Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for what he said. He mentioned two things that I want to elaborate on. First, about the Bush administration's inaction on the price of gasoline. Mr. Speaker, I often find myself quoting the Vice President because he seems to be the one who speaks more often on this issue, maybe on most issues, but certainly on this issue. Reading something from Reuters today where Vice President Mr. Cheney said, ``Record high U.S. gasoline prices cannot be blamed on the global price of crude.'' In an interview with Reuters, Cheney also said, ``Jawboning OPEC to increase production and reduce the price of crude would have market consequences.'' I do not know what he means by that. He says that if the United States talked OPEC nations into increasing production, thus dropping the price of crude, the end result could be a slowing in investment by oil companies.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with what the gentleman said. I was looking at this last statement which I read where the Vice President said if the U.S. talked OPEC nations into increasing production, thus dropping the price of crude, the end result could be a slowing in investment by oil companies. It is almost as if he is saying that it is a good thing that the prices are going up because that gives them more money to invest, which is incredible.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. It is incredible to think about the reasoning that goes behind it. The second thing which was mentioned is the profits that the companies are getting. There is a chart here that I have that says that while consumers face spiking energy prices, many oil, gas and power companies post record profits. For example, Exxon-Mobil reaped nearly $18 billion in profits last year, up more than 120 percent over the previous year. This has a chart, and I will just give a few of them. It has Exxon- Mobil profits, increased from 1999 124 percent; British Petroleum-Amoco increased 54 percent; Chevron increase in profits over the year, 151 percent; Hess, which is in New Jersey, increase of 234 percent; Texaco, an increase of 116 percent. It is just incredible to see how much money they have been making.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong what we say necessarily, but I want to mention again that the Democrats came out today with an energy policy and principles. Obviously, we did this a couple of days before we hear the final report that is going to come out from the Vice President which will express the President's position. I am very proud of what we did today because it basically addresses each of the issues that I think that the public is concerned about, both short term and long term. If I can just review it and then we can finish our Special Order. First of all, it specifically deals with the problem of prices going up now, first of all, by asking that the President put pressure on OPEC to increase production and lower prices and to use the SPR, the strategic petroleum reserve, and to investigate the price gouging by the biggest companies. Then it has with regard to energy efficiency, what I mentioned, these best tax credits for both consumers and businesses to improve energy efficiency, to use renewables; and then we also have emergency funding to help low- and fixed-income families meet the rising cost of home heating and cooling bills, basically supplemental to the LIHEAP program which helps people with their energy bills. We have the price caps imposed on wholesale electricity prices in the West, which I think is necessary. That is something that we are going to be addressing in our committee next week when we get the energy bill that comes up. We also have strong provisions to protect the environment. We are saying that you can increase production, but you have to do it in a way that protects the environment. One of the things I would note is that during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, there actually was a significant increase in production; but they were not drilling in ANWR and other sensitive areas. What we are really doing, I think, is investing in the future. We are trying to come up with ways to encourage conservation, do things more efficiently, increase production but at the same time address this real problem that exists now both with the energy crisis where you have blackouts, electricity blackouts, as well as with the high price of gasoline. All those things have to be looked at as the gentleman pointed out. I want to thank him, and I want to thank the rest of my colleagues for joining me this evening.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in my district in New Jersey, the average price for unleaded gasoline is $1.72 this month. The Energy Information Administration report shows that the average price in New Jersey was $1.14 at this time last year. This is a 50 percent increase in one year, yet I assure my colleagues that New Jersey is not seeing the worst of the gasoline price increases. Prices in many parts of California are well over $2, and price fluctuations in the Midwest have been dramatic. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the energy crisis and the increase in gasoline prices, President Bush's answer has been, and he delivered this just last Friday, he said, ``The best way to make sure that people are able to deal with high energy prices is to cut taxes, is to give people more of their own money so they can meet the bills, so they can meet the high energy prices.'' Mr. Speaker, I understand that we just heard today that tomorrow President Bush's tax cut bill, the reconciliation bill, is going to come to the floor. But I assure my colleagues that that is not the answer to gasoline prices. He is talking about a tax cut so that Americans can go out and pay the $2 to $3 per gallon price of gasoline. But let us look at this. The President proposes that Congress act quickly to pass the tax cut so the Federal Government can refund American families a modest tax refund so they can in turn put gasoline in their vehicle. Well, he is not proposing a solution. He is just again displaying a lack of leadership and his alliance essentially with the oil and petroleum industry. What he is proposing with his tax cut is just another way to assist the industry, his friends. The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that, if one looks at the message that President Bush is delivering today and one compares it to the one he delivered when he was a candidate last year, in January 2000, when heating oil prices were soaring in key campaign States and spot prices were $27 per barrel, then Candidate Bush said, ``What I think the President ought to do is he ought to get on the phone to OPEC, the cartel, and say we expect you to open your spigots.'' Well, why is President Bush changing his position. Even today, Vice President Cheney was out saying he does not support increases in OPEC oil production. The Secretary Abraham was quoted a couple weeks ago saying that he was not going to give into or lower himself, I think the word was, to talk to OPEC about oil production because that would somehow lower his quality, his status as Energy Secretary. President Bush has also said he will not release any oil from the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Both the Clinton administration and the first President Bush, his father, George W.'s father, successfully released oil from the SPR, from the reserve, to calm energy markets. In fact, President Bush's decision not to take action, I think, is essentially unilateral disarmament in talks with oil producing countries. We know last year President Clinton was very effective, I thought, in using the SPR as a tool, if you will, to try to bring prices down. The other thing that President Bush has talked about as a long-term solution, of course, is to build more refining capacity. But I think he misses the point because it does not help the consumer today. The interesting thing about Bush's policy and Cheney's policy is that they are not talking about the problem that Americans face today. We have blackouts. We have oil prices, gasoline prices rising dramatically. American motorists are spending too much on gasoline. They want a solution now. The President talked refineries, but he did not talk about the effect of refinery consolidation. While the number of refineries has decreased, the refinery capacity has increased. Part of the problem that we witness today is this consolidation, is the size of the refinery has increased. Any problem in the refinery, like a fire, for example, that affects production has a greater impact on supply and price. I just wanted to mention I have a number of speakers tonight who are joining me, my colleagues on the Democratic side. I do not want to take up much more time before I start yielding to them, but I did want to talk a little bit before I finish the introduction here to our special order that we have tonight to mention mergers in the oil industry, because I also think that that is something that needs to be investigated and looked at, and it is not being looked at by this administration. Recent company mergers include a $7.49 billion deal in which Tosco recently agreed to be purchased by Philips Petroleum, and Valero will acquire Ultramar Diamond Shamrock for $3.91 billion. In a letter I recently sent along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), we requested that the administration, specifically the Department of Energy and the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, carefully review these mergers to assure that they do not unfairly disadvantage independent marketers. While mergers like BP and Amoco or Exxon and Mobile may be good for business, I am concerned about the impact on consumers. Exxon-Mobile this year reported $5 billion in record profits over the last year. Valero alone had a 2,272 percent increase in profits from 1999. There are real solutions, and Democrats have the real solutions. But those solutions are not found in President Bush's energy plan. Let me just mention a couple of things that we can do. First, we need to review the effect that mergers have on the price of gasoline. Second, I strongly believe that we need to find innovative ways to reduce demand. Conservation and energy efficiency are vital components of reducing prices of gasoline at the pump, and these ideas must be part of our Nation's energy use strategy. But, unfortunately, President Bush does not really think about this. Last week, he announced that he would abandon the 2004 goal set to develop a five-person vehicle that would get 80 miles per gallon. The Federal Government has spent $1.4 billion on this initiative, and last year the National Academy of Scientists called the program an outstanding effort. But now this program aimed at reducing the future demand on gasoline has been put on hold. American demand for gasoline is 8.6 million barrels per day. Sport utility vehicles, pickups and minivans account for 43 percent of the vehicles on the road today, up from 30 percent in 1990. Because of this increase, the current fuel efficiency in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest level since 1980. Today the standard for passenger cars is 27.5 miles per gallon, and for light trucks it is 20.4 miles per gallon. This standard has not changed since 1990. We need to address fuel consumption and create 21st century solutions to meet our 21st century users. I know that a number of my colleagues have been taking the lead on this, particularly some of the newer Members. I know that the energy crisis has been particularly bad in California. I yield first to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), one of my colleagues.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a friend and constituent of the sixth district whose unselfish service for over 35 years has left a lasting impression in the hearts of members of both her Temple and her community. Born in Poland and raised in a Yiddish-speaking home in Montreal, following her family's 1930 emigration to Canada, Anne M. Glatt's early education included both public school and a six-day cheder. After three years of college, Anne moved to the United States in 1950, living first in the Branch Brook Park section of Newark, NJ, then Jamestown, NY, and finally settling down in the Edison-Highland Park area in July, 1964. When she arrived, Anne immediately began looking for a Hebrew School for her three daughters and called the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center. Once all financial arrangements for her daughters' schooling were arranged, Anne politely suggested to Executive Director Reuben S. Silver that the Temple might be able to use a bookkeeper. Director Silver agreed and thus began an extraordinary relationship that continues to this day. Anne was kindly welcomed by all at the Temple, and found a particularly warm friend in the new young Rabbi Yakov R. Hilsenrath, with whom she often engaged in spirited conversation. After having been single for 23 years, Anne met Moishe Glatt in 1982, and the two were married in 1986. They will soon be celebrating 15 wonderful years together. Anne has been a loving mother, grandmother, wife, sister, and most of all, friend to everyone who has had the good fortune of meeting her. She has been the caring voice on the other end of the phone, shining smile behind the desk, and confidante in times of need. Her genuinely good nature and tireless devotion to her community have rightfully earned her the Temple's prestigious Chaver Award for exemplary service. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring Anne M. Glatt for her nearly four decades of dedication to the Highland Park Jewish community and wish her all the best in the years to come.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to denounce the Pakistan Ruling Army's dictatorial and wholly unacceptable treatment of nonviolent political activists as they assembled yesterday to demand a return to democracy. May 1, International Labor Day, has historically been a day when rights of those unrepresented and under-represented have been fought for around the world. The political workers and activists of Pakistan had announced May 1 as their day of peaceful assemblage, asking for return to civilian government. General Musharraf, the chief executive of the country, has completely clamped down on the very basic civilian right of the people to assemble. In his own words, ``Once we have said there will be no political activity, there will be no political activity.'' General Musharraf has called these protestors and democracy fighters ``useless politicians.'' This reign of terror by the army has to be stopped, Mr. Speaker, and we must denounce it in no uncertain terms. Mr. Speaker, Pakistan is taking a wrong path. Since the October 1999 coup d'etat in Pakistan, the army government has flagrantly violated basic civil rights of the people. The state of the press is severely threatened. Journalists are routinely harassed and their offices ransacked regularly. The constitution has been abolished. The erstwhile political parties of Pakistan have been demanding a return to democracy ever since the October 1999 coup d'etat by the military. The Musharraf government has outlawed public rallies of any kind ever since President Clinton's visit to the region in March of 2000. In addition, this government has become increasingly hostile and has created a security threat to the United States and the South Asia region by supporting the Taliban and the Osama Bin Laden network logistically, figuratively, financially and otherwise. In the most recent U.S. State Department's annual report on global terrorism, which was released Monday, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that Pakistan's military government, headed by General Pervez Musharraf, has continued previous Pakistani government support for several groups responsible for attacks on civilians in Kashmir. The report also states that the Harkat ul-Mujahideen, the HUM, a designated foreign terrorist organization, continues to be active in Pakistan without discouragement by the Government of Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, this Congress and its members, as proponents of democracy, have an overarching moral obligation to show solidarity with each struggle for democracy around the world. Expressing shock, the Pakistan People's Party senior representative Khohru said, ``They,'' the army, ``have totally clamped down. We are trying to march but obviously every place is a jail. The whole city is under siege.'' Mr. Speaker, if I could say, we must not let political repression go by unnoticed. We must go on record publicly expressing the strong opposition of the United States Congress to the military coup in Pakistan and call for a civilian democratically elected government to be returned to power in Pakistan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday the Order of the Friendly Sons of the Shillelagh of the Jersey Shore will be honoring Edward H. Lennon as ``Irishman of the Year, 2001.'' The Friendly Sons of the Shillelagh is an Irish-American social and charitable organization dedicated to promoting and enhancing the fraternity and good fellowship of its membership of Irish-Americans. It is most appropriate that Ed Lennon should receive this honor from the Friendly Sons, as his accomplishments embody the spirit and the wonderful traditions and accomplishments of the Irish in America. As President of the New Jersey State Police Fraternal Association, Ed has reached a pinnacle of success in a profession served so well by Irish Americans, both today and throughout the course of this century. In fact, Ed comes from a long line of law enforcement officers starting with his grandfather, William Carroll, who was a detective with the Bayonne Police Department. His uncle, Jim Carroll, served with the Hudson County Police Department and another uncle, Frank Conte, served with the Port Authority Police. Three cousins are also police officers: Bill Lennon, Ed Smith and Bill Opel. As president of the State Police Fraternal Association, Ed has most ably represented the interests and concerns of his membership as they seek to deal with the every-more complicated issues facing law enforcement in this day and age. Ed enlisted in the New Jersey State Police in 1977 and has served with great distinction since then throughout New Jersey in many capacities. Because of his prominence and expertise, he has been appointed to many commissions and advisory boards including commissioner on the Governor's Commission to Deter Criminal Activity, trustee in NJ SEED (Society for Environmental and Economic Development); board of directors of the National Troopers Coalition, and Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board of the Department of Labor. In honoring Edward Lennon, the Friendly Sons are honoring all law enforcement officers in New Jersey--individuals who on a daily basis put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. Congratulations Ed, we appreciate you greatly and thank you heartily.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to yield in just a minute to our other colleague from Texas, but the sad thing is the administration, this Bush administration, keeps talking about what they are going to do. But we do not really find that they are doing it. We had Governor Thompson, now Secretary Thompson, before our Commerce Health subcommittee last week, and he was touting the fact that he is going to provide more money for community health centers. But if you look at the Bush budget, and there is one paragraph here, it actually gets aid to the uninsured. So they are talking about trying to help with these community health centers, but then they cut it. This is from the New York Times. ``The Bush budget will propose deep cuts in health programs for people without health insurance. Budget documents from the Department of Health and Human Services show the programs providing health care access for the uninsured will be reduced 82 percent to 20 million from 140 million in the current fiscal year. These programs received 40 million in 2000.'' So I hate to use the term not being honest or not being truthful, but really, he is not being honest with the American people in terms of what he is doing on these health care issues. He talks about what he is going to do, but the money is not there and there is no movement, no effort to do anything to Congress to move in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to talk about health care and my concern that in the first 100 days of the Bush administration, we have seen no action, effectively, on the major health care concerns that affect the American people, that my constituents are talking to me about and that many of my colleagues in Congress, in the House of Representatives, not only on the Democratic side but also on the Republican side, have identified, issues that we have identified as important that need to be addressed in this Congress. I want to mention three tonight. There are many, but I want to mention three, if I could: one is the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit; the second is the need to reform HMOs, the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights; and the third is the mounting problem of so many Americans, maybe 45 million Americans at this point, who have no health insurance. Before I get to those three points, though, I probably should point out that the President's budget sends sort of a defining message with regard to health care by essentially not only dealing with some of these problems effectively but also by threatening through the size of the tax cut that he recommends, which is primarily for the wealthy and corporate interests, to possibly raid or effectively raid the Medicare as well as the Social Security trust fund. So I guess there is no reason why we should be under any illusions, if you will, that President Bush effectively wants to address some of these health care issues when the reality is that his budget probably would harm health care, particularly for seniors, by tapping into the Medicare trust fund and certainly doing nothing that would improve the future viability of that trust fund. I know that we may be addressing the budget tomorrow or Thursday or sometime in the next week or so, and that is one of my major concerns, that the budget proposal through the tax cut proposal would dip into the Medicare trust fund and affect its future. But I want to get back to the three issues that I wanted to address tonight that are health care-related and talk a little bit about each of those, if I could. One of the major problems that my constituents talk about, and I know it is true for all my colleagues because we have talked about it on the floor and we have had many discussions, the fact that so many seniors today are negatively impacted due to the cost of prescription drugs. In my own State of New Jersey and in many States, we have enacted legislation that would provide prescription drug benefits, some more generous than others, depending on the State, for low-income seniors. But Medicare, which, of course, is the main health care program, the health care program that most seniors rely upon, that is universal, does not include a prescription drug benefit. You may be able to get it if you have an HMO, but increasingly the HMOs do not provide prescription drug benefits or very limited benefit. So what we see is more and more seniors taking money out of their pockets to pay for increasingly high costs for prescription drugs. I happen to chair our Democratic Health Care Task Force where we took up this issue, but many of my colleagues on the Democratic side, and certainly some on the Republican side as well, felt that we needed to provide a prescription drug benefit in the context of Medicare so that all seniors, not just low-income seniors but middle-income seniors who are impacted probably more than anybody else, because in most States there is no benefit for them, there is no protection for them, need to have this kind of a benefit. The Democrats came up with a bill which we introduced in the last Congress, and I just want to summarize that if I could, the major features of that bill, to get an idea of the type of prescription drug benefit that I think we need. First of all, the Democratic bill, called the Prescription Benefit Act of 2000, was universal and voluntary; established a voluntary prescription drug benefit program for seniors and disabled in Medicare beginning in 2002. Enrollment is voluntary when a senior or disabled person first becomes eligible for Medicare or if and when they lose coverage from an employer, an HMO plan, or Medicaid. Enrollees would receive Medicare payments for covered drugs from any participating pharmacy and are charged negotiated discounted prices on all of their covered drug purchases regardless of whether the annual benefit limit has been reached, the idea being that we want to pool all the seniors in a Medicare benefit so that the cost of prescription drugs is significantly less. In terms of the benefit, the proposal that the Democrats put forth last year would pay for at least 50 percent of the negotiated price for the drug, up to 50 percent of annual limits equal to $2,000 through 2002 to 2004, and it goes up to $5,000 to 2009, and then adjusted for inflation. So 50 percent of the cost from the first prescription that one buys and then up to $5,000. There was a catastrophic benefit beyond that that one would not pay anything. The main thing I want to point out, though, is that this was a universal benefit. What the Democrats have been saying is that everyone in Medicare should be eligible for a prescription drug benefit. That is because most of the people that are complaining to us about the cost of prescription drugs and not having coverage are, in fact, middle-income seniors, not the very poor who often have, as in my State of New Jersey, some kind of a program to pay for their prescription drugs. Now, during the course of the campaign, President Bush said that he wanted to address the concerns of seniors and he wanted to enact, if he was elected President, a prescription drug benefit. It was not quite clear what he had in mind. He was pretty general about it, but he certainly suggested that it was not just for low-income seniors. It would be for all seniors. Now so far in the first 100 days of this administration the only proposal that we have received is one that was basically included in the budget for, I think, about $150 billion, which is woefully inadequate in any case, for a low-income prescription drug benefit. I do not even want to stress this that much, Mr. Speaker, but I need to stress that there has been no push for this. It is one thing for the President to get up during the campaign and say I want a prescription drug benefit. It is another thing for him to change later and say, when he is elected, well, this is going to be primarily for the low-income or exclusively for low-income people. We all know that from the bully pulpit of the Presidency that if one wants to get something done they simply come down here to the Republican leadership that is in the majority in both Houses and say this is a priority, we want to get this done and we want to get it done now. We are not getting that. We are not getting any suggestion from the White House that this is a priority. Nobody is sitting down here with either the Republican leadership or the Democrats, certainly not effectively, and saying that we want to do something here and we want to move this. There may have been some hearings, but there is no legislation that is moving in any committee that would provide a prescription drug benefit. I want to be a little critical of what the President has proposed because I want people to understand, and my colleagues to understand, that it really does not help too many people because it is a low-income benefit; but even more I want to stress over and over again that there is no push even to do this. Let us just analyze briefly what the President's medicine proposal, prescription medicine proposal, is. Basically, the way he defines it, he says it would limit full prescription coverage to Medicare beneficiaries with incomes up to 35 percent above the poverty line. So that is up to $11,600 for individuals and $15,700 for couples, and seniors with out-of-pocket prescription spending of $6,000 per year. Basically, we are talking about people at a fairly low-income level. In my own State of New Jersey, the people that would be covered by the President's proposal would already be eligible for our low-income prescription drug plan that is financed through casino revenue funds. I would suspect that that is going to be the case in a lot of other States that we are only dealing with fairly low-income seniors, many of whom are already provided some kind of coverage by their State; but even if they are not, it is not a large percentage of the Medicare senior population that needs a prescription drug benefit. I would venture to say that unless one is fairly well-to-do today, they are suffering if they have to pay for their prescription drugs out of pocket. Now just to point out that the Democrats really mean business, when the President's budget came over, or when the House budget which essentially reflected the President's budget came over, to the Senate, the Democrats basically sought to double the amount of money that would be available for a prescription drug program from essentially $150 billion, which was the President's proposal, to about $300 billion, on the assumption that we could have some sort of universal benefit if it were to pass. Of course, the President has canned that and said he does not support it. Just to point out how important this issue is and that I am not just talking about this in the abstract but I know that it is something that is really crucial to the average senior, just last week in the New York Times there was an article, April 23, about States creating plans to reduce costs for drugs. It outlined how so many of the States now are putting in place prescription drug programs because they realize the necessity of them; but again, a lot of this is just for low-income seniors. A lot of it does not cover that many people. I maintain that rather than look to the States to create these plans which oftentimes are limited and which frankly they cannot afford, the Federal Government should be taking a lead. Basically, the fact that so many States are dealing with this issue, and trying to, cries out, in my opinion, for a Federal solution. Another area where I think that the average American is losing out with regard to health care needs is on the issue of HMO reform and Patients' Bill of Rights. Before I get to that, I see that one of my colleagues is here; and I know that she has been out front on these health care issues for a long time now, so I would like to yield, if I could, Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her comments. I think she is very much on point. When I go back to the district, I hear the same thing, what is being done about the health care issues? As we heard, I identified the three: the Medicare prescription drug, the HMO reform, and the problem of the uninsured. I talked a little bit about the prescription drug benefit, but the gentlewoman pointed out with regard to the problem for the uninsured, I had very high hopes. If the gentlewoman remembers during the campaign, President Bush mentioned dealing with the uninsured. But then when he gets here, we do not see any action. Even in his confirmation hearings, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Thompson, said that he wanted to expand the CHIP program, the child health care initiative, to include adults, the parents of the kids. Again, you point out, we are not talking about people that do not have a job or are not working. These are working parents who are above the Medicaid guidelines, but they do not get health insurance on the job and cannot afford it. So the idea was to expand CHIP to include the parents. We also know, if you do that, you get more kids signed up, maybe selfishly so, if the parents are in it, the kids get in it too. I do not want to analyze all that, but we are not seeing that happening. The Secretary is talking about granting waivers. But as you know, in many States the CHIP program has already exploded. I do not want to read this editorial now, but I have one from my local paper, the Asbury Park Press, a couple of weeks ago during our recess, and it points out how the program has been so successful, they do not have enough money to pay for it for the children. Now, New Jersey has a waiver and is trying to expand it to the adults. So many people signed up for it, they do not know where the money is going to come from. We do not have the money in the President's budget to expand the CHIP program to take care of adults, let alone even take care of all the kids, in my opinion. Again, we heard about all these things once upon a time with President Bush and his Cabinet, but it is not happening. The money is not there. There is no initiative to say that CHIP should be permanently expanded to include adults and, more important, there is no money.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman pointed out in the beginning of his statement, and I just wanted to reiterate it again before we move to our colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut, that not only is the problem with the uninsured growing, I think a few years ago it was 40 million, now the gentelman said it was almost 45 million uninsured, but I think, as the gentleman pointed out, very importantly, that if the economy does not continue to do well, and we know in the last few months there have been problems, that the problem will get worse and a lot more people will not have insurance. Again, I am critical of the President, not because I do not like him or anything, but just because he talks about these things but we do not see the action, we do not see the money. When the budget went over to the Senate, a resolution was passed to actually put I think it was $28 billion in additional money into the budget just to address the problem of the uninsured. It was passed unanimously, and there were Democrats and Republicans who spoke out and said that this was important. Senator Wyden specifically talked about the economy slowing, and how more people would need insurance because they would not be getting it on their job. Then we had Olympia Snowe, a Republican, talk about how this additional money could be used to put adults into the CHIP program, the way the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was talking. Then we even had Gordon Smith, who is a Republican, who said that the measure could be used to help businesses reduce the costs of insurance for their low-income employees, what the gentleman talked about. I just do not understand what the resistance is on the part of the Bush administration to trying to address these issues. Again, we hear a lot of rhetoric, but we do not see any money. We do not see any effort to come down here and try to prioritize this issue at all.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I thank him for coming down to join me and others. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman, and thank him for coming down and expressing and articulating his thoughts so well. The gentleman talked mainly about the prescription drug issue. I think of the three health care issues that I sort of highlighted, and that we all highlighted tonight. That is the one where I think there has probably been the most disappointment because of, as the gentleman said, the rhetoric during the campaign. It was certainly true on the part of President Bush or then candidate Bush that this was going to be addressed and this was going to be a priority, and it has not been. We can argue about what kind of plan we should be putting into place, and whether the Bush plan is different than the Democratic plan. I can talk about that all night. But the bottom line is, I do not see any movement. I do not see any effort by the President to come down here and say, ``This is a priority and I want it enacted into law,'' even his own proposal, as limited as it is. I think we can see that on all these issues. Probably the one that he most committed to was the Patients' Bill of Rights. I remember during one of the debates when he specifically said, ``We have a Patients' Bill of Rights, an HMO reform bill, that is on the books in my State of Texas.'' And of course he did not comment on the fact that he never signed it. But leaving that aside, it was in effect. He said, ``I would like to see the same thing, and I would support the same thing on a Federal level if I was elected President.'' Well, 100 days have passed. We had a bipartisan bill introduced in the other Chamber. I think we had Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy. Here we had a bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) introduced a bill that was modeled exactly on the Texas law. They had a previous bill in the last Congress called the Patients' Bill of Rights. They changed it slightly to conform exactly with the Texas law on the liability law, on all the issues that have some contention. Within a couple of days, we saw the President come out and say, ``That is not acceptable. I do not like that bill.'' I think he went before the cardiologists' association and said he would veto it if it came to his desk. This was bipartisan. I went to a press conference and there were some pretty right-wing Republicans at that press conference supporting this legislation. Well, what is it that he wants? Is he telling us what he wants and how he would like to change the McCain bill or the Dingell-Ganske bill? No. I do not get feedback in the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce about what the President does want, so I just have to conclude he does not want anything. In other words, the rhetoric is out there, ``I want to pass this bill, and I want to do in the United States what we did in Texas,'' but I do not see any proposal coming from the White House to accomplish that. I do not see any effort to prioritize it. I would venture to say that the differences on the Patients' Bill of Rights, for those who oppose it and those who are supportive, at this point are so minimal that if we sat down in this room tonight, we could work out the differences.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman for the accolades. I want to thank the gentleman for being so concerned, as well. But I have to point out, because we are here tonight but we are going to come back again, I have to point out that the President has his party in the majority in the House of Representatives, and even though it is 50-50 in the other body, the Vice President can break the tie. So I try to explain to my constituents that as Democrats, and I know it sounds very partisan, we do not have the ability to bring these bills up, either in committee, or we do not even have the ability to have a hearing. We certainly do not have an ability to bring the legislation to the floor. The only thing we can do is to continue to speak out, as we have tonight, and demand action on these health care initiatives. I know the gentleman is here tonight, and others, and we are certainly going to continue to do that, because we know this is not pie in the sky, this is important to the average person. Whether it is HMO reform, it is a prescription drug plan, or it is access for the uninsured, we have to address the issue. I want to thank the gentleman again. I just want to repeat again, Mr. Speaker, that although I am concluding now, we are going to be back again until we see the President and the Republican leadership bringing legislation up that would address these health care concerns.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleges to a outstanding organization in the sixth district that has been dedicated to promoting fellowship among the blind and visually impaired in the community for fifty years. In 1951, a small group of about half a dozen people with blindness or visual impairment met to form the Monmouth County Association of the Blind. That same year, a building at the comer of Belmar Boulevard and Allenwood Road was purchased to serve as the home base of operations and named the Clubhouse of the Association. Twenty years later, in 1971, the Association was formally incorporated and recently received non-profit status. The Association has several goals all of which are interconnected: to bring together the blind and visually impaired adult residents of the county to work, to promote equity within our society for the blind or visually impaired, to heighten awareness of legislative action pertaining to blindness or visual impairments, and to create a sense of community and increase sociability among members. Currently, the Association offers training in computer skills and also provides Braille lessons, training in daily living skills, and self help discussion sessions, in addition to educational and informational sessions on services and programs available to members. To help foster this, the Association works in tandem with the New Jersey Commission for the Blind, along with other New Jersey organizations in the field of blindness. During the past fifty years, the Monmouth County Association for the Blind has helped hundreds of people with blindness or visual impairment to enjoy a higher standard of living. The Association has also played a key role in improving the understanding of the public on treating and helping those who are blind or visually impaired in a positive and helpful manner. As the senior population swells, we will continue to see an increasing amount of blind or visually impaired seniors, bringing new challenges. Thankfully, the Monmouth County Association for the Blind seems well prepared. It is my sincere hope that my colleges will join me in honoring the Monmouth County Association for the Blind for their service to the blind, the visually impaired, and the general public.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a friend and constituent of the sixth district whose devotion to his family was paralleled only by his dedication to the labor community. Born in New York City and raised in the Lafayette section of Jersey City, Michael J. Shannon, Jr. moved to South Amboy, New Jersey in 1968 where he continued to reside with his family. Michael began his career working his way from shop steward to chief steward at the Maxwell House coffee plant in Hoboken. Facilitating the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 56 as an organizer, business agent, and officer, Michael was ultimately elected local vice president. In addition to these services, he also served as vice president of the Monmouth-Ocean Counties Central Labor Council (AFL-CIO) and was a member of the Rutgers University Trade Union Consulting Council. Because of his dedication and commitment to the labor community, Michael is being honored with the Tenth Annual Partnership Award from the Monmouth County Workforce Investment Board. This award is being presented to recognize Michael's outstanding achievement as a leader in organized labor. Michael was also a committed husband and father to his wife Patricia and two children, Bridget and Michael. He served our country as a corporal in the Marine Corps and received an honorable discharge in 1962. With community involvement being an important part of his life, Michael was a third degree member of the Knights of Columbus Council 426. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring Michael J. Shannon, Jr. for his inexhaustible enthusiasm and many achievements in the progress of organized labor and his community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Ohio. If I can comment briefly, and then I would introduce another colleague. I want my colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans, to understand that the reason that we are doing this today and pointing to the first 100 days is not because we dislike the President personally or because we are hoping that he fails. Just the opposite. I hope that he succeeds, and I wish him the best. Mr. Speaker, personally he seems like a very nice person. The problem is that the policies that he is implementing are not policies or an agenda that is helpful to the country, whether it is economic development of the country or it is environmental or health concerns. I think we have an obligation regardless of party affiliation to point out these problems because we do not want it to continue. My hope is that public pressure is brought against the administration on environmental issues and health care issues so that the President changes course and actually has an agenda and implements policies, together with Congress, that are positive and that help the average American. I just think that it is necessary for us to speak out and point out where the shortfalls are because otherwise it is going to continue. I certainly do not want what I have seen for the first 100 days to continue for the next 3\1/2\ years of this administration. I yield to my colleague from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico. I just want to mention to my other colleagues, I think we only have another minute or two but they can do 5 minutes after this. I appreciate them coming down and joining us. I just wanted to comment briefly on what the gentleman from New Mexico said because he talked about open space, which again is so important in the State of New Jersey. Essentially he is right. What the President has proposed for the budget, you could not possibly even fund existing open space and land and water conservation programs, let alone anything new. We have a lot of needs. We had a bus trip last week. We went around the State. I was with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) at the Great Falls in Paterson which he is trying to get designated as a national park. There is no way that you can do that or provide the funding for the Great Falls or any other new area for open space or historical preservation with this budget. We need to point this out. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the 100 days is over on Monday. Obviously there is going to be a lot more talk about it over the next few days before we get to Monday. The bottom line is that if you look at the first 100 days of this administration, it has been a failure on so many fronts. It is also not in tune with what the President said during his campaign. We are not pointing this out because we want him to be a failure. We are pointing it out because we want the agenda to change and be more proactive and helpful to the average American. We feel that there is a broad bipartisan consensus on a number of these environmental and health care and education initiatives. There is no reason why we cannot move forward in a positive way. The President in his first 100 days has basically, I think, failed to carry forth with the agenda that he promised in the campaign, which would be good for the average American. Whether it is CO2 emissions or open space or education, there is a lot of rhetoric but there is not much action and certainly no indication of funding in the budget to carry out what he promised. We will continue to point this out because we want it to change and we think that this country can move in a forward fashion on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and I know how important the energy issue is obviously in California and around the country. The gentlewoman mentioned the issue of renewables. I know that, in the budget, the research on renewables was cut about half. I think she mentioned that. It is so unfortunate because a lot of new technology is out there that is already being tried. The United States is the leader in these new technologies. If we think about it, here we are, the country that could take the leadership role, whether it is global climate change or whatever, and export a lot of these technologies, actually make money and create jobs; and this administration does not want to attend to it. It is just so unfortunate because it is so backward looking. There are just ways of doing things that could create more jobs, solve the energy crisis over the long-term and at the same time make for a better quality environment, and he just does not listen. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). If I could just comment a little on what the gentleman from Maine said because there were certain points that I just feel were so well articulated. I am so pleased that the gentleman kept stressing that there is no free lunch. He started out that way and he concluded that way. Because I do believe that, if we listen to the President in the first 100 days, he is constantly giving the impression that there is this huge surplus and there is all this money that we can spend for everything. The gentleman from Maine and I know that is not the case. Most people know that is not the case. When the President's budget came out, it was vividly shown that, in order to achieve this huge tax cut that was mostly going to the wealthy and to corporate interest, that we had to make significant cuts and even raid other programs, like Social Security and Medicare. So there is no free lunch. The other thing that I maintain is that, when we look at the President's tax initiative, although it is geared toward the wealthy and the corporate interests, it really does not help anyone ultimately, because I am very concerned that if we actually put it in effect that we would end up in a deficit situation again. When I talk to wealthy Americans, of course, a lot of them do not support his tax cut. Many of the wealthiest people in the country have come out against it. I think the reason is that because they understand that, if we go back into a deficit situation, it is going to hurt the economy. We are going to end up with high interest rates. We are going to have a situation where companies that want to start new production, new techniques will not be able to borrow any money. That is what we had for the period of time going back before the previous administration. We do not want to go back to that. Nobody benefits from that. The last thing that I wanted to comment that I thought the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) pointed out so well, a lot of times we talk about programs, and we use that term ``program,'' and I worry that I do not even want to use the term ``program'' because it almost has like a bad connotation, Federal program. But the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) talks about the COPS program, which I thought was so much on point. I mean, I had the same phenomenon that he pointed out where he had the newspaper and there were local citizens' rallies. In Asbury Park, which is one of my communities, one of the poorest communities that I represent, the police and some of the local officials just spontaneously, I did not know anything about it, had an event or press conference. They were talking to the press about the COPS program and how important it was to their city and how they had been able to hire extra police and the money was coming from the Federal Government to pay for it and this was helping with their fight against crime. They could not imagine what was going to happen if this program effectively ended. Although there is some money in the budget for it, it has been cut so much that there will be no new police hired. So I just would like to point out that we are talking about real things here. This has a real impact. We are not up here talking about the 100 days in some abstract way because we dislike the President or he is of the other party. We are just very concerned about what is happening to the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin discussing today the first 100 days of the Bush Administration. I know that over the next week you will probably hear from both Democrats as well as from the President about the first 100 days, because traditionally the first 100 days of a Presidency have been a sort of benchmark for judging the President. I believe the actual day when Mr. Bush, President Bush, will have been in office for 100 days is next Monday, April 30th. The first 100 days has been a useful yardstick for measuring new Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt's first term. What I would like to do is give my analysis of why where I think we are. During the campaign, the President promised to be a compassionate conservative. I am sure many remember that saying. He said he would unite the country behind a common agenda. He said he would promote prosperity with a purpose and be a reformer, that he would be a reformer with results determined to leave no child behind. I feel very strongly, Madam Speaker, that, to date, President Bush has failed to back up this rhetoric that he used during the campaign with any actions. This is an administration of, by and for the special interests. I see the oil interests, I see the big mining interests, I see them, the defense contractors, holding sway; not the average person. The President has made a string of decisions that, if you look at it, are extremely partisan, and I think a payback to the special interests who contributed to his campaign. I could go through a list of areas where I could point what I am saying out and be more specific, but I really wanted to focus, if I could, on two areas that are very important to me and I think to the average American, and that is the environment and, secondly, health care and health issues. Perhaps in no area has the President during these first 100 days been such a disappointment to me, and I think to the average American, than on environmental issues. I think many of us knew that he was not a real environmentalist and he was not going to be what we would like to see in terms of a real environmental President, but the reality has been much worse. The reality has been that he has determined in the last 3 months or so in these 100 days to roll back the clock on a lot of environmental protection measures that were very important and that were certainly the backbone for progressive legislation and improvements to the environment that we have seen in the last 30 years since Earth Day. I just want to give you an example, if I could, of why I say that, and I will start, if I could, with some of the energy-related issues. The Bush Administration in the first 100 days has signalled to the rest of the world that it does not really care about global climate change. We know that the President basically has said that he is not going to adhere to the Kyoto climate treaty. There was a real question about whether or not this administration would even participate in any further talks on climate change. Although Mrs. Whitman, the EPA Administrator, did say over the weekend that they would continue to talk, it is clear that they have no intention of proceeding with the Kyoto Treaty and basically have told all the signers to that treaty to forget it. The President has also told the Congress that emission controls will not include carbon dioxide. During the course of his campaign, he said that he would address air emission controls for a number of pollutants to try to improve air quality, but we were told about a month ago that that would not include carbon dioxide, which is certainly one of the most important pollutants and one of the ones that has the most negative impact on air quality. President Bush has also made it quite clear to the general public that his energy goals will stress more production of fossil fuels, most notably drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and he will not stress conservation, increased technological efficiency, or the use of renewables. The budget that the President sent us a couple weeks ago specifically cut research on renewables, solar power, wind power, in half. I mention these as just an example, because I think that the issue of energy and source of energy and whether there is going to be enough energy is certainly a crucial one. We know that the price of gasoline continues to go up. We are told it might be, who knows, $2.00, $2.50 a gallon possibly by the summer. So we need to have an energy policy. But to suggest that sort of the backbone of the energy policy is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and we are not going to address global climate change, we are not going to address carbon dioxide, that the only answer is more production rather than use of renewables and conservation, I think is an egregious mistake. Let me talk about some other environmental issues. I think personally that one of the most important areas where we need to make progress is by cleaning up hazardous waste sites and also by making sure that our drinking water is safe. Yet we were told just a few weeks ago by this administration that the standards for arsenic in water, which are very high, meaning very weak, I should say, 50 parts per billion, would stay in place, and that the new standards that had been suggested by the Clinton Administration to reduce that 50 parts per billion down to 10 parts per billion would not be implemented, that we needed another year or so to study the issue before we could possibly improve on the standards. That was a major, I think, disaster, because it affects drinking water quality. It affects the water that we drink, one of the basic proponents of life. I think it was also symptomatic of what we are going to see from this administration with regard to environmental concerns. In my subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Subcommittee on Environmental and Hazardous Materials, we had the EPA administrator, Mrs. Whitman, come in and testify a few weeks ago, the day after the President indicated that he was not going to enact stronger arsenic standards, and she talked about the fact that there was a huge backlog of infrastructure needs for safe drinking water; in other words, money that the Federal Government would need to give to the States or to the towns to upgrade facilities so not only would you have hopefully better standards for drinking water, but you would also have good pipes and good process for bringing it to your house so that you can drink it safely. When we got the Bush budget proposal a couple weeks ago after that hearing, lo and behold, we find that the amount of money set aside for safe drinking water is level-funded. In other words, it does not even meet the authorization level or any of the future needs that the EPA administrator talked about. So what we are seeing now is that not only is the President implementing either through regulatory action or inaction methods that would cut back on environmental protection, but he is not providing the money in the budget to do anything significant about our energy needs or about our environmental concerns. Another example with regard to environmental concerns is the Superfund. My state has more Superfund sites than any other state. There is a great need around the country to continue cleanups pursuant to the Superfund program of very severe hazardous waste conditions. What does the President Bush's budget do? It suggests we are going to provide the money to clean up about 65 sites this next fiscal year, whereas in the last 4 years under the previous administration we had targeted about 85 sites per year to clean up. So cutbacks in the money for the Superfund program. Nothing in the budget to provide the corporate tax that would fund the Superfund program, so in another year or two there would not be any money in the Superfund trust fund to continue to pay for cleanups. The list goes on and on. We just passed last year in the last few days of the Clinton administration the Beaches Act. This was a bill that says that each State has to test their water quality before they let anybody swim on the beach and they have to close the beach if it does not meet certain standards and post signs saying you cannot use the beach because the water is dirty and authorize $30 million annually to pay for that program, to give grants to the States so they would be able to use it to do the water quality monitoring. Very important. The summer is almost here, another couple of months. People do not want to swim in dirty water any more than they want to drink polluted water. Lo and behold, the budget comes out, and instead of the $30 million that is authorized, we see $2 or $3 million appropriated for the Beaches Act. This is what we are seeing over and over again. We are seeing an effort to cut back on environmental programs, to not provide the money for environmental programs, to eliminate progressive regulations that were put in place by the Clinton administration. And if I had to look at environmental and energy issues alone, without looking at anything else, I would say that this first 100 days of the Bush administration has been a total failure and totally out of sync with what the American people want and totally in tune with what the special interests want. Because, after all, what average citizen or what good government group or what citizens group would say that they do not want safer drinking water or they do not want to spend up money to clean up hazardous waste sites or do ocean water quality monitoring? Nobody. The only people against these things are the mining interests, the oil interests, the polluters, who obviously have the President's ear because they were the major contributors to his campaign. So when the President promised to be a compassionate conservative, I do not think that that meant that he was going to cut back on environmental protection. When he said that he would unite the country behind a common agenda, I would assume that that common agenda would be protecting the environment, because it is very important to most people. But, no, that is not what we are seeing. Then he said he would promote prosperity with a purpose and be a reformer with results and leave no child behind. Frankly, I think a lot of children are going to be left behind if they have to deal with some of these environmental concerns. Now, I want to go to the next area that I think is just as important in evaluating the President's 100 days, and that is health care. During the course of the campaign, probably the number one issue that we heard about from both President Bush and his Democratic opponent was health care. The President said that when he was the governor of Texas, he let a Patients' Bill of Rights for HMO reform become law. He actually did not sign it, but he said that he supported the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights to try to improve and reform HMOs. The President said he would agree to have something like what they have in Texas, the Patients' Bill of Rights HMO reform, enacted into Federal law, that he had no problem with the Texas legislation, and if we could do that nationally, that would be fine, he would support it. President Bush also said during the course of the campaign that he wanted to expand Medicare to include a prescription drug program for seniors, because we know that seniors increasingly cannot afford the price of drugs; the price of prescription drugs continue to go up. It is a bigger part of their household budget, their weekly and daily expense, and we need to do something about it. President Bush said during the campaign, oh, yes, I recognize that we must address this issue, and I would be in favor of expanding Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit. The President also recognized during the campaign that there were an increasing number of Americans who had no health insurance, something like 40 million, now maybe it is 45 million Americans who have no health insurance, no health coverage. He said that he wanted to go about improving the situation with regard to that as well and maybe come up with some sort of tax credit or some kind of program through community health clinics to improve the situation for those who have no health insurance. Now, again, I would maintain that that entire health care agenda has not only fallen flat on its face in the last 100 days, but it has not even been addressed effectively by President Bush in the first 100 days. It almost disappeared from the radar screen. We do not hear about it any more. Let me just develop that a little bit on the three health care issues that I mentioned, first with regard to a Patients' Bill of Rights. Within days of the inauguration of President Bush, a bipartisan group of Senators and House Members, Democrats and Republicans, got together and introduced a bill in both Houses, Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy in the Senate, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a Republican, introduced a new Patients' Bill of Rights bill with a lot of cosponsors, including myself; both Houses, within days of the inauguration, exactly the same as the Texas bill that President Bush had talked about during the campaign. No difference. I would defy anyone to suggest that it was any different in any significant way from what exists now in the State of Texas and is working very well. What have we heard? We have heard statements from the White House that they do not like that bill, it not acceptable. They do not really say why. We have heard statements from the White House saying, we are going to come up with our own proposal, but we have not seen it yet. We have heard statements from the White House suggesting that maybe they like some of the other proposals that have been put out there by those who are not as oriented towards reforming HMOs, but not even any real suggestion as to which of those bills they like. So in this case, with the Patients' Bill of Rights, I would maintain that basically, the President has taken it off the radar screen. A Patients' Bill of Rights, HMO reform, was so crucial during the campaign that this was one of the first things that President Bush was going to address. But we are almost at the 100 days on Monday, and he has not, to my knowledge, done anything significant to suggest that he even wants to come to common ground on this issue, or even make some suggestions about what we should do in an effective way. This Patients' Bill of Rights, the bipartisan bill that was introduced within the few days after his inauguration that was like the Texas bill, should have moved in both of these Houses and been on the President's desk already. The only reason it has not is because the President has not signaled what he wants or what he wants to do about it. This is a very important issue for Americans. People are denied care all the time by HMOs. People die, people have serious injuries, they are denied care, they do not have a way of addressing their grievances, they cannot go to court, they cannot go to an outside independent agency that would review why the HMO denied a particular operation or a particular medical device. I get these calls every day in my district office in New Jersey. We are not addressing it, and the President has not addressed it in a meaningful way during his first 100 days. Let me go to the second health care issue. I see I am being joined by some of my colleagues, which is great. Let me just go to the second health care issue, and then I would like to yield some time to one of my colleagues. Medicare prescription drugs. During the course of the campaign, the President said over and over again, this was a high priority, something that he wanted to address. He was not always clear as to exactly what he wanted to do. Most of the time he talked about a benefit primarily, if not exclusively, but primarily for low-income seniors, not an expansion of Medicare that would provide a benefit to all seniors, but just to low-income seniors. Mr. Speaker, I will be honest that I have been very critical of that, because I think that since Medicare has always been for everyone, because we do not have an income test for Medicare; it does not matter how poor or how wealthy one is, one still gets it, I felt very strongly and continue to feel very strongly that a prescription drug benefit should be universal for every Medicare recipient. It should be affordable and it should be simply latched on to Medicare and handled by Medicare in the way that we traditionally do. But even if one disagrees with that, the fact of the matter is that I have not seen anything significant coming from this administration other than in a suggestion that in the budget there should be something like $150 million to pay for a Medicare benefit, and we have already been told by everyone, including our Republican colleagues, that that is not sufficient. But leaving that aside, we do not see any movement here. There has not been any movement to mark up a prescription drug bill in the House, in the Senate, in any committee, and the President is not pushing for it. It is not a priority. All we heard from this President during the first 100 days is that he wants a big, fat tax cut that is going to primarily benefit wealthy Americans, corporate interests, and actually is at the expense of the middle class and the little guy because it would take so much money away that we would be dipping into the Medicare Trust Fund, into the Social Security Trust Fund, and frankly, we would probably put ourselves back into a deficit situation and hurt the economy. So that is the legacy. I could go on and on, but I would like to yield to some of my colleagues. The legacy of this first 100 days is no attention to health care concerns, ripping apart environmental protection, actually being negative in terms of the environmental agenda, and just devoting all the time and the resources of the President to a huge tax cut that I think will hurt the economy and certainly not benefit the average American. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to praise the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee, in declaring this year as the year of nonviolence. April 6 commemorates the 2600th birthday of the greatest prophet of Jainism, Lord Mahavir. Jainism is a beautiful religion originating in India over two millennia ago, built on the principles of nonviolence, working on the self, and realization of multiplicity of truth through our varying perspectives of life. Lord Mahavir worked tirelessly all his life until he reached Nirvana, and then embarked barefoot to spread his message of truth across the great nation of India. Lord Mahavir practiced and preached environmental protection to safeguard trees, plants and animals for the living. The observation of the nonviolent practices of the Jainis was a major influence on the philosophy of the great Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi. The same principles of nonviolence and respect for life were practiced more recently by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the United States, as he led the struggle for civil rights for all Americans. Mahavir's principles are extremely important today as well. Mahavir or The Great Soul taught us liberation of soul by right knowledge, right faith and right conduct. We must all bring this into our lives to make this world a better place for our children and grandchildren. April 6th marks the beginning of pioneering celebrations throughout the world for nonviolence, and thus I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the year 2001 as the year of nonviolence worldwide.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening, as my colleagues and I do every year at this time, in a proud but solemn tradition to remember and pay tribute to the victims of one of history's worst crimes against humanity, the Armenian genocide of 1929 through 1933. The genocide began 86 years ago today. Mr. Speaker, I have long supported legislation that would put the U.S. House of Representatives officially on the record in recognizing the Armenian genocide. Last fall, the bipartisan Armenian genocide bill was approved by the Committee on International Relations by a vote of 24 to 11. On October 19 of last year, the legislation was finally scheduled for a vote on the House floor. I am confident that if the vote had ever occurred, the Armenian genocide legislation would have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. In a last-minute effort to ensure the legislation never came to the floor for a vote, the Turkish Government sent a threat to President Clinton that American soldiers stationed in the region would be in jeopardy if a vote ever took place. This threat was enough for President Clinton to send a letter to the Speaker of this House requesting that the legislation be pulled from the schedule. Essentially, the Speaker and President Clinton, and therefore the government of the United States, both executive and legislative, succumbed to the threats of the Turkish Government. I believe this was shameful. Italy and France did not give in to the Turkish Government last year when both these nations approved an Armenian genocide resolution. I am also proud that State and local governments here in the United States are stepping out in front of the Federal Government on this issue. Earlier this month, Maryland approved an Armenian genocide resolution, becoming the 27th State to make such a recognition. Congress, Mr. Speaker, should not be forced by a foreign government to deny or ignore the U.S. record and response to the events that took place in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. Those of us who have been fighting for this recognition will not give up. We are committed, and we will not quit fighting until this Nation finally recognizes the Armenian genocide as genocide. President Bush had a golden opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the genocide today in annual statements made by the President. From statements that candidate Bush made, one would have believed as President he would use the word ``genocide'' today. But sadly, today, the President chose not to use the word ``genocide,'' thus minimizing the events from 1915 to 1923 that we commemorate this evening. I know many Armenian-Americans will feel betrayed because of President Bush's inaction today. In public statements and letters to Armenian organizations and individuals during his Presidential campaign, Bush said, ``The 20th century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality, mass murders, and genocide. History records that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have endured these cruelties.'' Bush went on to say, ``If elected President, I would ensure that our Nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.'' But it is unfortunate that the President did not stand by these words today. I am trying not to be partisan here, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I am disappointed with President Bush, as I was disappointed with President Clinton before him. For anyone who has any doubts about the truth of the Armenian genocide, they can just go down the street to the National Archives, where volumes of historical records prove what really happened. Five years from now, we will have the opportunity to visit a genocide museum here in Washington. The museum, which will be located at 14th and G streets in the Northwest area of our Nation's Capital, will be a permanent reminder of the atrocities of 1915 to 1923. Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD the remarks of my friend, Ross Vartian, the director of planning for this new museum, who discussed this issue. The statement by Mr. Vartian is as follows: Statement by Ross Vartian, Director of Planning, Armenian National Institute, Knights of Vartan Times Square Martyr's Day Event, April 22, 2001 The Armenian National Institute, or ANI, extends its deep appreciation to the Knights of Vartan for once again organizing this year's Martyr's Day Commemoration. We recognize the leadership of Grand Commander Robert Barsam, this event's Chairman Sam Azadian, Martyr's Day Committee members Hirant Gulian & Leon Nigogosian, and all the other dedicated volunteers who made it possible for us to be here today to remember our losses, celebrate our survivors and commit to a future without Genocide. I am here today to talk about the future Armenian Genocide Museum and memorial. When complete, this complex in our nation's capital just two blocks from the White House will be the first ever Museum and Memorial about the Armenian Genocide anywhere in the Diaspora. On behalf of the Armenian National Institute, I am pleased to outline our vision for what will be in the not too distant future a state of the art museum and memorial complex dedicated to Armenian Genocide remembrance, research and education, as well as serving as another powerful voice for Genocide prevention. Washington is justifiably renown for the quality of its museums, and we have set as our standard to match the best that our nation's capital has to offer. Therefore, we warmly welcome the solidarity and support of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, whose superb exhibits and programs have inspired and empowered millions. In all candor, we have just begun our work. The acquisition of this marquee property in the heart of Washington, DC has served as the catalyst to undertake a comprehensive, multi- year planning,design and development process. We are currently reviewing proposals from competitive teams or architects, museum designers and property developers to recommend the best space utilization option for the properties we have acquired. We are aware that only the best professional talent will suffice for our purposes. The Armenian National Institute accepts the privilege and responsibility of creating a physical complex second to none and of creating exhibits and programs that will be as inspirational and empowering as those in the Holocaust Memorial Museum and other leading interactive museums around the world. ANI is also aware of the special responsibility of completing the first ever Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial outside Armenia. Fully recognizing that the entire community will wish to engage, ANI will seek the active participation of our incredibly diverse Armenian Diaspora and ancestral homeland. This is, after all, a presentation about all Armenians for humankind. No organization would have the right to present the modern Armenian saga without first seeking out the resources and perspectives of the entire community. The museum and memorial complex will be a permanent place for generations of visitors that will be made possible by all Armenians, joined by others of good will who appreciate its universal moral implications. Our project is timely. Those who would deny the Armenian Genocide are now limited to Turkish officials and those beyond Turkey who invoke political and economic rationales for their support. In the academic arena, the uncontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide has been overwhelmingly affirmed. Similarly, in secondary schools and universities throughout the western world, students of Holocaust and Genocide studies routinely examine the case of the Armenian Genocide to learn its specific and universal lessons. Nevertheless, the struggle continues between remembrance and denial--and remembrance and indifference. It is our hope that this center will serve as the nexus to broaden awareness of the Armenian Genocide throughout the academic and educational communities whose focus is human rights, the responsibility of majorities towards minorities, and the horrified consequences for peoples and groups at risk in the absence of safeguards. But it is also our hope that this place will provide public officials with a greater degree of moral conviction, courage and vision so that they summarily reject the incessant threats that emanate from Turkish officials to sever diplomatic and economic relations when any government dares to affirm the Armenian Genocide. The public officials with you today have demonstrated by their presence and other official actions that they reject Turkey's denials and threats. Ladies and gentlemen . . . Through this facility, we will remind the world of Hitler's chilling cynicism on humankind's predilection to forget. Through this facility, we will enthusiastically support collaborative work between turks and Armenians. We have seen in this great country the redemptive value of facing history squarely, and we will promote a dialogue to secure the same benefits for our two peoples. Through this facility we will promote international condemnation of and action against any government of people that attempts to do what was done to our people at the beginning of the last century. We must succeed in this unprecedented effort in the name of our martyred millions, in tribute to those who survived and established new Armenian communities throughout the world, and in honor of countless non-Armenians who protested this crime against humanity and who saved tens of thousands from oblivion. Finally ladies and gentlemen, we will succeed not only to remember the past but also to enhance the security of the people of Armenian and Karabagh--and to help insure that the world never forgets the cataclysmic price of indifference and inaction. We look forward to this historic challenge and we welcome all who wish to join us. Thank you in advance for your generous support. Mr. Speaker, the Armenian genocide is a painful subject to discuss for me and others. We must never forget, though, what happened, and never cease speaking out. We must overcome the denials and the indifference, and keep alive the memory and truth of what happened to the Armenian people in the past, as we work to see in this tragic history that it never be repeated.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield a little time, I would say this. The gentleman from Oregon talked about optimism. I am going to be optimistic in the last thing that I say here this evening. When I mentioned over the weekend to my children who are fairly young, I have a daughter who is 7 and a son who just turned 6 and another daughter who is 3, and when I mentioned to them that it was Earth Day on Sunday, of course they got all excited about it. But it really dawned on me that they are all in school in some way, either school or preschool at this point. I have watched over the last few years that they just have an incredible sort of environmental consciousness, more so than I do. I do not think it comes from me. I think it mostly comes from what they learn in school and what they see on TV. They remind me that one has to recycle this or that. They talk about the ocean and how it has got to be kept clean. They participated in a couple of cleanups that we have at this time of year, either along the beach or in some of the wooded areas. So I mean there are many things that came out of Earth Day since 1970, the last 31 years, but I think maybe the most important thing is the education aspect that people, particularly the younger generation, younger than me, are very environmentally conscious. We talk about how younger people maybe are not as conscious or politically conscious, but I definitely believe that they are environmentally conscious. So I just think that any effort to try to turn back the clock on the environmental movement is ultimately doomed to failure. So that is my optimism, and I know that we are here to make sure it is not doomed to failure, and we are going to keep it up.