Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Congress should not rubber stamp the recently proposed tobacco settlement that benefits the tobacco industry more than the public. As I understand it, the settlement will give tobacco companies immunity from liability, enable companies to prevent disclosure of potentially revealing documents, provide a financial windfall for company executives through increased stock options, restrict future Food and Drug Administration regulation, and not adequately accomplish the goal of reducing teenage smoking. Mr. Speaker, today my Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, launched a campaign to gain access to tobacco industry documents that could remain under wraps if the agreement gains the approval of Congress. I support that effort, and I think the House also should support that effort. Much work needs to be done, and I think that Congress, and particularly the House, needs to move forward with hearings to further examine the elements of this tobacco settlement. As it stands now, the settlement is a winner for the tobacco industry and a loser for our children. Let us work to change that outcome.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. My question, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is whether the speakers who are speaking against the gentleman from Indiana's amendment would be taking up the time on our side as opposed to the time on the gentleman's side?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the comments by the gentleman from Indiana. I do not know if he is going to be the only speaker in favor of the amendment. I certainly hope he is. But if he is the only one, it is because he is basically giving the House outdated, exaggerated, and inaccurate information about the situation in India. He said that India is not a friend of the United States. Just the opposite is true. India is the world's largest democracy. India, last year, had the largest democratic election, the largest number of people participating in a democratic process in the history of the world as far as we know. He talks about the signal that this might send. What signal is sent by this body if we were to pass an amendment that chastises the world's largest democracy, a country that seeks every day to be our friend more and more, and which at the same time over the last few years has established a National Human Rights Commission that has been seeking out any violations of human rights, that has brought people to trial, that probably now sets an example not only for South Asia and for Asia but for the rest of the world in terms of its going after and fettering out human rights violations. It would send a terrible signal to the rest of the world if this body, the greatest democracy in the world, if this House of Representatives, were to chastise India for the things that it has accomplished in the last few years. I just want to say, in the past the gentleman from Indiana has criticized India on human rights. Let me give my colleagues some information. The independent National Human Rights Commission with unprecedented powers has been in operation now for 3 years. Some of the members have been here to talk to us as Members of our House of Representatives. The commission has been lauded by many international agencies, including our own State Department, for its aggressiveness and independence. The chairman of India's National Human Rights Commission has met with representatives of Asia Watch, Amnesty International and the International Red Cross. The steps taken by India to remedy human rights problems is far superior to any of the efforts of India's neighbors, in particular, Pakistan and China which I think the gentleman from Indiana mentioned. Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana is suggesting that his amendment would put pressure on the Government of India to improve its record on human rights. In fact, if this amendment were to become law, it would greatly reduce America's ability to positively influence the Indian Government in any way. Punitive measures like this amendment only serve to isolate the Indian Government, give aid and comfort to political forces in India who oppose closer ties with the United States, and ultimately set back the process of political and economic reform in India. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that this debate over human rights in India is focusing entirely on one side of the issue, and what is lost is the fact that terrorist organizations operating within India's borders pose a constant ongoing threat to peace, stability and, yes, to human rights. Militant separatist groups often operate with no accountability. Calling themselves freedom fighters, these organizations reserve onto themselves the right to strike at civilian targets in India with impunity. Furthermore, many of the militant organizations receive support, both moral and financial, as well as arms and training, from other nations, specifically Pakistan which has frequently been linked to terrorist organizations in India in a direct attempt to destabilize its neighbor, and under these conditions imposing punishment by this House on the Government of India will have the unmistakable effect of encouraging and emboldening these groups which seek by violent means to pursue their separatist agenda. This is not the type of behavior that this House of Representatives should be condoning. I visited India earlier this year, Mr. Chairman, and I had the opportunity to see firsthand why this amendment would be a disaster. First, my colleague from New York [Mr. Ackerman] talked about the situation in the Indian State of Punjab. Earlier this year the people of Punjab held elections in which the Sikh-dominated Akali Dal Party was swept into power. Voter turnout was 67 percent, better than we generally do here in the United States in most of our elections. In the Punjabi capital of Chandigarh, I met with the newly elected Chief Minister of the State of Punjab, Mr. Prakash Singh Badal. He is a staunch defender of the Sikh people, but he is also deeply committed to working within India's democratic political system to advocate the political, economic, and social interests of his state and of the Sikh people. He expressed his rejection of the separatist movement which has caused so much violence in recent years. His governing coalition includes a predominantly Hindu party, an indication that the Indian people want to work across ethnic and religious lines for the betterment of their entire society. This is the reality in today's Punjab. This is the reality in today's India. Everyone is working together to try to improve the situation. Human rights violations are being fettered out. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana's statements are not based on the accurate information of India today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late U.S. District Judge Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr. Judge Fisher passed away on Sunday, July 27, at the age of 76, after battling cancer for the past several months. Mr. Speaker, the death of Judge Fisher is for me the cause of great personal sadness. I was an intern for Judge Fisher in law school, and he had a major impact on my career. Judge Fisher instilled in me a deep appreciation for how the law can and should be a means for attempting to resolve the real difficulties and conflicts that touch people's lives, and for achieving justice in the very best sense of that word. He was a great inspiration. Judge Fisher was a native of my hometown of Long Branch, NJ. He was active in local government in the neighboring community of West Long Branch, served in the New Jersey State Assembly and was a trustee of Monmouth College, now university. A graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and its law school, Judge Fisher was awarded the Justice William J. Brennan Award in 1989 from the Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey. Judge Fisher was a Monmouth County court judge from 1964 to 1966, and a superior court judge from 1966 until October 1970, when President Nixon named him to the Federal bench. Judge Fisher gave up the title of chief judge of the Federal courts in New Jersey in September 1987 after 8\1/2\ years of service, the longest tenure of any chief judge in the district. The next day, he returned on a voluntary senior status, handling a caseload comparable to an active judge until several weeks before his death. Among many other accomplishments, he was the moving force behind the construction of New Jersey's three Federal courthouses, including the Federal courthouse in Trenton named for him in 1995. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to pay tribute to the life of Judge Clarkson S. Fisher. For his wife, Mae Hoffman Fisher, four sons, other family members, and his many, many friends, I hope the numerous expressions of praise and remembrance will be some consolation in their time of loss.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of House Resolution 157, which was passed by unanimous consent just a few minutes ago this evening. It is a great pleasure for me to join with the people of India and the Indian-American community in paying tribute to the 50th anniversary of India's independence, which is one of the things that is mentioned in the House Resolution. After years of determined and dignified struggle, the people of India finally gained their independence at midnight on August 14, 1947. That midnight hour, evoked by India's first Prime Minister Nehru in a stirring speech to the parliament, marked the beginning of an inspiring effort by the people of India to establish a republic devoted to the principles of democracy and secularism. In the five decades 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 multiparty political system, and the orderly transfer of power from one government to a successor. Anyone who doubted India's lasting commitment to these values would have had to be converted into a believer in Indian democracy after witnessing the elections of the spring of last year in 1996. In what proved to be the largest exercise in democracy in world history, half a billion people voted to shape their country's direction heading into a new century. The coalition governments that followed that election in the spring of 1996 have shown their commitment basically not only to democracy but also to representing the broad spectrum of the Indian population and continuing on the path of economic reform. Although many Americans may not necessarily recognize it, there is a rich tradition of shared values between the United States and India. Just as the United States proclaimed its independence from the British colonial order, so was India born of the struggle for freedom and self- determination. India derived key aspects of its constitution, particularly its statement of fundamental rights, from our own Bill of Rights; and the Indian independence movement, under the inspired leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, had strong moral support from American intellectuals, political leaders and journalists. In turn, Dr. Martin Luther King, in his struggle to make the promise of American democracy a reality for all of our citizens, derived many of his ideas of nonviolent resistance to injustice from the teachings of Gandhi. Thus, we see a clear pattern of Indian and American democracy inspiring and enriching one another at almost every historical turn. I happen to be, Mr. Speaker, the founder and also now the cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India, and I represent in my district in New Jersey one of the largest Indian-American communities in our country. I want to continue to work for stronger ties of friendship and cooperation between the United States and India, in part because we have such a legacy and we are the two greatest democracies. It is an honor for me to pay tribute to India for 50 years of independence. I know there will be a number of events celebrating the 50th anniversary as we lead up to it in August over the next couple of weeks, some of them in Washington, some of them in almost every major city and a lot of other places in this country. So as we adjourn today in the House of Representatives, I think it is particularly fitting that we pay tribute to the 50th anniversary. Many of us will be joining in these celebrations over the next 2 weeks.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, how much will it cost the American taxpayers to mollify Bob Dornan? So far the Republican leadership has allowed the House Committee on House Oversight to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on an investigation that has produced nothing. The victory of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] over Bob Dornan was certified by the Republican secretary of State of California. It is valid. However, Bob Dornan cannot get over the fact that he lost to a Hispanic woman, and for some unknown reason he can command the Republican leadership to jump to attention and harass the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] for over 9 months now. Mr. Speaker, it is not in the public interest to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold a kangaroo court aimed at nothing other than political payback. The people of the 46th District of California have chosen their Representative, and we should respect their choice.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order with my special order now.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because of the time constraints on debate, but I support the underlying budget spending bill. The reason is because today Congress is taking a major step in cutting the number of uninsured children. Over a year ago Democrats had made this a top priority, while Republicans were balking at finding a solution. Earlier this year, while Democrats were leading the charge to reduce the ranks of the 10 million uninsured children, Republicans were questioning the need to help working families provide for their uninsured children. It was not until the President's inclusion, after Democrats' urging, of funding for children's health care in his initial budget that Republicans realized that resistance would be hopeless. Even then, though, they had to be dragged to the table. House Republicans pushed a children's health care block grant program that did not guarantee one penny to actually insure kids. The Congressional Budget Office estimated 500,000 kids would be covered and most of the $16 billion in funding could be drained away by the States for other purposes. Democrats protested the Republican plan and voted unanimously for a motion to recommit that would implement the proposal of our health care task force. The idea was to attach requirements that States actually use the money to insure kids through Medicaid or an alternative State health insurance plan. We insisted as Democrats that the direct services option, which allowed certain exemptions from using money to insure kids, be eliminated or severely curtailed. In addition, Democrats demanded an adequate benefits package for kids. As the negotiations over the budget continued, Democrats joined in the series of letters to the budget negotiators urging inclusion of an additional $8 billion through a cigarette tax, and provisions intended to insure that all the new funds for kids' health care would supplement and not supplant current State efforts to provide children with health coverage. In the end, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans relented and the bill before us today includes $24 billion, requires that kids actually be insured with the money, and caps the direct services option to 15 percent of the funds. The benefits package is adequate, in my opinion, and language is included so States have to spend at least what they do now on kids' health care. Mr. Speaker, the kids' health care plan in this bill, in my opinion, is a major victory for the President and congressional Democrats. Thanks to Democratic values and perseverance, America's children will be the winners of this budget agreement.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans have reached a historic balanced budget deal, and this morning I want to congratulate my Democratic colleagues and the White House for standing firm in defense of what we knew was right. There is no doubt that Democrats are responsible for the inclusion of some of the budget deal's most important provisions. As a result of the Democrats efforts, the Federal budget will have $24 billion to provide health care for at least 5 million children who would otherwise have been uninsured. It will have a $500 per child tax credit for many families with incomes under $30,000, thereby covering 13 million more children than would have been the case under the GOP plan. It will have education tax credits including the President's HOPE Scholarship Program that would have been denied to many students pursuant to the Republican proposals. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans clearly felt the pressure from the White House and the congressional Democrats in the final days of the budget negotiations. Indeed as a result of our defense of what is right, we now have a budget that will benefit the average working American instead of just the rich one.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the foreign operations appropriations bill. The bill makes a significant effort to realize the balanced policy in the Caucasus region. And I am urging my colleagues in the bipartisan Armenian caucus to support the consensus position on the Caucasus, which was so painstakingly worked out by the subcommittee members. I urge those who will participate in the House-Senate conference to do everything possible to retain the House position in conference. The House bill maintains the economic sanctions on Azerbaijan which were enacted into law under section 907 of the Freedom Support Act in response to that country's continuing blockade to Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill does not allow for funds to go to Azerbaijan from the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency. The House bill maintains the integrity of section 907, while the exceptions in the Senate bill render the prohibition on aid to Azerbaijan virtually meaningless. One of the truly honorable provisions in this bill is the language making funds available for humanitarian assistance through nongovernmental organizations in conflict zones throughout the Transcaucasus, including Nagorno Karabagh. And finally, the bill provides a $95 million soft earmark for Armenia. Given the challenges facing Armenia, with blockades imposed by neighbors on their east and west, and in light of the strides that Armenia is making in terms of establishing democracy and a market economy, I believe this earmark is fully justified. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to stress our policy with regard to India. I believe we should remain consistent with the longstanding American goal of promoting greater cooperation with countries like India that promote democracy, free markets, and stability. I understand that we will be asked to consider an amendment to cut development aid to India. I urge Members not to support this unjustified proposal. Last year, India held nationwide elections in which more than 400 million people voted for free and fair elections. And this year, in the Indian state of Punjab, some 60 percent of the voters turned out for free elections, which resulted in the election of a Sikh dominated government. India has taken concrete steps to address human rights issues with the establishment of a national human rights commission that has won international praise for its independence and effectiveness. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am extremely concerned about a provision in the Senate foreign ops bill which would relax current United States sanctions on Pakistan. Under the Glenn-Symington provision, certain key United States trade and export promotion programs have been withheld from Pakistan in the past because of Pakistani involvement in nuclear proliferation. In recent years, Pakistan has moved forward with an aggressive program of acquiring nuclear technology and weapons. I urge the Members not to recede to the Senate on this ill-advised provision in conference.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I want to stress that it is not because of the underlying bill. I feel very strongly that this spending bill does include a major program to cover uninsured children in this country and I am pleased with the fact that we have managed, I believe as Democrats, and particularly the President, in pushing the Republicans towards inclusion of a $24 billion package that will insure the majority of the Nation's uninsured children. But it is for that very reason, because this bill is so important, that I think it is very unfair and wrong to present this bill at this time without having the opportunity to review the specifics of the measure. The bill, as my colleagues can see, is about a foot thick. I understand it was filed at around 3 o'clock in the morning. I have not had the opportunity to review all of the provisions in the bill. We did receive a summary of the bill this morning, but I think it is fair to say that a summary is not adequate. Let me just give my colleagues an example on the kids' health initiative, which is such an important initiative and which I support wholeheartedly, but there are a number of things that we still do not know. For example, many of us, including myself, on our Democratic Health Care Task Force were concerned about the benefits package. We knew we wanted to have the $24 billion, and we wanted to insure the majority of the kids. But we were concerned about whether the benefits package would be adequate, and language was put in and was negotiated in the last 24 hours on that, which I hope provides an adequate benefits package, but without reviewing the specifics of the bill myself and my other colleagues, we will not know whether it is completely adequate. Similarly, we were concerned to make sure that the money was going to be spent so that States had to actually insure kids and not whittle it away or use it for other purposes. I understand in the summary we received this morning that 15 percent of the funds can be used for purposes other than to insure kids. Well, I would like to know the details of that and how specifically that 15 percent is set aside. We do not know that, and until we analyze it we will not know it. And in addition to that, again on the kids' health care initiative, we were concerned, many of us on the Democratic side, to make sure that States had to keep providing the same level of funds, if not more funds, than they had in the past for kids' health care. We wanted to make sure the maintenance of effort, if my colleagues will, was in there. And we are not actually clear about the language for that as well. So I want to join my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, in saying, ``Yes, we think this is a good bill, and we probably will vote for it, but it's not fair not to have the details, and there is no reason why we couldn't wait in this Congress another 24 hours so that everyone, including our staff, had the opportunity to review the details in something that is so important to this Congress and to the American people.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, today the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan arrives in Washington, and during his official visit to our Nation's capital, the President of this former Soviet republic will be honored at the White House and will brief Members on Capitol Hill. Madam Speaker, as an article in this Sunday's Washington Post noted, ``The visiting head of state who will have lunch with President Clinton this week and stay at Blair House as an honored guest has an unusual background: A former general in the KGB security forces who was dismissed from the Politburo for alleged corruption a decade ago.'' As the article goes on to point out, Azerbaijan, this former Soviet republic on the Caspian Sea has been ``propelled into the forefront of U.S. interests by oil and geography.'' That is what this is really all about, oil interests. While our State Department has cited serious abuses of human rights in Mr. Aliyev's regime, it is clear that human rights are a secondary interest. His country's territory happens to be sitting on some of the world's major oil reserves. U.S. oil companies are interested in exploiting this resource, so apparently we just look the other way about Mr. Aliyev's unsavory regime, wine and dine him in Washington, and let him stay as an honored guest at Blair House at the American taxpayers' expense. On the eve of Mr. Aliyev's visit, I want to inform our colleagues about the type of leader this man is. President Aliyev has a long record of human rights violations dating back to his four decades as an official of the Soviet KGB. During the 1960's, he orchestrated the depopulation of Armenians from their homes in Nakhichevan. As the Communist Party leader of Azerbaijan during the 1970's, he violently suppressed all nationalists and democratic dissent. His ardent support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan earned him a seat on the Soviet Politburo under Leonid Brezhnev, where he served until removed by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 for having engaged in widespread corruption. Since his return to power through a military coup in 1993, President Aliyev has suppressed democracy and committed widespread violations of human rights, which have been documented by the State Department. Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I believe that the effort to try to sanitize Mr. Aliyev's regime has everything to do with oil interests. I have nothing against the extraction of Caspian Sea oil reserves, but the question that we must confront this week is, what price do we pay to curry favor with the Azerbaijani Government? Must we court this most undemocratic leader on his terms? And what price do we pay for being so generous to President Aliyev? The result of this policy of appeasement, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, is the continued oppression of the people of Azerbaijan and the continued threats to the people of Mr. Aliyev's neighbors, Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. I would hope that this visit would offer an opportunity for our President and our administration to express American concerns about the lack of democracy and basic rights and freedom in Azerbaijan. I would especially hope the message could be sent to President Aliyev in no uncertain terms that Azerbaijan should immediately lift its blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. Finally, I would hope that President Clinton would stress to President Aliyev American support for a freely negotiated settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict that recognizes the self-determination within secure borders of the people of Nagorno Karabagh. I am circulating a letter along with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] to President Clinton expressing our concerns about the visit of President Aliyev, and I hope that we can make something positive come out of this visit by President Aliyev. Also this evening, Madam Speaker, I will be participating in a demonstration across from the Willard Hotel here in Washington to protest Mr. Aliyev's visit. The demonstration is being organized by the Armenian National Committee of America with the support of the Armenian Assembly of America and the entire Armenian community. There will be other demonstrations coinciding with President Aliyev's visit. I urge Members to support and participate in these demonstrations. Although President Aliyev is probably not familiar with the right to free assembly and free expression, he should know that this is how we do things in a democracy. He must not mistake the red carpet treatment he is getting in official Washington as a signal of approval by the American people for his policies of aggression toward his neighbors and oppression of his own people. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I am afraid that the direction in which United States policy is headed in the Caucasus region does not bode well for the outcome that we seek. The United States is in a unique position to be able to bring about a fair settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh situation and to help promote the long-term security and economic development of the region, but that is not the way things are going. The United States, along with France and Russia, is the cochair of the Minsk Group, and I believe that we should maintain our neutrality while exerting strong leadership to bring the parties together. I am working with my colleagues to bring an official from the administration, the State Department, to come up to the Hill to bring us up to date on the status of negotiations in Nagorno, and for us to impress upon them the importance we attach to protecting the self- determination of the people of Karabagh. Madam Speaker, Azerbaijan has some pretty powerful allies in its corner, including former top administration officials from both parties. We have to fight to make sure that the concerns of the people of Nagorno Karabagh are met here in the Congress and here in Washington. I am working with my colleagues to bring an official from the administration, the State Department, to come up to the Hill to bring us up to date on the status of negotiations and for us to impress upon them the importance we attach to protecting the self-determination of the people of Karabagh. You know, Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan has some pretty powerful allies in its corner, including former top administration officials from both parties. This was documented in a recent front-page story in the Washington Post. This effort, this big-money influence, is being driven by oil money--the Caspian Sea basin off Azerbaijan has some of the richest oil reserves in the world, and many U.S. oil companies are interested in getting into this region. But, Mr. Speaker, the big problem that many of us have is that the oil companies, and the former top U.S. Government officials working for those interests, are essentially lobbying for U.S. foreign policy to ignore the unacceptable behavior of Azerbaijan in order to curry favor with the regime and gain access to the oil reserves. I'm also concerned that the visit to Washington by President Aliyev, at this critical stage in the Karabagh negotiations, threatens to harm the peace process by undermining confidence in the role of the United States as an impartial mediator. Section 907 is a provision of the Freedom Support Act of 1992 which prohibits direct U.S. Government Aid to Azerbaijan because of the Azeri blockade of Ameria and Nagorno Karabagh. The administration's advocacy against Section 907, further reinforces the Azerbaijani perception that the United States, since the most recent OSCE summit in Lisbon, has tilted toward Azerbaijan. The visit by President Aliyev could serve to encourage Azerbaijan to further harden its negotiating stance. This encouragement is particularly dangerous given President Aliyev's pattern of unacceptable behavior, including his use of oil as a weapon against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh, his blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh, his rapidly expanding military capabilities, his threats of force and intimidation tactics, and his refusal to negotiate directly with the democratically elected representatives of Nagorno Karabagh. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in joining Mr. Porter and me in letting President Clinton know of our concerns about his upcoming meeting with President Aliyev and to push our State Department toward a fair solution to the very difficult Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I am proud of the role the Democrats took in this budget deal to guarantee that working families got their fair share of the tax cuts. While the Republicans were fighting for Wall Street, the capital gains or estate tax breaks, Democrats were fighting for Main Street, the education and child tax credits. We wanted to make sure that the education and child tax credits went to all working Americans, including those with incomes less than $30,000, who the Republicans wanted to cut out of the child tax credit. Democrats also fought the battle and won to provide health insurance to the majority of the Nation's 10 million uninsured children. President Clinton wisely insisted on an increase in the tobacco tax to provide a larger amount, $24 million to insure kids; and Democrats in the House, including our health care task force, pushed to close loopholes so the money could not be siphoned away for other purposes and would provide an adequate benefit package. Madam Speaker, we still have to look at the details before we crow too much, but the general outlines of the agreement show that Democrats can be proud of their fight to stand up for the interests of working families.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentlewoman. I was just looking at some of the worst features of the House and Senate Republican bills that we have been fighting against for the last 2 or 3 months. Based on the reports that we have heard today about what the agreement finally will be, we do not know for sure, but we really have, as the gentlewoman said, made some major achievements in fighting against some of these worst provisions. Just briefly to give an example, the $500 per child tax credit, which we mentioned, really was not going to go to most families below $30,000 in income. Now it will go to them. If they are paying income taxes or they are paying payroll taxes, they will still be able to take advantage of that $500 per child tax credit. Capital gains and indexing, if the gentlewoman will remember all the discussions we had about how the indexing provision caused the revenue loss to explode, and all this money going to wealthy corporations and families that would really explode the deficit, the indexing has been dropped. Education tax assistance, the GOP plans were far short of the $35 billion in tax assistance that the President and Democrats had talked about now. They have agreed to that. Another example is with regard to the minimum wage. I think the gentlewoman mentioned that with the independent contractors, where people would be taken off their pensions and their benefits and not be eligible for minimum wage anymore because they were classified as independent contractors. That is gone. Really important, with regard to Medicare, we had the Senate provisions that raised the age eligibility to 67, that had the means testing in part B, that had the home health co-payment, these things are all gone. Most important, what we already mentioned with the kids health care, that we shall now have a program that has a real possibility of insuring the majority of those 10 million uninsured kids.

Mr. PALLONE. I think so.

Mr. PALLONE. No, I cannot say that, but I think what the gentleman is seeing here is not only the HOPE Scholarship but also this 20 percent credit for tuition and fees, and then they will be able to deduct the interest on a student loan.

Mr. PALLONE. I am glad the gentleman brings that up, and if I can quickly just mention that job training is just as important an aspect of that. What it points out in this article, again, this is in my home paper, the Asbury Park Press, is that most students still are paying a majority of their tuition bills with their own money. So when we talk about these tax incentives or tax credits, they really make a difference. My understanding is, based on what we are hearing, and again we do not have a final document, but what I understand is that of this $35 billion which is now agreed to, that the President insisted on we have a credit of 100 percent of the first $1,000 tuition and fees, and that is in the first 2 years, and then 50 percent of the next $1,000 in 1998 through 2002. And if a student is not eligible for the HOPE Scholarship but is pursuing a postsecondary degree or a certificate or enrolled in a job skills program, a 20 percent credit for tuition and fees up to $5,000 through the year 2000 and $10,000 thereafter is granted. I think the agreement also adopts the student loan interest deduction. So there are a lot of incentives in there for people paying for tuition out of their own pocket, which most people still do.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, and we are in really the final hours of the budget negotiations with the balanced budget and tax cut plan close at hand, and as the final details are worked out concerning a number of issues, I want to, on the one hand, talk about some of the major achievements that I believe Democrats have succeeded in accomplishing if this budget agreement is finally concluded also talk about some of the things that I think that Democrats and the President need to continue to stand firm on to make sure that this balanced budget agreement, when it is concluded, is something that helps the average American, the average working American family. One of the things that I am most proud about is the fact that the President indicated very strongly today that the final agreement will contain $24 billion to expand health insurance for kids. Those of us who have been involved with this issue for a number of months, actually more than a year now, know that a few months ago when the initial budget agreement was struck, the proposal was for a $16 billion plan that would guarantee coverage for about half or 5 million of the 10 million uninsured children that we have in this country. Because of the addition of the tobacco tax, which appears to be included in the final budget agreement, and the additional 8 cents that would be devoted to kids' health care in that, we now have a larger part of money, $24 billion, and this could actually accomplish, if it is used properly, providing insurance for even more than the 5 million kids that were initially promised. But I have to say that in order to make sure that that money goes to pay for kids' health care we have to make sure that the money is used by the States for insurance, that there is a good benefit package and that there are not ways for States to basically take the money and use it for other purposes. In that regard, as the final details are worked out concerning children's health care, I just wanted to urge my colleagues to stand behind the stronger Senate proposal that covers more children, not only because it has the extra money available, but because it offers a real benefits package and insures that all the money set aside for children's health will in fact be used to provide children with health care coverage. Unlike the House Republican plan, which falls short on kids, the Senate plan uses the additional monies from the tobacco tax increase to cover probably twice as many kids. While Democrats see this legislation only as a first step in covering the 10 million uninsured children, a majority of the House Democrats joined me in signing a letter to the conferees and to the President outlining the same principles that the Senate language embodies. Republicans often cite the need to balance the budget for our children, and I urge them not to turn their backs on the Nation's uninsured kids. Let us support the Senate language. Let us make sure we have a good benefits package. Let us make sure we do not have a direct service option or a high direct service option that lets the money be used for purposes other than kids. Let us make sure that the States have to provide insurance for the kids and have to spend at least as much money as they have in the past, if not more, to make sure that there is adequate coverage for kids. The other thing on the tax side that I would like to talk about before I yield to one of my colleagues who has been here, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee], who has been here almost every night with me and on other occasions, talking about this balanced budget to make sure it includes the Democratic provisions, and to make sure it covers and provides tax cuts and benefits for the average working family. As I think many Members have heard, as my colleagues have heard, one of the Democrats' main concerns on the tax side of this balanced budget bill is that families that have children who are working but at the lower end, if you will, of the economic spectrum, but still paying taxes, still paying income taxes, still paying payroll taxes, that they get the advantage of the $500 per child tax credit. Again, it appears that the negotiators, in coming to a final agreement, are about to make sure that there is a guarantee that those middle-income families, those working families that pay income taxes or pay payroll taxes, that they will still get the child tax credit, even though they are also getting the earned income tax credit. This has really been one of the more divisive issues in the budget negotiations, and I just want to urge the White House once again to stand firm in defense of the Democrats' position on this. It really goes right to the core of what each party believes is the right thing to do. Just very briefly, Democrats believe that the right thing to do is to provide tax breaks to those who need them. With respect to the earned income tax credit, that means extending the proposed $500 per child tax credit to the 24 million working families that the Republican bill excluded. Under the tax plan that was pushed by the GOP, families with children that make less than $30,000 a year would not qualify for a $500 per child tax credit. The Republicans fashioned this tax plan so that would exclude these families from eligibility for such a tax credit because they do not make enough money. It is like a reverse Robin Hood doctrine. They would penalize the poor to benefit the rich. On the other hand, in the Republican plan we had major reductions in capital gains taxes, in indexing. We had major efforts to cut estate taxes for wealthy Americans. We also had the corporate alternative minimum tax that basically allows corporations to avoid tax liability. I think what is happening now is that the Democratic proposal that says that those families making less than $30,000 a year should be able to get the child tax credit, it looks like we are finally convincing our Republican colleagues, and the President is standing firm on that, but we have to keep repeating the point as we go down to the final days and hours of these negotiations. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], who has been here, as I said, almost every night talking about why it is important to make sure that this budget deal is good for the average working family.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I wanted to follow up on some of the points that the gentleman from Michigan made, and that is with regard to the President. If my colleague would remember, I think it was a week or two ago when the Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who appeared before our caucus, also sent a letter to those who were negotiating the budget in the final weeks, and he outlined four key tasks for any tax bill. Just to go over those briefly, one was no exploding deficits. Of course, the indexing for capital gains is a big factor, and that is now gone from what we hear. Then he talked about a fair balance of benefits for working Americans. And, again, we have been pushing for the child tax credit to be available to the majority of those people who are working, who are under $30,000 but they are working and paying taxes. And the third one, and I wanted to just mention this because I know the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from Texas have talked in the past quite a bit about the education tax aspect of this, he said in the letter that the tax cuts have to encourage economic growth. He stressed that the most important point in that regard was to make sure that our children are well educated in an ever-increasing global economy as we approach the 21st century, and that that was a Democratic priority, and that the Republican proposal neglects the commitment to education and instead offers broad-based tax breaks to wealthy buddies who want to make a killing in the stock and bond market. Well, one of the things the President insisted on and the Democrats insisted on was that this $35 billion be available as part of the tax package for education tax credits. And that, from what I understand in terms of what the negotiators have agreed to, is part of the final agreement. It was interesting, because today in my local newspaper, this is a syndicated column that I am sure appears in various papers around the country. Actually, it is not, it is written by Robert Reich and John Donahue. Robert Reich, of course, was the Secretary of Labor, and John Donahue was counsel to Reich in the first Clinton administration. It says, ``What should be first in line for tax breaks: education, capital gains or estates?'' And it says ``the Clinton administration is sticking to the late-spring deal it struck with Congress: $35 billion earmarked for incentives linked to education.'' And why? I just thought it was very interesting, just briefly here, because it says that ``While there's no consensus on the effects of preferential tax rates for capital gains, the best prediction is little, maybe no, net increase in savings and investment, a lot of maneuvering by accountants and lawyers to relabel income as capital gains and a sharp rise in the after-tax income of a tiny, wealthy slice of the population.'' But the benefits of education tax incentives are focused on working families. And basically what we are choosing between is middle class tax relief that rewards and encourages investments in America's earning power, as opposed to these sterile tax breaks that will deepen the divide between the very wealthy and the rest of us. I think it was very important throughout these negotiations that the President and the Democrats insisted on these education tax breaks because of the investment aspect, because of what it means to the future of the country, and I know both my colleagues have talked about this in the past.

Mr. PALLONE. Again, as the gentleman knows, we do not know what is in the final agreement, but my understanding is the President insisted on those provisions and that they are in there.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and I know that both she and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] stress the fact that we do have to watch what is going on here in the next 48 hours. One of the things that we both talked about tonight and we are very happy about is the kids' health care initiative, because now it is up to $24 billion because of the addition of the tobacco tax. But I have to say that in discussions, in debate over the last several months on the kids' health care issue, one of the major concerns of House Democrats, including myself, and we have a health care task force amongst our Democratic Caucus that has articulated this, one of the major concerns is that this money not be drained away and used for purposes unrelated to insuring kids. In one of the aspects of this that we will be discussing and we will be insisting on, and I believe that the White House has been insisting on, is to make sure that built into this program to insure these children at the cost of $24 billion that there are safeguards so that in fact the money is used to insure kids. The Senate version of this bill was a lot better than the House version, and particularly the House version that the Republicans reported out of the committee, the Committee on Commerce, and many Commerce Democrats were very critical of the lack of safeguards for how this pot of money would be used for kids' health care. Just to give some examples, there was in the House version what we call a direct services option that would have allowed the pot of money available for kids' health care when it went to the States to be used not to actually insure kids but to be used for certain services that they may or may not use. For example, money could have gone to children's hospitals but there may have been a lot of the uninsured kids that never went to the hospital or never were able to take advantage of the services of that particular hospital, and they would not be insured pursuant to this direct services provision but just get services for certain purposes of the hospital. Well, that was not acceptable to many of us, and we kept insisting on the Democratic side that the direct services option be eliminated or certainly curtailed. My understanding is that it has been curtailed. I do not know exactly if there is talk that it may be as low as 10 percent at this point. I still think that is too much. But nonetheless, by eliminating or cutting back on the direct services option, we are at least moving in the direction of what the Democrats have said needs to be done. The Senate language actually says that States have to provide insurance either through the traditional Medicaid program or through an alternative State insurance program and that they have to do what we call maintenance of effort, meaning that States have to at least provide as much money to pay for kids' health care as they have in the past. Well, if those provisions are in the final bill that we vote on here in the next few nights, and we are told that the Democrats and the White House have been pushing for that and that is likely to be the case, then we will at least know there are safeguards built in that most of this money will go towards actually insuring children. Another major issue was the benefits package. We can say we are going to have $24 billion available to insure children, and we can say that they have to be insured in some way; but if we do not have an adequate benefits package, then a lot of them may not get certain services. Our understanding is that the White House has insisted on the benefits package similar to what was in the Senate version, which is similar essentially to what Federal employees get. So a lot of the devil, so to speak, is in the details. We do have to make sure over the next 48 hours or so that these safeguards are built into the kids' health care program so that this money is actually spent to insure kids. These are the types of things that we have been talking about all along on a number of the tax cut provisions, as well as the spending provisions, the balanced budget agreement. I just must say that, although we are still weary about what finally results, Democrats can take a great deal of pride in the provisions with regard to kids' health care with the coverage now for the child tax credit, with the education tax credits, and with so many of the other things that we have been talking about all along that should be included in this tax cut package and in this spending bill to make sure that the benefits go to the average working American. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]. He has been here most nights arguing in favor of the average working family, both on the tax cuts as well as the entitlement provisions.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill today because of the irresponsible way in which the Republican leadership has conducted itself. I consider the three investigations that I am going to mention nothing more than partisan witch-hunts. This year, the Republican leadership is wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars on three separate investigations. These investigations are mean-spirited, duplicative, and wholly unnecessary. So far, they have absolutely nothing to show for their efforts. I would like to begin with the Committee on House Oversight's investigation into the election of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] defeated incumbent Bob Dornan in an election that was certified by the Republican Secretary of State in California. In spite of this, Mr. Dornan, who was defeated, can still command the will of the Republican Caucus and orchestrate a kangaroo court to investigate his loss. However, 9 months later, Bob Dornan still has not proven that he won. Instead, he intends to punish the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] under an avalanche of subpoenas and a mountain of legal bills, and no matter that the burden of proof to prove wrongdoing is on Bob Dornan as the accuser and he has failed again. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership should stop using taxpayer money to harass the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] in order to satisfy Mr. Dornan's craving for revenge. Turning to the second witch-hunt, we have the three-ring circus of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. In spite of the fact that there is a credible bipartisan investigation currently being conducted in the Senate, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is determined to go forward with an investigation that is being conducted so shabbily that high-level Republican staffers have resigned from the committee. To date, this investigation has cost American taxpayers over $2 million and there has not been one hearing, not one deposition that has produced any result. That is $2 million spent and, again, nothing to show for it. Finally, now we have the third investigation. The House Republican leadership has decided to tap into the Speaker's slush fund and spend $1.4 million on an investigation into the political activities of labor groups. For what, Mr. Chairman? For another political score to settle at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the bill at hand, but I really got up because I would like to speak on H.R. 1855, which I know just passed. I am very pleased over the fact that it did. This is an important bill, H.R. 1855, that protects an important resource to fishermen in my district from overutilization and depletion. I would like to just summarize by saying that H.R. 1855 serves to prohibit large fishing vessels from engaging in the harvest of Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel within our EEZ waters. Mr. Speaker, these large vessels should be temporarily restricted from the Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel fishery until accurate information has been collected. To date, no ship of this size has fished this vulnerable fishery. I must inform this Chamber that I am not concerned as to whether NMFS has declared these stocks to be fully utilized or even underutilized. These vessels have the potential of making any fishery overutilized in a short period of time. Large fishing trawlers are highly efficient and can catch five to six times more than any vessel currently registered with NMFS on the Atlantic coast. Furthermore, the processing capacity of large vessels is so great that they can fill quotas. As a result, these ships will compromise the Atlantic herring and the Atlantic mackerel fishing seasons. As members of our committee are aware, stock quotas are spread over a number of ships and are not meant to be filled by a small percentage of ships. My fear is that a large, highly efficient ship could close a fishery and reduce its stock simply because of the number of fish it can catch. I am concerned with NMFS's ability to react if overutilization occurs and this fishery needs to be shut down. If we allow a ship of this size into a forage fishery and we are mistaken as to the size of the stock, we will have a problem. And I would prefer that we err on the side of conservation, not exploitation. In the past, we have encouraged highly efficient gears to fish underutilized stocks. I do not want to get into examples. But I have to say that in the 1980's we encouraged the fishing gears to redirect efforts toward the shark species. At the time, sharks were considered to be underutilized. Since then, we have witnessed a drop in various shark species as a result of this redirected effort. Mr. Speaker, we should learn from that mistake and be cautious of redirecting any highly efficient gear. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that a vote in favor of H.R. 1855 is a vote for protecting one of our Nation's largest public resource. We have the opportunity to save the fish stock not only for those fishermen who depend on this resource along the Atlantic coast, but for future generations of fishermen as well. That is why I strongly urge my colleagues to support and pass H.R. 1855. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for all the work that he has done on this legislation. I would also like to note that with the depleted state of the North Atlantic groundfish, and restrictions on other fisheries, certain New England fishermen have been forced into the mackerel and herring fishery. It is my belief that this highly efficient gear will most likely compromise their needs and whatever relief these fishermen have experienced through herring and mackerel fisheries.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, Republicans have manipulated their tax bill to deliver as many tax breaks to the wealthy as possible, a new analysis shows. The Treasury Department this week released an analysis demonstrating that Republican tax breaks for the wealthy explode in cost in the outyears, posing a serious threat to the balanced budget which Republicans pretend to care so much about. The Treasury analysis found that the GOP tax package doubles in cost in the second 10 years to a staggering $790 billion, with nearly three-quarters of the tax cuts going to the wealthy. It is time, Madam Speaker, for Republicans in Congress to come clean with the American people about their priorities and admit that their plan delivers tax relief not to the hard-working middle-income families who deserve it, but to the wealthy contributors who helped them win control of this Congress.