[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1461-H1465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE NEED FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS AND OTHER VITAL ISSUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I would like to talk for a 
little bit about the issue of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, 
because I believe that it is imperative that this Congress, this House 
of Representatives in particular, pass a prescription drug benefit that 
is affordable and that every American, every senior citizen, everyone 
that is eligible for Medicare, would be able to take advantage of.
  Mr. Speaker, so far we hear the Republican leadership talking about 
the need for a prescription drug benefit in the context of Medicare, 
but yet we have seen no action. No action in committee, no action on 
the floor in either House.
  President Clinton has rightly pointed out that the government must 
subsidize drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries, not just for 
those who have modest incomes or use large amounts of medicine. Some of 
my Republican colleagues want to give Federal grants to the States to 
help low-income elderly people buy prescription drugs. But my point 
tonight is that that approach is unacceptable, because more than half 
of the Medicare beneficiaries who lack prescription drug coverage have 
incomes more than 50 percent above the official poverty line.
  Another Republican proposal that I hear from some of my colleagues 
would give tax breaks to elderly people so they can buy private 
insurance covering prescription drugs. But again this

[[Page H1462]]

proposal would benefit the wealthiest seniors without providing any 
help to low- and middle-income seniors.
  The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, and President Clinton has 
made it over and over again, and Democrats on our side of the aisle 
will continue to make the point, that we need to provide prescription 
drug coverage for all seniors and we need to end the drug price 
discrimination which so many of our seniors are witness to and suffer 
from.
  Just by way of background, Mr. Speaker, some information or some 
factual background about why this prescription drug benefit is 
necessary. Fifteen million Medicare beneficiaries right now have no 
prescription drug coverage, requiring them to pay their outpatient 
prescription drug costs entirely themselves. Millions of other seniors 
are at risk of losing coverage or have inadequate, expensive coverage. 
Indeed, the Consumers Union has found that seniors currently receiving 
prescription drug coverage through private Medigap policies are not 
getting a good deal.
  Specifically, in 1998, Consumers Union analysis found that a typical 
75-year-old is paying an additional premium of $1,850 per year for a 
prescription drug benefit that is capped at $1,250 a year. Hence, the 
typical 75-year-old is paying in premiums more than the value of the 
prescription drug coverage.
  There are so many problems with the so-called coverage that we have 
out there in terms of its being inadequate and consumers having to pay 
too much, as well as a large amount of seniors that have no coverage at 
all. The problem of seniors paying prescription drug costs out of 
pocket has become particularly acute because the costs of prescription 
drugs continue to soar. The cost of prescription drugs rose by 14 
percent in 1997 compared to 5 percent for health services overall.
  The pinch on seniors is especially hard because people buying 
prescription drugs on their own, such as the seniors who have no or 
inadequate insurance coverage, usually have to pay the highest prices 
for them and they are unable to wield as much leverage as health plans 
and insurance companies that often can negotiate discounts. They do not 
have that opportunity to negotiate the discounts.

  Seniors are the portion of the population that is the most dependent 
on prescription drugs. Whereas seniors are only 12 percent of the total 
population, they use more than one-third of the prescription drugs used 
in the U.S. every year. When Medicare was created back in 1965, 
prescription drugs did not play a significant role in the Nation's 
health care; and that is why it was not included in the time when 
Medicare was started. However, due to the great advances in 
pharmaceuticals in the past 34 years, prescription drugs now play a 
central role in the typical senior's health care.
  As President Clinton has pointed out, if we were creating Medicare 
today, no one would ever consider not having a prescription drug 
benefit. Drugs that are now routinely prescribed for seniors to 
regulate blood pressure, lower cholesterol, ward off osteoporosis, 
these kinds of drugs had not been invented when Medicare began as a 
Federal program in 1965. Today, the typical American age 65 or older 
uses 18 prescription drugs a year.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line that I am trying to get across, and that 
so many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have been trying to get 
across, is essentially that too many seniors find themselves unable to 
pay for their prescription drugs. The Democrats want to address this 
crisis and we want to enact a prescription drug plan this year to help 
all seniors afford the overwhelming cost of medication.
  Now, I do not insist, and Democrats in general have not insisted, on 
any particular plan as long as it covers everyone and it is affordable. 
But because of the fact that the Republican leadership has so far 
refused to take any action on the prescription drug issue in the 
context of Medicare, we have been forced to essentially move to a 
procedure in the House called the discharge petition. If a bill is not 
released from committee or does not come to the floor, the Members of 
the House of Representatives have the option of signing a discharge 
petition at the desk here to my right that would essentially force the 
bill to come to the floor for a vote.
  So, because of the Republican inaction on the prescription drugs 
issue in the context of Medicare, we have been trying to get as many 
Democrats, as well as Republicans, as possible to sign a discharge 
petition on two bills that would address the problem in a comprehensive 
way.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a little time talking about those two 
bills, because I think they may not be the only answer, but they are 
certainly a good answer to the problem that so many seniors face in 
terms of their inability to afford or have access to prescription 
drugs.
  The first bill is sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), H.R. 1495. It 
would add an outpatient prescription drug benefit to Medicare; 
basically provide for the benefit. The bill covers 80 percent of 
routine drug expenditures and 100 percent of pharmaceutical 
expenditures for chronically ill beneficiaries who incur drug costs of 
more than $3,000 a year.
  This legislation would create a new outpatient prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare Part B. The benefit has two parts: A basic 
benefit that would fully cover the drug needs of most beneficiaries; 
and, as I mentioned, a stop-loss benefit that will provide much-needed 
additional coverage to the beneficiaries who have the highest drug 
costs.
  After beneficiaries meet a separate drug deductible of $200, coverage 
is generally provided at levels similar to regular Part B benefits with 
the beneficiary paying not more than 20 percent of the program's 
established price for a particular product. The basic benefit would 
provide coverage up to $1,700 annually. Medicare would provide stop-
loss coverage; Medicare would pay 100 percent of the costs once annual 
out-of-pocket expenditures exceed $3,000. Seniors with drug costs in 
excess of the basic benefit but below the stop-loss trigger would be 
allowed to self pay for additional medications at the private entity's 
discount price.

  As I said, there are two aspects of this that the Democrats as a 
party have tried to address. One is the need for a basic prescription 
drug benefit, and the other issue relates to the price discrimination 
that seniors face right now if they are not part of a plan, in which 
case they have to pay a lot more for the coverage because they cannot 
negotiate a good price for prescription drugs.
  In the second bill that we have been seeking to discharge to the 
House floor, and various Democrats have signed the discharge petition 
for, this bill is the bill sponsored by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), H.R. 664, that calls 
for drug companies to end price discrimination and make their products 
available to seniors at the same low prices that companies give the 
Federal Government and other favored customers.
  If I could just talk about this bill in a little more detail. It is 
called the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. Basically, it 
was put together by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) because of various studies that were 
done by the Committee on Government Reform and that Democrats have 
looked into in order to suggest an answer to the problems that seniors 
have with price discrimination.
  There have been studies in congressional districts across the country 
that have shown that drug manufacturers engage in widespread price 
discrimination. Seniors and others who buy their own prescription drugs 
are forced to pay twice as much for their drugs as are the drug 
manufacturers' most favored customers such as the Federal government 
and, of course, the large HMOs.
  For some prescription drugs, seniors must pay 10 times more than 
these favored customers. This price discrimination has a devastating 
effect on older Americans. Although they have the greatest need and the 
least ability to pay, senior citizens without prescription drug 
coverage must pay far more for prescription drugs than the favored 
buyers and, as a result of these high prices, many senior citizens are 
forced to choose between buying food and paying for medication they 
need.
  I do not have to mention, Mr. Speaker, there are so many cases like 
this in my district and throughout the country where seniors are forced 
to make

[[Page H1463]]

this decision and choose between the drugs and the medication and 
buying food.
  The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act will protect senior 
citizens from drug price discrimination and make prescription drugs 
available to Medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. 
The legislation achieves these goals by allowing pharmacies that serve 
Medicare beneficiaries to purchase prescription drugs at the low prices 
available to the Federal Government and other favored customers. The 
legislation has been estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for 
seniors by more than 40 percent.
  Again, if I could summarize what the Allen-Turner bill would do, it 
would allow pharmacies to purchase prescription drugs for Medicare 
beneficiaries at low prices. Pharmacies will be able to purchase 
prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at the same prices 
available to the Federal Government and these other favored HMOs. It 
also uses a streamlined, market-based approach. It would allow 
pharmacies to use the existing pharmaceutical distribution system and 
will not establish a new Federal bureaucracy. And the new access to 
discounts by pharmacies will enhance economic competition.

  Mr. Speaker, I am not saying, and I want to stress again, I am not 
saying that these two bills, the Stark-Waxman bill or the Allen-Turner 
bill, the subject of the Democrats' discharge petitions, are the only 
approach. But I believe that something has to be done soon along the 
lines of the approach that these two bills take, and that is a 
comprehensive benefit for every senior under Medicare and a way to 
achieve affordable prices.
  The problem of the lack of an affordable prescription drug benefit is 
really the biggest problem facing the Medicare program today. As I 
mentioned before, Medicare is a good program but this is a huge gap 
that must be filled in the program. And I do not think it can be 
corrected piecemeal by simply devising a plan that covers the poorest 
seniors as some of my Republican colleagues have suggested. It should 
be a comprehensive and affordable drug benefit available to all 
seniors, regardless of income.
  It is not clear to me whether the Republican leadership is prepared 
to move away from this idea of covering only one-third of Medicare 
beneficiaries who lack any prescription drug coverage at all. The 
Speaker has appointed a partisan task force to study the issue, and I 
hope this is not a mere diversionary tactic to stall any action to move 
legislation forward and to end price discrimination.
  Hopefully, this task force will report soon and we will see some 
action that will come into committee and eventually be marked up and 
come to the floor. I just want to stress that when it comes to an 
examination of who has taken the lead in trying to fix this problem, 
the record is very clear. The Republicans have done very little on this 
issue. Democrats, on the other hand, have been on the House floor day 
after day since the 106th Congress began pushing for consideration of 
legislative solutions such as those that have been offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark), as I mentioned.
  The key is that both the Stark and the Allen plans would increase the 
negotiating power of those seeking to provide a Medicare drug benefit 
allowing pharmaceuticals to be purchased at cheaper prices and passing 
the savings on to all interested seniors. The President, we also know, 
has a comprehensive plan. His plan would also provide pharmaceuticals 
to seniors who need them at discounted prices. I want to stress that I 
also support his plan, and his plan also will accomplish the goal of 
covering all seniors and affordability.
  On the other hand, I do not know of any Republican proposals or 
expressions of support for confronting the issue of pharmaceutical 
price discrimination. And we cannot, we cannot address this problem 
without dealing with that price discrimination issue.
  Before closing with regard to the prescription drug issue, because I 
do want to move on to a couple of other subjects, I just want to 
express my view that it is also important to bring in the 
pharmaceutical companies in our efforts to pass a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit. I thought that it was very encouraging earlier this year 
when the drug companies dropped their initial opposition to a benefit 
and specifically to the President's proposal. That was refreshing.
  In my home State of New Jersey, of course, there are a lot of 
pharmaceutical companies; and I was contacted by some of the New Jersey 
pharmaceutical executives who expressed their willingness to sit down 
and help come up with a plan.

                              {time}  2045

  I think that the reason that they did that is because they realize we 
need action. They realize that seniors are suffering, and they realize 
that it is possible to put together, hopefully in a bipartisan way, a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit that will cover all seniors and that 
will be affordable.
  I would simply urge my colleagues and the Republican leadership that 
are in charge of the House of Representatives to act quickly on this. 
Until they do, I and other Democrats will come to the House floor on a 
regular basis demanding action, because seniors need it. This is a 
major issue for them. They are suffering, and they need to have our 
attention focused on this issue before the Congress adjourns this year.


Lessons For United States Diplomacy: India Responds To Clinton Message, 
                            But Not Pakistan

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend some additional time this 
evening, if I could, on two other international issues. I just returned 
last week with the President from an official state visit to India as 
well as Bangladesh. I thought that the trip and the visit by the 
President was very worthwhile. There is no question in my mind that it 
was a historic visit that managed to bring the United States and India 
closer together. This was the first visit by an American President to 
India and to the subcontinent in more than 2 decades.
  I wanted to just, if I could, in the little bit of time tonight, 
assess what was accomplished and also make my analysis of how much work 
still needs to be done.
  The key outcome of the President's trip is the message, I think, that 
should be sent to our administration, our State Department, about which 
South Asian nation can be relied upon to be an effective partner for 
the United States in the years to come. That Nation, of course, is 
India. Then, on the other hand, which South Asian nation stands in 
direct opposition to America's interests and values. I do not think 
there is any question, based on that trip, that the Nation in that 
category is Pakistan.
  President Clinton went to South Asia with an agenda of promoting 
peace, stability, regional integration, democracy, trade, market 
reforms, and the settlement of disputes through negotiations. Well, 
India's elected leaders clearly embraced President Clinton's agenda. 
Pakistan's military dictatorship, on the other hand, clearly ignored 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this lesson is not lost on the policy makers in 
our State Department and the National Security Council. During the Cold 
War, military and intelligence links were established between the 
United States and Pakistan. But we live in a changed world now. 
Unfortunately, there are many who are still set in the old ways, both 
here in Washington as well as in Pakistan. I hope what we have 
witnessed in the past week with the President's trip to the 
subcontinent will be taken seriously by our policy makers and that we 
will see significant changes in U.S.-South Asia policies.
  I participated in the President's visit to India, but also to his 
visit to Bangladesh. I want to report that that trip to Bangladesh was 
also valuable and productive.
  In addition to the goodwill that we generated between India and the 
United States and Bangladesh and the United States, there were some 
substantive accomplishments on initiatives that will improve the 
quality of life for the people of South Asia and create new 
opportunities for American businesses in this important and emerging 
region of the world.

  One of the President's top priorities in making the trip to South 
Asia was to call for a peaceful solution to the Kashmir conflict that 
has divided India

[[Page H1464]]

and Pakistan for decades. India's elected leaders have long made it 
clear that they seek the same thing.
  Well, last Monday, not yesterday, but the previous Monday, Mr. 
Speaker, on his first full day in India's capital of New Delhi, 
President Clinton and India's Prime Minister Vajpayee signed a vision 
statement outlining the direction of the partnership of the world's two 
largest democracies in the 21st century.
  In their joint appearance, Prime Minister Vajpayee stated that India 
remains committed to resolving its differences with its neighbors 
through peaceful bilateral dialogue and in an atmosphere free from the 
thought of force and violence.
  The prime minister stressed the need for neighboring countries to 
respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and to base 
their relationship on agreements solemnly entered into.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, President Clinton did not hear the same 
message during his brief visit to the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. 
President Clinton stressed to General Musharraf, the military leader 
who seized power in Pakistan in a coup last October, that there could 
be no military solution in Kashmir by incursions across the line of 
control, the de facto border between India and Pakistani-controlled 
territory in Kashmir.
  Our President called for restraint, respect for the line of control, 
and rejection of violence and return to dialogue.
  In a speech to the Pakistani people, broadcast on national television 
and radio, President Clinton stated, ``We want to be a force for peace. 
But we cannot force peace. We cannot impose it. We cannot and will not 
mediate or resolve the dispute in Kashmir. Only you and India can do 
that, through dialogue.''
  Now, in marked contrast, Mr. Speaker, to India's elected prime 
minister, Pakistan's military dictator did not echo the call for a 
peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict. Instead, despite 
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the general fell back on the old 
claim that Pakistan had nothing to do with sending forces across the 
line of control last year. As a matter of fact, in a recent interview 
with the Washington Post prior to President Clinton's visit to India, 
General Musharraf himself admitted the Pakistani government's 
involvement in last year's attack against India's side of the line of 
control.
  Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's New York Times, yesterday being Monday, 
the 27th of March, an editorial stated, and I quote, ``In his six-hour 
stop in Islamabad on Saturday, including a 90-minute meeting with 
General Musharraf and an unflinching television address to the 
Pakistani people, Mr. Clinton delivered the right messages, but he did 
not get a helpful response. Indeed, General Musharraf, in a surreal 
news conference following the visit, sounded as if he had not heard a 
word Mr. Clinton said.''
  That New York Times editorial, entitled ``Perils in Presidential 
Peacemaking,'' cited the disappointing results of the meeting with 
General Musharraf and of the meeting in Geneva with Syrian President 
Assad. The meetings accomplished little, quoting from the Times, 
``because neither interlocutor was in the mood to do business. America 
may be the sole superpower today, but that does not guarantee 
cooperation from intransigent leaders like General Musharraf and Mr. 
Assad.''

  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that leaders like General Musharraf 
and President Assad have in common was they were not elected to their 
post and they do not face the institutions of accountability that we 
expect in a democratic society. Obviously, we have to deal with such 
authoritarian leaders around the world, and sometimes we can accomplish 
productive things with them. But the results are often frustrating. In 
light of India's willingness to enter into a process of dialogue with 
Pakistan, it is truly a shame that General Musharraf let this 
opportunity go by without making any effort at reconciliation.
  One of the key challenges of President Clinton's visit was to make it 
clear to the Pakistani junta that his visit did not constitute American 
support for the coup that overthrew the civilian government. While 
maintaining respect for Pakistani sovereignty, the President stated 
that, ``The answer to flawed democracy is not to end democracy, but to 
improve it.''
  But on the eve of President Clinton's visit, in what I would 
characterize as largely a public relations move, General Musharraf 
announced a timetable for local elections between December of this year 
and August 2001. But the General refused to provide a time frame for 
national elections. The bottom line is that the general appears intent 
on holding on to power for the foreseeable future.
  This is a stark contrast, Mr. Speaker, between India and Pakistan. 
India again proved itself to be the thriving democracy with a free 
press and respect for what we Americans call first amendment rights. 
While President Clinton's visit was widely hailed throughout India, 
there were opponents of the U.S., and peaceful demonstrators were 
allowed to express their views.
  During the President's speech to the Parliament, those of us who were 
part of the bipartisan delegation in New Delhi that accompanied 
President Clinton had an opportunity to interact with our counterparts 
in India's parliament. We sat on the floor with them just as we would 
in the House of Representatives here. How different was that from the 
closed door meetings with an unelected general that took place in 
Pakistan.
  Two other huge areas of concern in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship 
are Pakistan's disturbing close relationship with terrorist 
organizations, many of which operate on Pakistani soil, and the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons technology with some of the world's 
most unstable and dangerous nations. Again, the response of General 
Musharraf was not encouraging.
  Casting a shadow over President Clinton's trip was the tragic and 
shocking massacre of 36 innocent Sikh villagers in India's state of 
Jammu and Kashmir. This terrible incident took place while we were in 
India with the President. It was the first large-scale attack against 
the Sikh community in Jammu and Kashmir. But it is consistent with this 
ongoing terrorist campaign that has claimed the lives of thousands of 
peaceful civilians in Kashmir. This terrorist campaign has repeatedly 
and convincingly been linked to elements operating within Pakistan, 
often with the direct or indirect support of Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is no coincidence that this massacre in 
Kashmir took place during Clinton's visit to South Asia. I believe 
these terrorist groups and those who support them in Pakistan wanted an 
incident that would draw attention to the Kashmir issue while stepping 
up the campaign of fear intended to drive Hindus, and now Sikhs, out of 
Kashmir.
  There have been also crude attempts to blame the massacre on India, 
which is an outright untruth, in an effort to try to turn the Sikh 
community against India. As always, these actions backfire in terms of 
their intended propaganda effect.

  What is tragic, besides the loss of innocent lives, is the fact that 
Pakistan continues to squander resources on weapons and support for 
terrorism in Kashmir.
  Estimates have put the average income in Pakistan at about a dollar a 
day. Democracy has been squelched. President Clinton tried to approach 
the Pakistani leadership with a message of friendship, but with serious 
expectations about what steps Pakistan must take to be a full-fledged 
member of the community of nations. But that message, President 
Clinton's message, was ignored or rejected by the Pakistani 
dictatorship.
  Lastly on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say, in India and 
Bangladesh, President Clinton outlined a number of programs for 
increased trade and investment in the United States, as well as ways to 
increase cooperation among the nations of the region in the energy 
sector and other areas.
  Some day, it is to be hoped that Pakistan will be able to be a part 
of this new-found cooperation with the United States and with its 
neighboring countries. But this cannot happen under the terms Pakistan 
has set for itself. I regret that the current government in Pakistan 
did nothing to encourage the hope for progress, but it was certainly 
not for the lack of trying by both the United States and India.

[[Page H1465]]

                179th Anniversary of Greek Independence

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, lastly today, if I could just spend a few 
minutes, I noticed that, earlier this evening, a number of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle made statements on the floor 
addressing the 179th anniversary of Greek independence. I wanted 
tonight, before I conclude, to just congratulate the people of Greece 
and, of course, Americans of Greek descent, on this 179th anniversary, 
which occurred over the weekend, last Saturday, March 25.
  I think we all know that, throughout our country's history, Greece 
has been one of our greatest allies, joining the U.S. in defending and 
promoting democracy in the direst of circumstances.
  The Greek people have also made invaluable contributions to the 
betterment of American's society. Following traditions established by 
their descendants, Greek-Americans have reached the highest levels of 
achievement in education, business, the arts, politics, and athletics, 
to name just a few; and American culture has been enriched as a result.
  But I wanted to take the opportunity this evening on the anniversary 
of Greek independence today to discuss an issue that is of great 
concern to Greece and to Greek Americans, and that is the proposed $4 
billion of attack helicopters to Turkey by the United States and the 
current negotiations and the Cyprus issue.
  Let me just say in unambiguous terms that the U.S. should not go 
forward with the sale of attack helicopters to Turkey for a variety of 
reasons. Chief among them are the continued human rights abuses by the 
Turkish military against the Kurdish people in Turkey and the potential 
to undermine the recent thaw in relations that has occurred between 
Turkey and Greece.
  Human rights abuses by the Turkish military against the Kurdish 
minority in Turkey have been well documented, not only by human rights 
organizations, but by the U.S. State Department as well. These abuses 
are systematic and in and of themselves are reason enough not to go 
forward with the sale of U.S. attack helicopters to Ankara.
  In 1998, the administration outlined the progress in human rights 
Turkey would need to make in order for such a sale to go through. Those 
conditions have certainly not been met, Mr. Speaker. To ignore this 
fact would be to violate our country's own deeply held beliefs about 
human rights. This, however, is hardly the only reason why the sale 
should not go forward.
  Moving forward with the sale would undermine our long-standing policy 
to help ease tensions in the region between Greece and Turkey. The U.S. 
credibility with Greece will surely suffer if we urge them to take 
steps to reduce tensions with Turkey at the same time we sell Ankara 
attack helicopters. Such a sale could hardly come at a worse time. 
There had been a thaw in relations between Greece and Turkey sparked by 
the humanitarian gestures each country made to the other following 
earthquakes that rocked both nations last year. The helicopter sale 
could well be seen by Greece as a destabilizing step and upset the 
fragile progress that has been made in this regard.

                              {time}  2100

  Similarly, the proposed sale could have an equally harmful effect on 
the new round of peace negotiations in Cyprus. With these talks 
recently underway, it would be particularly foolish to sell Turkey 
high-tech offensive U.S. weapon systems.
  The United States' long-standing policy has been that any settlement 
of the Cyprus problem be consistent with innumerous U.N. resolutions 
that have been passed on the Cyprus situation over the last two and a 
half decades. As my colleagues know, that is also the position of the 
Cyprus government. In other words, the U.S. position on Cyprus is 
consistent with that of Cyprus and Greece themselves. Moving forward 
with the helicopter sale would undercut the U.S.'s long-standing 
position on this issue and it simply should not happen.
  The United States, Mr. Speaker, should be doing exactly the opposite 
of what the administration is proposing. Rather than cozying up to the 
Turkish military through the sale of attack helicopters, the U.S. 
should be publicly and privately coming down hard on Ankara and the 
Turkish military. In unequivocal language, and through both private and 
public mediums, the U.S. should communicate to Turkey, and particularly 
to the Turkish military, that there will be immediate and severe 
consequences in U.S.-Turkish relations if progress is not made on the 
Cyprus issue.
  I do not have to repeat, but I will say that the illegal occupation 
of Cyprus is now almost 26 years old. Those of us who have worked on 
this issue in the House of Representatives must take advantage of every 
opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to bringing freedom and 
independence back to the Cypriot people. Indeed, reaffirming our 
commitment to standing firm with the Greek people, just as they have 
stood with us throughout our history, is a very appropriate thing to do 
on Greek Independence Day. Indeed, this is precisely why I wanted to 
talk about the issues I have raised today.
  I can think of no better occasion to speak against the proposal to 
sell American attack helicopters to Turkey than on Greek Independence 
Day, a day when we should be honoring Greece for its commitment to our 
shared values and celebrating ways to strengthen the ties between our 
two countries, not weaken them. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I once again 
congratulate Greek Americans and the people of Greece on the 179th 
anniversary of Greek independence.
  I urge all my colleagues to do the same and to join me in opposing 
the sale of attack helicopters to Turkey, in working for a just 
resolution to the Cyprus problem, and in working to strengthen the 
special bond that the United States and Greece have shared for so long.

                          ____________________