Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 154, I was not present, due to a meeting called by the President at the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment and all destructive amendments to the bill. I supported the previously passed manager's amendment, and I would like to see the bill move forward. At all levels of government, New Jersians and people across the Nation are showing great interest in conserving open space to enhance not only their own lives, but those of the plants and animals that depend on healthy ecosystems for survival. In my years as a Member of Congress, I cannot think of a more important environmental initiative on which I have had the pleasure of working. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the sponsors of the bill, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for welcoming the improvements that have been made to the bill, especially those recently suggested by myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) that were reflected in the manager's amendment that we just passed. Our bipartisan agreement will ensure that the bill does not include major incentives to encourage future oil drilling off our fragile coastline, and, in addition, it will create a new land acquisition and easement program to protect non-Federal lands of regional or national significance. Ultimately, CARA will provide $2.8 billion annually to State and local communities. Under the bill, my home State of New Jersey would receive approximately $60 million each year, and this funding could be used for coastal conservation, impact assistance, preservation of farmland and open space, or even helping protect the delicate ecosystems of the Pinelands and Highlands regions of the Garden State. There is no question that CARA is an important bill that deserves to move forward. Any further changes to the bill beyond the manager's amendment would slow the momentum the bill needs to gain serious consideration in the Senate. The House should provide the solid vote this bill deserves, the one reflected by its broad cosponsorship, to keep CARA moving in the right direction. While I am incredibly supportive of this bill, I believe it is a work in progress. We must not lose achievable opportunities to ensure full protection for our coasts, wildlife and public lands. I look forward to working with other members and the Administration to ensure that this bill lives up to its promise. I remain concerned about the integrity of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. I want to ensure that the final legislation provides for full, permanent and secure funding for the LWCF and that the money is actually spent each year. We must also make certain that our land management agencies are comfortable with the changes made to the program. Furthermore, I believe that additional provisions are needed to ensure that wildlife protection funding is spent where it is most needed. It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting CARA and the manager's amendment, and in opposing all destructive amendments. We have an opportunity today to preserve other national heritage for tomorrow. The time to act is now.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, recently we have seen some reason for hope about the resumption of a dialogue between Pakistan and India on resolving the Kashmir conflict. But we have also received a reminder of how difficult the path toward dying dialogue can be. On the hopeful side, the United States has asked Pakistan to take concrete steps for the resumption of a productive dialogue with India and a return to what is known as the ``Spirit of Lahore'' so that there will be no more Kargils. I should explain, Madam Speaker, that Lahore is a city in Pakistan near the border with India. It was the scene not much more than a year ago of a very amicable meeting between India's Prime Minister Vajpayee and the former Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif. Given the longstanding animosity between the two South Asian neighbors, the image of the two prime ministers embracing and pledging to work in a spirit of partnership and respect was heart-warming, promising a new era in bilateral relations. But a short time later there was Kargil. Kargil is the name of a town in Kashmir under India's jurisdiction near the line of control that separates the areas controlled by India and Pakistan. In May of 1999, Pakistani-backed forces crossed that line and attacked India's defensive positions near Kargil. This bold gambit by Pakistan was not successful militarily. Ultimately, it proved to be even more of a disaster militarily for Pakistan, and the United States urged Pakistan to withdraw its forces back to its side of the line of control. Our government refused to go along with Pakistan's bid to strengthen its position by internationalizing the crisis by trying to get the United States to step in as a mediator in the bilateral dispute. What little was left of the ``Spirit of Lahore,'' Madam Speaker, was further eroded last October when a military coup in Pakistan removed the civilian government from power and threw Prime Minister Sharif in jail. In a recent interview with an international news service, our Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Karl Inderfurth, said that a solution to the Kashmir project must be homegrown and not exploited from the outside. Mr. Inderfurth expressed that the State Department was trying to move away from the old days when there was typically a pro-Pakistan tilt in U.S. policy in the region, to a more even-handed approach for working with both of the major South Asian nations. But he stated, and I quote, ``Right now we have more opportunities to pursue with India, and, frankly, right now we have many more concerns about the direction Pakistan is heading.'' He also expressed hope that Pakistan would take concrete steps that would allow a productive and serious dialogue to be resumed with India. Madam Speaker, I would stress that the most helpful concrete step that Pakistan could take would be to do all in its power to end the cross-border terrorism that has caused so much suffering to the people of Kashmir, Hindu and Muslim alike. While India has made clear its willingness to negotiate in good faith with Pakistan, India also has to maintain a vigilant defensive posture for as long as the Pakistani- supported cross-border terrorism continues. Madam Speaker, I believe that President Clinton's recent trip to South Asia, which I had the opportunity to take part in, has played a significant role in helping to reduce tensions and hostility between Pakistan and India. As Secretary Inderfurth said, ``The President's visit has changed the terms of the relationship between the United States and India, the world's two largest democracies.'' The President made it clear to both India and Pakistani leaders that the U.S. would be happy to work with both countries as friends to try to encourage dialogue, but it is not our place to dictate the terms of the peace process in Kashmir much less the outcome. The great thing about the Lahore process is that it rose as a bilateral initiative between India and Pakistan. The key for breathing life into the bilateral Lahore declarations is for Pakistan to accept India's outstretched hand. And so far, unfortunately, Pakistan has been sending somewhat mixed signals. Meanwhile, Madam Speaker, we have seen how dangerous the Kashmiri militant movement, which is supported by Pakistan, has become. Over the weekend we heard from one of the militant leaders, Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, who was one of the three militants freed last December by the Indian government in exchange for freeing the innocent hostages being held in the hijacked Indian Airlines plane. According to a news account from the AP, Mr. Zargar dismissed the idea of negotiations with India, promising to stay on the path of jehad, or holy war. He threatened punishment for any Kashmiri who opened talks with India. And this, unfortunately, is the true face of the so-called freedom movement in Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, by taking steps towards negotiation, Pakistan could help to isolate and undercut these terrorist groups operating in Kashmir. So far, Pakistan has done just the opposite, actively supporting the terrorists. But at some point, I hope that the Pakistani leadership will recognize that that strategy is increasingly turning Pakistan into a pariah state. If and when Pakistan changes its course, and I hope it will soon, they will find a willing negotiating party in India and a supportive friend in the United States. I just hope that we can resume the India- Pakistan dialogue in the ``spirit of Lahore'' as soon as possible.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, yesterday the U.S. State Department released its annual report on terrorism worldwide called ``Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1999 Report.'' The report provides some very interesting and very troubling findings about where the threats to U.S. interests, U.S. citizens, and international stability have been coming from during the past year. One of the most dramatic findings of the report is that Pakistan, traditionally an ally of the United States, is guilty of providing safe haven and support to international terrorist groups. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the State Department stopped short of adding Pakistan to the list of seven nations that are described as state sponsors of terrorism. Madam Speaker, at the beginning of this year, I introduced legislation calling on the State Department to declare Pakistan a terrorist state. I believe that the information made public this week gives added urgency to that effort. To quote, if I may, Madam Speaker, from the section of the State Department's report dealing with South Asia, it says, ``In 1999, the locus of terrorism directed against the United States continued to shift from the Middle East to South Asia.'' The report goes on to cite the Taliban, which controls significant areas of Afghanistan, for providing safe haven for international terrorists, particularly Usama Bin Ladin and his network. As the report points out, ``Pakistan is one of only three countries that maintains formal diplomatic relations with and one of several that supported Afghanistan's Taliban.'' The report goes on to say, ``The United States made repeated requests to Islamabad,'' the Pakistan capital, ``to end support for elements harboring and training terrorists in Afghanistan and urged the Government of Pakistan to close certain Pakistani religious schools that serve as conduits for terrorism. Credible reports also continue to indicate official Pakistani support for Kashmiri militant groups, such as the Harakat ul-Mujahedin, or HUM, that engaged in terrorism.'' This organization has been linked to the hijacking late last year of the Air India flight, and one of the hijackers' demands was that a leader of the HUM be freed from prison in India in exchange for the innocent hostages on the aircraft. That leader has since returned to Pakistan, according to the State Department. I might also add, Madam Speaker, that this organization, the HUM, under a previous name has been linked to the kidnapping of Western tourists in Kashmir. Two of those Westerners have been murdered; and several others, including an American, remain unaccounted for. The region of Kashmir has been ground zero for much of the Pakistani- supported terrorist activity. The State Department report notes that, ``Kashmiri extremist groups continue to operate in Pakistan, raising funds and recruiting new cadre.'' It blames these groups for numerous terrorist attacks against civilian targets in India's State of Jammu and Kashmir. After last summer's U.S. diplomatic intervention to end Pakistan's incursion onto India's side of the Line of Control in Kashmir, Pakistani and Kashmiri extremist groups worked to stir up anti-American sentiment. As my colleagues can imagine, Madam Speaker, at yesterday's briefing on the release of the report, Michael Sheehan, the State Department's Coordinator for counterterrorism, was put on the defensive as to why Pakistan was not designated as a state sponsor of terrorism when the report contained such damning information. The agency's response is that Pakistan has sent mixed messages, on the one hand cooperating on extradition and embassy security, while, on the other hand, having relationships with the Kashmiri groups and the Taliban. But, Madam Speaker, Ambassador Sheehan warned, ``for state sponsorship or the designation of foreign terrorist organizations, you can do it any time of the year.'' Madam Speaker, the U.S. Counter-terrorism Policy is very simple: First, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals; second, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes; third, isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism to force them to change their behavior; and fourth, bolster the counter-terrorism capabilities of those countries that work with the United States and require assistance. Madam Speaker, I hope that the State Department will pay particular attention to the third and fourth points with regard to Pakistan and South Asia. President Clinton, during his recent trip to South Asia, tried to appeal to the Pakistani military junta to cease support for terrorist organizations and activities. The pressure on Pakistan must be maintained and strengthened. Pakistani leaders should be reminded that the threat that their country could be designated as a terrorist state is a real one that could be invoked at any time. India has been the prime victim of terrorism emanating from or supported by Pakistan. Thus, in keeping with the fourth point of the State Department's stated policy, we should strive to work much more closely with India, a democracy, on counter-terrorism efforts. We can only hope that reason will prevail in Islamabad and that the Pakistani Government will see that the result of its present course will be increased isolation from the world community. If not, then we must be prepared to follow through and declare Pakistan a state that sponsors terrorism, with all of the stigma and isolation that goes with such a declaration.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) for her remarks. I appreciate the comments she made, first of all, to give us an actual example of the constituents that write to us and the problems that they face because this is a real story. This is not abstract. This is a reality that people face every day in our district.

Mr. PALLONE. Also because I know the gentlewoman has always been a leader on addressing and having people contact us through the Internet. She really, more than anybody else, brought to my attention the value of reaching out through that vehicle, and I think it is so important. So I thank her again. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on what the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) said, though, also in terms of a report that recently came out. The Democrats, of course, for some time and the President ever since his State of the Union address this year, and even before that, has kept watch and constantly talked about how we have to address this problem because of the costs to seniors, and a new report recently came out by Families USA. Families USA has been highlighting the problem of price discrimination for some time, but this report just came out within the last week or so from Families USA. It is entitled, ``Still Rising: Drug Price Increases for Seniors 1999 to 2000.'' So they are just talking about the last year or so. Once again, this report demonstrates that failure to provide a voluntary, affordable and accessible Medicare prescription drug benefit, which is what the Democrats would like to see, that this imposes, this failure imposes a continuing and growing burden on middle-class, older Americans and people with disabilities. The President released this report just a few days ago, and I just wanted to present, if I could, Mr. Speaker, some of the key findings of this Families USA report. First, it showed that on average the price for the 50 drugs most commonly used by seniors increased at nearly twice the rate of inflation during 1999, last year. On average, the prices of these drugs reportedly increased by 3.9 percent from January 1999 to January 2000 versus 2.2 percent for general inflation. Second item or second major point in this Families USA report is that over the past 6 years the prices of the prescription drugs most commonly used by seniors also increased by twice the rate of inflation. The report finds that the price of the 50 prescription drugs most commonly used by older Americans increased by 30.5 percent since 1994, again twice the rate of inflation. Another point in the report is that more than half of the most commonly used drugs that were on the market for the entire 6-year period had price increases that were double the rate of inflation. In addition, the Families USA report concludes that more than 20 percent of these prescription drugs increased in price by 3 times the rate of inflation over that same time period. Fourthly, the report shows that seniors with common chronic illnesses are often forced to spend well over 10 percent of their income on prescription drugs. Lastly, in terms of the key findings of this report, it shows that the findings are consistent with the conclusions of studies conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services showing that the price differential for older and disabled Americans with and without coverage has nearly doubled. So, again, I am giving the statistics; and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) gave us an example with her letter of a family of seniors that face the rising cost problem and what it means for them. What it means essentially is that they go without certain drugs, that doctors prescribe certain prescription drugs that they cannot take advantage of and they simply go without or in other cases they may simply buy the prescription drugs and go without food or have other basic necessities that they cut back on. It should not be that way. The promise of the Medicare program when it was set forth was that seniors at least, as a group of Americans, would not have to worry about coverage for health care and that they would be provided with coverage. Of course, when Medicare was founded back in the 1960s, prescription drug needs were not as significant as they are today. They have grown significantly in those 30 or 35 years or so that they are now a crucial factor in terms of preventive care. Without the preventive care that comes from prescription drugs, we have seniors getting sick, having to be hospitalized, having to go into a nursing home or ultimately leading shorter lives. It is just not right. That is not what we are supposed to be about as Americans. Because my colleagues on the Republican side did precede us and essentially tried to tout what they are doing with regard to prescription drugs, I need to, I feel, focus again on the limitations of the Republican leadership proposal. Again, I am not saying that all Republicans are bad or that they are not well intentioned, but the problem is that the leadership proposal really does not help most Medicare beneficiaries. This leadership proposal, in my opinion, was developed more for those who sell drugs than those who need them. The Republican leadership essentially provided no details of the premium for the policy, what the basic benefit would cover or how much it would cost the Medicare program. That is probably because it really is not part of the Medicare program, effectively. The details that are in the Republican leadership's outline, which is consistent with proposals supported by the pharmaceutical industry, raise a lot of serious concerns, and I just wanted to mention three. First, covering prescription drugs through drug-only private insurance plans rather than Medicare, even though insurers have raised doubts about their willingness to offer such policies, the Republican leadership assumes that these drug-only insurance policies are going to be available, and the insurance companies are telling us that they are not going to be available. Second, limiting premium assistance for basic benefits to beneficiaries with income up to 150 percent of poverty, again I mentioned before $12,600 for a single individual, $17,000 for a couple. Well, this leaves out millions of uninsured and underinsured seniors. Medicare was promised on the idea that it would be available to everyone. Why are we now talking about a prescription drug plan that is only going to cover certain individuals? This should be universal. It should be a basic benefit under Medicare that one can voluntarily opt into if one wants to. Thirdly, again, a major shortcoming of the Republican leadership proposal is encouraging private plans to participate by having the Government bear most of the risk of covering sick beneficiaries. What is really being done is giving the insurance companies a lot of money without guaranteeing them that they are actually going to come up with coverage. There are so many reasons why this essentially reneges on any kind of commitment for a meaningful prescription drug benefit. Again, just to talk about the funding, before I introduce another one of my colleagues, the Republican budget chairmen have acknowledged that their budget resolution uses only half, $20 billion, of its Medicare reserve for prescription drugs. This is insufficient to finance a meaningful, affordable, accessible drug benefit for all beneficiaries. Again, they have not explained how they are going to spell out their 10-year funding commitment for prescription drugs. Again, I think that is because essentially most of the money that they are setting aside in the budget is for tax cuts, primarily for wealthy individuals. There will not be enough money left over for a prescription drug benefit program. The main thing that I keep stressing, and I will continue to stress, is that what the Republican leadership has come up with is not really a Medicare benefit. It is simply a way of suggesting that somehow someone is going to be able to go out and buy some kind of private insurance that will cover prescription drugs, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that that is going to work. It really has nothing to do with the traditional Medicare program that most seniors are used to seeing and used to having as a guaranteed benefit. Let me, if I can, now begin by talking about the Democrats and what the Democratic proposal is that we have set forth as a party here in the House. I would just briefly mention the principles that the Democrats have put forward as part of their Medicare prescription drug proposal; and then I will yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who I see is here. We have said, first of all, that any Medicare drug benefit has to be voluntary. In other words, beneficiaries can elect prescription drug coverage under a new Medicare program. However you describe it, it would be part of Medicare. You can voluntarily opt into it, for example like you do now with Part B for your doctor's care. There would be universal coverage accessible to all. It has to be for all individuals, all seniors, not just for low-income seniors. The benefits should be designed to give all beneficiaries meaningful defined coverage. That means that you know beginning at a certain date that you are going to have a certain coverage up to a certain dollar amount. What percentage you are going to have, what percentage your copay is, all this is defined. Next, you have to have catastrophic protection. At some point there has to be a guarantee that above a certain dollar amount or a certain level of out-of-pocket expenditures, that there would be some catastrophic protection, and that coverage would be complete, that you would not have to pay out any more money above a certain amount. Also as a principle, access to medically necessary drugs, it would guarantee access to all medically necessary drugs, and the benefit will be affordable to all beneficiaries, the taxpayers, with extra help for low-income beneficiaries. Obviously, if we are going to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, it has to be a premium that you opt into that is affordable. For those who cannot afford to pay that premium, that that premium is provided and paid for by the government, very similar to what we have now with Part B coverage. Lastly, to address the issue of price discrimination, we have as one of our Democratic principles that the program has to be administered through purchasing mechanisms that maximize Medicare beneficiaries' market power. Again, I will go back to what my colleague from Michigan said before, and that is that the Medicare beneficiary should be able to access the discounts that are now available for the large purchasers, such as the HMOs, or some other government plans like the veterans' plan. With that, I now yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Green), who has again been one of the people who has contributed the most to this debate and to putting together these principles that we as Democrats believe have to be basic to any Medicare prescription drug program.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I intend tonight with some of my Democratic colleagues to also take up the issue of prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I must say that I was pleased to hear that my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle were concerned about the issue. I certainly do not doubt their sincerity in raising the issue, but I am very concerned about the proposal that the Republican leadership has put forward and I express that concern because I do not believe that it will actually do anything to provide a prescription drug benefit to most American seniors. I say that with heavy heart because I really believe that this is one of the most important issues that we need to address in this Congress, and I believe that we will not get a prescription drug benefit unless we get it on a bipartisan basis. And so, we do need to have Republicans and Democrats work together. But it is also important to point out distinctions and to make it clear that the Republican leadership proposal that has been set forth really does not do anything to help most senior citizens and in fact is just, in my opinion, a way to show concern in an election year to give the impression that somehow this issue is going to be addressed in an effective way when it will not if the Republican plan were to be adopted. Let me just summarize, if I could before I yield to my colleague, some of the problems with the Republican plan. First of all, it will leave millions of seniors uncovered. Their proposal would do nothing to assist more than half of all Medicare beneficiaries who currently lack prescription drug coverage because it provides assistance only to beneficiaries with annual incomes of under $12,600. Seniors with modest incomes above $12,600 would receive absolutely nothing under the Republican plan. The benefit will fail to be an affordable option even if it is available. And if enacted, the Republican proposal would mark the first time in the program's history that Medicare would not provide coverage for all American seniors. Now, I say that because, basically, what they are proposing is a private insurance plan, not a Medicare benefit. Every time that we have expanded Medicare to provide more coverage, it has been a benefit that has been available to everyone under Medicare either as a guarantee or as a voluntary benefit that they can opt into by paying a premium, as they do right now under part B for their doctor's care, for example. Well, all of a sudden we have a proposal which really is not Medicare at all but is, basically, saying that the Federal Government will subsidize for low-income people a private drug insurance plan. We do not believe that those plans will ever be available. So one of my chief criticisms is that this is not really a Medicare benefit at all, this is not really Medicare at all, this is simply a private insurance plan which even most of the insurance companies say will simply not be available for most seniors. Also, even for those seniors who would be perhaps able to take advantage of what the Republicans are proposing, it does not even guarantee, if you will, the coverage for many of those who have an absolute need. The Republican plan relies on these private insurers to voluntarily offer a drug only benefit. In testimony before the Congress, even the insurance industry itself had expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of this approach. The other thing is, one of the key issues that has come up in the context of the prescription drug issue and that the Democrats, particularly my colleague the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has pointed out, is the need for access to lower prices. Price discrimination is a major issue here. What happens is that the seniors that are in an HMO or have access to some larger plan maybe through the Government, like the veterans' plan or whatever, they are getting lower prices. The senior who goes out and tries to buy the prescription drug on their own, they are charged a lot more. Well, there is nothing in the Republican proposal that would provide access for the average senior citizen to discounts on prescription drugs that these larger plans, the people in the HMOs and the people in the veterans' plan, obtain. I mean, one of the advantages that we have with our Democratic plan is that we try to address that issue of price discrimination and make it so that everyone who is in the Medicare program would have the benefit of those same types of discounts. Also, and this is the last thing I want to say on the issue of why this Republican plan really is nothing that is going to help the average senior, it is not really funded. Earlier this year the Republicans promised that they would commit $40 billion for a prescription drug benefit. Their own budget resolution dedicated as little as $20 billion to pay for this weak and limited plan that would leave so many seniors without coverage. Moreover, the lack of their willingness to release 10-year numbers on their prescription drug proposal raises serious concerns that their tax policy consumes virtually all revenue necessary to adequately fund a drug benefit in the future. My point is the Republicans continue to advocate a huge tax cut that primarily benefits corporations and wealthy individuals. They do not leave any money left for this type of Medicare prescription drug plan that would actually help most Americans. They do not have the money to accomplish that because of the tax cuts that they have proposed. Well, I do not want to just keep harping on what they are doing. I would like to talk a little bit about what the Democrats have in mind. But before I do that, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) who has been such a leader on this issue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman and, of course, our other colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who I will yield to next, because you are from States that border in your case on Mexico and his case on Canada, that you have tonight made your constituents and really the Nation aware of this price discrimination that exists, in this case across the border, and, of course, the gentleman from Maine has been talking about it here in terms of most seniors not having access to these discounts that the larger groups provide. But I think in particular, if I could say to my colleague from Texas, this contrast between price, between animals, dogs and cats versus people, is really dramatic. It really brings home, I think, what this is all about and how we have seniors suffering when, at the same time, we have to try to buy the drug for one's pet, the cost is less. I have a cat and she is older and I have had to go to the drugstore and buy a prescription for her, and I have to say, I have never really looked to see what the differential was for the same kind of drug. I am going to make it my business to check on it the next time. I am sure I am going to find the same thing would be the case. So I thank the gentleman again. Let me yield to the gentleman from Maine, but before doing so, I just have to say that he has really brought the whole issue of price discrimination to our attention. One of the things that I said earlier which I think is so crucial is that we do not see any evidence that the Republican leadership bill will address this issue of price discrimination, and it has to be a part of what we do in the House, and obviously it is part of the democratic principles that we put together as a party on the Democratic side. So I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). And one of the things that you stress, and I think it is so important, because we did have our Republican colleagues on the other side precede us this evening, and what they said sounded wonderful, and I am convinced, of course, that they are well- intentioned, but the bottom line is that the Republican leadership proposal is illusionary. It is not going to really help the average senior citizen. That kind of hoax, if you will, even if it is not intentional, I do not believe that it is, is not fair. They are crying out for relief. They need attention. They are having problems buying prescription drugs, and they tell us about it every day. This is real. We just cannot stay here in the Congress, in the well here and say that we are going to do something when we are not, or certainly something that is not going to be meaningful for them, because this is such an important issue. I did want to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). He also is one of the cochairs of our Health Care Task Force; and we, of course, have put forth this statement of Democratic principles about what we think a prescription drug plan should consist of, and he has been tremendously helpful in putting that together as we proceed to try to get legislation passed in this Congress over the next few months while we are still here. I yield to gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I think that he really brings home this whole issue of price discrimination and that is really what goes on and the heart of what our constituents' concerns are. They say it to us every day. We had 2 weeks back in the district the last 2 weeks, and I just heard it so many times over and over again. And I do not think it matters where we are, Arkansas, New Jersey. Wherever we are, we just hear so many seniors that tell us that the costs are just too exorbitant, that they cannot pay them. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all his help in helping us put together the Democratic principles in the plan that we have been developing. Mr. Speaker, I know that I do not have a lot of time left; but I wanted to, if I could in the time that I do have, to basically outline what the Democratic position is. Democrats believe that in order to develop a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit, two crucial characteristics of the prescription drug marketplace for seniors have to be recognized. The first is that the high cost of prescription drugs is not a problem exclusive to low-income seniors. Millions of middle-class seniors are feeling the effects of excessive prescription drug costs as well. And the second is the price discrimination that seniors without health insurance are subject to when purchasing pharmaceuticals. I think tonight my colleagues outlined the problems with the costs and the problems that so many seniors are having now in terms of their ability, or their inability, to purchase medicine or prescription drugs. But the bottom line is that a Medicare drug benefit should be offered to every Medicare beneficiary, and it should be voluntary and affordable. Seniors who have coverage they like should be able to keep that coverage. Seniors who have no coverage at all, or inadequate coverage, should be able to get the coverage they need. Low-income seniors should receive subsidies for the cost of benefits, including complete subsidies for those with the least ability to pay. In addition, Democrats say that the coverage should consist of a meaningful, defined benefits package, including guaranteed access to medically necessary drugs. It must provide so-called catastrophic coverage for seniors with excessive drug costs, and it must be administered through a purchasing mechanism that maximizes the purchasing power of Medicare beneficiaries. By doing so, the program can reduce the costs of drugs to seniors and make the benefit affordable to the taxpayers. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will say there is broad support for what I have outlined and what my colleagues have outlined tonight amongst Democrats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. All of these criteria about what this prescription drug benefit should include have been incorporated into the Medicare drug benefit plan that President Clinton has proposed. But Democrats are not in the majority in either House of the Congress. We need the support of Republicans on a bipartisan basis if we are to succeed. I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they want to provide a meaningful benefit. And my goal really, and the goal of us collectively, is to convince the Republican leadership to buy into these same principles that the Democrats have put forward so that we can provide seniors with the care they need to live out their golden years with the dignity that they deserve. I do not want any more of my constituents coming up to me at any point and saying that they have to make a choice between drugs and food or drugs and other necessary services.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Resolution, of which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor. I would like to praise the sponsor, the Gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, for introducing this Resolution, and to thank both the Ranking Member and the Chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman, for bringing the Resolution to the Floor of the House so quickly. Mr. Speaker, while there have been many success stories among the new independent states of the former Soviet Union and the other former Warsaw Pact nations, Belarus has not been one of them. Over nearly a decade of independence, the promise of democracy, freedom of expression and association, and a new flowering of a national identity have not come to pass for the Belarusan people. The fault for this sad state of affairs rests with President Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The President has illegally extended his term of office beyond the legally mandated expiration date. Throughout his tenure, President Lukashenka has monopolized the mass media, undermined the constitutional foundation for the separation of powers, used intimidation and strong-arm tactics against the political opposition, suppressed freedom of the press and expression, defamed the national culture, maligned the national language and eroded Belarus's rightfull position as a sovereign nation. Apart from the daily deprivations and indignities that the Belarusan people must endure, perhaps the saddest outcome of Mr. Lukashenka's rule is that his efforts have created the impression--a false one--that Belarus really has no distinct national culture or character. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the formation of the Union State between Russia and Belarus only serves to further perpetuate this false impression. While the tragic reality is that Belarus has been dominated politically for centuries by Russia, the fact remains that Belarus has its own national symbols and a distinct language. It's no coincidence that authoritarian President Lukashenka has targeted such national symbols as the nation's flag and coat of arms. As part of this campaign, Lukashenka's regime has ordered that schools go back to using Soviet-Russian textbooks, while the Russian language has been made the official language of the Belarusan Parliament in Minsk. Lukashenka's strategy has been to create conditions to justify the claim that history, language and culture inevitably tie the two countries together. The Belarusan language endures to this day as a key to national survival, both for the people living in the Republic of Belarus and among the Belarusan diaspora in the U.S. and elsewhere. There are centuries-old legal documents and religious texts written in the Belarusan language, as well as modern literary and historic works. Despite Lukashenka's repression, the cause of Belarusan nationalism still burns in the heart of the Belarusan people, with the Belarusan language the means of expressing it. Failure to acknowledge the harm done to Belarusan culture and national singularity by the Russian-Belarus merger can only give comfort to Lukashenka and the Russian-Soviet irredentists. Mr. Speaker, the negligence and mismanagement of Mr. Lukashenka's regime has also put at risk the nation's environment and the health of the people. Just last week, former Belarusan President Stanislau Shushkevich spoke at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's (RFE/RL) Washington office on the occasion of the 14th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in neighboring Ukraine. More than 70 percent of the radioactive fallout from the world's worst nuclear accident fell on Belarusan territory. While there is plenty of blame to go around for mishandling of this disaster--among Soviet officials, and post-Soviet officials in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus--President Lukashenka exacerbates the problems by insisting that all aid to Chernobyl victims pass through his hands. These funds often are diverted to other uses. Fortunately, some Western NGOs and religious organizations have bypassed Lukashenka to get aid to the people who really need it. Also last week, RFE/RL President Thomas A. Dine denounced efforts by the Belarusan KGB to intimidate journalists from that organization working in Belarus. Mr. Dine's statement came in response to the threats against Yahor Mayorchyk, a reporter for the news service funded by this Congress to provide objective information to people from the region. A KGB officer told Mr. Mayorchyk that the ``same thing will happen to you as to Babitsky,'' a reference to RFE/RL journalist Andrei Babitsky who was arrested for his coverage of the war in Chechnya and faces trumped-up charges in Moscow. Mr. Speaker, the abuses of the Lukashenka regime have been a source of concern for at least the past four years. In 1996, I introduced a Resolution expressing concern over the Lukashenka regime's violations of human and civil rights in direct violation of the Helsinki accords and the constitution of Belarus, and expressing concern about the union between Russia and Belarus. That Resolution also recognized March 25 as the anniversary of the declaration of an independent Belarusan state. A year later, I worked with leaders of the International Relations Committee to include language in the State Department Authorization bill, which passed the House, calling for our President to press the Government of President Lukashenka on defending the sovereignty of Belarus and guaranteeing basic freedoms and human rights. For years now, the Belarusan-American community has been trying to inform the American people about the truth in Belarus, that President Lukashenka's actions do not have widespread support and his regime has lost any sense of legitimacy it once may have had. I want to thank the Belarusan-American community in New Jersey and throughout the nation for continuing to speak the truth about events in the land of their ancestors. Obviously, President Lukashenka has not been moved by these expressions of concern by the United States and the international community. But we must not give up. We should go on record condemning the abuses that have taken place, and continue to take place in Belarus. We must urge our President and State Department to keep the pressure on President Lukashenka--and also Russian President Vladimir Putin. For these and many other reasons, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this Resolution.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of celebrating the 30th anniversary of Earth Day, which falls on April 22. We have much to celebrate, improved air quality and water quality and other environmental standards and better protections for human health. However, we also still have a long way to go to preserve and protect our natural resources. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has not promoted an environmental agenda in this Congress. This is a shame because, if we continue on the path that the Republican leadership has been advocating, our planet will be in far worse shape 30 years from now. I just wanted to mention a couple actions that took place just yesterday in the House in the committees that I serve on. For instance, Republicans on the Committee on Resources yesterday promoted efforts to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If we open the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development, we will only have the equivalent of 6 more months' worth of oil supply. Yet, in the process, we would destroy one of our Nation's greatest natural resources forever. Just yesterday, Republicans on the Committee on Commerce in which I serve tried to eliminate water efficiency standards for shower heads and toilets. Fortunately that attempt was defeated. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are already experiencing severe water shortages back home. One study estimated that indoor water use could be reduced by 31 percent per person per day with products that meet the current standards. Let me just mention also other aspects of the environmental report in general with regard to the Republican majority. I believe very strongly that many of their policies have harmed our domestic and global energy and environmental security by cutting funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy, weatherization, and alternative fuel programs during the last few years. In their first effort upon taking control of Congress, the Republican majority cut energy efficiency programs by 26 percent. Over the past 5 years, the GOP has slashed funding for solar energy, renewable energy, and conservation programs by nearly $1.4 billion below the administration's request. They have also inserted anti-environmental riders into critical funding bills at the 11th hour, hoping that these stealth efforts would not be discovered by the American people. If we look at the situation in Texas where Governor Bush is claiming to be helping the environment, we see that that State ranks first in air pollution in the Nation and third worst in water pollution from chemical dumping. Governor Bush has appointed industry representatives to State environmental agencies that had previously fought against environmental regulations. And he also has underfunded the cleanup of Superfund sites and has pushed a strictly voluntary program for dirty power plants to reduce harmful emissions, even though Texas's deteriorating air quality has reached a crisis proportion. While the rest of the world is taking practical steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money and energy, the Republican- controlled Congress is lagging behind by debating whether the science is real enough to take similar actions domestically. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Earth Day this year, let us reflect on our responsibility for stewardship of our natural resources. I just hope the Republican leadership will stop trying to gut our environmental laws, and I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in working proactively to protect our environment now for the present and for future generations.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge support for this bill. I signed on as an original cosponsor not because I wanted to curb diversity or local interest but rather because I wanted to protect them. My home State of New Jersey is completely dominated by New York radio to the north or Philadelphia radio to the south and in between are the small local radio stations which strive to remain distinctly New Jersey in focus and content. Obviously, this makes for a fairly crowded radio dial already. Unilaterally adding more stations in my opinion is not the solution. In fact, in my State, low-power FM may even cramp local New Jersey stations and disrupt consumers by interfering with local broadcasts or by duplicating local services and formats. Even National Public Radio has concerns that the low-power FM program will hamper its broadcasts. Accordingly, NPR supports the bill. Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with the goals of the low-power FM program. However, its application needs to be examined and evaluated by the Congress. The compromise we fashioned in the Committee on Commerce allows the FCC to move forward with the low-power FM as long as it protects existing third-channel interference protections. The compromise then allows for an independent party to determine once and for all how these pilot programs will affect current radio listeners, small market broadcasters and blind radio reading services. The FCC will then report back to Congress in 2001. I think this compromise is a good one. It passed the Committee on Commerce by a voice vote and in my view is the most responsible way to proceed with the low-power program. I would urge my colleagues not to support any amendments. I want to compliment the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our ranking member, in forging the compromise and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and again urge support of the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 15, 2000, Monmouth Medical Center in Long Beach, NJ, will present the sixth biannual Physician Recognition Dinner and the presentation of the Pinnacle Awards. The event will be held at the Oyster Point Hotel in Red Bank, NJ. Mr. Speaker, these awards will be presented in recognition of six physicians whose contributions have helped to establish Monmouth Medical Center as one of the foremost community teaching hospitals in New Jersey. The six outstanding physician recipients of the Pinnacle Award for 2000 have been leaders and achievers. Each has devoted a lifetime of faithful service to Monmouth Medical Center, exemplifying the ideals and traditions of the practice of medicine. More importantly, they have devoted a lifetime of service to the care and healing of innumerable grateful patients. The Pinnacle Awards are presented on behalf of the entire household family, by authority of the administration of Monmouth Medical Center and the Medical and Dental Staff. The recipients of the Pinnacle Awards are: Richard A. Daniels, M.D. Besides practicing medicine, Dr. Daniels has had another love for the past 49 years--teaching it. Although he officially retired from his internal medicine practice last year, he can still be seen on the patient floors of Monmouth Medical Center, providing one-to-one instruction to medical school students and medical residents. Dr. Daniels has been actively involved in Monmouth's medical education program since the early 1960s. Throughout his career, he's placed a major focus on cardiology, serving as president of the Monmouth County Heart Association. Later, he combined that interest with geriatric medicine, becoming board certified in that specialty. A 1955 graduate of the State University of New York, Dr. Daniels completed his residency in internal medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, serving as chief resident in his final year of training. He then spent two years in the military as chief of medicine at the Air Force Hospital in Minot, ND. He joined Monmouth's attending staff in 1961, and entered into private practice the same year. Since 1968, he has been an associate clinical professor at MCP Hahnamann School of Medicine, the teaching affiliate of Monmouth Medical Center. Dr. Daniels is a diplomat of the American Board of Internal Medicine, a fellow of the American College of Physicians and the American Society of Internal Medicine, and a member of the Teachers of Family Practice and an associate of the American College of Cardiology. His research work has been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, American Journal of Medicine and New Jersey Medicine. Dr. Daniels and his wife Norma divide their time between Long Beach and Vermont. They have two sons, Steven and Jeffrey, both of whom are doctors--as is one of their sons-in-laws. They also have two daughters, Cathy Zukerman, an architect, and Barrie Markowitz, a director at American Express. Their four children have presented Dr. and Mrs. Daniels 12 grandchildren. Barry D. Elbaum, D.D.S. Since joining Monmouth Medical Center's Medical and Dental Staff in 1996, Dr. Elbaum, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, has been a driving force in the growth of the Department of Dentistry. For the past 11 years, Dr. Elbaum has served as department chairman. Under his leadership, the number of dentists on the attending staff has quadrupled to 80 dentists. Having established his discipline as a major department that holds a permanent seat on the hospital's Medical Executive Committee, Dr. Elbaum is credited with changing the attending staff's official name to the Medical and Dental Staff. The dentists on the staff, under Dr. Elbaum's guidance, provide instruction to four resident dentists each year, providing hands-on training in one of the busiest facilities of its kind in the state. He has also offered direction in bringing in the most advanced dental and oral techniques. He has also helped to raise significant funds to establish the Samuel Elbaum Continuing Dental Education Program. He is also in private practice at several locations in Monmouth County. Born in Poland, Dr. Elbaum is a Holocaust survivor who was 12 years old when he came to the United States in 1950. During his three-month stay at Ellis Island, he mastered both the English language and table tennis, which he later won a championship in. He graduated from the New York University College of Dentistry in 1962. After a four-year residency at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, he established his practice in Asbury Park, NJ. He became chairman of the oral and maxillofacial surgery and dental implantology, Dr. Elbaum is a fell of the American and International Sciences of oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and of the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology. He is also a former board member of the Jewish Community Center and the United Jewish Federation. Dr. Elbaum's wife Libbie, a certified public accountant, has been involved in the bookkeeping and financial activities of her husband's practice. Their son, Jeffrey Elbaum, D.D.S., and their daughter, Gayle Elbaum Krost, D.D.S., have both followed in their father's footsteps. Gayle's husband, Brian Krost, D.M.D., is also a practicing dentist. Their other daughter, Rochelle Matalon, has completed a master's degree in social work, and her husband, Albert Matalon, M.D. is completing a fellowship at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center. The Elbaum's, who live in Ocean Township, NJ, have nine grandchildren. Carlos G. Garcia, M.D. In 1963, Dr. Garcia fled Cuba with his pregnant wife, young son and sister-in-law. Thirteen years later, he opened a private practice in cardiology in Long Branch, and has gone on to become one of the most well respected cardiologists in the region, having served as director of Cardiology at Monmouth Medical Center for 15 years before his retirement last year. Dr. Garcia began his medical training in Cuba, where he also worked as an EKG technician for a cardiologist. The political unrest and the intolerable social and political pressures of the Castro communist dictatorship compelled him to seek a better life in the U.S. After a brief stay in Miami, Dr. Garcia and his family moved to New York. He eventually found a job at Mount Sinai Hospital, and then continued his studies in Spain. After earning his medical degree, he returned to the U.S. to continue his postgraduate education at Monmouth Medical Center, where he completed an internship and residency in internal medicine. He entered private practice in 1970, the same year he became a member of Monmouth Medical Center's Medical and Dental Staff. Three years later, the Garcias became naturalized U.S. citizens. In 1984, Dr. Garcia was named acting director of Cardiology at Monmouth Medical, and he soon assumed that post in a permanent capacity. During his tenure, the Department made major strides, providing the full range of services to patients, from the first signs of a heart attack through treatment, recovery and rehabilitation. One of the highlights of his tenure was the 1996 opening of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory. Dr. Garcia and his wife Josephine are long-time residents of West Long Branch, NJ. Their daughter Maria is a registered nurse and lactation consultant, and their son Carlos is president of a managed care brokerage. they have five grandchildren. Dr. Garcia's brother, Juan Garcia, M.D., is also a practicing physician in the Central New Jersey area. The Garcias have relatives in Miami and some in Cuba, whom they hope to see soon. H. Lawrence Karasic, M.D. During his 35 years with Monmouth Medical Center's Department of Anesthesiology, Dr. Karasic has witnessed much change among his ranks on the surgical floor. The department has grown from a staff of four to 20 anesthesiologists, many of whom completed their residency training at Monmouth Medical. Monitoring equipment has become more sophisticated and anesthetic agents are more effective. The surgeons they support are also becoming ever more effective in saving lives, treating illnesses and reducing recovery times. Throughout those years, Dr. Karasic has remained committed to medical education, a dedication that was recognized when he received the 1999 Alumnus of the Year Award from MCP Hahnemann School of Medicine, which provides clinical training for more than 300 Hahnemann students each year. Since 1982, he has served as associate clinical professor of anesthesiology at Hahnemann. Dr. Karasic earned his medical degree from Philadelphia-based medical school, where he completed his internship and residency. He spent two years in the military, as the head of anesthesiology at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before joining Monmouth's attending staff in 1965. He served as coordinator of medical education in anesthesia and became instrumental in establishing the hospital's fully accredited anesthesiology residency program in 1982. For the next four years, he filled a dual role as department chairman and residency program director. Throughout his career, he has served on many clinical, educational and peer-related committees of Monmouth Medical Center, Hahnemann and the American Society of Anesthesiologists. From 1993 to 1996, he was clinical director or anesthesia for O.R. operations at Monmouth. He is a diplomat of the American Board of Anesthesiology and a fellow of the American College of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Karasic wife, Honey Karasic, owns and operates the Back Relief and Comfort Store in Oakhurst, NJ. Mrs. Karasic's business often provides much needed relief for the doctor after he engages in two of his favorite activities, downhill skiing and racquetball. The Karasics have four children--Robert, Shara, Leslie and Neal--and two grandchildren--Zachary and Emily. Albert A. Rienzo, M.D. The opening last year of the Cranmer Ambulatory Surgery Center at the Monmouth Medical Center campus last year marked the beginning of a new era in otolaryngology. For Dr. Rienzo, the center's debut marked the culmination of years of hard work to bring state-of-the-art surgical systems to the region, paving the way for him and his colleagues to perform the latest procedures in treating disorders of the ears, nose and throat. The center is now performing three of the most advanced procedures offered at any medical facility in the nation, employing high-tech equipment and techniques to achieve an unprecedented degree of precision, safety, painlessness and non-invasiveness. A member of Monmouth's Medical and Dental Staff for 25 years, Dr. Rienzo has served as section chief of Ear, Nose and Throat since 1980, participating in the many initiatives that have shaped this surgical specialty over the past two decades. Under his leadership, otolaryngologists at Monmouth became the first in the region to perform endoscopic functional sinus surgery to treat chronic sinus disease. They also pioneered the removal of benign or malignant lesions from the larynx with minimally invasive techniques. During the early 1990s, Dr. Rienzo established the Department of Rehabilitation Services' Vocal Dynamics Laboratory. He also served as director of Monmouth's cochlear implant program, which was one of only three designated by the state to perform the surgical procedure, which involves placing an electrical device in the inner ear of a profoundly deaf patient to restore hearing. A 1966 graduate of the University of Bologna School of Medicine in Italy, Dr. Rienzo completed his internship and surgical residency at Monmouth. He also served in the military, serving for a year as director of the ENT clinic at the U.S. Army Hospital at Fort Devens, MA. After continued training at the Newark Eye and Ear Infirmary, he returned to Monmouth Medical Center in 1974, and also established private practice in Long Branch. He has been active in the medical education program, and is a clinical senior instructor at MCP Hahnemann School of Medicine. Dr. Rienzo is a member of the American Academy of Otolaryngology and the International Society of Otolaryngologists. A resident of Rumson, NJ, Dr. Rienzo has three children--Anthony, Caroline and Benedetta. His daughter Elsa died three years ago. He is one of six physicians in the Rienzo family. Charles Sills, M.D. Dr. Sills has been at the forefront of the high technology boom that continues to revolutionize the field of surgery. Since joining the Medical and Dental Staff of Monmouth Medical Center in 1968, Dr. Sills, a thoracic surgeon, has played a major role in maintaining Monmouth's leadership position in New Jersey for excellence in the field. During the mid-1980s, Dr. Sills introduced laser surgery to Monmouth and Ocean counties as the first to perform endobronchial laser surgery. Since then, Monmouth Medical has been on the cutting edge of bringing to the region minimally invasive procedures, allowing for procedures to be performed on internal organs without the trauma of open surgery. For the past nine years, after spending a year as vice president of the Medical and Dental Staff, Dr. Sills has been chairman of the Department of Surgery and director of the general surgery residency program, which provides training to resident physicians who plan to enter the surgical field or to those who seek surgery training for preparation to enter other medical specialties. In 1994, he guided a multidisciplinary medical team that earned Monmouth the distinction of being the only hospital in New Jersey to participate in the Lung Volume Reduction Surgery study, which provides significant relief to emphysema patients. A 1967 graduate of Chicago Medical School, Dr. Sills completed a five-year residency program in general surgery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He received fellowship training in surgery from the National Institutes of Health before embarking on cardiothoracic surgery training there and at Montefiore Hospital in New York. After joining Monmouth in 1968, he entered private practice five years later. Since 1975, he has been a clinical associate professor of surgery at MCP Hahnemann School of Medicine. He is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Chest Physicians. He is also a member of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Society of Laser Surgery, and other professional societies. Not content to have mastered one field, Dr. Sills is an undergraduate student at Rutgers University Mason Gross School of Fine Arts, and plans to seek his master of fine arts degree there. His sculpture has been exhibited in New Jersey and New York. Dr. Sills and his wife Caryl, chairman of Monmouth University's English Department, live in Rumson, NJ. They have three sons--Peter, Keith and Adam--and two grandsons--Liam and Zachary.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as my colleagues and I do every year at this time, in a proud but solemn tradition to remember and pay tribute to the victims of one of history's worst crimes against humanity, the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923. This evening my colleagues will be discussing various aspects of this tragedy, including what actually happened, how it affected the victims, the survivors and their descendents, how the perpetrators and their descendants have responded, the reaction of the United States and other major nations, and what lessons the Armenian genocide teaches us today. Since we are constrained by time limitations, I will also be submitting for the Record some additional information. Mr. Speaker, the Armenian genocide was the systematic extermination, the murder of 1.5 Armenian men, women, and children during the Ottoman Turkish empire. This is of the first genocide of the 20th century, but sadly, not the last. Sadder still, at the dawn of the 21st century we continue to see the phenomenon of genocide. Such is the danger of ignoring or forgetting the lessons of the Armenian genocide. April 24 marks the 85th anniversary of the unleashing of the Armenian genocide. On that dark day in 1915, some 200 Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders from the Turkish capital of Constantinople, now Istanbul, were arrested and exiled in one fell swoop, silencing the leading representatives of the Armenian community in the Ottoman capital. This was the beginning of the genocide. Over the years from 1915 to 1923, millions of men, women, and children were deported, forced into slave labor, and tortured by the government of the Young Turk Committee, and 1.5 million of them were killed. The deportations and killings finally ended with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, although efforts to erase all traces of the Armenian presence in the area continued. To this day, the Republican of Turkey refuses to acknowledge the fact that this massive crime against humanity took place on soil under its control and in the name of Turkish nationalism. Not only does Turkey deny that the genocide ever took place, it has mounted an aggressive effort to try to present an alternative and false version of history, using its extensive financial and lobbying resources in this country. Recently the Turkish government signed a $1.8 million contract for the lobbying services of three very prominent former members of this House to argue Turkey's case in the halls of power here in Washington. While the major focus of their efforts is trying to secure a $4 billion attack helicopter sale, two of these lobbyists and former Congressmen, according to the April 8 edition of the National Journal, were recently here on Capitol Hill trying to persuade leaders of this House not to support legislation affirming U.S. recognition of the genocide. Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of that legislation, House Resolution 398, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), will also be speaking tonight. I want to praise them for taking the lead on this bipartisan initiative which currently has 38 cosponsors and which has obviously caused some concern within the Turkish government. I regret to say that the United States still does not officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Bowing to strong pressure from Turkey, the U.S. State Department and American presidents of both parties have for more than 15 years shied away from referring to the tragic events of 1915 through 1923 by the word ``genocide'', thus minimizing and not accurately conveying what really happened beginning 85 years ago. This legislation is an effort to address this shameful lapse in our own Nation's record as a champion of human rights and historical fact. Mr. Speaker, the Armenian people are united in suffering and the spirit of remembrance with the Jewish people, who were, of course, also the victims of genocide in the 20th century. I wanted to cite a letter from Mrs. Rima Feller-Varzhapetyan, president of the Jewish community of Armenia. In a letter to the Congress of the United States, which I will submit for the Record, Mrs. Varzhapetyan wrote, ``Had the world recognized and condemned the genocide at the time, it is unlikely that the word Holocaust would have become known to the Jewish people.'' She also states, ``We believe that what happened to Armenians at the beginning of the century is not an issue for only Armenians. It is a cruel crime against humanity.'' She concludes, ``Believing that Turkey's membership in the European Union should require its acknowledgment of responsibility for the Armenian genocide, which will benefit the Turkish people as well, the Jewish community of Armenia urges the Congress of the United States to speak up in support of the interests of the Armenians, and to recognize the genocide of Armenians as they recognize the Jewish Holocaust.'' Mr. Speaker, there is additional information that I will include in my statement for the Record, but I wanted to conclude by praising the work of the Armenian American community in keeping the flame of memory burning. This week members of the Armenian Assembly of America held an advocacy day on Capitol Hill in which they urged the Members of Congress on several key issues, including the recognition of the genocide. On Sunday, April 16, the annual commemoration will be held in Times Square in New York City, and on Tuesday, May 2, after Congress returns from our spring recess, the Armenian National Committee will host the sixth annual Capitol Hill observance and reception marking the anniversary of the genocide. I am pleased to report that the Armenian Assembly has recently acquired a building not far from the White House here in Washington to use as the future site of the Armenian Genocide Museum. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from Ms. Varzhapetyan. The letter referred to is as follows: Jewish Community of Armenia, Republic of Armenia, Yerevan 375051, 2/1 Griboyedov St., off. 49. Congress of The United States of America On 24 April, 2000, 85-th anniversary of the Genocide of Armenians--a horrifying crime, which occurred at the beginning of this century--will be commemorated. Had the world recognized and condemned the Genocide at the time, it is unlikely that the word Holocaust would have become known to the Jewish people. Today the world is not safeguarded against genocide. It can be repeated anywhere in the world. We believe that what happened to Armenians at the beginning of the century is not an issue for only Armenians. It is a cruel crime against humanity. Taking into consideration that the Armenian Genocide was recognized by the United Nations Human Rights Subcommission in 1985, that it was recognized by member states of the European Union in 1987, and by the Ottoman military tribunal in 1919, the Jewish Community of Armenia believes that the recognition of the 1915-1923 Armenian Genocide will positively impact the resolution of a number of issues in the Caucasus. Believing that Turkey's membership in the European Union should require its acknowledgment of responsibility for the Armenian Genocide--which will benefit the Turkish people as well--the Jewish Community of Armenia urges Congress of The United States of America to speak up in support of the interests of the Armenians and to recognize the Genocide of Armenians, as they recognized the Jewish Holocaust. Rima Varzhapetyan, Chairman of the JCA.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order tonight, which is the Armenian genocide.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my esteemed colleague in introducing a resolution calling for democratic, linguistic and cultural rights for all Kurds living in Turkey today. The lands of Kurdistan are considered by many to be the birthplace of the history of human culture. Some of the earliest settlements as well as the earliest indications of the Neolithic Revolution have been found among the hills and valleys of this beautiful landscape. Yet even as one ponders the cultural advancements made on Kurdish soil thousands of years ago, one cannot help but wonder what lies in store for the Kurds' future. For Kurds living in the Middle East, recent history has brought far less reason to celebrate. Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey have been persecuted by the regimes in power, with the most brutal assault being the poison gas attacks made by Saddam Hussein in 1988 which decimated an entire section of a city and its 5,000 inhabitants. Although Saddam Hussein's heinous attacks caused unimaginable death and biological destruction, his regime, ironically, has not launched an all-scale offensive on the culture of the Kurds. It is unfortunate that the most comprehensive assault on the Kurdish language and culture has stemmed from our own ally and fellow-NATO member, Turkey. Mr. Speaker, in 1997 I addressed this body on the cultural oppression of Kurds by the Turkish government and on the existence of democratically-elected Kurdish Parliamentarians unjustly jailed in Turkey. It is with a heavy heart that I stand before you today and recall recent events and happenings in Turkey, all of which suggest that nothing has changed. The Kurdish language and culture is still on Turkey's most wanted list and Kurdish Parliamentarians elected to give voice of their constituents, are still being silenced. When I addressed this body three years ago, Turkish Kurdistan was under a declared State of Emergency, patrolled by the Gendarmerie. Torture and abuse of the Kurds, the searching of Kurdish homes without a warrant, and the persecution of assemblies and demonstrations were the norm. This situation, in flagrant breech of democracy, continues today. The 1999 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report for Turkey states that members of the Gendarmerie continue to commit serious human rights abuses including the torture of Kurds, well-aware that the likelihood of their personal conviction is extremely slim. Such lax prosecution is not the case, however, for Kurds. Six years ago four former members of Parliament, stripped of their official duties, were imprisoned for the crime of representing the will of Kurdish citizens. As I stand here today, Mrs. Leyla Zana, Mr. Hatip Dicle, Mr. Orhan Dogan, and Mr. Selim Sadak are still in jail. Labeled ``Prisoners of Conscience'' by Amnesty International, these four are guilty only of attempting to invigorate a true spirit of democracy in Turkey. Three years ago 153 Members of Congress expressed their disapproval of the anti-democratic treatment of elected Kurdish representatives in the Turkish Parliament. I humbly stand before you to question whether it was enough. Today these four individuals are still in jail. Even more disturbing, the harassment of democratically-elected officials seems to be expanding from the national level to encompass local levels as well. In February of this year, in a move that shocked many of us in this room, the Turkish Gendarmerie arrested three Kurdish mayors from cities in Turkish Kurdistan. One, the mayor of Diyarbakir, had just met with the Swedish Foreign Minister the day before his arrest in order to discuss hopes for a lasting and solid peace between Turks and Kurds. Although the mayors have since been released, their trials are pending, and if convicted, they too will face prison sentences. The arrests raise questions, not only about the legitimacy of Turkish democracy, but about the sincerity of Turkey's commitment to forging peace. When I addressed the body three years ago, the Kurdish language could not be broadcasted or taught, even as a foreign language, in schools. I am saddened to say that this negation of a people's language continues today. But, here I must add that the criminalization of speech and expression is not necessarily limited to Kurdish citizens communicating in their native tongue. High numbers of journalists, human rights workers, doctors, and lawyers who expose injustices committed by the military, police, or state are also subject to prison sentences and illegal torture making the anti-sedition legislation perhaps the most ``equal opportunity'' of all laws in Turkey. Mr. Speaker, the Kurdish Question, touches upon the very nature of democracy in Turkey and carries serious implications for the whole of Turkish society. Illustrations of how excessive laws mitigating Kurdish culture can spill into the mainstream, ultimately curtailing the freedoms of all citizens, are easy to find. Just last week authorities in Istanbul detained nearly 200 Kurds for illegally celebrating the Kurdish New Year, Newroz. Following their detention, authorities launched investigations of 6 Turkish newspapers that had reported on Newroz activities, for their crimes of spelling the holiday with a Kurdish ``w'' rather than the ``v'' found in the Turkish appellation. (the v is not the only letter charged with criminality--p and k have been banned from text books) This persecution of a language and a culture, committed with such diligence that even individual letters come under fire, would be lamentable in any region of the world. But, that it occurs in the very Cradle of Civilization which bore witness to the first creative sparks of human culture and innovation instills the situation with a sense of tragedy so compelling that I believe it presents a direct challenge to those of us assembled here today. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, supported by my esteemed colleagues Bob Filner, John E. Porter, Frank Wolf, and Anna Eshoo, was written with the hope that the future of the Kurds need not be wrought with even greater persecution and suffering. It was written with the knowledge that democracy, rather than being a simple destination, needs to continually be nurtured. And it was written with the promise that peace and justice may be cultivated. I ask my friends and esteemed colleagues to join in support of this resolution so that language, culture and democracy will be permitted to flourish on the very ground that holds our common humanity's cultural roots.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow evening, Tuesday, April 4, 2000, a most fitting tribute will be made in honor of a man whose passing, a little more than one year ago, is still acutely felt in our community. The Jeremiah F. Regan Library/Media Center will be dedicated in honor of the late Jeremiah F. Regan at the Maple Place School Library in Oceanport, NJ. Given his decades-long devotion to educational excellence, and providing better opportunities for our young people to get access to an education, naming this facility in Mr. Regan's honor is indeed very appropriate, a well-deserved recognition. Jerry Regan, a resident of Oceanport who passed away on March 9, 1999, was one of those rare people who could always be relied upon to be involved in a wide array of professional, community, political and religious activities. And yet, more importantly, Jerry always maintained as his top priority his devotion to his family and friends. His involvement in education issues was both wide and deep. He served as New Jersey delegate to the National School Boards Association and represented school boards in New Jersey's Sixth Congressional District on the Federal Relations Network, a public school advocacy effort. He was a member of the Oceanport Board of Education, an adjunct professor at Monmouth College, and an active leader in the Monmouth County and New Jersey school boards associations. He was President of the Executive Board of the New Jersey School Boards Association from 1988 to 1990, and held other senior posts with the Association. Jerry was also deeply involved in the political, religious and civic life of our community. He served as campaign director and comptroller for my predecessor, the late Representative James J. Howard, a Member of Congress for nearly a quarter of a century. He also served on the Diocesan Educational Advisory Council of the Diocese of Trenton. He was a communicant of St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church in Long Branch, NJ, and was active in the St. Vincent DePaul Society. He was a Scoutmaster for Boy Scout Troop 58 in Oceanport for 12 years. Jerry was also a member of the Oceanport Senior Citizens, and he served on the Public Employees Relations Commission. Jerry Regan was a proud patriot who served our country in time of war, and contributed to our national defense throughout his life. An Army veteran of World War II, Jerry had a long and highly decorated career at Fort Monmouth. He was promoted to the highest civilian level in the Department of Defense. He also served with me and several of my Congressional colleagues, past and present, on the Save Our Fort Committee. He was a member of the Oceanport Division of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. A great American, Jerry Regan was also a proud son of Ireland. Born in Skibbereen in County Cork, Ireland, Jerry came to the U.S. in 1932. He became an American citizen while serving in Germany with the Army. Throughout his life, Jerry maintained a strong devotion to both his native and his adopted homelands. On this occasion, I also would like to pay tribute to Jerry's wife Marilyn (Pinky) Regan, who has for many years done an absolutely superb job in my campaign office, and to their two sons and three daughters, all the grandchildren, and to Jerry's other relatives on both sides of the Atlantic. They have much to be proud of. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we are often called upon to pay tribute to outstanding citizens who are honored for their many achievements, and it is one of the most rewarding parts of our jobs as elected officials. It is even more rewarding when the person being honored was a respected colleague and a valued friend, like Jerry Regan. The dedication of the Jeremiah F. Regan Library/Media Center will stand for years to come as a tribute to the public service of an outstanding citizen and community leader. For those of us who were privileged to know him, the memories of Jerry Regan's warmth, humor and genuine decency will be equally enduring.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend some additional time this evening, if I could, on two other international issues. I just returned last week with the President from an official state visit to India as well as Bangladesh. I thought that the trip and the visit by the President was very worthwhile. There is no question in my mind that it was a historic visit that managed to bring the United States and India closer together. This was the first visit by an American President to India and to the subcontinent in more than 2 decades. I wanted to just, if I could, in the little bit of time tonight, assess what was accomplished and also make my analysis of how much work still needs to be done. The key outcome of the President's trip is the message, I think, that should be sent to our administration, our State Department, about which South Asian nation can be relied upon to be an effective partner for the United States in the years to come. That Nation, of course, is India. Then, on the other hand, which South Asian nation stands in direct opposition to America's interests and values. I do not think there is any question, based on that trip, that the Nation in that category is Pakistan. President Clinton went to South Asia with an agenda of promoting peace, stability, regional integration, democracy, trade, market reforms, and the settlement of disputes through negotiations. Well, India's elected leaders clearly embraced President Clinton's agenda. Pakistan's military dictatorship, on the other hand, clearly ignored it. Mr. Speaker, I hope this lesson is not lost on the policy makers in our State Department and the National Security Council. During the Cold War, military and intelligence links were established between the United States and Pakistan. But we live in a changed world now. Unfortunately, there are many who are still set in the old ways, both here in Washington as well as in Pakistan. I hope what we have witnessed in the past week with the President's trip to the subcontinent will be taken seriously by our policy makers and that we will see significant changes in U.S.-South Asia policies. I participated in the President's visit to India, but also to his visit to Bangladesh. I want to report that that trip to Bangladesh was also valuable and productive. In addition to the goodwill that we generated between India and the United States and Bangladesh and the United States, there were some substantive accomplishments on initiatives that will improve the quality of life for the people of South Asia and create new opportunities for American businesses in this important and emerging region of the world. One of the President's top priorities in making the trip to South Asia was to call for a peaceful solution to the Kashmir conflict that has divided India and Pakistan for decades. India's elected leaders have long made it clear that they seek the same thing. Well, last Monday, not yesterday, but the previous Monday, Mr. Speaker, on his first full day in India's capital of New Delhi, President Clinton and India's Prime Minister Vajpayee signed a vision statement outlining the direction of the partnership of the world's two largest democracies in the 21st century. In their joint appearance, Prime Minister Vajpayee stated that India remains committed to resolving its differences with its neighbors through peaceful bilateral dialogue and in an atmosphere free from the thought of force and violence. The prime minister stressed the need for neighboring countries to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and to base their relationship on agreements solemnly entered into. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, President Clinton did not hear the same message during his brief visit to the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. President Clinton stressed to General Musharraf, the military leader who seized power in Pakistan in a coup last October, that there could be no military solution in Kashmir by incursions across the line of control, the de facto border between India and Pakistani-controlled territory in Kashmir. Our President called for restraint, respect for the line of control, and rejection of violence and return to dialogue. In a speech to the Pakistani people, broadcast on national television and radio, President Clinton stated, ``We want to be a force for peace. But we cannot force peace. We cannot impose it. We cannot and will not mediate or resolve the dispute in Kashmir. Only you and India can do that, through dialogue.'' Now, in marked contrast, Mr. Speaker, to India's elected prime minister, Pakistan's military dictator did not echo the call for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict. Instead, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the general fell back on the old claim that Pakistan had nothing to do with sending forces across the line of control last year. As a matter of fact, in a recent interview with the Washington Post prior to President Clinton's visit to India, General Musharraf himself admitted the Pakistani government's involvement in last year's attack against India's side of the line of control. Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's New York Times, yesterday being Monday, the 27th of March, an editorial stated, and I quote, ``In his six-hour stop in Islamabad on Saturday, including a 90-minute meeting with General Musharraf and an unflinching television address to the Pakistani people, Mr. Clinton delivered the right messages, but he did not get a helpful response. Indeed, General Musharraf, in a surreal news conference following the visit, sounded as if he had not heard a word Mr. Clinton said.'' That New York Times editorial, entitled ``Perils in Presidential Peacemaking,'' cited the disappointing results of the meeting with General Musharraf and of the meeting in Geneva with Syrian President Assad. The meetings accomplished little, quoting from the Times, ``because neither interlocutor was in the mood to do business. America may be the sole superpower today, but that does not guarantee cooperation from intransigent leaders like General Musharraf and Mr. Assad.'' Mr. Speaker, one of the things that leaders like General Musharraf and President Assad have in common was they were not elected to their post and they do not face the institutions of accountability that we expect in a democratic society. Obviously, we have to deal with such authoritarian leaders around the world, and sometimes we can accomplish productive things with them. But the results are often frustrating. In light of India's willingness to enter into a process of dialogue with Pakistan, it is truly a shame that General Musharraf let this opportunity go by without making any effort at reconciliation. One of the key challenges of President Clinton's visit was to make it clear to the Pakistani junta that his visit did not constitute American support for the coup that overthrew the civilian government. While maintaining respect for Pakistani sovereignty, the President stated that, ``The answer to flawed democracy is not to end democracy, but to improve it.'' But on the eve of President Clinton's visit, in what I would characterize as largely a public relations move, General Musharraf announced a timetable for local elections between December of this year and August 2001. But the General refused to provide a time frame for national elections. The bottom line is that the general appears intent on holding on to power for the foreseeable future. This is a stark contrast, Mr. Speaker, between India and Pakistan. India again proved itself to be the thriving democracy with a free press and respect for what we Americans call first amendment rights. While President Clinton's visit was widely hailed throughout India, there were opponents of the U.S., and peaceful demonstrators were allowed to express their views. During the President's speech to the Parliament, those of us who were part of the bipartisan delegation in New Delhi that accompanied President Clinton had an opportunity to interact with our counterparts in India's parliament. We sat on the floor with them just as we would in the House of Representatives here. How different was that from the closed door meetings with an unelected general that took place in Pakistan. Two other huge areas of concern in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship are Pakistan's disturbing close relationship with terrorist organizations, many of which operate on Pakistani soil, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology with some of the world's most unstable and dangerous nations. Again, the response of General Musharraf was not encouraging. Casting a shadow over President Clinton's trip was the tragic and shocking massacre of 36 innocent Sikh villagers in India's state of Jammu and Kashmir. This terrible incident took place while we were in India with the President. It was the first large-scale attack against the Sikh community in Jammu and Kashmir. But it is consistent with this ongoing terrorist campaign that has claimed the lives of thousands of peaceful civilians in Kashmir. This terrorist campaign has repeatedly and convincingly been linked to elements operating within Pakistan, often with the direct or indirect support of Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is no coincidence that this massacre in Kashmir took place during Clinton's visit to South Asia. I believe these terrorist groups and those who support them in Pakistan wanted an incident that would draw attention to the Kashmir issue while stepping up the campaign of fear intended to drive Hindus, and now Sikhs, out of Kashmir. There have been also crude attempts to blame the massacre on India, which is an outright untruth, in an effort to try to turn the Sikh community against India. As always, these actions backfire in terms of their intended propaganda effect. What is tragic, besides the loss of innocent lives, is the fact that Pakistan continues to squander resources on weapons and support for terrorism in Kashmir. Estimates have put the average income in Pakistan at about a dollar a day. Democracy has been squelched. President Clinton tried to approach the Pakistani leadership with a message of friendship, but with serious expectations about what steps Pakistan must take to be a full-fledged member of the community of nations. But that message, President Clinton's message, was ignored or rejected by the Pakistani dictatorship. Lastly on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say, in India and Bangladesh, President Clinton outlined a number of programs for increased trade and investment in the United States, as well as ways to increase cooperation among the nations of the region in the energy sector and other areas. Some day, it is to be hoped that Pakistan will be able to be a part of this new-found cooperation with the United States and with its neighboring countries. But this cannot happen under the terms Pakistan has set for itself. I regret that the current government in Pakistan did nothing to encourage the hope for progress, but it was certainly not for the lack of trying by both the United States and India. 179th Anniversary of Greek Independence

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I would like to talk for a little bit about the issue of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, because I believe that it is imperative that this Congress, this House of Representatives in particular, pass a prescription drug benefit that is affordable and that every American, every senior citizen, everyone that is eligible for Medicare, would be able to take advantage of. Mr. Speaker, so far we hear the Republican leadership talking about the need for a prescription drug benefit in the context of Medicare, but yet we have seen no action. No action in committee, no action on the floor in either House. President Clinton has rightly pointed out that the government must subsidize drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries, not just for those who have modest incomes or use large amounts of medicine. Some of my Republican colleagues want to give Federal grants to the States to help low-income elderly people buy prescription drugs. But my point tonight is that that approach is unacceptable, because more than half of the Medicare beneficiaries who lack prescription drug coverage have incomes more than 50 percent above the official poverty line. Another Republican proposal that I hear from some of my colleagues would give tax breaks to elderly people so they can buy private insurance covering prescription drugs. But again this proposal would benefit the wealthiest seniors without providing any help to low- and middle-income seniors. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, and President Clinton has made it over and over again, and Democrats on our side of the aisle will continue to make the point, that we need to provide prescription drug coverage for all seniors and we need to end the drug price discrimination which so many of our seniors are witness to and suffer from. Just by way of background, Mr. Speaker, some information or some factual background about why this prescription drug benefit is necessary. Fifteen million Medicare beneficiaries right now have no prescription drug coverage, requiring them to pay their outpatient prescription drug costs entirely themselves. Millions of other seniors are at risk of losing coverage or have inadequate, expensive coverage. Indeed, the Consumers Union has found that seniors currently receiving prescription drug coverage through private Medigap policies are not getting a good deal. Specifically, in 1998, Consumers Union analysis found that a typical 75-year-old is paying an additional premium of $1,850 per year for a prescription drug benefit that is capped at $1,250 a year. Hence, the typical 75-year-old is paying in premiums more than the value of the prescription drug coverage. There are so many problems with the so-called coverage that we have out there in terms of its being inadequate and consumers having to pay too much, as well as a large amount of seniors that have no coverage at all. The problem of seniors paying prescription drug costs out of pocket has become particularly acute because the costs of prescription drugs continue to soar. The cost of prescription drugs rose by 14 percent in 1997 compared to 5 percent for health services overall. The pinch on seniors is especially hard because people buying prescription drugs on their own, such as the seniors who have no or inadequate insurance coverage, usually have to pay the highest prices for them and they are unable to wield as much leverage as health plans and insurance companies that often can negotiate discounts. They do not have that opportunity to negotiate the discounts. Seniors are the portion of the population that is the most dependent on prescription drugs. Whereas seniors are only 12 percent of the total population, they use more than one-third of the prescription drugs used in the U.S. every year. When Medicare was created back in 1965, prescription drugs did not play a significant role in the Nation's health care; and that is why it was not included in the time when Medicare was started. However, due to the great advances in pharmaceuticals in the past 34 years, prescription drugs now play a central role in the typical senior's health care. As President Clinton has pointed out, if we were creating Medicare today, no one would ever consider not having a prescription drug benefit. Drugs that are now routinely prescribed for seniors to regulate blood pressure, lower cholesterol, ward off osteoporosis, these kinds of drugs had not been invented when Medicare began as a Federal program in 1965. Today, the typical American age 65 or older uses 18 prescription drugs a year. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line that I am trying to get across, and that so many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have been trying to get across, is essentially that too many seniors find themselves unable to pay for their prescription drugs. The Democrats want to address this crisis and we want to enact a prescription drug plan this year to help all seniors afford the overwhelming cost of medication. Now, I do not insist, and Democrats in general have not insisted, on any particular plan as long as it covers everyone and it is affordable. But because of the fact that the Republican leadership has so far refused to take any action on the prescription drug issue in the context of Medicare, we have been forced to essentially move to a procedure in the House called the discharge petition. If a bill is not released from committee or does not come to the floor, the Members of the House of Representatives have the option of signing a discharge petition at the desk here to my right that would essentially force the bill to come to the floor for a vote. So, because of the Republican inaction on the prescription drugs issue in the context of Medicare, we have been trying to get as many Democrats, as well as Republicans, as possible to sign a discharge petition on two bills that would address the problem in a comprehensive way. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a little time talking about those two bills, because I think they may not be the only answer, but they are certainly a good answer to the problem that so many seniors face in terms of their inability to afford or have access to prescription drugs. The first bill is sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), H.R. 1495. It would add an outpatient prescription drug benefit to Medicare; basically provide for the benefit. The bill covers 80 percent of routine drug expenditures and 100 percent of pharmaceutical expenditures for chronically ill beneficiaries who incur drug costs of more than $3,000 a year. This legislation would create a new outpatient prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part B. The benefit has two parts: A basic benefit that would fully cover the drug needs of most beneficiaries; and, as I mentioned, a stop-loss benefit that will provide much-needed additional coverage to the beneficiaries who have the highest drug costs. After beneficiaries meet a separate drug deductible of $200, coverage is generally provided at levels similar to regular Part B benefits with the beneficiary paying not more than 20 percent of the program's established price for a particular product. The basic benefit would provide coverage up to $1,700 annually. Medicare would provide stop- loss coverage; Medicare would pay 100 percent of the costs once annual out-of-pocket expenditures exceed $3,000. Seniors with drug costs in excess of the basic benefit but below the stop-loss trigger would be allowed to self pay for additional medications at the private entity's discount price. As I said, there are two aspects of this that the Democrats as a party have tried to address. One is the need for a basic prescription drug benefit, and the other issue relates to the price discrimination that seniors face right now if they are not part of a plan, in which case they have to pay a lot more for the coverage because they cannot negotiate a good price for prescription drugs. In the second bill that we have been seeking to discharge to the House floor, and various Democrats have signed the discharge petition for, this bill is the bill sponsored by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), H.R. 664, that calls for drug companies to end price discrimination and make their products available to seniors at the same low prices that companies give the Federal Government and other favored customers. If I could just talk about this bill in a little more detail. It is called the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. Basically, it was put together by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) because of various studies that were done by the Committee on Government Reform and that Democrats have looked into in order to suggest an answer to the problems that seniors have with price discrimination. There have been studies in congressional districts across the country that have shown that drug manufacturers engage in widespread price discrimination. Seniors and others who buy their own prescription drugs are forced to pay twice as much for their drugs as are the drug manufacturers' most favored customers such as the Federal government and, of course, the large HMOs. For some prescription drugs, seniors must pay 10 times more than these favored customers. This price discrimination has a devastating effect on older Americans. Although they have the greatest need and the least ability to pay, senior citizens without prescription drug coverage must pay far more for prescription drugs than the favored buyers and, as a result of these high prices, many senior citizens are forced to choose between buying food and paying for medication they need. I do not have to mention, Mr. Speaker, there are so many cases like this in my district and throughout the country where seniors are forced to make this decision and choose between the drugs and the medication and buying food. The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act will protect senior citizens from drug price discrimination and make prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. The legislation achieves these goals by allowing pharmacies that serve Medicare beneficiaries to purchase prescription drugs at the low prices available to the Federal Government and other favored customers. The legislation has been estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by more than 40 percent. Again, if I could summarize what the Allen-Turner bill would do, it would allow pharmacies to purchase prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at low prices. Pharmacies will be able to purchase prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at the same prices available to the Federal Government and these other favored HMOs. It also uses a streamlined, market-based approach. It would allow pharmacies to use the existing pharmaceutical distribution system and will not establish a new Federal bureaucracy. And the new access to discounts by pharmacies will enhance economic competition. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying, and I want to stress again, I am not saying that these two bills, the Stark-Waxman bill or the Allen-Turner bill, the subject of the Democrats' discharge petitions, are the only approach. But I believe that something has to be done soon along the lines of the approach that these two bills take, and that is a comprehensive benefit for every senior under Medicare and a way to achieve affordable prices. The problem of the lack of an affordable prescription drug benefit is really the biggest problem facing the Medicare program today. As I mentioned before, Medicare is a good program but this is a huge gap that must be filled in the program. And I do not think it can be corrected piecemeal by simply devising a plan that covers the poorest seniors as some of my Republican colleagues have suggested. It should be a comprehensive and affordable drug benefit available to all seniors, regardless of income. It is not clear to me whether the Republican leadership is prepared to move away from this idea of covering only one-third of Medicare beneficiaries who lack any prescription drug coverage at all. The Speaker has appointed a partisan task force to study the issue, and I hope this is not a mere diversionary tactic to stall any action to move legislation forward and to end price discrimination. Hopefully, this task force will report soon and we will see some action that will come into committee and eventually be marked up and come to the floor. I just want to stress that when it comes to an examination of who has taken the lead in trying to fix this problem, the record is very clear. The Republicans have done very little on this issue. Democrats, on the other hand, have been on the House floor day after day since the 106th Congress began pushing for consideration of legislative solutions such as those that have been offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), as I mentioned. The key is that both the Stark and the Allen plans would increase the negotiating power of those seeking to provide a Medicare drug benefit allowing pharmaceuticals to be purchased at cheaper prices and passing the savings on to all interested seniors. The President, we also know, has a comprehensive plan. His plan would also provide pharmaceuticals to seniors who need them at discounted prices. I want to stress that I also support his plan, and his plan also will accomplish the goal of covering all seniors and affordability. On the other hand, I do not know of any Republican proposals or expressions of support for confronting the issue of pharmaceutical price discrimination. And we cannot, we cannot address this problem without dealing with that price discrimination issue. Before closing with regard to the prescription drug issue, because I do want to move on to a couple of other subjects, I just want to express my view that it is also important to bring in the pharmaceutical companies in our efforts to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I thought that it was very encouraging earlier this year when the drug companies dropped their initial opposition to a benefit and specifically to the President's proposal. That was refreshing. In my home State of New Jersey, of course, there are a lot of pharmaceutical companies; and I was contacted by some of the New Jersey pharmaceutical executives who expressed their willingness to sit down and help come up with a plan. I think that the reason that they did that is because they realize we need action. They realize that seniors are suffering, and they realize that it is possible to put together, hopefully in a bipartisan way, a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will cover all seniors and that will be affordable. I would simply urge my colleagues and the Republican leadership that are in charge of the House of Representatives to act quickly on this. Until they do, I and other Democrats will come to the House floor on a regular basis demanding action, because seniors need it. This is a major issue for them. They are suffering, and they need to have our attention focused on this issue before the Congress adjourns this year. Lessons For United States Diplomacy: India Responds To Clinton Message, But Not Pakistan

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, lastly today, if I could just spend a few minutes, I noticed that, earlier this evening, a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle made statements on the floor addressing the 179th anniversary of Greek independence. I wanted tonight, before I conclude, to just congratulate the people of Greece and, of course, Americans of Greek descent, on this 179th anniversary, which occurred over the weekend, last Saturday, March 25. I think we all know that, throughout our country's history, Greece has been one of our greatest allies, joining the U.S. in defending and promoting democracy in the direst of circumstances. The Greek people have also made invaluable contributions to the betterment of American's society. Following traditions established by their descendants, Greek-Americans have reached the highest levels of achievement in education, business, the arts, politics, and athletics, to name just a few; and American culture has been enriched as a result. But I wanted to take the opportunity this evening on the anniversary of Greek independence today to discuss an issue that is of great concern to Greece and to Greek Americans, and that is the proposed $4 billion of attack helicopters to Turkey by the United States and the current negotiations and the Cyprus issue. Let me just say in unambiguous terms that the U.S. should not go forward with the sale of attack helicopters to Turkey for a variety of reasons. Chief among them are the continued human rights abuses by the Turkish military against the Kurdish people in Turkey and the potential to undermine the recent thaw in relations that has occurred between Turkey and Greece. Human rights abuses by the Turkish military against the Kurdish minority in Turkey have been well documented, not only by human rights organizations, but by the U.S. State Department as well. These abuses are systematic and in and of themselves are reason enough not to go forward with the sale of U.S. attack helicopters to Ankara. In 1998, the administration outlined the progress in human rights Turkey would need to make in order for such a sale to go through. Those conditions have certainly not been met, Mr. Speaker. To ignore this fact would be to violate our country's own deeply held beliefs about human rights. This, however, is hardly the only reason why the sale should not go forward. Moving forward with the sale would undermine our long-standing policy to help ease tensions in the region between Greece and Turkey. The U.S. credibility with Greece will surely suffer if we urge them to take steps to reduce tensions with Turkey at the same time we sell Ankara attack helicopters. Such a sale could hardly come at a worse time. There had been a thaw in relations between Greece and Turkey sparked by the humanitarian gestures each country made to the other following earthquakes that rocked both nations last year. The helicopter sale could well be seen by Greece as a destabilizing step and upset the fragile progress that has been made in this regard. Similarly, the proposed sale could have an equally harmful effect on the new round of peace negotiations in Cyprus. With these talks recently underway, it would be particularly foolish to sell Turkey high-tech offensive U.S. weapon systems. The United States' long-standing policy has been that any settlement of the Cyprus problem be consistent with innumerous U.N. resolutions that have been passed on the Cyprus situation over the last two and a half decades. As my colleagues know, that is also the position of the Cyprus government. In other words, the U.S. position on Cyprus is consistent with that of Cyprus and Greece themselves. Moving forward with the helicopter sale would undercut the U.S.'s long-standing position on this issue and it simply should not happen. The United States, Mr. Speaker, should be doing exactly the opposite of what the administration is proposing. Rather than cozying up to the Turkish military through the sale of attack helicopters, the U.S. should be publicly and privately coming down hard on Ankara and the Turkish military. In unequivocal language, and through both private and public mediums, the U.S. should communicate to Turkey, and particularly to the Turkish military, that there will be immediate and severe consequences in U.S.-Turkish relations if progress is not made on the Cyprus issue. I do not have to repeat, but I will say that the illegal occupation of Cyprus is now almost 26 years old. Those of us who have worked on this issue in the House of Representatives must take advantage of every opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to bringing freedom and independence back to the Cypriot people. Indeed, reaffirming our commitment to standing firm with the Greek people, just as they have stood with us throughout our history, is a very appropriate thing to do on Greek Independence Day. Indeed, this is precisely why I wanted to talk about the issues I have raised today. I can think of no better occasion to speak against the proposal to sell American attack helicopters to Turkey than on Greek Independence Day, a day when we should be honoring Greece for its commitment to our shared values and celebrating ways to strengthen the ties between our two countries, not weaken them. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I once again congratulate Greek Americans and the people of Greece on the 179th anniversary of Greek independence. I urge all my colleagues to do the same and to join me in opposing the sale of attack helicopters to Turkey, in working for a just resolution to the Cyprus problem, and in working to strengthen the special bond that the United States and Greece have shared for so long.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my constituents in the Borough of Highlands, NJ, as this community celebrates its 100th anniversary. To commemorate this great occasion, a centennial dinner was held yesterday evening at Bahr's restaurant, since 1917 an institution in this community located on beautiful Sandy Hook Bay. Mr. Speaker, we stand at the threshold of a new century. At the last turn of the century, Highlands became a borough, having separated from Middleton Township. But, the history of the area goes back a great deal further. The first Europeans to see Highlands were Giovanni Verrazano and his crew aboard the Dauphine. The first map of the Highlands area was made by the Spaniard Diego Ribero, who called the area now known to us as Sandy Hook as Cabo De Arenas (cape of sands) and the Navesink/ Shrewsbury River as Rio de Santiago. It was on September 2, 1609, that Henry Hudson first saw the Highlands area. The name of this explorer continues to be a household name in the Borough as the regional high school serving the young people of the area is Henry Hudson Regional High School. Throughout the Colonial and Revolutionary eras, many of the illustrious names still recalled throughout Monmouth County, New Jersey and the nation were associated with Highlands. Richard Hartshorne, for whom Hartshorne Woods County Park is named, settled in Highlands in 1678. In 1778, the British General Clinton retreated through Highlands after his defeat in the Battle of Monmouth, a major turning point in America's War for Independence. In 1782, Captain Joshua Huddy was hanged at Water Witch. Phillip Freneau, known as the ``poet of the Revolution,'' wrote a poem called ``Navesink'' focused on the Highlands hills. James Fennimore Cooper served in the Navy doing shore patrol of the Raritan Bay area during the years 1805-11, and in 1830 this great American writer would produce The Water Witch, whose setting is the Highlands hills. (Water Witch Avenue is to this day one of the borough's thoroughfares.) In 1872, the noted engraver Granville Perkins came to Highlands to sketch several scenes for the first edition of Picturesque America. In 1876, William Cullen Bryant published the Centennial Edition of Picturesque America in which Highlands was featured in the picture and text as the leading site. In 1875, Walt Whitman visited Highlands and wrote two poems, ``Fancies at Navesink.'' In 1889, Harper's magazine writer F.E. Fryatt visited Highlands and wrote extensively of its beauty, sites and quaint way of life. That same year, the noted writer Gustav Kobbe visited Highlands and described town life, writing the first description of the clamming industry. Perhaps the best known landmark of Highlands is the Twin Lights, which holds a commanding position overlooking Sandy Hook Bay and the gateway from the New Jersey/New York Harbor area to the Atlantic Ocean. The first single beacon lighthouse was built in 1765. It was in 1828 that the first Twin Lights were built. In 1841, the south tower of the Twin Lights received a Fresnel lens. In 1862, the present Twin Lights were constructed, and in 1889 the south tower was fitted with an electric arc light to produce 25,000 candle power output. In 1924, an incandescent lamp replaced the arc light, to produce 9,000,000 candle power output. The Twin Lights were deactivated and shut off in 1952, and in 1965 it was made a National Historic Site. Highlands has been throughout its history a major transportation hub. In 1832, the steamboat Saratoga was the first to serve Highlands from New York City, ushering in the steamboat age which ran for 100 years. In 1865, the Long Branch and Sea Shore Railroad began its run between Long Branch and Spermaceti Cove steamboat dock, bringing New York City vacationers to the Jersey Shore. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, rail and trolley service helped bring people to Highlands and on to other transportation infrastructure. In 1872, the first Highlands-Sea Bright bridge was opened (although it was struck by a sloop and wrecked three years later.) The current drawbridge along Route 36, built in 1932 and called the Million Dollar Bridge, has proven much more durable in our present-day transportation age. Today, Highlands is still well known for its fishing industry and marinas. In 1947, the Highlands boat basin was renovated. Although the age of steam ships has passed into memory, Highlands today is the site of ferry service that continues to provide round trip transportation to New York for commuters and day-trippers. Through the years, members of diverse religious denominations found a home in Highlands, as members of various denominations established meeting places, often in people's homes. Today, the Borough is the home to a number of houses of worship with deep roots in the community. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the community developed a strong system of schools and other public services as the quality of life and sense of community continued to improve. Residential communities took shape and a strong commercial life was established. Highlands Borough was established in name in 1900. Twelve years later, the Water Witch section officially became part of the Borough. Also in 1912, the waterfront area bounded by Bay Avenue, Shrewsbury Avenue and Miller Street was filled in and streets were laid out for houses to be built. Throughout the 20th century, Highlands developed its fame and renown as home of some of the Jersey Shore's best seafood restaurants, as well as charming bed-and-breakfast establishments. At the time of Highlands' founding in 1900, the United States Census listed a population of 848 persons. By the time of the 2000 Census is completed, it will indicate that the community has grown by a factor of six. The people of Highlands have played an important role in the history of our country, state and nation, involved at every stage of our history from the earliest days. In the last 100 years, The Borough has survived and rebounded from natural disasters, such as nor'easters and hurricanes, as well as fires and other disasters. It even enjoyed a brief period of notorious fame during Prohibition as a center for illicit trade on water and land for illegal whiskey. On this great occasion, I want to express my best wishes to Mayor Richard W. O'Neil, Council Members John Bentham, Dolores Monohan Howard, Sherry Ruby and Robert M. Rauen, and all of the dedicated men and women who make the Borough services work day-in and day-out. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and an honor for me to pay tribute to the Borough of Highlands, a beautiful community with an unsurpassed location, a place with a proud history, a bright future and many, many great people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 18, 2000, the National Council of Negro Women, Inc. (NCNW), North Shore Area Section (NSAS) is sponsoring its 17th Annual Founder's Celebration Luncheon at Fort Monmouth, NJ. On that occasion, the annual Mahala Field Atchison Awared will be presented to Dorothy McNish, an NSAS member. Since 1989, this award has been presented annually to a member of the North Shore Area Section, in memory of Mrs. Atchinson, an exemplary educator and humanitarian. Her lifelong devotion to enriching the lives of children and making our community a better place has been recognized in many ways. In 1973, the Primary School on Sycamore Avenue in Tinton Falls, NJ, was renamed Mahala F. Atchinson School. It is indeed a significant honor for Ms. McNish to receive this award, and I am proud to pay tribute to her on this occasion. The keynote speaker at Saturday's event will be Major General Robert Nabors, the Commander of the U.S. Army's CECOM (Communications Electronics Command) at Fort Monmouth. Major General Nabors has been the Commander at CECOM since September 1, 1998. He has served our country in numerous posts, both internationally in Vietnam, Korea, Germany, and Italy, and domestically, most recently at the command of the 5th Signal Command, prior to assuming the command at CECOM. During his distinguished career, he has won numerous awards and decorations. Major General Nabors and his wife Valerie have three adult children. The National Council of Negro Women, Inc., North Shore Area Section, is a non-profit community-based organization striving to ensure the educational, social, economic and cultural enrichment of African American women, their families and their communities. The NCNW, which was founded in 1935 by the noted educator and human rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune, fulfills its mission through research, advocacy, national and community based services and programs in the U.S. and in African countries. Born of NCNW, NSAS has been a part of the Monmouth County community for 18 years. I would like to pay tribute to all of those who have worked so hard to make Saturday's event a success, particularly NSAS current president Laura Lewis and luncheon chairperson Girdie B. Washington.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as President Clinton prepares for his historic trip to South Asia, I wanted to address some of the key concerns that are sure to arise during his visit to Pakistan. While most of the President's trip will be spent in India, the world's largest democracy, and in Bangladesh, the President will also be traveling at the end of his trip to Pakistan. He will meet with General Musharraf, who seized power from the democratic, civilian government in a military coup last October. Mr. Speaker, recently, Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post conducted an interview with Pakistan's military dictator, General Musharraf, and in the interview the general made some statements that cannot go unchallenged. It is apparent from the general's comment that Pakistan is trying to create the appearance that the visit by the President of the United States constitutes an endorsement of the military coup. In particular, Mr. Speaker, General Musharraf stated of the President's decision to go to Pakistan, and I quote, ``It is also recognition of the righteousness of our stand in Kashmir.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, the White House has tried to make it clear that the trip does not represent an endorsement of the overthrow of Pakistan's civilian, elected government by General Musharraf. In case there is any doubt, I would like to quote from President Clinton directly. Last Thursday, March 9, President Clinton said of his upcoming visit to Pakistan, and I quote, ``I think it would be a mistake not to go, but it would be a grave mistake for people to think that my going represents some sort of endorsement of a nondemocratic process which occurred there.'' The President went on to say that his visit is a ``recognition that America's interest and values will be advanced if we maintain some contact with the Pakistani government.'' But he added, ``I think that our ability to have a positive influence on the future direction of Pakistan in terms of the restoration of democracy, in terms of the ultimate resolution of issues in the Indian subcontinent and in terms of avoiding further dangerous conflicts, will be greater if we maintain our cooperation.'' I want to emphasize that in this statement by the President and in all statements from the White House and the State Department about the President's decision to visit Pakistan, it has been stated and reiterated that the restoration of democracy is a key objective. In her statement yesterday to the Asian Society, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that ``The President will make clear our support for an early return to democratic rule as well as our ongoing friendship with the Pakistani people.'' Mr. Speaker, what is even harder to take seriously is the General's statement about the righteousness of Pakistan's stand in Kashmir. Pakistan's involvement in Kashmir has consisted of supporting an ongoing terrorist campaign that has cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, mostly Hindus, but also many Muslims. Last year Pakistan further escalated tensions in the region by launching an attack against India's side of the line of control in Kashmir in the area of Kargil. This disastrous military campaign was condemned by the United States and other major nations. It has been widely reported that General Musharraf was the architect of the Kargil attack. In his response to a question on this from the Washington Post the general said, ``Whatever happened was the government's decision.'' That is an interesting admission, given Pakistan's earlier insistence that the hostilities in the Kargil area were the work of indigenous Kashmiri forces. Clearly, the fact that this was a government decision indicates that the Pakistani armed forces were directly involved, and General Musharraf was the army chief of staff at the time. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has stated that the U.S. will not mediate the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan unless and until both countries agree to U.S. mediation. He clearly is not taking sides on the issue of whether India vs. Pakistan is more righteous with regard to Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, I hope President Clinton's upcoming meeting with General Musharraf will be an opportunity to demonstrate to General Musharraf that he and the regime that he leads cannot continue with the current policy of suppressing democracy and on provoking a conflict with India over Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) shares many of the same concerns that I have about General Musharraf's recent statements, and on the important issues that the U.S. has to stress in our relationship with Pakistan. I would also like to associate myself with the remarks that I believe he will be making later this evening.