Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. They do not have the 60 votes, I guess, to achieve cloture; but they have said they are going to try to sit down and work something out. Again, we just need to remind everyone that there is only maybe 3 weeks or so before the Christmas break; and if we do not get together on some kind of bipartisan proposal, we are not going to get anything passed. I say that because I know there has to be some give and take. But, on the other hand, I think unless something like the Democratic proposal is the basis for a compromise, we are not going to see anything passed because this tax giveaway to the corporate interests that is in the House Republican bill, I do not see how that can be a basis for any bill that passes the two bodies and goes to the President. I do not like to read editorials, but I want to quote a few sections of an excellent editorial in yesterday's New York Times because I think it explains what needs to be done here in the next few weeks. This was in yesterday's New York Times. ``Congressional Countdown. Congress has only a few weeks left before adjourning for the year. Yet there is still no legislative agreement on measures to boost the economy and improve protections against terrorist attacks. President Bush needs to break the impasse on both issues, or legislators will go home covered with failure. ``Ideally, Congress should quickly pass a balanced fiscal stimulus bill aiding those who need help most without widening deficits in the years ahead.'' They say, ``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 pushed by House Republicans would cut taxes disproportionately for the rich and for big corporations.'' I yield to the gentleman because it sounds like everything we have been saying tonight.

Mr. PALLONE. That is true. The other thing the gentleman mentioned that I wanted to just mention briefly is that it is a little deceptive out there. I know the day after Thanksgiving is the biggest shopping day of the year. And my district I would say, certainly if you look at it nationwide, is a fairly affluent area; and we saw all the people running to the malls, the lines at the malls. And so people will say to me, gee, everybody is going shopping; things must be good. But as my colleague says, it is only true for the people that have the money. I found when I went home for the longer period of time that we had last week that there are people who have lost their jobs, there are people that are suffering, and those lines getting into the mall do not indicate what is really going on out there. I hope that retail sales go up, and that that is another reason for the economy to come back. I certainly encourage it. But there are a lot of people suffering. The one person I mentioned earlier that we had at this press conference with the labor leaders in the State that most stuck in my mind was this limousine driver. As my colleague knows, I am only about 50 miles from New York City, and we had a lot of people that died at the World Trade Center on September 11. And as a result of what happened in terms of transportation as well as the economy, there just are not as many people using limousines, let us face it. So this guy is still working, he is still driving his limousine and working hard, and he explained where he is getting his riders from and the whole thing. But at the end of the week he was only paying his expenses, which were huge between the limousine and the gas and everything. And so he continues to work, but he does not have anything to show for it at the end of the day. Now, how long can somebody continue to do that before they have to pack it in? And I only mention it because, obviously, as the gentleman says, people want to work. They are not going to give up. He is obviously dipping into his savings, because September 11 is how many months? It is about 2 months now almost. At some point he will not be able to continue because he is not making enough money to continue to sustain himself.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, basically this editorial juxtaposes what can be done to achieve a compromise. It says, ``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 working poor, while helping small- and medium-sized businesses with adjustments in write-offs for depreciation and expenses.'' The Democrats are willing to provide tax breaks and help business, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses. But the bottom line is that this stimulus package at the same time does have to address the concerns of displaced workers, the health benefits and the unemployment benefits that the gentleman has mentioned. This stalemate does not have to continue, but there is not a lot of time. I think it is important, as we did tonight, to continue to speak out over the next few days and to point out that this is a major issue. Mr. Speaker, I was happy before we left that we got the airline security bill passed, and I thought that was the number one priority. But in light of the recession and what we are seeing out there with the economy, this is now the most important priority that we need to address in the next few weeks. With that, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. PALLONE. I agree with my colleague. What we have discussed tonight is not that easily explained. We just elected a new governor, a Democrat in New Jersey, we are very proud of Jim McGreevey, who will be sworn in in January. But the first day after he was elected, and he has not even taken office, he realized it was very possible the State may be in deficit several billion dollars. And if as a result of that there have to be cutbacks in services, in jobs, that is only going to aggravate the economic situation in the State. It is difficult. I explain to my constituents why during the 1990s President Clinton was so successful in turning the economy around and having a surplus, that the long-term interest rates went down and that that was a big factor. Then people will say, yes, but right now the Federal Reserve has stepped in and we have short-term interest rates, and they keep getting lower and lower. But the long-term interest rates continue to rise. So as my colleague says, if we are looking to these companies, large or small, to make investments in infrastructure and create new jobs, they cannot get the capital to do it with those kind of long-term interest rates. It is not easy to explain to people, but it is there. That is the reality.

Mr. PALLONE. New Jersey as well.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, during the Thanksgiving recess or break, I had a longer period of time to talk to my constituents about many issues that they are concerned about, and I was particularly concerned about the state of the economy, and about so many people now that continue to lose jobs who have been displaced because of the events on September 11, in particular. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that my district, being so close to New York and to the World Trade Center, we did have many people, maybe almost 200 people in the two counties that I represent, who died in the World Trade Center tragedy. So people are still concerned about terrorism. A lot of attention is focused on the war on terrorism overseas, certainly, as well as security issues here at home. But I also noticed that although people still focus primarily on those security issues, that many of them are suffering. The economy is not what it used to be. Of course, this past Monday we had the official economic experts who proclaimed that we do in fact officially have a recession; that the recession in fact began last March and was accelerated by the tragic events on September 11. So I come here tonight urging my colleagues to pass an economic stimulus package. We only have 3 or 4 weeks now before Christmas, and probably only 3 weeks, maybe 4 weeks, that Congress will continue to be in session before the end of the year. I think it is incumbent upon us during this period to pay attention to the economic needs and to the suffering that more and more Americans face, and try to do something about it by passing an economic stimulus bill. Mr. Speaker, we know that when talk first began on how Congress should address the economic aftershocks of September 11, Members pledged to work together across party lines on a bipartisan basis to create a stimulus package. However, in just a few weeks after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the House Republican leadership broke off talks with Democrats and essentially crafted a stimulus package of their own, which I maintain primarily benefits corporate interests and wealthy Americans and not the displaced workers and not the people who are losing their jobs, not my constituents that I am talking to when I go home. On October 24, the House actually passed, strictly on party lines, 216 to 214, the Republican stimulus package. I wanted to talk a little bit this evening about why I think this Republican bill is not the way to go, why it cannot be the basis for any compromise that would ultimately pass the House and Senate and be signed by the President. I also had the opportunity a week ago during the Thanksgiving break to do a press conference with one of my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), and also with the president of our New Jersey State AFL-CIO, Charlie Wowkanech, representing some displaced workers, and in particular one displaced worker who was a limousine driver, who basically expressed the concern that he has for himself and his family over the fact that the economy has moved into a recession, and what it means to him in a real sense. I mention that because when I say that the Republican bill does not address the crisis that we face, the economic recession, it is not out of some ideology, that I am opposed to the Republican bill, but just because I do not think it works. I do not think it will accomplish the goal of ending the recession, getting the economy back on track. Something like the Democratic alternative is more likely to accomplish that goal and also more likely to be the basis for some kind of bipartisan package that we can all support and get signed into law by the President. The Republican bill, very much like the Bush tax plan that was passed earlier in the year, was loaded with tax breaks to the rich and big business. The legislation made no mention of unemployment benefits for displaced workers and does not adequately address the issues of health benefits for those workers, as well. It just basically does not provide for stimulus and any kind of relief or any kind of benefits for displaced workers. The reason this Republican bill will not stimulate consumer demand is because it does not focus on low- and middle-income families who are most likely to spend money. It does little to protect those who lost their jobs and may lose their health insurance benefits. Where it does address the issue of possibly dealing with unemployment compensation or health benefits or other benefits for displaced workers, it basically gives monies to the States and asks them to try to allocate the funds in some way that would help displaced workers. But Mr. Speaker, that could take months; and it could likely be very uneven, and it really was not very much money compared to all the money that was going to the tax breaks, primarily for corporate interests and wealthy individuals. The Democratic proposal, the Democratic alternative, the Democratic economic stimulus package, included unemployment benefits, health insurance premiums, and rebate checks for low- and moderate-income workers who did not qualify for rebate checks issued under the original Bush tax bill that we passed earlier this year. It also has additional spending on programs for domestic security that probably would result in hiring people, many of whom have lost their jobs, and therefore spur the economy by getting those people back to work. I just want to give, if I could, Mr. Speaker, a brief synopsis of some of the finer points of the Democratic proposal and then contrast it with the Republican bill and explain again why I think one is much more likely to accomplish the goal of getting us out of the recession and actually the goal of trying to get something passed. With regard to income support under the Democratic bill, 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 State's requirements for unemployment insurance, in other words part-time workers, would receive 26 weeks of federally financed unemployment insurance. So it goes directly to the problem of people who are not eligible or have limited options with regard to unemployment insurance. 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 health benefits would last for a maximum of 18 months. Under the Democratic proposal, we try to get a rebate check to low- and moderate-income workers who did not qualify for the rebate checks issued earlier this year under the President's tax plan. They would receive a one-time payment of up to $300 for a single person and $600 for married couples. People in this income category who are suffering would spend this money immediately, and it would certainly help with any kind of economic recovery. The other thing the Democratic package includes, as I mentioned, is domestic security upgrades. Infrastructure is addressed in order to try to deal with potential terrorist problems. The package on the Democratic side 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 programs, local police and fire departments, border security, airport security, and highway, bridge, and tunnel improvements. These upgrades would require more workers. Obviously, these are all the types of things, this is the type of spending, that would result in more jobs and take people off the rolls of the unemployed. Let me just contrast, if I can for a minute, for a couple of minutes, the Republican alternative. The Republicans, of course, call it an economic stimulus package, but it really is just an extension of the Republican tax cut bill that the President sought and successfully got passed in Congress earlier this year. The Republican stimulus package was basically crafted to respond to the business lobbyists, whose favorite tax breaks were left out of the $1.35 trillion tax bill that the President proposed earlier this year. If we look at the bill for the year 2002, next year, nearly 90 percent of the bill is tax cuts and only 11 percent would provide benefits to unemployed workers and their families. I am not going to mention all of them, and I see I am joined by one of my colleagues here. Just to give a little example of where 89 percent of this money goes, it is pretty much to corporate interests. The Republican bill has a repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax. It not only repeals it, but it allows companies to receive refunds based on past AMT payments dating back to 1986. The AMT raised only $3.3 billion in 1998, but this Republican provision costs $25.4 billion in 2002. It is an incredible giveaway, essentially, to large corporations. A multinational government-financed tax break. The Republican bill allows multinational corporations to defer U.S. income taxes on profits from certain offshore activities, so long as they are kept outside of the country. How is that possibly going to help with any economic recovery here at home? The capital gains tax rate. The tax rate on income from capital gains would be reduced from 20 percent to 18 percent for taxpayers in higher brackets, and from 10 percent to 8 percent for those in the 10 to 15 percent brackets. Over 90 percent of this tax cut would benefit the top 10 percent of taxpayers who have incomes over $100,000. Then we have acceleration of the reduction of the 28 percent rate to 25 percent. It has already been cut. But this change does not benefit the 75 percent of taxpayers who are in the 15 percent bracket or lower. I could go on and on talking about all the tax breaks that are in this Republican bill. The bottom line is that universally, almost, we have seen independent analysts, editorials in the Nation's leading newspapers, pointing out and essentially rejecting this GOP economic stimulus bill because it will not achieve the goal of stimulating the economy and trying to get us out of this recession that has now been declared. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), if he would like to speak.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues, the 275th Anniversary of the Presbyterian Church in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The tradition of this historic and noble church has lasted the test of time in its service to its denomination community, state and nation. The church has served Governors, NJ and U.S. Supreme Court Justices, as well as many patriots and leaders in our war for independence. For the past 275 years, New Brunswick Presbyterian Church has served its community and its people seven days a week, 365 days a year. It is being commended today for not only serving their common interest but also opening their church up to others through such programs as meals on wheels campaign and child development centers. The church is a landmark in the city of New Brunswick and is an incredible asset to the people of its congregation and beyond. Today I ask my colleagues to congratulate not only the New Brunswick Presbyterian Church but also the entire community of New Brunswick for 275 years of religious service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the Mount Pisgah Baptist Temple located in the Sixth District of New Jersey that is celebrating its 100th anniversary. Throughout its long history, the Mount Pisgah Baptist Temple has served its community under the leadership of only six pastors. Located in Asbury Park, New Jersey, Mount Pisgah has made its mark on the surrounding communities. Mount Pisgah is at the forefront of religious service through its wonderful preaching and teaching ministry. Additionally, Mount Pisgah has served as a center for feeding and providing clothing for the poor. Through its weekly Bible Study and Prayer Services on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings, it has provided Christian education training to people of all ages. To help the youth of the community, Mount Pisgah provides after school tutoring services. ``Let Brotherly Love Continue . . .'' Hebrews 13:1, serves as the mission statement for this neighborhood based worship center. Their main objective is to ``Spread the Good News'' by loving, sharing, and caring for others. On this day, we celebrate the hundred auspicious years that the Mount Pisgah Baptist Temple has stood as a symbol of spiritual unity, of which we should all be proud. I applaud their desire to continue their mission of serving God, as well as the community, with love and devotion to all.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize a distinguished resident of my district, Mrs. Sylvia Cohen, and congratulate her on receiving New Jersey's Deal Shore Hadassah Woman of the Year award. For the past three decades, Sylvia has put forth a tireless effort as an active member of the Shore area's Jewish community. Sylvia is committed to Jewish causes and became active in the United Jewish Appeal, well before it even became the Jewish Federation. In addition, she currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Jewish Federation and is co-chair of the Business and Professional Women's Division. Furthermore, Sylvia also serves on the Monmouth University Scholarship Ball Committee, the Board of the Jewish Community Center of Greater Monmouth County, and is president of the Temple Bath Torah's Sisterhood in Ocean Township. Throughout all of her hard work and fundraising to ensure the success of these local Jewish organizations, Sylvia has remained inspired by and devoted to the Jewish community. In her personal life, Sylvia has shown an equal level of commitment, passion, and dedication. She and her husband, Ray Cohen, have successfully established and operated two small businesses in their hometown of Deal, New Jersey. As involved as Sylvia has been and continues to be in the community and her businesses, her greatest pride is her family. She and her husband have raised five daughters and five grandchildren. Sylvia has set an example for her family as two of her daughters have both been honored by their local Hadassah chapters as Woman of the Year, as well. Mrs. Cohen certainly serves as an example for both her family and her community. Her devotion and hard work are extraordinary and can further serve as an example for us all. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I ask you to join me in distinguishing Mrs. Sylvia Cohen for a lifetime of dedication to her family and to her Jewish community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on October 25, Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, spoke before the plenary of the Cyprus House of Representatives while on a two-day official visit to Cyprus. During his speech, Mr. Prodi stated that Cyprus will join the EU and will be among the first candidate countries to do so. As a strong advocate of Cyprus' accession to the European Union, I believe that Cyprus' accession would be good for the stability of the region, as well as for the prospects for serious and good faith negotiations between the parties in Cyprus. To that end, I am honored to submit for the Congressional Record the introduction and text of Mr. Prodi's historic speech to the Cyprian House of Representatives. Introductory Statement of the President of the House of Representatives, Mr. Demetris Christofias It is with particular pleasure and great excitement that I have the privilege to welcome to the House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus the President of the European Commission Mr. Romano Prodi. Mr. Romano Prodi is a distinguished personality of international calibre who has associated his name with the steady furtherance of the cause of European integration. At the helm of the European Commission since 1999 the systematic and principled culture on his part of the European voice effuses common values, beliefs and civilization originating from our common European heritage. Your visit to Cyprus, Mr. President, is taking place at difficult times which humanity is experiencing in a tragic way today. It is comforting to note that with your firm positions you have struck the right note and given the right way of addressing terrorism by making clear that the reaction of the international community, with which the Cyprus Republic has aligned itself against terrorism, is not a war against cultures or a conflict of religions. It is imperative that the European Union oppose a united world of peace, democracy, equality, prosperity and international understanding and solidarity with Man in its epicentre against every sort of terrorists. The Cyprus Republic believing unwaveringly in the future of Europe continues its efforts firmly and decisively for the harmonization of its national legislation with the acquis communautaire. The Cyprus Parliament plays its own part and faces with responsibility as a first priority the harmonization process. Our progress in our accession negotiations is due to a great extent to the common effort of all the political powers in Cyprus but also to the general support offered by public opinion. These efforts made by Cyprus but also the proven dedication to democratic institutions and European ideals and principles are acknowledged and clearly recorded in the latest progress report by the European Commission on Cyprus. As regards the process for the solution of the Cyprus problem, I would like to emphatically stress that the President of the Republic participates with the support of the National Council in the effort under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General with all goodwill for the solution of the problem on the basis of United Nations Resolutions and the High Level Agreements. I would like to underline that our expectation is that a united Cyprus join the European Union. I would like at the same time, however, to point out that our will must not be misinterpreted. It is not possible for Cyprus to accept the absurd demands made by Turkey and the Turkish occupation leader Mr. Denktash which are followed by threats. Especially his unrealistic claim for a direct or an indirect recognition of the occupation regime as a state entity just to reach a settlement to the Cyprus problem. I would like to avail myself of the opportunity of your presence here, Mr. President, to express the warmest thanks on behalf of the Cyprus people for the firm promotion by the European Commission of the provision of the Helsinki Summit decision which envisages that the solution of the Cyprus problem is not a prerequisite for the accession of Cyprus to the European Union as well as for the conviction that Cyprus will become a member of the European Union during the first wave of enlargement. With these few thoughts, Mr. President of the European Commission, I welcome you once again to the Cyprus Parliament.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) said about perhaps some of us who are opposed to this bill not liking the pharmaceutical industry. Let me say that is not true. The pharmaceutical industry is a major industry in my State and particularly in my district. But the point that I think those of us opposed to this bill are trying to make is that there is no reason to continue a Federal program that can provide the same service for much less cost to the consumer at a time when we know that the high cost of prescription drugs is making it difficult for consumers to have access to them. We all agree in this debate, Mr. Speaker, that we have an enormous responsibility to our children. I have three children, 4, 6, and 8 years old. Above all else, we must ensure that the prescription medications our children may have to take are in fact tested appropriately and deemed safe for children. But the intent of this law was to create an incentive for companies to discover new pediatric uses for their products in exchange for 6 months of exclusivity for the work done. There are several drawbacks. When the other side says that this program works, I would maintain that it does not work. It certainly does not work as well as it should. According to the HHS report on the pediatric exclusivity provision, the FDA's interpretation of the law has in essence been granting companies patent extensions without receiving the pediatric benefits it was intended to generate. The report states that the incentive has naturally tended to produce pediatric studies on those products where the exclusivity has the greatest value to the product's sponsor. This has left some drugs of importance to children, but for which the incentive has little or no value, unstudied. Additionally, I am concerned that granting 6 months of exclusivity has a very dramatic financial impact on consumers. This type of a patent extension serves as yet another obstacle that blocks access to generic drugs for consumers, forcing seniors and others to pay higher prices because lower-cost alternatives are needlessly kept off the market. The HHS report states again that the Secretary finds that the impact of the lack of lower-cost generic drugs on some patients, especially those without health insurance and the elderly, may be significant. Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize enough that testing of drugs for pediatric use is essential. Again, I have small children so I understand that. However, I feel that reauthorizing the pediatric exclusivity provision would simply provide tightly budgeted dollars to an industry that can afford to protect children's health with less of an incentive. I said in committee and I will say again on the floor, I do not think the pharmaceutical industry needs an incentive to conduct studies to ensure safety for children. Frankly, I think they should do it as a public service. But as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said, we are not asking them to do it for free. We have stated many times that we would provide twice the cost for profit or 200 percent or 300 percent, whatever. We offered all these amendments in committee. But the bottom line is that they are getting a windfall, and it is too much of a windfall. This was something we tried, but it does not have to be repeated again because it is not helpful to the consumer.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I call attention to the chair and my colleagues, a distinguished group of residents from the 6th district of New Jersey. Long Branch Lodge 742 of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks will celebrate its 100th anniversary on December 8, 2001. The Elks Lodge has occupied the same small building on Garfield Street in Long Branch since its founding in 1901. The lodge has served the community of Long Branch and hosted gala fairs and many important events in Long Branch's history. Lodge 742, known as ``the lodge by the sea'' has served the elite lodge of south central New Jersey since its inception. Lodge 742 has the distinction of being the lodge to host the first ever reunion of the New Jersey State Elks Association in June 1914. It has hosted a total of over 10,000 participants in events over the past 100 years. The lodge is much more than a building, more than just a group for historical curiosity, and more than just an address on Garfield Street. The lodge is a representation of the people of Long Branch, its history, society, and longevity. The lodge has had 742 members over its history and has contributed so much to the grandeur and excitement of the city of Long Branch. Now entering its second century of ``Elkdom'', I would like to congratulate the Long Branch Elks Lodge, its 372 current members, its city and its people on this momentous occasion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the conference report directs the EPA administrator to put into effect without delay the 10 parts per billion standard for arsenic that was promulgated in the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has, without justification, delayed the effective date of the January 22d rule and has been in clear violation of Federal law. Congress had set a deadline to have a new final standard for arsenic in effect no later than June 22 of this year. The House of Representatives, in July, sent the administration a clear message when it voted to have an arsenic standard no higher than 10ppb so the United States could be inline with the World Health Organization and the European Union. Despite extensive scientific proof that the current standard for arsenic in tap water of 50 ppb is unsafe, it remained unchanged from 1942 until the Clinton administration reduced it to 10ppb in January 2001. In 1942, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) established a standard for arsenic in tap water of 50 ppb, which remained in effect for over half a century even though it did not consider evidence accumulated over the past 50 years that arsenic causes cancer. In 1962, the USPHS recommended that potable water supplies not exceed 10ppb arsenic. Nearly 39 years later, EPA finally adopted that recommendation in January 2001. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 1999 finding that ``it is the subcommittee's consensus that the current EPA standard for arsenic in drinking water of 50ppb does not achieve EPA's goal for public health protection and, therefore, requires downward revision as promptly as possible.'' The NAS, EPA, International Agency of Research on Cancer, and many other scientific international bodies have declared arsenic in drinking water a known human carcinogen, based on numerous studies from around the world showing that people get bladder, kidney, lung, skin, and other cancers from arsenic in their tap water. Despite all of that information, tens of million of Americans drink arsenic in their tap water supplied by public water systems, at levels that present unacceptable cancer and noncancer risks. According to EPA, about 12 million Americans drink tap water containing over 10ppb arsenic, about 22.5 million drink tap water containing over 5ppb, and about 35.7 million drink water containing in excess of 3ppb. Thus, according to EPA's occurrence estimates and NAS' most recent cancer risk estimates, about 36 million Americans drink water every day that contains arsenic at a level presenting over 10 times EPA's maximum acceptable cancer risk. It is for that reason I was pleased that the Bush administration finally--at a bare minimum--accepted the 10ppb rule after months of unnecessary delay. However, in reviewing the language in this conference report, I would say to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee that it is a mistake to encourage small communities to seek lengthy compliance time extensions so they continue to drink unhealthy water. We should work together to develop additional cost-effective technologies and provide targeted financial assistance where necessary to bring small water systems into compliance with the new protective standard for arsenic. No person no matter where they live in our country should have arsenic in their drinking water which presents an unreasonable risk to health.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I was very pleased today to have another opportunity at the India Caucus luncheon to meet and talk with Prime Minister Vajpayee. I admire him so much for all that he has done in India, both as a minority leader as well as now the Prime Minister. I have met him on many occasions and have always been very impressed by him. I think this resolution is important; and obviously I would urge its adoption, because it sets forth three things that I think are important: One is that India, like the United States, has historically been a victim of terrorism. India has been extremely supportive of the United States in the aftermath of September 11, in part because of their friendship with the United States, but also because they understand the negative impact of terrorism on their own state and own population, particularly as it has often occurred in Kashmir. India has been involved with the U.S. in acting against terrorism for a long time and has worked for several years with the United States in that regard and will continue to. The second thing I would mention is that India is very important to the United States because of the growing relationship that we share on every level. Certainly when we talk about trade, the growing trade relationship, when we talk about culture, there is so much interest in India culture in the United States and vice-versa. But more important right now, I think, is the importance of the defense relationship, and we understand that some of the conversations and talks that are taking place between the Prime Minister and President Bush relate to that defense relationship. I have been a long advocate of the need to increase our defense relationship, whether that means supplying military equipment or doing more military exercises with India. I think many of us know that, historically, India had relied on the former Soviet Union for much of its military equipment. I would like to see that change. I think the U.S. should be the main country that they look to in that regard. So I am hopeful that this week both the trade ties, but, more important, the defense ties, between India and the United States, will see some significant positive action. I am hopeful that that will in fact be the case. The third thing I wanted to mention, and we all know about the growing importance of the Indian-American community here in the United States, my district, my old district before the redistricting that took place a few weeks ago in New Jersey, had a very large Indian-American population. That has even increased more with the new district that I will be representing, hopefully, after this next year. I think that that Indian-American community has gone far towards building the ties between the United States and India based on democracy, based on capitalism, based on shared culture interests. The Prime Minister took note of that today at our luncheon, and I know that he is very proud of the impact that the Indian-American community has had here in the United States.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). I do not think there is any questions that what is happening with the Republican leadership in terms of this economic stimulus package is very similar to what is happening on the aviation security issue. And that is, nothing is happening. We know that last week when the Republican leadership put forward this so-called economic stimulus package, they knew full well it was not going to go anywhere. They were barely able to get the votes. I remember at one point at the end of votes there were more votes against it than for it. And we saw some of the Republican leaders going around and strong arming their colleagues so they could turn around a few votes. I think it ultimately passed by one or two votes maybe at the end. We know the way the procedure works around here. If a bill passes on strictly a partisan vote and then it goes to the other body, the Senate, where the Democrats are in majority and totally disagree with this bill because of the way that is structured, that nothing is going to happen. There either never is a conference where the two Houses get together or if a conference occurs, there is no meeting of the minds. So once again, just like with the issue of aviation security, my major criticism of the House Republican leadership and my colleagues who spoke earlier on the Republican side tonight is that they keep talking about the need to go to conference, which really means the need to delay, delay on aviation security, delay on economic stimulus. Meanwhile, the economy does not get any better and the problems with aviation security at the various airports continue. I just think it is very sad. People want action. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree they want action and we are not getting it. We are certainly not getting it on the part of this leadership on the Republican side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I know there is only a few minutes left, but I just want to point out the contrast which you did so well on what the Republicans had in mind with this economic stimulus package. I mentioned of the $99.5 billion in tax cuts proposed for the next year, 2002, $70.8 billion benefits corporation, $14.8 billion benefits affluent individuals, and only $1.37 billion goes to workers with lower incomes who did not get the previous rebate. A lot of it is even going to finance multi-nationals so the money would not even be spent here, which is incredible to me. How can you have an economic stimulus package when you have a provision that allows multi-national corporations to defer U.S. income taxes on profits from certain offshore activities so long as they are kept outside of the country. That is $260 million next year, $21.3 billion over 10 years. Now, by contrast what we did, as was pointed out with our Democratic substitute, is provide rebates or tax breaks or unemployment compensation for displaced workers or money for aviation security and other investments in public infrastructure. That would be mean dollars immediately going into the economy either because the person who gets the unemployment compensation would spend it or because we would be hiring people for these various public infrastructure necessities such as the security that we talked about earlier this evening. I do not understand. I do not know an economist on the face of the Earth who would suggest that what the Republicans tried to pass last week would do anything significant to benefit the economy. And I do not know what we do. I think the only thing we can do is to simply come here every night as we are, as Democrats, and demand action, demand that whether it is a security issue or an economic issue that the Republican leadership take some action, work in a bipartisan way so we can actually accomplish something. Nothing is being accomplished here. We just have to continue to demand that something be accomplished in a bipartisan way that can achieve some progress in these areas. But so far we are not getting it. Mr. Speaker, with that I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. PALLONE. Well said. I yield to my colleague from California.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. She expresses better than I do how I feel about this right now. I really appreciate what you have said. I want to yield to my other colleague from California and stress that this evening part of the argument that I have been trying to make is not only that the Republican House leadership has refused to bring up an aviation security bill, but by contrast, they have instead last week brought up this so-called economic stimulus package with all these tax cuts that go primarily to corporate interests and wealthy people. I think we estimate that of the money that is given back in tax breaks in that Republican economic stimulus package that was passed last week, very narrowly, by two votes, I think, of $100 billion in tax cuts in the next year, 2002, $70.8 billion benefits corporations and $14.8 billion benefits affluent individuals. So here we have where two-thirds, I guess, of the money that they would like to allocate with these tax breaks is going to corporate interests, and then at the same time they will not pass a bill on aviation security because those same corporate interests refuse to spend the money or make a commitment to do the aviation security. It is part and parcel of the same thing. Where are the priorities? The priorities for the Republicans in trying to get the economy going again are to give money to the corporate interests. I do not see how in the world that stimulates the economy in the way that they hope it to be stimulated. I think just the opposite occurs. Of course, the Democrats had an alternative last week, which did not pass because we are not in the majority, that does the opposite. It gives money back to the displaced workers, it gives unemployment compensation, it gives health benefits, it provides for a major component of funding for security not only for airlines, but for all other means of transportation as the gentlewoman from Florida said. That is the kind of thing that would create the economic stimulus and create the jobs and get people back to work, and they are not willing to do it.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate his comments. I do not like to sound morbid, but as I started out tonight, people have died. We had 6,000 people die at the World Trade Center, many of them my constituents. It is just incredible to me to think that with all of that happening that we have not moved on this and that that does not move the House Republican leadership to take up this bill that was adopted unanimously, 100-to-nothing.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just mention one thing, one of the things that really irked me tonight was when we had the conversation among some of our Republican colleagues about the value of competition. They were talking about how, if we have a Federal work force, we are going to eliminate competition. All I kept thinking in my mind is, how can it be competition when you are paying people minimum wage, you are not providing them any benefits, they have no pride in the work force, you are going to create competition? Half of these airlines are bankrupt or near bankruptcy. There is no incentive in a competitive process to do any better. The whole notion of competition in this atmosphere where there is not the money and they are not paying the wages is just nonsense.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I may be joined by other colleagues. I am not sure at this point. This evening I wanted to talk about the issue of aviation security in the aftermath of the tragedies of September 11, and I must say that in many ways I would like to start out by responding to the special order given by some of my Republican colleagues just a few minutes ago. I want to express my disappointment in what they said, and basically almost emotionally if I could explain why I am so disappointed in the statements that were made by some of my Republican colleagues just a few minutes ago. In my district in New Jersey, I represent right now two counties. We had about 150 victims of the World Trade Center who died. We have been to a lot of funerals. We have been to a lot of vigils. We have been to a lot of services over the last 2 months or so. I have to say my constituents really have lost patience. They no longer believe that this House of Representatives is going to do anything effectively on the issue of airport security. They wonder why we are even debating this issue tonight and why this issue was not disposed of within a week or two of those tragedies. It is now October 31, about a month and a half since September 11. In fact, it is about 2 or 3 weeks I believe since the Senate took action on the bill that my Republican colleagues have been criticizing, and I would ask initially this evening as I begin, why have we waited? If they do not like the Senate bill, why did not they bring up a bill in the House the next day, 2 or 3 weeks ago, to address this problem? Why have they waited for a month and a half to even address the issue? I sincerely doubt their willingness to address the issue of airport security. I believe that what they are doing now, what the House Republican leadership is doing now in bringing up this bill tomorrow is nothing but a ruse. I do not think that they want to change the status quo at all. I believe that they like the status quo, and I believe that the reason they are not bringing up the Senate bill tomorrow and they are bringing up a new House Republican bill is because they hope that they can pass that bill on a partisan vote, send it to conference, and because it disagrees significantly from the Senate bill, they will simply kill any legislative initiative to try to address the airport security issue, and as a consequence, those corporate interests, those airline interests that do not want to see any changes in the status quo will triumph. That is what is going on here. No one can tell me that this House of Representatives cannot act quickly in the aftermath of the type of tragedy that we had on September 11. No one can tell me that if the Senate bill passed 2 or 3 weeks ago that we could not have passed a bill within a few days of that. What is happening now is that the momentum is building in my State and around the country where people are outraged over the fact that we have not taken action on this measure, and the Republican leadership knows that the public wants something like what passed in the other body, like the Senate bill, and that they want a Federal workforce and that they do not like the status quo. So now the Republican leadership in the House feels that they have to bring up something, even a fig leaf. So they will schedule a vote tomorrow and they will start a debate, knowing full well that once that bill passes, it will go to conference and nothing will happen and the status quo will continue. I heard some of my Republican colleagues talk about the fact that they do not like Federal workforces. I do not really care whether they like or do not like Federal workforces. I mean they can stand up here and they can talk about whether they like the Postal Service or they think it should be privatized, whether they like the Border Patrol or they think it should be privatized, whether they like the Customs Service or they think it should be privatized. The bottom line is that we know that whatever system, and in this case a private corporate system that was in place on September 11, failed, and it failed miserably. The fact of the matter is that it has not changed. I have my constituents come to my town meetings. Because I am not very far from Newark airport, we are maybe half an hour away, if not maybe less, and they tell me when they go to the airport nothing really has changed. Their baggage is not being screened. They are able to get through with devices to bypass the screening machines, and they are very, very disappointed in the quality of the workforce. I heard my colleagues say that they do not like the existing workforce. Well, the existing workforce is a private workforce that is put in place by the airlines, and there is no way in the world that we are going to create competition and create some sort of private enterprise system that is going to correct it. There is no money available. I heard one of my colleagues say, well, maybe they should be paid $16 an hour, they are only being paid minimum wage, maybe they should be paid $16 an hour. Is he going to mandate in the legislation that they get paid $16 an hour? The problem we have now is that the airlines, many of them, are bankrupt. Many are in very bad shape. They have no incentive to go out and hire people and pay them a living wage. They have no incentive to do the type of training that would be effective. And the people who are manning these screening devices do not have any esprit de corps. They do not have pride in what they do. If my colleagues were to go to Newark Airport, they could go to the screening device and look a few feet away and see some of the fast food restaurants. Some of the people working in the fast food restaurants are being paid more than the people manning the screening devices. Why should they have any more pride in what they do if they are not getting properly paid and they have no benefits? They are not going to have pride in what they do. One of my Republican colleagues said, well, 80 or 90 percent of them are not even U.S. citizens. What do my colleagues expect? Should we expect that U.S. citizens are going to take minimum wage jobs under the conditions they have to work with these screening machines? Of course not. The only way that we can do anything is if we make a radical change. And I say ``radical'' because I understand that putting together a Federal work force something like the Customs Service or the Post Office or the Border Patrol, I understand that is a radical change from what we have now, but I do not have a problem with it. Not because ideologically I think a Federal work force is superior, but just because I know the current system does not work and we cannot just tweak it. One of my Republican colleagues said, well, we will make sure that at every entrance to the airport there is a Federal employee, but I do not want the people manning the screening devices to be Federal employees. What are we afraid of? Is it some sort of ideological nonsense or something in my colleagues' minds that somehow this is socialism or communism or something? I just do not understand it. I just think that this is a practical problem that needs a practical solution and that we cannot wait for some tweaking of the system when we know that we have to do something dramatic to change it because the status quo is currently not working. I just wanted to mention, if I could, a few talking points about the Senate bill. I call it the House Democratic Aviation Security Bill, which I understand will be the alternative tomorrow, the substitute, that hopefully we will be allowed to vote on in lieu of this House Republican bill. If I could just talk about this bill, first of all, understand that this passed the Senate, the other body, 100 to nothing. In the other body they were not being partisan. There were a lot of people in the other body, in the Senate, who are very right-wing ideologically, but they were willing to join together, Democrat and Republican, 100 to nothing, unanimously, to say that we need to make some major changes, we need to have a Federal work force, we need to create a new body of people that are going to screen and do the security and who will take pride in what they do. I do not understand why if the other body, the Senate, could eliminate all the ideology and do something on a bipartisan basis, why the House Republican leadership cannot do the same here. The Senate bill, and now the House Democratic alternative, ensures that Federal security personnel screen and check all individuals and baggage before boarding a plane. Specifically, the bill federalizes all security screening functions at the 140 busiest airports to ensure a professional, well-trained and well-qualified air security law enforcement force. Now, some of my Republican colleagues said, well, why are we only dealing with 140 of the busiest airports? For over 250 smaller airports the legislation would allow the Justice Department the flexibility to use Federal law enforcement personnel or State and local law enforcement under strict Federal oversight as screeners. My colleagues said, that is not fair, we have different systems, different standards for the larger airports than the smaller airports. I think the reason is basically recognizing the fact that the smaller airports do not have, maybe, the same responsibilities. But if my colleagues on the Republican side do not like the two- tiered system, then let us federalize everyone. Let us not say that because the Senate bill does not allow the smaller airports to have a Federal corps of employees that we should not have them for any of them. I think the answer is, if there is strong objection to a two- tiered system, make them have Federal law enforcement officers at all of the airports, small and large combined. What we are trying to do, and I want everyone to understand this, what we are trying to do with this Federal security screening work force is to ensure that the security screeners are more highly paid, rather than continuing the practice of private contractors hiring personnel at minimum wage basically. Experts, including the General Accounting Office, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Transportation Department have all indicated that low wages and high turnover are the major problems in aviation security. Under the bill, under the Democratic alternative, the Senate bill, screener applicants would be required to pass a rigorous selection examination and complete classroom and on-the-job training. It also gives the government flexibility to suspend or terminate underperforming employees. Under the Democratic alternative, there is a mandate that all checked baggage be screened by explosive detection equipment. We require screening of all persons, vehicles and other equipment entering secure areas, including catering and other companies with access to secure areas. All current air carrier, airport and screening personnel have to submit to background checks and criminal history record checks. There are many other things that we do, and I would like to go into some of them, but I see that one of my colleagues is here, and I know that he is very interested and has been involved in this issue, so I would like to yield now to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank my colleague from Texas. When the gentleman started off and he was talking about the federalization of the work force, he made me think about my Republican colleagues that were here for the first hour tonight. I was wondering, if we proposed that the Capitol Police, for example, if they should be privatized, whether they would support that. It is sort of ironic, because here we are and we are protected by a Capitol Police force. They are not contracted out. We know that there is a certain pride that we see with the Capitol Police officers. My colleagues have no problem with the force here that is federalized, but they do not want to see it for the average person at the airports.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. PALLONE. It has been several weeks.

Mr. PALLONE. And our Republican colleagues were talking about the conference. It was a foregone conclusion that they were going to conference, which the gentlewoman knows can take weeks.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman again for his comments, and I want to now yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.