Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Colorado want to hear from us? I am just asking. SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has the hour.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss in a little depth tonight the issue of prescription drugs and trying to provide a prescription drug benefit to America's seniors. In that context, I wanted to specifically, Mr. Speaker, make reference to the proposal that the Republican candidate for President, Mr. Bush, has made in the last few days, and draw the contrast between that and the plan that the Democrats have been putting forward in the House of Representatives and that is also supported by Vice President Gore. I know I am going to be joined tonight by some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, my concern about what has been happening with the Bush Medicare plan, or I should say with the Bush prescription drug plan, it is just basically too little too late. The Democrats here in the House have been talking about expanding prescription drugs through Medicare. On the Republican side of the aisle, we have seen fig leaves go out about different proposals to provide some sort of voucher or subsidy for seniors who might want to go out and buy a prescription drug plan. But the Republican proposal really does not do anything, nor does Mr. Bush's proposal do anything to help the average senior. I think it is just a lot of rhetoric. It does not actually do anything to solve the problems that seniors face today. I just wanted to contrast because, in many ways, I think that what Mr. Bush has proposed is really no different. It is just another version of what the Republican leadership in the House has been talking about for the last 6 months. On the other hand, the Democratic proposal which we have been putting forth and has been supported by Vice President Gore has very specific remedies for dealing with the problems that seniors face. So I would just like to run through some of the distinctions if I could. All that the Republicans are doing, and that includes their presidential candidate, Mr. Bush, is throwing some money or proposing to throw some money at the insurance companies, hoping that they will sell a drug-only insurance policy; and the insurance companies admit that they are not going to be selling those kinds of policies, that basically a drug-only insurance policy will not be available. What the Democrats have been saying is that we have a tried-and-true program, a Medicare program, that has been around for over 30 years now; and all we have to do is take that existing Medicare program and expand it through a new part D where one would pay a premium per month and one would get a prescription drug benefit in the same way that one gets one's part B benefit to pay for one's doctor's bills right now. One pays a modest premium, and the Government pays for a certain percentage of one's drug bills. The Democrats, and here is one of the most important distinctions, the Democrats guarantee that the drug benefit one gets through Medicare covers all one's medicines that are medically necessary as determined by one's doctor, not the insurance company. The Republicans and Mr. Bush tell one to go out and see if one can find an insurance policy to cover one's medicine; and if one cannot find it, well, that is just tough luck. Even if one does manage to find an insurance company through the voucher that the Government might give one under the Bush plan, there is no guarantee as to the cost of the monthly premium or what kind of medicine that one gets. Now I find myself when I talk to seniors that they want certainty. They want to know that, if they pay a premium, as they do under part B, and now they would under the part D proposed by the Democrats and by the Vice President, that they are guaranteed certain prescription drug coverage and it is going to be there for them whenever they need it. Lastly, I think in contrasting these two plans, the Republican and the Democratic plans, and just as important, I see the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) just came in, and he has been the biggest supporter of this issue, is that the Republicans and the Bush plan leave American seniors open to continued price discrimination. There is nothing in the Bush plan or in the Republican plan to prevent the drug companies from charging one whatever they want. The Democratic plan, on the other hand, says that the Government will choose a benefit provider who will negotiate for one the best price, just like the prices that are negotiated by the HMOs and other preferred providers. The real difference, though, is that the Democrats are working with the existing Medicare program to basically expand Medicare to provide prescription drug coverage, and that would make a difference for the average senior. The first prescription drug, the first medicine that they need would be covered under the Democratic plan. The Republican plan is just, in my opinion, nothing more than a cruel hoax on the seniors. It is the same type of thing that the Republicans in Congress have been proposing. I wanted to just mention two more things, then I would like to yield to my colleagues who are joining me here tonight. There was an article in today's New York Times where the Republican candidate, Mr. Bush, was spelling out his prescription drug program. Interestingly enough, when asked about the issue of price discrimination, he actually criticized Gore's plan, the Democratic plan, by suggesting that, in the way that we set aside benefit providers and say they are going to negotiate a good price so that seniors do not get ripped off, and the price discrimination that currently exists disappears, what Mr. Bush says is that that would do nothing but ultimately lead to price controls. I just wanted to use this quote if I could, Mr. Speaker. It says that Mr. Bush today, much like the drug industry, criticized Mr. Gore's plan as a step towards price controls. ``By making government agents the largest purchasers of prescription drugs in America,'' Mr. Bush said, ``by making Washington the Nation's pharmacist, the Gore plan puts us well on the way to price control for drugs.'' Now, what that says to me is that what Mr. Bush wants, he wants to do something that is going to help the pharmaceutical companies, he wants to do something that is going to help the insurance agencies, the insurance companies; but he is not doing something that helps the average American. We had time for the last month or so when we were all in our districts, and I had a lot of forums and town meetings, many of which were with seniors. Whether they were seniors or not, everybody talked to me about the price, the cost of prescription drugs. Now do my colleagues mean to tell me that when we pass a prescription drug plan we are not going to address that issue? If we do not address that issue in some way by at least saying this the Government is going to try to have someone out there to negotiate a better price, then any prescription drug plan that is put into place is not going to really solve anybody's problem because the cost is going to be too high. The other thing I wanted to point out, and this is something that I said before we had our August break, is that what Mr. Bush is proposing and what the Republicans proposed here in the House of Representatives when we were in session during the summer and the spring has already been tried in at least one State; and that is the State of Nevada. In the State of Nevada, back in the springtime, they passed a prescription drug plan that was very similar to what Mr. Bush and the Republicans have proposed; and that is essentially giving a subsidy, giving a voucher to seniors so that they can go out and try to find their own prescription drug plan, their own prescription drug policy through some insurance company. In the State of Nevada, none of them were sold. People tried to find a plan, and there were no insurance companies that was willing to sell it. The only thing that I can see happening with Mr. Bush's plan is that some of the HMOs will offer the coverage because if they can take that voucher and add it to whatever seniors now get under Medicare, that they may be willing in some cases through HMOs to take up the slack and perhaps provide some benefits for prescription drugs. But the problem with that is that as we know over the last 6 months and over the last 2 years since more and more seniors have gotten into HMOs, a lot of those HMOs are now cutting back. They are simply getting out of the Medicare program. They are telling the seniors they have to have a higher deductible, more of a co-payment, basically telling the seniors that they have to pay more out of pocket. So I do not think pushing seniors into HMOs is the answer. I think there is a serious problem with managed care, not that managed care is necessarily a bad thing. But if Mr. Bush thinks that we are going to solve the prescription drug prices for seniors by simply pushing them into HMOs, the experience of the last 2 years shows that is simply not the answer. What we are facing here is a Republican plan under the Republican candidate for President that basically does not do anything for the average American senior. We have to realize now the only way we are going to get real coverage for seniors is if we add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program, which is exactly what the Vice President and the Democrats have been proposing for the last 2 years. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), a gentleman who has been outspoken on this issue and who I know really cares a great deal about the seniors in his district and trying to solve this problem. I know he has had a number of forums over the last month or so in Texas, his home State. We talked a little bit and shared some thoughts today about how the response from seniors that we have again been getting over the last month has been really very similar. They are really crying out for reform. They have a problem. They cannot afford to pay prescription drugs out of pocket. They are crying out for relief, which is what the Vice President wants to achieve. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. Just one minute and then I want to yield to the gentleman from Texas here because he has been waiting. When I had my senior forums in August in New Jersey, the people that came were the people that could not take advantage of the existing State program in New Jersey. Let us face it, if you are below a certain income, very low, then you have Medicaid and you have prescription drug coverage, not maybe as all inclusive as we would like but something. In New Jersey, we have a program financed with casino revenue money from Atlantic City that pays for people just above that. But that program increasingly is running out of money because the revenues are not keeping up with the cost of all these drugs. But the people that came to my forums, and my district is not an affluent district, it is about middle of the road, middle income, most of the people were not eligible for either of those programs. That is the rub. It is those people, it is the middle class that do not have the benefit. What I wanted to say, what you were talking about specifically is that it is funny, I heard Governor Bush keep talking about choice, how the Republicans were going to give choice. There is no question there is more choice in our plan. It is a voluntary plan. You do not have to sign up for part D if you do not want to. If you want to keep your State prescription drug plan, you can if you are a certain income. If you have an employer-based retirement plan and you want to keep it, if you want to go to an HMO, you can keep it. The bottom line is everybody is guaranteed the coverage under Medicare. That is what is so beautiful about the Gore Democratic plan and so different from what Bush and the Republicans are proposing. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. We have about 4 minutes, so I would like to split the time between my colleague from Florida and my colleague from Arkansas. I will start with my colleague from Florida.

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on July 8, 2000, the Highland Park area of New Jersey lost one of its most distinguished members with the passing of Leon E. Cohen of Highland Park. Mr. Cohen was a man deeply involved with the Highland Park and Franklin Township government. His presence and knowledge will be sorely missed, while his contributions to civic life continue to impact the community. Mr. Speaker, Leon Cohen's service to Highland Park began in 1991 when he was elected to a borough council seat. During his nine years on the borough council he served as Chairman of the borough council finance committee where he excelled in municipal finance management. Twice during his tenure, Leon served as Council President where he provided outstanding leadership. As Chairman of the finance committee, Leon was responsible for the Finance, Tax, and Court Departments and he also represented the borough council on the planning board and as council liaison to the Library Board of Trustees. Leon's financial expertise saved the Borough of Highland Park tens of thousands of dollars during his tenure in office. Single handedly, he put together a most creative financing package that made possible the Highland Park Public Library expansion project. He also played a major role in developing the finance package that made possible the new Senior/Youth Center in Highland Park. Leon E. Cohen was bom September 9, 1929 in Brooklyn, NY to Russian immigrants Jacob and Bella Cohen. As a student, Leon excelled in math and science at the City College of New York in Manhattan, where he earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry. In 1952, Leon wed Evelyn Schwarz. They became the proud parents of a son, Steven, and two daughters, Ann and Laurie. Leon and--his family moved from Brooklyn to the Bronx and then to Franklin Township in Somerset County. He worked for FMC Corporation in Princeton for 41 years before his retirement in 1943, in the process, becoming well published in the chemistry of phosphorous based compounds.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in supporting the passage of S. 2327, the Oceans Act. We have an excellent opportunity to initiate a major review of ocean policies in this Nation and to take action to improve our understanding of ocean systems and the ocean environment as a whole. As a coastal member and co-chair of the Coastal Caucus, I've always been supportive of protecting our oceans and coasts and realize the tremendous benefits they offer all Americans. Our oceans provide us with jobs, food, recreational as well as educational opportunities, medicine, and transportation. Our oceans also play an important role in determining climate. But all is not well with our oceans. Today, more than half of all 265 million Americans live within 50 miles of our shores. This has put tremendous pressure on our estuaries, coastal zone, and near and offshore areas. In 1998, over 2,500 health advisories were issued against the consumption of contaminated fish. In 1998, over 7,000 beach closings or warnings were issued due to pollution. Harmful algal blooms, like red tides and pfiesteria, have been responsible for over $1 million in economic damages over the last decade. A 1997 National Marine Fisheries Service report to Congress stated that of the federally managed species for which sufficient data was available, 31% are ``overfished.'' The list goes on and on. S. 2327 attempts to rectify some of these problems by establishing a Commission on Ocean Policy. This Commission, which is similar to the original Stratton Commission of the late 1960's, will report to Congress and the President policy recommendations for improvements with respect to our oceans, ultimately resulting in a coordinated National Ocean Policy. In closing Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote in favor of this legislation so that we can go to conference and have it signed into law before the end of the session. Cast a vote for our Oceans! Vote yes on the Oceans Act!

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Philip Rosenbloom of Monmouth Beach, Monmouth County, who will be celebrating on August 1st his 75th birthday. Phil Rosenbloom has devoted much of his adult life enhancing the civic and cultural life of my district, and I wish to honor his contributions. A native of Monmouth County, Phil Rosenbloom grew up in Asbury Park, where his family owned the local print shop. The printing business became his vocation as well, and he gradually built his own successful printing corporation based in New York, where he produced record album jackets and direct mail advertising for manufacturers of records, tapes, and CD's. However, if printing was his business, his passion since his childhood days has been great jazz music. Phil often said that his fantasy of the perfect life would be to own a little saloon where he would invite the great jazz musicians in the country to play and he could listen all day long. But Mr. Speaker, we pay tribute to Phil because he is not just a listener--he is a ``doer.'' While establishing his career in the printing business, he and his wife, Norma, raised three sons just a few miles away from his boyhood home. He served on the Board of Trustees of Temple Beth Miriam; he chaired committees for Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey; he served as President of the Board of Trustees of the Monmouth County Arts Council; he currently sits on the Monmouth Beach Planning Board. In the 1960's, when my district was experiencing the racial tensions prevalent throughout the country, Phil was an outspoken advocate for civil rights and racial harmony. He is a life member of the NAACP. Perhaps his most noteworthy achievement was to find a way to share his love of music and theater with the citizens of Monmouth County. After selling his business and ``retiring,'' Phil devoted his energy and enthusiasm to the transformation of a run-down movie house in Red Bank into the Count Basie Theatre, now a newly-renovated and vibrant cultural center. Under his presidency of the theater, he has helped bring music, plays, and other arts to the children of our district, and he has helped create a showplace for great jazz. He also helped establish a jazz scholarship to a leading school of music, which will be presented on an annual basis to deserving young jazz musicians in our district. He continues to serve as a trustee of the theater. Phil and his wife, Norma, a classically-trained pianist, a former high school music teacher, and now a family law attorney, live in Monmouth Beach. They have three sons, David, James, and Eric, and three grandchildren. All of their sons learned from Phil and Norma the importance of building their adult lives around giving service to others. Mr. Speaker, when we think of a life well-lived, we think about dedication to family, to community, and to place of worship. We think about balancing hard work with a love and passion for our culture's highest forms of expression--theater, art, and music. Phil Rosenbloom certainly embodies, and continues to embody, the meaning of a well- lived life. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in honoring Phil Rosenbloom and celebrating with him his 75th birthday.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I am not an ideological type. I want to do what is practical and what works. The bottom line is one can call Medicare a government program. Sure it is, but I do not think it is bad because it is a government program. It works. The administrative costs of Medicare are, like, 3 percent. I would defy anybody on the Republican side to tell me that their typical constituent does not like Medicare. Plus it is voluntary. We are not saying that one has to participate in this. It is just like part B. If one does not want it, one does not participate. So if one looks at this practically speaking, the Republicans are talking about this drug-only insurance policy that is not going to work. Nobody is going to sell it. We are talking about expanding the existing Medicare program to cover prescription drugs which has worked for the last 35 years. I have to say that I was amazed, because I mentioned this before, too, that in Nevada a few months ago, they passed a plan very similar to the Republican plan where they are going to basically give people money to go out and see if they can buy these insurance-only policies. Not one insurance company stepped up to the plate and said they wanted to buy the policy. So even though the legislature passed the bill and the governor signed the bill, just like the Republican bill here in the House of Representatives, there is nobody benefiting from the program because no insurance company will sell the policy. So what good is it? It does not make any sense. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, and again I want to thank her for all her work on these health care issues. I know tonight she wants to highlight the mental health issue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight, I would like to start our 1 hour Special Order on the Democratic side by talking about the need for a Medicare prescription drug plan. This is an issue that I have taken to the floor many times to discuss. It is the highest priority for the Democratic Party and those Democrats in the Congress both in the House and the Senate. I noticed that my colleagues on the other side who spoke before me mentioned the issue of drug prices and how drug prices have increased significantly and the disparity between drug prices here in the United States versus Canada or Mexico or other countries. But I have to be somewhat critical of the Republican leadership because the fact of the matter is that, on many occasions over the last few weeks, Democrats have tried to bring a Medicare prescription drug bill to the floor to adopt and have the Congress adopt a comprehensive package that would include prescription drugs under Medicare for seniors and the disabled. On every occasion when we have tried to do that, and there have been at least two so far in the last few weeks, the Republicans have stopped the effort, and, instead, put forward a plan that seeks to basically give some money to seniors to go out and try and see if they can get an insurance company to sell them a policy that would cover prescription drugs, not under the rubric of Medicare, in a fashion that the insurance companies have already indicated that they would not sell such policies, such drug-only policies. As a result, I have been very critical of the fact that the Republican leadership really does not want a Medicare prescription drug plan; they do not want seniors seriously to see enacted into law by the President a plan that will actually provide seniors with prescription drugs. Instead of just talking about this sham insurance policy where one goes out and sees if one can buy an insurance policy, which people can try to do that anyway today and find that they will be largely unsuccessful because the private market is not interested in offering drug only insurance policies. So I want to talk a little bit about the prescription drug issue tonight. I want to also point out that, even though my Republican colleagues talked about prices and the rising prices of prescription drugs, that their legislation, their prescription drug legislation does not address the issue of price, whereas the Democrats have tried to do that. They have tried to point out that, in the same way that there is a huge disparity between the price of prescription drugs here in the United States versus Canada, for example, there is also a huge disparity between the cost of the price that seniors who are in HMOs or employer pension plans, seniors that are part of an existing prescription drug plan through their HMO or in some other way where they are collectively able to negotiate for a cheaper price tend to be paying significantly less than seniors who do not have a prescription drug plan because they are not in an HMO or they are not covered in some way and have to go to the drug store on their own and just buy the prescription. There is a huge price disparity here in the United States between what seniors pay who do not have coverage as opposed to seniors who happen to be part of a larger group through their HMO or in some other way where they can bargain for a better price. The Democrats in our Medicare prescription drug plan, which we have tried to bring up, which the Republicans will not let us bring up, we address the issue of price discrimination by basically allowing Medicare and the Medicare program, HCFA, which is the agency that administers the Medicare program, to actually be a bargaining agent through regional benefit providers to go out and get a cheaper price for seniors so that the disparity, the price discrimination would no longer exist in this country, and we would not have this problem where many seniors pay a lot higher prices than a few select seniors. I also wanted to mention that this evening I am going to be joined by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), both who have been leaders on health care issues in general, and who are going to talk about mental health issues and children's mental health in the context of the special order that we are going to have for the next hour or so. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) briefly. I know he was very concerned about this price discrimination issue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for pointing out the two problems that we have right now with prescription drugs for seniors. One is there is no benefit; there is no guaranteed benefit under Medicare right now. The second is the price discrimination. If I could, I just will very quickly talk about both of those points. We are not really trying to reinvent the wheel as Democrats, but we are saying, and I know the gentleman from Texas said, that Medicare is a good program. It has been on the books now for over 30 years. One has part A to get one one's hospitalization. One has part B where one pays a certain amount per month, 40- something dollars a month on average, and one gets one's doctors care paid for. One has a certain co-payment, one gets one's doctors bill paid for. So what we are saying is we have this existing program which is a good program, very low administrative cost. We know that when Medicare started 30 years ago, prescription drugs really were not much of an issue because people did not buy many of them, but now it is. From a preventive point of view, we want to make sure that people have prescription drug coverage. So we are going to establish another part C or part D, if you will, under Medicare. Just like part B for one's doctor bills, one will pay $40 a month, whatever it is a month; and one will get a significant portion of one's prescription drugs paid for, starting with the first prescription, in the same way that one's doctor bills are paid for. It is a guaranteed benefit. In other words, if one decides to participate and pay the money per month, if one cannot afford it, just like part B, the Government will pay for it; but if one can afford it, one has to pay a certain premium, and then one is guaranteed all medically necessary drugs. In other words, the doctor decides that, if one needs a particular prescription, it is covered. It is not like where the HMO is going to say, well, maybe one cannot have this or one cannot have that. So whatever is medically necessary. Now, the Republicans instead, because of the drug companies, the drug companies lobbied them and said no, no, no, we do not want that because they are concerned, once this comes under the rubric of Medicare, there is going to be some government control over it. So what they do is they tell the Republicans, why do you not forget about the Medicare example that has been so successful, and you just give some money to seniors, I do not know how much, whatever you think you can afford with this surplus that we have; and you see if the seniors can go out and see if an insurance company will sell them a policy. Well, that is not Medicare. That is not building on the existing program. Every one of the insurance company representatives that came before the House committee, my Committee on Commerce, Committee on Ways and Means, said they will not sell those Republican drug-only policies because it is a benefit. It is not a risk. When one is selling insurance, one wants to make sure some people do not use the benefit and others do, and that is how one makes money. Well, insurance companies are not going to sell a policy where everybody needs a drug benefit, which 90 percent-plus seniors do. Now, the other thing the Democrats are saying is that, once this Medicare prescription drug program is established under Medicare, now HCFA can basically, in each region of the country, establish what we call a benefit provider. I do not want to be too bureaucratic, but this is some agency that will go out and negotiate a price because now there are going to be 40 million people, seniors who are Medicare beneficiaries that the Government can bargain for the best price, just like the HMOs do. That drives the cost down. That eliminates the price discrimination that one is talking about. The Republicans do not have anything like that. They do not even address the issue. So our colleagues over there, and I am not trying to say they are badly intentioned here, but they are talking about the price of prescription drugs; but they are not addressing it in their bill. They will not even let us bring our bill up. We tried to do it in Committee on Rules when they brought up their prescription drug plan. They said, no, we cannot do that. Then last week, when we had the marriage penalty, the President came out and said, look, I will even agree to the Republican marriage penalty provision, even though it is not really helping the average person the way they have set it up; but you have got to add our prescription drug benefit to it. They said no, we are not going to do that.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman, and just before we turn to the mental health issue, I just wanted to say that she was right on point when she talked about these HMOs. I do not have a problem with HMOs. Let us face it, in our Democratic bill, in our Democratic Medicare prescription drug bill, we actually provide the HMOs with the majority of the cost of the prescription drugs. So sometimes Republicans say, well, they want choice; and if they go out and try to buy this insurance policy, they are going to have choice. Well, seniors are going to have more choice with us because we guarantee the benefit under Medicare. If they want to stay in the HMO, they can. We give the HMO more than 50 percent of the cost of providing the prescription drugs, so they can stay in their HMO. And the HMOs actually will be encouraged to offer more benefits because we will give them the majority of the money to pay for the prescription drug benefit. But as the gentlewoman from Texas said, the problem is now that so many of these HMOs are strictly just canceling coverage. As of July 3, when they had the latest round where they had to announce if they were going to pull out of the Medicare market, over 700,000 people are likely to lose their HMO benefits, and most likely their prescription drug benefits, because the HMOs are pulling out. They had to announce by July 3 if they want to pull out by January 2001. So, again, the HMOs are not the answer to prescription drugs, because they are not providing it or they are getting out of the market. The answer is to provide the guaranteed benefit under Medicare. What I would like to do now, Mr. Speaker, if I could, is to yield the balance of the hour to the gentlewoman from Texas to address the mental health issues and the children's mental health issues that she has been such a champion for.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have mentioned this morning, July 20 will be the 26th anniversary of the illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Although two rounds of U.N.-sponsored proximity talks between the Cypriot and Turkish sides have been completed in recent months, the Turks are casting the shadow of failure over the negotiations by employing provocative and destabilizing behavior. For example, the current round of proximity talks have been temporarily suspended by the Turkish Cypriot leader so he could fulfill his stated intention to postpone discussions in order to attend the so- called ``Peace and Freedom Day'' on July 20 in the Turkish-occupied area of Cyprus. This action sends an unmistakable message that the Turkish side is not taking the current proximity talks seriously. Rather, the Turkish side is just spinning its wheels. Should the current round of talks end up as all previous efforts have in the last 26 years, the United States should be prepared to act forcefully. In the last 2 years or so, there have been a number of initiatives that both the international community, and the Cypriots have taken to try and jump-start this decades-old problem and make the environment more fertile for a negotiated peaceful settlement. Turkey should be held accountable by the United States if it purposefully undermines these efforts. In December of 1998, the U.N. Security Council passed resolutions 1217 and 1218. The former, Mr. Speaker, reaffirmed that any settlement be based on the federated bi-zonal, bi-communal framework. The latter called for the Secretary General to work with the two sides to reduce tensions and arms on the island, a position consistent with the Cypriot government's offer to demilitarize all of Cyprus, an offer that has been rejected by the Turks. The United States supported both of these measures. Following the passage of these two resolutions, the Cypriots unilaterally decided not to deploy the S-300 antimissile system they were considering deploying in an effort to give legs to the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Attempting to build on this momentum, in June of 1999, the group of eight industrialized nations, or G-8, urged the U.N. to invite the two sides' leaders to begin peaceful negotiations without preconditions in the fall of 1999. The U.N. Security Council in turn passed two more resolutions, 1250 and 1251, reaffirming its support for negotiations under the bi-communal, bi-zonal federation framework and requesting that such negotiations move ahead. These events did, in fact, lead to the onset of negotiations in December of 1999. Despite the U.N.'s call for negotiations without preconditions, however, the Turkish side came to the table insisting that a number of unrealistic conditions be met before real discussions could occur. The negotiations, Mr. Speaker, are expected to resume on July 24. While the U.N. and the United States should do whatever it takes to facilitate continued negotiations, the U.N. and the U.S. should also take note of the manner in which the Turkish side is conducting itself. Mr. Speaker, for 26 years now, the people of Cyprus have been denied their independence and freedom because of a foreign aggressor. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in remembering what the Cypriot people have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of the Turks. I also urge my colleagues to join me in pressuring the administration to focus American efforts to move the peace process forward on the Turkish military, which has real and substantial influence on decision-making in the Turkish Government. If and when the Turks undermine yet another peace effort, the U.S. should instantaneously do what I have been calling for for years, punish Turkey by making drastic and immediate changes to our relationship with Ankara. As the Turks interrupt peace negotiations to celebrate their brutality as Cypriots mourn their dead and all they have lost, the United States must let the people of Cyprus know that we will have freedom and independence again and that we will help them attain it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. One of the things I was looking at in that article that talks about the Nevada experience that I quoted before, it is interesting, I just noticed that Nevada is the only State that has gone this route of trying to get to buy private insurance. It mentioned there are 14 States, including my own State of New Jersey that have programs to help older people obtain prescription medicines, but in every one of those cases the State is the insurer. The State is running the program. Just like Medicare, essentially. Obviously, Nevada's proposal does not work, so why would we want to emulate that when the other 14 States are doing the opposite? The other thing the gentleman pointed out, which I think is real important, is we actually have some statistics about the HMOs that are quitting Medicare. And, of course, we make the same argument as Democrats. Right now, the HMOs, which is a form of private insurance that a lot of seniors have relied on to get their prescription drug coverage, they are pulling out all over the place. This study that came out, I guess within the last couple of weeks, said that in the last 2 years, HMOs have pulled out of more than 400 counties and at least 33 States, directly affecting 734,000 Medicare beneficiaries. And they say that as of July 1, or I guess it is July 3, which was the deadline when they had to notify if they wanted to get out by January 1 of 2001, we have Cigna, which I think the gentleman mentioned, Cigna Corporation is ending coverage for 104,000 Medicare beneficiaries, including those in my State. They are dropping 4,800 in northern New Jersey alone, not just the whole State. And Aetna, with 676,000 Medicare beneficiaries, said it would pull out of some markets also. And we have to, I guess, get more information about that. So we are getting hundreds of thousands of seniors that were relying on HMOs to provide their drug coverage that are now canceling. One of the things I hear from the Republicans is, they say, well, we want to give seniors choice. That is what we want to let them go out and buy private insurance because they will have choice. But even for seniors who are in HMOs now, or who have employer plans that they are getting it through after they retire, we provide under other Democratic proposal for the majority of the prescription drug costs for those plans. It is anything from like 51 percent to 70 percent, depending, that we are going to be paying for by the Federal Government under our proposal. So I would argue they will have more choice. Because the bottom line is they will have no choice with the Republican plan, because no insurance company will provide it. With us, if they want to stay in their HMO or if they want to stay in their employer plan, they are more likely to offer it because we are going to be paying anywhere from 50 percent to two-thirds of the cost. So to argue that somehow we are not providing choice, we are providing choices, lots of choices, in addition to the fact that they can just stay in their regular Medicare and get the prescription drug plan. So I am more and more convinced every day that the Republicans are just talking, going back to that original pollster memo. They are not really serious; they are just talking about it. And that is basically it. I wanted to thank the gentleman for joining me. This is certainly not the last our colleagues will hear from us. We tried last week to put our prescription description drug plan on the marriage penalty, and we are going to try every maneuver we can to get it up here and voted on before this session is completed.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Maine. The gentleman mentioned a number of things that I wanted to comment on. The tragedy is, of course, that what we really want to do is get something done around here. That is what the gentleman has said and that is what the Democrats have been saying. I do not know if the gentleman was here earlier when our colleague from Colorado delivered his special order before me; but I think, as my colleague just mentioned, he talked about the marriage penalty and the estate tax, and I do not think the President could be more plain when a couple of weeks ago he said, look, I will take a version of the marriage tax penalty repeal, and I want to eliminate the estate tax for most of the people that are now paying it, so give me that with the prescription drug plan under Medicare, that the gentleman and I have been talking about; and I will sign it as one big package, which accomplishes all these goals in one fell swoop. But the Republicans will not do it. The only reason I can think that they will not do it goes back to what the gentleman said before, which is, for some reason, ideologically they just do not like Medicare. When Medicare was started by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, with a Democratic Congress, most of the Republicans voted against it because they said it was government- controlled or socialism. Obviously, this idea of prescription drug-only insurance policies is not going to work, because the insurance companies would not sell them. But even if they did, what we would essentially be doing is privatizing Medicare. We would set the stage to go back to that old Republican ideology that says that we should not have any kind of government health program for the seniors. So who is to say they would not next say, okay, let us privatize the doctor bills. Instead of having a part B, seniors can go out and buy insurance coverage for that. Or let us privatize hospital care, so go out and buy insurance for that. It is a very dangerous precedent. I just think that they have a problem with the Medicare program.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House this evening, as I have many times, to the need for senior citizens to have a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I do not really think it is necessary tonight to go into the reasons why this is necessary. We all know that the price of prescription drugs continues to rise, that seniors as a particular group have tremendous out-of-pocket expenses, and that many of them do not have access not only not under Medicare but in general to any kind of prescription drug insurance. Many times seniors have to make choices between whether they are going to pay their bills, the rent, buy food, as opposed to having access and being able to buy prescription drugs that are really important for them to survive, for them to be able to live a decent life and to not have to worry about whether they are going to be here the next day. The President, President Clinton, has made it quite clear that this is a major priority if not the number one priority for him. I listened to the previous speaker, the gentleman from Colorado, talk about the marriage penalty, the estate tax repeal. I would remind my colleagues and the American people that the Republicans are in the majority. It is very difficult for us as Democrats to get a proposal up and considered unless the Republicans who are in the majority allow that, allow us to bring it to the floor. The President and myself and most of the Democrats have not been happy with the marriage penalty repeal and the estate tax repeal that the Republican leadership has proposed, not because we do not want to see changes with regard to tax on married couples, not because we do not want to see changes in the estate tax, because we have proposed changes, but the President has said and the Democratic leadership has said that the bills that the Republicans have proposed essentially spend too much and spend too much on a small percentage of the people impacted by the estate tax who are very wealthy, whereas the Democratic proposal protects the small business owner, the ranchers, the people, the overwhelming majority that are paying the estate tax. The same is true for the marriage penalty. But the President is making an effort to try to get something accomplished around here, because I think most people know that not a great deal is being accomplished in this Congress. The Republicans, my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) brings up his proposal for the marriage penalty, his proposal for the estate tax. It differs from the Democratic proposal, so we do not come to agreement. Nothing gets accomplished. What the President has said is, Look, I will take some form of estate tax repeal, I will take some sort of adjustment in the marriage penalty that benefits the average person, but along with that we want the Republican leadership to agree to provide a Medicare prescription drug plan, the one that the President and the one that the Democrats have proposed. I ask my colleagues, not only my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), but my colleagues in general, what better way to try to accomplish something, what better way than to take some of the Republican proposals and take some of the Democratic proposals, particularly this one on prescription drugs, and try to accomplish that goal? In fact, last week when we voted on the Republican marriage penalty legislation the Democrats proposed a motion to recommit that would do just that, that would even take the Republican plan, as long as the Medicare prescription drug proposal was added to it. And, of course, the Republicans rejected that and nothing was accomplished. If we are going to accomplish anything, we have to work out things together. The most important thing for the Democrats, certainly one of the most important things for the Democrats, is that we get a Medicare prescription drug plan passed so our seniors have access and everyone is covered; just like they are covered now by Medicare for hospitalization, for their doctors' bills, that they get a prescription drug benefit. It is absolutely crucial that that happen, and certainly we can afford it if we all get together and figure out how to deal with this budget. I wanted to point out that, unfortunately, when the Republicans a few weeks ago proposed a prescription drug program and had a vote on the House floor with regard to their prescription drug program, which is not part of Medicare, that they would not allow the Democratic proposal to be considered. Once again, we were shut out. Once again, the Democrats were told no, they do not even want to consider our proposal on the House floor. What are they afraid of? I think their problem is that they are afraid that if we look at the Democratic plan, which seeks to include prescription drugs within Medicare, that ultimately there would be overwhelming support for it with the American people and probably even within the Republican caucus among the Republicans here as well, if they only had a chance to vote on it; to have the opportunity for us to be heard and to explain it and to finally have a vote. What the Republicans have done instead is they decided maybe a month ago, I actually have an article that was in the June 15 New York Times, about 2 weeks ago or maybe 3 weeks ago they asked a pollster to do a poll. Basically the pollster came back, this was Glenn Bolger, a pollster with Public Opinion Strategies, a Virginia firm, and warned the House Republicans that the prescription drug issue was a political problem for them. In other words, they realized that politically if they ran for reelection in November and they did not have a prescription drug plan of some sort, that they would probably be defeated and would no longer be the majority here in the House of Representatives. So Mr. Bolger basically told them that the best thing to do is to at least start talking about the prescription drug issue, talk about how seniors are negative impacted, seniors suffer, and we have to do something about the problem. In fact, Mr. Bolger went so far as to advise, and I quote from this New York Times article on June 15, ``It is more important to communicate that you have a plan than it is to communicate what is in the plan.'' Basically what Mr. Bolger said is, ``Look, come up with some rhetoric, if you will, about prescription drugs, suggest some sort of program, but do not worry too much about what is in it, or certainly do not worry about whether it will ever pass or be signed by the President. Just bring something up on the floor of the House and vote on it, talk about it, and nothing will ever happen, but at least you will have something. You can say you approved something, so when you go to the voters in November you will have something to say.'' This is the impetus, if you will, for the House Republican prescription drug plan called the Medicare RX 2000 Act. It is an illusory plan. It provides no real prescription drug coverage to anyone, to seniors or anyone. Instead, what it does is it says, ``We will give you some money, depending on your income, and you can go out and see if you can get, with your own money and the little bit that we subsidize, see if you can get a drug company to sell you a prescription drug-only policy.'' Think about that a minute. We have this great program called Medicare that was started in the sixties and that almost all seniors take advantage of which provides for their hospitalization, which provides for their doctor bills, most of their doctor bills to be cared for. Instead of doing what the Democrats say, which is just bring prescription drugs under the rubric of Medicare and administer it essentially under Medicare, which is a proven program, instead, the Republicans say, no, go out and see if you can get a private insurance company to sell you a drugs-only policy. Now, what the Republican leadership forgot to tell anyone is that the insurance industry itself does not want to sell those policies. We had representatives from the insurance lobby that came to the Committee on Commerce, that has jurisdiction over Medicare prescription drugs, and they basically told the committee, we do not want to sell these drug prescription policies. We will not sell them. There is a good reason why they will not sell them: They cannot make any money. It is like some of my colleagues use the analogy of a haircut. Everybody gets a haircut. Everybody who is a senior, or at least 99, 95 percent, needs some kind of prescription drugs. So insurance companies do not want to underwrite something that is essentially a benefit that everybody is getting because they cannot make any money. They operate on risk. They assume some people will get coverage and others will not, and they pool their resources, and they make money because some people do not take advantage of the benefit. We cannot do that with prescription drugs with seniors. Almost everybody is going to have the benefit and need the benefit. That is certainly why it makes sense to include it as a benefit under Medicare. Just like we include hospitalization and we include doctor bills, we include prescription drugs as a benefit. Let me just talk a little bit about the Democratic proposal and explain really how very simple it is and why it makes sense. Right now if one is over 65 and signs up for Medicare, which almost everyone does, they get their hospitalization through Part A, and if they pay a monthly premium of about $45 or so, they get their doctor bills paid for mostly under Part B. What Democrats are saying, ``We will do the same thing. You pay a certain amount per month and we will set up a program called Part C or Part D of Medicare whereby we will pay a certain percentage of the prescription drugs,'' just like they get their doctor bills paid for. What the Democrats say is that we will guarantee the benefit. Not only will we guarantee the benefit through Medicare if they want it, if they voluntarily sign up for it like they do for Part B, but it covers all the medicines that are medically necessary as determined by their doctor, not the insurance company. So they sign up, they are guaranteed the prescription drug benefit, and the nature of what kind of drugs they get, what kind of medicine they get, is determined by their physician in consultation with them, not by the insurance company. Now, the Republican bill not only is not under Medicare, not only will not work because what insurance company is going to sell it, but beyond that, they do not even say to the insurance company what they have to cover. The insurance company, if they decide to sell a policy, they may decide, well, we will give certain drugs and we will determine what prescription drugs they need. They do not define what the benefit is, is essentially what I am trying to get across. But most important, the Republican proposal, which just says, go out and shop around and see if you can find an insurance company that will sell you a policy, does not address the issue of price. We know that one of the major problems right now with prescription drugs is that seniors who do not get prescription drug coverage through their pension or their employer after they retire, or because they may sign up with an HMO, if they have prescription drug coverage, that is the way they usually get it. But if one has to go out and buy prescription drugs themselves because one does not have an HMO or coverage through their employer where they have worked over the years, they pay a much higher price for the drugs than the HMO or those employer pension benefit plans because they do not have the ability basically to negotiate a price. Well, what the Democrats are saying is we are going to address that price issue, too, because we are going to say that the agency that is in charge of the Medicare program can negotiate a price or at least can set up in different regions of the country someone who will negotiate a better price for you because now there are so many people in the Medicare program, 30 million, 40 million seniors who these drug companies essentially we are at the mercy of, because if they want to sell them and sell to the government program, they have to offer the better price that they are offering to the HMO or to the employer benefit plan. So the Democratic plan basically operates under the rubric of Medicare, is voluntary if one wants to sign up, guarantees one the benefit, guaranteeing all medical care, medically necessary drugs as determined by one's physician and also seeks to address the problem of price. The Republican bill does none of the above. Frankly, I would say that the Republican proposal would never work and is nothing more than an effort to try to talk about something and try to give the impression that they care. But most important, going back to what I said initially, the Republican proposal passed the House of Representatives, but it is not moving in the Senate. The President is not going to sign it. Why do we not try to get together, Democrat and Republican, and come up with a proposal like what the President has suggested where we have the Medicare prescription drug program, and then we address the issue of the marriage penalty and the estate tax in a way that benefits the average American. Now, I wanted to, just in case my colleagues doubt that when I talk about this Republican proposal for prescription drugs to be doomed to failure, there was a very interesting article that appeared, I think it was the Saturday before last, July 8, in the New York Times on the front page which talked about the Nevada experience. I think a lot of my colleagues know that what often happens in Congress is that one or more of the 50 States tries something within their own State to see if it works; and if it does, then Members usually from that State look at the idea and say, gee, that is a good idea, why do we not try it on the Federal level. Well, interestingly enough, within the State of Nevada, within the last 6 months, they decided to implement, on a State level, something that is almost exactly like what the Republicans propose for a prescription drug program here; in other words, basically giving some money, depending on one's income, that one will put with whatever other resources one has to go out and buy a prescription drug only insurance policy. It has not worked. Not only when I say it has not worked, I do not mean that it even has a chance at working, because when the State of Nevada put out this proposal to the insurance company and said, okay, we will entertain proposals from insurance companies to sell this kind of insurance, not one single insurance company in the whole State offered to do it. I think they had one company that did not qualify under the law for some reason that asked to do it, and the State knew that they were not qualified to do it, so they did not consider it. But not one insurance company that was qualified offered to do it. Now, what better reason could one have to not adopt that type of a program? But what do the Republicans do here in Congress? They see the Nevada example, which was adopted by Republicans, their Republican Governor, and they seek to enact it into law here. Usually what we do in Congress is, if the States are doing something that is good, we copy it, and we institute it on a national level. I cannot think of a single circumstance where we had a State try something that failed and then we adopted it anyway. It makes no sense to me other than going back to what I said before, which is the Republicans did not really want to pass something that would actually be enacted into law and become a law and actually be utilized by anybody. So they did not. They just wanted something to talk about. I wanted to, just interesting, if I could, just quote a little bit from this New York Times article. But this was in the New York Times on July 8 of this year, about a week or 2 ago, and I am just going to read from a few quotes here. I do not usually like to quote, but this is so appropriate. It says, ``Nevada has adopted a prescription drug program for the elderly very similar to one approved last month by the United States House of Representatives, but is off to a rocky road. ``Insurance companies have spurned Nevada's invitation to provide coverage. The risks and the costs are too high, they say, and the subsidies offered by the state are too low. Nevada's experience offers ominous lessons for Congress, especially Republicans, who want to subsidize insurance companies to entice them into providing drug benefits for elderly and disabled people on Medicare.'' ``In March, the State invited hundreds of insurance companies to bid for its business providing drug coverage for 10,000 to 14,000 people age 62 or older. Only one company responded, but it was ineligible because it was not licensed to sell insurance in Nevada.'' Now, what they did in Nevada is, within the legislature, they set up a task force that was going to review whatever proposals came forward by insurance companies to see if they qualified. Barbara F. Buckley, a state assemblywoman who co-chairs this task force monitoring what was going on said, ``I have my doubts that an insurance company will be able to offer meaningful drug benefits under this program. If an insurance company does bid on it but the benefits are paltry, senior citizens will be up in arms.'' The article goes on and on. But the point is well made. This does not work. No insurance company wants to offer it. This is a ruse. This is a sham. This is not a serious effort to address the issue. The Democrats have a serious plan. But we do not have an opportunity to bring it up. We will continue to be here every night until we have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) who really, more than anybody else in the Congress, brought this issue to the forefront and particularly pointed out the problem with price discrimination that exists for many seniors and the problem of, because he is in the State of Maine, and he so witnessed it firsthand, about how people will go over into Canada and be able to buy drugs for significantly less than in the United States. That is simply not fair.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the arguments against the punitive anti- India amendment are stronger this year than they have ever been. In March, President Clinton completed the first visit to India by an American President in more than 20 years. The President's trip accompanied by a bipartisan congressional delegation produced a range of agreements on trade and investments, security partnerships and cooperation on energy and the environment. In September, India's democratically elected prime minister will be visiting the U.S. to further build upon this progress, especially in the area of economic relations. India is the world's largest democracy. It is a country that has made tremendous progress in free market economic reforms over the past decade. But more to the point, since the gentleman from Indiana has been critical of India's human rights records, India's Human Rights Commission has been praised by our State Department and many international agencies for its independence and effectiveness. Indeed, India has become a model for the rest of Asia and the rest of the developing world in terms of democratization, economic reform and human rights. Finally, Mr. Chairman, cutting aid to India only serves to hamper America's efforts to reduce poverty, eradicate disease and promote broad-based economic growth in the world's second most populous Nation. This amendment never made any sense, and it certainly makes less sense now.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just came from the Department of Health and Human Services building, where the Secretary was celebrating the 35th anniversary of Medicare, and it was a great moment to talk about when Medicare was signed. But one of the things that Secretary Shalala said, and most dramatically, was how we had to revise Medicare, make sure it was solvent, make sure it was there for our seniors and make sure there was a prescription drug benefit. The problem with the Republican proposal is it is not necessarily such a bad idea, but it costs too much and it is a needless waste of the surplus that could be used for other things, most importantly to expand Medicare, to make sure that Social Security is available, to make sure we have a prescription drug plan. What the Democrats are saying with the substitute is we are in favor of a marriage tax penalty change, we want to make sure people are not penalized, but let us do it in a targeted fiscally sound way. Let us make sure whatever the surplus is, we do not spend a trillion dollars on different kinds of tax relief that is mainly going to the wealthy, and break it down in little parts like we are doing with this bill today, but rather make sure what we do first is to make sure that Social Security and Medicare are available and that Medicare is updated to include prescription drugs. Now, what I am afraid is happening here today is that if we do not pass this substitute, and if we do not pass the motion to recommit that says that we are going to have a Medicare prescription drug benefit, then what will happen is that nothing is ever going to pass. The President already said he will not sign this Republican bill, that it spends too much money. Well, the bottom line is if we want to get anything done here and we want to have this be a ``do something'' Congress rather than a ``do- nothing'' Congress, then why not go along with what the President has proposed. Basically what the President is saying, and what the motion to recommit says, is we will take even the proposal of the marriage tax penalty the Republicans put forth, even though it spends too much money, but we will even go along with it as long as we can have the prescription drug benefit under Medicare. If the Republicans really want to get something done and not have this be a ``do-nothing'' Congress, they should go along with the substitute, go along with the motion to recommit, and then we will accomplish something.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle will address their concerns about the bill before us today, citing the cuts in funding to some of the poorest countries and to international financial institutions, and adoption of this so-called Mexico City language. Mr. Speaker, I share many of these concerns and would urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to use my time to focus on some of the more positive aspects of this legislation with regard to Armenia. These provisions are the result of the hard work of Members on both sides of the aisle, including both the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking Democrat, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), I see out there, and others. Under the bill, the Republic of Armenia would receive 12.5 percent of the total account for the Independent States of the former Soviet Union, which translates into $92.5 million. While the dollar amount would represent a reduction from the $102.4 million in fiscal year 2000, the amount in the current bill actually represents a slight increase in the percentage of the IS act. Given the fact that budgets are tight this year and the total level of assistance to the IS has been decreased, I appreciate the fact that the appropriators have recognized the need to continue our commitment to Armenia. Mr. Speaker, Armenia is a nation that has continued on the path of democracy and free market economic reforms, despite daunting challenges both external and internal. Armenia continues to suffer the effects of blockades imposed by its neighbor to the west, Turkey, and to its neighbor to the east, Azerbaijan. In addition, the tragic shooting last October from the Armenian parliament, claiming the life of both the prime minister and the speaker of the parliament, could have undermined Armenian democracy. But President Kocharian, who was our guest here on Capitol Hill just 2 weeks ago, took resolute and effective action to prevent the situation from unraveling, thereby keeping Armenian democracy on track. Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the members of the subcommittee for maintaining section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which restricts assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until that country lifts its blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. I also want to salute the subcommittee for providing funding for confidence-building measures to resolve the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, and also for language which urges the Secretary of State to move forthwith to appoint a high-level, long-term special negotiator to facilitate direct negotiations and any other contacts that will bring peace to the people of the Caucasus. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention that as we get into the debate on the amendments to this bill, it is expected that our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), will offer one or more amendments to single out India for a punitive cut in development assistance. Similar attempts to stigmatize India have been defeated by increasingly lopsided bipartisan margins in recent years. These amendments have been opposed by the chairman and the ranking members of the subcommittee, as well as the Committee on International Relations. The arguments against the Burton amendment are stronger this year than they have ever been. In March, President Clinton completed the first visit to India by an American president in more than 20 years. India is the world's largest democracy with over a billion people. Mr. Speaker, it is a country that has made tremendous progress in free-market economic reforms over the past decade. Cutting development aid to India will only serve to hamper America's efforts to reduce poverty, eradicate disease and promote broad-based economic growth in the world's second most populous nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue Congress' long-standing bipartisan tradition of defeating ill-advised efforts to punish India through the Foreign Operations bill. I do not think this is the appropriate vehicle, and it is ill advised more than ever this year.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last month disturbing reports surfaced that China is aiding Pakistan's missile development program. In response to this very destabilizing situation, I wrote to President Clinton on July 5 urging that the administration immediately impose sanctions on China. I was encouraged to see that the administration dispatched a top arms control official to Beijing to address the growing concerns about China's proliferation activities. But the news out of the Chinese capital was not encouraging. John Holum, senior adviser to the Secretary of State on arms control, told the media that the United States has raised our concern that China has provided aid to Pakistan and other countries. According to an article in the Sunday, July 9 New York Times, Mr. Holum said, ``We made progress, but the issue remains unresolved.'' In the polite parlance of diplomacy, that is a clear indication that this issue continues to be a serious concern. Mr. Speaker, the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies have reported that China has stepped up its provision of key components and technical expertise for the development of a new long-range missile that could carry nuclear weapons. This recent pattern of Chinese support for Pakistan's missile development program is a matter of concern for the United States and for the long- term stability of the entire Asian continent. It is also a matter of particularly urgent concern for India. China and Pakistan both consider India to be their major strategic threat which is absurd, considering that India has been the victim of both Pakistani and Chinese aggression. But given that shared strategic outlook on the part of China and Pakistan, it is clear that these two nations have teamed up to surround India and create an alarming potential for instability in Asia. While Pakistan remains subject to U.S. sanctions as a result of its nuclear explosions and last year's military coup, the administration has been trying to influence China with its policy of comprehensive engagement. Clearly, at least in the case of Pakistan, the policy is not working. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time to get tough with Beijing. To that end, I am drafting legislation similar to a bipartisan bill that has been introduced in the other body, the Senate, that would require the administration to monitor China's record on the spread of nuclear weapons and impose automatic sanctions on companies or states if there is credible evidence of exports of missile technology. The legislation is moving through the Senate and is part of the mix in the upcoming debate on extending permanent normal trade relations to China. I believe this connection is very appropriate to make. We cannot afford to completely separate our commercial and security interests. In my letter to President Clinton urging that sanctions be imposed on China forthwith, I noted that sanctions had been imposed on China in 1991 and in 1993 for the provision of M-11 missiles with a range of 300 kilometers. In my letter to the President, I wrote: ``A new era of cooperation between India and the United States has been ushered in, thanks in no small part to your recent trip to India that I was honored to be a part of. As we work to heighten our cooperation with India on such issues as security, nonproliferation and combating terrorism, it seems inconsistent not to hold China accountable for actions that directly threaten the security of India and which will inevitably spur a heightened arms race on the subcontinent.'' I further stated in my letter, Mr. Speaker: ``In an effort to forestall action by Congress, the administration has tried to tout China's reduction of weapons exports to the Middle East, North Korea and other areas of concern. But it appears from the administration's own information that the flow of nuclear technology and delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction to Pakistan continues unabated.'' The latest news from our American envoy in Beijing only further confirms that this is in fact the case. I have long been concerned, as many of my colleagues in Congress have been, about transfers of technology by the People's Republic of China that contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or missiles that could deliver them. For example, in 1996, many of us called for sanctions on China for the sale of ring magnets, which can be used to enrich uranium, to Pakistan. Since 1992, Beijing has taken some steps to mollify American concerns about proliferation, including promises to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime, which it has not joined, and accession to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But the Director of the CIA reports that the People's Republic remains a key supplier of technology inconsistent with nonproliferation goals. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to stress again that the issue of favorable trade benefits to China cannot be delinked from our concerns about nuclear and missile proliferation. If the administration considers PNTR passage so important, it must demonstrate to Congress that it is serious about cracking down on China's violation of nonproliferation agreements. I hope the administration will give serious consideration to imposing sanctions on China. If not, there are those of us in Congress who are ready to mandate such sanctions through legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this bill is extremely important for a number of reasons. Jews in Syria were persecuted and discriminated against for decades. Because of discrimination and oppression, it was important for these Jews to leave Syria, and for the United States to help pursue this effort. In general, people who are granted refugee visas to come to the U.S. from other nations are able to apply for permanent residence status after one year. Unfortunately, although negotiations with the U.S. did eventually lead President Assad to allow Syrian Jews to leave Syria pursuant to an April 1992 Order, he only allowed them to come to the U.S. on tourist visas. Subsequently, these Jews were granted asylum. However, only 10,000 people that have been granted asylum may adjusts their status to permanent residents each year. In recent years, many more than 10,000 people have sought permanent residence status. As a result, many Syrian Jews have been seeking permanent resident status for many years. Without this status, the Syrian Jewish asylees are unable to seek and change employment readily, obtain a medical license, or apply for U.S. citizenship through the naturalization process. The legislation before us today would require the Attorney General to adjust the status of the Syrian Jews who emigrated to the United States pursuant to Assad's 1992 Order to that of permanent resident. This legislation is critical to ensure that these people can come to enjoy the full benefits of living in the United States--free from persecution and discrimination. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, in light of the developments and what the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) said, I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing to work with myself, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to develop report language that we can all agree to that would detail how we all envision this amendment will be implemented. If my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) will be working with us to accurately reflect the agreement we have reached, I will withdraw my amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman and I thank the chairman.