Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me say in the beginning that myself and other Democrats over the last week, and certainly over the next few weeks, will take to the floor repeatedly to bring up the issue of the Social Security trust fund, and our concern that the President and the Republican leadership in the House are very determined to push for changes in Social Security that would lead to privatization, and at the same time, the budget that the Republican leadership will bring up to the floor, I understand it will be coming up as early as next week, unfortunately goes into deficit and effectively spends the Social Security trust fund, once again, we have not had this for a couple of years, in order to pay for current expenses. The Republican proposal to privatize Social Security, as well as the proposal to spend the Social Security trust fund for basically ongoing government operations unrelated to a retirement benefit, both of these proposals by the Republican leadership in the House and by the President, will undermine Social Security and make it more difficult for Social Security to remain solvent, and basically shorten the time before we face a crisis in Social Security when benefits will be cut or will no longer be available. That is the concern that I and other Democrats have, and we will be speaking out against it because we believe very strongly that none of these things should happen, that we should not privatize Social Security and that we should not be spending the Social Security trust fund to pay for ongoing expenses. Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that Social Security is probably the most successful social program the Federal Government has ever implemented. It provides an unparalleled safety net for the vast majority of America's seniors. For two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security is their major source of income. For one-third of the elderly, Social Security is virtually their only source of income. And for these reasons, and a great many others, we must do everything in our power to protect and strengthen the existing Social Security program for the short and the long term. Mr. Speaker, I gathered some information that gives us some idea about the importance of the Social Security program and also how successful it is, how unique it is, and I wanted to go through a little of that, if I could, in a little detail, not a great deal of detail. Why is Social Security important? As I said, it is the single largest source of retirement income in the United States. For six in ten seniors, Social Security provides half or more of their total income. Among elderly widows, Social Security provides nearly three-quarters of their income, on average. And four in ten widows rely on Social Security to provide 90 percent or more of their income. But it is not just a retirement income program. About 30 percent of Social Security beneficiaries receive disability or survivor benefits. We tend to forget that. We tend to think it is only a program for seniors. For a 27-year-old worker with a spouse and two children, Social Security provides the equivalent of a $403,000 life insurance policy or a $353,000 disability insurance policy. The vast majority of workers would be unable to obtain similar coverage through the private market. Social Security is also family insurance. It provides benefits for elderly widows and young parents who have lost a spouse. It provides a dependable monthly income to children who have lost a parent to death or disability. It even pays benefits to those who become severely disabled as children and remain dependent, as adults, on a parent who receives Social Security. Now, a lot of people, and I find this to be often true about some of my Republican colleagues, they will say, Well, Social Security is just another government program, it is a waste of money, it is not administered well. We hear these kinds of criticisms. The reality is very different. There is no government program that is more successful than Social Security. It is the single most effective antipoverty program. Its benefits lift over 11 million seniors out of poverty. Thanks to Social Security, the poverty rate of elderly persons is only 8 percent. Without it, nearly half of retirees would live in poverty. That was the case before we set it up. More than half of the people over 65 lived in poverty before Social Security came on board. Over the course of its 67-year history, Congress has prudently managed the Social Security program. Each year the Social Security board of trustees issues a report showing short-range and long-range 75-year projections of the income and costs of the system. Congress uses these projections to balance the promise to pay future benefits against workers' desire and ability to pay for them, and it has adjusted the program periodically in light of changing economic and demographic conditions. So we have had to change it, but we have always changed it in a positive way. Finally, I would stress that Social Security is administered very efficiently. Only one penny of every dollar Social Security spends is for administration. The rest goes directly to beneficiaries in their monthly checks. Let me say just a few more things about the uniqueness of Social Security. It is nearly universal. Over 95 percent of all workers are covered by it. In contrast, less than 50 percent of workers have employer pension coverage on their jobs. It is also totally portable. It goes with a worker from job to job. Traditionally, private sector pension plans lose value if a worker changes a job. It is also, and this is very important, a defined benefit. That is, its benefits are determined according to the level of a worker's earnings and years of work. So this type of pension system provides income continuity in retirement by replacing a fixed percentage of a worker's preretirement earnings. Benefits are paid as long as the worker and his or her spouse lives and the monthly benefit amount is predictable and steady. This is very different in contrast to a defined contribution system like a 401(k) or an individual savings account which can pay out only what is in the account. If a worker did not contribute in certain years or has poor investment results or just the misfortune of retiring in a down market, he must get along on less. If the account is exhausted before a worker reaches the end of his life, she or he will have nothing left to live on. The idea of Social Security is that it is an insurance policy. It pays benefits whenever an insured-against event happens. It protects against the risk of having low income in old age, and it spreads risk broadly throughout society to lower the cost of these protections and to make them affordable for all. I just mention this because sometimes I think that some of my Republican colleagues think that Social Security does not work. It does work. The scary thing is that to my great disappointment, we now have both the President when he established his Social Security commission and now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and other Republicans are promoting Social Security privatization. What do they mean when they talk about privatization? It sounds like a nice idea, privatization. Basically, they are talking about replacing all or part of the current Social Security program with a system of individual retirement accounts. I just want to read to my colleagues, if I could, this is the New York Times, February 16, about a month ago, a little less than a month ago, the gentleman from Texas called for a new push on Social Security, and a big part of that was the idea of privatization. His proposal allows workers to invest part of their Social Security money in the stock market, a change that I believe would mean deep cuts in guaranteed benefits and create big financial risks for retirees. This is what he is proposing. This is what he keeps pushing. If I could just give a couple of concerns about the privatization, then I would yield to the gentleman from Arkansas. I am pleased to see that he has joined me. If you think about diverting the funds from Social Security into individually owned accounts, what you are doing is transferring investment risks from a pool of workers to the individual. This is not risk free. If you start having this private account where you have control over how you invest it, there is a certain amount of risk involved for the individual. All of the evidence shows that plans that allow people to divert part of their payroll taxes into private accounts not only runs a risk for the worker but it aggravates Social Security's financing problems. If some of the funds coming into Social Security over the next 75 years are diverted away from the program and into private accounts, then it is obvious that there are going to be less funds available to pay out future benefits for the people that are depending on Social Security. For example, if 2 percentage points of the current 12.4 percent payroll tax were diverted into private accounts, then the Social Security trust funds would be exhausted in 2024, 14 years earlier than now expected. In short, if funds are diverted away from Social Security programs as they currently exist, the changes that are already needed to return Social Security to fiscal soundness will have to be more severe. What I am saying is that not only by diverting some of the Social Security money to private accounts there is more of a risk for that individual who is doing that, but since there is less money in the Social Security trust fund, the problem that we expect in about 30 years or so when there may not be as much money in Social Security and it may not be able to pay out the benefits is only going to be aggravated. That time will be much earlier because those funds are going to be diverted. I have a lot of other things I want to talk about, but I see that my colleague from Arkansas is here. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, let me first start out by saying that I am very pleased that the Republican leadership dropped the bill yesterday which would have complicated matters and brought up what is essentially a clean bill today on the unemployment compensation so we can get this passed and give that extra 13 weeks to our constituents. That is so important. I am pleased at the fact that they were willing to listen to Democrats and others that were asking that that be done. However, I did want to say that the issue of health care for people who are displaced, for displaced workers, is still very important and needs to be addressed. One of the concerns I have, which some of my colleagues have mentioned, which is that with the States piggybacking on this Federal depreciation rule, many of the States are now concerned that they are going to be losing significant amounts of money and that they will not be able to afford to keep everyone on their Medicaid rolls. In my home State of New Jersey, which faces like a 12 percent deficit from the previous Republican administration, our Governor is saying a big part of that is Medicaid. So we do not want to aggravate the situation, making it more difficult for States to provide health care for people who do not have a job or who are low income. What I would like to see, and this is what I would ask, is that the Republican leadership allow at some point in the next few weeks the opportunity for the Democrats and all of us to address the problem of health care. Democrats have talked about expanding COBRA. Democrats have talked about giving more money to States to deal with this Medicaid problem. We have to recognize the fact that given the recession and the amount of displaced workers, there are a lot more uninsured and their problems are only going to be addressed if we deal with public programs and try to help the States with Medicaid, if we deal with COBRA, if we deal with some of these health care initiatives that actually make a difference and provide people with health insurance. The tax credits that the Republicans have been talking about are not going to help the uninsured. Very few people are going to be able to buy into the individual market; and if anything, the Republican proposals with their tax credits undermine the employer-based system. That is why we brought it up on the previous question today that we voted ``no,'' because we do not want to undermine the employer-based system with these tax credits that the Republican leadership has proposed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to bring to the attention of my colleagues a historic peace initiative between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE. On February 22, 2002, the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, the Honorable Wickremesinghe, and the leader of the LTTE, Mr. Prabhakaran, signed an agreement that established a long-term cease fire by both sides that signifies the beginning of peace talks and, simply, a new era of peace for war-torn Sri Lanka. For nearly 2 decades now, there has been a civil war taking place between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, one of the world's most dangerous guerilla groups. The cease fire was negotiated by Norway and will be overseen by Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. I am optimistic about this movement towards peace and feel the United States should extend its support for this agreement to end years of violent blood shed. Indeed, the LTTE will have to show great will to bring an end to its violent attacks that have claimed tens of thousands of innocent lives. However, the current global situation has provided a glimpse of hope that this cease fire will be a successful endeavor. Mr. Speaker, since the September 11 attacks, there has been a desire throughout the world to move away from senseless violence; and clearly, we began a new campaign against terrorism. This new atmosphere may potentially foster improved relations between Sri Lanka and the LTTE. Additionally, the LTTE may have been more apt to agree to this peace agreement since their popularity and their financial support was waning through countries that formerly favored them or provided support. We see this hope for peace in Sri Lanka is already coming to fruition. Since December, medicine, supplies and other goods are being shipped to Tamil Tiger-controlled areas. Shipment of goods to these areas has been under the control of the Sri Lankan Government, but the controls have been relaxed for the past several months. Mr. Speaker, I should note that President Kumaratunga has been outspoken in her criticism of the terms of the cease fire. As President she has the power to suspend parliament and dismiss the government. If she is not satisfied with certain provisions within the peace agreement, the deal may be canceled. The differences between the President and Prime Minister must be worked out so Sri Lanka can proceed with dealing with this deadly conflict between Sri Lanka and the LTTE. In any case, the Prime Minister has announced that any peace agreement would have to be supported by a referendum, which ensures that the people of Sri Lanka would be participating in the peace process. In the upcoming months, it is important to watch closely how this peace process unfolds in Sri Lanka. The Prime Minister is willing to negotiate all forms of settlement with the LTTE, except for establishment of an independent homeland for the Tamil community. I encourage the LTTE to shed its terrorist negotiating tactics and come to the table with the Sri Lankan Government and engage in a substantive debate that I hope will lead to a permanent cease fire, peace in Sri Lanka, and greater stability throughout the South Asian region.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague on the other side, he just said that we are playing politics. I would say the problem here is that the Republicans are in charge of the floor. They are in charge of the House. They are in the leadership because they are in the majority. They are playing politics because they are not allowing a clean bill on unemployment insurance extension to come up. I cannot believe I am hearing this from my Republican colleagues, somehow suggesting that if we take action on this bill that they put in order under this rule that we will have some relief for the unemployed. It is not true. We know if this bill goes over to the other body and it includes anything other than extension of unemployment compensation it will never pass and it will die. The other body has already taken up I do not know how many stimulus packages, tried all kinds of options, with or without different kinds of health care benefits, with or without Alternative Minimum Tax, and finally the leadership said, look, there is nothing we can pass here other than a clean unemployment compensation extension, passed, I believe, 100 to nothing. So the lesson is learned. The only thing that will work, the only thing that will provide relief for Americans who are running out of their unemployment insurance is if we just pass a clean bill that has nothing else attached to it. We have done the same thing over here. The Republican leadership has brought up three stimulus packages, pretty much the same. I suspect if this bill is voted down today they will bring up another stimulus package tomorrow or next week. They are playing politics because they will not allow a clean bill to pass. It passed the other body 100 to nothing. It will pass here probably unanimously. Let us just do it. Now, let me talk about the tax credits for health care that are in this bill. My Republican colleagues know that this is a very controversial issue because the Democrats do not believe it will work. When we talk about tax credits for health care, most of the people who are uninsured, very few are going to be able to go out in the individual market and buy insurance, which is $4,000 or $5,000 a year, with the piddly tax credits the Republicans are proposing. So the Democrats have been saying this is not going to work, this tax credit. We have talked about extending COBRA, we have talked about the need to extend Medicaid to cover more people at a little higher level of income. My own State of New Jersey, a perfect example, is suffering because they do not have the money, and so many States are not able to provide the Medicaid benefits they have now and cover the people they now have and are considering cutting back on Medicaid. So we have a major difference here. Democrats believe COBRA extension and Medicaid extension will bring more people and provide insurance. We do not believe the Republican proposal with tax credits will work. So forget about this for the time being. We do not have agreement. Let us go with the thing we do have agreement on, which is unemployment expansion, a clean bill. We should bring it up and get it over with. The Republican side is playing politics and not giving a fair shake to those people in my district and around the country that need these extra weeks of unemployment compensation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman and our ranking member, and also the chairman of our Native American Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for their work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill, S. 1857. This bill gives tribal trust fund account holders the opportunity to postpone filing legal claims until 2005. Technically, the bill tolls the statute of limitations on legal claims that Indian tribes may assert against the U.S. relating to the management of tribal trust funds. The bill is necessary, as I know my colleagues have already said, because many tribes believe their legal claims may be time-barred because the statute of limitations expires as early as this year. I really wanted, though, to talk about the larger issue, that the BIA has grossly mismanaged the remaining tribal lands and has squandered billions of dollars worth of resources that should have gone to the benefit of often-impoverished American Indians. Today, the Secretary of the Interior is faced by a mandate of Congress to clean up the accounting and management of Indian trust funds, and by a lawsuit alleging a great failure of the Secretary's trust responsibility for Indian lands. In response, the Secretary has proposed a plan to create a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management and remove the trust functions from the Bureau of Indian affairs. I am very much opposed to this proposal. I am greatly concerned that this plan is repeating the failures of the many past trust reform efforts. Recently, 193 Indian tribes unanimously adopted a resolution opposing this reorganization and the transfer of the responsibilities to the BIA. I strongly believe that this reorganization effort cannot go forward until the Department consults with Indian tribes in the development of a business processes plan for trust reform, a clear plan for performing the basic trust functions of accounting, collections, record keeping, inspections, enforcement and resource management. The plan has to include policies, procedures and control. I know the Secretary is now saying she is doing this, but she is consulting with the tribes after the fact. The fact is many of them do not feel they are still being properly consulted even today. This criticism, as my colleagues know, came up at the hearing that we held on the issue in the Committee on Resources. It is notable that this criticism, a lack of structural foundation, is exactly the same as has been leveled against the Department's development of the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System, TAAMS. All tribal leaders strongly support trust reform and want to work constructively with the Department and with Congress to ensure strong management of tribal assets. In fact, it is the tribes that have the greatest interest in ensuring that tribal assets and resources are properly managed. Given such BIA and TAAMS mismanagement practices, the passage of this bill will give tribal trust fund account holders the opportunity to postpone filing legal claims until 2005. Such time is necessary in order for the tribal trust funds account holder to unravel the financial accounting mess that the BIA and TAAMS have put them in. I think, obviously, this is the right thing to do. We have to support the bill, but I know we also have to look at the larger issue of trust reform and make sure it goes forward only with consultation with the tribes. I know my colleagues that are here all believe very strongly in that.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to express my serious concerns regarding Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. It is important to highlight the history, work and intentions of the ISI in light of the unfortunate murder of Daniel Pearl and in light of the current fight against global terrorism. The ISI not only has ties to Omar Sheik, the prime suspect in the murder of Daniel Pearl, but the ISI has also fostered deep connections with Islamic militant groups, particularly Jaish-e-Muhammad, operating throughout Kashmir. In the 1980s, Pakistan assisted Afghanistan in fighting off Soviet invasion. During these years, the ISI grew into the role of Pakistan's strongest political agency on foreign policy. It was also during this time that the ISI developed and nurtured strong relationships with Islamic militants in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Ties between the ISI and Afghan militants grew stronger, and this gave rise to the Taliban. The ties between the Taliban and the ISI remained strong for years, and to this day there are deep connections between the Pakistani ISI and what is left of the Taliban. Ties between the ISI and Islamic militants in Kashmir grew stronger as well, and, in fact, the ISI, until very recently, had a Kashmir desk, headed by Brigadier Abdullah, which was responsible for militant insurgency into India's state of Jammu and Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on the deep, nefarious connections between the ISI in light of Daniel Pearl's murder and recent terrorist events throughout the world. There have been reports that Brigadier Abdullah, formerly of the ISI, has aided Omar Sheik in his travels between Afghanistan and Pakistan and has perhaps provided further support to both Omar Sheik and another individual, Maulana Azhar. Omar Sheik and Maulana Azhar worked to form Jaish-e-Muhammad, an Islamic militant group that continues to operate throughout Kashmir and is the primary group blamed for the October attack on the Jammu and Kashmir State assembly. Jaish has received support from the ISI and particularly Brigadier Abdullah. Both Sheikh and Azhar served in prison together in India in 1999, when they were freed after the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight that landed in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that this flight was hijacked by the method of knives and box cutters and that weapons were not available to the hijackers until the plane landed in Kandahar. Furthermore, it was after their release that both Sheikh and Azhar formed Jaish and operated terrorist activities in Kashmir while in Pakistan and Afghanistan and with the help of the Pakistani ISI. Azhar was arrested in December, 2001. However, Sheikh continued his mission of kidnapping and terrorism in hopes of Jihad; and, until the murder of Daniel Pearl, Sheikh was living freely in Pakistan. If it was not for the support of current or former officials of the Pakistani ISI, Sheikh may not have been able to succeed in his mission until this point in time and may not have succeeded in the kidnapping and tragic murder of Daniel Pearl. It is clear that the ties between the ISI and both the Taliban and militant groups in Kashmir are deep. General Musharraf has taken it upon himself to arrest Azhar, arrest Sheikh, remove Brigadier Abdullah from the ISI and crack down on terrorists. However, more work needs to be done if Pakistan wants to take serious steps in breaking ties with the Taliban and Islamic militant groups operating in Kashmir and defusing tensions with India due to the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. Although the ties between Pakistani intelligence officials and terrorists are clear, there is still much left to be investigated and publicized. Mr. Speaker, we need to approach the ISI with criticism and we need to approach Pakistan with great caution. U.S.-Pakistan ties have become closer as a result of our war in Afghanistan. However, I cannot urge us enough to proceed with caution. The terrorist networks operating in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir are not isolated and, in fact, have significant ties to al Qaeda.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to bring attention to the Governors' resolution on generic drugs that is going to be offered by Governor Dean of Vermont at the National Governors Association conference taking place this week in Washington, D.C. Madam Speaker, after all is said and done, the high cost of prescription drugs still remains one of the most pressing health care issues confronting our country's senior citizens, employers, managed care plans, and State and Federal drug programs. It also remains clear that generic competition can have a dramatic impact on reducing pharmaceutical costs. There is a need, in my opinion, for statutory or legislative initiatives that allow timely access and availability of generic drugs. Frankly, Madam Speaker, Congress has been dragging its feet. Congress has been so negligent in ensuring proper entry of generics to the market that States are beginning to act on their own, as we see with the Governors' resolution. The Governors' resolution expresses concern about the 1984 Hatch- Waxman Act. Part of the intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act was to lawfully improve consumer access to lower-priced generic drugs. The problem, Madam Speaker, is that loopholes within the Hatch-Waxman Act are being taken advantage of and preventing the availability of generic drugs to enter the market. Brand name companies have become proficient in manipulating the Hatch-Waxman law and launching campaigns to block or delay generic alternatives from reaching the market. The Governors are concerned in their resolution that these elements within the Hatch-Waxman Act may actually be contributing to the rising costs of prescription drugs, and the resolution asks Congress to explore this issue. In addition, the Governors raised the valid point that during this time of tight State budgets, a national deficit, and an economic recession States are burdened by Medicaid costs which are on the rise due to the soaring costs of prescription drugs. With prescription drug costs rising at a rate of up to 18 percent annually, States' Medicaid drug costs represent the fastest-growing health care expense for States, employers, and consumers across the Nation. USA Today reported that the Business for Affordable Medicine, a coalition of governors, business, and labor unions, stated that certain reforms to the Hatch-Waxman Act could save State Medicaid programs $600 million in prescription drug costs over the next 3 years. According to the coalition, States spent about $1.2 billion in 2001 on 17 drugs, including the allergy medicine Claritin, the asthma drug Flovent, and the cancer treatment Lupron. The coalition said that the $600 million figure is the amount of savings that would occur if these 17 drugs were replaced by generic alternatives that would be allowed to enter the market. Madam Speaker, the inclusion of generic alternatives in the marketplace is great for consumers, employers, and government purchasers because generic competition provides access to less expensive, therapeutically equivalent generic versions of brand-name drugs. I fully support the Governor's resolution and the intent to improve access to generic drugs, and I encourage my colleagues in Congress to take the lead of the Governors here in Washington, D.C., and to pursue this important issue.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to Reverend Ronald L. Owens residing in the Sixth District of New Jersey. He is celebrating his 25th year in the ministry. Reverend Owens is currently the Senior Pastor of the New Hope Baptist Church of Metuchen, New Jersey. On Friday, April 12, 2002, his church will recognize his illustrious career and dedication to Metuchen and surrounding communities. Rev. Owens graduated from Northeastern Bible College in Essex Falls. He also has earned a degree from the Virginia Union University in Richmond, Virginia. Presently, he is a candidate for the Doctorate in Ministry from Andersonville Baptist Seminary in Camille, Georgia. At the New Hope Baptist Church he has the unique honor of pastoring the church he attended in his youth. The church has grown to more than five hundred active members, with more than thirty active ministries serving the community. Rev. Owens has a noteworthy career. It includes serving as a member of the Board of Supervisors for Field Ministry at Princeton Theological Seminary and the Ad-Hoc Committee for Minority Recruitment for Robert Woods Medical School at Rutgers University. Additionally, he has acted as the president of the Metuchen/Edison Clergy Association and former Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Party of Middlesex County in the State of New Jersey. Lastly, he was President and CEO of the House of Hope Community Development Corporation of New Jersey. Outside of his career, he spends time with his adoring wife of thirty-years, Cheryl Owens, and his two daughters, Tracey and Kimberly. He also enjoys spending time with his four grandsons, Adam II, Joshua, Blair, Jr. and Brandon. Through his ministry he spreads the word of God and provides spiritual leadership. Now entering his twenty fifty year of service, I would like to congratulate Reverend Ronald L. Owens on this momentous occasion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, President George W. Bush is making his first state visit to China and I would like to take this opportunity before his departure to China to express my concern regarding Taiwan. I hope that President Bush will stand firm on the issue of Taiwan in his discussions with the Chinese and I encourage him not to comply with any demands from the Chinese government that affect the best interests of Taiwan. The United States and the Republic of China on Taiwan have been maintaining strong relations for decades. In recent years, despite the lack of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and Taiwan, Taiwan has been unwavering in its support of the United States in all areas. In the aftermath of the tragedies of September 11, Taiwan was one of the first countries to give its unflinching support to the United States and has also been extremely cooperative in providing information and resources to the United States to combat terrorism. Taiwan has been enormously supportive in other areas as well, such as reducing its trade surplus with the United States and promoting U.S. goods and services in its domestic market. Any attempts by the Chinese to ask the United States to reduce arms sales to Taiwan will endanger the balance of power in the Pacific Rim and lead to instability. I hope that President Bush will uphold the U.S. policy of continued arms sales to Taiwan and that he will urge the Chinese leaders to resume talks with Taiwan on reunification and other issues. As long as we stand firm on our principles of providing what Taiwan needs militarily, there will be stability in the Taiwan Strait and that is in everyone's best interests. I hope the President's visit to China will improve U.S.-China relations, but foremost, I hope the visit will be based on the premise of the best interests for Taiwan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to give two faces to the people that you would deny this right. I had one woman come into my office from the former Soviet Union. She was in a country, it was a dictatorship at the time, she was Jewish, she could not even exercise her right to go to synagogue. She was so proud of the fact she could come in my office, she could make phone calls, she could do mailings and make a little contribution, I think it was $25. She was so proud of that fact. She could not vote yet because she was applying to be a citizen, but she wanted to participate in the process. I had another woman who was a doctor at the local emergency room, an Indian physician. She wanted to do the same thing. What is wrong with letting these people exercise their rights? Nothing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, since 1926 Americans have recognized black history annually, first as ``Negro History Week'' and later as ``Black History Month.'' February was chosen because the month marks the birthdays of two men who seriously impacted the African American, Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. This year's month long celebration's theme is, ``The Journey to Freedom: The Struggles, Trials and Triumphs.'' I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a man who embodies the characteristics of a leader of the African American Population. It is with great pleasure that I introduce and honor Gerald R. Reed as he celebrates his tenth year as a member of Blacks in Government (BIG) and his third year as its president. In 1992 Mr. Reed began his leadership role within the BIG as President of the Pentagon Chapter. The following year he was the honored recipient of the prestigious BIG National Distinguished Service award. In 1994, only two years after he joined the organization, Mr. Reed became the President of the Region XI Council. During the three years of his presidency the Council was awarded the bids for the BIG Annual National Training Conference in 1994, 1997, 1998 and year 2000. Additionally, Mr. Reed served on influential BIG National Committees and instituted many major conference improvements as the Co-Chairperson of the BIG National Training Conference in 1997 and 1998. Furthermore in 1994, during his first year as National President, Mr. Reed successfully implemented many initiatives for BIG, including a partnership with the United States Department of Agriculture Graduate School and several organizational infrastructure improvements. Mr. Reed is also affiliated with the Black Leadership Forum, the National Coalition for Equity in Public Service, the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, and a VIP member of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Mr. Reed is presently employed with the Network Infrastructure Services Agency, Pentagon, (NISA-P) as the Branch Chief for the Systems Applications Development Branch. He holds several degrees including a Master of Science degree in Administration with a concentration in Software Engineering from Central Michigan University. He is a veteran of the United States Army and also the author of ``Building A Masterpiece with Simple Poetry.'' Many events have been planned in conjunction with this month's Festivities in my district. Mr. Reed has been selected as the guest speaker at this year's Mentors Chapter of Blacks in Government (BIG) annual Black History Month Luncheon in Forth Monmouth, New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring and recognizing Mr. Reed and his significant accomplishments throughout his career, his work with Blacks in Government and his service to the African American Community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a constituent in the 6th District of New Jersey. It is with great pleasure that I introduce and honor Ms. M. Maureen Perkins as she retires from the Department of Defense, CECOM, Fort Monmouth, NJ. Ms. Perkins retired on January 3, 2002, as a Department of Defense civilian. As a Logistics Management Specialist, she has retired from the Command and Control Systems and Avionics Branch, Force Modernization Division, Readiness Directorate, Logistics and Readiness Center, CECOM, Fort Monmouth. While in this Branch, Mrs. Perkins has served as Action Officer, Team Leader, Section Chief and Branch Chief for civilians, military and contractor personnel. Her technical and managerial skills were recognized by receipt of numerous performance awards. Mrs. Perkins' career started in Finance and Accounting at Fort Monmouth. She was promoted a year later to Health Services Command at Patterson Army Hospital, Fort Monmouth, NJ, in the Medical Supply Branch. After 4 years in Medical Supply, Mrs. Perkins relinquished her career to support her husband's, retired Lieutenant Colonel Franchot Perkins, Army career. She not only provided support to her husband's career, and the raising of their two sons, but she actively participated in the Officer's Wives Club, in which she served a term as a board member. As a military wife, Mrs. Perkins supported the American Red Cross and became a Red Cross volunteer dental assistant at the Dental Clinic in Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Mrs. Perkins resumed her career at ERADCOM, Fort Monmouth where she received several commendations and honorary awards. Years later, she accepted a promotion, as Chief, Equipment Management Branch, which returned her to Health Services Command at Patterson Army Hospital, Fort Monmouth, NJ. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring and recognizing Mrs. M. Perkins' retirement and her significant accomplishments throughout her career in Command and Control Systems and Avionics Branch, Force Modernization Division, Readiness Directorate, Logistics and Readiness Center, CECOM and the United States Army.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss my concerns with H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) this afternoon that commends General Musharraf of Pakistan for his leadership and friendship and welcomes him to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I agree that General Musharraf was faced with a difficult decision when he was asked, and he cooperated, with the United States in the fight against terrorism. There is much civil unrest throughout Pakistan, and I do believe that there was a risk involved when Musharraf decided to side with the United States. However, there have been some major shortcomings in Musharraf's promises to root out the Taliban, al Qaeda and certain terrorist groups in Kashmir that are linked to al Qaeda. I sent a letter to President Bush today outlining these shortcomings, and I will include that in the Record at this point. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 11, 2002. Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I understand that you, along with other officials in your administration, will be meeting with General Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday during his visit to the United States. I am writing to explain why I continue to oppose lifting the ban on military assistance to Pakistan and the proposal in your budget to provide $50 million in such assistance. Since September 11 and Musharraf's supposed willingness to fight against terrorism, Pakistani-based militant groups have been carrying out violent cross-border terrorist attacks on innocent civilians throughout Kashmir on a daily basis. In addition, the largest symbol of democracy, the Indian Parliament, was attacked on December 13, 2001 by the same terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan near the Kasmir border. Musharraf has claimed to crack down on terrorists operating in Pakistan since the attack on the Parliament, however it remains my concern that this is not the case. Although he has arrested nearly 1600 individuals, there is no assurance that these individuals are criminals and there is no notice of whether these individuals are terrorist fighters. In addition, there has been no progress on Pakistan's part to quell the violence taking place in Kasmir. In fact, the Kashmir Solidarity Day last week, Musharraf delivered a speech, which I found to incite violence among these terrorist groups that he refers to as ``freedom fighters''. Pakistan has openly acknowledged that it provides logistical and moral support to these groups, however, the support extends beyond that to arms and weapons transfers. It is clear that Musharraf is in fact supporting terrorist activities under the guise of calling these groups ``freedom fighters''. When you asked Congress last fall to lift the ban on military assistance to Pakistan, there were no plans to provide any such assistance to General Musharraf. State Department representatives appeared before the House International Relations Committee at the time, and in response to my question, stated that no military aid to Pakistan was anticipated. In your FY 2003 budget proposal you have requested $50 million in military assistance to Pakistan. Frankly, I don't see that the situation has changed in Pakistan to justify such a turnaround. It is alarming that you are proposing military assistance to a country that verbally condemns terrorism on a global level, but that actively supports terrorist activities in its own backyard. I agree that Pakistan needs extensive aid to rebuild its economy, education system and social structure. However, I cannot support a proposal that funds military assistance to Pakistan given its current leadership under a dictator and its continued backing of militant groups. Historically, U.S. military assistance to Pakistan has been used to arm cross- border terrorists in their attacks on Indian civilians in Kashmir and throughout the nation. There is continued evidence that terrorist groups operating in Pakistan are linked to Al-Qaeda and that their attacks on India are experiments for future attacks on the United States. I do not believe it is in our best interest to provide military assistance to Pakistan, despite their agreement to help in our war on terrorism. South Asia is a very volatile, unstable region and given the current military standoff between Pakistan and India, $50 million worth of U.S. weapons will only aid future conflict in that region. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Frank Pallone, Jr. However, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on democracy, or the lack of democracy, in Pakistan. In the Pitts resolution, there is mention of President Musharraf's pursuit of a return to democracy and civil society, in addition to his adherence to the timetable for restoring democratic elections to Pakistan. I do not support this resolution because the opposite is true. Mr. Speaker, Musharraf has made no concrete attempt to restore democracy in Pakistan, and I urge the Congress and the administration to be very wary of any guarantees of a return to civilian rule in Pakistan. In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew the civilian-elected government of Pakistan in a military coup and since then has governed Pakistan under military rule. General Musharraf has shown no steps toward returning Pakistan to democratic rule and, in fact, has moved in the opposite direction. On June 20 of last year, Musharraf declared himself President of Pakistan, which is a clear indication of his desire to maintain a dictatorial stronghold. Musharraf's past actions include dissolving Pakistan's National Assembly, or parliament, and four provincial assemblies. He has claimed that he will hold fair national elections by October of 2002. However, there are no indications that this is likely to occur. October is only 9 months away. As a self-proclaimed president, Musharraf may be seen with more credibility in the eyes of the international community at large, but the fact remains that the people of his nation have never elected him. Mr. Speaker, on October 16 of last year, the House debated lifting section 508 that would allow military assistance to Pakistan. The United States prohibited the export of U.S. weapons and military assistance under section 508 to countries whose duly elected head of government is deposed. Today the House debated the Pitts resolution which praises Musharraf for his steps toward returning Pakistan to democracy. If and when Pakistan exemplifies steps towards establishing a democracy with a civilian-elected government, perhaps then section 508 discussion would have been relevant and perhaps the Pitts resolution would be relevant. But until then, Mr. Speaker, it is crucial for Congress to indicate its support for a restoration to democracy and civilian rule in Pakistan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank not only the chairman and the ranking member, who are here today, but also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for their support in bringing this bill to the floor, the bill, S. 1026, to name the Long Branch, New Jersey, post office after a hero, Detective Sergeant Pat King. Let me start out, Mr. Speaker, by saying that Long Branch is my hometown. I have lived there my entire life. The post office that will be named after Sergeant King is a post office that I have been going to since I was a little boy and a post office where my grandfather actually worked as a letter carrier. I also knew Sergeant King personally, and I know his mother and his entire family. As was mentioned, on November 20 of 1997, Sergeant Pat King was killed by a career criminal from out of State who made his living promoting prostitution and selling drugs. On this particular day, the assailant went gunning for a police officer, any police officer. He was not looking specifically for Pat King, but he found Pat King, and Sergeant King was killed because he was wearing an officer's uniform. Following the shooting, the assailant went on an hour-long crime spree, including a chase and an exchange of gunfire that injured other officers. He finally shot himself with a second gun, Officer King's gun. Mr. Speaker, S. 1026 is an identical bill I introduced in the House naming the Long Branch post office after Pat King. I cannot express how important this is not only to Sergeant King and his wife, but to the entire Long Branch Police Force and to the community. Officer King was only 45, and he was the most decorated police officer in the history of the city of Long Branch. By passing this bill we not only pay tribute to him, but we honor all the police officers across the country that have died in the hands of vicious criminals. And if there is any year that we can truly appreciate the contributions of police and firemen, it is certainly this year. Mr. Speaker, for a police officer the mere act of donning a uniform makes him an immediate target for sick and criminal minds. Each call presents dangers and threats we cannot begin to imagine. It is my hope that in naming the post office after Pat King, we will be paying to tribute to individuals so dedicated to their fellow human beings that they are willing to die to protect our security. It is a way to honor the bravery and unselfishness of our men and women in uniform. It is a way to remind young people that dedicating a career to helping others is a path deeply admired by their community. To Pat's widow Maureen and her children, I want to say that I hope this tribute provides them with some small comfort that their husband and father will not be forgotten, not by the people of Long Branch and not by the Congress of the United States.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to highlight the negative aspects of the Bush administration's environmental record. I do not come to the floor lightly. I am not here because I particularly want to be critical of the President or this administration; but it has been upsetting to me, particularly because I think in the aftermath of the September 11, because the Nation and I personally have focused so much on defense and the war on terrorism and homeland security issues, many times when efforts were made by the administration to weaken environmental laws or change agency rules in ways that weaken environmental protection, it has been difficult to get the public to pay attention to those issues or to even get the media's attention to the fact that in many cases environmental regulations have been watered down or changed in a way that is not good for the environment. I was hoping that was just a coincidence and it would not continue, but it has continued. There are reports which have come out, one of which I would like to go into in a little detail tonight, which shows that this administration continues to downgrade, if you will, environmental protection. When the President came forth with his budget last Monday, there was another strong indication of his willingness to downgrade environmental concerns because of the level of funding proposed in his budget for some key environmental programs. I do not think that anyone really expected when President Bush took office that this administration would be strong on environmental issues, but many times there was rhetoric that suggested maybe we were wrong and maybe there would be some heightened concern over the environment. But the fact of the matter is that the administration's actions are very much the opposite. They continue, whether by regulation or through their spending policies, to take action which I think ultimately hurts the environment. Mr. Speaker, I want to start out this evening by going through briefly a report that was put out by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the NRDC on January 23, just a couple of weeks ago. Basically what they looked at was agency actions over the spectrum of the Nation's most important environmental programs, whether that be protecting air, water, forest, wildlife or public lands. The report is actually entitled ``Rewriting the Rules: The Bush Administration's Unseen Assault on the Environment.'' It basically provides a review of agency action since September 11, and it shows very dramatically that there, basically, has been an intensification of efforts after September 11 to downgrade environmental protection. I think it is unfortunate that this is the case because I believe most Americans feel that not only is the environment an important issue, but it is a quality-of-life issue that everyone should be concerned about. I find in my district in the State of New Jersey, it does not matter whether a Member is a Republican or a Democrat, Americans want to protect the environment. Let me review some of the points that this report makes. Again, it is called ``Rewriting the Rules: The Bush Administration's Unseen Assault on the Environment.'' The first is with reference to clean air. We know that there is a fundamental requirement of the Clean Air Act that older electric power plants and other smoke stack industries must install state-of-the-art cleanup equipment when they expand or modernize their facilities, in other words when utilities are in the process of expanding an older facility. The older facilities may be exempt from certain standards of the Clean Air Act, but if you expand an old facility or build a new facility, then the company has to come under the provisions of the Clean Air Act. It is the grandfathering that is exempt. But what we find is that the Bush administration is trying to basically allow expansion of these older, dirty power plants without meeting the new requirements or the new rules. There is a new source requirement that says that for new industrial facilities and power plants, that industry has to put in place air quality improvements. That needs to be done for older, expanded plants, the same way as is required for new plants. But the Bush administration is saying that older plants may be expanded without having to upgrade equipment. Mr. Speaker, when the Clean Air Act was passed, it was understood that even though the older plants were grandfathered, that they would be phased out and at some point there would only be the new plants which met the stricter environmental criteria. If this administration allows the older plants to essentially retool and expand under the old rules, not only will those plants continue to have a life of their own, but now there will be even more power generated using old and outmoded methods that allow the air to be more and more polluted. The second issue that the NRDC report references with regard to wetlands. For more than a decade, the cornerstone of America's approach to wetlands protection has been a policy that calls for no net loss of wetlands. This actually originated with the first President Bush, with the first Bush administration. But with no public notice or opportunity for comment, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers moved to effectively reverse this long-standing policy by issuing a new guidance on wetlands mitigation. These weaker standards would mean the loss of tens of thousands of acres of wetlands that provide flood protection, clean water and fish and wildlife habitat. This reversal of the no net-loss policy, which has occurred since September 11, is just one component of a broader Bush administration effort to diminish wetlands protection. The President made a pledge during Earth Day of this year that he would preserve wetlands; but if we look at what his administration is doing, they supported relaxing a key provision of the Clean Water Act, the National Permit Program, which regulates development and industrial activity in streams and wetlands. So the Corps of Engineers is loosening the permit standards and making it easier for developers and mining companies to destroy more streams and wetlands. Mr. Speaker, a third area is mining on public lands. Mining activities have despoiled 40 percent of western watersheds, according to the EPA. But instead of addressing this problem, the Bush administration is making it worse. In October, the Department of the Interior issued new hardrock mining regulations reversing environmental restrictions that apply for mining for gold, copper, silver, and other metals on Federal lands. Under the new rules, the agency has renounced the government's authority to deny permits on the grounds that a proposed mine could result in substantial irreparable harm to the environment. So the new rules also limit corporate liability for irresponsible mining practices, undermining cleanup standards that safeguard ground and surface water. These were again put into place in October, in the aftermath of September 11, essentially when most of us, including the media, were not paying too much attention. A fourth area that I would like to mention that is in the NRDC report is particularly important to me, because when I was first elected to Congress back in 1988, basically I ran on a platform that I was going to put an end to ocean dumping off the coast of New Jersey, off the coast of my district. I have been very successful with my colleagues from New Jersey, with my other Members of the House, with the Senators from New Jersey over that 14-year period now to basically put an end to all direct dumping, if you will, in the ocean, whether it be sewage or toxic dredge material or the other types of materials. We had all kinds of garbage and different things that were placed out in the ocean. Sewage, of course, contains bacteria, viruses, fecal matter and other wastes, and it is responsible each year for beach closures, fish kills, shellfish-bed closures and human gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses. In 1988 in New Jersey, because of all the medical waste and the sewage sludge that was washing up on the beaches in the summer, we actually had to close all the beaches in the State, or almost all the beaches in the State. It cost New Jersey billions of dollars. People were getting sick, the economy was suffering, it was really a bad situation, both healthwise and economically speaking. According to the EPA, there were 40,000 discharges of untreated sewage into water bodies, basements, playgrounds and other areas in the year 2000. Before the Bush administration took office, the EPA issued long-overdue rules minimizing raw sewage discharges into waterways, and requiring public notification of sewage overflows. The proposed rules, however, were blocked by the regulatory freeze ordered by the Bush administration last January. A year later, the administration still has not issued the final sewage overflow rules. Technically, they remain under internal review at the EPA, but in practice they are languishing in regulatory limbo. This was an action that was taken by the Clinton administration, by the prior President, in an effort to try to minimize raw sewage overflow into our rivers, oceans and streams, and the Bush administration when they came into office basically got rid of that regulation, but promised they would come up with new ones. A year later we do not have them. Once again we have an example where clean water, like clean air, like wetlands, all these things are suffering because of either action or inaction by this current administration. The last thing that the NRDC mentions in the report is OMB's centralized assault. The full-scale regulatory retreat at Federal environmental agencies is only part of the story, according to the NRDC. Over the long term, the most telling indication of the Bush administration's intentions is the role played by the Office of Management and Budget. The Bush administration has given unprecedented new power to OMB to gut existing environmental rules and bottle up new ones indefinitely. And the OMB has carried this effort a step further by reaching out to polluters and their champions on Capitol Hill to develop a hit list of environmental safeguards they plan to weaken. The list provides a road map of upcoming regulatory battles that include safe drinking water standards, controls on toxins, Clean Air Act requirements, water pollution limits, pollution from factory farms, and forest planning regulations. The problem that I see, Mr. Speaker, is that this administration started out basically saying that they were going to try to improve the environment, making that commitment. A lot of us doubted that that commitment was real, and now in the aftermath of September 11 we see that it is not real, and, in fact, every effort is being made to gut environmental protection. I think that the public increasingly will not stand for this. If anything, the Enron scandal points out that the public is very wary of big business, corporate interests being able to extend their political influence on Capitol Hill to do things that are not in the interest of the little guy, that are not in the interest of the general public. I have no doubt that the environment is something that the public sincerely cares about and that once these administration actions are brought to light, we can see mounting support to oppose any kind of changes that seek to basically downplay or degrade the environment. I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker, if I could, what happened and some of the highlighted cuts that the President brought forward in his budget last Monday. I think that, as with everything related to the environment, the key is having good laws on the books, having agencies that will carry out those laws, but those agencies cannot carry out those laws unless they have the funding to do so, and in many cases they do not have the enforcement arm to make sure that permits are not violated and that people are basically not going along with the laws that exist, the good laws that exist on the environment. When you talk about cutbacks in the areas that I am going to discuss, that has a major impact on the ability to improve environmental quality. If the money is not there to clean up the water, to clean up the air, to take the action, to do the enforcement, then we will continue to see a policy of environmental degradation. I wanted to get into a little detail about some of the budget concerns that I have in what the President proposed last Monday. In the first instance, I would like to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is really an open space issue. At the end of the 106th Congress, the work of numerous Members, administration officials and literally thousands of conservation, environmental and recreation interests across the country culminated in what was the greatest piece of conservation funding legislation enacted in our lifetime. This was at the end of the last Congress. There was a bipartisan deal that set aside a total of $12 billion over a 6-year period, from 2001 to 2006, to fund an array of important programs, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund that protected open space, wildlife habitat, wildlife and cultural treasures, and supported recreation. This fund, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is dedicated and protected for these purposes. It cannot be used for any other budget purposes. The fund started out at $1.6 billion and is slated for 10 percent increases each year to reach a total of $2.4 billion by fiscal year 2006. The fund is large enough to fully fund the open space program that Congress enacted, but the administration in its budget proposal cut this historic program by $250 million below its authorized level of $1.92 billion for the next fiscal year. The Bush administration's budget also erodes the original purpose of this Land and Water Conservation Fund, first by cutting existing programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund by $88 million, State and tribal wildlife grants by $25 million, and the Endangered Species Fund by $5 million; and also zeroing out the Urban Parks and Recreation Program. It substantially increases the level in the fund for Federal lands maintenance, and this was supposed to be complementary, not part of the effort to acquire more open space. So what we see is a promised program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was supposed to be money set aside just for specific open space purposes, now being cut even though there was a commitment over this period of time to make sure that it was fully funded. There is a similar problem with wildlife refuges. The wildlife refuge system celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2003. Defenders and a number of other organizations have called for more than doubling the refuge system's budget to a total of $700 million so that it has the funds to carry out its mission. In other words, there was supposed to be a significant increase in this fund. But what has happened, what the Bush administration has proposed, is to basically cut back on staff. Nearly 200 refuges have no staff on site, and at its fiscal year 2002 funding level, needed operation increases are five times greater than needed maintenance increases. What the administration is doing again here is not providing enough funding to actually run the wildlife refuge programs and making it more and more difficult to maintain the refuges around the country. We have a similar situation with endangered species. The administration has requested $125.7 million, level funding, for the Fish and Wildlife Service core endangered species program. But this amount falls far short of the $275 million recommended for the next fiscal year by environmental groups. They do not have enough funding in the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete action on more than 250 species that are currently candidates for protection. This is the listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act. So if you do not have the money to actually go out and list species and decide what is going to be on the endangered species list, essentially there is no protection for those species. Last year, the Service estimated that it needs $120 million, or $24 million per year over 5 years, just for the process of eliminating the backlog for listing critical species. This does not account for a lot more that could be looked at and placed on the list. The administration has requested just $9 million for listing. Again, this is a way through the budget that the Bush administration makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to enforce the Endangered Species Act, by not providing enough funding to do the process of listing species. That is just the listing process. At the same time, the Fish and Wildlife Service is desperately short of funding needed to recover species; in other words, those that have already been listed and need actions by the Federal Government to make sure that they recover. At least 40 currently listed species could become extinct, even though they are listed and protected, because there is not enough funding for needed recovery actions. I will not list all of these, but the Florida panther is one, and a number of Hawaiian birds and plants. Again, this is another area where the administration is basically allowing a program to degrade because we do not have the money to either list an endangered species or to protect them. I wanted to also mention the Cooperative Conservation Initiative. The administration is proposing $100 million for a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative while mandated actions and current programs are crying for funds. They are coming up with this new program proposed that supposedly is going to deal with conservation issues, but it is not at all clear what its purpose is, at the same time that they are cutting back on funding for some of the other programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the endangered species program. There are two other areas I wanted to mention this evening, Mr. Speaker. One deals with oil and gas development on public lands. The other deals with our national forests. What the Bush administration is doing in their budget, the President's budget, boosts oil and gas development on our public lands. Under the Bureau of Land Management, the administration is requesting a $10.2 million increase to expand energy and mineral development on public lands, including expedited permitting and increased leasing, energy-related rights of way and further development on Alaska's North Slope, including plans for drilling, of course, in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in Alaska. The administration's budget includes assumptions of receipts from lease sales in ANWR in 2004. It also requested a $14 million increase for the Bureau of Land Management land use plans, some of which are for national conservation areas, but some are for energy development. I am not saying that it is always a bad thing to increase oil and gas drilling, but in many of these cases these actions are being taken in environmentally sensitive areas, particularly ANWR. Obviously the administration, the President, continues to push for drilling in ANWR, which from an environmental point of view would be very damaging to the wildlife refuge and to the environment in general in Alaska. The last thing I wanted to mention relates to national forests. The Forest Service budget includes a damaging pilot charter forest legislative proposal that establishes forests or portions of forests as separate entities outside of the national forest system structure and reporting to a local trust entity for oversight, so basically to get rid of the oversight requirements that currently exist. This is nothing more than a giveaway of portions of our national forests, which, of course, are irreplaceable ecosystems that belong to all the American people. The budget also includes a timber sales offer level of 2 billion boardfeet, a substantial increase from the 1.4 billion boardfeet in recent years. This reflects a return to the timber targets of the Reagan years when politicians set logging levels that had no basis in science. It is also a clear departure from the practice of recent years to manage for the health and sustainability of the land, with outputs a by-product of good land management, not a good goal. The Forest Service is heavily subsidized to meet these harvest goals. Again, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is difficult, I think, to understand a lot of these measures, whether it be the budget measures or the agency actions that I mentioned before in the aftermath of September 11. It is hard to monitor and to realize the impact of a lot of these actions because they are in specific agencies, they impact certain parts of the country. But if you add them all up, both the budget cuts as well as the agency actions in the last few months, you can see that this administration is clearly moving more and more in intensifying its efforts to try to cut back on environmental protection. I think the only way that we are going to stop this is if more and more people speak out. It is being done basically under the cover of September 11, when a lot of the media are not paying attention, and I hope that over the next few months we are able to bring more and more attention to some of these measures and to get the administration to stop intensifying their efforts. I notice that since I have been in Congress, if an action is taken to weaken the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act in committee or on the floor of the House, because it is legislative, Members are usually aware of it and they can come in committee or to the floor and object to it and usually put a stop to it because of the public outcry. But when it comes to agency actions, when it comes to cutbacks in funding for some of the agencies in the fashion that I have described this evening, it is a much more insidious process and much more difficult I think for the public to understand what is going on or to focus on it; and I just think it is extremely unfortunate that the President has taken advantage of this period since September 11 to intensify his efforts to degrade the environment and to take both these agency and budget actions. Obviously, we have an opportunity during the appropriations process to turn this around and not accept the President's budget on a lot of these environmental initiatives, and that has to be part of what we try to accomplish over the next few months as we move through the appropriations process. I will say once again, it is my intention to come to the floor again and bring other colleagues to draw more and more attention to the President's anti-environment policies. They are not in sync with the American people, and they are certainly not in accordance with the promises that he made when he first ran for President.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most important dates on the calendar for the people of India, as well as for the people of Indian descent who have settled in the United States and around the world. January 26th is Republic Day, an occasion that inspires pride and patriotism for the people of India. On January 26, 1950, India became a Republic, devoted to the principals of democracy and secularism. At that time, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected as the nation's first president. Since then, despite the challenges of sustaining economic development and promoting tolerance and cooperation amongst its many ethnic, religious and linguistic communities, India has stuck to the path of free and fair elections, a multi-party political system and the orderly transfer of power from one government to its successor. On that special day in 1950, India adopted its Constitution. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that India derived key aspects of her Constitution, particularly its statement of Fundamental Rights, from our own Bill of Rights. Last year, on the eve of Republic Day, India's President K.R. Narayanan stated in his address to the nation: ``Let us remember, it is under the flexible and spacious provisions of our Constitution, that democracy has flourished during the last fifty years and that India has achieved an unprecedented unity and cohesion as a nation and made remarkable progress in the social and economic fields.'' India and the United States both proclaimed their independence from British colonial rule. The Indian independence movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi had strong moral support from American intellectuals, political leaders and journalists. Just last week, we paid tribute to one of our greatest American leaders, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King derived many of his ideas of non-violent resistance to injustice from the teachings and the actions of Mahatma Gandhi. As the world's two largest democracies, the United States and India have a natural relationship, based on their shared values of diversity, democracy and prosperity. These two countries have steadily grown closer for the past ten years, and most recently, the United States' campaign to fight global terrorism has brought the two countries even closer. Following the tragic events of September 11, India was one of the first countries to come forward to the United States with an offer of full assistance and cooperation in this new global fight against terrorism. Prime Minister Vajpayee expressed his deep sympathy regarding the World Trade Center attacks. The attacks in fact took the lives of 250 Indians and Indian-Americans. Since September 11, there have been a string of terrorist attacks against India. On October 1st, a suicide car bomb exploded in front of the Jammu and Kashmir State assembly while it was in session, killing over 35 people. Cross-border terrorism in Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir has perpetuated on a daily basis. On December 13th, the Indian Parliament building in New Delhi, a great symbol of democracy, was attacked by Pakistani-based terrorists, killing nine police officers, a Parliament worker and the five terrorists. The most recent terrorist attack this past Tuesday on the American Center in Calcutta killed four police officers and wounded 19. India has sadly been afflicted with terrorism from Pakistani-based terrorist groups that are to be blamed for over 53,000 deaths of innocent Indian citizens throughout the last 15 years. These are in fact the same terrorist groups that belong to the terrorist networks the United States is now fighting against. It is only natural that these two countries are now united in the global fight against terrorism. Although Republic Day is an occasion to celebrate India's grand achievements and strong U.S.-India ties, in is also important to note that January 26, 2002 marks the one-year anniversary of the earthquake that literally rocked Gujurat. This devastating natural disaster killed more than 20,000 people, injured more than hundreds of thousands of people and in many ways, robbed millions of their homes and their every day lives. Congress soon thereafter passed a resolution expressing their support for providing assistance and in the FY 2002 Foreign Operations bill, $1 million will be allocated to India for natural disaster preparedness. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that throughout the South Asian region, India stands alone as a pillar of democracy, stability and growth. I join both Indians in India and over 1.6 million Indians living here in the United States in celebrating India's Republic Day.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government has repeatedly committed to a trustee relationship with the American Indian nations. Defined by treaties, statutes, and interpreted by the courts, the trust relationship requires the Federal Government to exercise the highest degree of care with tribal and Indian lands and resources. At first, the Federal trust responsibility served to protect tribal lands and tribal communities from intrusion. However, in a push to acquire tribal lands and turn Indians into farmers, the Federal Government imposed reservation allotment programs pursuant to the General Allotment Act of 1887. Under these policies, the selling and leasing of allotted lands and inherited interests became primary functions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes lost 90 million acres and much of the remaining 54 million acres was opened to non-Indian use by lease. In sum, the Federal Government took the trust responsibility for Indian land upon itself in order to gain the benefit of vast tribal lands and resources that were guaranteed by treaty, executive order, and agreements for exclusive use by the tribes. It is widely known, Mr. Speaker, that the BIA grossly mismanaged and squandered billions of dollars worth of resources that should have gone to the benefit of often impoverished American Indians. Today, the Secretary of the Interior is faced by a mandate from Congress to clean up the accounting and management of the Indian trust funds, and by a lawsuit alleging a great failure by the Secretary's trust responsibility for Indian lands. In response, the Secretary has proposed a plan to create a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management and remove the trust functions from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this proposal will profoundly affect the BIA's management of 54 million acres of Indian lands, the administration of trust funds derived from those lands, and nearly every aspect of economic development, agriculture, and land management within Indian country. I am greatly concerned that this plan is repeating the failure of the many trust reform efforts of the past. Recently, 193 Indian tribes unanimously adopted a resolution opposing this reorganization and transfer of the responsibilities of the BIA. I strongly believe that this reorganization effort cannot go forward until the Department consults with Indian tribes in the development of a business processes plan for trust reform, a clear plan for performing the basic trust functions of accounting, collections, recordkeeping inspections enforcement and resource management. The plan must include policies, procedures and controls. The fundamental and consistent criticism of the Department's trust reform efforts over the last decade has been the failure to develop a plan for these business operations of trust management. Instead, the DOI has a well- documented record of making short-term cosmetic changes in response to court-imposed deadlines or congressional inquiries. Mr. Speaker, it is notable that this criticism, a lack of structural foundation, is exactly the same as has been leveled against the Department's development of the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System. All tribal leaders strongly support trust reform and want to work constructively with the Department and with Congress to ensure sound management of tribal assets. In fact, it is the tribes that have the greatest interest in ensuring that tribal assets and resources are properly managed. In this spirit, I will submit for the Record the following principles of the National Congress of American Indians, which should guide the Department of the Interior in its trust reform efforts. Secretary Norton clearly needs help in attending to the concerns of Native Americans, and I would hope these principles would be taken into consideration by her. I. Put first things first. Creating a new agency does not create trust reform, and we unequivocally oppose this proposal as currently framed. Tribal leadership urges the Secretary to stop the BITAM reorganization effort until there has been an opportunity to actively engage and consult with tribes in developing an alternative plan for the business processes of trust management in an open and consensus- based process. Once the Department, working with tribes, has a clear definition of the tasks that must be accomplished, then any staff reorganization should be based on this business processes plan. II. Tribes can help solve this problem, but the Secretary must consult and collaborate with the tribal leadership on a government-to- government, sovereign-to-sovereign basis. Announce and defend is not consultation. The Secretary and the tribes should agree that the upcoming regional meetings should be to consult on the scope of the issues to be addressed. The scoping meetings planned at present are too fast and too few, and should be extended to cover all regions, with an extended timeline. A Tribal Leaders Task Force on Trust Reform should be created and funded, and consultation should include the IIM account holders. Consultation must continue throughout the trust reform effort, and the discussions must be marked by some fundamental ground rules. The tribes insist that the Department agree to deal in good faith, avoid self-dealing, and commit to full disclosure of relevant and material information (including that relating to known failures and losses). III. In the past twelve years, Interior has paid more than a billion dollars in judgments and settlements for its failures to protect the trust assets. The costs of continued failure will far outstrip the costs of doing it right. Congress must fund trust reform, and the IIM beneficiaries and tribes should not bear the burden of paying to fix the trust system. We therefore oppose the Department's proposed reprogramming of $300 million within the Fiscal 2002 budget from the BIA budget to fund the proposed BITAM, and any other proposal to remove funds from the BIA for this purpose. IV. The Secretary of Interior should come forward in an honest and forthright way to discuss ways of settling on historic account balances. If she cannot do this, then Congress must address this issue substantively. V. Do no harm. Many tribes and BIA field offices have been successful in establishing sound trust management for their lands pursuant to the tribal self-determination policy. These successful systems should not be harmed or modified by the trust reform efforts without tribal consent. VI. Successful development and resource management in Indian Country are linked to Indian control. The future of trust management includes increased protection and tribal control over lands and resources, and a federal system that provides technical assistance and trust oversight on resource management in a flexible arrangement that is driven by self determination through the special circumstances, legal and treaty rights of each tribe and reservation. Different regions in Indian Country and their specialization in grazing, timber, oil & gas, commercial real estate, agriculture, fisheries, water, etc., will all require different systems that must reflect the unique needs of each. VII. The survival of tribal cultures and traditions is dependent upon the continuance of tribal lands and resources as durable means to live and be Indian. One role of the trustee is to protect the long-term viability of tribal lands and resources and ensure that the actions of the trustee are consistent with tribal control of the use and development of Indian lands.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Armenian-related provisions in the foreign ops bill, and I want to commend my colleagues on the subcommittee for striking the appropriate balance regarding section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. In particular, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and in particular the co-chair of the Armenia Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who worked very hard on the Armenia provisions. As my colleagues know, this important provision of law, section 907, was enacted in 1992 to address Azerbaijan's aggression and blockades against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. While Congress has upheld this provision of law over the years, the tragic events of September 11 necessitated certain changes to section 907. As Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated in a letter to Members of Congress, changes were needed to ``enable Azerbaijan to counter terrorist organizations and elements operating within its borders.'' In fact, I remain concerned about credible reports regarding the presence of al Qaeda cells operating within Azerbaijan that pose a direct threat to the United States and whose members participated in Azerbaijan's military campaign against the Armenians of Nagorno- Karabagh. In his 1999 Defense & Foreign Affairs article by Yossef Bodansky, entitled ``The New Azerbaijan Hub--How Islamist operations are targeting Russia, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh,'' Bodansky notes that radical Islamist forces used Azerbaijan as a launching base to conduct operations. As my colleagues may recall, Mr. Bodansky served as the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. Mr. Speaker, these cells not only pose a threat to Armenia and Karabagh, but also threaten all of us. I include for the Record an article on this subject by Yossef Bodansky, as well as an Armenia Assembly issue brief on this subject and a press release.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tonight that we are finally considering, after much delay, H.R. 2869, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Liability Act. The bill is actually a compilation of two popular pieces of legislation. The first half of the bill is verbatim the provisions of H.R. 1381, the Small Business Protection ACt. This bill, which gives Superfund liability exemptions for those small businesses that discarded ordinary household waste, was favorably reported from our committee and passed the House by a vote of 419 to zero on May 22 of this year. The second half of the bill contains the provisions of S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization Act, which passed the Senate on April 25 this year by a vote of 99 to 0. Brownfields are a relatively recent complex and dynamic area of public policy. Government at all levels, local, State, and Federal, is grappling with liability, environmental and cost issues caused by brownfields reclamation, and is taking steps to resolve them. Despite the popular image of brownfields as an urban problem they are found in suburbs and rural areas, too. In my home State of New Jersey, which is heavily affected probably with more brown field sites than any State in the Nation, but New Jersey, for that reason, has taken a leadership role in developing regulatory and funding tools for cleaning up brownfields. The ability to reuse brownfields is important in implementing a smart growth agenda because it blunts pressures to develop untouched green spaces, and therefore helps contain sprawl. However, brownfields redevelopment is also important because of the public policy perspective, which is essentially a tricky one. It is clear there is no such thing as a typical brownfields site, nor is there one problem common to all sites. They vary greatly in the size, location, origin, marketability, and degree of contamination. For the most part, none of the sites have been inventoried or assessed. Those two facts make it nearly impossible to prescribe a single solution which provides redevelopment incentives for the wide variety of brownfields sites that currently exist. With these in mind, I believe the role for the Federal Government is to strike a balance between the desire to provide redevelopment incentives that will work for a variety of sites, while at the same time maintaining the assurance to affected citizens that these sites will no longer threaten the health of the community. This is essentially the basis for our legislation. The bill provides critically needed funds to assess and clean up abandoned and underutilized brownfield sites which will create jobs, increase tax revenues, preserve and create open space and parks. In addition, it provides legal protections for innocent parties such as contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners. I expect or I hope that this legislation will not only pass the House tonight and then the Senate quickly, and then be sent on to the President for his approval. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is really a bill that provides a win-win situation. The gentleman from (Mr. Gillmor) talked about all the different groups that support it. It is kind of interesting to see environmental groups and the building trades and all the different business organizations all supporting the same bill, but it really, truly is supported by all of them because it is a win-win situation. By cleaning up these brownfields sites, we provide an opportunity for more jobs while at the same time cleaning up the environment, protecting public health, and curbing suburban sprawl. I just wanted to say before I conclude, in my home State of New Jersey, as I said, there are so many brownfield sites. Just last week I visited a site in my district called Edison Crossroads. It is a perfect example of the opportunities afforded our communities when this bill becomes law. This once-abandoned eyesore of a former steel tubing and floor tile manufacturing facility. With the opportunity to recover 75 percent of its remedial costs and receive liability protection by performing a State-approved clean-up, the development company Arc Properties was encouraged to move forward with purchasing this site and conducting a massive clean-up and reuse project, including the excavation of more than 600 tons of tainted soil, nine underground storage tanks, and removal of several buildings filled with asbestos. Today, and I was there, as I said, last week, the site has attracted a Home Depot, Edwards, World Carpet, and many other large companies, resulting in a positive source of economic growth for the local and regional communities. We have a lot of those success stories like this in New jersey: the New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark, the Jersey Gardens Mall in Elizabeth. This brownfield redevelopment, because of what my State is doing, is having a huge impact on the New Jersey landscape. I am very pleased our subcommittee was able to move this important piece of bipartisan legislation. It is truly bipartisan, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) mentioned. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and of course, the staffers that have been working so hard on this bill, as well as the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). I think we are on the threshold of this becoming law. We have been working with it on the Democratic side for at lest 4 years, so I am really glad to say that the day has finally come when it is going to come to pass. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and that he may be permitted to yield time, as well.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the majority, the vast majority of Americans who are unemployed cannot afford health insurance under our current system. What the Democrats have proposed is so easy. We simply say, okay, we will pay for your COBRA benefits or, if you are not eligible for COBRA, we will pay for your Medicaid benefits and you will get comprehensive coverage. I think that what is happening here tonight is that the Republicans are so kind of wrapped up into their own idealogy, conservative idealogy, that they just think that what the Democrats have proposed is somehow a giveaway or some kind of welfare or something that is wrong for the American people. They should be looking at this practically in terms of what is actually going to help people get health insurance, and that is true for unemployment compensation and the other aspects of this bill. It really irks me to hear my Republican colleagues act as if they want to help or do something when they know full well that by bringing this bill up tonight they are going to do nothing. I am going to get a call Friday when I go back to my district office about health insurance; and I am going to have to say, nothing happened in this House of Representatives because of the Republican leadership and because of their conservative, right-wing idealogy and their unwillingness to bend. National Governors Association, Washington, DC, November 26, 2001. Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, the Capitol, Washington,

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am also in support of the legislation. While this bill is technical in nature, it does basically fill a vacuum and it offers real benefits to low income Native American women who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. Basically what happened is that in a bill that was passed last year, the interpretation of it has been made so that it excludes Native American women have Medicaid coverage. The legislation today would resolve this problem by clarifying that they would indeed come under the coverage of that initial legislation. I would point out that Native American and Alaskan Native women have a higher incidence of breast and cervical cancer than the U.S. population generally. So it really is important that we enact this bill to ensure that they receive needed assistance. The Senate already passed the legislation by unanimous consent. It is supported by a number of health care groups. And I just again want to extend my appreciation and recognition to the lead sponsor, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Tom Udall) and also commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) who worked tirelessly on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of S. 1741, the ``Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001.'' This legislation makes a simple but extremely important technical change to the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act'' to improve the coverage of breast and cervical cancer treatment for American Indian and Alaska Native women. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act--which Congress passed last year--gives States the option to extend coverage to certain women who have been screened by programs operated under the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program of the Public Health Service Act and who have no ``creditable coverage.'' The term ``creditable coverage'' was established by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Under the HIPAA definition, creditable coverage includes a reference to the medical care program of the Indian Health Service (IHS). In short, the reference to ``creditable coverage'' in the law effectively excludes Indian women from receiving Medicaid breast and cervical cancer treatment as provided for under this act. The Indian health reference to IHS/tribal care was originally included in HIPAA so that members of Indian tribes eligible for IHS would not be treated as having a break in coverage simply because they had received care through Indian health programs, rather than through a conventional health insurance program. Thus, in the HIPAA context, the inclusion of the IHS/tribal provision was intended to benefit American Indians and Alaska Natives, not penalize them. However, use of the HIPAA definition in the recent ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act'' has the exact opposite effect. In fact, the many Indian women who rely on IHS/tribal programs for basic health care are excluded from the new law's eligibility for Medicaid. Not only does the definition deny coverage to Indian women, but the provision runs counter to the general Medicaid rule treating IHS facilities as full Medicaid providers. While American Indian and Alaska Native women have a higher incidence of breast and cervical cancer than the U.S. population generally, many Indian women with these conditions will be left with fewer resources to fight breast and cervical cancer because of their exclusion from the new Medicaid coverage option. This bill, S. 1741, would resolve these problems by clarifying that, for purposes of the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act,'' the term ``creditable coverage'' shall not include IHS-funded care so that American Indian and Alaska Native women can be covered by Medicaid for breast and cervical cancer treatment. Since a number of states are currently moving forward to provide Medicaid coverage under the state option, the need for this legislation is immediate to ensure that American Indian and Alaska Native women are not denied from receiving life-saving breast and cervical cancer treatment. Up to 40 States have either taken the option and have been granted a Medicaid state plan amendment by HHS already or are in the process of filing a Medicaid state plan amendment to provide coverage to low- income for breast and cervical cancer treatment as a result of the passage of last year's bill. Unfortunately, in all of those states, Native American women may be ineligible for coverage unless we take up this technical correction. Time is of the essence to pass this legislation so that Native American women are appropriately provided treatment for their breast and cervical cancer as States begin implementing this law. I am pleased today, that we are taking action on this bill. When the time comes for a vote, I urge all of my colleagues to support it and I hope that we may pass this bill before the end of the year.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I did want to take 5 minutes of my time this evening to talk about a totally different issue, and that is my concern over what is happening and what has been happening in India with the terrorist attacks that have been taking place in India and, most notably, with the attack on the Indian parliament that took place last week. I mention this because in the effort to fight the war against terrorism, President Bush has made it clear many times that this is a battle with many fronts. It has a homeland security element. It has an overseas element. And of course it is primarily been manifested overseas in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But we know that al Qaeda has cells in a lot of different countries and we know that a lot of these terrorists groups are linked. And so the President has made clear this is not a battle that will be limited to Afghanistan or that is going to be limited to this year. It is going to go on for many years and it is going to manifest itself in many ways. But one of the disappointing aspects of it all from my perspective is that I have watched Pakistan help the United States in a significant way in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and against al Qaeda in Afghanistan; yet at the same time I see that same Pakistani government continuing its effort to back terrorists who inflict pain and death and injury on Indian citizens, particularly in Kashmir. But even more so, of course, now it has actually gotten to the stage where attacks were made on the parliament, the symbol of Indian democracy. My point tonight, and I have said it many times, is that if Pakistan, like any country, really wants to be sincere in fighting the war against terrorists, they cannot limit it to Afghanistan. They have to also not support terrorist activities against India or any other country. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned last Thursday, we learned about a horrific terrorist attack on the parliament of India in New Delhi. Reports indicate that the terrorist attackers died during the attack but, unfortunately, eight people, including guards and workers, were killed and at least 17 people were injured at the hands of the suicide bomber and the other assailants equipped with grenades and guns that attacked the Indian parliament. India has conducted intense investigations since the attack and has obtained evidence that two Pakistani based militant groups, I am not sure I can pronounce them, Mr. Speaker, but I will try, Jaish-e- Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba are responsible for the attack. Indian evidence also makes it clear that these groups received directives from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI. Mr. Speaker, this comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following these two groups' history of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, and I have confidence that India's evidence is both strong and accurate against the two terrorist groups. I have criticized and denounced the actions of these groups many times on the floor of the House. The most recent incident I have found to be appalling was the suicide car bomb attack on the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly on October 1. Jaish-e-Mohammed came forward and took credit for that crime which they later revoke, and I have encouraged President Bush to add this group to the list of terrorist organizations whose financial assets would be frozen. Although this group has been placed on the list, Pakistan continues to allow them to operate with no financial restrictions. Mr. Speaker, I understand that General Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, has been willing to help the U.S. in the global fight against terrorism, however, it is clear that Pakistan has deep-rooted and intricate ties to the Taliban, al Qaeda and, most importantly, the terrorist groups operating in Kashmir and now in New Delhi. India has requested that General Musharraf eliminate the terrorist capabilities of both Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. This would consist of Pakistan shutting down these groups operations, discontinuing moral and logistical support, arresting the leaders, and once and for all freezing their financial assets. I believe that India has every right to make these requests and I have requested today in a letter to President Bush that the U.S. make the same demand of General Musharraf, to put an end to Pakistan's support and tolerance of these terrorist groups. Mr. Speaker, the attack on the world's largest democracy and the Indian people must be answered with punitive action. The U.S. administration must push General Musharraf harder to arrest the leaders of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. In addition, he must follow through and shut down all terrorist camps operating in Pakistan and all jihadi schools that indoctrinate terrorism from children. Not only is this in the interest of India, it would equally benefit Pakistan as well. It has been made clear that terrorist groups operating in Pakistan have links to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist networks. And I believe that efforts to eliminate these terrorist groups is also in the best interest of the United States. Again, Mr. Speaker, I make these comments not because what I think is going to hurt Pakistan but by what I think is going to help Pakistan. In the same way that General Musharraf has come to the conclusion or came to the conclusion after September 11 that aiding the United States in the war against the Taliban and against al Qaeda would ultimately be helpful to Pakistan because of the terrorist activities that take place within Pakistan, I think the same thing is true of these groups that operate and get support from Pakistan and attack India. In the long run, all of these terrorist groups have to be eradicated and Pakistan must deal with the situation and try to suppress the terrorism, not only when it is geared towards the United States or Afghanistan, but also when it is geared towards Kashmir and India.