[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10561-10565]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    THOMAS TAX PLAN BAD FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I did not think it was possible but the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) came up with a worse tax plan than the one 
President Bush proposed earlier this year. And, of course, we all know 
that that tax proposal was marked up. It was considered this afternoon 
in the Committee on Ways and Means. And I want to say that neither the 
President's plan nor the House Republican plan that was marked up by 
the Committee on Ways and Means today will jump-start the economy, 
which is our major concern.
  We have now been through several months, even several years of an 
economic downturn and something has to be done to jump-start the 
economy, but nothing that the Republicans in the House nor the 
President have proposed will accomplish that.
  Madam Speaker, since the President took office, more than 2.7 million 
private sector jobs have been lost, the worst record in 40 years. Any 
tax cuts passed by Congress should be fair, fast acting and fiscally 
responsible; but the Republicans plan fails all three of those tests. 
The Republican plan does not create jobs. It irresponsibly piles up 
debt, risks Social Security to make room for tax cuts for the wealthy, 
and continues the failed economic policies responsible for the current 
economic downturn.

                              {time}  2015

  Madam Speaker, the Republican tax plan, in my opinion, is simply 
unfair. The wealthiest Americans will fare better under the Republican 
tax plan in the President's plan, while middle-class Americans, 
Americans with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, will 
actually receive less under the Republican plan than they would have 
under the President's plan, which also was not good.
  According to a report released this week on the Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities, households with incomes of more than $1 million per 
year would receive an average tax cut this year of $105,600 under the 
House Republican plan, and that is $15,000 more than they would have 
received under the President's proposal. Contrast those benefits with 
the middle fifth of households that would receive an average tax cut of 
$218 under the Thomas plan, slightly less than under the Bush plan.
  Let me reiterate, a millionaire under the Republican plan would see a 
tax benefit of more than $105,000; but an average American making 
between $40,000 and $50,000 would receive a cut of only $456.
  I just do not understand what my Republican colleagues and what the 
House Republican leadership have in mind with this rush once again to 
pass another tax cut that will primarily benefit wealthy Americans and 
corporate interests and really do nothing to turn the economy around. 
We frankly cannot take another 6 months or another year of this 
economic downturn; and to suggest that somehow we are going to do 
something like this that helps a few people who happen to be wealthy, 
as opposed to helping the general populace or doing something to create 
jobs, makes absolutely no sense to me.
  We understand that coming out of the Committee on Ways and Means 
today this is likely to be on the floor

[[Page 10562]]

sometime the end of this week. We probably would vote for it on this 
Friday, and I would hope that there would be an opportunity to bring up 
Democratic alternatives and to bring up amendments under an open rule 
so we have an opportunity to make some changes in what the Republican 
leadership has proposed. I doubt it, but I think we have to continue to 
agitate and say that other options must be considered.
  Again, as I said, Madam Speaker, at a time when we should be doing 
everything possible to jump-start the economy, the Republican solution 
centers around tax cuts on dividends, stock dividends and capital 
gains, two cuts that are, again, a target towards the wealthiest 
Americans and according to economists will not create new jobs. If my 
colleagues think about it, if we think about eliminating the tax on 
stock dividends, what does that accomplish? What makes anyone on the 
Republican side think that by eliminating a tax on stock dividends that 
the money saved by the people who would benefit from that would 
necessarily be reinvested in the economy, in the creation of new jobs, 
in the creation of a new means of production? We have no guarantee of 
that, and there is nothing in our economic policy that suggests that 
those kinds of tax cuts or elimination of stock dividends or capital 
gains are actually going to force or create a situation where money is 
reinvested in the economy, that is, creates more jobs.
  My colleagues do not have to take my word for it. There are about 400 
economists earlier this year who put out a statement that basically 
said that ``the tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the 
answer to the problem.'' They concluded that ``the permanent dividend 
tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus.''
  We need things that are going to create jobs immediately, money 
pumped into infrastructure, into economic development projects, not 
money that is just going to go to pay for people who have invested in 
the stock market and somehow that that is going to be turned around. 
There is no guarantee this is going to create jobs in the short term.
  Madam Speaker, like the Bush economic blueprint, the House GOP plan 
is also fiscally irresponsible because of the debt that it would 
create, saddling our children with debt and hurting long-term economic 
growth. This is such a reversal of fortunes from what we witnessed 
before the President took office under the Clinton administration. The 
economy was growing; we had a surplus rather than a deficit. Now, under 
the Bush economic plan, the deficits keep mounting.
  When the Bush administration came into office, there was a projected 
$5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. With this latest tax package that we 
will probably vote on this Friday, coupled with the huge tax cut in 
2001, Republicans will produce a record $1.4 trillion deficit over the 
next 10 years. That is a $7 trillion reversal in our country's fortunes 
from where we were 2 years ago in the last few months of the Clinton 
administration.
  What I really do not understand is how the Republican leadership in 
the House is no longer concerned about deficits. Madam Speaker, I 
remember a time when I was first elected here, which is about 15 years 
ago now, when I would come down on the House floor to do a Special 
Order, and there were a group of Republican Congressmen who used to 
bring a huge clock. It was about the length of the entire desk here 
where the House Clerks are sitting behind me; and it was so heavy and 
long they used to have the pages to come down and carry the digital 
clock. It recorded the level and the increase in the deficit on a daily 
basis or a weekly basis and the Republicans would harangue about the 
problem that the Nation faced because of increasing deficits. Where is 
that concern? It does not seem to exist anymore on the GOP side.
  Back in 1995, the current majority leader, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), voiced concern that President Clinton's economic policies 
would lead to record deficits; and he said, ``By the year 2002, we can 
have a Federal Government with a balanced budget or we can continue 
down the present path towards fiscal catastrophe.'' Well, the gentleman 
was correct about a fiscal catastrophe, but he was wrong about the 
culprit. He has nobody but himself and President Bush to blame for the 
fiscal crisis our Federal Government now faces, and they are trying to 
make it worse with this latest round of tax cuts.
  Today, based on the tax proposal this House will debate, as I said, 
this Friday, it is clear that House Republicans have changed their 
tune. No longer are skyrocketing deficits a priority. This, despite the 
fact that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan last week agreed that 
huge deficits will threaten economic growth. He stated before a 
committee in the Congress, ``If, through tax cuts, you get significant 
increases in deficits which induce a rise in long-term interest rates, 
you will be significantly undercutting the benefits that would be 
achieved from the tax cuts.'' That is Alan Greenspan whom the President 
says that he is going to reappoint, basically saying that the President 
and the Republican economic policies are essentially going to continue 
the economic downturn over several years, not just now but down the 
road.
  So how can they talk about how these tax cuts will have a long-term 
benefit to the economy? They will not. They will only make the economy 
worse.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, the Republican tax plan is full of what I 
call gimmicks designed to hide the true cost to taxpayers. In fact, the 
only proposals within the Republican plan that are beneficial to 
America's middle class, the marriage penalty relief and the child tax 
credit, which the previous speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn), mentioned, both of these would expire after 2005. So, of course, 
nobody thinks that would actually happen. Instead, the Republicans 
would come back and extend the benefits which then would raise the 
total cost of the package to at least $760 billion through 2013 over 
the next 10 years. Again, The Washington Post editorial page called 
these gimmicks tax-cut trickery this morning.
  So the Republican leadership is not even being honest about what they 
are doing here. They are suggesting that they are going to put these 
important proposals, the marriage penalty relief and the child tax 
credit, into play. They do not even talk about the economic costs of 
them over the 10-year period that we are discussing.
  I want to say, and I have to say because I think it is always 
important that the party in opposition put forward proposals that are 
different if we do not like what the majority is proposing, the 
Democrats have proposed a true economic stimulus plan that meets the 
test of being fair, fast acting, and fiscally responsible. Our plan 
would create one million jobs this year, provide an extension of 
unemployment benefits to millions of Americans still looking for jobs, 
provide tax relief to small businesses to invest in new equipment this 
year, and provide assistance to cash-strapped States and 
municipalities.
  Let me explain that. As we all know, in my home State of New Jersey 
as an example, States have to balance their budgets. They cannot go 
into debt the way the Federal Government does; and so State after State 
and Governor after Governor, both Democrats and Republicans, across the 
country over the last few years, because of the economic downturn, have 
had to make major cuts in their expenditures because they cannot go 
into debt. What is the consequence of that? Less and less money is 
being spent by State and local governments in real terms, and so what 
that means is that there is not the money out there to generate the 
jobs and the economic opportunities.
  Rather than giving the wealthy a big tax cut, what the Federal 
Government should do is take some of that money and give it back to the 
States so that they are not withdrawing funding and programs and 
infrastructure needs from the economy that cause the economy to 
contract. That is what the

[[Page 10563]]

Democrats would like to do, take some money from the Federal 
Government, give it back to the States so that they do not have to cut 
their budgets the way that many of them have had to do, which has a 
negative impact on the economy.
  Of course, our Republican colleagues do not want to do that. They 
just want to cut taxes; and again, that problem really goes to wealthy 
individuals and corporate interests. Not only are the Republicans 
attempting to trick the American people with their tax proposal, but 
unfortunately, President Bush is also misleading Americans all over 
this country as to why we may once again face budget deficits as far as 
the eye can see.
  I talked about the budget deficits. They are primarily caused by 
Republican economic policies, i.e., the tax cuts; but again, Mr. Bush 
says the opposite. The President says the opposite. This morning's 
Washington Post editorial says, ``And then there's Mr. Bush, peddling a 
woefully incomplete account of how the deficit got so large and 
dangerously misstating the impact of his tax cut on future deficits.''
  According to The Washington Post editorial again, ``In Arkansas 
yesterday, for example, Mr. Bush attributed the deficit to the 
recession and to his decision to send troops into combat. Both have 
indeed helped turn projected surpluses into deficits. But so has 
something Mr. Bush's account omits,'' and that is his first $1.35 
trillion dollar, that is trillion dollar, tax cut.
  The Post editorial continues, and says, ``Budget Director Mitchell E. 
Daniels, Jr. acknowledged to the House Budget Committee in February 
that next year's deficit would be more than one-third smaller were it 
not for the tax cut. So the President is simply misleading Americans 
when he says we have a budget deficit either because of the war or 
because of a recession. The fact of the matter is the tax cuts he 
enacted into law in 2001 are the main reason for the deficits we now 
face. And, unfortunately, those deficits will get even larger if we 
enact either the President's plan or the House Republican plan.''
  Madam Speaker, over the last 2 weeks, the President has toured the 
country trying to sell his tax cuts, even as congressional Republicans 
disagree among themselves about the proposal, delaying action to fix an 
economy that is badly broke. As the President has tried to convince the 
country of the merits of his proposal, it is clear that his rhetoric 
bears little resemblance to the facts.
  Let me give my colleagues a couple of the best examples of the 
President's rhetoric as opposed to the reality of the situation. In 
Canton, Ohio, on April 24, President Bush claimed that ``ending the 
double-taxation of dividends, according to many economists, will help 
the stock market. If getting rid of the double taxation of dividends 
increases the markets, it will be good for millions of investors all 
across America. It will be good for our economy. And it will reduce the 
cost of capital, which means jobs.'' That was the President's 
statement.
  Based on those statements by the President, a likely listener in 
Canton, Ohio, understandably would have believed the tax cuts on 
dividends would lead to jobs; but, again, the President's claim, in my 
opinion, is simply false. In fact, economists have rated this proposal 
the one with the least bang for the buck in jump-starting the economy 
of all the different proposals that have come forward in the Congress.
  For example, Song Won Sohn, chief economist with the Wells Fargo 
Company said, ``A dividend tax change is not the best tool to stimulate 
the economy. Joe Sixpack does not have much in the way of dividends.''
  Similarly, according to Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institute, 
``Few economists believe that the gains from efficiency would offset 
more than a small portion of the increases in deficits.''
  The President continues to talk about stock dividends as the way to 
solve the economic problem. There is no economist who will tell us 
that.
  During this same Canton, Ohio, speech, the President blasted away at 
those of us who have rightly called his tax proposal a tax cut for the 
wealthy.
  Madam Speaker, I have said it many times tonight, and I will continue 
to say that that is what it is; but the President told the crowd in 
Canton, ``So when you hear politicians say it's a tax cut for the rich, 
they're talking about you. Tax relief is good for the average 
citizen.'' Well, the President says that, and it is nice rhetoric; but 
it is not the facts.
  Under the Bush plan, 25 percent of families with children would get 
no tax cut at all and half of all Americans would get less than $100. 
Half of all Americans, Madam Speaker, would get less than $100. In 
contrast, as I said earlier, under the President's plan, someone making 
$1 million a year would get a tax cut of $90,222.

                              {time}  2030

  Overall, just 17 percent of the Bush tax cut goes to families with 
income under $75,000. If we want to talk about fuzzy math, how can the 
President say all Americans are going to benefit when only 17 percent 
of the tax cuts go to the overwhelming majority of Americans who make 
under $75,000 a year. This is not something that is going to help the 
little guy, it just helps the wealthy; and primarily it helps the very 
wealthy, the millionaires and even billionaires.
  Madam Speaker, as the President continues to travel around the 
country in an attempt to rally support for a failed tax proposal, 
critical education, health care and homeland security programs are 
being ignored by this administration and the Republican Congress.
  The point I want to make tonight is that not only are these tax 
proposals not going to help the economy, but at the same time critical 
programs, education, health care, homeland security, the very things 
that President Bush has talked about, are being ignored and neglected 
by this administration.
  Let me talk about that. Both the President and the House Republican 
tax plans crowd out investments important to long term economic growth, 
like education, training, research and transportation.
  Let me talk about the education initiative. When President Bush 
signed the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, and I commend 
the President for it, it was a great piece of legislation that we 
passed on a bipartisan basis. But the President promised to write a 
healthy check for education. We cannot just pass a bill like that and 
not provide the funding that is going to provide for the education 
programs mentioned in the bill. So he said he was going to write a 
healthy check for education and it was nice words, but 1 year later 
when the President had an opportunity to support historic education 
reform with funding in his 2004 budget, he widened what I call his 
credibility gap by providing $9.7 billion less than what was promised 
in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  I am hearing from educators and teachers that are telling me that 
they are not getting the funding promised under the No Child Left 
Behind Act. The President signs this legislation, he says he will leave 
no child behind, but he does not back it up with the appropriate 
funding. It is a credibility gap, essentially.
  The simple fact is that the President cannot provide the critical 
education funds because of his huge tax cut for the wealthy. It is not 
that he does not want to do it, it is because he has this huge tax cut 
and once that is put in place, there is no money to fund the No Child 
Left Behind initiative. The simple fact is that the tax cut precludes 
that.
  Now we see thousands of teachers being given pink slips in 
California, class sizes increasing all over the country, and one of the 
Teachers of the Year in South Carolina was being laid off because the 
State was forced to make cuts in education. If we really want to make 
something or do something that is going to be meaningful in terms of 
education reform, we have to fully fund No Child Left Behind so it can 
become a reality; but that is not possible if the Republicans are 
successful on Friday and in the next few weeks in passing their tax 
bill and sending it off and the President signs it.

[[Page 10564]]

  Madam Speaker, let me also talk about another need that the President 
talked about in his State of the Union Address in January, and that is 
health care. The President and the Republicans will also find it 
difficult to address the health care needs of seniors and low-income 
Americans if they are successful in passing their tax proposal.
  President Bush's rhetoric was in high gear earlier this year when he 
stated in his State of the Union Address that ``Medicare is the binding 
commitment of a caring society.'' Unfortunately, in my opinion, Madam 
Speaker, that bond would break if the President's intentions of turning 
Medicare into a voucher program became reality. Again, I do not know 
whether or not he is ideologically driven in saying he wants to make 
Medicare into a voucher program.
  The bottom line is because of deep tax cuts he may not have a choice 
because there is not the money to fund the Medicare program in the 
traditional way. That is why I believe the President is seeking a 
voucher-type system for Medicare because he will not be able to afford 
to continue to fund Medicare in the traditional way with these tax 
cuts.
  The President has a so-called modernization proposal for Medicare 
that would limit the government's responsibility and shift costs to 
seniors under this voucher plan, ending the Medicare program seniors 
have depended on for 25 years. I know he is going to say it is not 
ending Medicare, it is a different type of Medicare. It is more of a 
privatization. If it is not the type of Medicare that seniors have 
traditionally relied upon where they have guaranteed benefits, then it 
is not really Medicare any more.
  Furthermore, President Bush's prescription drug proposal goes so far 
as to essentially force seniors into HMOs if they want to receive 
prescription drug coverage. There again it is a form of privatization. 
He is saying if you want to get prescription drugs as part of your 
Medicare program, you have to purchase private insurance, move to some 
type of system where you are provided prescription drugs, but you have 
to go under an HMO.
  Again, not traditional Medicare. If seniors have to be forced into an 
HMO in order to get prescription drug coverage, then I think the 
promise of Medicare that they would be able to choose their own doctor, 
be able to choose their own hospital, goes unfulfilled. Again, these 
are all cost-cutting measures that become necessary because the money 
is not there as a result of tax cuts.
  Madam Speaker, I do not think when it comes to Medicare there is 
really any credibility any more on the part of the President when he 
continues to advocate these kinds of changes. He is essentially 
dismantling the Medicare program the way we know it by giving the 
impressions to seniors that he is somehow strengthening it.
  The other thing that these tax cuts will have a devastating impact on 
is Medicaid which unlike Medicare which is mostly for seniors, Medicaid 
is the health care program for low-income Americans. I think the huge 
tax cuts will make it almost impossible for Republicans to address the 
health care needs of seniors under Medicaid and low-income people in 
general under Medicaid.
  Earlier this year the President proposed a plan to shift 
responsibility of the Medicaid program to the States in the form of 
block grants. Again, this is a recipe for disaster considering most 
States now face severe fiscal problems. The President would cap the 
amount of Federal funding States receive from Medicaid, requiring 
States to either spend more out of their own budgets or face the 
difficult decision of dropping beneficiaries or cutting social 
services. So what we are going to see is fewer and fewer people 
becoming eligible for Medicaid and the needs of low income individuals 
not being met.
  Madam Speaker, the Federal Government I do not think can ignore its 
responsibility to these 44 million low income children, adults and 
elderly Americans who depend on Medicaid services. The President and 
Republicans would not have to propose again these changes in Medicaid, 
this block granting and ultimately reduction in funds to the States if 
they scrapped their current tax proposal that primarily benefits the 
wealthiest Americans. Maybe in the case of Medicaid it is the worst 
juxtaposition because it is giving tax cuts to primarily wealthy people 
and taking away health care in many cases for the most needy under 
Medicaid.
  Madam Speaker, at a time when our economy needs a true jolt to 
reverse American's fears of losing their jobs, the Republican 
leadership once again plans to give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest 
Americans, and the plan that they put forth offers very little to 
families and middle class Americans and instead sacks them with a huge 
deficit, a deficit that risks the future of Social Security and 
Medicare and means likely future interest rate increases.
  I know I sound like doomsday today, but frankly for 2 years we have 
seen the Republican economic policies in effect, and I think it is only 
fair to say they have been a failure. The economy has gotten worse. 
More jobs have been lost. The debt continues to pile up. So there is no 
reason to believe that these continued economic policies that are 
basically in the form of tax cuts are going to do anything more than 
continue the economic downturn.
  Democrats, on the other hand, have proposed what I consider a true 
economic stimulus plan that is fair, fast acting and fiscally 
responsible. Again what we are essentially doing is putting more money 
in people's pockets, and we are giving money back to the States so they 
can spend the money on infrastructure, health care, education, and 
other needs. It would mean that more jobs would be created because 
there would be transportation projects and infrastructure projects in 
general that would need new people to go on the job.
  Also, we say that we want to provide an extension of unemployment 
benefits to millions of Americans still looking for jobs and tax relief 
to small businesses to invest in new equipment. We would target tax 
relief for small businesses, assuming that they turn it around and they 
spend it for new means of production, new opportunities, new jobs.
  Most important, we would provide assistance to cash-strapped States 
and municipalities which right now because of the fact that they are 
contracting their spending are also, I think, contributing to the 
economic downturn.
  I know that many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have talked 
about and contrasted what the Republicans would like to do and what we 
would like to do on the economy, and we will continue to talk about 
that this week as we move forward with this Republican proposal that is 
supposed to come up for a vote on Friday.
  But I would just say to anyone who says why would I believe the 
Democratic proposal is better, I would say look at what has happened 
over the last 2 years under the President and the Republican proposal. 
It has not worked. I frankly do not think we can go on another 2 years 
with the same failed economic policies. It is time to do something 
different, and we should be looking at some of the Democratic 
alternatives instead of just saying we are going to continue with the 
Republican tax cut.


                    Encouraging India-Pakistan Talks

  Madam Speaker, I did want to change the subject for just another 5 
minutes tonight before I end this Special Order, and go to another 
topic which relates to foreign affairs because I do think that what we 
have been witnessing the last few days, particularly over the weekend 
with regard to the potential for bilateral talks between India and 
Pakistan, is a very optimistic development in an area of the world 
which has a great potential for future war.
  Anything the United States can do to encourage negotiations, talks, 
between India and Pakistan I think are very important, and this is an 
opportune time for the Bush administration and the Congress to urge 
support for those kinds of negotiations and eventual peaceful 
settlement.
  Madam Speaker, I was encouraged over the last week by Indian Prime

[[Page 10565]]

Minister Vijpayee's leadership in seeking peace with Pakistan. 
Vajpayee's efforts to reinstate full Indo-Pakistani diplomatic 
relations and to restore cross-border transportation between the two 
countries exemplifies his willingness and commitment to finding a 
permanent peace settlement within South Asia.
  I would like to express my praise for the Prime Minister's recent 
brave steps, given the incessant cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. In 
the past, India was insistent that an end to cross-border terrorism had 
to occur prior to any renewal of talks between India and Pakistan. 
Unfortunately, any efforts by President Musharraf of Pakistan to curb 
terrorism in Kashmir have been superficial and Pakistani militant 
violence in Kashmir has continued to no end.
  I would urge President Bush and Secretary of State Powell to pressure 
Musharraf to end the cross-border terrorism into Kashmir and India in 
general. I would also like to note, even as we have had these murders 
take place by terrorists in Kashmir, this has been aggravated by the 
fact that the Taliban continue to find safe refuge in many of the 
border towns of Pakistan near Afghanistan. The U.S. worked so hard to 
remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, and to learn that Taliban 
members continue to receive moral and financial support from parties 
within the Pakistani government, including the Pakistani military, is 
by far the greatest hypocrisy.
  Again, the Bush administration must do more to pressure President 
Musharraf to end support within Pakistan for the Taliban.
  Madam Speaker, I also wanted to say that I am very encouraged by the 
fact that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is visiting both 
Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister of Pakistan Jamali, and I 
know he is going to recognize the recent positive developments from 
both sides. Again, the United States must do whatever it can to 
encourage negotiations between India and Pakistan that would lead to 
long-term peace in South Asia.
  Madam Speaker, Congress also can play a role in encouraging the 
peaceful settlement of disputes between India and Pakistan.

                              {time}  2045

  I have at least two proposals that I would like to mention in that 
regard. First with bilateral dialogue already resuming, the Congress 
should provide funding for projects that cross the two countries' 
borders. This could be done as an effort to provide confidence-building 
measures for the future stability of this region. For example, we could 
include infrastructure projects, such as roads, railroads or water 
projects that cross the borders between Pakistan and India. Second, 
Madam Speaker, if negotiations lead to a settlement that is agreed upon 
by both India and Pakistan, the Congress should provide funding in the 
form of a peace dividend that could bring the two countries together 
and all of South Asia together as one economic union.
  Madam Speaker, the peace dividend could take the form of economic 
development projects that tie the two countries together for trade and 
other business purposes. I think the United States itself would also 
benefit from increased trade with all of South Asia.
  So, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say in conclusion, I look forward 
to successful dialogue between India and Pakistan and ultimately peace 
in South Asia. Again, I think that the President, the administration 
and Congress must together encourage negotiations and not lose what in 
effect is a golden opportunity, not let this pass by because we might 
not see another opportunity like this where these two nations, both of 
which have nuclear weapons, seem to be willing to move forward toward 
peaceful negotiations. Let us not let the opportunity slip by. Let us 
do whatever we can to encourage the two countries to get together and 
ultimately bring peace to the South Asian area.

                          ____________________