Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time today, and I do not plan to use it all, but I would like to use the time that I have today to discuss some foreign policy issues. The first relates to south Asia and to India in particular. I am the cochair of the India Caucus, and very much a supporter of the efforts by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to bring their countries closer together, pursuant to the so-called Gujral Doctrine, which is named after the current Prime Minister of India. Progress is being made by the two countries towards a peaceful settlement of their differences, as well as improved economic and trade relations, and a big part of this has been the discussions that have been held between the Prime Ministers and between officials in India and Pakistan at a level lower than the Prime Minister level. But this progress is really one of the major reasons why I am concerned and very worried about a Senate initiative, an initiative by the other body that tilts, in my opinion, U.S. foreign policy again in favor of Pakistan and against India. Mr. Speaker, I want to express today my strong opposition to an amendment that was passed in the other body, in the Senate last week, to the foreign operations appropriations bill, that lifts existing United States restrictions on military and economic assistance to Pakistan. This amendment would allow for the resumption of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Military Education and Training Program, the Trade and Development Assistance, as well as the democracy-building programs such as the National Endowment for Democracy in Pakistan. These restrictions were imposed by the Glenn-Symington amendment a few years ago, which restricted the delivery of aid and bilateral programs to Pakistan because of Pakistan's continual development of a nuclear weapons program. The restrictions were in place due to Pakistan's externally aided nuclear weapons program. What is troubling to me, Mr. Speaker, is that the Senate repealed the Glenn-Symington amendment among reports that Pakistan has recently fired and tested a Chinese-built M-11 missile, or an indigenously developed medium-range missile similar to the M-11. United States intelligence reports that Pakistan is building or has built, with the aid of the Chinese, a missile factory. These missiles can carry nuclear devices. This factory is not subject to international inspection. Mr. Speaker, for those familiar with Pakistan's nuclear program, it is well known that for several years Pakistan has moved forward with an aggressive program of acquiring nuclear technology and weapons delivery systems, as well as providing arms and training to rogue nations and terrorist groups. The intent of the Senate action last week may have been, I hope that was the intention, but may have been to encourage Pakistan to cap its nuclear program. However, I would contend that history has shown otherwise. In 1985, United States intelligence reported that Pakistan was receiving United States arms and was simultaneously developing a nuclear weapons program. In response, and with the support of Pakistan, Congress in 1985 enacted the Pressler amendment, to deny assistance to Pakistan if the President could not confirm that Pakistan did not have or was not developing a nuclear device. But later, in 1990, a few years later, United States intelligence found via overwhelming evidence that Pakistan did indeed have the bomb. The Bush administration at the time invoked the Pressler amendment and restricted United States aid to Pakistan. The invocation of the Pressler amendment by the Bush administration gave Pakistan an opportunity to make an important choice. Pakistan could either work with the United States and cap its nuclear program, or ignore the Pressler amendment and continue with its nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Pakistan chose the latter course. In 1995, just 2 years ago, Congress amended the Pressler amendment with the so-called Brown amendment that allowed 370 million dollars' worth of previously embargoed conventional weaponry to be transferred to Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Pakistan did not agree to do anything in exchange for the equipment and no conditions on its nuclear program were imposed. Why do we keep rewarding Pakistan when it continues to work against our interests? Nearly all of Pakistan's nuclear program is for military use with very little attention toward infrastructure and civilian use. In fact, in 1986, China and Pakistan signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. The details of that agreement are not known although intelligence reports show that the agreement includes the transfer of nuclear weapon technology in both the design of weapons and the enrichment of uranium fuel. Mr. Speaker, we have to be very careful. We cannot allow this amendment, passed last week in the other body, to be viewed as support for Pakistan's nuclear program. Very little information exists with regard to Pakistan's nuclear program. Command and control systems that manage Pakistan's nuclear program are vague and really nonexistent. A leading American think tank has stated that the primitive state of the Pakistan arsenal suggests that any Pakistan nuclear response could be haphazard and ill-managed. That is from the Institute for National Strategic Studies, a strategic assessment from 1997. Furthermore, this amendment may hinder the progress, this Senate amendment may hinder the progress that has been made by talks between India and Pakistan over the last 6 months. This is really what I am concerned about. I talked in the beginning about the Gujral doctrine and how these two countries are now working together toward peaceful solutions. This amendment passed in the other body, I think, could hinder these talks, because the Indian Government has already stated on the record that in light of the circumstances India will take the appropriate steps to safeguard India's security. What is happening is that the traditional tilt toward Pakistan in United States foreign policy, which so many of us in the India caucus have been trying to reverse so that the United States is not partial toward Pakistan, this tilt is beginning to express itself again as a result of this amendment that was passed in the Senate. And I find it interesting that when India allegedly deployed the Prithvi missile, the United States quickly denounced the deployment. Yet when Pakistan continues to develop its nuclear program with the aid of the Chinese, we turn the other way. In fact, we reward them with aid. Mr. Speaker, if we desire a peace in South Asia, we must work equally and fairly with all countries in the region. This amendment passed in the other body does not do this. I know we are going to have discussions, we are going to have a vote here in the House next week on our foreign operations appropriations act. That bill will go to conference with the bill that passed the other body. My hope is, and I will certainly work toward taking out the amendment that was passed in the other body in conference so that when the conference bill eventually comes back to the two Houses, it does not include that amendment. I think that it is an amendment that again tilts United States foreign policy toward Pakistan, is not helpful in the overall effort to bring peace to the South Asia region and basically should not survive the conference, if there is anything that we can do in this House about that. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to another matter that is also important in terms of United States foreign policy toward India. When I visited India earlier this year, I had the opportunity to talk to the then-Prime Minister Gowda, who expressed continued concern that the United States has not prioritized India as part of its foreign policy. Mr. Gowda stressed that an important gesture could be made in that regard if President Clinton was able to travel to India in conjunction with the 50th anniversary celebration which begins this August 15. There are many members of our congressional caucus on India, including myself, that have contacted the White House over the last few months in order to convince the President that he should travel to India this year. We know that the White House has given serious consideration to this request, and we want to reiterate our plea collectively today now that August 15 is drawing close. The majority of our 90-member India caucus signed a letter today to the President, and I would like to just take some time now to read that letter for my colleagues. It says, Dear Mr. President, as members of the congressional caucus on India and Indian Americans, we urge you to visit in India next month to celebrate the 50th anniversary of India's independence. The United States and India, the world's two largest democracies, have many areas of common interest that have not been developed to the degree that they could be. The end of the cold war, combined with the historic opening of the Indian economy, forced us to significantly reassess our strategies and priorities with regard to Asia. There is substantial room to build on the current Indo-U.S. partnership and the political, diplomatic, economic, and security spheres. Under the auspices of our India caucus, we have had a number of opportunities in the past few years to interact with leaders from India's Government and private sector. Further, some of us have had the opportunity to travel to India recently. These direct contacts have convinced us that relations with India must take on a far greater prominence in United States foreign policy considerations as we move toward the 21st century. At the same time we have seen that the Indo-U.S. relationship has at times been strained, often unnecessarily so, and owing in many cases to the lack of a firm foundation in relations between our two great nations. Although many Americans may not 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 her constitution, particularly its statement of fundamental rights, from our own Bill of Rights. 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 every historical turn. August 15 marks this historic occasion. A visit by an American President is long overdue. The last President to visit India was the Honorable Jimmy Carter. There is no doubt in our minds that a visit by an American President will improve and strengthen relations between the world's two largest democracies. Mr. Speaker, this was signed by over 60 Members today alone. Many of us really feel very strongly that it would be a great thing if Pakistan could take the opportunity, either by August 15 or sometime after August 15, in this year of independence, which begins August 15, to visit India as a gesture, an important gesture really, of its priority in terms of United States foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to another foreign policy issue to a different part of the world. I would like to basically take this opportunity, if I could, to express my opposition to a state visit that will occur next week, a state visit to Washington, to the President, to the Congress, that will occur next week by President Aliyev of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that our President must from time to time receive foreign leaders with whom we have differences, in the case of the visit of President Aliyev, I have grave reservations based on both the past actions and the current policies that Mr. Aliyev has pursued and is pursuing. I would hope that this visit would offer an opportunity for our President and our administration to express our concerns about the lack of democracy and basic rights and freedom in Azerbaijan. I would especially hope the message would be sent to President Aliyev in no uncertain terms that Azerbaijan should immediately lift its blockades of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. Finally, I hope that President Clinton would stress to President Aliyev American support for a freely negotiated settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict that recognized the self-determination within secure borders of the people of Nagorno-Karabagh. I am circulating a letter, Mr. Speaker, today that I have circulated today when we were in session, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. We are the cochairs of the Armenia caucus. Our letter to Pakistan expresses our concerns about the visit of President Aliyev. Most of the members of our House Caucus on Armenia have signed the letter, and I would hope, I sincerely would hope that we can make something positive come out of this visit by President Aliyev. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the direction which U.S. foreign policy is headed in the caucuses region does not bode well for the positive 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 that region. But that is not the way things are going. The OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, established the Minsk conference to mediate a settlement of the Karabagh conflict. The United States, along with France and Russia, is a cochair of the Minsk group. However, I am concerned that the United States not use its position to force a settlement that does not allow Nagorno-Karabagh to adequately protect its land and its people in the future. I am working with my colleagues to bring an official from the administration, the State Department, to come up to the Hill next week, hopefully to bring us up to date on the status of negotiations and for us to have an opportunity to impress upon the State Department the importance we attach to the self-determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabagh. Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan has some pretty powerful allies in its corner, including former top administration officials from both the Democratic and Republican parties. This was documented in a recent front page story in the Washington Post. Basically what the Post described is an effort, a big money influence effort being driven by oil money. In this case Azerbaijan has proven oil reserves in the Caspian Sea basin off Azerbaijan, some of the richest oil reserves in the world. And many U.S. oil companies are interested in getting into this region. I want to stress that I have no problem seeing these petroleum reserves developed. Indeed, I would encourage construction of an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean via Armenia. That would actually improve cooperation and the economic prospects of the entire caucuses region. But, Mr. Speaker, the big problem that many of us have is that these oil companies and the former top United States Government officials that are working for their interests are essentially lobbying for United States foreign policy to ignore the unacceptable behavior of Azerbaijan in order to curry favor with the regime and gain access to the oil reserves. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of President Aliyev's visit, I want to inform our colleagues about the type of leader this man is. The reason that so many of us oppose his coming here and are concerned about what it means is that he is coming here on a state visit, that Aliyev has a long record of human rights violations that date 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 nationalist and democratic dissent. His ardent support, and I stress his ardent support, for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan earned him a seat on the Soviet Politburo under Leonid Brezhnev where he served until he was 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 in Azerbaijan and committed widespread violations of human rights in that country, which have been documented by the State Department. I am also concerned that this visit to Washington by President Aliyev at this critical stage in the negotiations over Nagorno-Karabagh threatens to harm the peace process by undermining confidence in the role of the United States as an impartial mediator. Many of my colleagues know that section 907 of the Freedom Support Act prohibits direct United States Government aid to Azerbaijan because of the Assyrian blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. The administration continues to advocate against section 907 and this further reinforces the Azerbaijani perception that the United States, since the most recent OSCE summit in Lisbon has tilted toward Azerbaijan. What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this visit, this state visit by President Aliyev now could serve to encourage Azerbaijan to further harden its negotiating stance in negotiating a peaceful settlement of the Karabagh conflict. 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 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 just wanted to say, in conclusion, that I would urge my colleagues to join the gentleman from Illinois [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. Speaker, I was in Armenia and in Nagorno-Karabagh earlier this year and believe me, there are no countries and no people that are more supportive of the United States and love and see the United States as such a great example of democracy and a market economy. Armenia and Karabagh are Democratic nations. They are capitalistic nations. They really honestly believe that we are on their side. And we should be. Because they are on the side of what is right. They simply want to retain their own independence, their own freedom and exercise their own self-determination. I think the U.S. policy should at least be neutral in this conflict. Unfortunately, there are many indications that it is not, and particularly our concern and my concern is that President Aliyev's visit is going to give the impression once again that the United States and our State Department tilt towards Azerbaijan. But we will continue our efforts to raise the issue and to make sure that the United States takes a neutral position with regard to negotiations over Karabagh and, hopefully, we will be heard at the White House and in the State Department, if not now at some point in the future.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was absent for votes taken yesterday, Wednesday, July 23. Had I been present on rollcall No. 300 I would have voted yes; on rollcall No. 301 I would have voted no; on rollcall No. 302 I would have voted yes; on rollcall No. 303 I would have voted yes; on rollcall No. 304 I would have voted yes; on rollcall No. 305 I would have voted no; and on rollcall No. 306 I would have voted no.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we found out this morning that the Republicans have come together on a unified budget bill that is far worse for the average working American than the previous versions that passed the House and Senate. Their unified tax bill is even more unfair to working families and deeply skewed to help the wealthy. In particular, the Republicans have refused to scale back on one of their prize tax breaks for the wealthy, allowing investors to index their capital assets to inflation and thereby reducing their taxes. Of course, the media and the American people are waking up to this Republican proposal. Today in the Washington Post the headline in the editorial said ``A Dismal Budget Prospect.'' If I could read from a section, it says: The tax provisions remain the worst aspect of the legislation. Why? The President has stated two great objections to them: They are tilted hugely toward the very rich, and in the long run, would be a far larger drain on the Treasury than their authors acknowledge. The Republicans today in this unified tax plan have given no ground on either count; again, huge tax breaks for the wealthy and a ballooning of the deficit.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and also in support of the fiscal 1998 energy and water appropriations bill. As co- chairman of the bipartisan House Coastal Coalition, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], and all the members of the Committee on Appropriations for once again rejecting the administration's anti-shore protection policy. Mr. Speaker, for several years now, despite congressional opposition, the administration has been clinging to an ill-conceived and unjustified policy that attempts to eliminate Federal involvement in the protection of our Nation's coastal residents from the impacts of flooding, and, as the committee report states, shore protection projects serve the same function as other flood control projects. They protect lives and property from the impacts of flooding. There are only two differences really between shore protection projects and other flood control projects. Unlike other flood control projects in which structural remedies are the only solution, the best remedy for protecting our coastal flooding is often beach nourishment. The other difference is that shore protection projects have added recreational benefits. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that 28.3 million jobs and billions of dollars in economic contributions come from coastal tourism. Coastal tourism-related businesses serve 180 million Americans annually. Recent polls in my home State of New Jersey show that 82 percent of State residents, and that is State residents not just coastal residents, favor beach restoration projects. Those opposed to a Federal role in shore protection point out that it is a source of revenue for local and State economies. But currently all levels of government, local, State and Federal, participate in funding these shore protection projects and all levels of government benefit economically as a result. So who exactly is losing by maintaining a Federal role in shore protection? I say nobody is losing, it is a good thing. I just want to say again on behalf of the House Coastal Coalition, which is bipartisan, and coastal residents around the country, I thank the committee for its rejection of this policy and I applaud committee members for seeing shore protection for what it is: a wise investment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if there is any doubt about the Republicans' dedication to helping the rich at the expense of the average working American, one need only look at the new definition of independent contractor in the GOP's tax agenda. The definition has been drastically broadened to allow employers to reclassify longtime employees as independent contractors. By so doing, employers would no longer be obligated to provide health and pension coverage as well as a host of other labor protections to millions, and I repeat millions, of Americans who are now entitled to such benefits; and to add insult to injury, individuals reclassified as independent contractors will be hit with a tax increase. They will be forced to pick up the Medicare and Social Security taxes that employers were formerly responsible for paying. On top of all this, Mr. Speaker, there are reports that Speaker Gingrich, in an effort to placate the conservative forces that almost brought him down, may once again be gearing up to shut down the Government in the name of tax breaks for the rich. Mr. Speaker, the GOP just does not get it. The American people are not interested in tax breaks for the rich and Government shutdowns. They are interested in job security and health care. The GOP should let honest people make an honest living and leave the definition of independent contractor alone.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this concurrent resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the committee, and also the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and others, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], other Members of the Congressional Caucus on Helenic Issues that have been keeping this issue in the spotlight. For almost a quarter of a century now the people of Cyprus have lived on a divided, militarized, and occupied island. On July 9 of this year high level negotiations between some of the key principals involved once again got underway, and we are very happy with that development. At the invitation of the Secretary General of the United Nations, the President of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriot leader met face to face for the first time in 3 years. This is certainly a very positive development, as was the joint statement released by Greece and Turkey the day before the talks in New York began, in which the two countries vowed to ``settle their disputes by peaceful means, based on mutual consent and without use of force or threat of force.'' As everyone is aware by now, I know it has been mentioned that President Clinton recently signaled his commitment to resolving the problem in Cyprus by appointing Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton peace accords, as the Special Emissary to Cyprus, and I want to congratulate the President for signaling his serious interest in the Cyprus issue through the appointment of Ambassador Holbrooke. Because the Cyprus problem is clearly one of illegal invasion and occupation, there are a number of conditions I have mentioned before, and I want to stress again, that I believe the United States must pressure the Turkish Government to accept. The first of these concerns the issue of sovereignty. Any solution reached must be consistent with U.N. Resolution 750 of 1992, which states, A Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded. To facilitate the goal of a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty, I believe the United States should push for the establishment of a federation, with two federated states, one Greek Cypriot and one Turkish Cypriot, administered by a federal government. This would be much like the constitutional democracy of the United States, where the states receive their powers from a federal government. What I am saying is a rotating Presidency and/or separate sovereignties for the Greek and Turkish communities should be viewed as completely unacceptable proposals. Second, Mr. Speaker, any solution to the Cyprus problem must be based on internationally accepted standards of human rights. Simply stated, all Cypriots must be guaranteed three basic freedoms, freedom of movement, property and settlement. Third, all foreign troops should be withdrawn from the island. In 1994, President Clerides proposed the demilitarization of the island as a precursor to meaningful negotiations. In 1995, this House went on record in support of this peaceful gesture when it passed the Cyprus Demilitarization Act. The United States must use its influence with the Turkish government to facilitate the removal of the Turkish occupying force and the introduction of NATO or U.N. peacekeeping forces, if necessary, so negotiations can begin in earnest. Last, I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that other matters, such as Cypriot accession to the European Union, must also be pursued. I know some of my colleagues have mentioned this. Integrating Cyprus into the framework of the European Union would demonstrate unequivocally to Turkey that its only real option is to accept a sovereign, independent Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, the United States should embrace the opportunity to make progress, but we must not reach an agreement just for the sake of reaching an agreement. It is tragic that Cyprus has been divided for 23 years now. We will, however, wait as long as we must to bring true and lasting freedom to the Cypriot people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are beginning to fear that they are not going to be able to win the President's support for their tax cut plan for the rich. So what do they do? They threaten to shut down the Government again. Many Americans remember in the last session of Congress when the Republicans did not get their way and so they decided to shut down the Government. Now the Speaker fears he will not get his way with his tax cuts for the rich so he wants to hold the Government hostage once again. Mr. Gingrich told a meeting of Ways and Means Republicans Wednesday that the GOP-controlled Congress would not send any appropriation bills to the President for his signature until the President signs a Republican tax cut plan. This is according to two GOP sources that spoke to Congress Daily. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have been working hard to push our plan that would truly benefit middle-income families. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is not honoring the agreement they made with the American people. First they broke their promise to middle-class Americans, and now they want to shut the Government down again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to begin as I do every year by thanking the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for organizing this special order. It has now been 23 years since Turkey invaded Cyprus, and I deeply appreciate the opportunity to join the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the other cochair of our Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] in keeping this issue in the spotlight. For almost a quarter of a century now the people of Cyprus have lived on a divided, militarized, and occupied island, and the facts of the situation are well known. I do not want to spend time tonight revisiting them, but I do believe there are important developments on the Cyprus issue that I want to spend the bulk of my time addressing, and I do want to say to those who were murdered during the Turkish invasion and to the 1,619 people who have never been accounted for, 5 of whom are American, that you are not forgotten. Those who have lived through the nightmare of the last 23 years and those who have never known freedom in their lifetime, I want you to know that you have many allies in the U.S. Congress who are determined to see you govern every inch of your own country. On July 9, this year, as was mentioned by some of my colleagues, these high-level negotiations between some of the key principals involved, once again got underway at the invitation of the Secretary General, the President of Cyprus, and the Turkish-Cypriot leader. They met face to face for the first time in 3 years, and I just want to say this is certainly a very positive development, as my colleagues have said, as was the joint statement which was released by Greece and Turkey the day before the talks in New York in which the two countries vowed to settle disputes by peaceful means, based on mutual consent, and without use of force or threat of force. But before I discuss the current peace process in further detail, I wanted to draw attention to an unfortunate display of provocation by the Turkish government. Two days ago Turkey's Vice Prime Minister, who was the Prime Minister when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, announced that he is going to visit the Turkish occupied area of Northern Cyprus on July 19, and the stated purpose of his visit is to congratulate the Turkish military for its invasion in 1974 and celebrate the subsequent occupation which is today enforced by some 35,000 Turkish troops. So while we are here today honoring the memory of those who were murdered and never accounted for as a result of this Turkish aggression and even as the Greeks and Cypriots around the world prepare to do the same, the Turks are planning celebrations and slapping themselves on the back to commemorate these 23 years of brutality. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged by this behavior, and I know the Cypriot people are as well. Yesterday I had the honor of personally meeting with the Cypriot Ambassador who conveyed to me his disappointment in this uncalled for provocation. And I think the Vice Prime Minister's visit is deserving for another reason that we mentioned, that Ankara and Athens are releasing a joint statement vowing to settle their disputes peacefully. I mean the purpose of this statement one would presume was to set a good tone for settlement negotiations. But the Vice Prime Minister's visit to Northern Cyprus really belies Ankara's intent to negotiate in good faith, and I think it is really a deliberate provocation and needs to be brought to my colleagues' attention. It also serves to reinforce the Congress' belief, this Congress' belief, that there are several aspects regarding the U.S. position that I think need to be addressed and reaffirmed as these negotiations get underway. I would just like to state those briefly. As everyone is aware by now, President Clinton recently signaled his commitment to resolving the Cyprus problem by appointing Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who was the architect of the Dayton Accords, and he is now the special emissary to Cyprus and his record of service has been mentioned by my colleagues, and, I think, the President should be congratulated for signaling his interest in the Cyprus issue through this appointment. But there was some concern following Ambassador Holbrooke's appointment that he might use the Dayton Accords as a model for the situation in Cyprus. To his credit, Ambassador Holbrooke has stated he does not intend to do such a thing and I want to commend him for that statement. And I just wanted to say and reiterate that the Dayton Accords are not applicable to Cyprus. The roots and causes of the Cyprus problem are without question very different from those of the conflict that began in Bosnia in 1992. The Cyprus situation is a matter of illegal invasion and occupation of a foreign power. By contrast, the conflict in Bosnia was primarily ethnic in nature. Accordingly, any solution to the situation in Cyprus must reflect the circumstances that are unique to the Cyprus problem's origin, and this problem is clearly one of illegal invasion and occupation. There are a number of conditions. I think the United States must pressure the Turkish Government to accept conditions that the Cypriot and Greek Governments and certainly all of us here tonight consider nonnegotiable, and these are first, with regard to the issue of sovereignty: Any solution reached must be consistent with U.N. Resolution 750 of 1992, which states a Cyprus settlement must be based on the State of Cyprus with a single a sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded. Relatedly, any overall settlement must be consistent with all U.N. resolutions on the Cyprus issue. To facilitate the goal of the State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty, the United States should push for the establishment of a federation with two federated States, one Greek Cypriot and one Turkish Cypriot administered by a federal government. In other words, the United States should support the establishment of a constitutional democracy much like our own where the States receive their powers from the Federal Government. A rotating presidency under separate sovereignties for the Greek and Turkish communities should be viewed as completely unacceptable. Second, any solution to the Cyprus problem must be based on internationally accepted standards of human rights. Simply stated, all Cypriots must be guaranteed the three basic freedoms: freedom of movement, property, and settlement. And third, all foreign troops should be withdrawn from the island. In 1994, President Clerides proposed the demilitarization of the island as a precursor to meaningful negotiations, an offer which has to date been met with nothing but derision from Turkey. In 1995, the House went on record in support of this peaceful gesture when it passed the Cyprus Demilitarization Act, and I believe, and most informed observers of the Cyprus situation agree, that no progress can be made until Ankara withdraws its illegal occupying force. I just want to stress again, Mr. Speaker, as I did earlier, that the Cyprus situation is one of illegal occupation of a sovereign country by a foreign power. The United States therefore must use its influence to facilitate the removal of the Turkish occupying force in the introduction of NATO or U.N. peacekeeping forces, if necessary, so negotiations can begin in earnest. And just in conclusion, while these issues do not represent a comprehensive list of concerns, they are, in my opinion, most important. Other matters the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] mentioned, such as the Cypriot accession to the European Union, have to be pursued. Integrating Cyprus into the framework of the European Union would demonstrate unequivocally to Turkey that its only real option is to accept a sovereign, independent Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that obviously the United States should embrace the opportunity to make progress, but we must not reach an agreement just for the sake of reaching an agreement. It is tragic that Cyprus has been divided for 23 years, but we would have to wait as long as we must to bring true and lasting freedom to the Cypriot people. Again I want to thank my colleague from Florida. I know he believes very sincerely in this. He has been doing this for many years, and when this finally is resolved a lot of the reason for it, a lot of the reason why the U.S. Government is now more concerned and the President is more concerned, is because of the efforts of Mr. Bilirakis and the Hellenic Caucus.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to start out this evening by pointing out that I believe most Americans now realize that the Republican tax cut strongly favor the rich, and when I hear my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle constantly try to say that that is not true, I think it is because they realize that the word is getting out that the average American understands that this Republican tax plan is basically favoring the rich, and the media, the newspapers, are obviously making that point as well because they understand it. In fact, two-thirds of the Republican tax cuts in the House bill go to households with incomes of more than $100,000, and I believe it is a disgrace that those Americans in the bottom 40 percent of the income; in other words, these are still working Americans paying taxes, essentially get nothing. The Republican tax scheme would deny the child tax credit to taxpaying working families but give big business and their country club buddies a tax break windfall. Now I listened to what some of my colleagues on the Republican side said tonight in the last hour, and it was really interesting because basically what they were saying is that the more money you make, the bigger tax cut you should get, and they short of justify this by suggesting that the harder you work the more you earn; in other words, somehow that people who earn more work harder. The problem is that is simply not true. Many middle-income people work harder than wealthy people. Some wealthy people do not work at all. They have just basically inherited their wealth in some cases. And what the Democrats are saying is that middle-income families should get the largest share of the tax cuts because they need it the most, and we have a limited amount of money to give back in tax relief because I would remind my colleagues on the other side that our basic goal with the budget bill is to eliminate the deficit. So why should we not give the tax cuts to middle income working families primarily? That is all the Democrats are essentially saying. We put forth a plan basically that would truly benefit middle-income families. We are advocating a tax cutting plan that is fair and that helps the majority of Americans as promised in the original budget agreement that was reached this past May. I believe very strongly that what the Republicans are doing here is reneging on the promise that they made when they signed with the President and said that as part of this balanced budget agreement most of the tax cuts would go to middle income working families, and unfortunately the Republican leadership is not honoring this agreement made on behalf of the American people. They are basically breaking the promise that was made to middle-income people. Now, what we have tried to do as Democrats is to illustrate in human terms the implications of this Republican tax scheme, and I just wanted to mention, I have mentioned it before, but I wanted to mention an individual, a family from New Jersey, that wrote to me about a month ago now and also talk about this family and others in terms of the education benefits of the Democrat versus the Republican bill. I have a chart here that talks about how a typical working family fares in 1998 under the GOP versus the Democratic proposals. This is a family that has an annual income of $24,000. The family has 1 child, age 10, and another child, age 19. The 19-year-old is attending his first year of community college with an annual tuition of $1200. Under the Republican bill the scholarship that would go to the student, to the child, that is in the community college basically is $600. Under the Democratic alternative it is a lot more, $1,100 phased up to $1,500 by the year 2001. Even more or just as important is what happens with the child tax credit. This is this credit that the Republicans promised many times before would go to all working families if they had dependent children, but what they have done in their Republican tax plan is basically say that many families, including this one, which again is making an income of $24,000 a year, would receive no child tax credit because they do not qualify because of the earned income tax credit which some of my colleagues talked about tonight. Under the Democratic plan they would get the family $300 phased up to $500 by the year 2001. Now that is the general statement that explains, I think, what the Democrats are complaining about when we say that the average person, in this case a working middle income family, are not getting a benefit of a child tax credit under the Republican plan and a reduced amount of money that is available for higher education. But I just wanted to illustrate my New Jersey case again, if I could, and then I would like to yield to some of my colleagues who are joining me here this evening. This is a woman, Deborah Hammerstrum, who is a resident of Toms River, NJ. She is a divorced mother of 2 children living on a single income, and she wrote to me, and I quote, ``to stress the importance of how a child tax credit would help to offset some of the financial burdens that come with raising a family on a single income.'' Ms. Hammerstrum earns $21,500 in her job as the benefits coordinator for Visiting Home Care Services of Ocean County, NJ. She pays $105 a week for child care, actually $5,460 a year, so that she can work. She is working. Now, to quote again from her letter, she says, ``Unfortunately, the Republican child tax credit proposal is targeted against those who need it most, those who are just one step away from falling into the welfare system.'' She works, she pays for child care, she pays for food, a roof over her family's head, and nothing more. The child tax credit should be given to financially benefit the child, and I think a child from a middle income family would benefit greatly by receiving this credit. She would get nothing under the Republican proposal, and the reason for this is because the Republican bill denies the $500 child tax credit to more than 15 million working families because it does not let them count the credit against their payroll taxes. I heard my colleagues over and over again on the floor tonight say that the only people who should qualify for this child tax credit are people who pay income taxes; in other words, if the child tax credit, I mean, if with the earned income tax credit which we have on the books now, that person, in effect that earned income tax credit, goes above what their income tax liability is, that they should not be able to take advantage of the child tax credit that we are proposing. And that is simply unfair, Mr. Speaker, because basically what it says is that we are not going to count for this working family the fact that they pay payroll taxes, Federal payroll taxes, the fact that they pay Federal excise taxes or might pay local property taxes. These families, including Ms. Hammerstrum, are paying a lot of taxes, and it does not make sense to me to say that they should not get this extra $500 child tax credit. I have other examples, but I do not want to use them right now because I wanted to have some of my colleagues talk about some of the same issues and possibly use some other examples. But I really feel very strongly that the Republicans are pulling the wool over the average American's eyes, so to speak, because they are suggesting that people who are working are somehow on welfare and should not have the benefit of this child tax credit. And that is unfair, and it breaches the promise and the commitment that was made when we started working on this balanced budget agreement. I yield now to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. And the amazing thing, too, going back to these higher education tax credits, is that under the Republican bill, after the first 2 years, because again remember we are trying to get and help people who are at the lower end of the spectrum pay for college education, still working people, though. And I wanted to read again from Secretary Rubin's letter, he says ``Neither bill, House or Senate, offers low income students and students who work to pay tuition meaningful help beyond the first 2 years of higher education. Instead, the bills require taxpayers to have the funds available to put into savings in order to be entitled to any assistance other than for the first 2 years.'' So not only do they take these working students and give them less for the first 2 years than the Democratic plan would, but unless they are in a position to have an IRA or some sort of special savings account, they would not get any help at all in the last 2 years of college. And we of course do the opposite and extend that credit, that education credit, through the whole 4 years of college. And my colleagues know today that many students need the 4-year degree if they are going to be able to get into the work force. So again it makes no sense. It is geared to the wealthy, not to the middle income people. And, obviously, this is not over yet, the budget negotiators are still at this, the President is weighing in, and I think all of us here joining in this special order tonight are only doing it because we hope that the people involved in these budget negotiations on the Republican side will wake up, come to their senses, so to speak, and try to help the average working American. This is not too late. This can still be done if they heed their constituents and the will of the American people. I want to thank the gentlemen for participating in this special order.

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned, that I think is so important and goes back again to what we were saying in the beginning, is that on the education tax cuts, again the Republicans are breaking the deal. A commitment was made that a certain percentage of this tax cut plan in dollars was supposed to go to education tax cuts and it was primarily to be targeted to middle income people. And the President was the person who pushed the most for that because President Clinton believed very strongly that we needed a well educated America if we are going to compete in the global economy; that education was the most important thing for the future of the country. His biggest criticism, and I even have some statements here from Secretary Rubin criticizing the Republican tax incentives with regard to education, is because he says it breaks the deal on the budget, it does not give enough money for education, and it particularly does not help people who are working people at the lower end of the spectrum, so to speak. If I could just mention briefly some statements from Secretary Rubin's letter to the conferees, he says Both the House and Senate bills are inconsistent with the bipartisan budget agreement because they fall far short of meeting the specific agreement of providing roughly $35 billion over 5 years of higher education incentives along the lines of the President's HOPE scholarship credit and tuition deduction proposals. Each bill significantly reduces the value of education benefits for millions of students attending low cost institutions by cutting the percentage of expenses covered by the credit, 50 percent in the House bill, 50 to 75 percent in the Senate bill. So it is those very students at the low cost institutions of higher education, the community colleges and the other low cost State colleges, that will get less tuition tax credit, which absolutely breaks the deal and makes no sense, because they are the ones that needs it the most. So that breaking the deal, I think the gentleman used the term weaseled on the deal, is exactly what we are getting here at every level. But most importantly, and that is what aggravates, I think, President Clinton the most, is on the education tax cuts, because that was the part of the balanced budget agreement he was most concerned about because of his concern about the future of the country.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just say, I am really pleased that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] pointed out the capital gains difference, because I think the Republicans would like the public to believe that the Democrats are not reducing capital gains. In fact, they are reducing them, in many cases even more, but they are targeting them primarily to homeowners. Whereas as the gentleman mentioned, under the Republican plan it is basically across the board and, therefore, it means with stocks, bonds, collectibles, and all these other things that it is primarily going to the wealthy families. I would yield back to the gentleman again.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is abundantly clear. If you listened, every reference tonight was to the Joint Committee on Taxation which, as you point out, every major newspaper and every nonpartisan analyst has said that this has just become totally politicized in only looking at the first five years. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman pointed out, as did the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] that a lot of promises and a lot of agreements are being broken here. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] talked about the contract and the promise to give the child tax credit to everyone who was working and paying taxes. But this promise to reduce the deficit and balance the budget is also a major one that is being broken here. And the analysis that our colleagues on the other side kept bringing up tonight by the Joint Committee on Taxation, I believe was basically looking at the first five years of their proposal, and most of these tax breaks for the wealthy are coming at the end of the 10 years. The Treasury Department and the other nonpartisan analyses that we have used and the Democrats have mentioned all look at this over the 10 years. What they point out is that with these big tax breaks at the end of the 10 years, this deficit, which as you know, Mr. Speaker, everyone here has been working so hard to try to bring down, now all of a sudden it will start to go up again and balloon and have the negative impact on the economy that we have been so concerned about. So they are breaking another major promise there with regard to the deficit.

Mr. PALLONE. I was listening to the gentleman's comments and then comparing some of the comments that were made by some of our Republican colleagues earlier. If the gentleman listened to them, what they were basically suggesting was that somehow what their proposal did, their Republican tax cut proposal, was to give money back to Americans but somehow ours did not. And the reality is that we are talking about the same pot of money here. The question is, who is going to get it back? The individual who is middle income, who is making $20, $25,000 a year, gets the $500 tax credit back from the child tax credit, they are going to go out and spend it. And the wealthy individuals that the Republicans want to give the tax money back to, the tax cut back to, they are going to spend it as well, so in both cases the money is coming back to Americans. They are going to spend it, and that hopefully will fuel the economy. But the question is, who is going to spend it? I think what you are pointing out is that the people that receive the earned income tax credit who should also get a child tax credit, they are spending it in many cases on basic necessities, food, housing, clothing, whatever. So there really is no difference between our points of view, other than who we are giving it to. We want to give it to middle-income working people.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. It was amazing, listening to the other side, to the Republicans tonight criticize the very concept of the earned income tax credit. They said we should not have it at all, and somehow suggested this was strictly a Democratic, liberal, or welfare proposal. The bottom line is that President Reagan, who is their biggest ideological champion historically, I guess, was a big supporter of the earned income tax credit, and thought it was a great way for middle- and lower-income people who were working to get some kind of a tax break. As the gentlewoman mentioned, it was in the Republicans' Contract With America. Earlier this year Senator Lott, the Senate majority leader, in his proposal for tax cuts proposed that individuals who received the earned income tax credit would still be able to get the child tax credit. So this is a last-minute thing. The reason it is happening, and it goes back to what I said before, is that we have a very limited pot of money here. If you are not going to balloon the deficit, if you are actually going to balance the budget with this bill, which is what supposedly we are doing, then you have a limited amount of money available for tax cuts. If Members want to give these tax breaks, the capital gains tax breaks the way they have figured it out, the estate tax breaks the way they have figured it out, and the corporate tax breaks to the wealthy individuals, the wealthy families and the corporations, then you cannot take this limited amount of money and give it to middle-income people who are working. You have to find some way, as the gentlewoman said, to squeeze them so you can give this money to the wealthy corporations or individuals. Of course, the other thing they do is at the end of the 10-year period, they start giving these breaks even more so with the capital gains indexing and the other things. As a result, they in fact do balloon the deficit and the deficit starts to grow again. So it is totally an effort, a scam, essentially, on the basic purpose of this balanced budget bill.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to join with my colleague from Colorado in her effort. I understand, as she said, that this amendment on brownfields redevelopment will not be offered, but we did want to make a statement about why we think that the substance of that amendment is significant. Basically what the gentlewoman says is that this $25 million in additional funds would provide incentives to actually redevelop the brownfield sites. I want to also mention that I am pleased with what the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] did to include $85 million in the bill for the brownfields assessment program. That is, of course, the assessment program. We, however, would like to see some additional money available, as was mentioned by the gentlewoman, for actual incentives to redevelop the sites. I wanted to mention, Mr. Chairman, that in June there were 85 House Members on a bipartisan basis who sent a letter to the chairman and the ranking member in support of the President's request for a significant increase in the EPA's brownfields assessment program, and I wanted to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette], the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for joining me in initiating that letter of support; also the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member, who has been a constant leader on the issue. We have a copy of this letter and a list of Members who signed it. I will include that letter for the Record. Let me point out again, Mr. Chairman, that the reason this is important is because brownfields redevelopment has been and continues to be a priority for many Members regardless of party affiliation. We are very much united in this effort to guarantee that our children have access to open space and economic opportunity by providing incentives for the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields rather than the development of pristine open space or the so-called greenfields. The Clinton administration has been very helpful in assisting States and local governments in promoting the redevelopment of these brownfields initiatives. That is why I think it is very important to continue with this. I just want to say I really believe very strongly that this is something that could be addressed in conference. I am obviously concerned that in the bill the subcommittee was not able to provide the money requested for this economic development grant program. I understand that there is language that was included that basically restricts the use of the money provided under the EPA's program. What I would hope is that when we get to conference, that my colleagues on the committee would reconsider this limitation so that money is either added, or at least the restrictive language is taken away so that some of this money can actually be used for cleanup and restoration. Otherwise, I do want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their work, and again join with my colleague from Colorado in making this point.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been saying for some time that the Republican tax plan favors the rich at the expense of working Americans. Republicans have tried over and over again to deny the truth, but the media and the American people are catching on. I want to make reference to sections in an editorial in today's Washington Post entitled ``Tax Trash.'' It says the Republicans have written a tax bill tilted heavily toward the better off. The Democrats, led by the President, have rightly called them on it. The Republicans, in turn, have adopted a new technique. Rather than argue, as they may have done in the past, about the virtues of the bill, they engage in distortion. The people who wrote this bill are not defending its distributional consequences, they are denying them. The plain facts are that the bill, over time, would not just mainly benefit the better off but would cost the Government revenues it cannot afford. The bill is certainly written in such a way as to make the revenue loss look small at first and then it soars. It is not just the Treasury Department that says so. The Congressional Research Service and the vast majority of other analysts are saying the same thing. Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the Washington Post because it says it all about what the other side is doing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge support of this bill, and I must say that I am pleased with the overall funding for the EPA, plus language that was put in in an appropriation of $4 million for our decontamination effort of toxic dredge material in the New York Harbor, which impacts New Jersey. I wanted to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], as well as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] for that effort in particular. But I do have to say, as my previous colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] did, that there is not enough money to significantly expand the Superfund program as proposed by the President. The President's initiative to clean up an additional 3,500 Superfund sites by the end of the year 2000 was designed to protect the public from the risks that these sites posed to health and the environment. I think this was an important initiative. It was recognized by the Congress. It was part of the accommodation in the balanced budget agreement. What we intend to do, myself, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette], is to offer an amendment that restores the $650 million in additional funding requested by the President. Many of Superfund's detractors are fond of saying that the sites do not get cleaned up fast enough. I think this is the opportunity to make a difference. We should reauthorize and reform Superfund, but we have to fund the cleanups while we work on the bill. I just wanted to say that in my home State of New Jersey, there are some 70 percent of our 107 sites that are either being cleaned up or are cleaned up. A great number of the sites have not been delisted in New Jersey only because long-term monitoring is still ongoing or long- term treatment of groundwater is still ongoing, but we have worked very hard with the EPA administrator and the President to put in place a Superfund program that is leaner and cleaner than it ever was before. Nationally, the reforms put into place by the EPA have revived the Superfund program after many years of neglect. In the last 4 years the EPA has cleaned up more sites than in all of the 12 years of the program's previous years. Mr. Chairman, the President made a promise to clean up these additional sites by the year 2000. To do that, I think we should include this money in the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on May 28 of this year a Federal jury found Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski of Houston, TX, innocent of all charges stemming from an FDA inspired indictment and criminal investigation. We have heard of Dr. Burzynski in this Congress and also in the last Congress from his 400-plus cancer patients who brought their own plight as well as his plight to our attention. The Government's conduct in this case was disturbing to me and to many of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. I know that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and other Members have raised the issue of Dr. Burzynski's case in past hearings of the Committee on Commerce. It would appear that the Government's handling of this case placed cancer patients at jeopardy at one point, and the treatment of Dr. Burzynski by the Government was, at times, reprehensible. Taxpayer money and resources were badly utilized on two Federal trials. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and my other colleagues to get accountability from those involved in this situation. What happened, Mr. Speaker, to Dr. Burzynski and his patients should never be allowed to happen to any other doctor or any other patient. This is another reason why I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 746, which I have cosponsored with the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], so that Americans can have their legal right to pursue the medical treatment of their choice without fear that their Government will impede their access or, in certain cases, even jail their doctor. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation. Perhaps with Dr. Burzynski's vindication, the FDA will now focus all of its attention and resources to work with his cancer patients and his drug discovery. I hope that is the outcome of this ill-fated and these two ill-fated trials.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to agree with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. I do not understand how the other side can say that we are wasting time or this is gimmickry. If they really believe that the age eligibility should not be raised from 65 to 67, let us vote on it. We know that the other body has specifically said in their bill that they want to raise the age. American people, our seniors, are very concerned about that. We need to take a position on this. I have to say that I find it abhorrent that the Congress would even consider raising age eligibility for Medicare. At a time when we are trying to find solutions concerning our uninsured populations, raising the age eligibility to age 67 will only exacerbate the problem. There are 4.5 million people between age 50 and 64 that are among the uninsured, for various reasons, and these numbers are growing every day. Some of these seniors lack access to employer-sponsored health benefits, while others are unable to afford expensive premiums and cost-sharing requirements. Now we are telling them that they have to wait even longer before they become eligible for Medicare. We would be breaking our commitment to America's seniors by raising the age eligibility. It is not needed to balance the budget, nor is it necessary to maintain Medicare short-term solvency. Some may argue that Social Security is already raising its age eligibility and that raising Medicare's would be consistent. But I would remind my colleagues that in Social Security seniors have the option to retire early and receive some of their benefits, while no similar option exists for Medicare. Raising the age eligibility has had little discussion, no congressional hearings. I personally see the increase in age eligibility as a back-door approach to letting Medicare wither on the vine. That is a phrase that the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has often used; and I strongly oppose that its inclusion be a part of any final budget package. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.