Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman for his kind words. I am really pleased that he is here because I think that his State really is a model for so many of the things that we have been talking about here on the House floor over the last year with regard to these health care concerns. If I could just comment on some of the things the gentleman said, with regard to the Patients' Bill of Rights, in many ways the Texas legislation, which has been in force now for a couple of years, is really a model for the Federal legislation, not only in terms of the basic rights that are provided to patients to protect them against the abuses of HMOs but also in terms of the liability provisions. It is kind of interesting, because I noticed that the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who for a long time has resisted, as long as I can remember he has been resisting the idea that there would be any ability to sue under Federal law, sue the HMO, finally came around today to saying that he would provide some limited ability to sue. Again, we are going to call him to task on that, to make sure that the Federal legislation that comes up here does provide the ability to sue as a last resort. I am sure that to some extent, though, he was probably saying that because of the Texas experience, because if we remember, when the Texas legislature was considering something like the Patients' Bill of Rights, there was tremendous opposition to any ability to sue on the grounds that the litigation would be forever and everybody would be suing the HMOs. I remember back in November when we last convened, at that point I think in the 2-year life of the Texas legislation, they had only had two people file lawsuits, maybe two or three people file lawsuits. That just totally denigrates the idea that somehow by allowing lawsuits against the HMOs that we are going to have all this litigation. But the other aspect the gentleman mentioned is just as important. In other words, the problem is if we give people all these rights to prevent abuses by HMOs but they do not have any ability to enforce it, what good are the rights? We all know that. In our Patients' Bill of Rights that passed the House, we have an internal appeal process. Then we also have an external appeal process, the idea being that if the HMO internally denies a person the ability to stay a few days in the hospital or a particular operation or procedure that the person and their doctor think they need, they can go outside the system without going to court and have an external review board look at it that is not dictated or controlled by the HMO. So we have that external review process before you would even have to sue in court. Texas has the same thing. That is one of the reasons why they have so few suits, is because these things go to an external administrative review and at that time usually the HMO reneges and lets people have the operation or procedure they think is necessary. Texas is really out front and very progressive in this regard. We need to do the same thing on the Federal level. The other thing the gentleman talked about with the prescription drugs, I just find so many of my seniors coming to me at the forums or at the office and talking about the problem not only with price but also the inability to have any kind of benefit under Medicare. We have seen so many cases, the gentleman has probably seen them in Texas, too, as a border State. I am maybe a little more familiar with the Canadian example where people have been going across the border to Canada to buy drugs because it is so much cheaper. We know the majority of Americans who are seniors have no access to prescription drug benefits. That is really crucial, too. That is going to be part of the President's agenda and the Democratic agenda again.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I share her praise for the President's equal pay initiative. If I could just say one thing about the additional funds for civil rights enforcement, one of the things that I worry about, and having been back in the district for the last two months now, my district, not the District of Columbia, is that I just see a lot of cynicism on the part of my constituents over commitments, if you will, or promises that they see the government making in sort of general terms that when it gets to the specific do not happen. That is why I think it is important. If a civil rights violation occurs, there has to be enforcement. Otherwise it is meaningless. That is true whether it is the environment or whatever it happens to be. So many people will say to me, the law says this, but in reality, it does not mean anything. That is why I think it is so important that there be increased enforcement, and obviously there will not be unless we provide the money up front to hire the people to do the work. So I think that is crucial, and I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing it to our attention. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most important dates on the calendar for the people of India, as well as for the people of Indian descent who have settled in the U.S. and around the world. January 26th is Republic Day, an occasion that inspires pride and patriotism for the people of India. Exactly one-half century ago, on January 26, 1950, India became a Republic, devoted to the principles of democracy and secularism. At that time, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected as the nation's first president. Since then, despite the challenges of sustaining economic development and promoting tolerance and cooperation amongst its many ethnic, religious and linguistic communities, India has stuck to the path of free and fair elections, a multi-party political system and the orderly transfer of power from one government to its successor. And, despite external threats to its own security, India still remains committed to playing its rightful role as a major force for peace, stability and cooperation in Asia. Mr. Speaker, India's population was estimated, just before the beginning of the new millennium, to have reached and exceeded the truly remarkable milestone of one billion people, representing approximately one-sixth of the human race. In just a few years, India will be the most populous nation on earth. It is indeed very encouraging and inspiring that the people of India have lived under a democratic form of government for more than half a century. In 1997, worldwide attention was focused on India as it celebrated the 50th anniversary of its independence. But, many Americans remain largely unfamiliar with the anniversary that Indians celebrate on January 26th. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that there is a rich tradition of shared values between the United States and India. India derived key aspects of her Constitution, particularly its statement of Fundamental Rights, from our own Bill Of Rights. India and the United States both proclaimed their independence from British colonial rule. The Indian independence movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi had strong moral support from American intellectuals, political leaders and journalists. When Time magazine recently did its ``Person of the Century'' edition, Mahatma Gandhi was selected as one of two runners-up, along with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, behind Albert Einstein. Essentially, the editors at Time recognized Gandhi as one of the three most influential and important people of the entire 20th century. Einstein himself believed that Gandhi was the greatest man of his time, and was quoted as saying: ``Generations to come will scarce believe that such as one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.'' Just last week, we paid tribute to one of our greatest American leaders, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King derived many of his ideas of non-violent resistance to injustice from the teachings and the actions of Mahatma Gandhi. I am proud that legislation was approved by Congress and signed by the President authorizing the Government of India to establish a memorial to honor Mahatma Gandhi here in Washington, DC, near the Indian Embassy on Embassy Row. The proposed statue will no doubt be a most fitting addition to the landscape of our nation's capital and a symbol of U.S.-India friendship. Mr. Speaker, there is a growing need for India and the United States, the two largest democracies of the world, to work together on a wide variety of initiatives. India and the U.S. do not always agree on every issue. But I regret that the scant coverage that India receives in our media, and even from our top policy makers, tends to focus only on the disagreements. In fact, our national interests coincide on many of the most important concerns, such as fighting the scourge of international terrorism and controlling the transfer of nuclear and other weapons technology to unstable regimes. In 1999, when Pakistani forces attacked positions on India's side of the Line of Control in Kashmir, I was very encouraged to see that the United States recognized that India was acting legitimately, in its self-defense, and that American pressure was brought to bear to convince Pakistan to call off its reckless and ill-advised attacks. I hope we can build on this progress in our bilateral relations, with the U.S. recognizing and respecting India's legitimate security needs. Given India's size and long-term record of democratic stability, I believe that India should be made a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council--a goal that I hope the United States will come to support, in light of the increasingly important role India will play in world affairs in the 21st century. India's vast middle class represents a significant and growing market for U.S. trade, while the country's infrastructure needs represent a tremendous opportunity for many American firms, large, small and mid- size. Most of the U.S. sanctions imposed on India in 1998 have been relaxed, and I will work towards the removal of the remaining sanctions. We must continue to work to preserve or re-start economic relations that have developed during the past decade, which witnessed such profound changes in our bilateral relationship, while creating a positive atmosphere for new economic relations. At the same time, I hope that we can continue to build upon educational, cultural and other people-to-people ties that have developed between our two countries. I look forward to seeing the Indian-American community, more than one million strong, continue to provide the important human ``bridge'' between our the two countries. Republic Day is being observed in America, as well as in India. On Saturday, January 22, 2000, the Indian Americans of the National Capital Area held a Gala Banquet at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, in honor of the Golden Jubilee Celebration of the Republic of India. On Wednesday, January 26, 2000, the Embassy of India in Washington will hold a reception to mark this great occasion. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me again congratulate the people of India on the occasion of Republic Day. I hope that this new century will witness a U.S.-India relationship that lives up to the great potential offered by India's and America's shared commitment to democracy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Chairman Bliley, and Chairman Tauzin, who have worked diligently to bring satellite privatization legislation before the House in these last days of this Session. This bill is an important step toward legislation that will advance increased competition in the global satellite telecommunications market. When the House passed this bill last year, it was with the firm belief that time and technology had passed by the 1962 law that created COMSAT. In spite of the overwhelming House support, the bill was stalled over concerns raised by colleagues in the other body. Since that time, Lockheed Martin has arrived on the scene to buy COMSAT and make it a normal, private company without legal immunities or exclusive access to the Intelsat system. This is exactly what the proponents of the Bliley-Tauzin bill want and is yet another example of the marketplace being ahead on Congress. To date, Lockheed has followed regular order in its acquisition of COMSAT. It has received the approval of both the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice to acquire 49% of COMSAT. Neither federal agency felt that competition or anti-trust laws were threatened by Lockheed Martin's purchase. Now it is Congress' turn to weigh on this issue and I believe that this bill goes to great lengths to achieve honest and fair competition in the satellite competition in the satellite communications market. I also believe that we can complete legislative action on this bill before Congress leaves this year, which I understand the Chairman has said he intends to do. But as we move toward that legislative objective, it is important that we realize that certain issues must be addressed before we can declare a victory for the private competitive marketplace. First of all, there is the issue known as ``Level IV direct access''. In effect, it would result in the forced divestiture of billions of dollars of Comsat shareholder investment in Intelsat infrastructure-- investment undertaken often at the behest of the U.S. Government. Level 4 direct access simply guts the economic rationale for a private company to invest in Comsat. Indeed, that may be the rationale behind this provision: to dissuade Lockheed from acquiring Comsat. If that is the case, it would be a cynical attempt to manipulate the free market in the name of ``competition.'' This provision must be changed in conference. Similarly, Congress should simply repeal the ownership cap on Comsat upon enactment of final consensus legislation, rather than making it contingent upon occurrence of unrelated events as it does now. Other outstanding differences between the House and Senate have been raised by other Members and must similarly be resolved in conference. I urge Chairman Bliley to work with Mr. Dingell toward a consensus, notably on the privatization criteria, which serve as FCC licensing criteria, and must be made more flexible. Again, I consider myself as a supporter of this bill. The Congress has been very shrewd in letting the telecommunications marketplace work its will towards fair competition. We should use this opportunity to continue that successful record. I urge the conferees to consider these issues when crafting a final package to present to the Congress and ultimately the President.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday in this House we approved on a bipartisan basis a resolution congratulating the people of India and their government for the successful parliamentary elections recently concluded by that thriving democracy. I was pleased to support that resolution and to speak in favor of it. Unfortunately, action on another resolution that has been approved by the Committee on International Relations and is ready for consideration on this floor has been delayed. That other resolution would express the strong opposition of Congress to the recent military coup in Pakistan that overthrew the civilian government. While individual members of Congress, including me, have spoken out against the Pakistani coup, it is important for the House of Representatives to go on record collectively stating that we do not tolerate the overthrow of an elected government. I am very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, in the Republican leadership for the continued delay in bringing up this resolution. Since we are about to adjourn, it is likely the resolution is dead for this year. Last month, Mr. Speaker, the military coup in Pakistan was one of a series of disturbing actions that deserve very close scrutiny and clear condemnation by the U.S. government, the Congress, as well as the administration. One of the most shocking of these was last week's rocket attacks against American and UN targets in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The rockets were aimed at buildings in the heart of the capital, including the U.S. Embassy, a library and cultural center known as the American Center, and an office tower housing several UN agencies. Thank God, no one was killed, although one person was injured, a Pakistani guard at the American Center. Mr. Speaker, the attacks came 2 days before UN sanctions were scheduled to go into effect against the Taliban redream in neighboring Afghanistan unless that country turns over bin Laden, the international terrorist who has masterminded attacks against American and western targets in various countries. There has been solid evidence in the past linking bin Laden's operation with Pakistan, so this connection is extremely plausible. As the New York Times reported last Saturday, November 13, the list of possible culprits is short. Apart from the Taliban itself, Pakistan is home to several well-armed paramilitary groups sympathetic to the Taliban and hostile to the United States, in addition to thousands of Pakistani militants, who, over the years have trained side-by-side, with Taliban Members in Islamic schools. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that Pakistan has for years been identified with the violent separatist movement in India's state of Jammu and Kashmir, causing the deaths of thousands of civilians and the displacement of hundreds of thousands from their homes. Pakistan's role in selling death and destruction in Kashmir was exposed to the world earlier this year when Pakistani military leaders, many of the same elements who carried out last month's coup d'etat, precipitated a major crisis by unleashing an attack against Indian positions in the area of Kargil, along the line of control that separates India and Pakistani controlled areas of Kashmir. Pakistan's actions were condemned by the U.S. and the international community, and Pakistan was forced to essentially withdraw. But the attacks by Pakistani forces on India army positions continued day-to- day, causing casualties on both sides and threatening the stability of the entire south Asia region. You have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, why the U.S. continues to try to win the favor of the Pakistani regime, given the proven collaboration between Pakistan and the fundamentalist Taliban militia in Afghanistan, and with bin Laden. Bin Laden and the Taliban represent the height of violent anti-Americanism, and yet here is the Pakistani regime tolerating, if not directly supporting, the operations of these movements in their country. We have recently seen another example of the lack of respect for democracy and the rule of law on the part of the new Pakistani military regime with the initiative to indict the deposed Prime Minister, Sharif, on trumped up charges of treason and hijacking, charges which carry the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get carried away singing the praises of Mr. Sharif. He was deeply involved in the ill-fated military campaign in Kashmir earlier this year. But he was the recognized legitimate leader of the nation. He had apparently attempted to dismiss the army's Chief of Staff, General Musharraf, and, instead, the general turned the tables and dismissed the prime minister, indicating who is really in charge in Pakistan. The turn of events indicates that the notion of democratic civilian leadership and the rule of law are not well developed in Pakistan. Reports in the last day out of Pakistan indicate that Prime Minister Sharif, who has been in military custody since he was deposed in the October 12th coup, has been moved to the port city of Karachi in a military aircraft in preparation for a court appearance. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, there are some who seem to welcome the seizure of military power by the military in Pakistan as a recipe for stability. I believe this is misguided thinking. First, as the rocket attacks against American targets last week indicate, the military regime is no better at maintaining stability and security than the previous civilian government. Furthermore, this year's Pakistani attack on India in Kashmir demonstrates behavior that is highly destabilizing and could lead to a wider war that would devastate much of South Asia. It was the military brass now in charge of the country who precipitated that conflict, and who continue to promote the ongoing border incidents. Finally, the fact that Pakistan has been under military dictatorship for approximately half of its 52 years of independence inevitably led General Musharraf to conclude that it was his right to dismiss the Prime Minister, not the other way around. Until that type of thinking changes, Pakistan's prospects for stability and democracy are dim. While we may not be able to change Pakistani behavior, the United States should not be playing the role of enabler, out of cynical expediency or in the misguided belief that the military regime will bring ``stability.'' This body should go on record expressing our condemnation of this year's turn of events in Pakistan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California bringing that up, because I guess we can take some solace in the fact that at least we stopped this tax break for the wealthy and for the corporate interests. Because if that had passed and the President had signed it, then there would not even be the money available in the surplus as it grows over the next few years to even address the Social Security and the Medicare prescription drug issue. So I guess we have to kind of be happy for small victories, so to speak. At least that did not happen. I agree completely. The President started out the year in his State of the Union address last year saying he wanted 1999 to be the year when we addressed the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Basically, the Republican leadership made that impossible, but we just have to try and work harder next year. We are going to be down here on the floor every day in January and February making the point that these issues, this unfinished agenda, have to be addressed.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to say with regard to the remarks that the gentleman from North Dakota made, there is no question that we have to put on the pressure with this Republican Majority when we come back to try to deal with this unfinished agenda. The one thing I wanted to mention very briefly is that we have already put in place a rule to bring up a discharge petition on the price discrimination and the prescription drug benefit. We have one bill that would basically deal with the price discrimination by putting in place a Federal remedy, and another that would provide for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We are going to make sure when we come back that we get the petition signed and that we force that issue to the floor, which we have had to do with every one of these issues, unfortunately. Take that extraordinary means of a discharge petition, which should not be the case, but unfortunately that is what is necessary to get the Republican leadership to move in the House on every one of these issues. HMO reform, campaign finance reform, gun safety, every one that we could mention we have had to go that route.

Mr. PALLONE. We have the same problem in New Jersey, maybe not as severe. But I know that the State legislature now is struggling to pass some sort of school bond modernization initiative. Obviously, if we could get money from the Federal government, it would make such a difference. Again, we talk about the school modernization, and that is nowhere to be seen in this budget. We just have to press for it as part of this unfinished agenda when we come back. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who has been down here many times talking about these issues.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for coming down. What the gentlewoman has said is so true. I do not really understand, we see my colleagues on the Republican side talk about education, but when it comes to actually trying to provide the funding that is going to go back to the local towns and help with property taxes to pay for education, they do not want to do it. The gentlewoman remembers that we were here a year ago trying to adopt a budget, and again, one of the major sticking points was their unwillingness to fund this 100,000 teachers initiative. I know when I go back to New Jersey, and basically in all the school districts, they say it is great. They like it on a bipartisan basis, because frankly, it not only means more teachers and smaller class size, but also it saves them money that they do not have to hire the teachers because they get the Federal dollars. The other initiative that is part of the unfinished agenda which the Republican leadership has refused to deal with is the school construction initiative. We have been talking about that now for several years, as well. That was sort of the second part, to bring down the class size and then provide some Federal dollars to help with school construction. That was for renovation in urban areas for older schools and also in the suburban areas where we have split sessions, and they cannot afford to build new schools to help pay for that, too. Yet that is not going to be in this budget because they say that is too much. They do not want the Federal government involved. I do not know how the Federal government helping local schools pay for school modernization is somehow ideologically a problem, but this is what we hear from the Republican side of the aisle.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman for what he said, and particularly for raising those tombstones. I just wanted to comment on some of the tombstones and some of the remarks the gentleman made because I think they are so appropriate. I really like the tombstone presentation, because I think it says it all. I mean, what do they say? ``Rest in peace, killed by the GOP, 1999.'' That is basically what we face. We know that in another day or so, once this budget is passed, that we are going to go home and the Republicans want us to go home, not having addressed this unfinished agenda, these major issues that the public cares about. When we go home, that is all we are going to hear. I know my colleague from Texas faces that, and when I go home nobody is going to tell me, thank you for passing the budget. They expect the budget to be passed. That is routine. But they want us to address these major concerns that have not been addressed. I just wanted to say a couple of things about them. The gentleman mentioned the campaign finance reform. I know that is not one that I hear too much about because I know most people think that is more of an inside situation, but it really is not. The reality is that when we have all of this money being spent that is unregulated, it really does corrupt the system. I just know from my own campaign, in my last campaign in November of 1998, I think I spent and my opponent spent about $1 million each that was regulated money, if you will. In other words, hard dollars, Federal dollars that people contributed and people disclosed, and it was a hard-fought race. But there was about $4 million to $5 million that was spent against me in independent expenditures, TV ads on New York stations, the last 2 or 3 weeks of the campaign, by a group that never identified itself. I think it called itself Americans For Job Security. They do not have to file anything; they do not have to disclose where that money came from. And to this day, we are only speculating about where we think the money came from. It was undoubtedly millions of dollars in corporate money that was coming from special interests, and we have no idea where it came from. It really corrupts the system when we have that kind of phenomenon. That is why we need to pass the Shays-Meehan bill and we need to have real campaign finance reform. The other thing the gentleman mentioned, and I appreciate the fact that he brought it up, is the targeted tax cuts, because I started out this afternoon by talking about this trillion dollar Republican tax cut that went primarily for the wealthy and for corporate interests, and I am glad the gentleman came and pointed out that we as Democrats want tax cuts as well, but we want them targeted for middle-class families, for child care, for education needs, those kinds of things, not these huge, trillion dollar tax cuts that just go to help the wealthy. I brought with me some information about that Republican tax cut, and I will just briefly mention it. Just to show how it was skewed toward the wealthy and corporations. The Republican plan means $46,000 per year for the wealthiest taxpayers that they were going to get back, but only $160 per year for the average middle-class family, and $21 billion was lavished on special interest tax breaks for big businesses. The other thing about that trillion dollar Republican tax cut is that it basically used the entire surplus and would prevent us from paying down a significant chunk of the $5.6 trillion national debt. The President keeps pointing out that we are now actually reducing the debt, paying back some of the bonds, not collecting the same interest that we were before. If we use all of that and give it back in tax breaks, one cannot pay down the national debt. But most important, that Republican tax plan just took all the money away that could be used for Medicare, for prescription drugs, and also to shore up Social Security. The other thing the gentleman mentioned, one of the tombstones was about the small class size. I think we should mention that two of the reasons, and I think the gentleman mentioned it, two of the major reasons why we stayed here for the last 6 weeks and insisted on a better budget than what the Republicans were sending to the President, two of the major reasons was because we wanted to fund that 100,000 teachers program where the money goes back to the municipalities so they do not have to pay it in local property taxes and also for the COPs program which was similar. The Republicans, as the gentleman knows, did not want to pay for that. Their budget did not include those programs. Now, the budget that we are going to adopt tomorrow does at least include those. So I guess we would have to say that at least in one of those cases, we have had success. But unfortunately, we have not had success on so many other things, the HMO reform, the Medicare prescription drugs, and so many of the other things the gentleman mentioned. But we did at least, in staying here for the last 6 weeks and insisting that they put in the 100,000 teachers and cops, at least we did accomplish something. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). I am so pleased she is joining us here this afternoon.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield before we get into that, and I do want to get into our unfinished agenda, I was reading through my papers here. I came across this editorial in the New York Times that appeared soon after the Republicans started running the ads in some Democratic districts accusing Democrats of spending the Social Security trust fund. In light of the remarks you made about the across-the-board cuts and some of the pork-barrel spending that could be eliminated, I just wanted to, if I could, quote a couple of sections of this, because I think it really responds and sums up all the things that you were saying. This is entitled ``Social Security Scare-Mongering.'' This is not us, this is the New York Times speaking. It says, Republicans are trying to make political headway using the Social Security weapon against Democrats. They are advancing a ludicrous claim that deep Republican budget cuts are needed to stop a Democratic ``raid'' on Social Security. The Republican argument rests on a fallacy that spending budget money today compromises the government's ability to meet its Social Security obligations in the future. Instead of squabbling over dollars in this year's budget, Congress can do more for Social Security by producing sound budgets that make the right investments while keeping the economy growing. A prosperous economy is the best guarantee that workers in the future will be able to afford paying for their parents' retirement. In January, President Clinton called for setting aside nearly two-thirds of the total projected Federal surplus, from Social Security and other sources, to help retire Federal debt over the next 15 years. That was a sensible proposal intended to increase the savings rate and lower future interest rates. But the argument this year is over whether a small amount of the $140 billion Social Security surplus in the current year should be used to avoid spending cuts in other programs. In fact, no damage would be done to the economy, to Social Security or to the Federal budget itself if that happened. Asserting that it is merely trying to save money for Social Security, the Republican leadership in Congress wants to cut spending by 1.4 percent across the board and block the White House's initiatives for money to hire new teachers and police officers. The Republican leaders' approach has been so wrongheaded that yesterday it provoked a revolt in the party rank and file. But it is not necessary to slash programs to ``save'' Social Security. More to the point, there are better places to save money, by cutting billions of dollars in pork- barrel projects and eliminating some of the expensive tax breaks for special interests that have made big campaign donations to the Republican Party in recent years. President Clinton is right to veto spending bills that do not meet priority needs in education, the environment, law enforcement and other areas. As the White House notes, the Republican budget schemes approved so far have already tapped the Social Security system's surplus, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That says it all. It is just a bunch of bogus claims about Social Security, spending cuts across the board instead of attacking the real spending-bloated projects that need to be attacked. As I would point out, and I know you are going to get into the unfinished agenda, the biggest thing is that they have not addressed the need to deal with Social Security and Medicare long-term. We would never have been able to address that if the President had not vetoed their huge tax cut, because there would not be any money in the surplus left to deal with Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Texas. Let me just say that before I get to this unfinished agenda, which I have to say is my real concern, because most of the debate that has occurred and most of the arguments that we have heard over the last few weeks about the budget, although, obviously, we need to pass a budget, do not deal with these other issues which are really the most important issues that face this Congress that have not been addressed by the Republican majority. I did want to say I was somewhat concerned by some of the statements made in the previous hour by Republican colleagues about the budget. Because I think I need to remind my colleagues and my constituents that the Republicans are in the majority in this House and in this Congress, in both the House and the Senate, and the bottom line is that the budget, the appropriation bills, were supposed to have been completed by October 1 of this year, which is the beginning of the fiscal year. The fact that they are not completed, in my opinion, is totally the fault of the Republican majority. They are going to say, well, they passed bills. But many of the bills they passed and sent to the President they knew would be vetoed. They knew that there was not agreement between the President and the Congress on the legislation. Rather than spend the time, particularly during the summer, trying to come up with appropriation bills and a budget that could actually get a consensus and could pass, they spent the summer and most of the last 6 months prior to that trying to put in place a trillion dollar tax cut which primarily went to wealthy Americans and also to corporate interests, to special interests, and they spent the time on that. They put in place and passed this trillion-dollar tax cut, primarily for the wealthy, knowing the President would veto it and the President did veto it, and the reason he did so is because he knew that if it passed and if it was signed into law, there would not be any money left from the surplus to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Now, after they wasted all their time on that, they put forth these appropriation bills, many of which they knew would never be approved by the President, and they started this charge a few weeks ago or a month ago, suggesting that the Democrats wanted to spend the Social Security trust fund. I just want to say one thing, if I could, because I know we have said this many times and it really is not the main reason I am here this afternoon, but the Republican leadership has broken so many promises on the budget, not only the promise not to spend the Social Security trust fund but the promise not to exceed the caps. If you remember 2 years ago, we passed the Balanced Budget Act. At that time we said that there were going to be certain caps in place every year on the amount of spending that we would do, and we also made a commitment that we were not going to use the Social Security trust fund because we were going to have a surplus and it would not be necessary to do so. Both of those promises have been broken. I just wanted to give some information about that. First, the Republican appropriation bills busted the outlay caps for fiscal year 2000 by billions of dollars. I am quoting now from the Senate majority leader, the Republican majority leader Lott who acknowledged on September 18 when he stated, ``I think you have to be honest and acknowledge that we're not going to meet the caps.'' That was in the Washington Post, September 17, 1999. Indeed, according to the latest CBO estimates of October 28, the Republican spending bills have busted the fiscal year 2000 outlay caps by $30.7 billion, although they declare about $18 billion of this is emergencies and thereby exempt from the cap. So when we talk about the Republican leadership, they are the ones that are going on the spending spree with these appropriation bills. In many cases the President has vetoed the bills because they spend too much. And, of course, they spend it on the wrong things. Secondly, on October 28, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and my colleague from Texas knows, we have mentioned this many times to the point where we get tired of repeating it, but the CBO certified then that the GOP leadership had broken their promise not to dip into the Social Security trust fund. Specifically, on October 28 the CBO sent a letter to Congress certifying that on the basis of CBO estimates of the 13 completed GOP appropriation bills, the GOP bills spent $17 billion of the Social Security surplus, even after their 1 percent across-the-board cut is taken into account. I know we heard from the other side about across-the-board cuts, how this is holding up the budget and all that. The bottom line is their own appropriation bills, their budget that they put together and sent to the President, spent a significant amount of money of the Social Security surplus. I am not looking to stress that, as my colleague from Texas knows. It is just that they keep bringing it up and they keep bringing it up, they do not pass the bills, they cannot get the budget passed. Now we are here and finally we think in the next day or two it is going to be passed, but we have all these other things that are so much more important that have not been addressed. I yield to my colleague from Texas.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield at this point. I just want the gentleman to know I intend to use the hour for the Democratic side.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that what I wanted to do during some part of this hour this afternoon was to talk about the unfinished business of this Congress. Last night, myself and several of my colleagues on the Democratic side took to the floor to basically point out how frustrated we are with the fact that a year has passed, the first year, if you will, of this 2-year congressional session in the House of Representatives, and yet the main issues that the American people seek to have us address, whether it be HMO reform or the need for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare for senior citizens, or campaign finance reform, gun safety, minimum wage, the issues that our constituents talk about on a regular basis when we are back home and when we go back home after the budget is concluded here in the House, we will be hearing about these issues again, and yet every time we try to bring these issues to the floor or pass legislation, we are thwarted by the Republican majority.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 19, 1999, Mr. J. Thomas De Bruin of West Long Branch, NJ, will be honored on the occasion of his retirement from the State of New Jersey's Office of the Public Defender, after 31 years of distinguished public service. Mr. De Bruin served as a police officer in West Long Branch from 1967 to 1970. In October of 1970, he began working at the Public Defender's Office in what would prove to be a long and impressive career. From 1991 until his retirement, Mr. De Bruin was a Chief Investigator, and since 1995 he has been the Supervisor of the Polygraph Unit. He has been a certified polygraph examiner since 1982. His professional memberships include: the New Jersey Polygraphists, Inc., since 1983, and Past President 1997-98; the American Polygraph Association since 1986, including service on the Membership Committee 1998-99; and the Public Defenders' Investigators' Association of New Jersey, 1971-91. Mr. De Bruin was also very active in community affairs. He served on a number of commissions and bodies in his home town of West Long Branch, including: the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Sport Association, the Recreation Commission and the Historic Society. Mr. De Bruin is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Old First United Methodist Church. He has served as Director of the West Long Branch Little League and as Treasurer of the Public School PTA. He has been a Webelos Leader of the Cub Scouts of America, and President of the Shore Regional High School Quarterback Club. He was a Manager/Coach of the first championship season of the West Long Branch Lions of the Seaboard Bigger League in 1971. Mr. De Bruin has also served as Musical Director of the Asbury Park and Red Bank Area Chapters of the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barbershop Quartet Singing in America. Tom De Bruin resides in West Long Branch with his wife Louise. They have two adult sons, Brian and Dominick, and a daughter-in-law. Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Public Defender will be much the poorer with Mr. De Bruin's departure. But I am confident that Monmouth County will continue to benefit from his commitment to service and dedication to our community for many years to come.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman for mentioning that this unfinished agenda that we are realizing over the next few days because the Republicans want to go home really could have included significant tax cuts for the average family if only they would have, on the other side, agreed to deal with those real tax cuts for families, rather than the larger tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporate interests. I yield now to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. It is so true. We know because just for the last few days when we were home for Friday over the couple of days we had around Veterans Day, that that is what I am hearing. I am hearing from my constituents about these unfinished needs and about the prescription drugs and the HMOs. The one letter that I read earlier, this is from a gentleman who actually had a Medicare plan that included the prescription drug benefit and now it has been dropped completely. So I am getting all of that. I am getting a lot of people who had the benefit completely dropped and others for whom it costs a lot more. The one thing that the gentleman from Texas said that I wanted to highlight again, before we conclude tonight, is a lot of times I think that the Republican leadership thinks that the American public, that they can pull the wool over their eyes, that they do not really understand what is going on down here, that a lot of people do not pay attention. And we always hear that people do not pay attention to what goes on in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I find just the opposite to be true. When we had that situation with the trillion-dollar tax cut that the Republicans put forth during the summer, which was mostly to pay for the wealthy, to help the wealthy and the corporate interests, I was amazed when I went home because everybody always says the public is selfish, they want a tax cut. They are not going to worry about the implications of it. I found just the opposite was true. Everyone, particularly the seniors, understood exactly that that was not a tax cut that was going to help the average person and that for senior citizens it meant that there would be no money left to deal with the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. I think that is why when we came back, there was no effort to override the President's veto and we really have not heard any more about it for the last 2 or 3 months because they realize that the public got it and that the public understood that that was wrong and that it was taking away from other more important priorities. I do not know if it will stop them, because as I said before, we hear that the Speaker is talking about bringing up another major tax cut in January. We just have to make sure that this unfinished agenda that we have been talking about tonight, that we address it and that we force the Republican leadership to address it when we come back in January. The President will deliver his State of the Union Address. I know he is going to talk about prescription drugs because he set the pace for that last year. That and these other priorities have to be met. But we will be here. We will be determined that we are going to deal with this unfinished agenda.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that that whole effort on the Republican side to talk about tapping the existing trust fund is nothing more than an effort to disguise the fact that they are not providing one penny for long-term solvency of social security and Medicare. They just keep confusing the issues constantly. I appreciate what the gentleman said. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we still do not control the process because we are in the minority.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to spend some time tonight, and I am going to be joined by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), talking about the unfinished business of this Congress and of this House of Representatives. We know that it is likely, either tomorrow or within the next few days, that the Republican leadership will bring up probably an omnibus appropriations bill, better known as the budget, I guess, for most people. We, as Democrats, have been very critical of the Republican leadership because since October 1, which was the beginning of the fiscal year, they have not been able to complete the budget, the appropriations process. And that process now is, I guess, about 6 weeks overdue and they have not been able to effectively legislate and keep the Government going by providing the budget that we need for this fiscal year. We have also been critical of the fact that already, even though they keep bringing up the issue of Social Security and spending the Social Security surplus, already, if we look at the appropriations bills that they passed, they clearly have dipped into the Social Security Trust Fund. At the same time, they have also broken the caps. One of our colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), was here just a few minutes ago giving a special order and talking about how the caps under the Balanced Budget Act have really become a thing of the past. But I did not really want to dwell on this tonight because I think it is evident that the budget process has been a mess. But, hopefully, over the next few days, there will be a budget passed; and we will have an appropriations and a budget for this fiscal year. The larger problem, though, I think is the unfinished business of this Congress and the unfinished business of this House of Representatives. Republicans are, basically, ready to leave town now, not having addressed most of the concerns that my constituents bring to my attention. And these are the concerns that the average family has in this country, whether it is Medicare, seniors asking me about the need for a prescription drug benefit; HMO reform, which myself and my colleague from Connecticut have been on this floor so many times in the last couple of years demanding that the Patients' Bill of Rights be passed. We finally did manage to get it passed, but so far there has been no conference between the House and the Senate on the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the Republican leadership is obviously just trying to kill HMO reform by not having the conference take place and hoping that the issue will go away. I just mention those two issues because I think they are very important. But there are a lot of other issues: gun safety, the issue of school construction, campaign finance reform. There are many that need to be addressed. I would like to yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), but before I do that, I just want to say very briefly that I get so many letters from my constituents about the fact that this Congress has not addressed the problem with prescription drugs, the increased cost of prescription drugs, the fact that seniors do not have access to them because Medicare does not cover it as a basic benefit, and also about HMO reform and the need for HMO reform. This letter just came to my office in the last few days before we came back. I think I received it on Friday of last week from one of my constituents in my hometown of Long Branch, New Jersey. I am just going to read part of it because it is so simple, but it says it all: Dear Congressman Pallone. I know how hard you have fought for the HMO Patients' Bill of Rights. This legislation is supposed to protect the public from the insurance company's over-zealous quest for profits. I have an Aetna U.S. Healthcare Medicare plan. Aetna gets the $45 from Medicare Part B. As of January 1, 2000, the rate will have increased by $35. That is a 78 percent increase, and they have dropped the prescription drug benefit. I don't know how they can justify that kind of increase. My plan is to drop the HMO coverage and take the Part B from Medicare. Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, this just says it all to me. How many constituents have come into my office, have called me and sent me letters and complained about the fact that they cannot afford prescription drugs? How many people that actually have some kind of prescription drug benefit as part of their health insurance have been dropped, that prescription drug benefit has been dropped or the co- payments or the deductibles or everything have gone up? And how many people have complained to me about abuses relative to HMOs and the problems they have experienced with HMOs? I only read this letter and I start out this evening by talking about these two health care issues because these are just common sense things. These are things that people talk to us about on the streets every day. These are the kinds of things that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and I are going to be hearing about over the next 6 weeks after this House adjourns over the next few days. It is really unfair that this Republican leadership does not address these issues and just leaves this unfinished for the next year because the public is crying out for this kind of legislation to address these issues. I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. I just wanted to briefly comment on some of the things she has said because it is so true, and then yield to our colleague from Maine. It is amazing to me because I have just seen the pattern from day one with every one of the pieces of legislation that you mentioned, and you are right, that ultimately when these bills pass the House, they are bipartisan. But what we see is the Republican leadership basically, for every one of these, HMO reform, Medicare prescription drugs, campaign finance reform, gun safety, we see Democrats introducing a bill, I will use the HMO reform as an example but I could use it for every one of the ones the gentlewoman mentioned. Democrats introduced a bill that would really make a difference in terms of correcting the abuses of HMOs. They get almost every Democrat to support the bill, to cosponsor it, as we say, and then they reach across to the other side of the aisle to try to get some Republicans who understand that this is an important issue and that something has to be done about it and we still cannot get the bill out of committee or to the floor because the Republican leadership because they are so dependent on special interests, in this case the insurance companies, will not bring it up. What do we do? We file a discharge petition. We file it on a bipartisan basis, or we get some of the Republicans to join us. The numbers of the discharge petition, which is an extraordinary procedure that you should not have to use, is basically petitioning this House leadership to bring a bill to the floor because they will not go through the normal process in committee, and when we approach the magical majority of numbers to sign that discharge petition, then all of a sudden the Republican leadership decides they have to bring the bill to the floor. But they do not let the bill have hearings, they do not let the bill go through committee. They just manage to bring some bill to the floor that is usually exactly the opposite and does not have the reforms that are necessary to cure the problems with HMOs. Then when it gets to the floor, we have to make an extraordinary effort to amend the bill or to bring up the substitute that is an actual reform measure and finally we succeed. But almost a year has gone by by the time that happens. Then, because the Senate has not passed anything, we try to go to conference where the House and the Senate get together so that we can eventually send the bill to the President, and at that stage, they do not let the conference take place. We have done this over and over again. My colleague from Maine has now just last week filed a discharge petition on his bill related to the price discrimination with regard to prescription drugs, and we filed another bill by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), a discharge petition, that would provide for the Medicare benefit. We are going to have to get people to sign the petitions when we come back in January. We will. We are all going to work on it, to make sure that we get those signatures and eventually bring these bills to the floor. But we have to exercise these extraordinary procedures. It is very difficult and it takes a long time and it is very easy for the Republican leadership through these procedural gimmicks to basically thwart the will of the real majority here. I saw just the other day some of our Republican colleagues coming up on the floor and talking about the need for a prescription drug benefit. So we are starting to get some of them, too. But it does not matter because the House leadership, the Republican leadership is opposed to it. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. The thing that really worries me, too, my colleague from Connecticut talked about how the public starts to lose faith because they see all these procedural gimmicks and they think we are never getting anything done. That letter that I was quoting from from my hometown constituent, he ends the letter saying, ``I think your best efforts have had less than the anticipated worthy results. Can something be done?'' As much as he has faith in me and my willingness to come down here and try to get a prescription drug benefit and HMO reform, he is doubting whether it is ever going to be accomplished. That is a sad thing. I yield to my colleague from Maine who is really the person who has done the most to bring to our attention this issue of price discrimination with prescription drugs. I appreciate all the gentleman has done.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. The original version of this legislation was cosponsored by 50 Members of this House from both sides of the aisle, evidence of the widespread sense of sadness felt by all of us over the tragic events in Armenia on Wednesday, October 27. On that day, Prime Minister Vazgen Sarksian was assassinated in an attack by four gunmen who stormed into Parliament while it was in session of the Armenian capital of Yerevan. Other lawmakers and government officials were killed in the attack in the parliament chamber, including the chairman of the National Assembly, in effect the Speaker of Parliament, Karen Demirchian. While we mourn the loss of all of these dedicated public servants, I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that democracy in Armenia is strong. The commitment on the part of Armenia's elected government leaders and the vast majority of Armenia's people to democracy, to the orderly transfer of power, to peace and stability within Armenia and in the region, all remain as strong as ever. Clearly, Armenia is still reeling from the shock of recent events. But I think special praise and recognition is appropriate for the way Armenia's president, Robert Kocharian, and the entire Armenian government have moved swiftly to restore stability to the political leadership. A special session of Parliament recently elected a new speaker and two deputy speakers. President Kocharian appointed Aram Sarksian, the 36-year-old brother of the slain prime minister, to the post of prime minister. The new prime minister is a relative new-comer to politics, although he has been active in a major veterans' organization. As President Kocharian stated during a special session of Parliament, ``Our state structure is stable and has proved to be able to deal with such crisis.'' The Parliament's choices for the new leadership posts will help ensure stability, since they come from the ruling coalition that enjoys a majority under the Unity banner. The new Speaker of Parliament, Armen Khachadrian, said, ``All programs that were envisioned will be implemented.'' Mr. Speaker, the events of 3 weeks ago have been a source of shock and sadness for all the friends of Armenia in this Congress and for all the American friends of Armenia, including more than 1 million Americans of Armenian descent. But our sadness is tempered by the knowledge that Armenia will continue to move forward with the political and economic reforms it began when it won its independence more than 8 years ago. For me and many of my colleagues here, there was a particularly haunting and poignant feeling when we heard of the death of Prime Minister Sarksian. The prime minister was our guest in this very Capitol building just a few weeks ago, on September 30. More than 30 Members of Congress, and many of our staff, had the opportunity to hear the prime minister give a very strong speech in which he stressed his commitment to continuing with economic reforms while working for a settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict and greater integration between Armenia and her neighbors. We also had the opportunity to chat with the prime minister on an informal basis. Vazgen Sarksian had only been prime minister since May of this year, following nationwide elections for the National Assembly. His party was the Unity Federation. Prior to becoming prime minister, he served as defense minister from 1995 to 1999. And like many political figures in Armenia, his involvement in politics began in 1988 as the Soviet Union was collapsing. That year he joined the National Liberation Movement for the Independence of Armenia and Constitutional Self-Determination of Nagorno Karabagh. Also, like many of the political leaders of today's Armenia, Prime Minister Sarksian was quite young. He was only 40 years old, and had an extremely bright future ahead of him as the leader of his country. Prime Minister Sarksian was committed to the goal of reform, rebuilding the Nation after decades of Soviet domination. He supported integration of Armenia's economy with the region and the world, and he sought to promote a society that protects private property with a stable currency and a balanced budget, while providing social protections to its citizens. During his visit to Washington, he had the opportunity to meet also with Vice President Gore as well as other Members of Congress. I wanted to say also, Mr. Speaker, that Speaker Demirchian had been the leader of Armenia during Soviet times, but in the post-Soviet Armenia had emerged as a champion of reform. I had the opportunity to meet with him during a congressional delegation to Armenia that I participated in this summer with four of my colleagues, and I know the sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from California, also had the opportunity to travel to Armenia this summer to meet with the Prime Minister and the Speaker. I think I can take the liberty of characterizing all of my colleagues as being as impressed as I was with the new leadership, a sort of triumvirate of President Kocharian, Prime Minister Sarksian, and Speaker Demirchian, to represent an extremely strong team poised to lead Armenia into a new era of economic prosperity and peace. While I am sure President Kocharian will work to continue that legacy, he has lost two valuable partners; Armenia and the world have lost fine leaders. I also wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that as elected Members of our Nation's legislative branch, we are particularly horrified that elected representatives, our counterparts in Armenia, were attacked while conducting the people's business. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families, friends, and colleagues; and we hope and pray for the complete recovery of those who were wounded in this deplorable act of violence. I also want to take this opportunity to commend President Kocharian for his decisive leadership during the actual crisis, for bringing it to a peaceful conclusion with no further bloodshed. The effective response of Armenia's government, its security forces, help to maintain calm in Yerevan and throughout the Nation. Given the potentially destabilizing nature of this attack, it was imperative for the government to assure the Armenian people and the rest of the world that this isolated act of violence did not represent a fundamental threat to Armenia's democracy. Mr. Speaker, this is an important week for Armenia and the surrounding region. Later this week, in Istanbul, Turkey, President Clinton will join with a number of other heads of state and government for the annual summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The President will meet with both President Kocharian and the President of Armenia's neighbor, President Aliyev. A group of us in the House are currently circulating a letter to President Clinton urging that these meetings be an opportunity for the U.S. to strengthen our ongoing effort to conclude the Nagorno Karabagh peace process as well as to enhance opportunities for regional cooperation. In addition, we are strongly encouraging President Clinton to extend President Kocharian an official invitation to Washington. While his counterparts in Azerbaijan and Georgia have paid official visits to the U.S. in the past, President Kocharian has not had the same opportunity; and we believe that such a visit will further strengthen the U.S.- Armenia relationship and is long overdue. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the upcoming summit is taking place in Turkey, Armenia's neighbor to the west, is particularly significant. Turkish-Armenian relations have been difficult for, among other reasons, the hostile blockade that Turkey still maintains against Armenia. There have been, however, some potentially hopeful signs of a trend towards better relations. This summer when I traveled to Armenia with a bipartisan group of my colleagues, we saw firsthand evidence of moves towards a new cross-border relationship between the Armenian city of Gyumri and the Turkish city of Kars. Also, I was very encouraged to see that Turkey sent a delegation to Prime Minister Sarksian's funeral last month. I encourage President Clinton to use the considerable U.S. clout with Turkey to urge that country to improve its relation with Armenia and also to persuade Turkey to use its influence with Azerbaijan to promote increased cooperation with Armenia. Despite our grief, we want to take this opportunity to emphasize our belief in Armenia's commitment to democracy, economic reform, peace, and stability within Armenia and throughout the region. We take this opportunity to reiterate our full confidence that this commitment is deeply held by the government and by the majority of the Armenia people. Armenia has been cruelly deprived of gifted politicians and statesmen who were leading it into a new millennium. While we mourn their loss, we encourage President Kocharian to redouble their efforts to keep Armenia free and strong. And as Members of the U.S. Congress, we stand ready to assist in any way that we can.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman). I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for those kind remarks and for yielding me the time. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I think as representatives in what is often referred to as the People's House here in the United States it is most appropriate that we should pay tribute to the successful elections in India and to their democracy and to offer our best wishes to those who were elected and reelected, who are our counterparts. I want to say, though, it is disturbing to me as has been mentioned by some of my colleagues already that the resolution with regard to Pakistan is not coming up at this time. I am not sure I understand the reason, but I think that it is unfortunate because I think it is very appropriate at this time for us to basically call attention to the fact that we as a Congress and as a House of Representatives are not happy with the military coup d'etat in Pakistan and at the developments that have taken place there which are in sharp contrast to the democracy and the election that took place in India. In fact, in the past few weeks, the headlines from South Asia have been dominated by the news from Pakistan where the coup took place. It was a very disturbing development which has been condemned by me and many of my colleagues here in Congress. Unfortunately, there is often a tendency to lump India and Pakistan together, to see all developments in South Asia as a function of the conflicts between India and Pakistan. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we now see in South Asia are two great nations moving in completely different directions. While Pakistan is mired in military coups and economic collapse, India sticks to its path of democracy and economic reform. We are seeing some indications that U.S. policy is beginning to accommodate some of the important distinctions between these two countries. Last year after India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, a wide range of economic sanctions were imposed on both countries. About a year ago, Congress and the President acted to waive these sanctions for 1 year. Last month, under the renewed waiver authority, President Clinton waived the economic sanctions on India but kept most of the sanctions against Pakistan in response to the coup. The White House National Security Council noted this difference between the two. So while I am here today and I am very happy about this resolution, I do want to point out that we should have had the other resolution on the floor; and I hope that it will be brought to the floor soon.