Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 25, the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center will present the coveted Chaver Award for exemplary community service to Mr. Charles J. Mandel. This is a richly deserved honor, and I am proud to join in paying tribute to Mr. Mandel for his tireless service to the temple and to our community. Mr. Mandel, known as Charlie to his many friends, has certainly left his mark on the temple, both in terms of the physical facility, as well as in his service to temple community. He can frequently be seen with a screwdriver or a hammer or a tape measure in his ``golden hands.'' But Charlie Mandel's fingerprints go far deeper. He has been affiliated with the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center since 1953. After officially joining the temple in 1955, he was appointed Gabbai, and continues in that position to this day as Senior Gabbai. He was elected to the Temple Board of Trustees in 1955, and continues to serve on the board where he has also held the posts of recording secretary and financial secretary. In recognition of his loyalty and commitment, he was granted honorary life membership to the Board of Trustees, a position held by only four other people. Mr. Mandel has been active on the Religious Committee, House Committee, Bazaar Committee, and has had the unique experiences of serving on the Rabbinical Search Committees for both Rabbi Yakov Hilsenrath and Rabbi Eliot Malomet. In addition, he was Chairman of the ``Special Fundraising Committee'' for 40 years. Charles Mandel was born in Jersey City, where he graduated from William L. Dickson High School in 1936. He then went on to Rutgers University and received a bachelor of science degree in ceramic engineering in 1938. He served as plant manager and ceramic engineer with the Willett Company for 42 years. Following his retirement, he is continuing in his professional capacity as a consulting engineer for New Jersey Porcelain Company and Lenape Products Company in Trenton, NJ. Mr. Mandel is a member of the New Jersey Ceramic Association, the Highland Park Committee on Aging and the Rutgers Alumni Association. Married to the former Gussie Siegel for over 58 years, they are the proud parents of three children and four grandchildren. Dr. Matthew Mandel, an endodontist, is married to Lynn and the father of Alexander. Their daughter, Madeline Crass, a school teacher, is the mother of Scott. Robert Mandel, a businessman, married to Rayne, is the father of Levi and Benjamin.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 25, the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center will present the coveted Chaver Award for exemplary community service to Mr. Herbert M. Tanzman. I am honored to join the Temple in paying tribute to Mr. Tanzman, a leader in civic and Jewish community affairs for many years. Herbert Tanzman's association with and service to the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center goes back to his Bar Mitzvah in 1935. In the years since, he has been a member of the Board of Trustees for 44 years, has held the posts of Vice President and Temple Finance Committee Chairman, participated on the Rabbinical Search Committees, and has serve for over 40 years as Gabbai. In recognition of this life of service, he was named to the select group of honorary Life Members of the Board of Trustees. Beginning with the time he served his country in World War II, Herbert Tanzman has maintained a distinguished legacy of community service. For his service in WWII's Naval Aviation unit, Mr. Tanzman was awarded the Navy Air Medal. A combat veteran of the Battle of Iwo Jima, he has served as Commander of the Veterans Alliance, Commander of Jewish War Veterans Post 133 (New Brunswick, NJ), member of the National Executive Committee of the JWV, National Representative and National Foreign Affairs Chair of JWV of the USA, and Executive Board member of the Navy League. Mr. Tanzman has demonstrated his leadership through every facet of his life. He has enjoyed a successful career as director for the Real Estate firm of Jacobson, Goldfarb and Tanzman Associates. He rose to the ranks of leadership in his profession to President of the New Jersey Real Estate Commission. He also demonstrated his commitment to his community as a Councilman and Mayor of Highland Park. He served on the State of New Jersey County and Municipal Government Study Commission, and the Board of Directors of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. In his tireless efforts to further the causes of human rights, the dignity of the individual, inter-group relations, and a prosperous community for all, Mr. Tanzman has been affiliated with a diverse range of organizations and causes. He has been active in the Job Corps, United Community Services and the Raritan Valley United Jewish Appeal. He has served as the National Liaison Officer to the Catholic War Veterans, and as National Civil Rights Chairman and National Legislative Chairman and National Chairman of American Indian Affairs. He has helped to build the civic life of his community and his country as a member of the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of United Community Services, Trustee of the Middlesex-Somerset Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Association, Board member of Job Corps, member of the Board of Directors of YMHA, Chairman of the Building Fund Campaign, and member of the Board of Directors of the Central New Jersey Jewish Home for the Aged. He currently serves as National Vice Chairman and National Campaign Cabinet Member of Israel Bonds, and has served as an Executive Board member of the Greater Monmouth Jewish Federation. He is also President of the Ocean Cove Condominium Association in West End, NJ. Mr. Tanzman is the recipient of the Jerusalem Covenant Award, the Humanitarian Award of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Ben Gurion Award, Israel's coveted Sword of the Haganah Award for record-breaking achievement in bond sales, and, together with his son, Roy, the Family Achievement Award of the State of Israel Bonds, which he received last year at the International Prime Ministers Club dinner in Palm Beach, Florida. He and his wife, the former Mildred Siegel, have been married for over fifty years and are the parents of three children and grandparents of seven. Roy Tanzman, an attorney, is married to Brenda, and they are the parents of Jill and Brett. Roy and Brenda are previous recipients of the Chaver Award. Jeffrey Tanzman, a chiropractor, and his wife Micki (Cohava) are the parents of Danielle, Arielle, Aviv and Shira. Their daughter, Maxine, a psychotherapist, is the wife of Jack Bock and they are the parents of Noah. Mr. Speaker, Herbert Tanzman has dedicated much of his life to serving others. His dedication to family, community and country, and his abiding love and devotion to serving the Jewish people and the State of Israel, are exemplary, and inspiration to us all. It is an honor for me to pay tribute to this outstanding leader and to wish him continued happiness and success.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 1998, the Council on Chiropractic Practice released new guidelines on chiropractic practice. These guidelines represent the culmination of a three year effort involving practicing chiropractors in 12 countries. Titled ''Vertebral Subluxation in Chiropractic Practice,'' the document has qualified for inclusion in the National Guidelines Clearinghouse, a project of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. An estimated 40 million Americans utilize chiropractic health care services. These guidelines will improve the quality and value of chiropractic services for these citizens. I want to acknowledge the Council on Chiropractic Practice, the World Chiropractic Alliance, and the Chiropractic Leadership Alliance of New Jersey for playing instrumental roles in their development. I commend them for their hard work in developing these guidelines and their dedication to improving patient care.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity tonight to welcome the visiting President of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic, Mr. Arkady Ghoukasian. President Ghoukasian is visiting our Nation's capital this week as part of a trip that also includes stops in California and New York, and accompanying the President on his first visit to the United States is Ms. Naira Melkoumian, the Foreign Minister of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic. Yesterday I took part in a meeting with President Ghoukasian and Foreign Minister Melkoumian that was attended by several of my colleagues in the House from both parties. The President also held private meetings with several other Members of the House and the Senate and representatives of the Armenian Assembly of America and the Armenian National Committee of America also took part in those meetings. The President also had meetings with the State Department and met with some of Washington's leading think tanks and the media. Mr. Speaker, Nagorno Karabagh is a region in the Caucasus Mountains of the former Soviet Union that has now and always has historically been populated by Armenians. Unfortunately, Nagorno Karabagh's independence has not been given recognition by the United States or the international community. Neighboring Azerbaijan continues to claim Nagorno Karabagh's territory. A bloody war was fought over this region, and the Karabagh Armenians successfully defended their homeland. A cease-fire was declared in 1994, which has more or less held despite ongoing violations by Azerbaijan, but a final resolution of the conflict has been elusive. Mr. Speaker, the United States is a leader in the effort to help the parties to this conflict achieve a just and lasting resolution of the conflict. The U.S. is a co-chair along with France and Russia of the Minsk Group, of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe established to resolve this dispute. The United States and our Minsk Group partners last year put forward a new plan known as the Common-State proposal for resolving the conflict. Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh have both agreed to accept the proposal as a basis for negotiations despite serious reservations, but Azerbaijan's response to the constructive proposal by the United States and our partners has been a flat no. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. non-recognition of Nagorno Karabagh creates issues about who in the State Department should meet with President Ghoukasian or other representatives of Nagorno Karabagh, and last week I was joined by 19 of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis in writing to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott asking that in his capacity as the American co-chair of the Minsk Group he personally meet with Mr. Ghoukasian during his visit to our Nation's capital. Unfortunately, Secretary Talbott was not in Washington at the time of President Ghoukasian's visit, and President Ghoukasian met instead with Donald Keyser who is special negotiator for Nagorno Karabagh and the NIS regional conflicts. Mr. Keyser I should say is doing a fine job in trying to win the confidence of the parties to the conflict, but I believe it is important to stress the need for the highest level contacts possible which are appropriate and provide a sign of goodwill that would help encourage progress in the negotiations. President Ghoukasian's status as the elected leader of one of the parties to the conflict argues in of according him high-level recognition, and indeed our two Minsk Group partners, France and Russia, provide a stronger degree of recognition for the Karabagh government than the United States does. Last month a bipartisan group of Members of Congress and our staffs met with Special Negotiator Keyser. At that meeting and in our follow- up letter to Secretary Talbott we urged that the United States stay the course in terms of the compromise Common-State approach, and, as I mentioned, this approach has been accepted by Armenian Nagorno Karabagh as a basis for direct negotiations, but thus far Azerbaijan has rejected this approach. We hope that this rejection will not be the last word, and we urge the administration to take proactive steps to reverse Azerbaijan's rejection. Mr. Speaker, last week I testified before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the House Committee on Appropriations on the fiscal year 2000 legislation, and I called for assistance to both the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh and to offer some proposals for how we can advance the peace process through this legislation. The subcommittee, I should say, has been extremely attentive to the concerns of Armenia, Nagorno Karabagh and the entire Caucasus region, and thanks to the subcommittee U.S. humanitarian assistance is flowing to Nagorno Karabagh. I urged the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations to express its strong support for the U.S. position in the Minsk Group negotiations on Nagorno Karabagh, and I hope the subcommittee will adopt language calling on the State Department to stay the course and to press Azerbaijan to come back to the negotiating table. There are strong indications that Azerbaijan believes that it can maintain its rejectionist policy by playing the oil card given the interest in developing petroleum resources in the Caspian Sea although recent test drilling indicates less than expected quantities of oil are causing some major American oil companies to pull out of Azerbaijan. And there have been also been troubling statements from Azerbaijan's President Aliyev that he considers renewal of military conflict a viable option for settling the dispute. Mr. Speaker, if I could just submit the rest of my statement for the Record, I just want to say it is very important that we send a message to Azerbaijan that their intransigence in opposing the Minsk Group proposal is a matter of concern here in Washington. Finally, I am concerned about the aid numbers for Armenia and Azerbaijan that were included in the Administration's budget request, which provide for a decrease in aid to Armenia, and an increase in aid to Azerbaijan. This is strange, since Armenia (as well as Nagorno Karabagh) has accepted the compromise proposal supported by the U.S., while Azerbaijan has rejected it. But the Administration budget proposed cutting aid to Armenia while increasing aid to Azerbaijan. The unfortunate message to Azerbaijan is that their intransigence in opposing the Minsk Group proposal is not a matter of concern here in Washington. That is not the signal we should be sending.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, the Republicans have failed to make a commitment to use any of the Federal surplus to shore up the Medicare Trust Fund. Medicare, as we know, is projected to become insolvent in 2008. Democrats call for strengthening and improving Medicare by locking in 15 percent of the projected budget surplus over the next 15 years in the Medicare trust fund. Democrats would add at least a decade to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund while we work to enact long-term reforms to extend the life of the plan. Republicans, on the other hand, are pursuing broad-based tax cuts instead of saving Medicare, and they want short-term giveaways instead of long-term investments in the future. The Democrats have the only plan that extends the life span of both Social Security and Medicare and strengthens retirement security for middle class families well into the 21st century.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, the Jersey Shore area lost one of its leading citizens with the passing of Jeremiah F. Regan of Oceanport, NJ. Jerry Regan was one of those individuals who could find time for a seemingly endless list of professional, community, political and religious activities, and yet still devote himself to his family and friends. His contributions will continue to be felt across the community, particularly by our young people to whom he devoted so much time and heartfelt concern. Mr. Speaker, Jerry Regan's influence was felt throughout New Jersey, as well as here in our nation's capital. Jerry served as campaign director and comptroller for the late Rep. James J. Howard, a Member of this body for nearly a quarter of a century. He had a longstanding involvement in education issues, including his service 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, and 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. 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. Jerry also served on the Diocesan Education 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 the Oceanport Division of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and he served on the Public Employees Relations Commission. 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 America and Ireland. My heart goes out to Jerry's wife Marilyn (Pinky) Regan, who has for many years done an absolutely superb job in my campaign office. I also extend my heartfelt condolences to their two sons and three daughters, six grandchildren and other relatives on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr. Speaker, even if I didn't know Jerry Regan personally, I would be proud to pay tribute to such an outstanding citizen. But, besides working with him on public policy matters, I was proud to call Jerry a friend. His passing leaves a big void in all of our lives, but the memory of his hard work, his generous spirit and his wonderful sense of humor will continue to be an inspiration for me and everyone lucky enough to know Jerry Regan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that in just a short period of time over at the Library of Congress, President Clinton, Vice President Gore and Democrats in the House and the Senate will unveil our 1999 Democratic agenda which, once again, is a families first agenda. The centerpiece of our congressional agenda is to invest the surplus, to save Social Security and Medicare and pay down the debt. What Democrats are doing with this agenda is continuing on the path of fiscal responsibility by investing the surplus to save Social Security and Medicare and pay down the debt to keep our economy growing. With regard to Social Security, we reserve 62 percent of the projected budget surplus to preserve Social Security until 2055. With regard to Medicare, we reserve 15 percent of the projected surplus for Medicare, ensuring that the Medicare trust fund is secure for 20 years. We are paying down the debt, Mr. Speaker. We are investing a total of 77 percent of the surplus in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the national debt to its lowest level since 1917. This is what the Democrats are all about.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Act of 1999--also known as the BEACH bill. The BEACH bill is straightforward. It seeks to establish uniform criteria for monitoring the quality of our coastal recreation waters, and to require sufficient notification of the public when those waters pose a risk to human health. As my colleagues know, I have championed this legislation for years, continuing the efforts of our friend Bill Hughes. In the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing on the BEACH bill. During that hearing, Gary Sirota of the Surfrider Foundation remarked that as a life-long surfer he is often asked ``What will you do if you see a shark.'' Mr. Sirota said that he always replies ``It's the ones you don't see that you have to worry about.'' This exchange provides an excellent analogy to the problem of contaminants in our coastal recreation waters. Families visiting the sand and surf cannot see toxic dangers that might be lurking in the water. And what they can't see can hurt them. Beach-going is part of our national identity. For those of us who live in coastal states, a trip to ``the Shore'' is a yearly summer event. Almost every American can remember a family pilgrimage to the beach--escaping the oppressing heat with a swim in the ocean. Coastal tourism is also big business. Members from coastal districts may be surprised to know that beaches are the number one tourist destination in the United States, receiving more visitors than even our national parks and recreation areas. Every summer, over 180 million Americans spend $74 million during visits to ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches. Both novice and experienced beachgoers are familiar with jellyfish and understand the need to avoid their painful stings. Unfortunately, other hazards, such as disease-causing bacteria, cannot be so easily avoided. These microorganisms can carry gastroenteritis and dysentery, which may bring on symptoms including fever, vomiting, nausea, headache and stomachache. The consequences may be even more severe for children, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems. Currently, there is no national beach monitoring program and no uniform standards for beach closings and advisories. According to the National Resources Defense Council's July 1998 report ``Testing the Waters,'' only eight states comprehensively monitor their beaches. Even though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recommended water testing standards, the lion's share of our states do not monitor their beaches on a comprehensive basis. EPA's BEACH program, while a step in the right direction, does not actually require monitoring and notification. I commend EPA's efforts to address this important issue. In the past, the agency has supported the BEACH bill to give it the authority it needs to make testing and notification mandatory. People have the right to know if the waters that they and their families swim in are safe. That is why I continue to champion the BEACH bill to establish uniform standards and procedures for beach water testing, monitoring, and public notification. When standards are not met, beaches should be closed and potential bathers should be adequately alerted. The sheer volume of visitors to our beaches dictates that our coastal recreation waters should be tested regularly, and that beachgoers should be notified of any potential health risks. Establishing uniform criteria for testing and notification is responsible economic and public policy. The BEACH bill requires EPA to set minimum water quality standards to protect the public from disease-causing pathogens in coastal recreational waters and to establish procedures for monitoring coastal recreational waters. It requires states to alert the public whenever beach water quality standards are violated. Mr. Speaker, the BEACH bill had bipartisan support in the 105th Congress, and I look forward to working again with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to make the public protections provided by this bill a reality.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the world witnessed an exciting event last month when India's Prime Minister Vajpayee met with his Pakistani counterpart, Prime Minister Sharif, to inaugurate a new bus service between the two countries. I applaud Prime Minister Vajpayee's courage in visiting his neighboring country with whom relations have been tense, to put it mildly. But amidst the celebrations about the meeting between the India and the Pakistani prime ministers, a disturbing development from the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir reminds us of what is at stake in the conflict that has hung over the subcontinent for decades. As the New York Times reported, ``On the eve of Mr. Vajpayee's visit to Lahore, Islamic militants, whom Indians generally believe are backed by Pakistan, massacred 20 Hindu civilians in three places in Jammu, part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, apparently in an attempt to derail the peace efforts. In one case, they opened fire on a wedding party, killing eight celebrants.'' This is from the New York Times, February 23. The article noted that Prime Minister Vajpayee did not publicly address the massacres during his visit to Pakistan, perhaps understandable in light of the positive atmosphere that the meeting of the two prime ministers was intended to generate. But Prime Minister Vajpayee stressed that he had warned his Pakistani counterpart that the continued campaign of terrorism against innocent civilians in Jammu and Kashmir is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, the issue of Kashmir frequently gets mentioned in the geopolitical calculations over the larger India-Pakistan conflict. There is overwhelming evidence of Pakistani covert support for the continued terror campaign in Jammu and Kashmir. There has, at the same time, been an overt Pakistani effort to internationalize this issue by bringing the United States, or other world powers and international organizations, into the negotiations. The one aspect of this tragedy that frequently is overlooked is the plight of the Hindu community of this region, the so-called Kashmiri Pandits. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate my calls for increased American and world attention to the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits, victims of massacres and displacement, such as the atrocity of last month. As I have gotten to know the Kashmiri-American community and hearing about the situation facing the Kashmiri Pandits, I have become increasingly outraged, not only at the terrible abuses they have suffered but at the seeming indifference of the world community. At the same time, I am impressed by the dignity and the determination that the Kashmiri Pandits have maintained despite these horrible conditions. I am touched by the deep concern that the Kashmiri- Americans feel for their brothers and sisters living in Kashmir or in the refugee center set up in India to accommodate the Pandits driven from their homes in the Kashmir Valley. Recently, my colleagues in the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans asked me to co-chair a Task Force on Kashmir. I look forward to working with my colleagues to focus increased Congressional attention on this issue. Some of my colleagues and I have already been pressing these issues, but clearly we need to give the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits greater recognition. Mr. Speaker, I have asked India's National Human Rights Commission to consider declaring the Kashmiri Pandits an Internally Displaced People and provide conditions for the safe return of the Pandit community to the Kashmir Valley. I have also asked the Commission to substantiate the ongoing genocide that the Pandits are suffering. I would also encourage the Indian government to consider officially recognizing the Kashmiri Pandit community as a minority under Indian law to provide additional benefits and protection. Mr. Speaker, the Kashmiri Pandits have an ancient and a proud culture. Their roots in the Valley run deep. Virtually the entire population of 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits has been forced to leave their ancestral homes and property. Today, only 2,000 Kashmiri Pandits remain in the Valley. Threatened with violence and intimidation, they have been turned into refugees in their own country. Although Pakistani officials maintain that their country only provides ``moral and political support'' for the insurgency, evidence shows that Pakistan has been playing a direct role in arming and training the militants who have converted the Kashmir Valley from an earthly paradise into a living hell. Last year, I urged Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to raise the Kashmiri Pandit issue whenever Kashmir is discussed by the United States and India. I have also asked the Indian government to bring up the Pandits issue in any bilateral discussion between India and Pakistan. The United Nations Human Rights Commission also needs to address the Kashmiri Pandit issue, including it in its periodic reports on Kashmir, as well as through the Commission Subcommittee on Minorities. I will also continue urging action by UNICEF to provide educational grants to benefit the Kashmiri Pandit children and the World Health Organization support to improve health and sanitation. Mr. Speaker, lastly, in the great international debate over arms control and security issues, it is sometimes all too easy to overlook the so-called small problem of one persecuted ethnic group. I just hope that the United States and India, as the world's two largest democracies, will show determination to finally address this humanitarian catastrophe that the Kashmiri Pandits are facing in an effective and humane way.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, On Saturday, February 27, 1999, Mr. Galileo F. Cianflone of Long Branch, NJ, was honored by the Long Branch Amerigo Vespucci Society at its annual dinner-dance at Palumbo's in Tinton Falls, NJ. My wife Sarah and I were proud to be on hand for this tribute to Leo Cianflone, a committed leader of the community and a good friend to all who know him. Mr. Cianflone was born in Miglierina, Italy, on April 9, 1925, the son of the late Thomas and Carolina Cianflone. He is one of seven children. He attended school in Miglierina, learning the trade of cabinet maker and the art of music. At the age of 17, he enrolled in the Carabinieri, and was assigned to the Florence headquarters. During the war, he volunteered his services against Germany in the partisan company, Garibaldi. In 1946. Mr. Cianflone returned home to Miglierina as Lieutenant. He met Maria Anastasio and was married on December 2, 1948. During his years in his native hometown in Italy, he showed the same type of commitment to civic affairs that he would later demonstrate in his adopted hometown in America. In December 1953, Mr. Cianflone came to the United States. In 1959 he opened his business, Leo's Cabinet Shop, on High Street in Long Branch. In 1974, he was employed by the Long Branch Board of Education as a foreman of the Maintenance Department. He retired in 1993. From 1991 to 1995, he served as member representing the City of Long Branch at the Long Branch Sewerage Authority. Mr. Cianflone and his wife Maria have two children: his son Thomas, who resides in Union Beach, NJ, with his wife Joanni; and his daughter Carol, who lives in Spring Lake, NJ, with her husband Gary Mennie. Leo couldn't be more delighted over the success that his son and daughter have achieved. Leo's pride and joy are his two grandsons, Joseph Cianflone and Anthony Mennie. Galileo Cianflone has been a member of the Amerigo Vespucci for 41 years. He has served in capacity of every office, including President for seven years. He has always been extremely active in the Society's endeavors. As everyone who has had the privilege of knowing him and working with him will attest, Leo Cianflone is unfailingly hardworking and dedicated, always willing to help in every way possible. Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to pay tribute to an outstanding leader and a fine citizen of my hometown of Long Branch, Mr. Galileo Cianflone.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to recent developments in South Asia, a region of growing importance to U.S. diplomatic, political, security and economic interests. This past week, the news from the region has been positive. India's Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee personally inaugurated the new bus service with Pakistan. Prime Minister Vajpayee crossed the border into Lahore, Pakistan, where he was greeted by Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. Their embrace, seen on television sets around the world, was full of powerful symbolism, which we all hope will be matched by progress toward easing tensions between these two South Asian nations. During 1998, of course, the news from this region was dominated by the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan, which resulted in the automatic imposition of unilateral American sanctions on both countries. The result, particularly in the case of India, has been a set-back in the promising trend towards increased trade and investment we saw during most of the 1990s. Late last year, through bipartisan cooperation between Congress and the Administration, we succeeded in easing some, but far from all, of the sanctions that were imposed. Today, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to outline a new approach, a new pragmatism, that I hope will mark our future relations with India--the world's largest democracy, a country whose population will exceed one billion people in the next decade, a country with enormous potential for trade and cooperation, and a country with legitimate defense concerns that we must recognized and respect. While we may not necessarily welcome a world with more nuclear powers, I believe that India, in particular, would be a responsible partner in non-proliferation efforts. This would require a major shift in our focus, from simply condemning India for becoming a nuclear power--which, whether we like it or not, is the reality--to adjusting our thinking to this new reality and working to promote peace, security, confidence building and non-proliferation in South Asia. This will require on our part a greater recognition of India's legitimate security needs and the prospects for greater Indo-U.S. cooperation in responding to the threats posed by another Asian country that must be taken into consideration when we address the India- Pakistan issue. That country is China. I believe that China is the real threat to India, as well as to U.S. interests and to regional security. It is in this context, India's potential role as a partner for peace and stability should be understood. In particular, India has legitimate concerns about China's support for Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs, as well as potential Chinese designs on India territory. Since the U.S. must also view China as a potential adversary, there is a growing convergence of American and Indian objectives for responding to China.'' Talks between our Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh have shown some progress, but I believe the U.S. needs to do much more to create a framework for cooperation that recognizes the new realities in the region. I believe we have to be more pragmatic and flexible in working with India, including a greater appreciation of the security concerns that prompted India to conduct nuclear tests in the first place. I would like to draw attention to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) South Asia program, which noted that India and Pakistan are beginning to define ``minimum deterrence'' in similar ways. The U.S. should work to build on this emerging notion of minimum deterrence, combined with a declared policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons. I also wanted to mention a report that appeared in the January 19, 1999, edition of the newspaper India Abroad, outlining the views of Mr. Tariq Rauf, director of the International Organizations and Non- proliferation Project at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California. Mr. Rauf sees Washington opting for a strategy of greater accommodation in its negotiations with both India and Pakistan, recognizing that neither nation is likely to give up its nuclear weapons. Writing in the latest edition of ``The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,'' Rauf said India and Pakistan should not only be encouraged, but assisted, to consider a variety of bilateral and multilateral discussions and agreements ``to maintain their current tacit non-deployment practices regarding nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.'' Rauf also said both countries should be encouraged to agree ``on some measure of sufficiency in terms of weapons-usable fissile material stocks, warheads and weapons systems; to negotiate and implement a package of regional confidence and security-building measures; and to actively contribute to the universalization of current global non- proliferation norms. Rauf's conclusion: ``a nuclear South Asia is here to stay.'' Thus, he calls on us to help address the security concerns that led both nations to develop nuclear weapons in the first place. He stresses that, ``Pragmatic arms control strategies must therefore focus on accommodation, not appeasement or confrontation.'' Our goal should be to make India a partner in the American foreign policy goal of minimizing the threat of nuclear war. One way of accomplishing this is to take the long overdue step of accepting India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The key is to make India a partner for peace, and not to isolate India and further contribute to the perception that India's legitimate security concerns are not receiving adequate attention or respect. Mr. Speaker, I hope that 1999 will be a better year in U.S.-India relations than 1998 was. Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, recently indicated that President Clinton is hoping to visit India and Pakistan this year, pending progress on the current talks. It's been 20 years since an American President was last in India, Mr. Speaker. I hope we don't have to wait too much longer.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on December 25, 1995 a Turkish bulk carrier ran ashore on the islets of Imia, one of two uninhabited islets which are part of the Dodecanese islands group in the Aegean Sea. This incident nearly escalated into armed conflict between NATO allies Turkey and Greece due to Turkey's belligerent claim that the islets, which are sovereign Greek territory, belonged to Turkey. Hostilities were avoided after the Greek government refused to attack a detachment of Turkish commandos who had been dispatched to the islets and President Clinton personally intervened to help defuse the crisis. Despite Turkey's continued insistence that the islets are Turkish territories, the historical record on this issue is clear. The Dodecanese islands group was ceded by Turkey to Italy in the Lausanne Treaty of 1923. The boundaries delineating the exact sovereignty between Turkey and the islands group were finalized in a December 1932 protocol between Turkey and Italy. That protocol, which was annexed to the Convention Between Italy and Turkey for the Delimitation of Anatolia and the Island of Castellorizio, placed the islets of Imia under the sovereignty of Italy. In the 1947 Paris Treaty of Peace with Italy, Italy ceded the Dodecanese islands group to Greece. The legal status of the Dodecanese islands group remained unchallenged by Turkey until its bulk carrier ran aground in late 1995 and Ankara began making its unfounded claims in 1996. Today, Turkey continues to promote instability in the region by ignoring the historical record with its claim of sovereignty over the islets of Imia. This unfounded claim should not go unnoticed by Congress. To that end, today I am introducing a resolution that documents the historical record establishing Greek sovereignty over the Dodecanese islands group and expresses the sense of the Congress that: the islets of Imia in the Aegean sea are sovereign territory of Greece under international law; and Turkey should agree to bring this matter before the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands, for a resolution. I encourage all Members to join me in reaffirming Greek sovereignty over the islets, protecting the rule of international law, and advocating a peaceful settlement to this matter

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H.R. 171 to reauthorize New Jersey's Coastal Heritage Trail, and I thank the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. For those of my colleagues who have traveled through New Jersey, but have not experienced her coastal vitality, I invite and encourage you to visit the Coastal Heritage Trail's points of interest in the sixth district. Cheesequake State Park offers a variety of outdoors activities and facilities from swimming and camping, to hiking trails and a nature center. Along the Sandy Hook Bay is the Bedford Seafood CO-OP, the oldest fishing port on the East Coast. The Leonardo State Marina includes 179 slips and can accommodate boats up to 45 feet in length. From Mount Mitchill Scenic Overlook, visitors can view Sandy Hook Bay, the Atlantic Ocean, and the New York City skyline. The Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area showcases seven miles of ocean beaches, the waters of Sandy Hook Bay, a salt marsh, dunes, a maritime forest, and a habitat for migratory shorebirds. The Steamboat Dock Museum of the Keyport Historical Society interprets the history and maritime traditions of Keyport, which was settled as a private plantation in 1714, and became a major port for oystering in the 1830s. Finally, Twin Light State Historic Site served as an important maritime navigational aid for ships, and hosts one of the original life boat stations built by the U.S. government. The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail is the result of an innovative partnership between the National Park Service, New Jersey's State and local governments, and private individuals and organizations. The original legislation establishing the trail was enacted in 1988. In 1944, the trail was reauthorized with a 50 percent match requirement of non-federal funds. Since then, the Park Service has matched $1 million in federal funding with over $800,000 from other sources. The trail is now approximately 50 percent complete. The legislation before the House today will increase authorized appropriations for the trail from $1 million to $4 million. It will also extend the National Park Service's authority to participate in the trail's development for five years, from May 1999 to May 2004. This will give the Park Service the additional time and funding it needs to complete New Jersey's Coastal Heritage Trial. Mr. Speaker, New Jersey's special places are celebrated and protected through the Coastal Heritage Trail. I urge the favorable consideration of this legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the high cost of prescription drugs is one of the most pressing health care issues confronting the country's senior citizens, employers, managed care plans, state and federal drug programs. Controlling drug costs will be no easy task. One time-tested method, however, is timely access and availability of generic medicines once the patent on brand name drugs expires. Generic competition has a dramatic impact on pharmaceutical costs. When a generic drug first comes onto the market, it typically costs 30 percent less than the brand name version. After two years on the market, the prices drop further to 60 or 70 percent of the brand name drug. The price of some generic drugs drop by as much as even 90 percent. While these competitively priced alternatives are good for consumers, employers and government purchasers, they are not good for the brand name producer trying to maintain and protect monopolistic pricing. If there is no generic alternative available, consumers who need medicine have no choice but to buy the available brand drug and pay whatever it costs. It is for this reason that brand name drug companies launch aggressive campaigns to block or delay generic competition. One tactic used by the brand industry to prevent generics from reaching the consumer is to convince state legislatures to pass unnecessary restrictions to the substitution of generic versions of brand name drugs. These restrictive laws are being advanced despite a scientific finding by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the generic drug is equivalent and substitutable to the brand name product. The state campaign is nothing more than an attempt by the brand name companies to protect market share. If these tactics are successful with the states, generic manufacturers could end up having to comply with 50 different sets of state laws before their products could ever reach the consumer. If would render the FDA stamp of approval meaningless. And it will only add extraordinary hoops for doctors and pharmacists to jump through before a generic medicine is dispensed. The ultimate losers are the senior citizens and other prescription drug purchasers who will be denied the access to equivalent generics and are forced to continue paying excessive brand prices for their medicines. The bill I am introducing today, the Generic Drugs Access Act, would prevent drug companies from gaming the system. Very simply, this bill prohibits states from passing laws keeping generic drugs off the market once the FDA has determined that a generic drug is ``therapeutically equivalent'' to a brand name product. Most importantly, it will ensure that generic drugs get to the market in a timely fashion and provide consumers with access to low cost alternatives at the earliest possible time. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the effort to ensure low cost alternatives to brand name drugs are readily available to consumers and cosponsor the Generic Drugs Access Act of 1999.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, if I could take back my time and point out that now is the time to stop the process, and I think the Waxman amendment will go far towards making sure that there is an open debate on these issues and not having this stealth process continue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting the Waxman ``Defense of the Environment Act'' amendment to H.R. 350. It is about time we pass this amendment. Democrats and moderate Republicans are sick of the stealth attacks on environmental protection that continue to delay consideration of one appropriations bill after another, year in and year out. The Waxman amendment would begin to reverse these stealth tactics by requiring any bill reported out of committee that might reduce environmental protection to identify and assess these provisions. The amendment will also allow for open debate and votes on legislation that removes or weakens environmental health and safety laws. Mr. Chairman, in previous years the Republican majority has attempted to quietly attach a number of anti-environmental riders to the annual appropriations bill, often at the last minute. Not only is no one supposed to be able to legislate on an appropriations bill, but such riders prevent an open and honest debate on measures that would have great impacts on environmental natural resources, resources that most people in this country value greatly. As I am sure we all remember from years past, similar efforts by the majority to gut the environment came to no good, eventually resulting in a governmental shutdown in 1995. Last year, again, so much time was wasted trying to search out these bad riders, bring them to the public's attention, face presidential veto threats, and reexamine these bills that the Congress only finished its business after introducing several continuing resolutions. But the majority has been found out. Citizens of this country realize that these special-interest riders would never pass as freestanding legislation because the measures would, at best, result in wasteful spending and unnecessary delays in addressing critical environmental problems and, at worst, result in substantial devastation to natural resources by permitting logging in national forests, allowing helicopters to fly over natural wilderness areas, or approving construction of roads through national parks and other delicate ecosystems, just to mention a few. That is why the Republican majority continues to take a back-door approach to rolling back environmental protections, that is, by trying to sneak in special-interest riders as provisions of other more overarching bills. Last year they tried to insert a record number of over 40 stealth riders, some of which would have had devastating effects on the environment. We have to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and end these stealth attempts to destroy the environment. Appropriations bills should be addressed in an open, honest debate. The Waxman amendment would force an open debate and an independent vote on every rider that attempts to weaken 25 years of environmental protection in this country. It would not necessarily prevent such riders from passing, but it would ensure that the public was made aware of these issues that otherwise are literally added into multi-billion dollar appropriations packages at the eleventh hour. It also would ensure that the public knew how Members voted on each one of these riders. Mr. Chairman, we must safeguard our natural resources for ourselves and our children and expose the Republican majority's efforts to derail our appropriations process. We must begin now by voting ``yes'' on this important amendment before us. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Waxman amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, once again the Republicans are pushing a budget plan that is out of step with what the American people want. The President's budget calls for using the budget surplus to protect Social Security now that times are good. The Republican budget, on the other hand, includes yet another stale proposal to spend the surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy instead of on Social Security. The New York Times recently noted, and I quote, ``Every poll shows that Americans would rather preserve Social Security and Medicare than enjoy a big new tax cut, as Republican leaders want. It is also questionable how much political support there will be for a tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Americans.'' The Washington Post made a similar observation of the competing budget plans. ``On balance,'' the Post noted, ``the President's budget pushes in the right direction, but,'' the Post added, ``the broad alternative, which is to consume in the form of a tax cut that ought to be saved for Social Security and Medicare and other public purposes, is wrong.'' Let us use the surplus in a manner that will benefit all Americans, not just the wealthy. Support the Democrats' plan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote Nos. 12 and 13, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to the Honorable Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga (President of Sri Lanka), her government, and the people of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, on the occasion of the 51st anniversary of Sri Lanka's independence. Sri Lanka is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. This unique country has an extensive and rich history, dating back to its flourishing civilization of the 2nd century B.C. Throughout the years, Sri Lanka has developed its economy based on its agriculture, cultivation of semi-precious stones, and manufacturing industries. Although Sri Lanka experienced invasions and rule by the Portuguese, Dutch, and British, Sri Lanka regained independence through a peaceful and constitutional process in 1948. After 51 years of independence, Sri Lanka has emerged as a key South Asian country committed to democracy, free market economics, and sound social and development policy. Bi-lateral relations between the U.S. and Sri Lanka have always been strong. To date, Sri Lanka exports nearly $1.5 billion worth of goods to the U.S. and the U.S. exports nearly $370 million worth of goods to Sri Lanka. Trade and investment between the U.S. and Sri Lanka continue to grow, with some of the largest business links with Sri Lanka including companies such as Coca-Cola, Motorola, IBM and Hilton, to name a few. The formation and development of the Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan-Americans will lead to increased constructive and educated dialogue between the U.S. and Sri Lanka. This will ensure progress between the two countries and the opportunity for Congress to gain greater knowledge and education about Sri Lanka. As Sri Lanka celebrates 51 years of freedom, this is a wonderful opportunity for us to pay tribute to all of her national heroes and freedom fighters who fought for independence. I am also happy to extend my congratulations to the approximately 100,000 Sri Lankans in the U.S., whose communities have made economic and social impacts throughout various cities across the U.S. Sri Lanka's rich history of over 2500 years, and its tremendous progress as a nation in 51 years alone, proves Sri Lanka's strength and tremendous potential for the 21st century and years to come. Again. I join in commemoration of Sri Lanka's 51st year of independence and I look forward to working with the Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Americans, the Sri Lankan community in the U.S., and the government of Sri Lanka.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, the Republicans are beginning the 106th Congress exactly where they left off in the 105th, and that is ignoring the will of the majority of the Americans. If you recall, the Republican leadership in the House ended the 105th Congress by approving an $80 billion tax break for the wealthiest Americans financed by raiding the Social Security surplus. As a result, the Democrats picked up 5 seats in the November election. But, believe it or not, the Republicans are still not listening. Instead of directing the surplus to Social Security and Medicare, the Republicans are proposing a 10 percent tax cut which will do virtually nothing for 45 million American families. Under the Republican plan, the average annual tax cut for 60 percent of tax payers would be about $100. Those earning more than $300,000 though would receive an average tax cut of $20,000. I urge my Republican colleagues to listen to the American people. Read the writing on the wall and stop wasting time with a recycled plan to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy with money that should be used to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the Members of this House and the American people to a potentially alarming development in our foreign policy. As was reported in this Sunday's New York Times, the Republic of Azerbaijan has made what the newspaper called a startling offer. It wants the United States to open a military base there. The article notes that American oil companies have invested billions of dollars in Azerbaijan, and the New York Times also makes a particularly relevant point that such a partnership might draw the United States into alliances with undemocratic governments. This story has also been picked up by Reuters and the Journal of Commerce, among other media outlets, and while the State Department and Defense Department denied plans to construct a military base in Azerbaijan or to move an existing facility from the Republic of Turkey into Azerbaijan, unnamed U.S. officials were mentioned in press accounts as not ruling out the need for an undefined arrangement to ensure the security of a future pipeline to deliver oil from the Caspian Sea to the Turkish oil depot at Ceyhan. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a worse idea. While I strongly support new approaches to U.S. international engagement in the post-cold war world, this proposal would not advance U.S. interests or American values. The only justification for this proposal is to make U.S. foreign policy and our military forces a tool for protecting a new and, I would say, unproven supply of oil, and to try to placate the two countries that are deemed essential to the extraction and delivery of those oil supplies; that is, Turkey and Azerbaijan, two countries, I might add, with terrible records in terms of democracy and human rights. Mr. Speaker, for some time now I have been critical of what I view as the administration's apparent determination to see the pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan constructed. Ironically, the oil companies themselves are balking at this arrangement. The proposed pipeline is too long and costly, particularly as oil prices continue to drop. One major international consortium led by the American firm, Pennzoil, has announced that it will terminate its test drilling operations in the Caspian near Baku after finding only half the volume of oil and gas necessary to assure profitable exploitation. Today the Wall Street Journal reports that another group led by Amoco and British Petroleum is cutting personnel and deferring development on Caspian oil exploitation due to disappointing test results and declining oil prices. It is becoming apparent that the new pipeline proposal lacks commercial viability. It is a boondoggle whose only purpose is to placate the demands of Turkey and Azerbaijan, to give those two countries the power and prestige of controlling what some see as an important source of energy resources. And now apparently Azerbaijan craves the further benefits of a U.S. military commitment, and some unnamed U.S. officials are apparently toying with this idea. Mr. Speaker, this week I will be circulating a letter among my colleagues asking them to join me in making it clear to President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of Defense Cohen that we consider a U.S. military presence or commitment in Azerbaijan unacceptable. And yes, Mr. Speaker, the administration is right to identify the Caucasus region as an important American interest, but it is wrong to make oil the major, not only the only basis for our engagement in that region, and I hope we can stop this train before it leaves the station. Mr. Speaker, I enter the rest of the statement as an extension of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the Members of this House and the American people to a potentially alarming development in our foreign policy. As was reported in this Sunday's New York Times, the Republic of Azerbaijan has made what the newspaper called a ``startling offer--it wants the United States to open a military base there.'' The article notes that American oil companies have invested billions of dollars in that country. The New York Times also makes a particularly relevant point: such a partnership ``might draw the United States into alliances with undemocratic governments.'' This story has also been picked up by Reuters and the Journal of Commerce, among other media outlets. While the State Department and the Defense Department denied plans to construct a military base in Azerbaijan, or to move an existing facility from the Republic of Turkey into Azerbaijan, unnamed U.S. officials were mentioned in press accounts as not ruling out the need for an undefined arrangement to insure the security of a future pipeline to deliver oil from the Caspian Sea basin to the Turkish oil depot at Ceyhan. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a worse idea. While I strongly support new approaches to U.S. international engagement in the post-Cold War world, this proposal would not advance U.S. interests or American values. The only justification for this proposal is to make U.S. foreign policy and our military forces a tool for protecting a new--and unproven--supply of oil, and to try to placate the two countries that are deemed essential to the extraction and delivery of those oil supplies, Turkey and Azerbaijan--two countries, I might add, with terrible records in terms of democracy and human rights. Mr. Speaker, many Americans may wonder why Azerbaijan, a formerly obscure republic of the former Soviet Union, is the subject of such intense interest. The answer, in a word, is oil. To Azerbaijan's west lies the Caspian Sea, an inland sea or salt lake (and the exact designation is the subject of a debate with important ramifications about who controls its resources) which some have claimed contains vast reserves of oil and natural gas. American and other western oil companies have a keen interest in developing these reserves--which, I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, remain unproven reserves. Oil companies have spent billions of dollars on this effort, and have sent in thousands of their employees to Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, it is beginning to appear that America's policy in the region is being driven primarily by the desire to extract these unproven petroleum reserves. We have seen Azerbaijan's autocratic President, Heydar Aliyev, wined and dined at the White House, Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington. (The term ``autocratic'' is the New York Times's word, not mine.) The U.S. response to the lack of democracy, free expression and basic human and civil rights under President Aliyev--who seized power in a coup--has been muted at best. There have been efforts over the past few years under the Foreign Operations Appropriations legislation to reward Mr. Aliyev, and the oil companies, with political risk insurance and other subsidies, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Now, I'm afraid we could see that policy come to its logical conclusion with the placement of U.S. military forces in Azerbaijan. We must stop this proposal before it advances beyond the planning stages. For some time now, Mr. Speaker, I have been critical of what I view as the Administration's apparent determination to see the pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan constructed. Ironically, the oil companies themselves are balking at this arrangement. The proposed pipeline is too long and costly, particularly as oil prices continue to drop. One major international consortium, led by the American firm Pennzoil, has announced that it will terminate its test drilling operations in the Caspian near Baku after finding only half the volume of oil and gas necessary to ensure profitable exploitation. Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that another group, led by Amoco and British Petroleum, is cutting personnel and deferring development on Caspian oil exploitation due to disappointing test results and declining oil prices. It is becoming apparent that the new pipeline proposal lacks commercial viability. It is a boondoggle whose only purpose is to placate the demands of Turkey and Azerbaijan, to give these two countries the power and prestige of controlling what some see as an important source of energy resources. Now, apparently, Azerbaijan craves the further benefits of a U.S. military commitment, and some ``unnamed'' U.S. officials are apparently toying with the idea. Mr. Speaker, this week, I will be circulating a letter among my colleagues asking them to join me in making it clear to President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of Defense Cohen that we consider a U.S. military presence or commitment in Azerbaijan unacceptable. Yes. Mr. Speaker, the Administration is right to identify the Caucasus region as an important American interest. But it is wrong to make oil the major, let only the only, basis for our engagement in that region. I hope we can stop this train before it leaves the station. Then we need to focus on a Caucasus policy based on economic development, the promotion of democracy and human rights, self- determination, and the resolution of territorial and other conflicts through negotiation.

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 26 is Republic Day, an occasion that inspires pride and patriotism for the people of India. 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 while reconciling her 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. Mr. Speaker, India's population of nearly a billion people represents approximately one-sixth of the human race. 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 she celebrated the 50th anniversary of her independence. But, many Americans remain largely unfamiliar with the anniversary that Indians celebrate today. 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. Just yesterday, we paid tribute to one of our greatest American leaders, 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. Last year, Mr. Speaker, 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, D.C., 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. Mr. Speaker, there is a growing need for India and the United States, the two largest democracies of the world, to come closer and work together on a wide variety of initiatives. India and the U.S. do not always agree on every issue, as we saw in 1998. 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. 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. 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. U.S. sanctions imposed on India last year have subsequently been relaxed, and I believe we should continue to work to preserve or re-start economic relations that have developed during this decade of major change, 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 serve as a human ``bridge'' between our two countries. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me again congratulate the people of India on the occasion of Republic Day. I hope that 1999 will witness a U.S.-India relationship that lives up to the great potential offered by our shared commitment to democracy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 4, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' personal explanation