Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. I am glad that you and our next colleague to address us are from Texas because of that article in the Washington Post today. You talked about the Texas experience and how that has shown over the last 2 years that there is not really any significant litigation, that there is not any significant cost increase in having patient protections, but that article today in the Washington Post really pointed out how true that is. The best thing, I just have to mention this particular paragraph from the article, because, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) knows also, we have been talking about how the threat of the lawsuit and the reason why we believe that there are so few lawsuits in Texas is because of the fact that there is the threat of being able to sue, so the HMOs take a lot of preventative actions and do the prevention type things so they do not get sued. There was a perfect quote in there where there were health plan administrators and physicians across Texas saying they have an intuitive sense that the threat of lawsuits has made HMOs more accountable. It says, ``Joe Cunningham, an internist in Waco, had asked an HMO a year ago to allow a patient to undergo an overnight study to find out if he had some kind of disorder. At first the HMO official balked, but when Cunningham said he worked in Texas, he was told, oh, well, you can do the test.'' That is a perfect example, that they know that they allow the test to take place, so they do not have a problem and they do not have any lawsuits. That is what I think is happening in your state.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights, the managed care reform legislation which will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week. My happiness, if you will, over the fact that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has said that they will allow a debate on HMO reform next week that will include the Patients' Bill of Rights is somewhat tempered by my concern that the way they may set up the procedure for the debate and the consideration of managed care reform, or HMO reform, may in fact be nothing more than a way to try to kill effective HMO reform and essentially end up with a bill that passes the House and that goes to the Senate that does not accomplish the goal of providing real patient protections. I just wanted to mention very briefly, if I could, why we need the Patients' Bill of Rights and why my concern about what the Republican leadership may try to do is legitimate. My colleagues know that I have been on the floor and in the well here many times over the last several years talking about the need for the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the reason for that is there are so many abuses with patients, with constituents that I have, with Americans, who have their health care delivered with HMOs or with managed care, and those abuses have come to light with our constituents calling us up, coming to our office, testifying at various hearings that we have had, particularly those with our Democratic health care task force. I would say, if I could, to summarize the problems in our attempt to address the problems, basically fall into two broad categories. One is the issue of medical necessity. Too many times HMOs simply do not allow the particular patient to have the operation that their doctor thinks they need or to stay in the hospital for the length of time that their doctor thinks they should stay or to sometimes even to be able to have the information provided by their doctor about what kind of care that they need, and the reason that is true is because the HMOs increasingly make those decisions. Rather than decisions about what kind of operation you have or how long you stay in the hospital being made by your physician, which was the traditional way and the logical and sensible way for health care to proceed, HMOs increasingly have those decisions made by the insurance company in an effort to try to save costs. We need to correct that. The decision about what is medically necessary, what kind of care you need, should be made by the physician and the patient, by the health care professional and the patient, not by the insurance company, and that is what we seek to do with the Patients' Bill of Rights is to turn that around and give that decision about what is necessary for your health back to the physician and to you. The second thing we do and the second most important area where there is abuse is that if a decision is made that you cannot have an operation, for example, that your physician and you think that you need, you should be able to appeal that, and right now that is almost impossible because most HMOs define on their own what is medically necessary, what kind of operation you are going to have. And then if you seek to appeal, the only appeal is to an internal review board which they control. And what we say in the Patients' Bill of Rights is that there should be an independent review, an external review, by people that you can appeal to who are outside the control of the HMO, independently will decide whether or not the HMO's decision was wrong and can be overturned. And failing that, if that fails, that you should be able to sue and enforce your rights in a court of law which is not the case now because many people, most Americans actually, fall under a Federal preemption called ERISA that says that if their employer is essentially self- insured, which most employers are these days, that then you cannot sue the HMO for damages or to overturn a bad decision about what kind of care you should receive. The Patients' Bill of Rights has a lot more aspects to it. And some of my colleagues who are here tonight and joining me, I am glad to hear, will go into the details about that. But the bottom line is that if we were allowed the opportunity, which hopefully we will next week, to bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights, which is now a bipartisan bill. Most every Democrat supports it, and we have a number of Republicans, about 20 or 30, that also support it, but the Republican leadership still very much is opposed to it. Madam Speaker, I just want to say one more thing preliminarily here tonight before I yield to my colleague from Texas and that is that what I am fearful is going to happen, and we have already heard today the Speaker had a press conference and he indicated that he was going to bring up another piece of legislation, which I think is nothing more than an effort to muck up the Patients' Bill of Rights and create a situation where the bill that finally passes next week is something that cannot pass the Senate, cannot get the President's signature. And basically what he has proposed is what he calls an access bill that would provide more access to insurance for people who are uninsured. And let me just say very broadly I have looked at that so- called access bill; it is not an access bill. It is a bill that basically will make it more difficult for most Americans to get insurance and make the cost of insurance even higher, and the reason why it does that is very simple. It puts in the so-called poison pills, medical savings accounts, the MEWAs, the health marts; these are nothing more than vehicles that essentially allow wealthy and healthy seniors to opt out of the regular insurance pool, if my colleagues will, and make the costs for those people who are left and who are not healthy or wealthy, who are poor or middle class or who cannot be so sure that their health is going to be that great over the next few years, it makes the costs for those people of going out and buying insurance even greater. So let us not let anyone, as my colleagues know, kid ourselves about what the Republican leadership is trying to do here next week. They are going to allow the Patients' Bill of Rights to come to the floor as an option, but they are going to make every effort to try to screw around with that bill, add things that will make it so that that bill either does not pass here in the House, cannot pass in the Senate or cannot become law, and we have to put a stop to that and demand a clean Patients' Bill of Rights that will provide adequate patient protections. Madam Speaker, I yield now to the gentlewoman from Texas and say that, as my colleagues know, your State, as my colleague knows, and I am sure you and others will comment tonight, has already put in place a Patients' Bill of Rights which is very effective but unfortunately does not cover everyone because of the Federal preemption. And I note you have been here many times in your background as a nurse, you know very much what we are talking about in commonsense terms, not only as a Congresswoman, but also on a daily basis, and I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who, again, as the other two that have spoken tonight were here, I think it is at least 3 years now that she has been on the floor talking about the need for these patient protections. I am pleased that she is here with us tonight.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut. This is just the beginning. I heard one of our colleagues from Texas on the other side talk about the rule and the Committee on Rules and how this managed care debate is going to be formulated. Obviously, we will keep our eye on this to see how the procedure goes. But every indication I have today from the Republican leadership, not from the Republicans that support the Patients' Bill of Rights but from the leadership, is that they are going to try to muck this up and make patient protections impossible.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on what the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) said, particularly about this latest initiative, if you will, that the Speaker put forward today. I am going to be harsher than she is in saying that I have absolutely no doubt that this new proposal that was put forward is nothing more than an effort to try to kill the Patients' Bill of Rights. And it is amazing to me the theme of the proposal that the Republican leadership put forward today, which is that somehow the Democrats are not doing the job because we are focusing on managed care reform which only impacts people who actually have health insurance, who are in HMOs, and that the Republican leadership, the Speaker, is not concerned so much with the people who have insurance who are in HMOs but the people who do not have insurance, the uninsured. The hypocrisy of that is so blatant. We as Democrats, and President Clinton and Vice President Gore, have spent the last 5 or 6 years putting forth proposals to address the problems of the uninsured, starting with the President's universal health care coverage, then the kids' health care initiative, the effort to try to address the near elderly, which would let people 55 to 65 buy into Medicare. There have been so many proposals to try to deal with the problem of the uninsured, and all of them have either been put aside, the Republicans have not let them come up; or maybe after they had been kicked and they were screaming, after we pushed and pushed and pushed, as in the case of the kids' health care initiative, we were finally able to get to the floor, but those were Democratic initiatives. I also just wanted to say very briefly that what the Republican leadership is trying to do is to say that managed care is unimportant, let us focus on the uninsured. That is a false premise. We have been spending a lot of time over the last year trying to say that we need to address managed care reform. Let us do that now. I am more than willing to deal with the problem of the uninsured later. I just wanted to say, if I could, that I find this so ironic, because I brought with me today a document that I used in the last debate on HMO reform where the Republican leadership tried to kill the Patient Protection Act. This is from July of 1998, about a year ago, and that was at the time when the House Republican leadership announced their response to the then Dingell-Ganske bill. And our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) is here tonight. This is just from a statement that I made. It says, ``In an attempt to mislead supporters of the Dingell-Ganske Patients' Bill of Rights, the House Republican leadership has called for new legislation.'' They called it the Patient Protection Act. ``However, a more apt title would be the Insurance Industry Protection Act. It not only excludes many key provisions that are essential for consumer protection, but vehemently opposed by the insurance industry, but also includes a number of provisions that would reduce current consumer protections and destabilize the insurance market.'' The three things that are in this bill that the Speaker put forward today, rather than bringing more people into the ranks of the insured, would make it virtually impossible for those who do not have insurance to buy insurance, and I just wanted to mention the three things. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has mentioned them already. One is the health marts. The Republican plan creates health marts under the guise of offering choice to individuals in small business. In reality, health marts would be able to selectively pick what areas they offer their product in, avoid State consumer protection laws, and selectively contract with providers to avoid enrolling people in certain areas. These entities would skim the healthy out of the insurance market leaving everyone else with increasingly unaffordable premiums. The next thing are the MEWAs, the multiple employer welfare arrangements. These, again, make it so that whoever is left in the system has to pay more and cannot get insurance. And the last thing, the medical savings accounts, again, we have had these medical savings accounts on a demonstration basis for a couple of years now. Nobody wants them. Nobody even enrolls in them. But if the healthy and wealthy do enroll, that just leaves the sicker and poorer people out there with no insurance and the inability to buy because the cost goes up. So all I am trying to say is that what the Speaker proposed today is not going to help the uninsured, it is going to make it more difficult for the uninsured to get insurance. It does just the opposite.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I am introducing the Nutraceutical Research and Education Act which I am going to call the NREA. Many of my colleagues may recall the debate and vigorous campaign that led to the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. With the passage of that legislation 5 years ago, the use of alternative medicines, dietary supplements, functional food products, and medical foods has exploded. Since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act was enacted, consumers have flocked to their health food stores and most recently to their drug stores, grocery stores and the Internet to buy products that can keep them healthy. The food and pharmaceutical industries took notice hoping to realize the profits gained by entry into this growing market. The food industry responded by developing novel food products called functional foods. Pharmaceutical and dietary supplement companies have begun calling some of their products nutraceuticals, reflecting their claims for nutrients with targeted health and medical benefits. Despite this impressive growth, the true health benefits of dietary supplements and functional foods have not been fully explored. Congress must, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, as a matter of public policy, encourage the scientific and clinical study of dietary supplements and functional foods. Towards this objective we have created the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the NIH and the Office of Dietary Supplements. However, much still needs to be done. Many individuals and companies that would like to clinically research their products have encountered numerous barriers along the way; and the market is such that if I tested and developed a product, often a nonpatentable product or difficult-to-patent product, someone else who has not invested time and money in clinical research can come in and develop an equivalent or similar product to mine. The time has come for Congress to step forward and encourage a research-based dietary supplement and functional food industry. We must do this to protect the people by ensuring these products are safe and effective. Congress can help bring order to the marketplace with the creation of the proper incentives. The answer is a public-private partnership to get these products researched. I propose, in introducing this bill, the Nutraceutical Research and Education Act, to reward the individuals and companies doing the clinical research on these products with an exclusive marketing claim. In doing so, we will give the term ``nutraceutical'' a legal definition and classification. Under the bill, anyone who chooses to engage in clinical research of a natural product and determines that a health benefit exists and that that product is safe and effective to achieve this health benefit can apply to the FDA for a ruling that their product does what they claim. The FDA would then determine the merits of the application and decide whether the product does, in fact, offer a health benefit at a low risk. If so, the person would be rewarded for doing the hard work with an exclusive right to use the health claim they have proven for a period of 10 years. In this way, we can redirect advertising dollars into research, encourage private enterprise and provide the public with safe and effective, lower-cost and lower-risk nutraceutical products. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress to my colleagues that my legislation does not supplant the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. That legislation was a watershed for the natural products industry. It protects access to products and permits some claims to be made. My legislation just takes us a step further down the road to encourage clinical research and the truthful dissemination of the results of that research to provide the American people access to these products. Until there is a structure in place to investigate and develop dietary supplement and functional food products and prove their worth, the majority of health professionals will not recommend them, but patients will continue to take them. The NREA will make available a mechanism whereby these products are tested for quality and safety to give the people access to proven health remedies, to enable self-care. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I believe the result will be cost effective, less sickness, more health, more productivity and a healthier population and industry.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I spoke about the 8th anniversary of the Independence of the Armenian Republic, which is celebrated by the citizens of Armenia and by people of Armenian descent here in the United States on September 21. But one individual who has played a significant role in solidifying the bonds between the United States and Armenia during these early years of Armenian independence is the current ambassador, Rouben Shugarian. Mr. Shugarian has represented Armenia in Washington since March 1, 1993, and in a few weeks Ambassador Shugarian will be leaving Washington to take another post in the foreign ministry in Yerevan, Armenia's capital. Still only in his late 30s, Ambassador Shugarian obviously has a great future ahead of him in service to the Armenian Republic. During his very distinguished tenure here, Ambassador Shugarian has done a great deal to help raise the profile of Armenia in the Capitol of the free world. For his efforts, he has earned the respect of Members of Congress, the administration, and his colleagues from many other nations in the Washington diplomatic corps. He has also earned the gratitude of the Armenian-American community for helping to advance Armenia's cause, while making the embassy an important focal point for Armenian Americans. When Ambassador Shugarian arrived in Washington, Armenia did not really have an embassy per se, making do with cramped office space. But during his tenure, the Armenian mission in Washington moved to a beautiful facility in the embassy row area near Massachusetts Avenue. The physical presence of the embassy and its central location serves to symbolize Armenia's arrival as one of the emerging nations of the post- Cold War world. Yesterday, Wednesday, September 23, The Washington Post had an article on Ambassador Shugarian entitled ``A Reflection on Washington's Ways.'' The article says, ``The image of a nation that is coming back home,'' was the way the ambassador described to The Washington Post how he has sought to represent his country abroad. Again quoting from the article, it says, ``In a speech at a farewell reception at the Armenian embassy last Friday, Shugarian joked that in the first 2 years he and his staff learned what not to do in Washington, and in the next 5 years they learned about what to do.'' Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Washington is considered the most prestigious and high-profile post for international diplomats. Ambassador Shugarian's appointment to this prestigious post at such a young age demonstrates the high regard he was held in by the leaders of the newly independent Armenian Republic. Indeed, his relative youth in some ways symbolized the energy and optimism of the newly born country that he represented. His success here shows how well deserved that reputation was. Since becoming an independent country, Armenia has signed a wide range of agreements with the United States on trade and investment, on science and technology, on humanitarian issues, and the establishment of a Peace Corps program in Armenia. Ambassador Shugarian has played an important role in much of this progress, and his leadership will be sorely missed. As The Washington Post article notes, Ambassador Shugarian recently had an opportunity to interact with his Turkish counterpart, Ambassador Baki Ilkin in the aftermath of last month's devastating earthquake in Turkey. Since Armenia came through a devastating earthquake in 1988, it has some experience with this type of natural disaster. Armenia offered to help its neighbor, despite their strained relations. Although the initial delivery of aid was rejected at the insistence of certain extreme nationalists in Turkey, eventually Armenian relief supplies did arrive in the stricken earthquake area. A further hopeful sign was seen here last week when Turkish Ambassador Ilkin made an appearance at Ambassador Shugarian's farewell party. And that really was the first time in the annals of Washington diplomacy that the ambassadors of the two countries had met together formally. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Shugarian is in the process of completing a book on his recollections of his service in Washington, entitled On the Overgrown Path. And as he leaves Washington to return to Armenia, I want to wish Ambassador Shugarian, his wife Lilit Karapetian, and their two sons all the best. I hope we will have the opportunities to receive them as visitors in the country they called home for more than 6 years. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the article I referred to above. [From the Washington Post, September 22, 1999] Diplomatic Dispatches--A Reflection on Washington's Ways (By Nora Boustany) Seven years after arriving as Armenia's first ambassador to Washington, Rouben Robert Shugarian is moving on to greener pastures at the Foreign Ministry in Yerevan. The former university professor, specialized in American and English literature and philosophy, said that despite the maddening tempo of diplomatic life here, every day has been a revelation and a discovery. ``There is never a second chance to make a first impression,'' Shugarian noted stoically about his stiff learning curve in Washington. He is completing a book on some of his recollections here titled ``On the Overgrown Path,'' which looks at his homeland's independence since it broke away from the Soviet Union eight years ago tomorrow. It offers a conceptual look at U.S.-Armenian relations, touching on stereotypes and real perceptions of Armenia here and focusing on how best to represent Armenia abroad in its new incarnation. ``The image of a nation that is coming back home,'' was the way he described it. He said Armenia is a country that has suffered from extensive man-made and natural disasters, that is now trying to build its future differently. In a speech at a farewell reception at the Armenian embassy last Friday, Shugarian joked that in the first two years, he and his staff learned what not to do in Washington and the next five years they learned about what to do. ``This is a tough city. Any sign of exhausted creativity or ineffectiveness is not easily pardoned. This is an open society. Old career diplomacy tricks and buttoned up social graces don't get the job done,'' he said in an interview yesterday. ``This is a country where you have to be engaged in a sincere dialogue to reach your objectives.'' A country that had no diplomatic representation, Armenia now has 15 students at Tufts' Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy who Shugarian hopes will benefit from his impressions. The book will not be a memoir as such because he will not be able to share some secrets until some time has elapsed. His most exhilarating moments in Washington came in 1993 when he celebrated Armenia's second anniversary of independence at Meridian International House. ``We did not have an embassy at the time. One felt the country becoming a reality, however, and that we were really going back home,'' he reminisced. He said his first extended exposure to Turkey's ambassador, Baki Ilkin, was in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake Aug. 17 that killed more than 15,000 people. Armenia arranged to send a plane with seismologists, doctors, generators, blankets and medicine to the stricken areas. ``We went through a terrible earthquake 11 years ago in which 25,000 people were killed. It was a purely moral step, not a political one and we do not expect anything in return. We went through something like that and we know what it is like,'' the ambassador said. Although Turkey and Armenia do not have embassies in one another's capitals, Ilkin made a 20-minute appearance at Shugarian's farewell reception, a first in the annals of Washington diplomacy. ``This is such a wonderful country where there is so much to see, to learn and to understand,'' Shugarian said in summing up his time here. ``The most striking thing about life here is the freedom that exists, the freedom that gives you an opportunity.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 26th, the Middlesex County, NJ, American Hungarian Democratic Organization will be holding its twenty-fifth Silver Anniversary Dinner Dance at the Victorian Manor in Edison, NJ. I am proud to pay tribute to this exciting event and the great organization behind it. The highlights of the event will include the presentation of the Anthony M. Yelencsis Memorial Citizen Award to Steve J. Yelencsis, brother of former Mayor Anthony M. Yelencsis of Edison, the founder of the Middlesex County American Hungarian Democratic Organization. The award will be presented by Anton Yelencsis, Tony's son. The Anthony M. Yelencsis Memorial Scholarship Award is presented to high school graduates of Hungarian lineage who exhibit excellent scholastic achievements and other distinguished activities and service during their school years. This year, the award will be presented to Valentine S. Tarr by his uncle, Steven Tarr, the Chairperson of the Scholarship Committee. In addition, the Distinguished Service Awards will be presented to Helen R. Gottlieb, Middlesex County and Edison Democratic Vice- Chairwoman by Dr. Thomas H. Paterniti, Edison Chairman, and to Edison Councilman William A. Kruczak by Edison Councilman Peter J. Barnes III for their contributions to the community and to the organization. Mr. Speaker, the Hungarian-American community in Middlesex County is one of the largest in the Nation. The members of this community continue to make their mark on the community in numerous ways. When Hungarians left their homeland for the promise of America, particularly in response to the imposition of Communist tyranny, Middlesex County was one of the major areas that provided a home and a sense of hope for the future. The Hungarian immigrants and their sons and daughters, in turn, have contributed mightily to the growth and development of Central Jersey through their hard work and commitment to family and community. While Hungarian-Americans have become an integral part of the larger American community, thoughts about the great Magyar motherland are still in their hearts and minds. Fortunately, we live in very exciting and hopeful times for the development and renewal of the Hungarian society and the steady improvement of U.S.-Hungary ties. It's hard to believe for some, impossible to forget for others, that just a few years ago the people of Hungary were trapped by the harsh realities of the Cold War, which they did not create but which nonetheless dominated their existence. Hungary was a leader among Central European nations in establishing a democratic system, before the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the last decade, Hungary has steadily transformed itself into an independent, democratic, market-oriented society, integrated into Europe and the international trading network, a member of NATO and a serious candidate for membership in the European Union. Unlike other areas of Europe where ancient hatreds have been allowed to fester, Hungary has worked to repair damaged relations with its neighbor Romania. Hungary, in particular among its neighbors, has shown an impressive degree of stability. Even during the Cold War, Hungary worked very hard against tough odds to establish itself as a society independent of Soviet domination in certain key political and economic spheres, and was granted Most Favored Nation status by the U.S. in 1978. Free and fair elections and a proliferation of political parties allow Hungarians of all viewpoints to participate in society. Even parties affiliated with former Communists maintain a commitment to maintaining integration with Western institutions. A sister-city relationship has been established between New Brunswick, the county seat of Middlesex County, and Debrecen, Hungary, an arrangement to benefit the people of both communities. Developing business partnerships between New Jersey and Hungary will be good for business on both sides of the Atlantic, creating jobs and providing an increased flow of, and access to, goods and services. It's also good for peace and stability, removing the shadow of fear and suspicion that so often got in the way of U.S.-Hungarian relations during the bad old days of the Cold War. I also want to pay special tribute to Hungary for its contributions to NATO in the operations in the former Yugoslavia, and in taking in refugees from those terrible conflicts. The instability in many of the surrounding lands will continue to test the ability of the new Hungarian democracy to be a force of stability. I am confident that democracy, civil and human rights and a healthy growing economy will triumph in Hungary, given the strong character, values and traditions of the Hungarian people and the help and support from the United States and other Western democracies. To the leaders and members of the Middlesex County American Hungarian Democratic Organization, I say, Kosonom! (Thank you) and Egeszsegere! (To your health).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about the growing relations between the United States and Sri Lanka, relations that I hope will be getting more attention in the near future. In particular, I wanted to mention the upcoming visits of two distinguished Sri Lankan officials to Washington, D.C., next week. At the beginning of this year, I formed a new bipartisan congressional caucus on Sri Lanka in an effort to promote increased dialogue between our two countries and to be a voice in Congress for the approximately 100,000 Americans of Sri Lankan descent. Formerly known as Ceylon, Sri Lanka is an independent island-nation. Its territory comprises one of the largest islands in the Indian Ocean, about the size of West Virginia, lying approximately 20 miles southeast of the southernmost tip of India. This South Asian nation of about 18 million people, a democracy where both the president and the prime minister are women, continues to work to strengthen its relations both with other developing nations and with major industrial powers like the United States. To that end, the president of Sri Lanka, Mrs. Kumaratunga, will be in the United States within the next few days, September 24 to 28, to attend an annual International Monetary Fund/World Bank meeting in her capacity as the chairwoman of the Group of 24 of the IMF. On Sunday, September 26, the President will host a reception here in Washington. The Group of 24 comprises a cross-section of countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The Group of 24 seeks to address economic growth-related issues in the developing countries and to strengthen their financial and monetary situation. Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the president coming to Washington for these important international meetings, I would like to see Sri Lanka's Head of State return to our Nation's capital for a State visit. Earlier this year I wrote to President Clinton asking that he formally invite the president. The last presidential visit from Sri Lanka to the U.S. was in 1984. President Clinton did respond to my letter, although he did not commit to extending such an invitation. However, as South Asia continues to assume a growing importance in U.S. foreign policy considerations, I hope and I will continue to push for a State visit. Mr. Speaker, next week Sri Lanka's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Kadirgamar, will be making an official visit to Washington. Our Sri Lankan Caucus will be setting up a briefing with our Members and our staff with the Foreign Minister tentatively scheduled for next Thursday. I look forward to a productive meeting that will expand the dialogue between our two nations. Mr. Speaker, bilateral U.S.-Sri Lanka relations have always been strong since Sri Lanka won its independence from British colonial rule in 1948. In addition to our growing trade relations, the U.S. and Sri Lanka have a shared stake in promoting security, stability, and democracy in South Asia. Sri Lanka continues to work to promote tolerance among the various religious and ethnic communities that make up its population. It is a country that shares many of our values, and we have many common interests that must continue to be pursued. Mr. Speaker, I hope next week's visit by Sri Lanka's president and foreign minister will contribute to this process of closer relations with the United States, and I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in continuing to work for closer ties between our two countries.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am so pleased to be following the special order of my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), because he addressed the same issue that I would like to address this evening and that is the need for HMO reform and the need to bring legislation to the floor of this House which we refer to as the Patients' Bill of Rights because it provides protection for Americans who are patients who happen to be members of HMOs or managed care organizations; and those protections are needed right now. They were needed a long time ago, but it is really time that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives allow this bill to come to the floor to be debated, and I believe it will pass overwhelmingly. I must say, I have been on this floor many times over the last year, or even beyond, asking that the Republican leadership allow the opportunity for the Patients' Bill of Rights to come to the floor, and we were told last Friday for the first time that the Speaker has set the week of October 4, approximately 2 weeks from now, for that opportunity. Although I have to say that I am suspicious of the way that this will be brought to the floor and the procedure and the rules that will be followed; and I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), mentioned that as well. I must say that I am pleased that we will be debating HMO reform and that one of the bills that we have been promised by the Speaker that will be brought to the floor is the Patients' Bill of Rights. I really need to emphasize this evening, as I have so many other times on the floor and this well, that there are differences between the various managed care reform proposals that have been proposed here and that even though it is true that the Republican leadership now says that they will allow debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights, they have also made it quite clear that they are going to favor bills other than the Patients' Bill of Rights and that there may and certainly will be an effort to pass alternative legislation to the Patients' Bill of Rights. I need to urge my colleagues not to fall into the trap of thinking that anything other than the new bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights is acceptable, not only to us but to the American people. I wanted to point out that it has been very interesting. Really, just last Wednesday, I guess, September 13, in the New York Times, there was an article that talked about how the GOP leadership was very cool on our patients' rights plan and how they were sort of scouring and looking at all kinds of ways of avoiding passage of the Patients' Bill of Rights. And I just wanted to, if I could, either summarize or read through some of the interesting aspects of this article because, as we know back in August, just before the summer break, in the first part of August, this was on August 6, just before we left for the summer recess, at that point the Speaker indicated that he was going to allow a Republican group, a group of Republicans, to put together a bill that he and the Republican leadership would find acceptable in terms of HMO reform. There was no question in my mind that this was a bill, this was an effort by the Republican leadership, to essentially bypass or kill the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights that had been drafted by my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has long been an advocate and who formulated the original Patients' Bill of Rights; the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske); myself; and others, who had basically come up with a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights that would have achieved real HMO reform. At the time on August 6, the Speaker said, well, I am not in favor of that bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights, but I will let the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and a few other Members of Congress on the Republican side see what they can come up with for us to consider in September that perhaps the Republican leadership would support. As we know, and I am again referring to this article in the New York Times, when the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), who is a physician from Oklahoma, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who is a Republican Member, disclosed the text of their bill last week when we came back after the August break, Speaker Hastert had no comment. Senior House Republicans, including the chairmen of several committees and subcommittees, expressed grave reservation about the bill that theoretically they had asked the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and others to put together as their alternative to the Patients' Bill of Rights. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who is the House majority leader, described the Coburn-Shadegg bill as the least worst way to do the wrong thing, and he said the provisions of the bill authorizing patients to sue HMOs for injuries caused by the negligence of a health plan still bothered him. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of our House Committee on Commerce, said he too was reluctant to create a new right to sue. Basically, what we see here is the Republican leadership once again backing off a bill which theoretically they had asked their own Members to put together, and the reason clearly was because they saw the Coburn-Shadegg bill as too much like the Patients' Bill of Rights, the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, particularly with regard to the liability provisions. Now we read, or we find out, that even though the Speaker has said that he is going to allow managed care reform to come to the floor on the week of October 4, that not only will the Patients' Bill of Rights be an option, not only will the Coburn-Shadegg bill be an option, but it is very possible that another bill, which I think really expresses what the leadership wants, and this is the bill that came out of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and it was sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), basically what his bill does is, I think, take a piecemeal approach to HMO reform that is totally unacceptable and shows very dramatically where the Republican leadership is going on the important issue of HMO reform. I think what is going to happen, and we are basically seeing indications of that, is that the House Republican leadership will endorse the Boehner bill and try to get that through the rules that they will use to bring this legislation to the floor as the bill that we finally vote on as opposed to the Patients' Bill of Rights or even the bill that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) have come up with. I want to stress this evening that if that is what happens, if in fact the procedures that come out of the Committee on Rules that are set forth and the procedures by which we debate HMO reform on this floor the week of October 4 basically allow the Boehner bill to be the order of the day and that is the bill that the leadership supports, then we will have achieved nothing effectively in terms of HMO reform and this whole effort to try to come up with something that will help and protect the average American will have actually done the opposite, and HMO reform will be killed. I just want to explain, if I could briefly, where the Boehner bill is such a bad bill by comparison to the Patients' Bill of Rights that my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and so many others of us who care about HMO reform have put forward on a bipartisan basis. The Boehner bills leave out most Americans. The bills cover only people who obtain health insurance through their employer. The bills fail to extend needed patient protections to the millions of people that purchase health insurance individually; and what we are basically saying, and the Boehner bills do not do, is that the protections that we are seeking through the Patients' Bill of Rights, those protections should apply to all health plans, regardless of whether it is employer sponsored, whether it is individually purchased, whether it is ERISA, whether it is Medicare, whatever it happens to be, all health plans should have these same basic protections from HMOs or managed care. The other thing and this is most important, if we look at the Boehner bills, they pretend to secure patients' rights but they contain no way to enforce those rights other than the weak penalties currently available under ERISA, and enforcement is so important. It is not that those of us who support the Patients' Bill of Rights want everybody to sue. In fact, the example in Texas, which is one State that has passed, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) has mentioned, a very progressive Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas, where there is the ability to sue now and there has been for 2 years, only one or two lawsuits have actually been filed. Because once those patient protections are in place, there is no reason to file a lawsuit because there are basic protections under the law. So what we are saying is, even though we would provide for a right to sue, even though we would have an external review and a procedure for that, it is only because we want the practical enforcement to be there, to guard against the abuses of HMOs. What the Boehner bills do is it is basically a very narrow, piecemeal approach. For example, H.R. 2043, which is supposed to protect against the so-called gag clauses, does not prohibit plans from retaliating against doctors who discuss the plan's financial incentives. One of the worst offenses right now with HMOs is the fact if the plan does not cover a particular procedure, the doctor is gagged and cannot say anything about that procedure. A lot of HMOs right now have that kind of rule, gagging, not allowing a doctor to say what procedure a person needs because they will not cover it. What a terrible thing, and there is no protection against that in the Boehner bills. Let me just give a few other indications of the inadequacies in the Boehner bills and why I dread the fact that the House leadership, the Republican leadership, may try to have this be the final product of this debate the week of October 4. The Boehner bills require direct access to physicians only for routine OB-GYN care. They do not allow persons with chronic or serious medical conditions to have direct access to specialists. Nor do the Boehner bills permit persons with conditions requiring ongoing care to obtain standing referrals to a needed specialist. The bills do not include a requirement that a plan have a provider network with a sufficient number and variety of providers who are available and accessible in a timely manner. In addition, there is no requirement that a plan cover the services of a specialist who is not in the plan's network if the network lacks the provider expertise or capacity to treat the enrollee's condition. One of the biggest concerns that I hear from my constituents with HMOs is inadequate access to specialists. We need to provide for that and that is what the Patients' Bill of Rights does. That is what the Boehner bills do not do. Continuity of care. The Boehner bills do not protect patients from abrupt changes in ongoing treatment when their provider is dropped from the plan's network or their employer changes health plans. They have no provision to limit excessive provider financial incentives arrangements. This is another big complaint. Right now, there are incentives in a lot of HMOs for one's doctor not to provide health care in many cases, or not to provide treatment in certain instances, because there is a financial incentive if he provides less care. Now, this is not always true, but it is one of the abuses that we find from time to time, and we do not want it to be there; we want to make sure it does not happen, that there is no such financial incentive. Another thing in the Boehner bills: emergency care. One of the biggest complaints I hear about HMOs is that if I have to go to an emergency room because I feel the necessity, I have chest pain, I feel I have to go to a hospital, oftentimes I need prior authorization, or I can only go to an emergency room for a hospital that is maybe 50 miles away instead of the one that is down the street. Well, that has to be changed. But H.R. 2045, one of the Boehner bills, fails to insure that people can obtain emergency care when and where the need arises without fear of excessive charges. Under this bill, if a plan and the emergency room physician disagree on what emergency care is necessary, the patient can be stuck holding the bill. I use the example of severe pain. Severe pain does not count as an emergency if an individual with severe chest pains risks having to pay for services out of pocket, or if he or she goes to an emergency room without getting prior authorization. So again, one does not have protection that one can make sure that if one has severe pain and thinks they are having a heart attack, they can go to an emergency room down the street and they do not have to worry about prior authorization. I just want to mention one more thing about the Boehner bills because I think the enforcement aspect is so important. What we are saying about the patients' bill of rights and really the two things that are the hallmark of the patients' bill of rights, the bill that should pass this House, and I hope that it does, one is the definition of ``medical necessity,'' what is necessary, what kind of operation is necessary, how long one has to stay in the hospital, whether one has a particular procedure or a particular operation. That definition of what is ``medically necessary'' is made by the physician and the patient, not by the insurance company. The second hallmark of the patients' bill of rights is that if one has been denied care, one can go to an outside panel or an outside review board that is not influenced by one's HMO and ultimately, if that fails, that one can bring suit in court. Well, under the Boehner bills, H.R. 2089, they purport to create an independent external appeals system, but it is biased against the patients and allows the health plans to control virtually all aspects of the external review process. The bill requires external reviewers to uphold plans as long as the plans follow their own definitions, no matter how arbitrary the definitions. A plan could define ``medical necessity'' to be nothing more than care defined under whatever treatment guidelines and utilization protocols the plan adopts, even if the guidelines and protocols are not backed by any clinical evidence or good professional practice. What we say in our patients' bill of rights is the decision about what is medically necessary is made by the doctor and the patients. How we effectuate that is that we use the standards of care that are applicable for that particular specialty. So if the Board of Cardiology has certain procedures which they consider the norm in the practice of cardiology, those are the procedures that apply in terms of determining what is medically necessary. But under the Boehner bills, it is up to the HMO to decide that. They do not have to make reference to the local Board of Cardiology; they do not have to make reference to any studies at all. They just define what is ``medically necessary'' on their own based, on whatever cost containment is beneficial to them, in many cases. That is what we do not want. We do not want the external review process to be limited to what the HMO defines as medically necessary. Of course, we want to make sure that there is an outside external review, unbiased, not under the influence of the HMO, and that ultimately one has the right to sue. Mr. Speaker, I could talk more this evening about what is important in our patients' bill of rights and why it is so much preferable to the Boehner bills and other bills that might come to the floor; but I think the most important thing is that if the Republican leadership is really serious about allowing the opportunity for a full and fair debate during the week of October 4 on patient protections, they have to craft the rule in such a way that there is a clear opportunity for us and for the majority of this House to support the patients' bill of rights. I am fearful that that is not going to happen. I will be watching, as my colleague from Iowa mentioned, over the next few weeks to see what kind of rule comes out of the Committee on Rules, but we are going to be very careful to monitor that, because if there is going to be a promise that we have an opportunity to bring real protections to this floor, then it has to be a promise that is fulfilled pursuant to the rules of this House. I hope that that is the case, and I will continue to look at it over the next 2 weeks. Issues of Importance in the Republic of Armenia

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to turn lastly to the issue, some of the issues relative to India-U.S. relations, and there are basically three topics that I would like to mention which I think are relevant, particularly in light of some of the appropriations bills that are now going to conference and which will be coming to the floor within the next week or two. First, I did want to start out by saying with regard to India-U.S. relations that there has been, I noticed in the last week or two, since we came back from the August break, an effort by Pakistan once again to internationalize the Kashmir conflict by trying to bring in the United States as a mediator. I think many of us know, my colleagues know, that India maintains that the Kashmir conflict should be addressed on a bilateral basis with Pakistan under established frameworks agreed to by both countries. Now, thus far, the Clinton administration has widely resisted Pakistani attempts to internationalize the Kashmir conflict; and certainly that was the case after the last conflict where President Clinton specifically said that he was not going to act as a mediator and that the two nations basically had to sit down together and work out their differences. However, I understand that some of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, in the House are now circulating once again letters urging that the administration break with this long- standing precedent and intervene in this bilateral dispute in Pakistan. I think such a development would not contribute to peace and stability in South Asia. Rather than seeking this what I consider reckless change of policy, it is important for Members of Congress to encourage the administration to maintain its current prudent approach. I believe President Clinton's July 4 meeting with Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan succeeded in bringing about a Pakistani withdrawal of troops from India's side of the line of control. I welcome that. There is absolutely no question that President Clinton played a major role in the ultimate withdrawal, if you will, of Pakistan back to the line of control, so now we have relative peace in Kashmir. But, unfortunately, Pakistan is still trying to drag the United States into this conflict as an international mediator. This is really nothing more than a strategic ploy to enhance Pakistan's position in the conflict. India has made it clear that it does not favor third party mediation. Pakistan has earned its recent international isolation, given its destabilizing actions in Kashmir. Pakistan must not be rewarded with gains at the negotiating table in light of its costly gambit in Kashmir, a policy that has militarily failed and has strategically failed. They should not be given some propaganda advantage by having this Congress suggest that the United States should intervene. Mr. Speaker, as part of this special order I include for the Record the text of a letter I sent to President Clinton back in July before the break, where I urged him to resist Pakistan's efforts to bring the United States into its bilateral conflict with India. I think this letter was appropriate in July, and it is still appropriate today. The letter referred to is as follows: July 7, 1999. Hon. William Jefferson Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my support for your efforts to effectuate a withdrawal of Pakistani forces from India's side of the Line Of Control in Kashmir, and to respectfully urge that the Administration continue to resist Pakistan's efforts to internationalize its bilateral dispute with India by drawing in the United States as a mediator. In the aftermath of your Independence Day meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, I was very encouraged by the published reports indicating that Administration officials believe that yielding to Pakistan's desire to bring the U.S. in as an international mediator would be to side with Pakistan, given India's long-standing position that the issue should be resolved bilaterally. I welcome your meeting with Prime Minister Sharif with the goal of getting Pakistan to withdraw its forces from India's side of the Line of Control (LOC). I was somewhat concerned by Mr. Sharif's characterization, in the Pakistani media, of the talks at the White House, suggesting that you will play a more active mediating role in Kashmir. I hope this was merely an exercise in spin control by Mr. Sharif. But I would urge that you and the Administration maintain the current, limited approach of achieving a Pakistani withdrawal, while allowing India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue on a bilateral basis, pursuant to the framework set forth in the Simla Accords and, more recently, in the Lahore Declaration. The bottom line is that India is fighting to defend its territory against an armed infiltration. Under those circumstances, the U.S. must maintain a clear policy of opposing armed aggression and not rewarding Pakistan with gains at the negotiating table. I am also encouraged by indications that you will travel to South Asia later this year. For the reasons that I've stated above, it is important that the trip not be a vehicle for the U.S. to play a mediator role in Kashmir. I have written to you previously urging that you visit India, the world's largest democracy. I cannot emphasize enough how valuable it would be in bringing the U.S. and India closer together. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued leadership on this and other urgent foreign policy priorities. Sincerely, Frank Pallone, Jr.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to turn briefly, if I could tonight, to a couple of international issues unrelated to the issue of HMO reform. As many of my colleagues know, I am very much involved in both the Armenia caucus as well as the India caucus that we have here in the House of Representatives, and I wanted to take a few moments initially to talk about the anniversary, if you will, of Armenia's independence, and then I would like to talk a little bit about some issues relative to India that will be coming up in the next few weeks in the context, most likely, of some of the appropriations bills and conference reports that we will be considering here on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, if I could turn initially to the Republic of Armenia. Today, Tuesday, September 21, is actually the eighth anniversary of the independence of the Armenian Republic, and it is celebrated by the citizens of Armenia, as well as people of Armenian dissent here in the United States and around the world. The United States, as the leader of the free world, has welcomed the arrival of Armenia into the family of democratic nations, and I am proud that this Congress has consistently voted to provide humanitarian and economic development assistance to help Armenia preserve democracy and the institutions of civil society and to continue the transition to a free market economy. I am proud that our administration has made a priority of achieving a negotiated settlement to the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, which is vital to bringing stability and economic integration to the southern Caucasus region. However, I believe there is a lot more that America can do to help Armenia achieve its rightful place as a free nation with a secure future, and to do so is not only in Armenia's interests. The United States has a fundamental national interest in bringing about stability in the strategically located Caucasus region and in supporting those emerging nations like Armenia that share our values. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit the Republic of Armenia as well as Nagorno Karabagh and Azerbaijan with a bipartisan group of Members of Congress last month, in August. We saw firsthand the outstanding progress Armenia has made in fostering democracy and in promoting economic growth. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of Armenia may be a very young country, but the Armenian nation is one of the world's most ancient and enduring. The story of the Armenian people, a nation whose history is measured not in centuries, but in millennia, the first to adopt Christianity as its national religion, is an inspiring saga of courage and devotion to family and nation. It is also an epic story of a triumph of a people over adversity and tragedy. Early in this century in one of history's most horrible crimes against humanity, 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children were massacred by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Every April, Members of this House join in commemoration of the Armenian genocide, and we can never relent, and will never relent, in our efforts to remind the world that this tragedy is a historic fact and to make sure that our Nation and the whole world community and, especially the Turkish nation, come to terms with and appropriately commemorate this historic fact. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the people of Armenia established an independent state on May 28, 1918. But unfortunately, the fledgling nation was not able to overcome the simultaneous pressures of the forces of Ataturk's Turkey and the Russian Communists. Ultimately, the lands of eastern Armenia were occupied by the Soviet Red Army, and Armenia became one of the Soviet Union's constituent republics in 1936. During 5\1/2\ decades under Soviet rule, at least some Armenian cultural presence was maintained, even if the political shots were called in Moscow. However, the predominantly Armenian region of Nagorno Karabagh was placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan under an arbitrary decision by the dictator Stalin. Mr. Speaker, in the late 1980s, the tumultuous changes rocking the Soviet Union were strongly felt in Armenia. In 1988, a movement of support began for the Karabagh Armenians to exercise their right to self-determination. The movement for the freedom of Karabagh helped to rekindle the struggle for freedom for all the Armenian people. That same year, a devastating earthquake struck northern Armenia and its destruction continues to be in evidence. In 1990, the Armenian National Movement won a majority of seats in the parliament and formed a government; and on September 21, this day, in 1991, 8 years ago, the Armenian people voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence in a national referendum. Since then, Mr. Speaker, the Armenian people have worked to reestablish a state and a nation to create a society where their language, culture, religion, and other institutions are able to prosper. The progress made in 8 short years by the Republic of Armenia has been an inspiration, not only for the sons and daughters of the Armenian Diaspora, but for Armenians and freedom-loving people everywhere. Having survived the genocide and having endured decades under the domination of the Soviet Union, the brave people of Armenia have endeavored to build a nation based on the principles of democracy and opportunities for all. Mr. Speaker, as they have for so much of their history, the Armenian people have accomplished all of this against daunting odds. The tiny, landlocked Republic of Armenia is surrounded by hostile neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan, who have imposed blockades that have halted the delivery of basic necessities. Yet independent Armenia continues to persevere. While democracy has proven to be an illusive force in much of the Soviet bloc, Armenia held multiparty presidential elections last year; and on May 30 of this year, parliamentary elections were held once again. As the founder and chairman, with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I consider U.S.-Armenia relations to be one of our key foreign policy objectives. Support for Armenia is in our practical interests. Helping to support stabilization is strategically important in an often unstable part of the world. Standing by Armenia is also consistent with Armenia's calling to support democracy and human rights and to defend free peoples throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the people of Armenia want good relations with their neighbors and the entire world community; and I believe the moral, political, and economic power of the U.S. could go a long way towards helping Armenia achieve that goal. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the reality of daily life for the people of the Republic of Armenia continues to be difficult. I saw that, once again, with my colleagues when we visited Armenia in August. But the commitment to working for a better future is remarkably strong in all the men, women, and young people of Armenia, especially. I just want to take this occasion to wish the Armenian people well on the occasion of their independence day and, more important, in their ongoing effort to establish a free republic so that their children may prosper in the homeland of their ancestors. India-U.S. Relations

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the DOE reorganization proposals in this bill. These proposals are simply bad government because they damage environmental protection worker health and safety and national security. There were a number of points that were raised by the DOE to explain why these provisions are bad government. One was the Attorney General's letter which was mentioned. Second, the bill could degrade effective public health and safety regulation of the nuclear defense complex by weakening the Secretary's ability to direct its regulation independent of the program's internal direction. The bill could isolate the Department's national security components for meaningful departmental oversight. The bill could degrade national security by rolling back recent actions DOE has taken to identify and flex clear responsibility and accountability in all of the DOE's national security activities, including the counterintelligence functions that were strengthened by a recent presidential directive. And last, the bill could lead to an erosion between the strong links between the weapons laboratories and DOE science programs, making recruitment of top scientists more difficult and uncertain, thereby jeopardizing the task of sustaining the nuclear deterrent testing. That is why we should oppose these provisions.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House voted to appoint Members to the House Senate Conference for the fiscal year 2000 foreign operations appropriations bill. This evening I want to call on the conferees to support certain key provisions to help the people of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh and to promote the goals of peace and economic growth in the entire south Caucasus region. During the August recess, several colleagues and I took part in a congressional delegation to the south Caucasus. Our itinerary included stops in Armenia, Nagorno Karabagh, and Azerbaijan. We met with the presidents and other political leaders, American business people and investors and aid workers implementing humanitarian assistance programs. We also had the opportunity to meet with people who had been victimized by the conflicts and the natural disasters that have struck the region. I hope that our recent visit to Armenia, Nagorno Karabagh, and Azerbaijan has helped to generate added momentum for a negotiated settlement that could open up new avenues for greater regional integration and cooperation. I applaud the fact that the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have met several times in the last few months in an effort to resolve the Karabagh conflict. In our meetings with all three presidents, we suppressed the importance of direct negotiations maintaining the 1994 cease-fire and other confidence-building measures. The fiscal year 2000 foreign operations bill approved by the House and the Senate included a number of initiatives that will help to promote regional cooperation, security and economic growth in the southern Caucasus region. I appreciate the works of the appropriators and would ask the conferees to include the following items in the final version of this legislation. First, Mr. Speaker, I hope the conferees will adopt the Senate earmark of $90 million for Armenia with a sub earmark of $15 million for the earthquake zone in the Gyumri area of northern Armenia which is still trying to recover from the devastating 1988 earthquake. It is important for the United States to maintain our support and partnership with Armenia as that country continues to make major strides towards democracy as evidenced by the May 30 parliamentary elections, as well as market reforms and increasing integration with the west. U.S. assistance also serves to offset the difficulties imposed on Armenia's people as a result of the blockades maintained by Azerbaijan and Turkey. The needs in the earthquake zone particularly for new housing construction requires special assistance. I also strongly support the language in the House version directing the Agency for International Development to expedite delivery of $20 million to the victims of Nagorno Karabagh, those victims residing in Nagorno Karabagh itself through September 30 of 2000. Last month in Stepanekart, I met with the organizations administering these aid programs and was impressed with their needs as well as their ability to deliver necessary services. This assistance previously appropriated, but not yet obligated, is as the House language makes clear not to be provided to the governments of Azerbaijan or Armenia. I also urge the conferees to adopt the House language stating that the extent and timing of U.S. and multilateral assistance other than humanitarian assistance to the government of any country in the Caucasus region should be proportional to its willingness to cooperate with the Minsk Group and other efforts to resolve regional conflicts. The leaders of Armenia, Nagorno Karabagh, and Azerbaijan all understand the importance the U.S. places on progress being made with the peace process, and I stress the potential for a peace dividend in my discussions with the leaders in August and believe that all countries of the south Caucasus need to be mindful that U.S. assistance is dependent upon movement towards peace. I also urge that the conferees adopt the House language supporting the confidence-building measures discussed in the April 1999 summit here in Washington in furtherance of a peaceful resolution of the NK conflict especially in the vicinity of Nagorno Karabagh. These measures include strengthening compliance with the cease-fire, studying post- conflict regional development such as transportation routes and infrastructure, establishing a youth exchange program and other collaborative initiatives to foster greater understanding among the parties, and reduce hostilities. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the importance of maintaining section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. There is a clear bipartisan support in both houses for preserving this law which restricts certain direct government-to-government assistance to Azerbaijan until that country lifts its blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. The bottom line is that the conditions for lifting section 907 have not been met, and I hope the government of Azerbaijan will recognize that it is in Azerbaijan's own interests to lift the blockades so that section 907 will no longer be necessary. In the meantime, Congress must be clear: until steps are taken by Azerbaijan to lift the blockade, section 907 stays.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce this morning that I will soon be introducing legislation to expand access to health insurance for children. About 2\1/2\ years ago, Congress passed the State Child Health Insurance Program as part of the Balanced Budget Act. That program established a partnership between the States and the Federal Government, with the mission of making health insurance accessible to 5 million of the Nation's estimated 10 million uninsured children. The target population of that program was and remains parents who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy policies in the expensive individual market. The program has been, by and large, a success. A significant number of children who would otherwise not have health insurance now have that insurance. As successful as that program has been, there is still, though, a considerable way to go. It was, after all, designed to provide insurance for only half of the Nation's uninsured children, and we must not forget the other half. Mr. Speaker, last week Vice President Gore brought renewed attention to this issue, reminding everyone that the job is not done. In Los Angeles, he announced a plan he will be pursuing to make health insurance available to every child in the country by the year 2005. I think it is important to note that the Vice President's observation that the State health insurance program needs to be expanded is a view shared by many, if not every State in the country. A number of States have already taken voluntary action to go beyond the terms of their partnership with the Federal Government to make their child health insurance programs accessible to as many children as possible. In my home State of New Jersey, for example, the income eligibility threshold for participation in the program has been raised from 200 percent to 350 percent of the poverty level. That means in New Jersey a family of four with an income of about $57,500 would be eligible to participate in the program. The State legislature in New Jersey has also passed a number of bills that would expand access and improve outreach, which has been a significant impediment for signing up eligible children in many of the States. Mr. Speaker, the Vice President and the States have it right. We must pass a program to cover every child in the country, not just half the children. To that end, I will soon be introducing my own bill to further the momentum created by the States and the Vice President to address this vital national need. Like the Vice President's plan, my bill will expand the CHIP program to children beyond those in families at 200 percent of the poverty level. It will, however, go a bit further than what the Vice President has proposed. Instead of expanding the program to include those at 250 percent of poverty, my bill will follow New Jersey's example and expand it to families at 350 percent of poverty. States that elect to increase the eligibility level to 350 percent would receive increased Federal funds to help meet the costs. In addition, my bill will include two provisions to help boost enrollment in the program. The first will provide incentives for States to pass laws by a date certain to authorize hospitals to enroll on the spot eligible children who have been brought into the hospital for care. The second measure would create an incentive for States to pass laws to facilitate the recruitment of eligible children who are not enrolled in the program. Like the measure in the New Jersey State Senate after which it is modeled, this provision will provide a financial incentive for schools, day care centers, and health clinics to recruit and enroll eligible children in State health insurance programs. Mr. Speaker, these measures will go a long way towards helping more of the families who the program was intended to help who have so far been overlooked. Time has shown that while the kids program, the kids care program, has been successful, it will not be enough to insure all of America's uninsured children if the Federal Government fails to expand the program. I look forward to collaborating with the Vice President to fashion a program that achieves our common goals. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting a renewed effort to finish the job we started in 1997 so every family may live with the security of knowing that, at a bare minimum, their children will be taken care of.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am concerned by the characterizations of foreigner that supporters of this amendment have used, and I would stress legal permanent residents are in this country legally. They have followed all the proper procedures and have played by the rules. For LPRs, campaign contributions are the only form of political participation available to them. Proponents of this amendment call on immigrants to make the commitment to the United States by becoming citizens. In fact, a significant number of LPRs eager to take their places as citizens are frustrated in their effort by long backlogs at the INS. Their desire to get involved in the political process as they await their citizenship should be welcomed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the legislative record my concerns about the direction of the Congressional Award and the changes that have been proposed by the National Office. From the very beginning, when the Congressional Award was introduced by my predecessor, Representative James J. Howard, and then passed by the Congress In 1979, it was made very clear that the Award should be its own independent award under the sponsorship of the U.S. Congress. Congress did not intend that it be part of an international award under the patronage of Prince Philip of Great Britain. As stated by Congressman Howard ``It was never our intention to duplicate in design and purpose the Duke of Edinburgh's Award.'' The National Office of the Congressional Award has established new standards that make major changes in the award requirements including creating a second, less demanding track that enable young people to earn Congressional Award certificates. This is intended to bring the program more in line with the International Award. Unfortunately, it would also water down the overall program. Ultimately, I fear, young people would choose the easier route and the more intense medal program would fall by the wayside. This is not what Congress intended in 1979. In addition the certificate track eliminates the close relationship that develops between adult advisors and young people as they plan their program goals. The certificate is awarded after the fact and there is little if any contact prior to that. Finally, other changes have been made that affect how the hours spent by young people in voluntary public service, personal development and physical fitness as calculated toward earning gold medals. I am very proud of the success of our New Jersey Congressional Award Program under the leadership of Dr. Frank Arlinghaus of Rumson, NJ. It was his idea to establish a Congressional Award. As someone who has attended many of the Congressional Award ceremonies in New Jersey and seen many of my young constituents honored for their hard work, I would like to ask that the National Board of the Congressional Award address these questions and respond to the concerns raised by the programs in New Jersey, Arizona and elsewhere. I believe we have a commitment to those who have earned the awards to date to maintain the high standards of the program. We also have a commitment to future participants and our colleagues to maintain the Award as it was originally intended by Congress.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the United States Life- Saving Service Heritage Act, legislation to celebrate one of the most inspiring periods in America's maritime history. This legislation would establish a comprehensive program to inventory, evaluate, document, and assist efforts to restore and preserve surviving historic lifesaving stations. I am pleased that my Jersey Shore colleague Representative Frank LoBiondo has joined me in this effort. The history of lifesaving in the United States dates back to 1785, when the Massachusetts Humane Society began building huts along the Massachusetts coast to aid shipwreck victims. These huts were later fitted with surfboats, beachcarts, and other lifesaving equipment. Beginning in 1847, the Federal government recognized the importance and necessity of lifesaving efforts when Congress provided a series of appropriations to establish lifesaving stations equipped to render assistance to shipwrecked mariners and their passengers. These stations were first established along the Atlantic coast with the assistance of Representative William Newell, who during the 31st and 39th Congresses represented some of the same areas of New Jersey that I represent today. Representative Newell's efforts contributed to the establishment of a network of lifesaving stations along the Jersey Shore from Sandy Hook to Cape May. In 1871, Congress approved the first appropriation for the Federal government to employ crews of lifesavers. On June 18, 1878, the ``Act to Organize the Life-Saving Service'' was enacted. In 1915 the Life Saving Service merged with the Revenue Cutter Service to form the Coast Guard. At that time, there were over 275 lifesaving stations to aid shipwreck victims on the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf, and Great Lakes coasts. The volunteer and professional lifesaving personnel who staffed these stations risked life and limb to prevent shipwreck casualties. Winslow Homer immortalized these great heroes of the American coast in this painting The Life Line. Walt Whitman celebrated their inspiring actions in the following excerpt of his poem Patrolling Barnegat-- Through cutting swirl and spray watchful and firm advancing, (That in the distance! Is that a wreck? Is the red signal flaring?) Slush and sand of the beach tireless till daylight wending, Steadily, slowly, through horse roar never remitting, Along the midnight edge by those milk-white combs careering, A group of dim, weird forms, struggling, the night confronting, That savage trinity warily watching. An outstanding example of this period survives today in my district. The historic Monmouth Beach lifesaving station, established in 1895, is a Duluth style station designed by the architect George Tolman. In 1880, every member of the station's crew was awarded a gold lifesaving medal for rescuing victims of two shipwrecks on the same evening. Earlier this year, this historic structure was slated for demolition to make way for a new parking lot for beachgoers. Fortunately, the entire community came together to save this important structure. However, much work needs to be done to preserve the station's history and the inspiring stories of those who served there. It is not certain exactly how many stations like the one in Monmouth Beach remain. Many surviving historic lifesaving stations are of rare architectural significance, yet they are unfortunately threatened by harsh coastal environments, rapid economic development in the coastal zone, neglect, and lack of resource for their preservation. The heroic actions of America's lifesavers deserve greater recognition, and their contributions to America's maritime and architectural history should be celebrated. That is why I have proposed the United States Life-Saving Service Heritage Act. This legislation would provide the resources necessary to inventory, document, and evaluate surviving lifesaving stations. It would also provide grant funding to assist efforts to protect and preserve these maritime treasures. The United States Life-Saving Service Heritage Act would authorize the National Park Service, through its National Maritime Initiative, to inventory, document, and evaluate surviving historic lifesaving stations. These activities would be conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Life-Saving Service Heritage Association, a Massachusetts based non-profit educational organization that works to protect and preserve America's lifesaving heritage. This inventory, documentation, and evaluation would be similar in nature to a study completed by the Park Service in 1994, on historic lighthouses. Under this legislation, the Park Service would serve as a clearinghouse of information on lifesaving station preservation efforts, which would greatly assist public and private efforts to protect these historic structures and the maritime heritage that they embody. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to celebrate one of the most heroic and inspiring periods in America's maritime history.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the issue of HMO reform has become one of the most important issues on the minds of Americans today, and I can certainly tell you that from the forums and the people that I met and talked to during the August break that we recently held with the House of Representatives. I had a number of forums in my district that were specifically about HMO reform where we talked about the Patients' Bill of Rights and what some of us are trying to do in the House of Representatives to reform HMOs and to end some of the abuses. And I found overwhelmingly that at my general forums or my forums that were specific to HMO reform that people felt that the need to address the abuses of HMOs and managed care was the number one issue on the minds of my constituents. And we know that polling around the country amongst Democrats, Republicans, and Independents shows that that is certainly the case as well. There have been also I should mention a number of front page articles in the leading newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post on the fevered pitch, if you will, that the debate over managed care reform has assumed on Capitol Hill, and it is also assumed I would say a clear and identifiable framework. The debate is now one between supporters of managed care reform on the one hand, mostly Democrats, and some Republicans and the Republican leadership on the other hand. The Republican leadership which with the insurance industry are fighting tooth and nail to undermine the various managed care reform proposals that have been introduced either by Democrats, by Republicans or on a bipartisan basis. The issue of HMO reform has reached the dimensions it has because patients are being abused within managed care organizations. It is just common sense. Many people come up to me because they have had problems with HMOs where they felt that common sense would dictate that they should be able to go to an emergency room or they should be able to have particular treatment or stay in the hospital a few extra days, and they are told that they cannot. Patients today lack basic elementary protections from abuse, and these abuses are occurring because insurance companies and not doctors are dictating which patients can get what services under what circumstances. Within managed care organizations, HMOs, the judgment of doctors is increasingly taking a back seat to the judgment of the insurance companies. Medical necessity is being shunned aside by the desire of bureaucrats to make an extra buck, and people are literally dying because they are not getting the medical attention they need; and ironically enough, they are in theory paying for it in their premiums. I cannot emphasize enough, Mr. Speaker, how many times during the break, during the August recess, that people came into my district office complaining about abuses related to HMOs and managed care. Now, because of the importance of this issue, there are a number of legislative proposals that have been introduced to give patients the protections they deserve. I have been on the floor many times talking about the Democrat Caucus' Health Care Task Force, which I cochair; and together with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and most Democratic Members here in the House, we have introduced legislation which would provide patients with a comprehensive set of protections from managed care abuses. This is the Patients' Bill of Rights, as it is called. It is not an attempt to destroy managed care, it is an attempt to basically improve it and to make it better. I cannot emphasize that enough. During the forums I had during the break, I had actually people from an insurance company who sold insurance policies for managed care, and I suggested to them over and over again and explained to them that those of us who want reform are not against managed care. Managed care is here to stay. We know that it saves money; we know there are positive values to it. But on the other hand, the abuses have to be corrected. Now, I wanted to say that what happened just before the August break in that first week of August when we were last in session was very significant. At that time and a few weeks prior to that the Republican leadership was saying they were willing to bring some kind of managed care reform to the floor and let us vote on it, up or down. However, they ultimately decided not to allow that, not to do that. Because of that, there were Republican Members, and I will mention the two leaders, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], both Republicans, both health care professionals, who decided they were going to join together. Because they could not get a vote on the floor on managed care reform from the Republican leadership, they would join together and bring some of the Republican colleagues over to help most of the Democrats who had sponsored and put forward the Patients' Bill of Rights. So just before the break, it was announced there would be a new bipartisan bill sponsored by these Members, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] being our Democrat and ranking member on the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], also Republican members of the Committee on Commerce; and we would put together a new bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, which is very similar really to the Democratic bill that came out of our Democratic Health Care Task Force and that we as Democrats have been talking about for the last year or more, and we now have 20 Republicans who have agreed to cosponsor this new bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. That was a major achievement. There are now a majority of Members of this House on both sides of the aisle that are willing to say that they want the Patients' Bill of Rights brought to the floor and are willing to cosponsor the bill. Unfortunately, nothing has really changed in terms of the Republican leadership. The Patients' Bill of Rights, this new bipartisan one, does not enjoy the support of the Republican leadership. In fact, if we are to believe, if you will, what we read in the newspaper, it is not just the Patients' Bill of Rights that the Republican leadership opposes. They appear to be opposed to the larger notion of managed care reform. They are simply not willing to cross the insurance industry in order to give patients better protections and doctors greater power over medical choices. I would like to point out that the GOP leadership's opposition to the new bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights is not exclusive to the House. In the Senate, Senator Nickles recently lambasted the American Medical Association for supporting the Patients' Bill of Rights. During the break the American Medical Association, I should mention, came out in support, unconditional support, of this new bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. Yet Senator Nickles said he was shocked that they would do it, and he suggested that the AMA's support of the Patients' Bill of Rights would jeopardize their relationship with the Republican Party. I have to point out that it is not just the AMA, it is not just the AMA representing doctors, it is almost every health care professional organization that has now come out in support of the Patients' Bill of Rights. We have over 100 patients, medical health care and consumer groups that have announced their support for the bill, and I think the problem with the GOP leadership, the Republican leadership, is that rather than hear the voices of the vast majority of their constituents and the overwhelming voices of the medical and the health care professionals and the consumer groups that say they support the Patients' Bill of Rights, instead the Republican leadership just looks to the special interests, the HMOs and insurance companies, and only hears their voices to decide what they as Republican leadership should do. Basically what we have, now that we have come back into session, and we will be in session for most of the fall, is essentially a scene or a showdown, if you will, between the supporters of the Patients' Bill of Rights, bipartisan, and the Republican leadership. With very few legislative days left in the 106th Congress, those who support patient protection believe it is increasingly important that everyone come together and send a strong message to the GOP leadership about getting the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor for a vote. I would bet any money that if the Republican leadership brought the new bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor of this House, it would pass overwhelmingly, so that is why they are not doing it, because they are afraid that would in fact happen. But there is widespread agreement in Congress for ensuring with this bill that medical decisions are being made by doctors based on medical need and not by company bureaucrats whose primary concern is profit margin. I believe that if we continue to agitate on a bipartisan basis now to bring this bill to the floor, we will eventually have success. Now I wanted to point out, if I could this evening, what the Republican leadership did during the break in concert with the HMOs or the insurance companies, with these special interests, to try to kill the Patients' Bill of Rights and those who might be interested in supporting it, again, both Democrats and Republicans. I am just reading, if I could, or making mention of an article that was in Congress Daily, which is a publication that circulates on Capitol Hill. This was an article that was in the Congress Daily during the break, Thursday, August 19. It says: ``Insurers business target Norwood Dingell supporters.'' They are again making reference to the bipartisan bill. ``Health insurers, health plan and business groups today unveiled the advertising campaign they will target at States and House districts where members have cosponsored or are leaning towards supporting managed care reform. Health Insurance Association of America President Charles Chip Kahn said cosponsors of the bipartisan managed care bill authored by Representative Charles Norwood, Republican of Georgia, and Commerce ranking member John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, will rue the day,'' this is a quote, ``will rue the day they decide to endorse it. During the next two weeks, the HIAA will spend $250,000 airing 60- second radio ads that will run in Buffalo, Elmira and New York City, New York, Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida, Chattanooga and Knoxville, Tennessee, Philadelphia and Casper, Wyoming, where GOP Representative Barbara Cubin is a cosponsor of the Norwood-Dingell plan. Including HIAA's advertising campaign over the next two weeks, Kahn said, health plans and business groups opposing managed care bills will spend more than $1 million working towards a cacophony of criticism of the bills. The health benefits coalition, a group of employer-based organizations opposing the managed care bills, is ramping up its spending for the last two weeks of the break, said an official with one of the groups. The coalition will launch television and heavy radio ads and heavy grassroots pressure against about 35 Republicans who either have signed or might sign on to the Norwood- Dingell plan. The ads are pretty tough and they are intended to provoke a backlash, the official said. We are going after members who are soft but gettable.'' Basically what they are doing is spending their time during the break, spending money, trying to persuade, particularly Republicans in this case, not to cosponsor the now bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. It is not just this group, the HMOs. ``The American Association of Health Plans will launch a TV ad campaign aimed at 60 House Members, said spokesman John Murray. The ads will target Norwood-Dingell cosponsors as well as House Members still on the fence. Murray said, we are going to spend whatever it takes.'' How do you like that? This is the problem that we face, the money that the special interests want to spend, and they are working with the Republican leadership, even against Republican Members who feel that they want to cosponsor the Patients' Bill of Rights and are supporters of what is good for the average American. ``The business roundtable also will launch radio ads during the remainder of the August recess,'' their spokesman said. Well, just to give you an example, it is not just during the recess. It continues this week in Congress Daily, which, again, is a publication that every Member of the House gets on a regular basis. Every day this week there has been a full page ad which was just sort of a white sheet, and in the middle of it there is this warning, like the kind of warning you would get on a cigarette package, that says, ``Warning: The Dingell-Norwood Patients' Bill of Rights could be hazardous to your health care.'' It does not really explain why. There is some fine print at the end that tries to explain why, which does not really make any sense. But this advertising campaign continues, and I have no doubt that it will continue throughout the fall and way beyond to try to target and dissuade not only Democrats, but, even more importantly, now Republicans, who want to sign on to the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. I mentioned before though and I will mention again that supporters, both Democrats and Republicans, of the Patients' Bill of Rights can take solace in the fact that the average citizen, as well as all the health care professional organizations, pretty much now are solidly behind our HMO reform. Another thing that came out within the last month that I thought was particularly interesting was a survey that showed just how much managed care frustrates physicians and how physicians and health care professionals in general feel that they cannot really properly take care of their patients because of the abuses of managed care. This was also in Congress Daily, and it says, talking about this new survey, that nearly 90 percent of physicians say health plans have denied their patients recommended care during the last two years, and in some cases those denials occur as often as every week. The survey was released by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health. Kaiser Foundation President Drew Altman expressed surprise about the pervasiveness of problems reported between providers and insurers. ``Some tension is to be expected,'' Altman said, ``but the degree of conflict reflected in this survey suggests we are in a new world, and it is hard to argue it is good for the health care system.'' According to the survey, the most common denials were for prescription drugs. Sixty-one percent of physicians said they had a patient experience a denial weekly or monthly with regard to prescription drugs. Denial of diagnostic tests, 42 percent of patients have been denied a test weekly or monthly. Forty-two percent of the patients said that they had had some kind of denial, weekly or monthly; hospitals stays, 31 percent weekly or monthly; referrals to specialists, 29 percent weekly or monthly. This is the physicians relating what happened to their patients. Depending on the problem, between one-third and two-thirds of physicians said a denial resulted in a somewhat or very serious decline in patients' health. So, again, we are talking about what is happening in the real world. We are talking about the abuses and the problems that people have on a regular basis. The physicians, according to that survey, see these problems, see what is happening to their patients, and feel it is having a really negative impact on the quality and delivery of health care that people receive in this country. Now, before I conclude tonight, I wanted to spend some time talking briefly about our new bipartisan approach, our new Patients' Bill of Rights, which, as I said, is supported by almost every Democrat and at least about 20 Republicans at this point, but continues to be opposed by the Republican leadership. That is why we have not been able to get it to the floor. If I could just explain some of the commonsense proposals that are part of this new bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, I have a summary that basically divides it into access to care, information about care, protecting the relationship between the physician and ourselves as patients, and the basic accountability. I will start with the issue of access to care, because I think for most people that is the biggest problem, the denial of different kinds of treatments or hospital stays or equipment that they experience. Most important, we try to address the problem with emergency services. Individuals should be assured that if they have an emergency, those services will be covered by the plan, that they do not have to call before they can go to an emergency room if they feel that they do not have the time to do that because their health is at risk; that they do not have to go to a particular emergency room rather than the one that is closest to them because they feel that they do not have time to go to the one that is further away. The bipartisan bill says that individuals must have access to emergency care without prior authorization in any situation that a prudent layperson would regard as an emergency. So if you as the average person think that when you have chest pains that you should be able to go to the local emergency room, the HMO cannot say you have to go further away or you need prior authorization. Let me talk about specialty care. Patients with special conditions must have access to providers who have the requisite expertise to treat their problem. Today in this day and age people increasingly have to go to specialists for particular problems. Increasingly what we find is that patients in HMOs have a problem getting referral to a specialist, or there is not a specialist within the HMO network who can take care of their problem. This bipartisan bill, our bipartisan bill, allows for referrals for patients to go out of the plan's network, doctors who are not in the network, for specialty care at no extra cost if there is no appropriate provider available in the network for covered services. Chronic care referrals. For individuals who are seriously ill or require continued care by specialists, plans under our bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, plans must have a process for selecting a specialist as a gatekeeper for their condition to access necessary specialty care without impediments. In other words, if you have a chronic condition, this specialist you can go to on a regular basis, he becomes almost your primary care provider so you do not have to constantly go back to the primary care provider to continue to be able to see the specialist. Our bipartisan bill provides direct access to OB-GYN care and services. With regard to children, the bill ensures that the special needs of children are met, including access to pediatric specialists and the ability for children to have a pediatrician as their primary care provider. Again, continuity of care. I have found a lot of people during the break and who continue to complain to me about how if their doctor is dropped by the network, that all of a sudden they are not with the physician that they have used for a long time. Under our bipartisan bill, patients are protected against disruptions in care because we set up guidelines for the continuation of treatment in circumstances where the doctor is no longer part of the network, for example. There are special protections for pregnancy, terminal illness, and individuals on a waiting list for surgery. Let me also talk about the drug formularies. One of the biggest issues with regard to HMOs is that HMOs oftentimes provide for prescription drugs, which is an important part of why people sign up for an HMO, in many cases. What we are saying with our bill, with our bipartisan bill, is that prescription medication should not be one- size-fits-all. If a plan uses a drug formulary, beneficiaries must be able to access medications that are not on the formulary when the prescribing physician says that that is necessary. Again, what we are doing is leaving this decision up to the physician because he or she is in the best position to know what is best for the patient. Choice of plans. People want to, in certain circumstances, to be able to go outside the network and choose a physician who is not part of the HMO network. Choice is a major component of the bipartisan bill. It says that individuals can elect a point of service option when their health insurance plan does not offer access to non-network providers. What that means is that in the beginning if you are working and your employer provides health care, the employer has to allow you to elect a point of service option, where you can go outside the doctors in the network. But you have to make that decision initially when you sign up for your health care plan, for your HMO, and you also have to pay the extra cost of going outside the network. So again, we are not destroying the basic idea of managed care, which is that it is a closed panel network of physicians and health care providers, but we are saying this for people who want to in the beginning, they can choose the point of service option. Those are the access issues that are primarily addressed by our bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, but I would like to now talk about the information issue, briefly, because many people are concerned that they do not really know what they are getting into when they sign up for an HMO. What we say is that we require managed care plans to provide important information, and that is information that allows them to understand their health plan's policies, procedures, benefits, and other requirements. I would like now to go into the issue of grievances and appeals, because one or really the hallmark, if you will, of the Patients' Bill of Rights and the whole effort towards Medicare reform is to make sure that the decision about what type of care you are going to get, the decision about what is medically necessary for you as a patient, is based not on what the health insurance company wants and what the health insurance plans want to cover, but rather is based on what your physician, the health care professional, thinks that you should be provided with. So what we are basically saying, and the thread that sort of runs through the whole Patients' Bill of Rights, is that the issue of medical necessity should be decided by the physician and the patient, not by the insurance company, and that if there has been a denial of care, then that decision to appeal that denial of care and overturn it, if necessary, should be made by an independent group not appointed and not under the control of the HMO, and that ultimately you should be able to go to court if you are not satisfied, as well. What we have in our new bipartisan bill is it basically lays out criteria for a good utilization review program, physician participation in the development of raw criteria, administration by appropriately qualified professionals, and timely decisions within 14 days for ordinary care up to 28 days if the plan requests additional information, and the ability to appeal these decisions. So we want the health care professionals to be involved in making the decision of what kind of care you get and that there is a timely appeal if you have been denied that care by the insurance company. There are really two processes in terms of the grievances and appeals. One is internal and one is external. Patients should be able to appeal plan decisions to deny, delay, or otherwise overrule doctor- prescribed care and have those concerns addressed in a timely manner. So we require an appeals system that is expedient, particularly in situations that threaten the life or health of the patient. Other than the internal appeal, though, there also should be the opportunity for external review if the health care plan ultimately says no, we are not going to allow you this care. What we say is that the health care plan has to pay the cost of the external review, and that the decision by the external reviewer is binding on the health care plan. If a plan refuses to comply with the external reviewer's determination, the patient may go to Federal court to enforce the decision. I will get a little more into that a little later, about if you are denied through the regular administrative process, that you can go to court. Let me just talk a little bit, though, before I get to that ultimate issue of accountability, talk a little bit about how we try to protect the physician-patient relationship. One of the things that is most shocking to my constituents is when they come in and tell me that their physician is not allowed to tell them about a particular type of medical care or treatment that the physician thinks that they should be receiving. We call it basically the gag rule; in other words, the HMO tells the physician that he or she cannot tell the patient about a procedure that they will not cover. So if the plan will not cover a particular procedure, equipment, operation, then the physician is basically forbidden from talking about it to the patient. That is ridiculous. Consumers should have the right to know about their treatment options. What we say in our bill is that we prohibit plans from gagging doctors and from retaliating against physicians who advocate on behalf of their patients. It basically protects the physicians in these situations from retribution. It also prevents plans from providing inappropriate incentives to physicians to limit medically necessary services so that physicians do not have a financial incentive, which they often do now with HMOs, to not recommend certain services. With regard to physician selection, which physicians are in a plan, the insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of a license in selection of a physician. In other words, they cannot discriminate based on license, location, or patient base. The HMOs can basically decide which doctors are going to be in the network, but if the doctor meets objective standards with regard to licensure, then they cannot say that his particular license is not acceptable. They also cannot discriminate because of the location of the physician or the patient base of the physician. With regard to payment of claims under our bill, health plans should operate efficiently and pay providers in a timely manner. The bill would require that claims be paid in accordance with Medicare guidelines for prompt payment, because what we have found is a lot of the HMOs do not pay the physicians. They delay payment in order to save money, or to save the interest rate. We also have a provision for paperwork simplification in order to minimize the confusion and complicated paperwork that providers physicians face. This bill would require that the HMO industry develop a standard form for physicians to use in submitting a claim. The last thing I wanted to mention this evening is this whole issue of accountability. The main thing that the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights does is to provide accountability if you have been denied care. I talked about the internal and external review, that it has to be done by a group that is not beholden to the HMO. But I think that beyond that, there has to be the ability to go to court and sue for damages if all else has failed. I think many people realize, although a lot of my constituents still do not realize it, that under existing Federal law called ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, State laws are basically preempted. So, therefore, if you are in an ERISA plan, which is basically a plan where your employer is self-insured, any kind of self-insured plan, which millions and millions of Americans particularly in large companies fall under these types of self-insured plans, because that is what larger employers tend to do, they fall under ERISA and Federal preemption, which means that the HMO cannot be sued. That makes no sense. The HMOs, as we discussed this evening, are basically making medical decisions. If they make a decision about what kind of care you can receive or how long you can stay in a hospital, for example, and they make the wrong decision, then they should be held accountable. You should be able to sue them. Our bipartisan bill would remove the ERISA preemption and allow patients to hold health plans accountable according to State laws, so if the State law allows it you would be able to sue and you are not preempted by the Federal law. The one thing that we did do, and this was I think important and makes sense, is that the new bipartisan bill says that if a plan, if a health insurance, if an HMO complies with an external reviewer's decision, they cannot be held liable for punitive damages. So if when you go to an administrative review the decision is to deny you care and then you appeal and you go to court, the court decides that the independent review was wrong, you cannot receive punitive damages, because in that case the HMO did in fact act in good faith and go to the external review process. The other thing I wanted to mention because I know that part of the criticism, if you will, that the insurance companies are making in their advertisement about the Patients' Bill of Rights, they say that employers can be sued, and that because employers can be sued, then a lot of employers will simply not cover their employees; and the number of people who have health insurance will decline because of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Well, I want to explain and emphatically state that the Patients' Bill of Rights, the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, which I have been discussing tonight, does not in any way create liability for the employer. In the bill, we have a provision that protects employers from liability when they were not involved in the treatment decision. It explicitly states that discretionary authority does not include a decision about what benefits to include in the plan, a decision not to address a case while an external appeal is pending, or a decision to provide an extra contractual benefit. What that essentially translates to mean is that there is nothing in our bill that would in any way extend the liability of the employer and allow them to be sued because of the denial of care other than whatever the existing law is right now. I wanted to mention one more thing before I close, and that is what we constantly get from the Republican leadership in opposing the Patients' Bill of Rights, the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, and what we constantly get from the insurance companies and the HMOs in their attacks and their ads and their multimillion dollar campaign against the Patients' Bill of Rights, I think could be basically summed up in what the Health Insurance Association of America put in sort of the fine print in this ad that was in Congress Daily that I mentioned before. It says that ``the Patients' Bill of Rights currently being considered will cause us a lot of unpleasant side effects, more red tape and more regulations that the patients can expect, and patients will end up paying the bill. Health care costs would increase.'' They basically stress the fact that what we will see with this Patients' Bill of Rights is a huge increase of costs and that that will make it more difficult for both individual as well as employers to provide health insurance. Nothing can be further from the truth. The reality is probably best summed up by making reference to the State of Texas. About 2 years ago, the State of Texas passed a law that has been in effect, I should say, for about 2 years, which is very similar to the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights that I have been advocating tonight. As a result of that Texas law which allowed people to bring suit, the number of lawsuits that have actually been brought within the last month, over that 2-year period, only two lawsuits have been brought because of the change in the Texas law that provides patient protections. In addition to that, it was estimated that the premiums have gone up about 30 cents a month during the 2-year period that the Texas patient protections have been in effect. That 30-cent increase could have occurred because of inflation or whatever, but the bottom line is it is insignificant. Any consumer, any constituent of mine would gladly pay an extra 30 cents a month to have the kind of protections that are in place here. I think that in their advertising campaign the HMOs said that health care costs could increase as much as $200 per family, forcing small employers to drop their health insurance all together. The Texas experience shows very emphatically that that is simply not true. There really is not any significant added cost, because what the Patients' Bill of Rights does is to provide for prevention. Now that the HMOs cannot allow the kind of abuses now that they are threatened with the right to sue and the external review, they take the proper precautions; and lawsuits don't occur, and costs really do not go up significantly. So I am going to end this evening, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to point out that the new session has begun. The fall session has begun. Those of us who advocate the Patients' Bill of Rights are going to be out there on a daily basis saying that we want the Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor. We have a majority of Members of the House that now support us. Most of the Democrats. At least 20 Republicans. I think the number of Republicans are going to continue to rise, because they realize, Members of this House realize in a bipartisan basis that this kind of reform is needed. I am just calling again on the Republican leadership and will continue to call on them to allow this bill to come to the floor. If it does, we will pass it overwhelmingly, and we will finally see protections within the context of HMOs that Americans are crying out for.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks, the House-Senate conference on the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill will address, among other issues, a provision that would suspend for 5 years certain sanctions against India and Pakistan. The sanctions were imposed pursuant to the Glenn amendment to the Arms Export Control Act more than a year ago after the two South Asian nations conducted nuclear tests. In the other body, the Senate, the amendment to limit the sanctions offered by Senator Brownback of Kansas was approved 3 months ago. The House version of the Defense Appropriations bill does not address the issue leaving this issue to be resolved in conference. Mr. Speaker, while I generally support the provision to suspend the sanctions against the two South Asian nations, there is one other critical provision in the Senate language that would, in my opinion, be a grave mistake. The Senate bill includes language to repeal the Pressler amendment, which bans U.S. military assistance to Pakistan. I will be sending a letter to the conferees this week urging them to drop the Pressler amendment repeal and to just stick to suspending the Glenn amendment sanctions that were imposed last year, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I believe we must retain the Pressler amendment, which was adopted in the 1980s and was invoked by President Bush in response to Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activities. And nothing has changed to justify repeal of Pressler. Earlier this year, we were again reminded of why the Pressler amendment should remain in effect. Pakistan provoked a serious crisis in Kashmir by supporting the incursion of militants into territory on India's side of the Line of Control in Kashmir in the spring. Given that the two countries have become nuclear powers, the conflict in Kashmir grabbed the world's attention. Fortunately, India responded in a restrained and responsible way, using measured and appropriate force to protect its territory without precipitating a wider war. And our State Department, in its public statements, clearly recognized which of the two countries was fomenting instability, and that is Pakistan, and which was behaving responsibly, and that was India. Besides playing a direct role in arming and training the militants, there were strong indications that the Pakistani Army regulars were actually among the infiltrators. As Pakistan-supported aggression in Kashmir backfired militarily, Pakistan tried to salvage some kind of diplomatic or political windfall out of its Kashmir debacle by trying to drag the U.S. into the role of mediator, an offer that our country has wisely refused. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Pakistan is the country that promoted instability in the recent conflict as they have so often done in the past. Pakistan's involvement in supporting the militants who continually infiltrate India's territory is an example of how Pakistan promotes regional instability and commits or supports aggression against its neighbors. India, on the other hand, is not involved in these kinds of hostile, destabilizing activities against its neighbors. Pakistan, Mr. Speaker, has also been repeatedly implicated, along with China, Iran, and North Korea, in the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technology. India's nuclear program, on the other hand, is an indigenous program and India has not been involved with sharing this technology with unstable regimes. And I think that is an extremely important distinction. Mr. Speaker, I just want to stress that our priorities should be to do what we can. The best way we could do that is to limit the sanctions imposed under the Glenn amendment, to restore the growing economic relationship between the United States and India. But we should lift those sanctions in the case of the Glenn amendment without the ill- advised lifting of the Pressler amendment prohibition on military transfers for Pakistan. The historic free-market economic reforms that India initiated at the beginning of this decade have created vast opportunity for American participation in India's economic future. The sanctions under the Glenn amendment restrict our ability to participate in this emerging market. And that is why the Glenn amendment is a good thing and there is bipartisan support for lifting it for the 5 years, but it has to be done without the ill-advised lift of the Pressler amendment and the prohibition on military transfers for Pakistan that are in the Pressler amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on August 4, the Food and Drug Administration held a public meeting regarding claims for dietary supplements under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. The debate on that legislation was among one of the most memorable and widely supported legislative efforts of the 103rd Congress. It is my hope that the agency will thoroughly review the historical record of this debate and agree that regulatory policy should be implemented to allow truthful, non-misleading dissemination of health information. The dietary supplement/functional food debate has always been one of access to products, and access to information. The debate on dietary supplements and functional foods continues with great vigor. The fundamental issues remain; the public wants safe and beneficial products and there is still, apparently, an ineffective regulatory structure. More work needs to be done in Congress regarding this aspect of health care. In that spirit, I am announcing that upon return from the August recess, I will be introducing legislation entitled the Nutraceutical Research and Education Act. The most important feature of this legislation will be its promotion of clinical research. The research will allow the public to get the right information on how to use dietary supplements and functional foods. The goal of promoting clinical research is a non-partisan issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to move this debate forward.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join with the people of India and the Indian-American community to commemorate India's Independence Day. The 52nd anniversary of India's Independence will actually occur on August 15th, while Congress is in recess, so I wanted to take this opportunity tonight, before we adjourn, to mark this important occasion before my colleagues in this House and the American people. On August 15, 1947, the people of India finally gained their independence from Britain, following a long and determined struggle that continues to inspire the world. In his stirring ``midnight hour'' speech, India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, set the tone for the newly established Republic, a Republic devoted to the principles of democracy and secularism. In more than half a century since then, India has stuck to the path of free and fair elections, a multi-party political system and the orderly transfer of power from one government to its successor. India continues to grapple with the challenges of delivering broad- based economic development to a large and growing population. Indeed, today's New York Times reports that India's population is expected to reach one billion in about 10 days. India has sought to provide full rights and representation to its many ethnic, religious and linguistic communities. And India seeks to be a force for stability and cooperation in the strategically vital South Asia region. In all of these respects, India stands out as a model for other Asian nations, and developing countries everywhere, to follow. This year, we have seen that India faces serious challenges from outside forces intent on destabilizing the democracy that India's founders dreamed of and that successive generations of Indians have worked to build. Armed militants, operating with the support of Pakistan, crossed over onto India's side of the Line of Control in Kashmir. India's armed forces responded to this incursion in a firm but restrained manner. At the same time, India has sought to resolve its differences with Pakistan in a peaceful way, through bipartisan negotiations. Mr. Speaker, next month, India will once again demonstrate its commitment to democracy for all the world to see, as it conducts Parliamentary elections. As in past years, hundreds of millions of men and women from all across India--Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Christians--will cast ballots, choosing from candidates representing a diverse array of political parties. I am confident that the elections will be free and fair, as they have been in past years. Whichever party will form the new government, I am confident that they will continue to build on the dream of India's first Prime Minister Nehru to move forward on the path of representative democracy and economic development. There is a rich tradition of shared values between the United States and India. We both proclaimed our independence from British colonialism. India derived key aspects of its Constitution, particularly the statement of Fundamental Rights, from our own Bill of Rights. It is well known that Dr. Martin Luther King derived many of his ideas of non-violent resistance to injustice from the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. That commitment to the use of peaceful means to overthrow tyranny has been emulated by such diverse world leaders as Nelson Mandela and Lech Walesa. Today, the National Capital Planning Commission here in Washington approved a small park with a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi across from the Indian Embassy on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., known as Embassy Row. Last year, this House approved legislation co-sponsored by myself and the Gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, authorizing the Government of India to establish the memorial. The proposed Gandhi Memorial will be a most worthy addition to the landscape of our nation's capital, and it won't cost the American taxpayers anything to construct it. Another extremely important link between our two countries, a human link, is the more than one million Americans of Indian descent. I have the honor of representing a Congressional district in Central New Jersey with one of the largest Indian-American communities in the country. Increasingly, my colleagues in this House, Democrats and Republicans from all regions of the country, have indicated to me that their Indian-American constituents are playing increasingly prominent roles in all walks of life. Another way in which India and America continue to grow closer is through increased economic ties. The historic market reforms begun in India at the beginning of this decade continue to move forward, offering unparalleled opportunities for trade, investment and joint partnerships--all of which include a human dimension of friendship and cooperation, in addition to the economic benefits for both societies. Mr. Speaker, for more than a year, United States-India ties have been strained over the issue of nuclear testing, and the subsequent imposition of unilateral American sanctions against India. There is a growing bipartisan effort in Congress, and within the Administration, to lift these sanctions, which have not advanced United States interests and have only served to set back the growing United States- India relationship. Just this week, we witnessed a debate in this chamber as an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill was proposed to cut aid to India, in a purely punitive gesture. The amendment was subsequently withdrawn, after one Member of Congress after another rose to oppose the amendment and to argue for a strengthened United States-India relationship. Mr. Speaker, there are indications that President Clinton will visit India and other countries in the South Asia region early next year. It's been 20 years since a United States President last visited India, so I think such a visit is long overdue. Just a few weeks ago, we Americans celebrated the Fourth of July. For a billion people in India, one-sixth of the human race, the 15th of August holds the same significance. I am proud to extend my congratulations to the people of India, citizens of the world's largest democracy, as they celebrate the 52nd anniversary of their independence.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, July 10, 1999, the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church of Asbury Park, NJ, dedicated the Bethel Ford Center and Community Development Corporation. The successful completion of the major improvements at the center is a testimony to the long-standing commitment of both the Bethel AME Church, and of the two great community leaders for whom it is named, Mr. and Mrs. William Benjamin Ford. The Ford Center is a community outreach program serving Asbury Park and surrounding communities. Its mission includes decreasing hunger, providing clothing and offering education and training to improve marketable skills. Dedicated volunteers and professional staff help to provide a food pantry, a clothes closet, computer training, academic remediation, and advise on employability and life skills. Mr. William Benjamin Ford and Mrs. Willie Mae Taylor Ford, native of Florida, moved to the Jersey Shore in the early 1930s. The Fords were pillars in Bethel AME Church and throughout the community for more than 25 years. Mr. Ford served as Pastor Steward, Class Leader and member of the Lay Organization for many years. He was an employee of the Asbury Park Press for 50 years. Mrs. Ford served Bethel as a Stewardess, Trustee, Missionary, Class Leader, member of the Gospel Chorus and Senior Choir. She operated the Modernistic Beauty Shop in Asbury Park for over 25 years. The Fords' dedication to serving Bethel lasted throughout their lives, and it still lives through their son, Mr. Greeley Ford. In 1998, Mr. Greeley Ford, who attended Bethel Church as a child and young adult, deeded the property on Atkins Avenue that had been the Modernistic Beauty Shop. Incorporated in 1879, Bethel Church was one of the first churches in Asbury Park. According to the tradition related by the Church's founders, the organization took place in 1869 under the direction of the Rev. John Cornish. The group had been holding services in a tent at what is now known as the 900 block of Lake Avenue when Mr. James A. Bradley, founder of Asbury Park, proposed a permanent church home and deeded the land, at the southwest corner of Second Avenue and Main Street, in 1893. The congregation worshipped at this site until 1949. The property was sold to a car dealership, who soon demolished the landmark building. The new church home located at the corner of Langford Street and Cookman Avenue, was the former Sons of Israel Synagogue, also a landmark since 1883. Services were held here for the first time on March 6, 1949. The church was renovated in 1954 and again in 1990, while improvements have been made and new amenities have consistently been added throughout the years. In March 1997, the present minister, the Rev. John C. Justice, was appointed to Bethel. Pastor Justice's leadership has seen a continued increase in the number of members of the Congregation and the Fellowship at Bethel. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with the members of Bethel AME Church and the entire Asbury Park community in welcoming the Ford Center and saluting all those who helped make it a reality.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I have the utmost respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, but when he mentioned that Democratic amendments were seeking to impose legislation on the appropriations bill, the bottom line is that the rule makes in order 3 Republican amendments with special waivers that really are legislative, and also the bill itself has all kinds of legislative language. So I think that saying that the Democratic amendments were not made in order because they were legislative is really not accurate. The bottom line is that the Republican leadership makes in order whatever amendments they please, as long as they are Republican, but they denied each of the Democratic amendments that were requested. One of those amendments was mine, and it was an amendment that really was very bipartisan. It was important to ensure that Holocaust victims who were U.S. citizens at the time they were persecuted are justly compensated for their sufferings at the hands of Nazi Germany. I just have to say, if I can, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to thank, first of all, the committee and particularly the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her help on this. This was a recorded vote, and essentially what the Republicans did in voting against this amendment was to put themselves on record opposing the opportunity, if you will, the opportunity to provide compensation for Holocaust victims. Over the years, many people are not aware, but over the years if you were a U.S. citizen and you happened to find yourself in Nazi Germany at the time of the Holocaust, the German government would refuse to give you any compensation or any reparations. I found my own constituent, Hugo Prince, a few years ago in this situation, and I worked on a bipartisan basis with Senators, Republican Senators and Republicans in this House to put in place a plan whereby a compensation could be provided to these U.S. citizens that happened to be in Nazi Germany, suffered in the concentration camps and were not able to get compensation. What we found in putting this provision in place was that over the years the money ran out, the German government was providing the money, not the taxpayers, this was money coming from the German government, and the money ran out and there were a number of claimants who did not have an opportunity, if you will, because of the law, to raise their claims. All we are trying to do with this amendment is to make that opportunity there again. The amendment simply says that if you fail to meet the notification period, that you can now put your claim forward in a timely fashion, and if the State Department finds that your claim is legitimate, they will then negotiate with the German government to find more money to compensate these victims of the Holocaust. Again, I have no idea what is going on here today and why it is that the Republicans would refuse to allow this amendment. It has been bipartisan; it is clearly something that should be done, and there is a need for it right now. This time has expired. This is not something that we can wait a year or 2 years for. A lot of these people are older, and they are dying off. So there is an immediate need for it; it is almost an emergency. I would characterize it as an emergency more in the sense than some of the ``emergencies'' that I have heard on the other side.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take the opportunity this morning to comment on the fact that Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, recently announced at the Energy Department that he will be visiting India this fall after the parliamentary elections that are supposed to take place next month, and basically indicated very strongly that the purpose of his visit is to encourage even more cooperation between the United States and India with regard to energy issues. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, last night actually on the floor, we initially had a debate on the Burton amendment, which was seeking to cut development assistance to India, and wisely the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) decided at the last minute to withdraw his amendment because the votes fortunately were not there; but during that debate many of us who opposed the Burton amendment pointed to increased trade and opportunities between the United States and India in various areas, and the support of the U.S. business community for more investment and trade with India. I have to say that as Secretary Richardson and many of the Clinton Cabinet members have really taken the lead the last few years in trying to promote more opportunities for cooperation in various areas between the United States and India, some of us remember when Ron Brown, who when he was the Commerce Secretary, went to India a few times and did a trade mission to India. After that, Secretary Daley took a mission to India to talk about the opportunities for trade and investment, and certainly Bill Richardson, when he was the U.N. ambassador and on other occasions, was there in India trying to promote more opportunities between our two countries. Secretary Shalala did the same thing when she made a trip and talked about health issues. So I think that it is particularly opportune that after the parliamentary elections, which are likely to set a new course for India not only in terms of its diplomacy in politics but also in terms of its economic policy, would be followed by a trip to India by Bill Richardson this fall. My understanding is that the Secretary plans to visit New Delhi to expand energy cooperation. During his visit, he will be discussing ways of reducing emission from thermal power plants through better technology and also explore possibilities for cooperation between the two countries in solar energy and related technologies. So it is renewable resources, in particular, something that I am very concerned about and I think is very important for the future. We know that in the northeastern part of the United States recently we had blackouts. We know how important it is to try and use renewable resources and to find ways not only in developing countries like India but also in the United States, in developed countries, to try to conserve and find new ways of dealing with the scarce energy resources. My understanding is that the Energy Secretary would also visit China for a similar exercise and discuss with Beijing ways to reduce pollution from thermal power generating units. One other thing that happened relating to the Energy Department, again announced by the Secretary, is that because of his responsibility not only for peaceful uses of energy but also for America's nuclear weapons laboratories, Richardson announced that his senior advisor for national security, Joan Rohlfing, would work at the U.S. embassy in New Delhi to deal with nonproliferation issues. Essentially, Ms. Rohlfing's position is effective from September 1 for a specific period of about 6 months, and she obviously will be dealing with the whole issue of nonproliferation, ways of trying to deal with the fact that India is now a nuclear power; and we certainly recognize the fact that India is a nuclear power, but obviously we need to have better cooperation between the United States and India with regard to the nuclear issue in terms of security as well, and so I would encourage that. I am very pleased to see that Secretary Richardson is taking this initiative both with regard to the peaceful uses of energy as well as on the nuclear power issue and what might happen in terms of our national security interests. I think this is a strong indication of further U.S. India cooperation in an area that is very crucial to all of us, and that is our energy resources.