Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats feel very strongly that we need to move to put back in place this tax credit for children and families of children at lower income levels. These are working people. The Republicans made a huge mistake, and it shows where they are coming from when they eliminated giving a child tax credit to these working families at the lower end of the income spectrum. But now what I hear is that the Republicans in the other body say, well, they are not going to do this unless we also give a child tax credit to people at a little higher income level. Now we hear that here in this House the Republican leadership says that they are probably not going to do it anyway, because they do not want to give the tax credit to the families of these lower-income working families. Once again, the Republicans created this problem because they would not include the child tax credit for these working families, and they are still trying to stop it from becoming law and demanding that more money go to higher income people in order to pay for it. When is this going to stop? When are we going to wake up and realize that what the Republican leadership is really all about in this tax bill and this series of tax bills is just helping the elite, the wealthy elite?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because the Republican leadership is not allowing us to bring up the Child Tax Credit for these lower-income working families. Exactly what my colleague from Massachusetts said is certainly true. This provision which the Republicans eliminated because they did not want to help the working class and working people was financially paid for, and, again, we are trying to get it passed again and it is paid for completely by closing up corporate tax loopholes. The problem is that the Republicans, they just do not want to give it to these working families. Already the other side the other body is saying that they want to add a child tax credit for people at a higher income level, or the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said that he wants to add more tax cuts here for wealthy people and for corporate interests. That is the thing that would cause an increase in deficit because they have not paid for it. We are saying, as Democrats, we can pay for this child tax credit for these working families under $26,000-or-so in income annually by closing tax corporate tax loopholes; and the Republicans are saying, oh, no, we cannot do that because the only way we will consider it is if we give some child tax credit to higher-income people or other tax cuts to other wealthy people and millionaires, and we do not care whether we pay for that because we do not have any way to pay for that. That just goes into the deficit. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. My colleagues should simply admit that the Republicans really do not care about the working people at the lower-income levels. They are not willing to give them any kind of tax credit. They can pass the bill today in the other body and send it over here or vice versa, and it is fully paid for; but they are not going to do it, and I can tell my colleagues there are about 200,000 people, children of soldiers in the Armed Forces, that are also being left out of this. We did a little analysis and found out that these 12 million children that are left out, a good many of them are children of military personnel. So these guys and their families, they are fighting over in Iraq or they are stationed somewhere in the world and defending the country, and they cannot get a lousy child tax credit. It is outrageous.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, once again this week the Republican majority showed its true colors, a party looking out for the elite at the detriment of middle- and low-income working families. During the final negotiations on their tax package, Republicans deliberately chose to leave more than 12 million children behind. The omission of a provision that would have extended a $400 child tax credit to working families making $10,000 to $26,000 a year was neither an accident nor an oversight. The provision, which had not been included in President Bush's initial $726 billion proposal or the House Republicans' $550 billion, was added in the Senate by a Democrat, Senator Blanche Lincoln. Why did this considerably small provision, $3.5 billion out of a giant $350 billion tax bill, make the Republicans' chopping block during their final negotiations with each House? As my colleagues already know, not one Democrat was allowed to negotiate the differences between the House and the Senate bill. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer probably explained it best when he said, ``Does tax relief go to people who pay income taxes or does it go above and beyond the forgiving of all income taxes and you actually get a check from the government for more than you ever owed in income taxes?'' The House majority leader supported Fleischer's claims yesterday when he said, ``To me, it's a little difficult to give tax relief to people that don't pay income taxes.'' Mr. Speaker, what the President's press secretary seems to forget and what the majority leader seems to ignore is that these workers do pay Federal taxes. 7.65 percent of their earnings go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. They are in fact paying taxes. Bob Herbert of the New York Times called the Republican action ``the reverse Robin Hood'' and he wrote, ``The fat cats will get their tax cuts. But in the new American plutocracy, there won't even be crumbs left over for the working folks at the bottom of the pyramid to scramble for.'' After realizing that the Republicans had left this provision out of the final tax bill, several of my Democratic colleagues introduced a bill earlier this week that would repair the damage from this irresponsible tax package. Congressman Rangel's legislation would provide greater tax relief to the families of 19 million children and the legislation is fully paid for so this relief would not add to the record deficits created by the President and the Republicans in Congress. Yesterday, Democrats in the House said they would not allow business to continue as usual around here until Republicans agreed to address the Rangel legislation. Not only did Majority Leader Tom DeLay say the House would not consider the Rangel legislation, but in attempting to justify this action, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``There are a lot of other things that are more important than that.'' Mr. Speaker, how can the majority leader say that helping these children is not important? I think it is very sad, Mr. Speaker, because the Republican leader's statement is not shocking to anyone who watches what goes on around here. In fact, unlike some of his Republican colleagues, at least Congressman DeLay tells it like it is. And what it is, is that the Republican leadership continues to do the important work for the wealthiest elite in this country at the detriment of low- and middle-income families. Just 2 weeks after the Republicans passed their tax bill, the Tax Policy Institute released a report yesterday showing that the middle class tax share is set to rise, a surprise to no one. The report, which analyzed the three tax initiatives President Bush has signed into law, concluded Americans earning between $28,000 and up to $337,000 will soon take on a greater share of the taxes than they had before President Bush took office. The only people that benefit are the millionaires. Mr. Speaker, I just hope that one day these Republican attacks on low- and middle-class people will come to an end, but so far they are not coming to an end and I expect them to continue with this Republican leadership.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. They are already talking about a prescription drug plan that forces seniors, if they want any kind of prescription drug plan, to go into an HMO or some kind of private organization. It is a measly benefit even if you opt to do that. The reason is because they do not have the money because of all these tax cuts.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas. I know how hard he works on so many issues, including health care, as well as all the issues affecting the Hispanic Caucus. I wanted to say again that I really appreciate the fact that the Hispanic Caucus has been here on a regular basis leading these special orders under your stewardship, because it is really important, I think, that we talk about not only how these Republican policies impact the general public, but also how they impact the Hispanic population. I have to say that one of the things that amazes me about the Republican tax bill is how they kept telling us, both the Republican leadership, the President, as well as different Republican colleagues, that this tax bill was going to be something that was going to help the average American, that it was going to stimulate the economy, that it was going to put money in the pockets of people so that they could go out and spend money and stimulate the economy, create jobs, all these wonderful things. The first thing we read when we go home and you start picking up the papers during the Memorial Day recess after we had voted against this bill, because most of the Democrats, including the two of us, voted against it because we really thought it was not going to help the economy at all or do anything significant to create a stimulus, we read about how so many people, working people, people paying taxes, not people not paying taxes, people working, were not benefiting in any way, were not getting a dime back as a result of this so-called tax cut bill that the Republican Party put forward and that passed almost exclusively along partisan lines. Now what I am getting from some of the Republicans is, oh, the fact that something like 12 million children or families with those 12 million children would not benefit from this child tax credit was somehow an oversight, that this was something they did not realize at the time, and all of a sudden they realize it. I guess in the other body now we have the chairman of the Finance Committee saying he is going to introduce a bill. Of course, we on the Democratic side have introduced a bill, but we had no doubt from the very beginning that this was the case, because we knew that the way the bill was put together it was primarily focused on the well-to-do, on millionaires, on people who were making a lot of money. Now, all of a sudden, we see all these low-income people that are not benefiting in any way. I saw this survey that was in Sunday's New York Times, and it really pointed to two groups. I know this has been mentioned many times this evening, but I want to mention it again. There were two groups that basically were not benefiting in any way from this Republican tax bill. It said that not only were there the 12 million children who were left behind because their parents were not making enough, I guess they were making something between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, but there were also 8 million other--taxpayers who would not receive any benefit from the tax cut. I just wanted to read from this article in the Sunday New York Times, if I could. These are three groups that did an analysis of it, the Citizens for Tax Justice, along with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, affiliated with the Urban Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They found that 6.5 million minimum-wage families with nearly 12 million children would not receive the $400 per child increase in the child tax credit contained in the new law. Then it went on to say that there are 50 million households, 60 percent of all households in the Nation, who will receive no benefit from the tax law. You understand, these are people that are working, these are people who are paying taxes, and they are getting nothing. I will yield back, but I just want to say it is not only the fact that it is unfair in terms of the fact that lower-income, working people are not getting any money, but it is also the fact that the gentleman and I know that if those people got the money, because of their financial situation being the way it is, they are going to have to immediately spend it on food, clothing, whatever it happens to be, because they do not have any extra money. What better way to stimulate the economy? If you are not even looking at it from the point of view of trying to help out people who are lower income, but just from the point of stimulating the economy, would that not be the best group to give money back to, because they would undoubtedly go out and probably use the money to buy something that would stimulate the economy.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield, the problem we are going to have now is with the second wave of Republican tax cuts. They are talking about even more. So much is being borrowed from the Medicare trust fund, and it is going to put it in such jeopardy for the future that it is just going to be that much more difficult to provide any expansion for Medicare, like a prescription drug benefit, for example. I am really fearful that what we are going to see in the next few weeks that the Republican leadership is going to come here and say, now that we do not have any money in the Medicare trust fund, we are going to have to start coming up with innovative ways of saving dollars. That is when they start talking about vouchers and telling seniors that they have to take a voucher and go out and buy their own health insurance and privatizing Medicare, with the excuse that there is not the money left in the future. The reason the money is being drained is because of these tax cuts.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman for all that he did tonight. I notice that the leader joined him at one point, and we had a number of Members who did the 5-minute Special Orders on this issue of the child tax credit. Again, it is not because we want to beat up on our colleagues on the other side. This bill has already passed. But I think we have to point out the shortcomings of this legislation, because it is, as the gentleman says, the foundation for the whole Republican agenda here in this Congress. It is going to wreak havoc, I think, not only with the economy, but with any kind of effort to provide for health care or shore up Social Security or any of the other things that I think are so important domestically for this country. I just want to thank the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could ask the gentleman to yield further, there are so many levels on which you can point out this Republican tax bill really does not make any sense. First of all, it is the idea, as the gentleman said, where the gentleman suggested this is all deficit spending. None of this money is there in the Treasury. This is all deficit spending, and it is borrowed from Social Security and Medicare trust funds primarily. So it jeopardizes our retirement and health funds for our seniors in the future. In addition to that, by putting the Federal Government further into debt, you put an even greater drain than the economy. So there is nothing at that level that would help the economy. Then, as the gentleman points out, if you are primarily giving this money back to high-income wage earners or people, it is not even wage earners, because a lot is going for the stock dividends, people that in many cases are investing in the stock market. We have nothing in the bill and certainly the Republicans were not going to suggest we were going to put anything in the bill that would say those people have to reinvest the money in the economy. They could easily go and invest it abroad, for all we know. We have no reason to believe those kinds of investments by high-income individuals are necessarily going to lead to any kind of job creation. But then you get to the unfairness in terms of leaving these people out. To me it is just amazing. I just wanted to say one thing, and that is that in yesterday's Washington Post they had the editorial many of us have read tonight that says ``Children Left Behind.'' But the one thing it really does is totally belie the idea that somehow the Republicans in either House or the President overlooked this with this child tax credit, because the Washington Post editorial says: Stiffing these children was not a last-minute oversight or the unfortunate result of an unreasonably tight ceiling. Adjustments had to be made, a spokeswoman for the House Committee on Ways and Means said, as if those on her side would have preferred otherwise. In fact, the administration didn't include the provision in its original proposal, the House didn't include it in its version and the Senate Finance Committee didn't include it in its original package. The only reason there was something in here to provide this tax credit for these people between $10,000 and $20,000 was because Blanche Lambert Lincoln, a Democratic Senator, a former Member, former colleague here in the House, insisted that it be put in on the Senate side; but then of course the Republicans took it out. So for anybody to say that they did not know what they were doing, it is purposeless.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think that Senator Lincoln said that half the people in her State fell into that category. In New Jersey the average income is higher than that, obviously, but there are still going to be people in my district that are not going to get the credit, there is no question.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my Republican colleague who just spoke, and I have to say it is very difficult for me to celebrate the Republican tax bill because the fact of the matter is, so many working people have been left out and are not receiving any benefits from the Republican tax bill. It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker because he talked about if money was going back to working families, they could go out and spend it and that would help the economy. If that is the case, why were so many families left out of the child tax credit or left out of other benefits that were basically going, under this Republican tax bill, to the high-income people? The spin on the other side of the aisle is amazing, but the editorial comments during the Memorial Day recess have basically shown this is essentially a fraud. The Republican tax bill does not do what it purports to do, and it leaves out so many working people. For those who might doubt what I say, I want to mention some of the editorial comments in the New York Times and Washington Post in the last couple of days. In Monday's New York Times there was an opinion by Bob Herbert called ``The Reverse Robin Hood,'' and I will go through certain sections that Mr. Herbert said. He said, ``If you wanted a quintessential example of what the Bush administration and its legislative cronies are about, it was right there on the front page of the Times last Thursday: `Tax Law Omits $400 Child Credit for Millions.' ``The fat cats will get their tax cuts. But in the new American plutocracy, there won't even be crumbs left over for the working folks at the bottom of the pyramid to scramble after. ``When House and Senate negotiators met last week to put the finishing touches to President Bush's tax bill, they coldly deleted a provision that would have allowed millions of low-income working families to benefit from the bill's increased child tax credit. ``It was a mean-spirited and wholly unnecessary act, a clear display of the current regime's outright hostility toward America's poor and working classes. ``The negotiators eliminated a provision in the Senate version of the tax bill that would have extended benefits from the child tax credit to families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625. This is not a small group. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the families that would have benefited include about 12 million children, one of every six kids in the U.S. under the age of 17.'' Mr. Speaker, how are you going to tell me that somehow this is putting money back in the pockets of working people? These are working people. These people are not on welfare. They are out there working. They are getting nothing. Then it goes on to say in the Herbert article: And readers of yesterday's Times learned that another group of some 8 million mostly low-income taxpayers, and I say taxpayers, primarily single people without children, will also be left behind, getting no benefit at all from the President's tax cuts. The comments just continue. This was yesterday's, Monday's, Washington Post. The editorial for the newspaper says, Children Left Behind. It says: ``Even for a debate over taxes, the public discussion taking place right now about child credits in the new tax law is particularly galling. Stiffing these children was not a last-minute oversight or the unfortunate result of an unreasonably tight $350 billion ceiling. Adjustments had to be made,'' a spokeswoman for the House Ways and Means Committee said, as if those on her side would have preferred otherwise. In fact, the administration did not include this provision in its original, $726 billion proposal. The House did not include it in its $550 billion version. The Senate Finance Committee did not include it. So when you try to get some suggestions from the Republicans that they are going to come down here and say, oh, this was an oversight or we are going to correct it, the President did not have this child tax credit for these people in his original proposal, the Senate Republicans did not have it, the House Republicans did not have it. How can they come down here and suggest that somehow it is an oversight? They say they are going to correct it. I hope they do correct it, but that is going to take some time, and I question whether in fact they really will correct it. The amazing thing to me is that we as Democrats have been saying all along how this Republican tax bill was not going to put money into the pockets of working families. Now all the editorial comments in every major newspaper say that that is true, the Daily News, you name it. Wherever it is around the country, they are all admitting the fact now that it is not true, that money is not going to those working people at the lower end of the spectrum. They are not getting the child tax credit. They are not getting anything. How can the Republicans now suggest that somehow that was an oversight or they are going to correct it in the future? The fundamental basis of their tax policy has been to give large amounts of money back to wealthy people, not to the average American. And the consequence of that is that the average American does not have money in his pocket, and there is no economic stimulus coming from this tax bill because it is not putting money back into the pockets of the average American in the way that they can go out and meaningfully spend it and actually have some stimulation for the economy. It is not happening.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as the father of three young children, I know the feeling of horror that a parent can face when you are out shopping with your kids and you turn around, only to realize your child has disappeared. In most cases, you find them in a matter of moments. They could have been distracted and wandered off or even may have been hiding in the racks of clothing. However, what if the unthinkable happens? What if they can't find them? What option does a parent have? Code Adam is a special alert issued through a store's public address system when a customer reports a missing child. Code Adam, which was created by Wal-Mart, is a special alert issued through a store's public address system when a customer reports a missing child. A brief description of the child is obtained and provided to all designated employees who immediately stop their normal work to search for the child, and monitor all exits to help prevent the child from leaving the store. If the child is not found within 10 minutes of initiating a storewide search, or if the child is seen accompanied by someone other than a parent or guardian, store personnel contact the local police department and request assistance. The Code Adam measure was established by Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs and named in memory of six-year-old Adam Walsh, whose abduction from a Hollywood, Florida shopping mall and murder in 1981 brought the horror of child abduction to national attention. Since the program went nationwide in 1994, it has been a powerful preventative tool against child abductions and lost children in more than 40,000 stores and public buildings making it the largest child safety program in the nation. Over the past year, child abduction has once again been brought to the forefront of public attention. It is critical that retailers and parents alike remain engaged and committed to protecting our children. I am encouraged by new survey results released this week by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and ADVO, Inc., which showed more parents are reviewing safety precautions with their children and have developed a plan of action with their children should they be abducted. Parents are responding proactively to the increased media attention and are taking the necessary steps to help keep their children safe. It is my hope that the Code Adam resolution will encourage our nation's retailers to follow suit. There is no reason why every large retail store should not be implementing this program. That is why today I am introducing a resolution that commends those retail and public establishments that have instituted the Code Adam program and encourages all retailers across the nation to do the same. Companies like Wal-Mart, KMART, Gap and Marshall's should be commended for implementing the program and training employees to follow the proven Code Adam formula. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me and cosponsor this resolution. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the original cosponsors: Representatives Lampson, Foley, Kaptur, Millender- McDonald, Brown of Florida, Acevedo-Vila, Frost, Payne, Rothman, Schiff, Wilson of South Carolina, and Wexler. One of society's greatest responsibilities is to protect our children. We owe it to our kids to do everything we can to ensure their safety.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize an exemplary individual, Dr. Lawrence S. Sykoff. Next month will mark Dr. Sykoff's 10th anniversary as head master of the Ranney School in Tinton Falls, New Jersey. Throughout his lifetime, Dr. Sykoff has demonstrated an aweinspiring commitment to learning and education, and it is for that reason that I ask my colleagues to rise up with me in honoring him. Dr. Sykoff's love of education was apparent early on. He first qualified for the New York State teaching certification while studying as an undergraduate. After graduating from the Bernard Baruch School of Business Administration in New York, Dr. Sykoff took a job as an accountant but was drawn away from that field by an overwhelming desire to educate. Feeling the call to teach, Dr. Sykoff enrolled at the University of San Diego and earned a Master of Education degree in little over a year. He was later awarded a doctorate from the same university. By that time Dr. Sykoff was nationally known in academic circles for his studies of Middle School education and curriculum development. In 1993, The Ranney School was in need of a new Head of School to lead it into the twenty-first century. That is when Dr. Sykoff arrived with a vision for Ranney's future that included growth, excellence, prosperity and technological superiority. Since his arrival ten years ago, Dr. Sykoff has been successful at achieving every one of those goals. Under his guidance, Dr. Sykoff transformed the Ranney School into a state of the art learning center that can accommodate nearly 750 students. With modern computer technology, including a distance learning auditorium, and the most up-to-date laboratories and classroom facilities, the Ranney School is better suited to prepare students for a prosperous future both personally and professionally. In addition to being the Headmaster at the Ranney School, Dr. Sykoff has been an active member of several educational professional organizations including the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, the National Association of Independent Schools, and the New Jersey Association of Independent Schools. He recently served as Treasurer of NJAIS and continues to serve on its Board of Trustees and Finance Committee. Dr. Sykoff is also past President of the New Jersey Patriot Conference for independent school sports. In addition, he is a member of the Board of the Monmouth County, New Jersey Chapter of the American Cancer Society and a past member of the Board of the Monmouth County Family and Children's Service. Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that Dr. Sykoff has been a consistent advocate of educating our country's youth. I congratulate this remarkable individual for his lasting commitment to learning and ask that my colleagues rise up in recognition of the distinguished Dr. Lawrence S. Sykoff.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor this evening to express my concerns about the pause in peace negotiations between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers. I would also like to reiterate my full support for peace talks between both sides to resume. Mr. Speaker, Sri Lanka is a country that has suffered the tremendous loss of nearly 65,000 lives due to a longstanding internal conflict between Sri Lankans and the LTTE. On February 22, 2002, a groundbreaking ceasefire agreement was brokered by the Norwegian government and signed by both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. At that time, we all wished for a successful peace process and both sides were committed to working towards the end goal of peace. Although the agreement was fairly structured, a peace process can only proceed when all parties act on good faith and adhere to the agreed ceasefire accord. Unfortunately, the LTTE has recently withdrawn from the peace process and is boycotting the continued peace talks to be held in June in Japan at the Tokyo Donor Conference. Mr. Speaker, the LTTE has said they will not participate in the Tokyo Donor Conference in protest over their exclusion from the preliminary conference held in Washington in April. The U.S. State Department did not invite the LTTE to the preliminary conference in Washington due to the fact that they remain on the State Department list of terrorist organizations. Mr. Speaker, both sides claim violations of the ceasefire agreement. According to Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), many violations have been made by the LTTE since the cease-fire agreement. For example, the LTTE is still recruiting child soldiers, the LTTE has attacked the Sri Lankan Navy and a Chinese trawler, and the LTTE actively attempts to import arms, which have subsequently been intercepted by the Sri Lankan Navy. The LTTE rebels also criticized the Sri Lankan military for its continued occupation of Tamil homes, schools, places of worship and other public buildings in violation of the ceasefire agreement. I feel strongly that if the LTTE returns to the peace talks and participates in the Tokyo Donor Conference, a peaceful resolution between both sides can be worked out. The United States and countries around the world are concerned and would like to see the long process of building peace in Sri Lanka continue on a timely basis. Mr. Speaker, the signed ceasefire offers a window of opportunity for peace in Sri Lanka and I encourage the LTTE to recognize and utilize this unique opportunity for working towards peace and stability.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to mark the fact that we now have 100 cosponsors of House Resolution 193, a bill reaffirming support of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This legislation seeks to educate on the horrors of the crimes against humanity of genocide and, by educating, helping to prevent genocide from happening again. It is common knowledge that history repeats itself, and some of the worst crimes against humanity are no exception to this rule. Mr. Speaker, as the cochair and founder of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I have been involved in genocide recognition efforts for the past decade. The caucus is 125 members strong and has been instrumental in the education of my colleagues on the issue of Armenian genocide. We have organized floor speeches every year on April 24, we have circulated a yearly letter asking the President to use the word ``genocide'' in his yearly April 24 address, and, most importantly, we were very close in the year 2000 in passing legislation officially recognizing the Armenian genocide. That resolution in 2000 did not come to the House floor for a vote due to a decision by the leadership. If it were not for that decision, the legislation would have passed overwhelmingly, in my opinion. As I mentioned, the Armenian Caucus sends a yearly letter to the President asking him to use the word ``genocide'' in his yearly April 24 commemoration. President Bush, like President Clinton before him, made a campaign promise to give the Armenian genocide its due recognition, but then they both recanted. Both presidents avoided the use of the word ``genocide'' in their statements. This year, 168 Members of Congress, well over one-third of the total number of Members serving, asked President Bush to use the word ``genocide'' last month. He instead characterized the worst crime ever to befall the Armenian people as a ``great calamity.'' I must say I reject this characterization as simplistic and also demeaning, and I hope my colleagues in the House will do the same. If they do, they have the chance to act by joining the 100 Members who have signed on to H.R. 193 and take a stand to properly recognize the worst crimes against humanity. I use the plural ``crimes,'' because this legislation is not only about the Armenians. In the bill it states, ``the enactment of the Genocide Convention Implementation Act marked a principal stand by the United States against the crime of genocide and an important step towards ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and the genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda, among others, will be used to help prevent future genocides.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have not come together as a world community to eradicate the horrific crime of systematic destruction of an entire people. Every generation in the last 100 years has seen the brutal realities of genocide, but none have fully learned from it. Passing House Resolution 193, in my opinion, will help to educate and hopefully help to stop the crime of genocide in the future. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that we have obtained cosponsors that will bear great credence to this bill. H.R. 193 is currently under consideration in the Committee on the Judiciary, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) on as cosponsors. Also among the 100 cosponsors are the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the former minority leader and presidential candidate, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). All of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis will be instrumental in passing this bill, but it is nice to see some early support from a very diverse group of Members on a bipartisan basis. The title of House Resolution 193 includes the word ``genocide,'' but the heart of the bill is about humanity. It takes humanity to overcome the ignorance that spurs the evil crime of genocide, learning about another culture instead of fearing it. It takes humanity to bridge the gap of hate that exists between a warring people. We have seen this work in the last century. One of the worst crimes ever to be committed, the Holocaust against the Jews, is the best example of how some good can come from a terrible evil. At the end of World War II, Germany was vanquished as a Nation and its citizens were forced to accept the reality of what Hitler had done. The fact is, Germans as a people accepted that something horrific had taken place, and they accepted it. Last year, the Holocaust Museum in Berlin became a reality. Sixty years after the Holocaust, peace was made where war had begun. The lessons of the relationship of the Jewish and German people should be applied to the rest of the victims and perpetrators of the crime of genocide all around the world. This is especially true, Mr. Speaker, in Armenia and Turkey. It has been 88 years since the beginning of the genocide, and after 33 U.S. State legislatures, over a dozen governments around the globe and vast documentation in our national archives, the Turkish government still will not recognize the Armenian genocide. They have instead established a deliberate campaign of revisionist history to try to commit the last act of genocide, the destruction of culture and history. I ask that the Turkish government give up its futile effort and for my colleagues to join me in recognizing the worst crimes against humanity.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to draw attention to the historic and continued oppression of Jews living in Syria. At the start of the 20th century, it is estimated that there were approximately 40,000 Jews living in Syria. However, by early 1947 only 13,000 were left, with 20,000 having fled through the course of the previous decade as Nazi zeal permeated the region. Immediately after Syria gained independence from France in 1945, vitriolic anti-Semitic propaganda was broadcast on television and radio, inciting the Arab masses to violence. In December, 1947, 1 month after the Partition Plan's acceptance, a pogrom erupted in the Syrian town of Aleppo, torching numerous Jewish properties including synagogues, schools, orphanages, and businesses. A flurry of anti-Semitic legislation passed in 1948 restricted, among other things, Jewish travel outside of government-approved ghettos, the selling of private property, acquiring land or changing their place of residence. A decree in 1949 went a step further, seizing all Jewish bank accounts; and under threats of execution long prison sentences and torture, most Jews were able to depart between 1948 and 1962. Due mainly to U.S. influence in the context of the Madrid Peace Process, the majority of the members of the Syrian Jewish community have fled, with only about 1,000 still remaining. Most have chosen to settle here in the United States, including a sizable number in my district in New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the situation for those few who remained has deteriorated dramatically over the last few decades. A report published in 1981 indicated Syrian Jews were subject to the Mukhabarat, the Syrian secret police, who conduct a reign of terror and intimidation, including searches without warrant, detention without trial, torture and summary execution. The few synagogues still open in Syria are considered by authorities as ``centers of sedition,'' with services held under surveillance. Nightly curfews have been established in Jewish communities, and Jews have been required to carry special identity cards. Jews are barred from employment in government offices, public bodies, or banks. Jews have been arbitrarily dismissed from jobs without compensation, and their licenses to conduct foreign trade have been revoked. Jews have been forbidden the ability to obtain driver's licenses or to even have telephones in the homes. The only exceptions have been for doctors and a handful of merchants that have been given preferential treatment. Syrians are officially advised not to buy in Jewish shops, and government and military personnel are expressly forbidden to even enter them. Mr. Speaker, the mail of Syrian Jews is even censored. I have been told by Jews here in the United States who still have family in Syria that the relatives request not to be sent any letter or message because they will face interrogation by the state police. Some would like to think that the number of Jews in Syria is insignificant compared with the millions who are oppressed elsewhere. However, the political implications of the thousands of scapegoats held captive in Syria are beyond comparison to their number. Syria is listed on the State Department's list of countries who harbor and support terrorism. Syria has proved to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East, continuing to develop and stockpile chemical weapons and the missiles to deliver them and remains the occupying power in Lebanon. Syria offered support to Iraq even as U.S. and coalition forces were engaged in combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet Syria is subject to fewer U.S. sanctions than any other country considered a state sponsor of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), for introducing the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. This legislation, which I have cosponsored, holds Syria accountable for its support for terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and possession and continued development of weapons of mass destruction and would give the President the tools to impose penalties on Syria unless it corrects its behavior immediately. Mr. Speaker, Syria's mistreatment of its Jewish citizens is one more reason that Congress cannot remain silent on Syria. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. Congress cannot allow these activities in Syria to continue. We must raise our voices and speak out against Syria's support of international terror and the systematic oppression of its own people.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to discuss the decade-old blockade against Armenia by Turkey. This is one of the most egregious violations of international law by Turkey, and it is one that hardly gets any attention in the international community. I have been encouraged, however, by two recent reports on the Turkish blockade. The first was done by the State Department at the request of me and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the second was written by members of the European Parliament. Last year, members of the Congressional Caucus of Armenian Issues, of which the gentleman from Michigan and I are cochairs, identified a bill that would grant some Turkish goods duty free status. We protested very early about this, Mr. Speaker; and when it came time to include the bill, we obtained assurances from the administration that they would try to offset this provision for Turkey by pressing for Armenia's accession to the World Trade Organization. The letter from Deputy Secretary Armitage in this regard specifically stated, and I quote, ``The administration is pressing Turkey to restore economic, political and cultural links with Armenia, and is encouraging Turkey to open its border with Armenia. We believe that such action would promote the economic development of both Turkey and Armenia.'' We were also promised, Mr. Speaker, a report by the State Department and the U.S. trade representative on the Turkish blockade by March 31 of this year. Mr. Speaker, the report we received was entitled: ``The Economic Impact of Turkish/Armenian Border Closure and Diplomatic Contacts with Both Parties on This Issue.'' I have included a copy of this report for the Record, Mr. Speaker. This report was only three pages long, Mr. Speaker; but it made clear some of the administration's views on the Turkish blockade. It stated: ``The United States has long pressed for the opening of the border and the free flow of trade in the region.'' The report also listed various attempts that the United States has pressed Turkey on this issue and it stated: ``Most recently the issue was raised with Turkish officials during Secretary Powell's April 2 visit to Ankara, Turkey.'' Mr. Speaker, although members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues are encouraged by Secretary Powell's helpful comments during a very tense time in the Middle East, we also encourage a greater commitment by the administration to pressing Turkey to discontinue its incredibly damaging blockade. The second report that I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, was coordinated with a conference sponsored by the European Parliament and the Turkish- Armenian Business Development Council, and it included members of the European Parliament and business community of both Turkey and Armenia. The title of the conference was: ``Still an Iron Curtain: Armenia- Turkey relations, 10 years after the border was closed.'' This conference, Mr. Speaker, highlighted not only the economic numbers that justify the lifting of the blockade but also the real Armenian and Turkish citizens that want the decade-old interruption of their normal life and commerce to end. The TABDC estimates that 30 to 40 percent of Armenia's GNP is lost each year solely to the border closure. Every year the Armenian Caucus pushes for a robust level of U.S. aid for Armenia, but these efforts to help revive the economy and civil society are hamstrung by Turkey's insistence in joining ranks with its belligerent brother, Azerbaijan. The State Department report also included a 2001 World Bank report entitled: ``Trade, Transport and Telecommunications in the South Caucasus: Current Obstacles to Regional Cooperation.'' This report repeats what is already common knowledge, that closed borders retard trade and development. Mr. Speaker, it has been far too long for Armenia to suffer under the yoke of Turkey. This is the only situation in the world where one member of the WTO is blockaded by another. We have known for years about Turkey's illegal blockades; but since Armenia's accession to the WTO, Turkey's actions are egregious even more. There can be no excuse for Turkey to continue the blockade of Armenia and still hold itself up as a democracy, purportedly respecting the rights of all its citizens and neighbors. Mr. Speaker, finally, I call on the Bush administration to continue to press Turkey hard to drop the 10 years of blockade against its sovereign neighbor. It is crucial for the United States to be seen in the international community as a peaceful arbitrator between enemies. The release of this burden on the peoples of Armenia and eastern Turkey would help the region recover from the market disruption after the fall of the Soviet Union. For peace to prosper, for democracy to truly take hold and for the economies of all the countries of the South Caucasus to move forward into the 21st century, relations must be normalized throughout the region. This region was mired in war and genocide before the rise of the Soviet Union. It should be an imperative of the Bush administration not to let this region slip back further economically. United States Department of State, Washington, DC, April 7, 2003. Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Pallone: As promised in Deputy Secretary Armitage's letter dated September 20, 2002, regarding the Turkey/Armenia border issue, enclosed is the State Department Report, Economic Impact of Turkish/Armenian Border Closure and on Diplomatic Contacts with Both Parties on This Issue. Also enclosed for your information is the 2002 World Bank Report entitled Trade, Transport and Telecommunications in the South Caucasus: Current Obstacles to Regional Cooperation. I am pleased to note that the Administration's efforts on Armenia's accession to the WTO were successful and that Armenia became a member in December 2002. We hope this information is useful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance on this or any other matter. Sincerely, Paul V. Kelly, Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs. Enclosures: As stated. Economic Impact of Turkish/Armenian Border Closure and Diplomatic Contacts with Both Parties on This Issue Citing Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan during the hostilities over Nagorno-Karabakh, the Government of Turkey closed its border with Armenia in March 1993. Turkey took this action following the Armenian seizure of Kelbajar, an Azerbaijani province outside Nagorno-Karabakh. Prior to that time, the border was open for one train a week between Kars in Turkey and Gyumri in Armenia. The United States has long pressed for the opening of the border and the free-flow of trade in the region. Azerbaijan, too, severed all economic relations with Armenia and has refused to allow any direct trade. The trains between the two countries had already ceased operating owing to harassment of crews and torn-up tracks on both sides. As a result, trade between land-locked Armenia and neighboring markets has been distorted and Azerbaijan and Turkey have cost the most direct transportation corridor between their countries and the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. Although there has been a cease-fire and an ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh peace process since 1944, the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey say they will only open their borders with Armenia only when there is a settlement to the conflict. The full extent of these trade distortions will ultimately be eliminated only with the opening of both borders. However, assuming only the Turkish/Armenian border were reopened, one would expect: a reduction in transportation costs to and from Armenia, an increase in Turkish-Armenian trade, and an improved overall economic environment in Armenia and eastern Turkey. Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanian has stated that the border closures were among the major hindrances to increasing export volumes and attraction of foreign investments to Armenia. And it is true today that transportation costs and customs duties can increase the prices of Armenian imports and exports by as much as 100 percent and in some cases even more due to the need to ship goods via Georgia or Iran. If the Turkish-Armenian border were to open, some economic observers estimate that overall transportation costs to and from Armenia might fall by 50 percent or more. Assuming that these savings lead to lower prices, one would expect overall trade between Turkey and Armenia, as well as transit traffic between Armenia and Western Europe via Turkey, to increase in real terms as well. Regional trade has been declining as a result of the border closure in recent years and unofficial reports indicate that a reopening of the Turkey-Armenia border would lead to enhanced trade and enable Turkey to provide a larger portion of the nearly $1 billion worth of goods that Armenia imports each year. Also, existing transportation routes preclude trade in certain products, including building stone, produce, flowers, and meats. Opening the border would open the possibility to a profitable trade in such goods. Placing a voltage adjuster near the border would allow the transfer of excess electricity generated in Armenia to the energy-poor regions of eastern Turkey. This increased economic activity and the improved access to local markets would have a positive impact on the economic environment throughout the region, especially in Armenia and eastern Turkey. The full economic potential of the region is unlikely to be achieved until there is a normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. The opening of that border would enable the reopening of the railroads from Armenia to Azerbaijan and the creation of an uninterrupted railroad link between Istanbul and Baku and the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. This would lead to enhanced trade between Turkey and the Caspian and Central Asian regions. The internal conditions in Armenia and throughout the region must be prepared to take full advantage of an open border. As stated in the World Bank's Trade, Transport and Telecommunications in the South Caucasus: Current Obstacles to Regional Cooperation, (attached) ``In the long run a peace settlement will only generate widespread and sustainable benefits, if the institutional and physical milieu is sufficiently supportive. The realization of these potential benefits appears highly unlikely, at present, as the current institutional and physical milieu is anything but supportive and offers few incentives for new development.'' The World Bank report makes a very rough estimate of regional trade normalization, and therefore open borders with both Turkey and Azerbaijan. The report found that open borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan could result in significant increases in Armenia's exports ($269-342 million) and GDP likely would rise up to 30-38 percent on a one-time basis. The percentage impact on Turkey's overall trade figures would be much less, but likely beneficial as well. It also bases its estimate on older trade figures (1999 or earlier). The U.S. Government has budgeted approximately $1.336 billion to fund assistance programs in Armenia, plus $218 million in surplus Department of Defense and privately donated humanitarian commodities since Fiscal Year 1992. In Fiscal Year 2002, all U.S. Government agencies budgeted $103 million for assistance programs in Armenia. The Governments of Armenia and Turkey have stated that they are willing to pursue improved relations. The U.S. Government continues to press the Government of Turkey at every appropriate opportunity to open the border with Armenia. Most recently the issue was raised with Turkish officials during Secretary Powell's April 2 visit to Ankara. The U.S. Government also urges the Government of Armenia to continue to raise these issues with the Turkish government. U.S. officials brought up the subject during Foreign Minister Oskanian's visit to Washington in February. In its role as Co-Chairman of the OSCE's Minsk Group, the U.S. is actively engaged in the search for a peaceful, mutually-acceptable resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including the normalization of regional trade relations, which would stabilize the situation in the region and provide the basis for greater economic growth in Armenia, Azerbaijan and eastern Turkey. On the diplomatic front, in 2002 the Armenian Government increased diplomatic contact with the Government of Turkey. It encouraged working-, mid-, and senior-level diplomatic contacts with Turkey and accepted a Turkish proposal for trilateral ministerial consultations. Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanian held three rounds of discussions with Turkish Foreign Minister Cem, including one that also included Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Guliev. Following the change in government in Turkey last summer, the Armenian Foreign Minister also met once with the Foreign Minister of the interim Turkish Government. The Government of Turkey altered its stance on Armenia's WTO accession last year, helping to pave the way for Armenia's accession in December 2002. Turkish President Sezer sent President Kocharian a letter congratulating him on his March 5 re-election. Drafted: CG Istanbul, Jonathan Henick; EUR/CACEN: Margaret Pawlick; Embassy Yerevan David Gehrenbeck. Approved: The Deputy Secretary.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in a job recession with 2.7 million jobs lost since President Bush took office, the worst jobs record in 40 years. For almost 3 years, the Republicans had the power to turn this recession around, and they have failed miserably. For the past 2 years, the President and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly chosen tax breaks for the elite, and the American people are still waiting for one job to be created. Today Republicans are at it again with a bill on the floor that amounts to nothing more than a huge payback to the wealthiest Americans in our Nation, a payback that is disguised in the form of breaks on capital gains and stock dividends, two proposals economists conclude will not create jobs or growth in the near future. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our economy needs a true jolt to reverse America's economic skepticism, the Republican proposal will not stimulate the economy. The Republican record on economic stimulus is uninspiring, and one that should not be extended today. We have had enough of it. Let us not continue down this road and this continued economic downturn.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Co-Chairs of the India Caucus, my colleagues Joe Crowley and Joe Wilson, for holding a memorial today in the House of Representatives for Dr. Kalpana Chawla. It is with great sadness that we remember the tragic events of February 1, 2003. The loss of seven astronauts on board the shuttle Columbia leaves us with profound sadness that cannot be expressed. Dr. Kalpana Chawla in particular represented much of the best that our world has to offer and I would like to pay special tribute to her. Kalpana grew up in India and although she came from a small, rural area--her charm, drive and dedication allowed her to surpass all boundaries and develop into the fine astronaut that she was. In reading interviews that Kalpana gave both before and during her mission on Columbia, a portrait emerged of an intelligent, determined woman, who managed a successful career, while at the same time being a devoted daughter and wife. She helped open the door further for women in science and space exploration careers, and I know the people of India, as all of us here today, will always hold a special place in our heart for Kalpana. Those who were fortunate to know her personally will never forget her, and her legacy will live on.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as so many of my Democratic colleagues this afternoon brought forth, it is amazing to all of us on this side of the aisle that the Republicans would bring up this tax cut legislation which basically just gives money back to wealthy individuals and does nothing to help the economy, and at the same time we face this huge job recession throughout the country. The most egregious part of it was today when the Democrats tried to bring up their alternative as a substitute, the Republican majority under the Committee on Rules refused to allow the Democratic substitute to even be brought to the floor, refused to even have a debate on a Democratic alternative which we believe very strongly would provide economic stimulus, create jobs, grow the economy, and bring us out of a recession, one of the worst we have had now long-term for the last couple of years. All the Democrats were asking for was an opportunity to debate. I think the fear on the part of the Republican leadership was that if the Democratic substitute was allowed to be considered today, perhaps some of the Republicans might have voted for it, or at least the public and the media's attention would have been focused on an alternative and have shown that the Republican proposal was not a good one and just basically was a tax giveaway to millionaires. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in a job recession with 2.7 million jobs lost since President Bush took office, the worst jobs record in 40 years. For 3 years the Republicans have had the power to turn this recession around, and they failed miserably. When I listen to the Republican leadership and the President, it seems like they are just coming into office, and they forget they have been in office almost 3 years; and during that whole time the economy gets worse every day. For the past 2 years alone, the President and the Republicans in Congress have repeatedly chosen tax breaks for the elite, and the American people are still waiting for one job to be created. Keep in mind, this is a failed economic policy. This Bush policy, the President's policy, he has had an opportunity. He passed tax cuts last year, and since those tax cuts were passed, we have had a loss of another 1.7 million jobs. This is not something new. This is a policy that was tried over a year ago; and after it passed in the time it has had to take effect for the last year, the economic situation has gotten worse. What do the Republicans say in response? They say let us try it again. They have a bill on the floor that amounts to another payback to the wealthiest Americans in our Nation. Tax cuts last year for the wealthy, and tax cuts again for the wealthy. They disguise it somehow. They say it is a little different this time because it is going to give breaks on capital gains and stock dividends; but these are two proposals that economists conclude will not create jobs or growth in the near future. When our economy needs a true jolt to reverse America's economic skepticism, the Republican proposal will not stimulate the economy, and the Republican record on economics is uninspiring and one that should not be extended today. I am not the only one saying this, and Democrats are not the only ones saying this. If we look at some of the columns in the media and the economists around the country, they all are saying the same thing. But one of the best statements was made in today's New York Times by Paul Krugman called ``Into the Sunset.'' I just wanted to read certain parts of it because I think it points out very dramatically that this is a failed economic policy, that this tax cut, this plan that the Republicans had us vote on today, is just an extension of their failed Bush economic policy. If I can read sections from Paul Krugman's opinion, it says that the tax cut package the House is expected to pass today is a package that relies on exactly the same bait-and-switch tactics used to sell the 2001 year tax. Here is the story: In 2001, some swing Senators insisted on a budget resolution limiting the size of any tax cut. No problem. House-Senate negotiators pushed through a huge tax cut anyway, saving several hundred billion dollars by making the whole thing expire in the 10th year. Among other things, this sunset clause implied that heirs to large estates would pay no tax if their parents died in 2010, but would face significant taxes if their parents made it into 2011. At the time, I suggested that it be renamed the Throw Mama From the Train Act of 2001. So we remember the kind of tricks that were played last year. We were told this was going to sunset, and everyone was running around saying does that mean I have to decide what year I am going to die? Mr. Krugman says: Needless to say, last year's bill was silly by design. The administration didn't intend to compromise. It fully expected to get the sunset clause repealed in a future Congress and President Bush was soon out there ridiculing the way the tax cut was programmed to expire, implying that the expiration date was imposed by scheming liberals when in fact it was a trick perpetrated by his own congressional allies. Now Congress is voting on more tax cuts. This time we're already running a record budget deficit and the long run prospect is bleak. Still the administration claims to be making a concession by agreeing to scale back its $726 billion tax cut to a mere $500 billion. What Mr. Krugman is basically getting at and I think this is an aspect of this tax plan that we need to bring out, is that the President comes forward and says, I want a huge tax cut that is going to go mainly to millionaires and wealthy people and then some Republicans either in the House or in the other body come forward and say, oh, that is too big, we have to make it half of that or a third of that, and then one House or the other passes a bill that is maybe half the President's proposal and they play around back and forth and ultimately come up with something that is somewhat less than what the President proposed, but the bottom line is it is a huge tax break still, it breaks the budget, it creates a deficit and it primarily goes to wealthy individuals. So they play this game over and over again. Paul Krugman goes on to say: The new tax cut plan echoes the 2001 scam in other ways. In 2001 a tax cut that delivered about 40 percent of its benefits to the richest 1 percent of families was marketed as a tax break for ordinary folks. The same is true this time. In fact the extent to which the House bill favors the rich is breathtaking. The typical family would get a tax break of only $217 next year but families with incomes above $1 million would get an average of $93,500 each. The estimates are that over the next decade, 27 percent of the tax cut, about the share that goes to the bottom 90 percent of the population, will go to these very high income families who comprise a mere 0.13 percent of the population. So we are talking about very, very few people that benefit from this. But the bottom line is, it would not matter even if I was a millionaire. I would not want this tax cut to go into effect because it does not do anything to stimulate the economy. Even if you had $1 billion, why in the world would you want a tax cut that does not do anything to turn the economy around, because in the long run you are not going to make as much money because the economy continues to spin downward. So he says in this op-ed, Paul Krugman: Finally, as in 2001, we're being told that this tax cut will create lots of jobs. But why should we believe that? It's hard to find an independent economist who thinks the Bush proposal would create the 1.4 million jobs claimed by the administration. And as I have explained in this column, even that many jobs would be a poor payoff for a tax cut that big. And bear in mind that Bush-style tax cuts now have a track record. Of the 2.1 million jobs lost over the last 2 years, 1.7 million vanished after the passage of the 2001 tax cut. So the problem that we have is you can look at this in any way. If you are rich, even though you might be getting a nice, big break, the bottom line is your investments are not going to grow and you are not going to make much money because as the economy continues to trend downward, your investments are not going to be worth anything or certainly not worth as much. From the point of view of the budget, it is a disaster because it creates a larger deficit. And as we borrow more money and more money is taken out, that is not available to the private sector, it is very hard for new investments to be made by small businesses or other corporations in the private sector because they cannot borrow the money, it is all being taken by the Federal Government. And so that has a downward impact on the economy. And then the other thing that it does is in borrowing, you are taking money from the Social Security and the Medicare trust fund. So you are jeopardizing those funds as well. There is not anybody who can make a legitimate argument that this Bush plan makes sense. What Krugman is saying and I think is so true is, we already tried it last year and the economy continues to get worse. So why should we repeat it again? Finally in this op-ed Paul Krugman says: The odds are that this scam, like the scam of 2001, will succeed, the tax cut will be passed and the budget will plunge even deeper into the red and one day we'll realize that international investors are treating us like a banana republic, that they won't finance our trade deficit unless they are paid very high rates of interest. Have I mentioned that the dollar has just fallen to a 4-year low against the euro? And everyone will wonder why. That is the bottom line. I think that the Republicans basically figure, well, nobody is paying attention, we will have this huge tax cut and when we have to pay it back, that will be somebody else's problem down the road. The amazing thing is that it would be so easy to try something different, to try an alternative, one that the Democrats have put forward, that would actually do something to make a difference in the economy. Of course, I am saying this because as a Democrat I like the Democratic plan but I would argue, if the other plan of constant tax cuts does not work and has not worked, why not try something new? We can call it the Republican plan if you like. I do not care. I just want to pass it so that we can do something to turn this economy around. Let me talk a little bit about this Democratic proposal that we tried to get considered on the floor of the House of Representatives today but, of course, the Republicans would not allow us to consider it. They would not allow it to be even debated. We have several provisions in this Democratic proposal that I think would do a lot to create jobs and stimulate economic growth, both in the short term as well as in the long term. First, tax cuts for working families, not for wealthy people but for the average guy. The Democratic plan provides an immediate increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child. For low-wage working families, this credit is refundable and will reach more than 2.6 million children not covered by the current law. Furthermore, the Democratic package makes immediate both the expansion of the 10 percent tax rate brackets, now slated to occur in 2008, and key provisions to eliminate the marriage penalty. Within months, these provisions will put money in the pockets of average Americans, boosting consumer demand and the jobs and business investments needed to meet it. Secondly, investment tax incentives for business. The Republicans act as if they give a big tax break again to the wealthiest Americans, that somehow they are going to reinvest that in the economy. But there is nothing that says they have to and experience shows that they often do not. What the Democrats do is they target any kind of tax credit. We have an investment tax incentive for business. The Democratic plan provides tax incentives to businesses to generate investment and jobs now. The plan allows small businesses to expense up to $75,000 of the cost of new investments through 2004, triple the current limit. For all businesses, the plan restructures last year's bonus depreciation provisions so that firms can write off a 50 percent bonus for the next 12 months and only a 30 percent bonus for the balance of 2004. Domestic manufacturers get a tax break in the Rangel remedy to a World Trade Organization case against the United States. And all business tax components encourage investment now when the economy needs a boost. So we are saying that we are going to give the businesses these incentives but they have got to invest it back into the economy now, create jobs now. That is how we turn the economy around. That is a big part of it. A third point. The Democratic plan targets assistance to those looking for jobs. A large part of the debate today on the floor was the fact that the Republicans would not consider an extension of unemployment compensation beyond the end of this month. Part of that, of course, is because we are concerned about people and how they are going to make ends meet, but the other part of it is we know that if you extend unemployment that money immediately goes into the economy. People buy things. Because they do not have a lot of money, they have to spend, for food, for necessities, whatever. So the Democratic plan extends unemployment benefits for 26 weeks that expires at the end of the month and that increases the level of benefits and also provides temporary aid to States to broaden coverage to low-wage earners and part-time workers. This assistance for those looking for work is the most effective stimulus for the economy and consumer demand by putting money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it. Lastly, I wanted to mention money going back to the States. A big part of the economic downturn now is the fact that the States have contracted their spending because many of them have deficits. So they are spending less money, less money is going into the economy and as a result people lose jobs and there is less consumer spending and all the other things that come about because there is less money circulating. The Republicans, we have asked them to do something to give money back to the States. They refuse to do it. It is not part of their plan. So in our Democratic plan, we give money back to the States and municipalities to create jobs through expenditures on infrastructure, homeland security, education and health care. The Democratic plan provides States with funds to avoid the State cuts that have been occurring in New Jersey and other States and to address critical needs in areas including Medicaid, homeland security, transportation and an additional fund for one-time assistance to help those hurt most by unemployment and a stagnant economy. Basically what we do is increase the amount of money that the Federal Government gives to the States for these various purposes. The States have to pay less, the Federal Government pays more, and so the States do not face the fiscal crisis that they now face. That is another way of providing more money into the economy, creating jobs, creating new highways, new infrastructure, water projects, sewer treatment plans, that type of thing. I just wanted to make a few points in comparison between the Democratic and the Republican plan. Again I know some may say, Why are you talking about this Democratic plan? You didn't even have an opportunity to bring it up today. But I think it is important to talk about it even though the Republicans would not allow us to bring it up because I think if you make the comparison that I am about to make, you will see that ours is better and that is why they did not want to let it come up because they did not want to let it see the light of day. First of all, only the Democratic plan maximizes job creation now. It uses a proven approach to create jobs and grow the economy by putting money in the pockets of families most likely to spend it and providing tax relief to businesses most likely to invest it. It will add 1.1 million jobs to our economy this year, 2003. By contrast, the House Republican plan focuses on untested and indirect provisions, such as the dividend tax breaks and capital gains tax cuts. You understand what we are saying. If you look at the Democratic plan, the money is going directly in the pockets of people, directly into the States for expenditures on infrastructure. The Republicans assume that somehow tax breaks for stock dividends or capital gains are going to be reinvested because that is what people are going to do and there is no guarantee they will. Secondly, only the Democratic plan protects long-term economic growth with fiscal discipline. Our plan, the Democratic plan, is fully paid for. We do not make budget deficits worse over the long term. So you do not have the negative consequences of creating a larger debt that I described and many of my colleagues described before under the Democratic proposal. This fiscal discipline helps to keep interest rates low and builds the foundation for a strong economy now and in the future. By contrast, Republicans are proposing a plan that will make the deficit much worse. I say much worse, a lot worse. Already, the $5.6 trillion surplus President Bush inherited has been replaced by a $2 trillion deficit in the 2 years or so that he has been in office. Now Republicans are proposing tax cuts costing more than half a trillion dollars, part of an overall tax agenda that would add an additional $1.2 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. Large, long-term deficits harm the economy by driving up interest rates and undermining business investment and job growth. If you look at what the economists predict with this tax cut, we are going to be back into the deficit situations that we were in 15, 20 years ago. And we are going to create a long-term recession. Anyone will tell you that that is the case. Yet the Republicans persist. Another point. Only the Democratic plan is fair. It puts money directly into the hands of average Americans, the very people most likely to spend the money. It provides a balanced package of tax relief for businesses to encourage additional hiring and investment. But the Republican proposal, because it centers on the stock dividends and capital gains, provides very small tax cuts to the average American while providing huge tax cuts to the very few. So not only does it not work but it is unfair. Another point. Only the Democratic plan prevents tax increases and service reductions by States. Again I mentioned this before. Because of the fiscal crisis that the States are facing and they are forcing themselves to have tax increases or cuts in critical programs, the States ultimately undermine jobs and economic recovery. But the Democratic plan provides States temporary assistance to avoid these tax increases and service cuts at the State level and prevents the job losses that would otherwise occur. None of the Republican proposals provide any funds to address the States' budget woes or give money back to the States. Finally, and I think this is very important, too, only the Democratic plan uses honest accounting. The Democratic plan contains no gimmicks or unstated costs. Over 10 years, the cost of the package is fully paid for, so the plan does not increase budget deficits. By contrast, the House Republican plan includes the artificial expiration of many of the plan's components. As I mentioned in that op-ed by Paul Krugman, at the end of 2005, and because it is unlikely that Congress in fact would allow these provisions to expire, the true cost of the Republican plan is probably even larger because they will make a lot of these tax cuts permanent and that will only burden the economy with even greater deficits. Again I would like to end my discussion, Mr. Speaker, of the Republican tax and economic plan with some references to some editorials in the New York Times, because I always worry that someone will listen to me and say, well, he's saying that because he's a Democrat. I like to have third-party validators if I could. There were two editorials that appeared in the New York Times in the last couple of weeks that I thought were pretty wise in terms of their analysis of what the Republicans are proposing as opposed to the Democrats. One talks about the misguided nature of the cuts that the Republicans have proposed and the other talks about how because all these cuts are taking place, we are going to see major problems that face the public because there will not be money for education, there will not be money for homeland defense, there will be continued problems for the States, and also the fact that there is nothing in the Republican plan to extend unemployment benefits. Let me start with that. On April 26, the New York Times did an editorial called The Forgotten Half of Budgeting. It says: As Congress returns to business this week with leaders bent on pushing President Bush's tax cut, there is little talk about the vital programs that face future cutbacks in the budget. At least $168 billion across the decade is scheduled to be wrenched out of domestic spending as more than $2 trillion in deficits and borrowing is rung up under Mr. Bush's growth program. It may be pitifully wishful thinking at this point but instead of enacting another swath of tax cuts, Congress should keep the revenue and direct it at some of the following priorities. And they talk about them. First, fiscal relief for the States, which are slashing health care benefits for the needy as they wrestle with booming deficits that cannot be rolled over into some other administration's debt-besotted future. Many Senators favor emergency aid on the order of $35 billion, much of it for Medicaid because States are taking children and adults off the Medicaid rolls because they cannot afford to provide health care for low-income people. ``Extended benefits for unemployed Americans whose emergency benefits program expires May 31. The Nation continues to hemorrhage jobs, and everyone who is trying to find employment is not succeeding in this economy. The cost of continuing the emergency benefits is about $1 billion a month, a fraction of the cost of the lowest denominator tax cut.'' So why not extend benefits to these people who cannot find work? They are trying to find work. They cannot. Next: ``More money for education, which faces a $20 billion cut over 10 years in the budget.'' Do the Members remember when President Bush talked about no child being left behind and we passed his education bill last year that no child was going to be left behind? It is facing major cuts over the next 10 years because of the President's tax cut plan, and many children will be left behind. The New York Times says that ``if Congress skipped the tax cut, education funds could easily be made whole, and the administration could match the rhetoric of the President's no-child-left-behind promises with adequate financing. Lawmakers could also cover the cost of educating children with special learning needs, a Federal mandate that is short by billions of dollars annually.'' And finally, funds for homeland security. We have talked about the war against terrorism. We have talked about how we have to fight it both abroad and at home. But these tax cuts make it very difficult, if not impossible, to fund the homeland security needs that so many States and localities are depending on. ``The gap is quickly growing,'' The New York Times says, ``between Federal directives to localities and financing. The Senate sought, then dropped, extra financing for vulnerable ports and budget negotiations. And for all the homage to first responders, cuts loom for local law enforcement.'' So, again, we cannot even meet the homeland security needs. And finally more recently, last Friday, in fact, The New York Times issued an editorial called, ``Misguided Cuts in Washington.'' I think this really kind of sums it up, and I would like to end this portion of my Special Order by referencing this editorial in The New York Times. It starts out by saying: ``The political dichotomy is breathtaking: as State and local politicians struggle with deepening deficits and rising taxes, President Bush plays the fiscal Nero, the virtuoso fiddler for ever more tax cuts. If the Washington wing of the GOP is deaf to the cries of pain from the Nation's statehouses, surely it must hear the measured warning from Alan Greenspan, the Nation's economic guru, that new tax cuts are definitely not needed now. They will probably harm the economy, not help it, he cautions, compounding the Republicans' feckless deficit spending while pushing up the national debt along with interest rates. ``But, no, the detaxation mania continues apace as House and Senate leaders press towards a Memorial Day deadline that will be a rendezvous with foolhardiness. By then, they hope to enact a Bush tax cut and spending plan adding $2.7 trillion in deficits to a coming decade of red ink, this only 2 years after the first Bush tax cuts helped wipe out an anticipated $5 trillion surplus.'' We had a $5 trillion dollars surplus anticipated when the President took office. ``No so coincidentally, Congress will have to raise the $6.4 trillion debt ceiling immediately to help pay for borrowing that is likely to last even longer than the easy careers of our detaxation politicians. ``The most feverish concern discernible right now among Republican leaders is not the fate of the emergency unemployment benefits that are due to expire this month, affecting 3.9 million Americans. It is the preservation of as much as possible in the President's disastrous dividend tax cut plan. A pitifully small group of Republican resisters is holding out, demanding $200 billion less.'' We know that is not going anywhere. ``Cutting the dividend tax rate may make some of Mr. Bush's key supporters happy, but there are two things it really will not do: juice up the economy or significantly reduce most taxpayers' total bills as the burden shifts downward. The pending Bush tax cuts will cost the States at least $64 billion more over 10 years . . . ``The Federal Government's failure to help localities pay for critical services during a slumping economy has sent State and municipal taxes soaring. And although the President is selling his cuts as a fast job-creating stimulus, it is hard to find any serious economist who agree, particularly when it comes to the dividends tax . . . ``A private forecasting specialist estimates that the dividend cut will mean very little in comparison with the instant bang for the buck that would come from an extension of jobless benefits and an infusion of emergency aid to the States.'' Mr. Speaker, someone could say he is just saying that because he is a Democrat. The bottom line is we have tried the Bush economic policy. We have tried it now for almost 3 years, and this is simply a repeat of the same thing. It is not working. Normally when something does not work, we say okay, let us scrap it and try something that does; and for the life of me I do not understand what motivates my colleagues on the Republican side, and the President in suggesting that we do more of the same unless I guess we just figure they are catering to the special interests and wealthy individuals because those are their friends and those are who finance their campaigns. But even if I were a millionaire, I would not favor this tax cut plan because I do not think it helps anybody; and ultimately if the economy does not grow, it does not matter whether one is rich or poor, they are going to still not benefit. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my presentation tonight that relates to the economy, and I wanted to mention two foreign policy issues that very much need immediate attention and have been in the news the last few weeks. I would like to start out, if I could, for about 5 minutes talking about the stalled peace process in Northern Ireland. I want to express my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, that the peace process in Northern Ireland has once again been derailed. With Prime Minister Tony Blair's announcement of the indefinite postponement of the elections in Northern Ireland, I worry that Great Britain is bowing to the demands of Unionist radicals in Northern Ireland who obviously oppose the Good Friday Accords. Mr. Speaker, as the Members may know, last October Prime Minister Blair suspended the Belfast Assembly in Northern Ireland. Since then, Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Ahern of the Republic of Ireland have held meeting after meeting to bring the Good Friday Accords back on track and reinstitute the Northern Ireland Assembly in Belfast. With the clock ticking towards the scheduled elections on May 29, Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern held numerous and made subsequent statements that led many media outlets around the world to report that the Northern Ireland Assembly was close to being reinstated, but at the 11th hour, Prime Minister Blair asked the Irish Republican Army to declare their commitment to the Good Friday Accords and disarmament. While the IRA was not an original signatory of the Good Friday Accords, they still welcomed the Prime Minister's questions. The IRA, both through a recently released statement and through statements made by Sinn Fein's President Gerry Adams, made several clear and unambiguous statements pledging their peaceful intentions. The IRA stated quite clearly: ``We are resolved to see the complete and final closure of this conflict. The IRA leadership is determined to ensure that our activities, disciplines and strategies will be consistent with this. Furthermore, the full and irreversible implementation of the agreement and other commitments will provide a context in which the IRA can proceed to definitively set arms aside to further our political objectives. We are committed to playing our part in creating the conditions in which unionists, nationalists and republicans can live together peacefully.'' It is obvious to me that the IRA has clearly stated their peaceful intentions to bring a complete and final closure to the conflict in Northern Ireland and they have committed to disarmament to bring a final end to the insurrections. But in the final days before Prime Minister Blair's announcement of the postponement of the elections, he continued to press the IRA to clarify their intentions. While much of the international community, Mr. Speaker, and the press viewed the IRA's statements as a giant step towards peace, Prime Minister Blair oddly continued to claim that they were not going far enough. Then suddenly the Prime Minister cancelled the elections in spite of opposition from the Irish Government and every political party in Northern Ireland, except the Ulster Unionists. For the last 5 years, Blair has been urging the IRA to make a statement pledging their support for peace. Now when the agreement is about to fall apart, the IRA stepped up to the plate and the Prime Minister let a home run pitch pass him by. It seems that rather than working for what is truly important, peace, he is carrying the water of the Ulster Unionists. So the question is, Does Prime Minister Blair really want to see a peaceful resolution to the situation in Northern Ireland, or has it all just been a big political ploy to get the Irish Republicans to pledge peace and then force them back under the control of the British Crown? And I certainly hope the latter is not the case. I call on Prime Minister Blair to first announce a June date for the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Then he must bring the parties back to the table to reinstate the peace process and most importantly the Assembly. Now at this critical time, Mr. Blair must show true leadership and prove that he is not simply a pawn to Protestant Unionist Radicals in Northern Ireland. Mr. Speaker, this is a truly remarkable and historic time in Northern Ireland's history. I can honestly say a lasting and just peace I think is within reach, but now it is up to the Prime Minister to do what is right and allow the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to decide for themselves who should govern their provinces. Mr. Speaker, if I could just turn to another foreign policy issue and then I will conclude this afternoon. I have been very concerned over the last month or so about the fact that even though the time seems to be right for a settlement between the Greek and Turkish sides in Cyprus that it has not occurred, and we still have not had negotiations start up again since they fell apart a couple of months ago. And I basically came to the floor this evening to highlight actions taken last week by President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos that will help continue the process of reunifying the people of the island of Cyprus despite the fact that a political settlement has still not been reached over Turkey's 29-year illegal occupation of 37 percent of the island. On April 30, President Papadopoulos announced several measures aimed at enabling citizens living in the Turkish-occupied territory the ability to enjoy all the benefits other citizens of Cyprus enjoy. The President and the Council of Ministers finalized measures covering the fields of transportation, including the movement of goods and vehicles, employment of Turkish Cypriots, measures to help relatives of missing Turkish Cypriots and critical measures working for the improvement of medical care, education, and telecommunications. While the President said that his government will do everything in its power to effectively implement these measures, he also strongly stated that these measures should not be interpreted as a substitute for the efforts to reach a political settlement in Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, these measures show the length the Cypriot Government is willing to go to ensure that Turkish Cypriots no longer have to endure the poor economic conditions they have been living under since the occupation in 1974. The measures come less than 2 months after peace negotiations came to an end thanks to the intransigence of Turkish- Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash. Despite the giant setback, President Papadopoulos stressed the Greek Cypriot side will not only continue efforts to reach a solution but also once again pledge to continue the efforts for a Cyprus settlement that would properly serve the interests of both Cyprus communities, and the President's action last week clearly shows he plans to back these words up with action. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks, we have witnessed another milestone, the free movement of Cypriots from both sides of the wall, something that has not occurred since the occupation. The action came after the Turkish Cypriot regime eased restrictions on movements of residents to and from the occupied areas. At the same time, the Turkish Cypriot regime said it would allow Greek Cypriots to cross into the occupied areas but put restrictions on this travel, including the showing of passports. The United Nations estimates that since the easing of restrictions, more than 170,000 Greek Cypriots have crossed into the occupied area, while 75,000 Turkish Cypriots have made the reverse trip. This peaceful and orderly movement of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots during the last couple of weeks clearly demonstrates their shared desire and ability to live together on a reunited Cyprus. The actions have also disproved Denktash's claim that the presence of the occupation army and the maintenance of a dividing wall area are necessary for the security of the two communities. It shows his statements to be both false and, I think, totally unfounded. Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the only solution to the Cyprus question must be sought through negotiations conducted on the basis of the Kofi Annan United Nations plan, and I also continue to believe that the Bush administration did not put enough pressure on the Turkish Government to force Denktash to negotiate in good faith. Turkey must finally realize that by supporting Denktash's intransigence, it is causing harm to its own long-term interests as a potential full member of the European Union. After the setback of the U.N. efforts, the Bush administration must redouble its effort to persuade Turkey and the Turkey-Cypriot leader to work constructively within the U.N. process to achieve a negotiated settlement to end the division of Cyprus; and I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that the Bush administration will change its policy and finally exert pressure on the Turkish Government. I think it is time for all the citizens of Cyprus to be reunified so they can all reap the economic awards available with the nation's recent accession to the European Union; and I only hope that both these cases, in both the cases of Cyprus and Northern Ireland, that we can see a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last month, our nation lost an important healthcare advocate and physician, Robert C. Atkins M.D., who lived in New York City and touched the lives of millions of people with his innovative approaches to diet and lifestyle. I know this because many patients he worked with were from New Jersey and his books on diet and nutrition were purchased by millions of people worldwide. I would like to note that I also knew of Dr. Atkins because of his steadfast support and belief in the use of dietary supplements as a key component to achieving and maintaining good health. He was one of the earliest supporters of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, legislation that I supported as an original cosponsor, which was enacted into law almost ten years ago. The Atkins Nutritional Approach has caused us to continually re- evaluate and consider how we can improve health and nutritional recommendations as a country. In addition, we cannot ignore its contribution as one of several methods for addressing the growing obesity, heart disease, and diabetes epidemic facing us. I know more research and work will continue on Dr. Atkins' findings and experience with diet and nutrition. As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, I will continue to closely follow this work. Dr. Atkins leaves behind a legacy that will endure. A memorial service is being held in New York City on May 9th and those of us in the House of Representatives who knew him and of his work join with all of those who mourn the loss of a great American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as Israel and Palestine take steps towards peace and as President Bush and the State Department released the road map for peace in the Middle East, I would like to draw attention to an important issue in the peace process. The issue of refugees is widely regarded as one of the most contentious aspects of the Arab-Israeli dispute. However, up until now the debate has focused primarily on the plight of Palestinian refugees and the question of the right of return. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that future peace negotiations and discussions, specifically on the rights of refugees, address both sides of the issue, both Arab and Jewish. Many people do not realize that during the years following the establishment of the State of Israel, more Jews than Arabs became refugees. It is estimated that over 900,000 Jews were stripped of their property and expelled from Arab nations. Approximately 600,000 refugees were absorbed and assimilated by Israel, and the remaining 300,000 fled to other nations, including the United States and Canada. At a time, Mr. Speaker, when Jews face severe persecution, economic deprivation, discrimination, and expulsion from Arab lands, Jews turn to Israel as a place to begin their lives anew. Israel opened her arms and welcomed the refugees, granting Arab Jews citizenship and welcoming them into Israeli society. Jews in Arab nations were forced to forfeit the lives they had worked so hard to achieve, to abandon their homes and livelihoods. They had to turn their backs on centuries of Jewish history, culture, and community. They had to leave behind schools, synagogues, hospitals, and businesses, all without compensation and all confiscated by the various Arab governments. However, the fact that Israel chose to absorb and assimilate the refugees from Arab nations does not lessen the fact that they were all expelled or otherwise compelled to leave their homelands. I have personally spoken with several of my colleagues in Congress about this often-forgotten aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They agree on the importance of holding a congressional hearing on this subject and the need to educate Members of Congress and to ensure that they and the public are informed of the issues at stake and the sacrifices made by Jews from Arab lands when they were forced to leave their homes and countries. Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot continue to be silent on the plight of Jewish refugees. It is critical that Congress address this issue while the refugees are still alive. By doing so, we can ensure that justice for Jewish refugees assumes its rightful place in the debate. And this must be done while we can still address their rights as victims.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I did not think it was possible, but chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) came up with a worse tax plan than the one that President Bush proposed earlier this year. Neither the President's plan nor the House Republican plan, scheduled to be marked by the Committee on Ways and Means today, will jump-start the economy. Mr. Speaker, since the President took office, more than 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost, the worst record in 40 years. Any tax cut passed by Congress should be fair, fast-acting and fiscally responsible. The Republican plan fails this test. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax plan is simply unfair. The wealthiest Americans will fare better under the Republican tax plan than the President's plan, while middle class Americans, Americans with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, will actually receive less under the Republican plan than they would have under the President's plan. According to a report released this week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, households with incomes of more than $1 million per year would receive an average tax cut this year of $105,600 under the House Republican plan, and that is $15,000 more than they would have received under the President's proposal. Contrast those benefits with the middle fifth of households that will receive an average tax cut of $218 under the Thomas plan, slightly less than under the Bush plan. And let me reiterate, a millionaire under the Republican plan would see a tax benefit of more than $105,000, and an American making between $40,000 and $50,000 would receive a cut of only $456. At a time when we should be doing everything possible to jump-start the economy, the Republican solution centers around tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, two cuts that are targeted towards the wealthiest Americans, and according to economists will not create any new jobs. Do not just take my word for it, consider that more than 400 economists earlier this year said, ``The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to the problem.'' The economists concluded that the permanent dividend tax cut in particular is not credible as a short-term stimulus. Mr. Speaker, like the Bush economic blueprint, the House GOP plan is fiscally irresponsible, saddling our children with debt and hurting long-term economic growth. What a reversal of fortune we have witnessed over the last 2 years. When the Bush administration came into office, there was a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. With this tax package, coupled with the huge tax cut in 2001, Republicans will produce a record $1.4 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. That is a $7 trillion reversal in our country's fortunes. Today, based on the tax proposal this House will debate later this week, it is clear the House Republicans have changed their tune. No longer are skyrocketing deficits a concern, this despite the fact that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan last week agreed that huge deficits will threaten economic growth. He stated, ``If through tax cuts you get significant increases in deficits which induce a rise in long-term interest rates, you will significantly undercut the benefits that would be achieved from any tax cut.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax plan is full of gimmicks designed to hide the true cost to taxpayers. In fact, the only proposals within the Republican plan which are beneficial to America's middle class; that is, the Marriage Penalty Relief and the Child Tax Credit, would expire after 2005. Instead, Republicans would come back and probably extend the benefits which would raise the total cost of the package to at least $760 billion through 2013. The Washington Post editorial page called these gimmicks ``tax cut trickery'' just this morning in their editorial. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our economy needs a true jolt to reverse American's fears of losing their jobs, the Republicans once again plan to give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. This plan offers very little to families and middle class Americans, and instead saddles them with a huge deficit, a deficit that risks the future of Social Security and Medicare and means likely future interest rate increases. Democrats have proposed a true economic stimulus plan that is fair, fast acting and fiscally responsible. Our plan would create 1 million new jobs this year, provide an extension of unemployment benefits to millions of Americans still looking for jobs, provide tax relief to small businesses to invest in new equipment this year and provide assistance to cash-strapped States and municipalities. I do not think there is any question about the choice; but unfortunately, the Republicans have the majority and will likely be able to push their tax cut plan through the House later this week. I think it is very unfortunate because it will do nothing to reverse the economic downturn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I did not think it was possible but the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) came up with a worse tax plan than the one President Bush proposed earlier this year. And, of course, we all know that that tax proposal was marked up. It was considered this afternoon in the Committee on Ways and Means. And I want to say that neither the President's plan nor the House Republican plan that was marked up by the Committee on Ways and Means today will jump-start the economy, which is our major concern. We have now been through several months, even several years of an economic downturn and something has to be done to jump-start the economy, but nothing that the Republicans in the House nor the President have proposed will accomplish that. Madam Speaker, since the President took office, more than 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost, the worst record in 40 years. Any tax cuts passed by Congress should be fair, fast acting and fiscally responsible; but the Republicans plan fails all three of those tests. The Republican plan does not create jobs. It irresponsibly piles up debt, risks Social Security to make room for tax cuts for the wealthy, and continues the failed economic policies responsible for the current economic downturn. Madam Speaker, the Republican tax plan, in my opinion, is simply unfair. The wealthiest Americans will fare better under the Republican tax plan in the President's plan, while middle-class Americans, Americans with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, will actually receive less under the Republican plan than they would have under the President's plan, which also was not good. According to a report released this week on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, households with incomes of more than $1 million per year would receive an average tax cut this year of $105,600 under the House Republican plan, and that is $15,000 more than they would have received under the President's proposal. Contrast those benefits with the middle fifth of households that would receive an average tax cut of $218 under the Thomas plan, slightly less than under the Bush plan. Let me reiterate, a millionaire under the Republican plan would see a tax benefit of more than $105,000; but an average American making between $40,000 and $50,000 would receive a cut of only $456. I just do not understand what my Republican colleagues and what the House Republican leadership have in mind with this rush once again to pass another tax cut that will primarily benefit wealthy Americans and corporate interests and really do nothing to turn the economy around. We frankly cannot take another 6 months or another year of this economic downturn; and to suggest that somehow we are going to do something like this that helps a few people who happen to be wealthy, as opposed to helping the general populace or doing something to create jobs, makes absolutely no sense to me. We understand that coming out of the Committee on Ways and Means today this is likely to be on the floor sometime the end of this week. We probably would vote for it on this Friday, and I would hope that there would be an opportunity to bring up Democratic alternatives and to bring up amendments under an open rule so we have an opportunity to make some changes in what the Republican leadership has proposed. I doubt it, but I think we have to continue to agitate and say that other options must be considered. Again, as I said, Madam Speaker, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to jump-start the economy, the Republican solution centers around tax cuts on dividends, stock dividends and capital gains, two cuts that are, again, a target towards the wealthiest Americans and according to economists will not create new jobs. If my colleagues think about it, if we think about eliminating the tax on stock dividends, what does that accomplish? What makes anyone on the Republican side think that by eliminating a tax on stock dividends that the money saved by the people who would benefit from that would necessarily be reinvested in the economy, in the creation of new jobs, in the creation of a new means of production? We have no guarantee of that, and there is nothing in our economic policy that suggests that those kinds of tax cuts or elimination of stock dividends or capital gains are actually going to force or create a situation where money is reinvested in the economy, that is, creates more jobs. My colleagues do not have to take my word for it. There are about 400 economists earlier this year who put out a statement that basically said that ``the tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to the problem.'' They concluded that ``the permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus.'' We need things that are going to create jobs immediately, money pumped into infrastructure, into economic development projects, not money that is just going to go to pay for people who have invested in the stock market and somehow that that is going to be turned around. There is no guarantee this is going to create jobs in the short term. Madam Speaker, like the Bush economic blueprint, the House GOP plan is also fiscally irresponsible because of the debt that it would create, saddling our children with debt and hurting long-term economic growth. This is such a reversal of fortunes from what we witnessed before the President took office under the Clinton administration. The economy was growing; we had a surplus rather than a deficit. Now, under the Bush economic plan, the deficits keep mounting. When the Bush administration came into office, there was a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. With this latest tax package that we will probably vote on this Friday, coupled with the huge tax cut in 2001, Republicans will produce a record $1.4 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. That is a $7 trillion reversal in our country's fortunes from where we were 2 years ago in the last few months of the Clinton administration. What I really do not understand is how the Republican leadership in the House is no longer concerned about deficits. Madam Speaker, I remember a time when I was first elected here, which is about 15 years ago now, when I would come down on the House floor to do a Special Order, and there were a group of Republican Congressmen who used to bring a huge clock. It was about the length of the entire desk here where the House Clerks are sitting behind me; and it was so heavy and long they used to have the pages to come down and carry the digital clock. It recorded the level and the increase in the deficit on a daily basis or a weekly basis and the Republicans would harangue about the problem that the Nation faced because of increasing deficits. Where is that concern? It does not seem to exist anymore on the GOP side. Back in 1995, the current majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), voiced concern that President Clinton's economic policies would lead to record deficits; and he said, ``By the year 2002, we can have a Federal Government with a balanced budget or we can continue down the present path towards fiscal catastrophe.'' Well, the gentleman was correct about a fiscal catastrophe, but he was wrong about the culprit. He has nobody but himself and President Bush to blame for the fiscal crisis our Federal Government now faces, and they are trying to make it worse with this latest round of tax cuts. Today, based on the tax proposal this House will debate, as I said, this Friday, it is clear that House Republicans have changed their tune. No longer are skyrocketing deficits a priority. This, despite the fact that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan last week agreed that huge deficits will threaten economic growth. He stated before a committee in the Congress, ``If, through tax cuts, you get significant increases in deficits which induce a rise in long-term interest rates, you will be significantly undercutting the benefits that would be achieved from the tax cuts.'' That is Alan Greenspan whom the President says that he is going to reappoint, basically saying that the President and the Republican economic policies are essentially going to continue the economic downturn over several years, not just now but down the road. So how can they talk about how these tax cuts will have a long-term benefit to the economy? They will not. They will only make the economy worse. Finally, Madam Speaker, the Republican tax plan is full of what I call gimmicks designed to hide the true cost to taxpayers. In fact, the only proposals within the Republican plan that are beneficial to America's middle class, the marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit, which the previous speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), mentioned, both of these would expire after 2005. So, of course, nobody thinks that would actually happen. Instead, the Republicans would come back and extend the benefits which then would raise the total cost of the package to at least $760 billion through 2013 over the next 10 years. Again, The Washington Post editorial page called these gimmicks tax-cut trickery this morning. So the Republican leadership is not even being honest about what they are doing here. They are suggesting that they are going to put these important proposals, the marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit, into play. They do not even talk about the economic costs of them over the 10-year period that we are discussing. I want to say, and I have to say because I think it is always important that the party in opposition put forward proposals that are different if we do not like what the majority is proposing, the Democrats have proposed a true economic stimulus plan that meets the test of being fair, fast acting, and fiscally responsible. Our plan would create one million jobs this year, provide an extension of unemployment benefits to millions of Americans still looking for jobs, provide tax relief to small businesses to invest in new equipment this year, and provide assistance to cash-strapped States and municipalities. Let me explain that. As we all know, in my home State of New Jersey as an example, States have to balance their budgets. They cannot go into debt the way the Federal Government does; and so State after State and Governor after Governor, both Democrats and Republicans, across the country over the last few years, because of the economic downturn, have had to make major cuts in their expenditures because they cannot go into debt. What is the consequence of that? Less and less money is being spent by State and local governments in real terms, and so what that means is that there is not the money out there to generate the jobs and the economic opportunities. Rather than giving the wealthy a big tax cut, what the Federal Government should do is take some of that money and give it back to the States so that they are not withdrawing funding and programs and infrastructure needs from the economy that cause the economy to contract. That is what the Democrats would like to do, take some money from the Federal Government, give it back to the States so that they do not have to cut their budgets the way that many of them have had to do, which has a negative impact on the economy. Of course, our Republican colleagues do not want to do that. They just want to cut taxes; and again, that problem really goes to wealthy individuals and corporate interests. Not only are the Republicans attempting to trick the American people with their tax proposal, but unfortunately, President Bush is also misleading Americans all over this country as to why we may once again face budget deficits as far as the eye can see. I talked about the budget deficits. They are primarily caused by Republican economic policies, i.e., the tax cuts; but again, Mr. Bush says the opposite. The President says the opposite. This morning's Washington Post editorial says, ``And then there's Mr. Bush, peddling a woefully incomplete account of how the deficit got so large and dangerously misstating the impact of his tax cut on future deficits.'' According to The Washington Post editorial again, ``In Arkansas yesterday, for example, Mr. Bush attributed the deficit to the recession and to his decision to send troops into combat. Both have indeed helped turn projected surpluses into deficits. But so has something Mr. Bush's account omits,'' and that is his first $1.35 trillion dollar, that is trillion dollar, tax cut. The Post editorial continues, and says, ``Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Acknowledged to the House Budget Committee in February that next year's deficit would be more than one-third smaller were it not for the tax cut. So the President is simply misleading Americans when he says we have a budget deficit either because of the war or because of a recession. The fact of the matter is the tax cuts he enacted into law in 2001 are the main reason for the deficits we now face. And, unfortunately, those deficits will get even larger if we enact either the President's plan or the House Republican plan.'' Madam Speaker, over the last 2 weeks, the President has toured the country trying to sell his tax cuts, even as congressional Republicans disagree among themselves about the proposal, delaying action to fix an economy that is badly broke. As the President has tried to convince the country of the merits of his proposal, it is clear that his rhetoric bears little resemblance to the facts. Let me give my colleagues a couple of the best example of the President's rhetoric as opposed to the reality of the situation. In Canton, Ohio, on April 24, President Bush claimed that ``ending the double-taxation of dividends, according to many economists, will help the stock market. If getting rid of the double taxation of dividends increases the markets, it will be good for millions of investors all across America. It will be good for our economy. And it will reduce the cost of capital, which means jobs.'' That was the President's statement. Based on those statements by the President, a likely listener in Canton, Ohio, understandably would have believed the tax cuts on dividends would lead to jobs; but, again, the President's claim, in my opinion, is simply false. In fact, economists have rated this proposal the one with the least bang for the buck in jump-starting the economy of all the different proposals that have come forward in the Congress. For example, Song Won Sohn, chief economist with the Wells Fargo Company said, ``A dividend tax change is not the best tool to stimulate the economy. Joe Sixpack does not have much in the way of dividends.'' Similarly, according to Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institute, ``Few economists believe that the gains from efficiency would offset more than a small portion of the increases in deficits.'' The President continues to talk about stock dividends as the way to solve the economic problem. There is no economist who will tell us that. During this same Canton, Ohio, speech, the President blasted away at those of us who have rightly called his tax proposal a tax cut for the wealthy. Madam Speaker, I have said it many times tonight, and I will continue to say that that is what it is; but the President told the crowd in Canton, ``So when you hear politicians say it's a tax cut for the rich, they're talking about you. Tax relief is good for the average citizen.'' Well, the President says that, and it is nice rhetoric; but it is not the facts. Under the Bush plan, 25 percent of families with children would get no tax cut at all and half of all Americans would get less than $100. Half of all Americans, Madam Speaker, would get less than $100. In contrast, as I said earlier, under the President's plan, someone making $1 million a year would get a tax cut of $90,222. Overall, just 17 percent of the Bush tax cut goes to families with income under $75,000. If we want to talk about fuzzy math, how can the President say all Americans are going to benefit when only 17 percent of the tax cuts go to the overwhelming majority of Americans who make under $75,000 a year. This is not something that is going to help the little guy, it just helps the wealthy; and primarily it helps the very wealthy, the millionaires and even billionaires. Madam Speaker, as the President continues to travel around the country in an attempt to rally support for a failed tax proposal, critical education, health care and homeland security programs are being ignored by this administration and the Republican Congress. The point I want to make tonight is that not only are these tax proposals not going to help the economy, but at the same time critical programs, education, health care, homeland security, the very things that President Bush has talked about, are being ignored and neglected by this administration. Let me talk about that. Both the President and the House Republican tax plans crowd out investments important to long term economic growth, like education, training, research and transportation. Let me talk about the education initiative. When President Bush signed the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, and I commend the President for it, it was a great piece of legislation that we passed on a bipartisan basis. But the President promised to write a healthy check for education. We cannot just pass a bill like that and not provide the funding that is going to provide for the education programs mentioned in the bill. So he said he was going to write a healthy check for education and it was nice words, but 1 year later when the President had an opportunity to support historic education reform with funding in his 2004 budget, he widened what I call his credibility gap by providing $9.7 billion less than what was promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. I am hearing from educators and teachers that are telling me that they are not getting the funding promised under the No Child Left Behind Act. The President signs this legislation, he says he will leave no child behind, but he does not back it up with the appropriate funding. It is a credibility gap, essentially. The simple fact is that the President cannot provide the critical education funds because of his huge tax cut for the wealthy. It is not that he does not want to do it, it is because he has this huge tax cut and once that is put in place, there is no money to fund the No Child Left Behind initiative. The simple fact is that the tax cut precludes that. Now we see thousands of teachers being given pink slips in California, class sizes increasing all over the country, and one of the Teachers of the Year in South Carolina was being laid off because the State was forced to make cuts in education. If we really want to make something or do something that is going to be meaningful in terms of education reform, we have to fully fund No Child Left Behind so it can become a reality; but that is not possible if the Republicans are successful on Friday and in the next few weeks in passing their tax bill and sending it off and the President signs it. Madam Speaker, let me also talk about another need that the President talked about in his State of the Union Address in January, and that is health care. The President and the Republicans will also find it difficult to address the health care needs of seniors and low-income Americans if they are successful in passing their tax proposal. President Bush's rhetoric was in high gear earlier this year when he stated in his State of the Union Address that ``Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society.'' Unfortunately, in my opinion, Madam Speaker, that bond would break if the President's intentions of turning Medicare into a voucher program became reality. Again, I do not know whether or not he is ideologically driven in saying he wants to make Medicare into a voucher program. The bottom line is because of deep tax cuts he may not have a choice because there is not the money to fund the Medicare program in the traditional way. That is why I believe the President is seeking a voucher-type system for Medicare because he will not be able to afford to continue to fund Medicare in the traditional way with these tax cuts. The President has a so-called modernization proposal for Medicare that would limit the government's responsibility and shift costs to seniors under this voucher plan, ending the Medicare program seniors have depended on for 25 years. I know he is going to say it is not ending Medicare, it is a different type of Medicare. It is more of a privatization. If it is not the type of Medicare that seniors have traditionally relied upon where they have guaranteed benefits, then it is not really Medicare any more. Furthermore, President Bush's prescription drug proposal goes so far as to essentially force seniors into HMOs if they want to receive prescription drug coverage. There again it is a form of privatization. He is saying if you want to get prescription drugs as part of your Medicare program, you have to purchase private insurance, move to some type of system where you are provided prescription drugs, but you have to go under an HMO. Again, not traditional Medicare. If seniors have to be forced into an HMO in order to get prescription drug coverage, then I think the promise of Medicare that they would be able to choose their own doctor, be able to choose their own hospital, goes unfulfilled. Again, these are all cost-cutting measures that become necessary because the money is not there as a result of tax cuts. Madam Speaker, I do not think when it comes to Medicare there is really any credibility any more on the part of the President when he continues to advocate these kinds of changes. He is essentially dismantling the Medicare program the way we know it by giving the impressions to seniors that he is somehow strengthening it. The other thing that these tax cuts will have a devastating impact on is Medicaid which unlike Medicare which is mostly for seniors, Medicaid is the health care program for low-income Americans. I think the huge tax cuts will make it almost impossible for Republicans to address the health care needs of seniors under Medicaid and low-income people in general under Medicaid. Earlier this year the President proposed a plan to shift responsibility of the Medicaid program to the States in the form of block grants. Again, this is a recipe for disaster considering most States now face severe fiscal problems. The President would cap the amount of Federal funding States receive from Medicaid, requiring States to either spend more out of their own budgets or face the difficult decision of dropping beneficiaries or cutting social services. So what we are going to see is fewer and fewer people becoming eligible for Medicaid and the needs of low income individuals not being met. Madam Speaker, the Federal Government I do not think can ignore its responsibility to these 44 million low income children, adults and elderly Americans who depend on Medicaid services. The President and Republicans would not have to propose again these changes in Medicaid, this block granting and ultimately reduction in funds to the States if they scrapped their current tax proposal that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans. Maybe in the case of Medicaid it is the worst juxtaposition because it is giving tax cuts to primarily wealthy people and taking away health care in many cases for the most needy under Medicaid. Madam Speaker, at a time when our economy needs a true jolt to reverse American's fears of losing their jobs, the Republican leadership once again plans to give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, and the plan that they put forth offers very little to families and middle class Americans and instead sacks them with a huge deficit, a deficit that risks the future of Social Security and Medicare and means likely future interest rate increases. I know I sound like doomsday today, but frankly for 2 years we have seen the Republican economic policies in effect, and I think it is only fair to say they have been a failure. The economy has gotten worse. More jobs have been lost. The debt continues to pile up. So there is no reason to believe that these continued economic policies that are basically in the form of tax cuts are going to do anything more than continue the economic downturn. Democrats, on the other hand, have proposed what I consider a true economic stimulus plan that is fair, fast acting and fiscally responsible. Again what we are essentially doing is putting more money in people's pockets, and we are giving money back to the States so they can spend the money on infrastructure, health care, education, and other needs. It would mean that more jobs would be created because there would be transportation projects and infrastructure projects in general that would need new people to go on the job. Also, we say that we want to provide an extension of unemployment benefits to millions of Americans still looking for jobs and tax relief to small businesses to invest in new equipment. We would target tax relief for small businesses, assuming that they turn it around and they spend it for new means of production, new opportunities, new jobs. Most important, we would provide assistance to cash-strapped States and municipalities which right now because of the fact that they are contracting their spending are also, I think, contributing to the economic downturn. I know that many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have talked about and contrasted what the Republicans would like to do and what we would like to do on the economy, and we will continue to talk about that this week as we move forward with this Republican proposal that is supposed to come up for a vote on Friday. But I would just say to anyone who says why would I believe the Democratic proposal is better, I would say look at what has happened over the last 2 years under the President and the Republican proposal. It has not worked. I frankly do not think we can go on another 2 years with the same failed economic policies. It is time to do something different, and we should be looking at some of the Democratic alternatives instead of just saying we are going to continue with the Republican tax cut. Encouraging India-Pakistan Talks Madam Speaker, I did want to change the subject for just another 5 minutes tonight before I end this Special Order, and go to another topic which relates to foreign affairs because I do think that what we have been witnessing the last few days, particularly over the weekend with regard to the potential for bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, is a very optimistic development in an area of the world which has a great potential for future war. Anything the United States can do to encourage negotiations, talks, between India and Pakistan I think are very important, and this is an opportune time for the Bush administration and the Congress to urge support for those kinds of negotiations and eventual peaceful settlement. Madam Speaker, I was encouraged over the last week by Indian Prime Minister Vijpayee's leadership in seeking peace with Pakistan. Vajpayee's efforts to reinstate full Indo-Pakistani diplomatic relations and to restore cross-border transportation between the two countries exemplifies his willingness and commitment to finding a permanent peace settlement within South Asia. I would like to express my praise for the Prime Minister's recent brave steps, given the incessant cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. In the past, India was insistent that an end to cross-border terrorism had to occur prior to any renewal of talks between India and Pakistan. Unfortunately, any efforts by President Musharraf of Pakistan to curb terrorism in Kashmir have been superficial and Pakistani militant violence in Kashmir has continued to no end. I would urge President Bush and Secretary of State Powell to pressure Musharraf to end the cross-border terrorism into Kashmir and India in general. I would also like to note, even as we have had these murders take place by terrorists in Kashmir, this has been aggravated by the fact that the Taliban continue to find safe refuge in many of the border towns of Pakistan near Afghanistan. The U.S. worked so hard to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, and to learn that Taliban members continue to receive moral and financial support from parties within the Pakistani government, including the Pakistani military, is by far the greatest hypocrisy. Again, the Bush administration must do more to pressure President Musharraf to end support within Pakistan for the Taliban. Madam Speaker, I also wanted to say that I am very encouraged by the fact that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is visiting both Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister of Pakistan Jamali, and I know he is going to recognize the recent positive developments from both sides. Again, the United States must do whatever it can to encourage negotiations between India and Pakistan that would lead to long-term peace in South Asia. Madam Speaker, Congress also can play a role in encouraging the peaceful settlement of disputes between India and Pakistan. I have at least two proposals that I would like to mention in that regard. First with bilateral dialogue already resuming, the Congress should provide funding for projects that cross the two countries' borders. This could be done as an effort to provide confidence-building measures for the future stability of this region. For example, we could include infrastructure projects, such as roads, railroads or water projects that cross the borders between Pakistan and India. Second, Madam Speaker, if negotiations lead to a settlement that is agreed upon by both India and Pakistan, the Congress should provide funding in the form of a peace dividend that could bring the two countries together and all of South Asia together as one economic union. Madam Speaker, the peace dividend could take the form of economic development projects that tie the two countries together for trade and other business purposes. I think the United States itself would also benefit from increased trade with all of South Asia. So, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say in conclusion, I look forward to successful dialogue between India and Pakistan and ultimately peace in South Asia. Again, I think that the President, the administration and Congress must together encourage negotiations and not lose what in effect is a golden opportunity, not let this pass by because we might not see another opportunity like this where these two nations, both of which have nuclear weapons, seem to be willing to move forward toward peaceful negotiations. Let us not let the opportunity slip by. Let us do whatever we can to encourage the two countries to get together and ultimately bring peace to the South Asian area.