Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I do plan initially to respond to some of the comments that were made by my Republican colleagues about the potential stimulus bill that I gather we may see on the House Floor as early as tomorrow. Regardless of the substance of the stimulus package that the Republican leadership may bring up tomorrow, I think the bottom line is, and everyone needs to know, that it is going nowhere. They are fully aware of the fact that it is going nowhere. I think what we are going to see tomorrow, and I think it is very unfortunate, is basically a replay of what happened a couple of months ago when, in the aftermath of September 11 and the World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies, there was an effort in the few weeks afterwards, because of the realization of the impact on the economy and because the recession was only, if you will, accelerated by the events on September 11, there was a recognition that we needed to do a stimulus package to get the economy going again, and that the only way to achieve that, given that we have a divided government, one body Democrat, one body Republican majority, that we needed to work across party lines and to bring the House and the Senate together. So there was sort of understanding that we would all sit down and work on a stimulus package together, Democrats and Republicans together, Senate and House together, as well as with the President. But unfortunately, very quickly that dissolved because the House Republican leadership wanted to pass their own version of a stimulus package and was not willing to work with the Democrats in the House or with the other body. A bill was passed very narrowly, I think it passed by one or two votes here in the House, and of course it was never taken up in the other body. There was no meeting of the minds and no effort to try to come to any kind of accommodation across party lines. I would suggest, having been here, I guess, 12 years, that anything like that, where one party which is in the majority tries to simply shove down their throats, if you will, a bill that the other party cannot stomach because they think it is the wrong way to go, is doomed to failure. Every one of my colleagues who spoke on the other side of the aisle just in the last hour knows very well that if all they do tomorrow is bring up another Republican leadership bill that has not been negotiated with the Democrats, which this one has not been, then the end result is failure. The end result is that that bill will go nowhere, no stimulus package will pass; and we will go home within the next few days having accomplished nothing for the American people. The very fact that they are even talking about this bill means that my Republican colleagues in the Republican leadership have basically decided that they do not care to pass a stimulus package. So when they suggest that they are going to try to help the unemployed, that they are going to provide health benefits, that they are going to do things for corporate America that are going to help create jobs, the very fact that they are bringing a bill to the floor that was not negotiated on a bipartisan basis means that those things will never happen; and it is very unfortunate. It is also very unfortunate that they keep talking about passing another bill when the first one was doomed to failure; and the second one will be, as well, because it is really nothing more than a hoax on the American people. The American people will not see a stimulus package. The best thing they could do would be to go back and sit down and talk to the Democrats in the other body, in the Senate, and try to come to some sort of accommodation, rather than just bashing and bashing and hammering as this goes on. I want to talk a little bit about why the Democrats feel that this Republican stimulus package is really nothing different from the previous one and will not help, even if it did pass, to stimulate the economy. Understand, on the one hand I am saying tonight that this bill that they are going to bring up tomorrow, if it is brought up, cannot pass; so it is hopeless from the beginning, cannot pass both houses and be signed into law. But even if it did pass, it would not do anything to stimulate the economy. That is what we are really trying to do here, stimulate the economy on a short-term basis to have the recession be over. I wanted to talk a little bit about the Democratic alternative to the original Republican bill to give my colleagues the flavor, if you will, of what the Democrats would like to see and why the Democratic alternative would serve the purpose of helping displaced workers get unemployment compensation, get health benefits, and stimulate the economy. The original House bill that I was talking about, the original Republican bill that was doomed to failure, passed the House on October 24, almost 2 months ago. It passed strictly on party lines, 216 to 214. This is the Republican stimulus package. What it called for, and this one, as well, that they intend to bring up tomorrow calls for, is essentially tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy. Now, how do we get the economy going again if all we do is give big tax breaks to big corporations and wealthy people? They do not have any obligation, wealthy persons do not have any obligation to spend that money. They may just put it in the bank. They may put it in stocks or do something else. They are not immediately going to spend the money, which is what is needed to stimulate the economy. The way the economy is stimulated is when people have to spend money because they have to buy food or have to pay their rent or whatever they have to do. Generally speaking, our middle-class people or even poor people, they go out and spend money, they shop, and the economy gets going again. This notion that we are just going to give these big tax breaks to big corporations, again, that has no stimulative effect. They do not necessarily have to take that money and invest it in new equipment or in new jobs or new production of any sort. I would venture to say that many of them probably would not. So the whole premise of the Republican proposal, which is essentially tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy, really does not help anything. It does not help stimulate the economy, and it certainly does not help with those workers who have been displaced and are looking for a job. The Democratic alternative that we have proposed back in October and that we still have been pushing for today by contrast would provide workers with extended unemployment benefits, health coverage, and tax breaks for low- and moderate-income Americans. If I could use my home State, I could say that I have some statistics, if you will, from the U.S. Department of Labor with regard to New Jersey. They say that an estimated 361,942, and I guess it is not really an estimate but it is an exact figure, New Jersey residents will apply for unemployment benefits over the next year, and almost half of those, 166,493, will see those benefits expire during that same period. Nationally, half of the unemployed people do not currently qualify for unemployment benefits, and the vast majority cannot afford health coverage under our current system. Let me get a little more specific about what the Democrats have been talking about. In terms of unemployment compensation, individuals who exhaust their 26-week eligibility for State unemployment would be eligible for an additional 52 weeks of cash payment funded entirely by the Federal Government. Individuals who do not meet their States' requirements for unemployment insurance, in other words, part-time workers, would receive 56 weeks of federally financed unemployment insurance. Members can see how that would make a difference for a lot of people. With regard to health care benefits, under the Democratic proposal, the Federal Government would fully reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA premiums. Individuals who do not qualify for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured would be eligible for Medicaid, with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the premiums. These benefits would last for a maximum of 18 months. Now, the Democrats keep talking about the Federal Government paying these costs, because we have to understand that State governments are strapped. Many of them face deficits. They are not in a position to be able to pay for these things, which is why the Federal Government is proposing to do it. The Democrats also have rebate checks for low- and moderate-income workers who did not qualify for the rebate checks issued earlier this year under President Bush's tax cut. Now, I maintain that President Bush's tax cut from maybe 6 months ago is the major reason why we are now in a deficit situation, and I do not believe that accelerating those tax cuts is really going to make a difference in terms of stimulating the economy. That is essentially what the Republican leadership is proposing. Under the Democratic proposal, these low- and moderate-income workers who did not qualify for the rebate checks issued earlier this year under President Bush's tax cut would receive a one-time payment of up to $300 for single people and $600 for married couples. There are many other aspects of the Democratic proposal, but I just wanted to key into the fact that rather than giving these big corporate tax breaks and tax breaks to the wealthy, we are trying to put some money into the hands of low- and moderate-income people who will go out and spend the money and stimulate the economy; the same with the unemployment compensation, and the same with the health benefits. Even providing health insurance and extended COBRA and Medicaid stimulates the economy because that money is now being spent on health care. Mr. Speaker, I always worry when I am on the floor of the House and I do these Special Orders that someone is going to say, he is just giving the Democratic line, and that is what all the Democrats are saying, but why should I believe it? I would like to back up what I am saying, contrasting what the Democrats are proposing to do versus the Republicans with some of the editorial comments that we have been getting from some of the leading newspapers around the country. This one is particularly appropriate. This is from the Los Angeles Times, and it is in today's paper. Just to give some highlights of what this editorial says, and this is an editorial, as I say, from today's Los Angeles Times, it talks about some of the Republican tax breaks that are proposed not in the previous Republican bill that passed the House, but the one that my colleagues are talking about possibly bringing up tomorrow. So we are talking about the current bill, not the previous bill. What this editorial says in the Los Angeles Times, it first of all talks about the retroactive corporate tax cuts. The Republican leadership has been pushing not only these big corporate tax cuts, but making them retroactive, so that the companies would get tax money back, money back from taxes they paid years ago. Well, it says in the editorial, and I quote: ``House GOP leaders such as Dick Armey seem giddy thinking about the pleasure that corporations would have upon receiving a refund of what they paid under the `alternative minimum tax' over the last 15 years.'' They are now getting refunds for taxes paid over 15 years. ``The proposal would hand out millions to corporations such as General Motors and Ford for doing nothing. Even Enron, which recently went broke after deceiving investors and workers, could conceivably get this windfall. Whopping corporate tax deductions.'' Now, the other thing, of course, the Republicans are saying is that they want to accelerate the drop in income tax rates for higher-income people. ``Some Republicans hope to make the season bright,'' and they are talking about the Christmas season in the editorial, ``by cutting the 27 percent rate to 25 percent in 2002. But this gift would benefit the top one-fourth of taxpayers and cost $54 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. Where's the stimulus in giving a break to upper-income folks who are unlikely to use it to buy extra groceries?'' Further on the editorial says, and I think some of my colleagues even mentioned this on the other side in the last hour, ``A 30 percent 3- year tax write-off on new equipment. The Bush administration wants to include this, although multiyear tax cuts have little immediate stimulus effect.'' Of course, we would like to see some kind of tax break for new equipment, but we are talking about 3 years. Yet I heard some of my colleagues on the other side talk about how they want this to be immediate. How is it immediate with a 3-year write-off on new equipment? The last thing the editorial says, it talks about ``A Trojan horse 2- year voucher-credit health care plan. The White House is offering a scheme that would give displaced workers a temporary tax credit for health care. But what Representative William M. Thomas (R- Bakersfield),'' the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, ``and other congressional Republicans really want is to use the voucher idea as a wedge in replacing current employer-paid health care with a free market approach similar to the use of vouchers for education.'' So what are we seeing here? We are seeing some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, some of the Republicans, not just trying to extend COBRA or provide Medicaid for those displaced workers, which is the easiest thing to do and what the Democrats want, but some sort of tax credit or voucher. Most of the people who are now out of work will not even be able to use that tax credit. It is not going to get them health insurance; but it is a sort of voucher, if you will, that has the potential of getting people out or actually hurting the current system, where most employees get their health insurance through their employer and switching to some sort of free market system, which I do not think is going to work and is probably only going to line the pockets of some insurance company. I hate to be so dramatic about it, but this is what we are facing. Again, one could argue that there is no point in even talking about any of this anyway, because they have no intention of passing anything. They are just going to pass it in the House, and it will die in the other body. I can talk here all night about how bad this proposal is, only because I want to counteract all the things that were said by my colleagues an hour before. But I go back to what I originally said, that their real intention is to do nothing, because everyone knows that this bill is going nowhere. Let me just talk a little bit about another aspect of the Republican proposal which is so different than the Democrats that is very scary, that is, that it is not paid for. Now, we know that we are in a deficit situation now. In the 8 years under the Democratic President, and I know people say we certainly have to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt because he has been doing such a great job in dealing with the war, and actually very successful in going against terrorism and the al Qaeda network. I am very happy about all that. But when it comes to these domestic issues, it is very scary what is really happening. Because of the Republican tax cut that took place about 6 months ago, we are now in a deficit, which has been aggravated by what happened on September 11 because of the recession and because of what comes from the recession, which is less income to the Federal Government. The least that the Republicans could do when they put forth a stimulus package is come up with a plan that is short term and that is paid for, or if it is not paid for immediately, makes a way to pay for it fairly quickly over the next few years so we do not deepen the deficit, because we do not want to continue to have a deficit situation. It is a huge drag on the economy and could prolong the recession, rather than stimulating the economy. Well, the problem with the Republican bill and, again, I am talking about the one they plan to bring to the floor tomorrow, is that it is pretty much paid for out of Medicare. It either increases the national debt or it is paid for out of Medicare and Social Security. So what you have is it is either going to increase the debt or it is going to take money from the Medicare and Social Security trust fund. And it is almost the same thing as increasing the debt, because we know that those trust funds are at some point in the next 20, 30 years going to run out of money, and we have been talking about trying to find ways of making Medicare and Social Security solvent over the long term. All the Republican leadership is going to do with this bill is increase the Federal debt and aggravate the solvency problem for Medicare and Social Security by taking the money away from there. The cost of the Republican stimulus package, again, the one that is coming up tomorrow, would approach $200 billion over the next 10 years when you take into account debt service cost. Even without enactment of the stimulus bill, the government will be in overall deficit throughout the entire first term of President Bush. And with the enactment of this new stimulus bill, the government will continue to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for the foreseeable future long after the current recession is estimated to end. The Democrats, of course, have said that that is not acceptable. If you are going to do a stimulus package which is going to have a short term impact on the economy, then do not give us a long term impact on the economy by increasing the debt or making the solvency problem for Social Security and Medicare even worse. I wanted to talk a little bit about this health tax credit aspect of the Republican bill that is likely to come up tomorrow because, again, I think it is a very scary thing. I have always said over and over again, let us not let ideology get in the way of doing something practical to help the American people. The stimulus bill should be that. It should be nothing more than a practical bipartisan effort to do something to restore the economy in the short run. And to try to load it up with some sort of ideological voucher system for health care that would break the traditional health care system primarily financed through employers is basically grafting some sort of right wing Republican ideology on a stimulus package in a way that is totally wrong given what we are trying to accomplish here. I do not know if I can get into all the details of it tonight, but I want to just explain a little bit about what this health care tax credit that the Republicans are proposing would actually do. What they are doing is creating an individual tax credit for use in purchasing either COBRA or individual market health insurance policies. So unlike the Democrats, they are not just going to pay for your COBRA benefits and put you or make you eligible for Medicaid with Federal funds. They are giving you some sort of credit for voucher, if you will, that you can use to help pay for COBRA or go out into the individual market and try to buy health insurance policy. Now, anybody who has ever tried to go out into the individual market and try to find a policy knows that it is a horrendous situation. The costs are incredible. The tax credit is not going to help you. Unless you are going to buy some basically rotten policy that is going to give you very little coverage, and then what you will have is the government money through the tax credit being used to give people a policy that essentially is not really very helpful to them and does not provide them the kind of benefit package that would be useful to them, if they can even find it. Again, I would say, Mr. Speaker, they are not even going to find this policy, but if they did it would be a lousy policy. Now, just to give you some research, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office did some research and they indicated that few people would actually benefit from this Republican health care tax credit. According to the CBO, up to 9 million displaced workers would receive relief under the Democratic plan; 5.1 million would be covered by COBRA, about 80 percent, and up to 3.8 million under Medicaid. But the same estimate shows that of the Republican style tax credit, only 3.35 million individuals would be eligible for this benefit, less than a majority. So when my Republican colleagues in the last hour said we are going to provide all this health care coverage, not only do we have the danger of this breaking the system, the traditional system and this voucher, but it is not even going to provide coverage to the majority of the people that would need it and who are unemployed. I just cannot believe essentially what they are up to with this scheme. If you think about it, as Members of Congress we are getting an incredibly good health care coverage policy that is paid for by the Federal Government. The very Republican leaders who are talking about this voucher for health insurance, 75 percent of their health care coverage as Members of Congress is provided to them at taxpayers' expense. The other thing that I think we are going to see here is that this kind of coverage that they are talking about that you might be able to get at individual market, a lot of it is probably going to go to HMO's. Because without a guaranteed minimum benefit package, which is what should be provided to make sure we get a decent health care plan, I think most of the people are going to end up with some kind of an HMO which limits what doctors they can get, limits what coverage they can get. Again, I can talk all night about this and I do not know in some ways what the point is, because as much as I am trying to contrast the Republican plan with the Democratic proposals, I really want to stress over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that they are bringing up tomorrow a Republican plan without input from the Democrats and without input from the Senate, essentially means that we will have not planned. Their proposal is due to failure. I do not want to go into this any more because I hopefully have made the point, but what I would say to my colleagues is, regardless of whether you like what the Democrats propose or you like what the Republicans propose, the most important thing is to have the negotiations and sit down and try to come up with an accommodation and do not come here on the floor of the House and blame the other body and say, oh, the other body, the Senate better take this up because if they do not, the blame falls on them. Well, clearly, if you put something together that is not done in a bipartisan basis, it is going nowhere. And I am not going to sit here and accept the notion that somehow this Senate is going to be blamed because they do not pass this Republican package. This is not a Republican package that is aimed to accomplish anything. It is just being done for some sort of publicity stunt. Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to end my discussion tonight or my response if you will to my Republican colleagues on the economic stimulus package. I probably will be back again, hopefully not. Hopefully we will pass something. But we will probably be back again talking about that another time, tomorrow or the next day as we progress here in these last few days before the holidays. Evidence of Terrorism by Pakistani-Based Groups

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased yesterday to be joining my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Burton, in introducing this important legislation that will help shift the focus of our healthcare system to wellness and disease prevention. This legislation is the House companion to the Harkin-Hatch Senate bill, S. 1330. Mr. Speaker, I have always been supportive of dietary supplements and the potential and promise they bring to our healthcare. I always participate in actively leading the effort for progressive reforms, like we did with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The prime significance of this simple legislation is that the Internal Revenue Code will be modified in order to allow health insurers to create benefits that would provide some coverage for dietary supplements for insurance beneficiaries. Health insurers will not be required to provide coverage under this legislation. However, they will be now in a position to do it in a way that will provide the tax benefits to both the consumer and the insurer. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code is not consumer friendly when it comes to health wellness and prevention. And if we are ever going to take meaningful roads to promote good health, wellness, and disease prevention, the Tax Code needs to be examined and reformed. This legislation is enormously popular with consumers who continually ask their insurance companies to offer some coverage for these healthcare products. Without passage of this legislation, they will not be able to obtain this type of insurance and healthcare benefit. The low up-front cost of this coverage and the potential long-term savings they offer by assisting our country in staying healthy longer will indeed be a meaningful step to lowering and stabilizing our health care costs. This bipartisan legislation is an important part of realizing the requests of millions of Americans who want to enhance their healthcare. I look forward to working with my colleague for prompt and swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, very early this morning, a suicide squad of six terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament. Prime Minister Vajpayee and Members of the Cabinet and Parliament were thankfully safe. Unfortunately, seven people, including guards and workers, were killed and at least 17 people were injured at the hands of one suicide bomber and other assailants equipped with grenades and guns. The United States has come forward and declared this raid ``an outrageous act of terrorism''. Not only was this an attack on India, it was a brutal attack on the largest symbol of democracy worldwide. I am shocked and appalled at this extreme act of terrorism and I express my deepest regards towards India at this time. India is a country that has been sadly afflicted for 50 years by the loss of countless innocent citizens at the hands of cold-blooded murder by terrorists. For the past decade, India has fallen victim to terrorist attacks by groups that belong to the same terrorist network responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Since September 11th, there has been a flurry of terrorist attacks in Kashmir taking place on a daily basis. On October 1st in particular, a suicide car bomb exploded in front of the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly while it was in session and 38 people were killed. Since this incident, a clear pattern of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir has manifested and Islamic terrorist groups are to be blamed for these terrorist activities. The atrocious attack on the Indian Parliament falls within this familiar pattern of attacks by active terrorist forces in Kashmir. The suicide attack on democracy in Srinagar was clearly a precursor to this morning's attack on democracy in New Delhi. However, terrorist groups have crossed the line this time. This attack on diversity, vibrancy, equality, democracy and all characteristics of India's open society, goes too far. The parallel that can be drawn between the United States and India at this time is remarkable. The U.S. and India are not only friends, but they are also two nations that serve together as pillars of commitment to democracy. The U.S. was brutally attacked by terrorists in an attempt to break down our democratic ideals and we are retaliating with a successful war effort in Afghanistan. Similarly, the attack on Indian Parliament is impetus for India's retaliation against the relentless terrorism taking place in Kashmir and now in New Delhi. These punitive actions undoubtedly will help in the global war on terrorism and the current effort to eliminate the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. The citizens of India deserve to live their lives without violence and terror. The Government of India deserves to exercise its strong democratic ideals.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am going to sound very partisan, but both President Clinton and Vice President Gore were suggesting that there be a private pension system over and above Social Security. That is the only way we could actually accomplish this. Americans would still get their Social Security benefits, but then Americans put money aside into their own pension system which is matched with Federal dollars and then there is something beyond. But the only way to create that is if we bring new money into the system either because the individual is contributing it during their working years or the government matches. We cannot take it out of the existing trust fund without impacting the trust fund. That is why they have to claw back, obviously.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a number of topics tonight; and I know I am going to be joined by at least one of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman). But I wanted to say that in the last couple of weeks before the holiday break, which I guess most of the Members of Congress are hoping that there will be some sort of holiday break, what I find, both here in Washington, in this Chamber, as well as back at home, is that while people continue to be concerned about the war on terrorism and also security here at home, they are also increasingly concerned about the economy and the recession that we now face, and the fact that so many workers have lost their jobs, the unemployment rate continues to rise, and that those displaced workers oftentimes have a problem, obviously, finding a new job, but also with their health care, their inability to keep their health insurance, as well as the fact that many Americans now face a problem that even if they have health insurance, they find that it costs them more, either because the premium goes up or because they have more copayments. There is a tremendous amount of concern also, I think, by Americans, by the average American, about retirement security and whether Social Security, for example, or their pension, is going to be there when they retire. So on the one hand, we continue the war on terrorism, which the President has very successfully continued in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda; but at the same time, there is increasing concern about the economy at home and the recession that faces us. I wanted to start this evening very briefly by talking about an issue that kind of goes together and concerns what happened September 11, and also is an economic security issue. About one week ago, last Wednesday, in fact, there were about a dozen women who lost their husbands during the September 11 terrorist attack who boarded a train in my home State of New Jersey, leaving their children behind, and came down to Washington. They did not want to be here. They were visiting with not only members of the New Jersey delegation, as well as our two U.S. Senators, but they also met with the Speaker and they met with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader in the House. When I say that these women did not want to come to Washington, that was obvious. They said many times that they were concerned about their children at home and about even being here. In fact, I would say that they were really angry over the fact that they had to personally come to the Nation's capital and ask in this case the House Republican leadership to bring up a bill that provides tax relief for their families. The reason I bring it up tonight, and I have to say, I am going to bring it up every night until we adjourn for the holidays, is because when the women met with the Speaker, according to them, the Speaker promised them that the House would consider a tax relief bill for the victims' families from September 11 and that that bill would be brought up the following Tuesday, which was yesterday. Well, it is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker, that Tuesday has come and gone and nothing has happened in this regard, and they are still waiting. My question really is how much longer are they going to have to worry about receiving relief from the Federal Government? I do not want this to be partisan, but I understand, and I think they totally understand, that it is the Republican leadership that has to bring up this bill because they control the House. And I would say tonight, and I will say every night between now and when we leave, that it is time for the Speaker and the Republican leadership to step up and provide this tax relief by accepting the language that was passed last month by the U.S. Senate. The Senate passed a bill that accomplishes the goal of giving these women, in this case, widows, not only relief from their income tax for the 2-year period, but also relief from the payroll tax, from estate taxes. And it has other provisions that would help them out in this time of need. Mr. Speaker, and now I am talking about ``the Speaker,'' these families have not forgotten the promise that was made to them last week, and I would urge that this bill be brought up quickly, tomorrow, the next day, or as soon as possible. And as I said, I will continue to come to the House floor every day until the Republican leadership brings this legislation to the floor, because I think it is the only right thing to do. I would like to, before I get into the economic stimulus issue, because I really believe very strongly that we need to pass an economic stimulus package also before we go home for the holidays, but before getting into that I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida who, I understand, is here because she wants to comment on this report that was recently put out by the President's Commission on Social Security. I have to say, again going back to what I said initially, I know in New Jersey and throughout the country that people continue to be concerned about terrorism but, at the same time, I also know that I am getting a lot of concern on behalf of my constituents about the economic issues, whether it be the recession, Social Security, or Medicare, and we were hopeful that this commission was going to make some recommendations with regard to Social Security that would deal with the solvency problem. We know in a few years that Social Security is going to start to diminish. The money will not be there, at least at the levels that are promised. And I know that the gentlewoman and I were very disappointed that their recommendations really do not deal with the solvency problem, and make recommendations with regard to privatization and other matters that I think are not really going to help. So I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, before I conclude tonight, I did want to spend a little time on the issue of an economic stimulus. I wanted to stress again how important I think this is. As we all know, we probably have only another week, maybe 2 weeks but probably not even, just days before the holiday. I know that there is talk now that we may not even do an economic stimulus package because either this House and the other body cannot get together or Democrats and Republicans are trying to come together and have not been able to so far. I do believe very strongly, though, that we must have an economic stimulus package. As I said in the beginning of this special order, more and more of my constituents are telling me about the problems that they face because of the recession, either higher unemployment or the fact that many displaced workers do not have access to health insurance, do not have access to a lot of the benefits that they would normally have if they have a job. That is why the Democrats have stressed that this economic stimulus package has to primarily focus on displaced workers, unemployment compensation, health insurance coverage for people who no longer have a job. And also provide some help to low-income workers. In other words, we have talked about a rebate for those who did not get a rebate as a result of President Bush's tax cuts that took place about 6 months ago. The emphasis on the part of the Democrats is to do things that will make people spend money. In other words, give money back to low-income workers, provide unemployment compensation, provide certain expenditures on infrastructure to protect the country from terrorism which also would create jobs. The problem on the Republican side, particularly with the bill that passed the House with the support of the Republican leadership, is that all the emphasis in that bill and on the Republican side in this Chamber was towards accelerating those same tax cuts that passed as part of the President's initiative about 6 months ago. The fear that I have and that many of the Democrats have is that by accelerating those tax cuts, which primarily were to corporations and wealthy people, that that will not spur the economy, that will not bring money back into the economy because it is not necessarily the case that those tax cuts would be used and spent on things that would stimulate the economy. I just wanted to mention briefly, if I could, some of the differences between the Democratic and the Republican plan, not because I insist that the Democratic plan be passed. I understand that there have to be some compromises if we are going to reach a majority in both Houses, but I do think that the emphasis has to be on what stimulates the economy. If you look at the Democratic bill, I will just mention four or five points. With regard to unemployment compensation, individuals who exhaust their 26-week eligibility for State unemployment would be eligible for an additional 52 weeks of cash payments funded entirely by the Federal Government. Individuals who do not meet their States' requirements for unemployment insurance, in other words, part-time workers, would receive 26 weeks of federally financed unemployment insurance. This is in the bill. This is the substance of the Democratic proposal. With regard to health care benefits, the Federal Government would fully reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA premiums. Individuals who do not qualify for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured would be eligible for Medicaid, with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the premiums. These benefits, these health care benefits, would last for a maximum of 18 months. Then I mentioned the rebate checks. Under the Democratic proposal, low- and moderate-income workers who did not qualify for the rebate checks issued earlier this year under President Bush's tax cut would receive a one-time payment of up to $300 for a single person and $600 for married couples. Finally, with regard to these homeland or domestic security upgrades, the Democratic package includes up to $9 billion in spending programs to improve our Nation's infrastructure to protect against terrorism. Included would be funding for bioterrorism prevention and food safety, local police and fire departments, border security, airport security, and highway, bridge and tunnel improvements. The idea of these upgrades is to basically hire more workers, and, therefore, lower the unemployment rate and put more money into the economy. If you contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with the Republican tax cut bill which passed the House, just to give you some of the provisions, of the $99.5 billion in tax cuts in 2002, $70.8 billion benefits corporations, $14.8 billion benefits affluent individuals, and only $13.7 billion goes to workers with lower incomes. Then you have the sweetheart things for the corporations, the repeal of corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. The bill not only repeals the corporate AMT, but it allows companies to receive refunds based on past AMT payments back to 1996. Capital gains tax cut, multinational financing tax cut, the list goes on. Mr. Speaker, again, I am about to conclude; but I just wanted to stress again, I understand that if we are going to have an economic stimulus package, that we have to have the parties come together and the two Houses come together. But I also think it is crucial that whatever is done actually accomplishes the goal of stimulating the economy. I am very fearful that the Republican proposals that we saw in that House bill, that Republican bill that passed the House, would not accomplish that. If I could just, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, read part of this editorial that was in the New York Times on November 26. I know it is almost a month ago now, but I still think it says everything that needs to be said about what we should be doing with regard to economic stimulus. The sections I want to quote are as follows: ``Congress has only a few weeks left before adjourning for the year. Yet there is still no legislative agreement on measures to boost economy. President Bush needs to help break the impasse on both issues. ``Ideally, Congress should quickly pass a balanced fiscal stimulus bill aiding those who need help most without widening deficits in the years ahead. An appropriate homeland security measure would spend more than the $8 billion the administration wants. ``Right now there are two competing stimulus bills, and the one supported by most Senators is by far the better. It would channel tax breaks and spending to those most hurt by the economic downturn, whereas the bill passed by the House Republicans would cut taxes disproportionately for the rich and for big corporations. ``Congress could reach a financially responsible compromise if Republicans dropped their worst ideas, a speed-up of the tax cuts enacted earlier this year for the wealthiest Americans and a separate measure to make it easier for big corporations to pay no taxes at all. The final bill could then focus on tax breaks, tax refunds and health benefits for the poor and the working poor, while helping small and medium-sized businesses with adjustments and write-offs for depreciation and expenses.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why we cannot come to a compromise along those lines. I would urge our leaders here over the next few days to try to reach a compromise because I think it is very important for the future of the economy.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. I am glad that we brought up the issue of the Social Security commission tonight, because I know that the report has come out but it has not received the attention that I think it needs to receive.

Mr. PALLONE. Just this last thing I wanted to mention is that apparently there is some effort on the part of the commission that suggests that the benefits would be improved for widows and low earners. But from what I can see, it is just not true. It is just overstated. The Social Security benefits widows would receive under the commission's proposal for an improvement in survivor benefits would actually be less than they would receive under current law. The reason is, from what I understand, because the commission imposes sharp reductions in the basic benefits on which the survivor's benefit is calculated, so basically undermining the apparent increase in the survivor's benefit. So it is really very confusing and not what it pretends to be. It also says here that the benefit improvements for low earners may also be smaller than suggested in the commission's documents because few low wage workers have 30 years of steady earnings at the minimum wage. So few would receive the full antipoverty protection that the commission proposes. They are suggesting somehow that survivors and low wage earners are going to do better, but when you look at how they achieve those improved benefits, very few people would qualify.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. She is right when she says that we need to have a lot more analysis of this because it just came out. But in pinpointing the difficulties in particular that women or low wage earners would face, I think that anybody who looks at this should be very concerned about the impact. The gentlewoman from Florida talked about the fact that Social Security is not just for people over 65, but also for people who are disabled and for survivors. Particularly with those groups, there is a lot here that they should be concerned about. If I could just mention three things with regard to people who take an early retirement, the plan includes a provision that really further reduces early retirement benefits. Again, you have people that because of the economy now and the recession, there are a lot of these early retirement packages being offered in lieu of losing your job, so to speak. People who are taking those packages under this are going to have a problem, because they are going to be living a long time, particularly if they are women who tend to live a little longer, and they are going to be suffering because the amount of benefits they are going to be getting are going to be significantly reduced.

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the fact of the matter is, and I do not want to make it so partisan and go back to the Clinton administration, but the fact is during the Clinton years we had finally gotten to a situation where we had a surplus. That had a major positive impact on the economy because it meant that the Federal Government was not borrowing so much. Money was freed up for companies to borrow and build factories and create new jobs. It was an important part of why the economy did so well. I cannot believe when President Bush came in he started preaching essentially that we had to have huge tax cuts that went to corporations and the very wealthy. As a consequence of that, we now have a deficit once again. I know that September 11 has aggravated that, but nonetheless we were there even before September 11. When we talk about the Social Security system, I was amazed when I was looking at the analysis of this commission, they are suggesting using unspecified general revenues to restore solvency. President Clinton was saying exactly that, use the surplus to shore up Social Security. Some actuaries have said if we continued to do that over a number of years, that might have solved the problem itself, and we might not have had to do anything else. Now they are mentioning that in the report, knowing full well that the surplus is not there any more because of the Bush tax cut. There is some hypocrisy.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. I know that the gentlewoman can be very hard hitting, and in some ways she is almost being nice about the Social Security commission. It is not only the hypocrisy in talking about using general revenues that do not exist any more, but also they did not make it clear that any kind of privatization is ultimately going to aggravate the solvency problem. I know that there are different suggestions here, but there is no way to create these private accounts and take any percentage of the money away from the Social Security trust and invest it and not impact the solvency. They are disguising what they are doing with the three options; but ultimately by privatizing, they are making the solvency situation worse, not better. Maybe we need to be a little harsher about it than we have been, frankly. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just reclaim my time. I did not go into the issue in a lot of detail, in part because, I have to be honest, it concerns me so much that it is difficult to talk about. But what has happened to them, and I think a lot of people do not realize this, is that the nonprofits, I guess primarily the Red Cross, basically provided assistance for the victims' families for a 3-month period. That ended essentially December 1. So a lot of people think that the families of these victims are continuing to be helped by nonprofits, and in fact, that is not true. Some of them are in a position where they have a little money, but a lot of them do not. I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I know that on the Committee on Ways and Means, that this is one of the major issues that she has struggled with. It all goes back to what we were saying in the beginning, which is that September 11 came, and we know what a dramatic impact it has had on the lives of the average American and on what we do here. But the bottom line is that before September 11, we had these outstanding issues; how were we going to deal with Social Security and the potential insolvency? How were we going to deal with the need for prescription drug benefit?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor also to offer my support for this crucial piece of legislation; and again I want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), and all the staff that I see here tonight who worked so hard on this bill, and stress the importance of the bill. When the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took place on September 11, I know that my constituents in particular and all Americans were concerned about possible threats from biological and chemical warfare that might follow. On September 28, the General Accounting Office published a report that stated, in fact, our health departments are ill-equipped, that we are vulnerable to bioterrorism and underfunded on the Federal, State and local level. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will remedy this problem in a crucial way. I want to discuss briefly the water security component of the bill. With the strong leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), we were able to include language requiring large water systems serving more than 3,300 persons to conduct a vulnerability assessment and prepare or update emergency response plans within 6 months after the completion of the vulnerability assessment. In the process of completing this assessment, serious consideration would be given to the potential consequences of attack. For example, what would happen if the on-site chlorine tanks are attacked with explosives? Should safer substitutes for liquid chlorine be used? What are the health risks to the public if we are faced with an air-borne toxic chlorine cloud? These are the types of questions that need to be evaluated and answered in a vulnerability assessment. In addition to the assessment, I was pleased that funding was authorized in the bill to provide for technical assistance grants from EPA and funding for publicly owned water systems in an emergency situation. I do not have to explain the importance of protecting the public from potential disruption of water service or biological- chemical contamination of drinking water supplies. Water security has got to be a top priority in any bioterrorism bill that Congress considers. On September 12, President Bush made a comment. He said America is going forward, and as we do so, we must remain keenly aware of the threats to our country. Those in authority should take appropriate precautions to protect our citizens. And according to this bill, Mr. Speaker, the EPA will have that authority that the President referred to if an assessment is completed and there is sign of significant vulnerability, it is a relief to know that the EPA, using its emergency powers, will be able to work with the community water systems to promptly correct the inadequacies. I know that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) worked hard to make sure that this safe drinking water component is in the bill. I think it is very important that it is in the bill, and I congratulate them and the staff again for making sure that this is a part of the bioterrorism response.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 253.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to talk about several matters of concern regarding Pakistan. I appreciate Pakistan's willingness to assist us in the fight against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist networks, and I know that General Musharraf continues to make a concerted effort to cooperate with the United States in our global fight against terrorism. Under the current circumstances, due to the attacks of September 11, I do feel that it is appropriate to provide economic assistance to Pakistan for General Musharraf's willingness to support the U.S. in seizing Osama bin Laden and eliminating the al Qaeda terrorist network. In fact, I also felt that it was appropriate that the economic sanctions that were in place against Pakistan were rightfully lifted by President Bush earlier this year. However, Mr. Speaker, I stand strong in my argument against military aid to Pakistan, even under the current circumstances. I oppose the lifting of military sanctions, and I still feel the U.S. should exercise its discretion not to provide military assistance. The Pakistani dictatorial government has in the past been directly involved in the planning and logistical support of Taliban military operations. Not only has Pakistan provided institutional support to terrorist activities by the Taliban and other groups, it has also provided weapons as a result of its irresponsible weapons export policies. Withholding military assistance to Pakistan will help pressure Musharraf to withdraw its support to terrorist groups. Mr. Speaker, there have been several recent reports that corroborate the difficulty Pakistan has in separating itself from the Taliban. According to an article from last Saturday's New York Times, Western and Pakistani officials report that one month after the Pakistani government agreed to end its support of the Taliban, its intelligence agency was still providing safe passage for weapons and ammunition to arm them. In September, the U.S. issued an ultimatum to Pakistan that if they wanted to join the United States in the fight against terrorism, Pakistan had to end its ties to the Taliban. Pakistani intelligence claims that the last sanctioned delivery of weapons to the Taliban occurred about a month after the U.S. issued this ultimatum. However, it is clear that the Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI, has perpetuated military support of the Taliban. The ISI is a powerful group of military jihadi who are not representatives of the government. Nevertheless, they operate fiercely within Pakistan; and accordingly, Pakistan inevitably engages in logistical and military support of the Taliban. My other concern at this time, Mr. Speaker, regarding Pakistan is that it is a nuclear power. A country with nuclear power that has links to the Taliban and al Qaeda is a recipe for disaster. An article reported that nuclear experts in Pakistan may, in fact, have links to al Qaeda. The fear is that nuclear experts have the knowledge and experience to provide nuclear weapons and related technology to transfer these goods to terrorists. The article in the New York Times reports that American intelligence officials are increasingly convinced that Pakistan may become the site of a furtive struggle between those trying to keep nuclear technology secure and those looking to export it for terrorism or for profit. Mr. Speaker, my last comment is that historically, U.S. arms exports to Pakistan have been used against India, primarily through crossborder military action in Kashmir. Since the terrifying example of terrorism in India on October 1 when a suicide car bomb exploded in front of the Kashmir State Assembly while it was in session, there have literally been murder incidents on a daily basis in Kashmir. The escalated terrorist violence in India has been horrific and left numerous civilians and military men victim to cold-blooded murder. Last week I read that suspected terrorists shot and killed a judge in Kashmir, along with his friends and two guards. This is the first attack on the judiciary of Jammu and Kashmir state. Over the weekend I read that an Islamic militant group invaded an Indian army convoy in Kashmir and the attack left nearly 10 men dead and over 20 wounded. These examples of murder by Pakistani-based militant groups should be evidence enough that weapons can and will fall into the hands of terrorist networks and potentially be used against India and other U.S. allies. Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Bush administration is not proposing any major change in policy with regard to military assistance to Pakistan, but with removal of congressional sanctions, stepped up military assistance remains a possibility. I continue to oppose that option, and I believe that the circumstances in Pakistan this weekend and over the last few weeks still do not warrant that kind of military assistance.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Native American Small Business Development Act. This bill will establish a three-year pilot project providing grants to Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) for assisting the Native American, Native Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian populations with their small business development needs. The purpose is to stimulate the economies on reservation lands through the creation and expansion of small businesses by ensuring the targeted population has full access to important business counseling and technical assistance available through the SBDC program. Having traveled extensively throughout Indian Country, I can tell you that there is great need for such a grant program. I am pleased to serve as a cosponsor of this bill and I appreciate the hard work that my colleague, Mr. Udall, has put into bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this debate on ``Fast Track'' is not about whether or not the U.S. should be participating in the global economy-- we all agree on that. This debate is about HOW we are going to participate in that economy. In this time of economic recession, I feel that we have responsibility to the American worker and the workers around the globe to ensure that American labor standards are enforced globally. It is unacceptable that American jobs are being shipped overseas to countries that refuse to pass or enforce minimal labor protections. As many of us can remember all too well, Fast Track Trade Authority was last used to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. While the Administration claims that NAFTA is a resounding success, I contend that this is far from the truth. It is estimated that NAFTA has cost nearly 1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs and tens of thousands of family owned farms to go out of business. In my home state of New Jersey, alone, it is estimated by the U.S. Department of Labor that more than 20,000 jobs were directly lost due to NAFTA's scope. NAFTA has also been a disaster in the area of environment protection and public health. Since passage, pollution also in the U.S. Mexico border has created worsening environmental and public health threats in the area. Along the border, the occurrence of some environmental diseases, including hepatitis, is two or three times the national average, due to lack of sewage treatment and safe drinking water. This is unacceptable. In my mind, no matter what this Administration promises, Fast Track only causes the quality of life in America to be compromised. My friends--I say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I urge my colleagues--don't be fooled again. We have already allowed the word of past Administrations cost thousands of American jobs and further destroy our environment. Let's not make the same mistake again. Vote ``no'' on Fast Track.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about recent statements made by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), with regard to India. We will soon be voting on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill which will be providing very limited aid to India, the world's largest democracy and our strong friend in the politically unstable Southeast Asia region. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) recently made critical statements to the press about India in an effort to persuade Members to not provide aid to India or to resume sanctions against India. He specifically referenced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, or POTO, and stated that it was the most repressive law that India has ever considered. Mr. Speaker, for the past 50 years, India has been forced to deal with severe cross-border terrorism in Kashmir and an upsurge of terrorist attacks throughout their nation. Since the September 11 attacks here in the U.S., India has experienced heightened terrorism in Kashmir; and, quite frankly, I have been reading about murders of innocent Kashmiris by Islamic militants on nearly a daily basis. Just this morning I read about two new incidents that occurred yesterday. Suspected terrorists shot and killed a judge in Kashmir, along with his friend and two guards. This is the first attack on the judiciary of Jammu and Kashmir State. The other incident was a suicide squad of a Pakistani-based guerilla group that killed at least five people at an Indian Army camp in Kashmir. This latest suicide attack is to be added to a long series of suicide attacks that have killed many innocent Kashmiris. Mr. Speaker, as a result of violent terrorist attacks against India, the Indian President has issued the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, POTO. POTO would make provisions for Indian law enforcement officials to prevent and deal with terrorist activities. The current criminal justice system in India is not sufficient in prosecuting terrorists and, with passage of POTO, India will be provided the necessary law enforcement tools to prevent and effectively deal with terrorism. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) or anyone else should not be able to speak out against POTO if they desire. We know that India is a vibrant democracy with an open political system. Its free press and democratic nature allows all voices and opinions to be heard. But I think the criticism is undeserved at this time. I would like to draw an analogy between what is happening with POTO in India and what is happening with the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct a Terrorism Act, or PATRIOT Act, in the United States. This analogy was conveniently overlooked by the gentleman from Indiana. In October of this year, the U.S. Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, which gave law enforcement officials more tools to detect, apprehend, and prosecute terrorists. In the aftermath of September 11, Congress was required to act quickly to pass measures to address the immediate and long-term security, recovery, and financial needs of the country. There was controversy and there still remains criticism of the PATRIOT bill from both the right and the left. Members protested that it would grant the government too much power and endanger civil liberties. However, the administration called for immediate action and, while moving the bill through Congress, several provisions were either dropped or modified and a bill did pass. From what I understand, the Indian Parliament is planning on going through a similar process of modifying some provisions in their ordinance. It is likely that the bill will pass and be enacted into law, thereby affording Indian officials the authority to deal with the growing terrorist threat facing India that the normal criminal justice system could not address sufficiently. Mr. Speaker, I believe that unusual circumstances in the U.S. call for these types of measures, and the same holds true for India. A true parallel can be drawn here for the two largest and most vibrant democracies in the world. Unfortunately, both of these countries are now combating terrorism. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) I think is incorrect in accusing India of being repressive by enacting this law. His strategy to bash India is clearly a pattern. It is no surprise that these types of statements come at a time when we are providing aid to India. There is no justification for ending the limited aid that we provide to India, and there is no rhyme or reason to cutting back or putting back in place the sanctions against India that should have been lifted a long time ago. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman from Indiana's efforts to implement such things are simply wrong. We do not need to go back to the sanctions, and we certainly should not punish India for essentially doing the same thing that the United States has done in the aftermath of September 11.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor to express my deep concerns regarding the lobbying efforts of Bristol-Myers-Squibb to block access to affordable generic alternatives to their blockbuster diabetes drug Glucophage. The FDA's Office of Generic Drugs has numerous generic versions of this diabetes drug awaiting approval. However, the office is unable to allow these generics onto the market due to Bristol's monopoly. There are no patents blocking the approval of generics in this case. The only obstacle is a result in the loophole in the Waxman-Hatch exclusivity. It allows Bristol to obtain 3 years of Waxman-Hatch exclusivity in addition to 6 months of pediatric exclusivity for a new indication, the use of this drug for treatment of Type 2 diabetes in pediatric patients ages 10 to 16 years. Mr. Speaker, the pediatric research conducted on this drug has yielded useful results for pediatric use. However, Bristol should not be allowed a total of 3 years plus 6 months of exclusivity for changing its label to indicate pediatric use. This only leads to 3 years and 6 months more of keeping valuable generics off the market. The FDA regulations authorize a generic manufacturer to carve out of its labeling indications that are protected by patents or exclusivity. Therefore, there does not seem to be any reason why the generic forms of this diabetes drug cannot be approved now without the pediatric indication. This specific drug is effective for millions of Americans with Type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes affects the minority population disproportionately, many of whom cannot afford to pay the higher monopoly prices for this life-saving drug. Access to more affordable generic versions of this drug will undoubtedly serve as a life-saving option. Mr. Speaker, there is currently a legislative fix in place in the House and Senate version of the pediatric exclusivity bill that would close this loophole and allow generic versions of this diabetes drug to compete with Bristol's Glucophage. As Members commence conferencing on this bill, it is crucial that this language remain intact. Bristol-Meyers-Squibb is sweeping through key offices on Capitol Hill in an effort to retain its exclusive marketing monopoly on its near 80- year-old profitable drug, Glucophage, which reaps about $1.8 billion in annual sales. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues working on the pediatric exclusivity bill to keep the current language regarding this important issue in place and not to lose this battle with the drug industry. We have lost it too many times, and given the current circumstances, let us do something for once that will help the consumers of America, who not only have to deal with the weak economy, but also a life- threatening illness such as diabetes. Let us fight against Bristol-Myers-Squibb and close the Waxman-Hatch loophole.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the chair and my colleagues a distinguished minister from the city of Neptune, NJ, Rev. Vernon McGowen. Reverend McGowen has served as the minister of the Martin Luther King Jr. Presbyterian Church in Neptune for the past 25 years. On Sunday, November 18, 2001, his church will recognize his illustrious career and dedication to the Neptune and Asbury Park communities. A Houston native, McGowen moved to New Jersey to attend the Princeton Theological Seminary where he earned his masters of Divinity Degree. While at Princeton, through the urging of a professor and mentor, he started preaching at Martin King Jr. Presbyterian Church. His dedication and compassion were evident after only 2 years of service, at which time the Church invited him to become the church's permanent pastor. Throughout his tenure as pastor, he has been an outspoken advocate for people who normally have no way of making themselves heard. As a highly regarded leader in the black community, he has dealt with issues ranging from teenage pregnancy to the hiring of more blacks in county offices. Over the years, he has been recognized as a leading advocate of judicial reform and encouraging greater opportunities for blacks in the legal system. In short, parishioners of his church not only found a religious figure, but a civil rights leader. Reverend McGowen practices what he preaches, using his talents to reach out to the segments of the community that need him the most. Through his tireless efforts, he helped Lawerence Lawson gain the appointment of assignment judge, the first black person to achieve this esteemed position. Through his ministry he spreads the word of God and provides spiritual leadership, while simultaneously, he fights to improve the social well-being of all. Now entering his 25th year of service, I would like to congratulate Rev. Vernon McGowen on this momentous occasion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for what he said. I think he laid out very well why we need a stimulus package, because of the recession, that is now actually ongoing for over 6 months based on these experts and what they said this past Monday, and also pointing out why the Democratic alternative, or something like it, is the way to go. A couple of things the gentleman mentioned I just want to dwell on a little bit. The biggest problem with the Republican proposal is it is not really a stimulus package at all, but just a continuation of the tax breaks that were not included in the Bush tax proposal that was passed earlier this year. And as the gentleman says, most of what is in the Republican bill are permanent tax breaks, so it is not only not designed as a temporary measure, but it is something that will have a long-term impact on the budget and, as a result, more likely to result in significant deficits down the road. That is not what we should be doing now. First of all, most of the money goes to big corporations who do not necessarily have to bring it back into the economy. But even more so it is permanent tax breaks that could lead again to the situation we faced 10 years ago. A lot of people do not understand this. Even now I find a lot of my constituents saying, when we talk about the deficits, well, why is that meaningful? But I really believe the deficit spending was a major problem in the economic decline that we had before this last 10 years. And the fact that President Clinton in particular was so successful in turning that around and making a surplus was a major reason why we had the sustained economic recovery for so long.

Mr. PALLONE. I do not think we are going to use our whole hour, but I did want to mention where we sort of are, because the gentleman and I both mentioned the House bill, the Republican bill, which we do not like, and the Democratic alternative. There does seem to be some hope in the sense that, and I am looking at this news summary from yesterday, or I guess it is from yesterday, and it says that in light of Monday's declaration that the economy has been in recession since March, the President urged lawmakers to finish work on an economic stimulus package by Christmas. So he is out there saying that we should try to get together and pass a package. And then Senator Daschle, from the other body, called on our Republican colleagues to join us and begin discussions on a bipartisan plan for economic recovery. My understanding is that what happened in the other body, in the Senate, and I use that term ``other body'' because that is what we have to use, that there really are two conflicting bills and neither one has the 60 votes I guess to achieve cloture. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore