Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me follow up on what our Democratic leader just said. I have to say, as one Member, that I am tired of coming down here and passing these continuing resolutions, in this case for another week, without getting our work done. The fiscal year began for 2001 on October 1. We do not have a budget. We have the majority of the appropriation bills out there, somewhere, certainly not on the President's desk, that have not been resolved. This Congress, under the Republican leadership, is simply not doing the job. There is time left. There is no reason why we have to go home or we have to sit here and dilly dally over naming post offices, for example, as the leader said. There are a number of important issues that need to be addressed and that my constituents and the average American care about: health care needs, a patients' bill of rights. The Republican leadership keeps talking about how they want to deal with the HMO abuses, but we do not see any legislation coming forward that would solve the problem and get something done so that those people who are being denied care or who are being denied a particular operation or are having problems with access to health care have their problems addressed. We see the Republican presidential candidate talk about prescription drugs, but there is nothing happening here in this Republican Congress to address the problem of prescription drugs. The Democrats have put forward a Medicare prescription drug proposal that would guarantee that every senior citizen, every disabled person would get their prescription drugs under Medicare; but we do not see any action here. The Republicans are in charge. They do not bring this legislation up. They do not sit down in a conference and try to resolve it so that we can actually accomplish something so that our seniors have access to prescription drugs. Certainly on the education issue, I think the most important for many Americans who are worried about their children and their children's ability to get a quality education in the public schools, the Democrats have put forward proposals saying that we want to spend some money for school modernization, to reduce class size by hiring more teachers, but the Republicans do not respond. Let us get our work done. We have proposals out there on education. We know that the public schools need help. We know that our local towns need some extra funding in order to upgrade their schools; or if they are having overcrowded classes, to build new schools. We know that by reducing class size kids get a better education and they are functioning in a more disciplined environment; yet the Republicans refuse to bring this up. I am telling my colleagues again, as just one Democratic Member, I will not vote for these continuing resolutions for a week any more unless the Republican leadership is willing to come down here, get the work done, and pass these appropriations bills and bring up the health care and education initiatives that the people want. We should simply stand here as Democrats, and any Member, saying that we want action. It is not enough to just talk. We want action, and there is still time to do it and work it out in a bipartisan way.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the drug reimportation provision in this bill is a sham. The provision the Republicans are now proposing is riddled with loopholes that will render its passage virtually meaningless. First of all, it includes a sunset clause. After 5 years, the proposal is phased out. Second, under this sham proposal, if manufacturers use foreign language labels or any labels that fail to meet FDA specifications, the drugs will not be eligible for reimportation. The Republican leadership also included a third loophole for the pharmaceutical industry's protections that allows drug companies to enter into restrictive contracts with foreign distributors that prevent such distributors from reselling pharmaceuticals to American pharmacies and wholesalers. This is business as usual for our seniors, which means price gouging and price discrimination. Under the Democratic proposal, every Medicare beneficiary will have the option of enrolling in the prescription drug benefit plan that, not only is affordable, but will guarantee access to all medically necessary drugs and provide coverage for catastrophic drug costs. These are the types of measures that we should be considering today. Stop this fraud from being perpetrated on our seniors. Vote no on this rule.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down and joining us during this time. I think we have a couple of minutes left, so I would just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that all the Democrats are really asking is that instead of trying to reverse the positive steps that the administration is taking and making these false accusations, that the GOP adopt a sound energy policy and pass the measures that the Democrats have been advocating and that have been proposed by the Clinton and Gore administration in its budget request. Above all, we should be implementing measures that sustain our natural resources, practical measures that would conserve energy, promote our long-term energy security, and promote international competitiveness and alternative energy resources, all without sacrificing our economic growth. For example, before we adjourn, the GOP leadership should pass the administration's request for funding and tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy measures, efficient energy research and development, weatherization, and alternative fuel vehicles and mass transit. I also urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass legislation banning the export of Alaskan oil. Earlier last week, one of my colleagues on the Democratic side introduced a bill promoting wind energy. This is the kind of creative thinking we need to reduce our dependence on domestic and foreign fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has done the opposite. It has vastly underfunded programs for the past 6 years that my Democratic colleagues and I and President Clinton and Vice President Gore have promoted, programs that would have conserved energy and prevented the situation we now face. The Republican majority has an opportunity in the waning days of the Congress, we have a couple of weeks left, to reverse their course and help us pass sound legislation to avert an even greater energy crisis this winter. I would certainly urge them to do so.

Mr. PALLONE. On this point?

Mr. PALLONE. No, I have not.

Mr. PALLONE. The Arctic Refuge?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Democrats' and the Clinton-Gore administration's energy policy versus the Republicans' lack of energy policy and the Republicans' support for big oil rather than the consumers. I also have to underscore the fact that the Democrats' energy policy protects rather than sacrifices environmental protection. I know I am going to be joined this evening by some of my colleagues, and I wanted to first yield if I could to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. PALLONE. I do not have that much more time, I will not yield to the gentleman any more. I thank the gentleman for coming down. Mr. Speaker, I have another one of my Democratic colleagues here that is joining me here. But just before I yield to him, I just wanted to make a few more comments about the Republican opposition to the tapping of the SPR. And I just want to point out, as some of my Democratic colleagues have, how politically motivated this was, because as we know in the past, the Republicans have not hesitated to sell off the SPR, to tap the SPR, for reasons not related to national security or even advocated that there not be an SPR and it be abolished. It is interesting that in this case, when the President suggested that he was going to move forward and tap the SPR because of the high oil prices, there were some Republicans also that joined with the Democrats saying that that was a good idea. In fact, over 100 House Members, including 20 Republicans, such as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) of the House Committee on Commerce, sent a letter to President Clinton requesting the tap. I, for one, would not heed the allegations, if you will, of the big oil ticket, the Bush-Cheney ticket that somehow this is a bad thing. Because if you will notice, even if you are a Republican and from the Northeast, you think it is a good idea, because my colleagues are concerned about the impact on your constituents in New Jersey, New York and the other States that are being negatively impacted by these high oil prices. The other thing that I think is very interesting is that actually we have not even had opposition from the oil industry or even from some Members of OPEC to the tapping of the SPR. We had a situation where this was quoted in the Washington Post last week where John Lichtblau, I do not know if I am pronouncing it properly, the chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, said that the price drop that occurred after the SPR was tapped reflects the fact that inventories will be increased. He went on to say while very recently there have been speculation about $40-a-barrel oil, now there is speculation that will drop to below $30. He actually thought it was a good idea that we tap the SPR. We had the Venezuelan oil minister and OPEC president, Ali Rodriguez, affirm the administration's belief and intent in releasing oil from the SPR in that same Post article where he said I think oil prices will not remain at their high levels. My point is, I do not even see opposition necessarily from the industry or even from OPEC, because they understand that prices were going up and they needed to be stabilized. I really do not have any clue where Governor Bush and Vice President nominee Cheney are coming from where they criticize the Democrats and the Vice President and the President for tapping the SPR. It just seems like they just do not care about the impact on the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the State of Massachussetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me answer the gentleman's question. I am willing to give the gentleman some time and that is fine. I would like to answer the question and move on, because I do have other things to say. Let me just answer the gentleman's question. Then I will not yield to the gentleman any more, because I want to finish with my comments. I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman came to the floor and expressed his concern. I understand that some people would like to explore in the Arctic Refuge, but I think that in many ways, your comments make me feel even more strongly about why it should not be taking place. Obviously, when the gentleman went there, it was a very beautiful area; the gentleman was witnessing the wildlife. The gentleman seems to feel that whatever has happened so far has not had an impact, but it is obvious from what the gentleman witnessed that it is a very sensitive area, and there is a lot of wildlife. And it is a very beautiful, pristine area. I would maintain that given that fact and given the fact that we are not really talking about that much oil over the long time that is going to impact, I think, U.S. energy policy that we should not take the risk; that the very fact that it is difficult to get there and it is difficult for people to deal with the situation there means that if there was a spill or if there were environmental problems, it would be that much more difficult to clean it up. Mr. Speaker, I think that the environmentalists take the view that this is a beautiful, pristine area. There is a terrific risk involved, a significant risk, because of the delicate nature of it, and the fact that it is so far away and difficult to access; and that it should not be tapped for that reason; and that if we have to make a decision and weigh the risks that it is just not worth the effort. It is very similar to what I have in New Jersey. There have been proposals by mineral management's agency to develop offshore oil resources off the coast of New Jersey. And arguments have been made back and forth about whether it is a good idea. And basically my position, because I represent the coastal area where this would take place, has been we have a huge tourism industry. We make billions of dollars every year from having safe beaches and clean water. Frankly, we do not want to take the risk, because we know that the amount of oil that is available there probably would only be a few months in terms of America's supply, and it is just not worth the effort. So I think part of it is weighing of the risk, and I just do not think it is worth it in the case of ANWR. I will not yield again. I do not mean to cut the gentleman off. I have a lot more to say.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, because I think what he is pointing out, and the Democrats have all been pointing out this afternoon, is that we are just trying to address the problems that the average person faces leading into the winter months. It was really encouraging to see that on our side of the aisle, on the Democratic side, we started off this afternoon with two colleagues from Texas. We might think, why do they care about the Northeast? But they obviously do. They both said very emphatically how important it was to try to address the price issue and set up the Northeast Petroleum Reserve, which I know the gentleman and other Members from the Massachusetts delegation have been very much involved with. That is what this is all about. That is what the President and the Vice President, they represent the whole country and they have to worry about people all over the country. I just think it is commendable that we are here expressing that concern, and we have colleagues on the Republican side saying, oh, no, that is not the way to go.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Of course, I have been talking about the lack of a GOP energy policy, but I could just mention briefly here for maybe a few minutes or so that the administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, for the last 7 years has been trying to get the Congress to enact a really positive energy policy. Of course, for 6 of those 7 years they have had to deal with the Republican leadership that has simply not been willing to adopt it. Just to give an example, because I keep hearing the Republicans saying they want to open up ANWR, they want to do drilling offshore, but earlier this year when we passed an appropriations bill in the House, the President had come forward with his budget proposing major initiatives for energy efficiency, energy conservation, alternative sources of energy. The House bill that passed, the House appropriations bill that passed I guess in July or so, had $201 million less than the President's request with regard to energy conservation and $71 million below the existing appropriations level for energy conservation. This was at a time when we were already starting to experience higher prices and less ability to get foreign oil from OPEC. Just to give an idea of these cuts and how they cut what the President had proposed, it was a $143 million cut, a complete elimination of applied research and development at the Department of Energy for certain conservation programs. They canceled 400 R&D projects in 33 States by 15 Federal labs, 22 universities, and others. There was a $14 million cut in the Low-income Home Weatherization Assistance Program, which would mean about 7,000 fewer low-income families would have their energy bills reduced. There was a $2 million cut from industrial co-generation, which funds R&D. Then, in that appropriations bill, there was $67 million less than the President's request for solar and renewable energy. There were cuts in biomass fuels and biopower R&D, reductions in solar electricity R&D, cuts in R&D for wind power, which if adequately funded would be competitive just within a few years. I could go on and on here, and I will not because I am running out of time.

Mr. PALLONE. I will, then I want to move on.

Mr. PALLONE. I will yield, not the whole time, but sure I would yield for a question.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Texas. If I could just reiterate two of the things the gentleman mentioned, because I think they are so important, one is this whole effort by Governor Bush and the Republican leadership now to insist that, because of the crisis in oil prices, that we have to now threaten the environment again, either with drilling in ANWAR and Alaska or offshore the continental coast of the United States. As the gentleman points out, this has no immediate impact. I mean, we are not talking pie in the sky here, we are talking about our constituents, and being from New Jersey and the Northeast, I know this is an immediate crisis that people are facing. They do not want to hear about what is going to happen in a few years; they are facing the crisis now. The one thing that President Clinton's proposal by tapping the SPR does was to actually reduce prices, and ultimately I think stabilize a market in a way that has an immediate impact. That is what is really important. I never cease to be amazed how our Republican colleagues talk about policy, but they do not seem to respond to the immediate need that people have, and that is what Vice President Gore and President Clinton were doing when they talked about the need to tap the SPR. The other thing that I think is so important that the gentleman pointed out, and we do not hear that too often, is this idea that by the Republicans not pursuing a real energy policy for our country, it leaves us weak to foreign exploitation. I think what I have noticed with President Clinton and Vice President Gore is they keep saying that we need to tap the SPR, not only because of the immediate impact on prices, but because it has an impact on our ability to influence OPEC and the cartel, the oil cartel, if you will, that is trying to drive prices up. As the cartel and OPEC know that we are going to take action on our own and tap the SPR, they realize that they cannot influence prices as much as they have been able to and take advantage of the situation over the last 6 months. So, again, we need to make some policy initiatives here. Certainly the Republican leadership in the Congress has not been willing to do it, and the administration has essentially had to act on its own with regard to the SPR and the decision also to move to create this Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. But, at the same time, instead of reacting positively to that, the Republican leadership comes here and says, oh, no, we do not want the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, and we do not want you to be able to pass the SPR, and they passed the energy and water appropriations conference bill last week that actually would eliminate both of those options. It is an outrageous step. It is outrageous that at a time when the American people are crying for some action to deal with the rise in oil prices and the rise that is going to result in home heating oil, as well as natural gas prices, and the response of the Republican leadership in the Congress is to say no, we do not want you to be able to tap the SPR. We want to pass legislation that says you cannot pass the SPR and pass legislation that says you cannot set up this Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. I just cannot believe that that is their response to the public outcry for the need to action to address the crisis. I wanted to, in the time that I have left, I wanted to develop a little more the reason why I believe very strongly that the Republican leadership here in the House has not only failed to address the immediate energy needs, but is really trying to dismantle and eliminate any effort to set any kind of U.S. energy policy that would create independence on our part for the future. And I wanted to give some examples of action that has taken place either here or in the other body over the last few weeks. Just last week or within the last 2 weeks, Senator Murkowski from the other body came to the floor, once again, to push for drilling Alaska's last remaining open space, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only is he advocating what I consider a policy of destruction; but as I mentioned before, drilling the Arctic Refuge will not produce a drop of oil for several years, and, on the other hand, would only produce several months' worth of supply, while destroying this precious resource for future generations. We have said over and over again, both in the House and in the other body, that we do not want to tap ANWR, the Arctic Refuge, because of the negative impact on the environment. What I see now is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to use the current crisis as an excuse to go against what has been a bipartisan position, not to drill in the Arctic Refuge. What I would suggest is that instead of trying to drill the Arctic Refuge, we should be banning exports of Alaskan oil to other nations. I think a lot of people are not even aware of the fact that we are now on a daily basis in the process of exporting Alaskan oils to other countries, Japan and other countries. If we really want to take some action that is going to have an impact on prices here, use that, make that oil available here, rather than ship it overseas. Mr. Speaker, the other thing I would say, too, is that we had the GOP, and I call it the Big Oil GOP leadership on the other side of the aisle, in both the House and the other body. We are reluctant to investigate whether the oil companies were profiting excessively from gas price spikes this summer. They do not even want to let us investigate the problem and try to come up with a solution. And I guess the fear is that if the investigations proceed, it is going to uncover that the oil companies are trying to undermine the concerns of the American people and show that they are really in league, essentially, with OPEC and the cartel to try to drive up prices. Now, the Clinton administration did the investigation and the investigation that they did proved that the increase in prices this summer was not due to environmental standards, as the Republican majority has alleged, but in fact was a result of the oil giant's greed and their effort to simply drive up prices.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for his remarks and two things, first of all, I think he points out very successfully, that it is the Congress that needs to act on authorizing these energy initiatives that would help the American consumer, and we know that for the past 6 years, the Republicans have been in the majority and they have not done it. I know the gentleman does not like to point a finger; but the bottom line is, the Republican leadership runs this place, and they have not put forward an energy policy, and they have not been willing to enact the policies that the Clinton-Gore administration have put forward. I also wanted to thank my colleague because I see the concern he expressed for the Northeast, particularly the need to authorize the Northeast home heating oil reserve which, again, the Republican leadership has not been willing to do and has been trying to stop the reserve actually from being passed. The gentleman mentioned gas prices. There is an article in the Star Ledger, which is the major newspaper in my home State of New Jersey, today that is entitled ``Gas Heat Costs Will Be Soaring. Jersey's Four Utilities Want Rate Hikes as High as 40 Percent.'' If I could just in the first couple of paragraphs of the article, it says: Heating bills could rise as much as 40 percent for some New Jersey consumers this winter if rate increases requested yesterday by the State's four natural gas utilities are approved by regulators. The four utilities covering millions of customers filed petitions seeking emergency relief with the State board of public utilities which is expected to act on the proposals at its next meeting on Tuesday. The increases would be effective immediately. So what he is saying about the impact ultimately on gas prices is certainly coming true. Most important is the fact that the Republican leadership continues to oppose the President's initiative, backed up by Vice President Gore, to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the SPR. I just wanted to point out briefly, and then I would like to yield to my other colleague from Texas, that it is ironic that Governor Bush and the Republican leadership here and the Republican leadership on the Committee on Commerce, which I serve on which has jurisdiction over energy policy, continue to criticize the President and the Vice President with regard to the SPR, because if I could just recount a little history here because I think it is important since the Republican leadership came into the majority, or actually I could take it even further back to when President Bush was in office. When President Bush sold oil from the reserve from the SPR during the Gulf War, domestic reserves were higher than today and crude prices were $5 per barrel cheaper. Yet he said he released the oil not because of national security but to, ``calm the markets.'' So even President Clinton's predecessor, President Bush, recognized the fact that the SPR could be tapped, not for security reasons, but to make sure that prices did not continue to rise. But, beyond that, since the Republican leadership has been in charge here in the Congress, since 1996, they twice passed laws requiring the sale of oil from the reserve, over 28 million barrels, to help pay for GOP budget priorities. Selling the oil from the SPR just to make ends meet in terms of the budget. Then, last year, in 1999, the Republican leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), joined 35 other Republicans to introduce a bill that would not only eliminate the Department of Energy, but abolish the Reserve, abolish the SPR. Since taking control, Republicans have let the President's authority to fully use the Reserve lapse three times, totaling 18 months. The SPR authority last lapsed on March 31. In 1999, Republicans blocked the Clinton Administration proposal to buy 10 million barrels of oil when crude prices were only $10 a barrel. This is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was saying. The purchase would have helped domestic producers and fill part of the 115 million barrels of SPR capacity in the Reserve. I am only trying to bring up dramatically that we have Governor Bush and the Republican leadership here criticizing President Clinton, Vice President Gore, for tapping the Reserve to try to bring prices down, and we know the Republicans have a history going all the way back to President Bush of tapping the SPR for similar reasons, but, at the same time, trying to abolish it altogether and not even have it available for use in a time like this, when prices have been going up. So I am just glad that President Clinton acted on Vice President Gore's advice and decided to go ahead and tap the SPR, because we know it did have the impact of stabilizing prices and even reducing prices to some extent. I would like to yield now to another one of my colleagues from Texas, the chairman of our Democratic Caucus, who has been chairing a task force on energy policy and has been very effective in not only bringing forth the message in terms of what the Democrats are trying to do here, but trying to get the Republicans to act on the Democrats' proposals.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow in the House Committee on International Relations a very important debate will take place. The members of that committee will determine if this House of Representatives is able to vote on a resolution that would finally pay tribute to the victims of one of history's worst crimes against humanity, the Armenian Genocide of 1915 through 1923. The Armenian Genocide was the systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children during the final years of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. This was the first genocide of the 20th century, but sadly not the last. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the United States still does not officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. Bowing to strong pressure from Turkey, the U.S. State Department has for more than 15 years shied away from referring to the tragic events of 1915 to 1923 by using the word ``genocide.'' President Clinton and his recent predecessors have annually issued proclamations on the anniversary of the Genocide, expressing sorrow for the massacres and solidarity with the victims and survivors, but always stopping short of using the word ``genocide,'' thus minimizing and not accurately conveying what really happened beginning 83 years ago. In an effort to address this shameful lapse in our own Nation's record as a champion of human rights, a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress has been working to enact legislation affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide. I want to applaud the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our Democratic whip, for their strong leadership in creating this legislation. Many countries, as well as States and provinces and local governments, have adopted resolutions or taken other steps to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. From Europe to Australia, to many States in the United States, elected governments are going on record on the side of the truth. Regrettably, the Republic of Turkey and their various agents of influence in this country and in other countries have fought tooth and nail to block these efforts. Mr. Speaker, it is nothing short of a crime against memory and human decency that the Republic of Turkey denies that the genocide ever took place and has even mounted an aggressive effort to try and present an alternative and false version of history, using its extensive financial and lobbying resources in this country. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of sympathy and moral support for Armenia in the Congress, in this administration, among State legislators around the country, and among the American people in general. But we should not kid ourselves. We are up against very strong forces, in the State Department and the Pentagon, those who believe we must continue to appease Turkey, and among U.S. and international business interests whose concerns with exploiting the oil resources off Azerbaijan in the Caspian Sea far outweigh their concerns for the people of Armenia. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on International Relations tomorrow will quickly approve this resolution and finally bring it to the floor in this House in the coming weeks so that we can finally recognize this horrible crime.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding to me, and I appreciate all his support in bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, several months ago, I introduced this bipartisan resolution congratulating the Republic of Hungary on the millennium of its founding as a nation, and I am pleased that this bipartisan resolution has reached the House floor. The bill currently has more than 30 cosponsors from both parties, and of course the House Committee on International Relations has approved it. As a Member of Congress representing one of the largest Hungarian- American constituencies in this country, I am particularly proud to have introduced this measure with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others and to have it reach the floor. I hope it will be signed into law shortly. More than 20,000 people of Hungarian descent reside in my congressional district in New Jersey with New Brunswick being a major center of Hungarian-American cultural life. Located in the very heart of Europe, Hungary has been at the center of most of the epic historical events that have swept through the continent. Throughout the last thousand years, and particularly during the turbulent 20th century, Hungary has undergone wars, invasions and foreign occupations. Nevertheless, the Hungarian people have maintained their strong sense of nationhood and have preserved their unique language and culture. While the roots of the Hungarian nation lie in the East, in the last 1,000 years Hungary has been firmly attached to the West, an attachment that 45 years of Soviet domination could not break. Today, Hungary is a crucial part of the Western alliance. Indeed, in 1990, Hungary became the first of the captive nations of the Warsaw Pact to hold free and fair elections. Now, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned, it has become a member of NATO, too. The celebration of 1,000 years of nationhood intends to look back at Hungary's past, remembering Hungarian intellectual and cultural values that enriched European culture in the past centuries, while also looking towards the future. Thus, during this year when Hungary and its people mark 1,000 years of its history, they also celebrate a decade of democracy. Lastly, while paying tribute to our friend and ally in Central Europe, we should also honor the hundreds of thousands of Americans of Hungarian descent who have contributed their talents and hard work to this nation. If I could just mention to my colleagues, many of the Hungarian- Americans in my district came here after the uprising in the mid-1950s, and of course their descendents are still there and contributing to our culture and our economy in central New Jersey. But I assure my colleagues that, for those people who left after the 1956 uprising, there was nothing that they enjoyed more than seeing Hungary become a democracy and a part of NATO and to be able to increase every year their alliance with the West and to our democratic values.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to recognize the achievements and spiritual leadership of the Rev. Fr. Archpriest Vertanes Kalayjian, pastor of St. Mary's Armenian Church in Washington, DC. On October 1, the Washington-Baltimore Armenian community will be honoring this most outstanding religious and community leader among Armenian-Americans in the United States. On this date, parishioners and many others will recognize the 40th anniversary of Rev. Kalayjian's ordination into the priesthood. Those who gather from across the country and the world on October 1 will also recognize the 25th anniversary of the service to St. Mary's of Rev. Kalayjian and Yeretzgin Anahid Kalayjian, his wife of 31 years. Mr. Speaker, as the cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I am acutely aware of the many extraordinary contributions Father Kalayjian and Mrs. Kalayjian have made to the Armenian community in the United States. Over the years, his outstanding missionary and humanitarian efforts have also been of immeasurable help to the struggling families and youth of Armenia, as well as Armenian families spread throughout Eastern Europe and the world. In his important assignment as the head of the pastorate in Washington, DC, he has played a crucial role representing the diocese in the Congress, the State and Justice Departments and the Brookings Institute. Every year, Father Kalayjian briefs the Appeal of Conscience Conferences, the State Department's Foreign Service Institute, on the status of the Armenian communities in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union republics. Father Kalayjian was born in Aleppo, Syria, and was ordained on February 7, 1960, at the St. James Seminary of Jerusalem Armenian Patriarchate. He came to the United States in December 1964 and was assigned to the St. George Parish in Waukegan, IL. In addition to his pastoral work, he did Christian Education; Biblical Studies and Public Administration at Lake Forest, Carthage College and Southeastern University. In subsequent years, he served the parishes of Holy Cross, Union City, NJ; and St. Mary's Church in Elberon, NJ (now St. Stephanos and in my congressional district.) In 1976, he assumed the pastorate here in Washington, where he serves the St. Mary's community, including nearby Baltimore city and the neighboring towns. During most of this career as a servant of God, Mrs. Kalayjian has been a partner, colleague and spiritual supporter to her husband's ministry. She has contributed invaluably to the growth and spiritual well-being of St. Mary's Parish. She has been surrogate mother, nurse, chaplain, Armenian Cultural Program director and advisor to successive camp directors and committees at the Armenian General Benevolent Union's Camp Nubar in the Catskills in New York. The AGBU promotes philanthropy, human rights land education throughout the world. Her services to the Armenian people have included numerous other missionary and humanitarian initiatives in Armenia, including missionary outreach in the aftermath of the earthquake. Her early training and work as a pediatric nurse and nursing supervisor only added to the invaluable contributions she has made to families in need here and in Armenia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call these tireless and devoted humanitarians my friends. I wish them both a most deserved and joyous celebration on October 1.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, once again this evening I would like to focus on the Democratic proposal to provide for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I have been on the floor many times in the House discussing this proposal because I do think it is the most important issue facing this Congress and facing the American people today. Many of my constituents, senior citizens, have complained about the high price of prescription drugs. Many of them have to make choices between prescription drugs and food or housing, and I do not think there is any question that with the Medicare program that has been probably the most successful Federal program in history that if we were to just take that program and add a prescription drug benefit, we would be solving a lot of the problems that our senior citizens now have with not having access or being able to afford prescription drugs. Now, of course, both sides of the aisle have been talking about this issue in the last week or so, and I, of course, believe very strongly that the Democratic plan, which is the only plan that would actually include a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, is the only plan that would actually help the average American. I want to spend a little time tonight explaining the Democratic plan and then explaining why I think the proposal that has been put forward on the other side of the aisle by the Republican leadership is essentially illusory and would not help the average American. Let me start out by saying that right now, seniors know that they can get their hospitalization through part A of Medicare and they pay a monthly premium through part B of Medicare and get their doctor bills paid. Now, what the Democrats are saying is that we will follow on the existing Medicare program, which has a part A and a part B and we will give you a prescription drug benefit in the same way. We call it part D, because Medicare part C is now the Medicare+, the HMO option. Basically what we say is that you would pay a modest premium and the government would pay for a certain percentage of your drug bills. Now, the Democrats guarantee you the benefit through Medicare if you want it and it covers all your medicines that are medically necessary as determined by your doctor, not the insurance company. Let me contrast that with what the Republicans have been talking about. Basically what the Republican leadership on the other side has been talking about and what Governor Bush has been talking about is that they will give you, if you are below a certain income, a certain sum of money, that the government will provide a sort of subsidy and that you can go out and you can try to find an insurance company that will sell you a policy and cover your prescription drugs or medicine. But if you cannot find an insurance company that will sell you that policy, that drugs-only policy with the amount of money the government will give you, then you are basically out of luck. Also, I would point out that the Republican plan, particularly the one that has been articulated by Governor Bush, only covers people below a certain income. The other problem with the Republican proposal is that even if you can find an insurance policy that will cover prescription drugs, there is no guarantee as to the cost of the monthly premium or what kind of medicine you get. More importantly, the Republican proposal leaves America's seniors open to continued price discrimination because there is nothing to prevent the drug companies from charging you whatever they want. The Democratic plan deals with the issue of price discrimination by saying that the government will choose a benefit provider who will negotiate for you the best price just like the prices negotiated for HMOs and other preferred providers. The problem right now is if you are a senior citizen and you are not part of an HMO or you do not have some other large employer-based, for example, drug coverage and you want to go out to your local pharmacy and pay for a particular drug, you oftentimes are paying two and three times what the preferred provider or the HMO or some other kind of drug plan is paying. That has got to end. If we do not address the issue of price discrimination, then we are never going to essentially solve the prescription drug problem that seniors face today. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan is a real Medicare benefit that will make a difference for America's seniors. The Republican plan is, as I have characterized many times before, a cruel hoax on the same seniors who are basically crying out for Congress to act. Now, let me talk a little bit more about the Republican plan that was outlined by Governor Bush a few weeks ago in reaction to our Democratic proposal. Let me point out, first of all, that the Bush proposal excludes two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries because their income is essentially too high. Two-thirds of seniors and eligible people with disabilities have incomes above 175 percent of poverty, or about $15,000, for an individual and they are eligible for Medicare but they would not be eligible for the Bush prescription drug plan. The sad thing about that is that the problem that we face and the seniors that talk to me and talk to my colleagues about the problems they face with prescription drugs more often than not are not low-income seniors. Forty-eight percent of those without drug coverage have incomes above 175 percent of poverty and would not qualify under what Governor Bush is proposing. The other thing is that only a fraction of the low-income seniors would actually get coverage even under Governor Bush's proposal. So even if you are low income, you are not guaranteed the coverage. Most of the Nation's governors have agreed with seniors and people with disabilities that the gaps in Medicare coverage should be a Federal responsibility and not run or financed by the States. But what Governor Bush has proposed basically is to have State-based programs for these low-income people. Let me tell you, if you look at the existing Medicare program, something like 98 percent of eligible seniors are now participating in Medicare. But if you look at State-based programs that provide some kind of prescription drug coverage now, only about, well, really 45 percent or less than half of the people are actually enrolled in those State-based programs. So what we have here is the Democrats saying, ``Medicare has worked. Medicare is a good Federal program. Let it cover prescription drugs in the same way that it covers hospitalization and in the same way that it covers your doctor bills.'' The Republicans are saying, ``No, Medicare doesn't work, it's not something that we want to expand, it's not the way to go about this. We're just going to give you a subsidy if you happen to be low income and you can go out and try to find prescription drug coverage if you can. If you can't, that's your problem, not ours.'' The last thing I wanted to mention today before I yield to one of my colleagues is that this Republican proposal has already been tried in at least one State, the State of Nevada. Back in March, Nevada, the legislature and the governor signed a law that essentially is the same thing as what the Republican leadership is proposing in the House of Representatives nationally. And it has not worked. The Nevada program went into effect, they tried to get some insurance companies that would sell these prescription-only drug policies and nobody was willing to sell them. It is no surprise. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) to whom I am about to yield and I were at a Committee on Commerce meeting one day when this issue came up and the representative from all the insurance companies came in and said to the Republicans, ``There's no point in doing this because it's not going to work and we're not going to sell these drug insurance policies.'' Well, Nevada tried it and it did not work. They could not get anybody to sell the insurance. Why in the world would we try to emulate something that has not worked in a State? In this case, why would we want to transfer that to the national government when we have an existing program, Medicare, that does work and that merely needs to be expanded to provide for prescription drug coverage? That is the way to go. That is what the Democrats are talking about. If anyone says to you that the Republican plan is something that will work for the average American, it is simply not going to work. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Committee on Commerce has been out here as often as I have basically asking the Republican leadership to bring up the Democratic proposal for a Medicare prescription drug plan because we feel it is so important. He has been a leader on this issue. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maine. Again, I say that the gentleman, more than anyone else, keeps reminding us about the price discrimination issue, which is an issue that affects not only seniors, but everyone really. Seniors, obviously, because they use more prescription drugs are more concerned about it than any other group. But the issue of price discrimination has to be addressed in the context of what we do on the prescription drug issue, or we are not going to solve the problem. I thank the gentleman for constantly bringing the issue up. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention that the most important aspect of this in this whole debate is the fact that the Democrats want to include prescription drugs under a Medicare plan, under the rubric of existing Medicare, and that the Republicans essentially are not doing that. They are talking about some sort of voucher or subsidy that would be used to go out and find an insurance company that wants to sell a drugs or prescription drug-only policy. One thing that I really want to stress this evening, and I think is so important, is that too often on the Republican side of the aisle this issue is described or basically painted in an ideological sense. And I, for one, do not see myself as an ideologue. I do not look at what we do here from the point of view of what is ``progressive,'' what is ``conservative,'' what is ``liberal,'' what is ``moderate,'' but rather than from the point of view of what works. I get a little tired of the rhetoric that suggests that somehow Medicare is socialistic or government-run or in some way that it could not possibly work because it is a government program. The reality is that every kind of program or initiative has to be looked at from a practical point of view, and Medicare works. And so any effort to say that we should not include this prescription drug benefit because somehow this is going to be a government-run program, I do not care whether the government runs it as long as it works. Mr. Speaker, I would say the same thing is true with regard to the issue of price discrimination that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) keeps bringing up and also spoke about very eloquently this evening. What I find is that the Republican leadership, and even the Republican candidate for President, Governor Bush, keeps talking about the issue of price discrimination in sort of ideological terms. There was an article in The New York Times on September 6, which was the day that Governor Bush spelled out his own prescription drug program and what he was proposing to do for seniors to have access to prescription drugs. He was very critical of the Democratic proposal, which is supported by Vice President Al Gore, because he said that it would lead to price controls. I read this before on the floor of the House, but I want to read it again tonight because I think it so much spells out this whole ideological debate. ``Governor Bush today,'' from the New York Times, ``much like the drug industry,'' and I quote, ``criticized Mr. Gore's plan as a step towards price controls by making government agencies the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in America. By making Washington the Nation's pharmacist, the Gore plan puts us well on the way to price control for drugs.'' Well, let me say this. The reason why we need to address the issue of price discrimination is because the marketplace is not working right now with regard to this issue. The problem is that HMOs, employer benefit programs that have large volumes of constituents, large volumes of seniors that are part of their plan, have the ability to go out and negotiate a better price than the guy who is on his own and has to go to the local pharmacy to buy the drugs. What is the answer to that? Well, we can say, okay, that somehow the little guy has got to basically get together with his colleagues and exercise some control so he can negotiate a better price. That is essentially what we are doing with our Medicare prescription drug plan. We are saying that in each region of the country, the Government will designate a benefit provider, which is basically an organization that would be in charge of negotiating on behalf of all the seniors that are now part of this Medicare plan, a price for prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, all that is essentially tinkering with the marketplace to give the little guy the power that these large HMOs and others employer benefit plans have. We can call that government control, we can call that Washington stepping in, call it whatever we want. But the bottom line is that is the only way to get the average person who is not now covered by an HMO or any kind of plan to the ability to have some control to negotiate a better price so he or she does not suffer this price discrimination that so many seniors are now facing. My response to anybody on the other side of the aisle, or to Governor Bush, whoever says that that is price control or that is government running the program is: I do not care, as long as it works. I have got to somehow empower this guy who is going to the local pharmacy and having to pay these tremendous prices. I have got to empower him to be able to negotiate a better price, and that is what the Democratic plan would do. Call it whatever we like, I do not care. It is the only way to empower this individual to be able to fight against this price discrimination. Let me say that the Democratic proposal, the Gore proposal, is much different from the type of strict price controls that exist in almost every other industrialized developed countries. Most of the European countries, Canada, and a lot of other developed countries around the World, basically set a price. They have real price controls. We are not talking about that. We are not talking about interfering with the market that much that we would actually set a price, but we are saying that we need to empower the average person so that they are not a victim of this continued price discrimination. Mr. Speaker, the other charge, and the gentleman from Maine brought this up, the other charge that the Republican side and Governor Bush has made against the Democratic plan is that somehow it is a one-size- fits-all plan and people will not have a choice; that we should favor the Republican proposal, this sort of voucher, because that gives a choice because we can take that voucher and go out and decide what kind of plan we want and somehow we have choice. Let me say that nothing is further from the truth. As I pointed out, in the State of Nevada where this program was instituted, no insurance company even wanted to sell these policies that the Republicans are proposing. The insurance companies are telling us before our committees that they will not offer these drug policies. So what kind of a choice is there if we cannot find somebody who is going to sell an insurance policy that would cover prescription drugs? The Democratic plan on the other hand provides a tremendous amount of choice because the Gore plan, the Democratic plan, is voluntary. Seniors do not have to sign up for Medicare part D any more than they have to sign up now for Medicare part B. No one says that they have to sign up for part B and pay a premium so much a month to get their doctor bills covered. Eighty, 90, almost 100 percent of the people sign up for it because it is a good deal, and I suspect that we will get the same thing with our proposed part D for prescription drugs. Most people would sign up for it because it is a good deal. But I remind my colleagues that it is still voluntary. If Americans have an existing employer benefit plan that covers prescription drugs and do not want to sign up for the Medicare prescription drug part D, they do not have to. We are not forcing them to. If they are in Medicare part C now and have an HMO plan that covers their prescription drugs and they have to pay so much a month, or they like that plan and they do not want to sign up for the Medicare prescription drug plan under part D, they do not have to. In fact, I would say that the way this is set up, the way that the Democratic proposal is set up, we actually offer more variety because for those who stay in an HMO, we are going to provide better than 50 percent of the cost of the prescription drug program. So rather than see hundreds of thousands of people who are now being thrown out of their HMOs, because the HMO decided as of July 1 that they were not going to include their seniors and they are losing their HMO coverage, most of the HMOs that are dropping seniors now are dropping them because they cannot afford to provide the prescription drug coverage. If now the government is going to say under Medicare that we cover better than 50 percent of the cost of the prescription drug program, then a lot more HMOs are going to want to sign up under the Democratic proposal, will sign up seniors, and will not drop them. The same is true for employer benefit plans. We are also providing money to help pay for the employer benefit plan for those who have it. We are increasing choices. We are letting people stay with existing plans and boosting and shoring up those plans financially so they do not drop them. And if Americans do not want to do that, they always have the fall back of going back to the Medicare fee-for-service prescription drug program that is a guaranteed benefit. When I say ``guaranteed benefit,'' because my colleague from Maine again pointed out that, again, a big difference between what the Democrats are proposing and what the Republicans are proposing is that the Democrats truly have a guaranteed benefit. It is one-size-fits-all in the sense that one is guaranteed to know that if they sign up for the program, every type of medicine that they need, that their doctor says is medically necessary or their pharmacist says is medically necessary for their health, will be covered under the Democratic plan and under Medicare. By contrast, in the Republican plan, that basically leaves it up to whoever is going to take this voucher that they are offering and says, okay, we will take the voucher; but we are not going to cover certain drugs, we are going to charge a copayment, we will have a high deductible. These are the kinds of problems that people face now with HMOs or with a lot of the private plans that are out there that some people have been able to find. Those problems will be magnified under the Republican proposal. If someone takes this voucher and they are trying to find somebody to cover them, they do not have to say how much it is going to cost. They do not have to say what kind of drugs they are going to get. They do not have to say what the copayment is, what the premium is. Under the Democratic proposal, all of that is provided for, all of that is structured, all of that is guaranteed. Mr. Speaker, it is a significant difference, I think, in terms of the way we approach things. I guess tonight if I could conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we are going to be here many times. I do not know how much longer the Congress is going to be in session, probably a couple more weeks or so; and I am beginning to have serious doubts about whether this issue is going to be addressed by this Congress and the Republican leadership. I think the time is running short, and the realization is setting in that this Congress is likely to adjourn without addressing the prescription drug issue. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a shame, because I think there really is a consensus amongst the American people that we need a Medicare prescription drug benefit. And rather than pose back and forth about which plan is better, it would be a lot better if the Republican leadership would simply accept the fact that this should be something that is included under Medicare and use the time over the next 2 weeks to come to common ground so that we could pass this. But I do not see that happening, and it is not going to stop me and my Democratic colleagues coming here every night, or as often as possible, to demand that this issue been addressed before we adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE. I just want to say I think the most important thing we could get across to our colleagues and to the public is the fact that what the Democrats are proposing and what Vice President Gore is proposing are basically to expand Medicare; to take a good program, which is Medicare, that has worked for seniors, and expand it to include prescription drugs, because we know that when Medicare was started, I guess about 30 years ago, that prescription drugs were not that important. People were not as dependent upon them as they are now, because so many of the wonderful drugs that we have now that are available for people simply were not available then. So all we are really saying is take this good program and expand it to include prescription drugs and follow the example with a new section or Part D. The irony of it is that the Republicans from the very beginning when Medicare was started under President Johnson, I guess 30 years ago, most of the Republicans then did not support the Medicare program when they were Members of Congress at the time when it came up for a vote. I think what you are seeing now is the Republican leadership in this insurance subsidy proposal that they put forth essentially, it is almost like a voucher, or a voucher proposal, they are saying once again they do not like Medicare. It is almost a dangerous precedent. If we establish the precedent that we are going to add a significant benefit here, but we are not going to include it under the rubric of Medicare, we are going to let you go out and try to use a voucher, essentially, to buy a prescription drug policy, then that same principle can be applied to Medicare itself, the existing Medicare. Why not have a voucher to go out and shop for your hospitalization coverage or shop for your physician's coverage? The basic problem is that they do not like Medicare, and they do not want to include a prescription benefit under that program. I think it is very unfortunate, because Medicare has proven it is a good program. I yield to my colleague from Maine, again who I want to thank for all the effort he has done on this issue, particularly on the issue of price discrimination. I am proud to say I am a cosponsor of his bill as well.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, there is no uniform federal standard for screening newborn infants for hereditary disorders. Currently, states decide for themselves on an individual basis the types of disorders for which newborns are screened. As a result of this piecemeal approach, a haphazard system prevails under which detectable disorders--disorders that can profoundly affect the health of an infant for life--may or may not be found early enough to make a difference depending on the state in which a newborn lives. If a newborn lives in a state that happens not to screen for a particular disorder, the failure to screen could result in a tragic outcome that might have been different had the infant simply lived in another state. This system essentially subjects newborns with detectable disorders to a game of ``Russian Roulette''. Last month, the Newborn Screening Task Force, which was convened by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) at the request of the Health Resources and Services Administration, published a report on newborn screening in the AAP journal Pediatrics. Among the report's recommendations is a call to ``adhere to nationally recognized recommendations and standards for the validity of tests.'' ``State newborn screening systems'' the Task Force observed ``have a responsibility to review the appropriateness of existing tests [and] tests for additional conditions.'' In other words, the Task Force is calling on the states to eliminate the disparities that exist in newborn screening by expanding their programs to test for a common set of core disorders. Achieving this goal is no small task for the states. The technology for screening, which continues to advance at a rapid pace, is extremely expensive, and there needs to be a more coordinated system for developing and implementing an expanded newborn screening program. The federal government can and should assist in creating this system. Today I am introducing legislation that will work towards eliminating the disparities that exist between states and improving the newborn screening system. The Hereditary Disorders Newborn Screening Act of 2000 will establish a grant program for the states to be administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration to achieve this and other important related goals in an effort to strengthen our nation's newborn screening system. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in eliminating these testing disparities and the preventable tragedies they produce by cosponsoring the Hereditary Disorders Newborn Screening Act of 2000.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 4975, the bill that is sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Newark (Mr. Payne), to honor Senator Lautenberg with the naming of the post office in Newark in his honor. I cannot say enough about Frank Lautenberg. There is no more effective Member of the United States Senate or of the United States Congress than Frank Lautenberg. Let me say that over his three terms in office, and I suppose it adds up to 18 years as a Member of the United States Senate, I do not think anyone would suggest that anybody but Frank Lautenberg was the most effective advocate for our concerns in the State of New Jersey. He is the Senator that get things done. My colleague, the gentleman from Newark (Mr. Payne), talked about the various things that Senator Lautenberg has done over the years, legislatively. But I just wanted to focus briefly on the environmental issues, because my district in Middlesex and Monmouth Counties has a heightened concern with regard to the environment. In Middlesex County, the northern county, we have a number of Superfund sites. And over the 12 years or so that I have been in Congress, I have seen Senator Lautenberg constantly out there helping me and helping my constituents to clean up the Superfund sites, to improve the program, to get citizens involved in the process. That is his hallmark. He is a grassroots person that gets the money and gets things done. In Monmouth County, which is the county where I live along the shore, we have had concern for many years about ocean dumping, about the need for shore protection, about water quality. And if there is any area where Senator Lautenberg has shined and worked hard in this Congress, it is with regard to the need for clean water and improving our water quality. I would say that our economy would not exist in the strong state that we have now along the Jersey shore were it not for Senator Lautenberg's efforts to provide funding for beach renourishment, to stop all the various ocean dumping sites that existed when he was first elected to the Senate. There were about 12 sites for dumping of toxic dredge materials, sludge materials, acid materials, wood burning. All these things have now passed and all these sites have been closed because of the efforts of Senator Lautenberg. It is an amazing achievement over 18 years in the Senate. I only hope that this legislation, this naming of the post office, is just the first of many opportunities that we will have after he retires this year to name things after him and to make designations in his honor. Because he truly deserves it. I appreciate the fact that we here in the House have been the first to start the process with the naming of this post office today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, does anyone in the Chamber know the difference between Zantac and Ranitidine Hydrochloride? Here is the answer: Price. Zantac is the brand name of a popular medication to treat ulcers. Ranitidine Hydrochloride is the generic name of the exact same drug. The Food and Drug Administration ensures that whether a consumer uses a drug by its brand name, such as Zantac, or a drug that goes by the generic name, such as Ranitidine, they will receive the same active ingredients and the same health benefits. To quote FDA Commissioner Jane Henney, ``If the FDA declares a generic drug to be therapeutically equivalent to an innovator drug, the two products will provide the same intended clinical effect.'' This is important, Mr. Speaker, because if we ever hope to bring health care inflation under control, we have to understand that brand drugs and generic drugs are truly interchangeable. Through greater use of high quality, less costly generic drugs, we can have truly affordable and effective medicine. If we check our medicine cabinets, we find that there are more affordable generics available for many of these expensive prescriptions.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons and I think both examples highlight it in my mind, one of the reasons why the Republican proposals just do not work is because they are too selective. In other words, originally when we started this evening we talked about how the Republican leadership proposes a bill that basically says we will give them some money and they go out and buy private insurance company and the insurance company says, we are not going to sell it. The reason they are not going to sell it is because they cannot make any money. In other words, for most people, particularly seniors, probably 80 or 90 percent of them are using prescription drugs. It is a benefit. It is not a risk. It is not sold. In other words, if they are an insurance salesman or insurance company, they are not going to cover all these people that use the benefit because they cannot make any money. I think we are also seeing the other phenomena, which is that the people that will go and try to sign up for the HMO are the people that really need the prescription drug coverage and they will tend to be the people that have the higher prescription drug bills and so the HMOs cannot even afford to provide it. So what we are saying as Democrats is let us create this huge pool with all the people, everyone, every senior under Medicare. That create a huge pool. Some people use some drugs. Others use a lot. And by having this huge pool, the cost for everyone on the average becomes a lot less, they do not have the selective situation where people are trying to buy insurance or go into an HMO because they have high business. That is why it does not work. I do not know if I am making it totally clear, but the beauty part of the Democratic proposal is that, by putting everybody in this big essential insurance pool, it is not as expensive and it is more realistic to cover them as opposed to what we are getting now with this selective insurance.