should continue to do so. A resolution of this dispute will mean stability and further economic development of the South Caucasus, and this should be done immediately and without preconditions. Madam Speaker, Turkey's continuing occupation of the northern third of the Island of Cyprus is also one of Turkey's most egregious violations of international law. Yesterday marked the 29th anniversary of Turkey's illegal military occupation beginning on June 20, 1974. This has been a monumental year for the Island of Cyprus. The European Union's decision to invite the divided island into the EU has placed intense international scrutiny on the reunification talks. The EU invitation is for the Republic of Cyprus, which is internationally recognized as the legitimate government of the entire island. But EU membership would be suspended in the occupied area until the end of the Turkish occupation, and the Cypriot parliament has unanimously approved the accession to the European Union. Recent moves by Rauf Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader, have failed to lessen international pressure. Denktash's move to partially lift restrictions on movement across the UN's cease-fire line and give the ability of Turkish and Greek Cypriots to briefly visit the other side of the island has brought a glimmer of hope, but also renewed frustration to the Cypriot people. Tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots in the north have recently peacefully protested Denktash's decision to reject the U.N. plan to reunify the island, and Turkish Cypriot citizens made this rare public rebuff of Denktash's demanding reunification so that the coming prosperity of the European Union-Cyprus partnership does not pass them by. Madam Speaker, when Foreign Minister Gul comes to meet with the Bush administration, I would hope these issues would be discussed. Turkey has long stated that it is a Western-leaning European democracy, but in this country it will no longer be judged solely by its words. Now they must fulfill their obligations under international agreements and laws by dropping their illegal blockade against Armenia and finally removing their troops from the Island of Cyprus.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss the tragedy of the Bhopal disaster in India. This is an event that the Congress and the world remember vividly. Unfortunately, we have forgotten that many of the victims and their families that remain in Bhopal still remain without much reparation. On that horrible December day in 1984 when a Union Carbide plant leaked 40 tons of lethal gas in Bhopal, India, about 4,000 people died within hours, more than 20,000 were injured. And since then the death count has risen to over 14,000 as a result of exposure to the gas. According to victims rights groups, over 150,000 people are suffering from the after-effects such as reproduction complications, loss of ability to perform physical labor, rare cancers, severe respiratory problems, and the list goes on. Not only are there countless trials and tribulations regarding health status, but in addition there are tremendous environmental injustices such as polluted groundwater, toxic waste, and contaminated soil that have largely remained unaddressed. Mr. Speaker, Union Carbide is the company responsible for the Bhopal disaster. But when Union Carbide and Dow Chemical merged in 2001, there was no doubt that Dow Chemical as a successor company was also responsible for the disaster. Dow Chemical has the resources to deal with the health problems and to provide reparations for the people of Bhopal that were devastated by the tragedy. To date, Mr. Speaker, there are four basic outstanding demands that the victims and their advocates are tirelessly working toward. Dow Chemical has the responsibility to meet each of these demands, and I would like to express my commitment to seeing that these basic demands of justice come to fruition. First, Mr. Speaker, there must be acknowledgment that Dow inherited criminal liabilities and accordingly should face a criminal trial for poisoning people, animals, and the environment. At the time, Union Carbide blamed the disaster on a disgruntled worker. But whatever happened to him? At the time, Warren Anderson was the CEO of Union Carbide. Whatever happened to him? And more importantly, where is he now? Second, Mr. Speaker, the health of survivors must be monitored and medical care must be provided to them as well as the second and third generations that have already and undoubtedly will continue to inherit health complications due to their family members' exposure to gas in 1984. Third, there must be adequate funding and some type of safe, workable design and infrastructure for removing 5,000 tons of waste and chemicals in the soil and water. There are over 20,000 people drinking contaminated water thoroughly diffused with mercury. And this example of endless environmental atrocities is simply unacceptable. Fourth, Mr. Speaker, compensation for injuries must be addressed. Any victim reparations thus far have been woefully insufficient; and in fact, over half the death claims have been rejected. People have no choice but to rely on financial retribution and that is because there have been minimal numbers of jobs since the disaster, and those sickened from exposure have lost the ability to perform simple tasks. In addition, care for the overwhelming number of orphans is necessary. Mr. Speaker, the struggle of the people of Bhopal has been long and has reduced most to living without dignity. Americans deal with environmental injustices as well. However, we have public health laws that protect our citizens' Federal right-to-know legislation that, in fact, came about in the aftermath of Bhopal. In an effort to restore basic human rights to the people of Bhopal, my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and I are circulating a letter to the CEO of Dow Chemical asking that Dow take responsibility for the disaster inherited in 1984 and that it cooperate in meeting the demands of its victims. I encourage all of my colleagues to sign on to this important letter. In addition, I plan on circulating an amicus brief on behalf of the Bhopal victims who have year after year tried their cases in the U.S. court system and who have been subjected to unfair treatment due to corporate favoritism. At that time, I will also ask my colleagues to join me in sending a message that the injustice cannot continue and that there is support in Congress for holding accountable those that are liable for this horrific tragedy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to have to come here almost every night to make the point of how outraged we are on the Democratic side that the House has not resolved this issue and that once again 12 million children are being excluded from the child tax credit. I do not know how many times the Democrats are going to have to get up here and tell the Republicans that they are not doing anything about this issue. It is amazing to me, because times are tough. And I said last night, and I will say again, in my own family I have young children and I am not worried about being able to provide for them. But I know that in my district there are a lot of families, parents who have difficult times. When we tell them that they are going to be excluded from this child tax credit and the checks are going to go out next Friday to people who are a little higher income but not to them because they happen to be a lower income, it just does not seem fair. It is tough for them to get along. Times are tough. There is a high unemployment rate. The Republicans keep saying that their tax cuts and their tax policies are going to turn the economy around, but they are not. Certainly not in my State, in my district. And for the Republican leadership to keep talking about how they are going to give all of these tax breaks to wealthy individuals, even millionaires, but, at the same time, do not want to give tax breaks to the parents of these 12 million children who are earning between $10,000 and $26,000 a year is really heartless. I feel for the families, that they are not able to take advantage of this and somehow help out. We should be making an effort to help them out. The worst part of it, too, is when we hear about the fact that some of these parents are people that may be in combat or in Iraq and facing the potential every day of being killed or seriously injured and yet, for some reason, this other piece of legislation that might help them out, even if this does not, even if the Republicans do not want to give the child tax credit to them, this other piece of legislation that would help them out, I guess, is now in conference; but the conference has never met. The Republicans do not want to address this issue. They just want to go home. We are not going to let them go home until they give this tax credit to these 12 million children.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the accomplishments of Ms. Eileen H. Toughill, R.N., Ph. D. Dr. Toughill holds the position of both Executive Director of the Community Health Center of Asbury Park and Director of Community Health at the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey. Dr. Toughill recently received the VNA of Central Jersey Award for Professional Distinction, proving to be indicative of her compassion and dedication to her work. The Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey is a nonprofit home health agency that promotes the ``restoration and healthcare'' of all members of the community. In her capacity as Director of Community Health for VNACJ, Dr. Toughill holds responsibility over the provision of health services to more than 65,000 vulnerable and underprivileged community-based residents. In addition to these duties, Dr. Eileen Toughill has taken on even greater responsibilities for the welfare of community residents following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by establishing a comprehensive response to the chaos and stress that followed the attacks, including bereavement and trauma counseling. Other achievements that this exceptional woman has accomplished include an outreach program to assist residents in hotels, motels, boarding homes and shelters in Monmouth and Middlesex counties. Dr. Eileen Toughill pioneered the start up of two nurse practitioner- managed primary care centers as well as helping to implement an AIDS education and prevention program in four correctional institutions. Dr. Toughill's crowning achievement came this Spring when through her hard work she saw the Community Health Center of Asbury Park successfully designated as a full-fledged Federally Qualified Health Center. This includes a renewable federal grantof $475,000, allowing the center to expand its current primary care services to include prenatal care and mental health, as well as increasing the number of patients the center can serve. Dr. Toughill's implementation of multiple programs as well as her perseverance in securing federal funding for her community's health center is admirable. Dr. Eileen Toughill's accomplishments are outstanding--they exemplify determined commitment to the ideals of healthcare for all, and demonstrate how one individual can actively make a difference. Mr. Speaker, on this day I rise up to acknowledge a truly remarkable individual and I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Dr. Eileen H. Toughill for the fine and important work that she provides to her community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I spoke on this earlier on the rule. I just wanted to say, first of all, I do commend the appropriations chair and the ranking member for their concern about this issue. I know that they are very concerned about it. I know they are legitimately concerned about the cost if something is not done. I also want to commend my chairman and indicate on a bipartisan basis that Democrats as well as Republicans on the Committee on Resources are very concerned about this issue and realize that it must be addressed. To his credit, our new chairman, relatively new chairman, has indicated very strongly as a result of the hearing that took place in the Committee on Resources, I believe, last week that he is going to take this up, that we are already looking at language to try to deal with the issue and come up with legislation; and I think that members of the Committee on Resources on a bipartisan basis are very much aware of the fact that we must deal with it. And we will take that responsibility seriously. I know through the Chair, and I just want to say on the part of the Democrats on the committee, that if we agree with our chairman, it needs to be addressed and also understand and appreciate the fact that the appropriators are willing to let go on this at least for a while.

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his consideration.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy regarding American Indians and homeland security. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that as we move forward with the interior appropriations bill it is important to highlight the fact that no funds have been appropriated for tribal homeland security initiatives. Since the September 11 attacks, we have had allocated significant funds to secure the homeland against future terrorist attacks; however, Indian country has been excluded from all homeland security plans. I would ask that my colleagues recognize that tribes need to be included in the national strategy for homeland security. This is of particular importance for those tribes that are required to help protect the Nation's borders.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maine for those comments and also mention the fact that he is here this evening bringing this motion up, and I commend him for that. I know that the hour is getting late around here and a lot of us have left, but it is great that he is doing this. I have to say, it just upsets me so much that we are once again this evening talking about the exclusion of these 12 million children from the child tax credit. The partisanship, and I know the gentleman from Texas talked about pettiness. I do not think it is petty. I am a father of three. I have a daughter who is 9, a son who just turned 8, and another little daughter who is 5. Obviously, with our salary, there is no problem taking care of them. But I watch the people in my district, and there are many even in New Jersey which tends to be higher income, higher cost of living as well, there are many families that are impacted by this and that would benefit if you were willing to adopt this motion to instruct and go to conference and include this child tax credit for these 12 million children. And it really pains me because I know how difficult it is. Times are tough. A lot of people are unemployed. A lot of people are not making what they used to make. Talk about taxes, in my home State property taxes are so high. These people pay payroll tax. They pay high property tax. The suggestion that somehow they are not paying taxes is absurd. When the average person goes home at night, they do not worry about whether it is an income tax to the Federal Government or a tax to the State or property tax to local government. They are paying taxes, and they deserve a break, particularly in these tough economic times; and what I understand is that the conference has not even met. There was supposedly going to be a conference on this to try to include these 12 million kids, and the conference has not even met. So what I am hearing from the other side of the aisle, from the Republicans, is they just do not care. They are not going to address this at all. I know that it may sound petty to some on the Republican side to hear us talk about this impacts the military, but the fact of the matter is that if I was in Iraq and I was worried about my kids back at home and how much they have and whether they are going to make ends meet, I would be looking for some break like this; and I would like to see those kids included and the parents of those kids who happen to be in combat in Iraq or in other places around the world as part of the active military. They should be included. I know the gentleman talked about this military tax fairness bill. My understanding is it is right here at the desk. You are in the majority. The Republicans are the leaders, in the majority around here. Take up the bill. Do not look at us to blame us about whether or not this bill has passed. You can take it up tonight or tomorrow at any time. But the bottom line is there is absolutely no justification, I have not heard a single justification for not including these kids and this child tax credit. Think about the fact that the House and Senate Republicans who took less than a week to reconcile differences between two giant $500 billion tax bills that are now causing this huge deficit cannot seem to come to an agreement on a much smaller bill to expand the child tax credit to the children's parents earning between $10,000 and $26,000 a year. You were able to do it for the big tax bill, but the conference cannot meet on this much smaller bill. I do not know what the holdup is. I think our colleagues are just content to leave Washington this week without correcting the situation. And I am particularly upset with President Bush who last month advised House Republicans to pass this child tax credit legislation and send it to him so he could sign it, big brouhaha, send it to me, I will sign it. Now he sits silently as the congressional Republicans do nothing. I think that silence is an indication of the President's true intentions. Otherwise, I do not know where he is. He disappeared. He does not seem to care about it anymore. I do not hear anybody on the Republican side talking about this anymore. A couple of them were talking about it a few weeks ago, but now nobody talks about it. How many times do we have to, as Democrats, come to the floor and point out the unfair treatment that these hard-working American families receive with the passage of the Republican tax bill and yet they do not want to do anything for them? This is simply a 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. We should not leave here today, this week, or certainly next week until this injustice is corrected. And I see that one of my colleagues is here.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member's comments. The same Department of Interior that has consistently failed to manage the trust accounts would have complete authority to end all of the claims by individual Indian account holders. Now, while I appreciate, and I want to tell the gentleman from Washington I do appreciate the attention that is being given to this issue by my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, but I do not feel that a fair resolution can be reached without having all the major players at the table. To that end, I urge my colleagues once again to support the removal of section 137 from the Interior appropriations bill and allow the Committee on Resources to try to reach a fair and equitable solution that both tribal leaders and the Department of the Interior can agree upon. If I can say to the gentleman from Washington and also the chairman of the subcommittee, I do appreciate the fact that they have been willing to allow us to take this section out and have the Committee on Resources try to come up with a fair and equitable solution; and I really understand the gentleman's frustration with the fact that, for several years now, that this issue is still outstanding and has a major impact in terms of funding and the level of appropriations. But we really feel on the committee that we can deal with this effectively and appreciate the opportunity to be allowed to do so.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the removal of section 137 of the Interior appropriations bill which seeks to reach a settlement of the Indian trust reform issue. This section does not belong in this bill, and any legislation dealing with settlement should be vetted through the Committee on Resources which has jurisdiction over this issue. Mr. Speaker, for more than a century, the Federal Government has been the trustee of funds for Indian tribes and individual Indians. These funds are generated from rights and leases on lands held in trust by the Federal Government. Presently, there are approximately 300,000 Native Americans who are supposed to receive funds from the 56 million acres being held in trust for them by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has been unable to fully and accurately account for the trust fund money. Both Secretaries of Interior for the past two administrations have been held in contempt of court for failing to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to Native Americans. In order to force the government to account for the money believed to be owed them, a group of Native Americans filed a class action lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior. Now, recently, Mr. Speaker, the House Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations offered language in section 137 of its bill in an attempt to settle this dispute. If this language were allowed to advance, it would give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to unilaterally settle any claim related to the balance of the individual Indian accounts currently held in trust.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow afternoon British Prime Minister Tony Blair is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress in this Chamber. Mr. Blair will likely spend much of his speech discussing both the U.S. and U.K. victory in Iraq and our efforts to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. He can certainly tout the fact that the Iraqi people are now free of oppression and finally afforded the basic human rights that were denied under the regime of Saddam Hussein. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help finding it hypocritical for Prime Minister Blair to discuss freeing the Iraqis given the nature of his policies in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Blair sent tens of thousands of British troops thousands of miles to bring democracy to a region at the same time he was denying the basic right of democracy to people only miles from the British seat of government. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, in May Prime Minister Blair announced the indefinite postponement of the elections in Northern Ireland, which were scheduled to be held on May 29. Since his announcement, Prime Minister Blair has made little progress towards reinstating the stalled Irish peace process and providing basic human rights to the people of Northern Ireland. Five years ago under the guidance of former Senator George Mitchell, all of the major parties, both Catholic and Protestant, signed onto an agreement that was to govern the future of Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Accords were touted near and far by human rights groups and media outlets as an agreement which would finally bring an end to the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. Now, just when the agreement seemed to be bearing a fruitful peace, Prime Minister Blair and his Protestant allies have decided it is time to derail the process to ensure that the citizens of Northern Ireland continue under the control of the British Crown and be continually denied their basic human rights. Mr. Speaker, I call on Prime Minister Blair to announce in his speech here tomorrow a specific date when elections will be held in Northern Ireland. He must indicate to this body his support for bringing democracy and home rule to the people of Northern Ireland. I also call on him to again begin the process of putting the Good Friday Accords back together. Prime Minister Blair must use his leadership to bring all of the parties back to the table and begin discussing ways to reinstate the Belfast Assembly. Finally, I hope Prime Minister Blair will use this opportunity to address several of the concerns that I have raised on this floor several times in the past. Mr. Blair must address the issue of policing and military presence in the North. For people to feel safe and secure, they must be assured that there is a police force that is representative of the local population. Mr. Blair should enact the Patten Commission's recommendation on police reform. The North must provide its citizens with a full, fair, and just reform of their police service. And the police service of Northern Ireland must be representative of all ethnic, religious, and political groups in Northern Ireland. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues in this body will join me in urging Prime Minister Blair tomorrow to immediately address many of the human rights concerns in Northern Ireland. It is time we bring true electoral democracy to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, a few weeks ago, President Bush announced a $3 billion aid package to Pakistan. I do not support the provisions of military aid in that package. However, President Bush was willing to put some conditions on the Pakistan aid package. Those conditions were, one, Pakistan must exemplify its effort to decrease crossborder terrorism in Kashmir; two, Pakistan must end support of nuclear nonproliferation in rogue nations; and, three, Pakistan must exemplify steps toward returning to a democracy. Madam Chairman, this bill today includes language included by the gentleman from American Samoa that is consistent with the first two conditions outlined by the President. It requires the State Department to prepare a report that contains a description of the extent to which Pakistan has closed all known terrorist training camps operating in Pakistan and Pakistani-held Kashmir, has established serious and identifiable measures to prohibit the infiltration of Islamic extremists across the Line of Control into India, and has ceased the transfer of weapons of mass destruction. Because this important language is included in the bill, I rise in support of this legislation and only wish to make the point that it is equally as important for Pakistan to return to democracy in order to ensure future peace and stability in South Asia.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of American tourists visiting the island of Cuba this evening. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion now is not the time to open American tourism to Cuba. American tourists should not be allowed to soak in the sun of Cuba's beaches while so many of Cuba's democracy leaders and independent thinkers suffer under inhumane conditions in Cuba's jails. Behind Cuba's tropical weather and vacation resorts lies a repressive regime. This is the same regime that earlier this year arrested over 80 nonviolent human rights advocates, pro-democracy leaders, and independent journalists in a campaign by Castro and his forces to silence all voices of opposition on the island. Mr. Speaker, I have said in the past that doing business with Cuba means doing business with Castro. So long as Castro maintains his stranglehold on every aspect of Cuban life, allowing Americans to travel to Cuba would mean subsidizing Castro. Most Cuban tourist operations are run by the Cuban military and internal security services. These so-called ``companies'' funnel money directly into the regime, earning them the hard currency necessary to perpetuate their repressive policies. Contrary to popular belief, increased tourist travel to the island would not increase purposeful contact with the Cuban people. Canadians and Europeans have been traveling to Cuba for years, and yet there has been no measurable impact on or change in Castro's control over his people. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, 98 percent of Cuban citizens are forbidden even entry into the tourist areas, which is Fidel Castro's way of denying foreigners the ability to gain a glimpse into the reality of Cuban life. Those Cubans who do work at the resorts are forbidden to engage in certain types of conversations with foreigners, including any mention of Cuba's political situation, the U.S. embargo, and other such issues. Citizens who work at the resorts are employed by a State employment agency run by the Castro regime. The foreign resorts pay the worker's wages to the state agency in dollars, but the worker receives only pesos. Therefore, between 95 percent and 97 percent of a worker's wages are kept by Castro. Mr. Speaker, by lifting travel sanctions with nothing in exchange from the Cuban Government, we are betraying the very people these policies were designed to help. By allowing American citizens to sip drinks on Cuba's coastline, we are turning our backs on the journalists and pro-democracy advocates that are wasting away in Cuba's jails. I urge my colleagues to join with me and oppose any attempts to lift travel restrictions and to remain committed to their support for the Cuban people.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was amazed to listen to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) on three points. First of all, he said that Medicare is going broke. Well, Medicare is not going broke. It is doing fine. But the only reason it is losing money is because of Republican policies. If you remember in the last years of the Clinton administration, the day when Medicare might go insolvent kept going further and further away because we were paying down the debt. But once the Republicans came in and the Republican President came into power, all of the sudden with all of these tax cuts and all of this borrowing to pay for the debt, which is now something like $500 billion, yes, they are taking money away from the Medicare trust fund, and so that day of reckoning gets closer and closer. You have caused the problem with the solvency of Medicare because of your tax policies as Republicans. Then you talked about Federal employees and Members of Congress. Well, I was here last year when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) got up on the floor and demanded that we pass a resolution that said that Federal employees and Members of Congress would not have to enter into this Republican Medicare prescription drug program that you are proposing because the fact of the matter is it is not as generous, what you are proposing is not as generous as what Members of Congress and Federal employees have, and that is why you wanted to make sure that they were insulated and would not be part of the program. Finally, you said you wanted to keep costs down. Well, the easiest way to keep costs down is to allow, as the Senate bill does, to negotiate drug prices so that the Secretary of Health and Human Services can negotiate on behalf of all the seniors and lower drug costs. But you do not want to do that. You put a noninterference clause in the House bill so he cannot negotiate and lower prices. So do not tell me about saving money. You are not saving money. You are not saving the program. You are killing the program. And I listened also in amazement to the statements that were made by my chairman, who I respect a great deal, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. But the fact of the matter is you know if we do not go to conference and adopt significant portions of this Senate bill, we will not have a bill. The President will not have a bill to sign. So when we say that we want a drug benefit and we want to make sure there is a fall-back so if there is no HMO in the area or no two HMOs in the area, that we guarantee that there is a drug benefit, you know that if we do not put that in the bill, we will never get the votes in the Senate to pass the bill and there will not be a drug benefit. You know also that if we have this House version that says that by 2010 we are going to get out of Medicare, we are going to have a voucher and that the traditional Medicare is going to cost more, that the Senators will never pass this bill. It will never go to the President. So what we are trying to say here with this motion to instruct is, if you really want to continue the Medicare program, do not have a voucher, do not kill the program and force people to pay more for traditional Medicare. And if you really want a drug benefit, make sure there is a fall-back to traditional Medicare and you can get a drug benefit. Because you know darn well that if in a given area there is not the HMO or the private plan that is going to be offered, then the person will not get the drug benefit. But even more than that, practically speaking, if you do not go a certain way in the direction of the Senate bill and compromise a little, because you know that passed overwhelmingly, we will never have a bill that goes to the President. So be realistic and pass this motion to instruct.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the late Dorothy Anderson Clark, a dear friend to New Jersey's sixth congressional district. Ms. Clark, who was a resident of Asbury Park, was well known throughout the community and will be sorely missed by her friends, family, and neighbors. Dorothy Clark was a truly remarkable individual, who was admired for her many years of community service. During World War II, she was a pioneer of the American Women Volunteers of Long Branch where she provided locally relevant humanitarian services that helped people within the community be safer and healthier. Later, Ms. Clark was honored with a well-deserved Certification of Meritorious Service from the Red Cross for her volunteer work during the war. Despite the arduous nature of her work, Ms. Clark continued to volunteer her services after the war ended. In addition to her dedication surrounding the war effort, Dorothy Clark also volunteered her services to various community organizations. She was an active member of the Order Eastern Star, Naomi Chapter 8 of the United Masonic Brotherhood Incorporated of Neptune. Recently, Ms. Clark was given an award for her work with the Seacoast Association, as well as an award lauding her fifty years of devoted service to the Second Baptist Church of Monmouth. Mr. Speaker, Dorothy Anderson Clark was clearly an exceptional woman who touched the lives of young and old throughout her community. Both to her friends and family, as well as the sixth congressional district, Ms. Clark was an exceptional person whose volunteer work was an extension of her patriotic spirit and kindhearted character. On this day, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring this truly extraordinary individual.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to express my concern over the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is designed to transport oil from the Caspian Sea. This pipeline has been in the planning stages for years, but this year ground was actually broken for the pipeline in Azerbaijan. The proponents of this pipeline have touted its numerous benefits in recent years, but last month an Amnesty International report identified major problems that I would like to address this evening. Amnesty International's report, Human Rights on the Line, is a thorough and convincing look at how large oil companies put the business of oil over the lives of those that stand in the way of its delivery. The executive director of Amnesty International, Dr. William Shultz, recently blasted the consortium, led by British Petroleum, that is financing the pipeline. He said, ``While BP claims to be socially responsible as the leader of the BCT consortium, it has essentially encouraged the Turkish Government to sign away its ability to fully uphold human rights.'' Mr. Speaker, in contractual agreements between companies and governments, human rights should not be negotiable. In their report, Amnesty International cited five main areas of concern with the pipeline project. They argue that the contract signed between British Petroleum and the Turkish Government, known as the Host Government Agreement, places the business agreement above human rights, and this agreement will violate the principles of human rights in five ways. First, a land grab by the Governments of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan along the route of the pipeline. Over 30,000 people who live in villages and farmland along the path will be permanently displaced without their having any input into the decision or receiving any compensation. Second, little to no enforcement of health and safety legislation in each of the three host countries for the workers and locals that work on and live near the pipeline. Third, the serious risk to the human rights of any individuals that protest the pipeline's construction. If the local residents protest the construction, they are likely to be brutally suppressed. Fourth, Mr. Speaker, all the water resources in the vicinity of the pipeline will be used for its construction. Local residents and their farms and livestock will face a severe water shortage as a result, and their water supply is also likely to be seriously polluted from the construction. Fifth, the agreement that Turkey and British Petroleum signed actually creates an economic disincentive to uphold human rights. The text of the agreement states that Turkey has to pay compensation to British Petroleum for not meeting construction deadlines. The Turkish Government would almost be forced to ignore the basic concerns of its population in order to meet deadlines set by the oil companies. Mr. Speaker, I plan to bring the Amnesty International report on the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline to the attention of our Congress and our Caucus on Armenian Issues. We will ask the authors of the report to present their findings to the Armenian Caucus in the coming weeks. This practice of sacrificing the things we hold dear for 10 to 20 years of oil cannot continue. How much of the environment are we willing to destroy? How many of our basic human rights will we continue to hand over to the oil companies? Mr. Speaker, lastly, the U.S. Government, in my opinion, should certainly not provide any economic incentive for this pipeline until a thorough review of the human rights and ecological problems is completed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the amazing thing about it, too, is that if we listen to what the Republican leadership says and what the President says, the reason they say they want to privatize Medicare and privatize access to prescription drugs is because they want to create competition, and I throw back to them and say why in the world if they believe in competition would they want to deny the Secretary the ability to negotiate for all these seniors lower prices? Is that not a form of competition? Is that not my saying, look, I have got the ability here to influence the price because I am going to go out and I am going to say if they give it to me for less price, I am going to buy it from them, or if they give it to me for an even lesser price, I am going to buy it from them? And I have got all these seniors, and whoever wants to give me the best price, that is whom I am going to buy it from. Is that not competition? It seems to me that their ideology on this one is almost like Socialist or something because they are saying, we do not want competition, we do not want the Secretary to be able to go out and get these companies to compete. I do not understand it. It is driven by, as you say, the fact they are getting all these campaign contributions from the drug companies. It is not really an ideological argument anymore, because they are denying competition.

Mr. PALLONE. I know we get so enthusiastic about this, that we forget about the time.