Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for her comments. Let me say, the gentlewoman has said it so well that this is really a common-sense approach. There is nothing miraculous here. If people understand what we are talking about with these patient protections, they want to sign the petition, they agree with us. I think that is what the gentlewoman and so many of our colleagues saw last week when they participated in this petition drive. The gentlewoman said it so well. There are actually HMOs, good HMOs I should say, who actually support these patient protections. Some of them implemented some of the patient protections. Then there are other bad ones that have not. So we do not want to assume that this is not something that even some of the HMOs support, to be honest. Physicians support it. One of the interesting things, because I know that the gentlewoman has been involved with the Indian Physicians Association, IPA; they were here a couple of weeks ago, just before our holiday break, and spoke to a lot of us, and it was interesting because some of the physicians and some of the people that were at that Indian physicians day also owned HMOs and they were very supportive of the Patients' Bill of Rights. So I think, as the gentlewoman points out, if we get the word out, people understand it and they want to support this bill. They want to sign the petition. They want Republicans to bring this bill to the floor. The other thing I wanted to mention, and I think the gentlewoman is so right when she talks about, we are dealing here with managed care reform, but there is the larger issue of the uninsured and so many people that no longer are insured that even were insured a few years ago. Again, I kind of feel like I am preaching to the choir because the gentlewoman has been involved with our health care task force for a long time now, and we tried to address the problem of the uninsured unfortunately in a piecemeal way. I do not like piecemeal approaches for managed care reform any more than I do for trying to cover everybody. I would rather have universal health care coverage, but ever since the President brought forth a proposal and the insurance companies fought that so hard and killed it 4 or 5 years ago, we have had to try to deal with coverage in a piecemeal way. We did the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. We did the Kids Health Care Initiative. We had the Near Elderly Initiative. I know that the gentlewoman has been involved with all of these things as part of our task force. Those things have had some success, but again they show that a piecemeal approach is not adequate. There really cannot be a piecemeal approach to managed care reform or to health insurance coverage. But again the political realities set in, so we do the best we can. So I am glad the gentlewoman mentioned it because it is obviously true. There are more people uninsured today than there were 5 years ago. Madam Speaker, let me point out that it is the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who started this whole petition drive that was so successful last Friday. She came up with the idea of having the bus trip to Philadelphia with the President's rally and having our Members around the country deal with this on the Internet so effectively. It was a tremendous success, and I want to congratulate her for doing it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. What we need is comprehensive Federal reform, and the Patients' Bill of Rights is the best and the most comprehensive managed care bill before the Congress. I am just hopeful that with this electronic petition drive, that we will convince the Republican leadership and make them understand that they should not waste time, and they have to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor so we can pass it here, pass it in the Senate, and then send it on to the President, who indicated very strongly on Friday at our rally that he would sign this bill when it gets to his desk.

Mr. PALLONE. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct. One of the criticisms that we have had of the Republican bill, the leadership bill, is that although sometimes it provides for pediatric care or a pediatric specialist, it does not in any way provide for the subgroups. As we know, today oftentimes children need to go to a specialist other than just the pediatrician, who has almost become a general practitioner. That kind of specialty care is not provided for in the Republican bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues from Texas. As they say, Texas is one of the first States to actually implement these patient protections that we are talking about. But we still need the Federal legislation, because so many people are not covered by State legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas and assure her that we heard these voices loud and clear on April 9 when so many people signed on to the Internet. As so many of our colleagues said, we are going to keep going and with her help we will keep going. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) my colleague on the Committee on Commerce who has been so much involved with the health care initiatives that we have made over the last few years, Kids Health Care, Kennedy-Kassebaum and the others.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and she talked about the preventive nature of these patient protections, and I think that is so true. And I think also one of reasons why we find that they do not increase costs is because they are prevention and ultimately they reduce costs. In fact, even the right to sue, which was mentioned, every time we have looked at this in the States that have implemented these kinds of patient protections and allowed the ability to sue, it even serves as a preventive measure because the HMOs take precautions because they do not want to be sued and they do not want to have huge damages recovered against them. It is very important for us to keep that in mind, that all of this is preventive and ultimately that is why it does not cost additional money and I think in the long run saves money. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has been involved in the Kids Health Care Initiative and Kennedy- Kassebaum and now the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who again is a member of our task force, and has heightened this issue so many times for us, for her colleagues in the House.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. Let me just say that she made a good point. She talked about the bus and the grass roots effort and the Internet, but she also made the point that it is kind of too bad that we have to do all of this. The reason, and I am going to be very partisan about it, the reason is because the Republican leadership refuses to bring this bill up. We all remember very well that in the last session of Congress the only way we were able to get a vote on the issue at all was because of a discharge petition. We actually had to get the majority of Members of the House, or close to it, on a discharge petition, because they would not consider the bill in committee. They would not have any discussion or hearings on it. Only through the forced mechanism, if you will, of the discharge petition were we able to bring it up. It is true that there are some Republicans on the other side that support us, but their leadership will not bring it up. I go back to what we discussed earlier, which is that the reason for that I am convinced is because of the insurance industry. It is the money and the power and the influence of the insurance industry on the Republican leadership that makes it impossible for this to come up, or that is the reason it is not coming up. I resent the fact that over the last few weeks the industry has doubled its efforts now, with the ads on TV, with the ads in the print media, and basically we are seeing the same thing we saw last year to try to kill this bill. The thing that is incredible about it, one of the things they were alleging in some of the ads I saw was about the cost. They keep saying that if we have these patient protections, it is going to cost too much. One of the things that I did not mention about the New York Times editorial, which was right on point, I thought, it was in the next day after our rally, was that they say at the very end, it says, ``The insurance lobby is already embarked on a media blitz to defeat any new regulations as too costly. But consumer protections under the Democratic plan would increase the health plan costs by only a tolerable 2.8 percent, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates made last year, or slightly more if lawsuits against ERISA plans are permitted in state court. Health plans should be made to deliver what they promised, their enrollees, and held accountable when they fail.'' The bottom line is that every indication we have seen in every State that has passed some of these protections on a State level is that it has either no increased costs, or so minimal that it makes it not even relevant. I just resent the fact that this insurance industry advertising campaign and blitz is trying to basically throw out falsehoods about what we are doing here today.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, last Friday House Democrats across the country called on the Republican leadership to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor for a vote. Over a hundred Democrats nationwide held events in their districts to encourage their constituents to sign on to an electronic petition urging the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to take immediate action on the Patients' Bill of Rights. In Washington I joined with a number of my Democratic colleagues from the House in a similar event before boarding a bus to Philadelphia, where we joined President Clinton at a rally in support of the Patients' Bill of Rights. In echoing the call of the House and Senate Democrats, President Clinton encouraged all Americans to log on to the Internet and sign the electronic petition to the Speaker and Senate majority leader. So far 13,600 people have signed this petition. The reason, Madam Speaker, so many people have already signed the petition I think is clear. The managed care issue was left unfinished in the 105th Congress. On the House side the Patients' Bill of Rights was defeated by just five votes when it came to the floor, and it was considered on the floor as a substitute to the Republican leadership's managed care bill, which did pass and which in my opinion was a very bad piece of legislation. This Republican managed care reform or so- called managed care reform was a thinly-veiled attempt to protect the insurance industry from managed care reform, and not a single Democrat voted for it, and I think it was a show of solidarity on the Democrats' part that none of us voted for that what I consider very unfair bill which would not have done anything to reform managed care. Last Friday's event illustrates that support amongst Democrats for passing the Patients' Bill of Rights is as strong as ever, and let me assure my colleagues that it needs to be. The Republican leadership in the House has reintroduced a bill that is virtually identical to what it moved last year, and on the Senate side the so-called HELP committee recently approved a sham managed care bill that does not allow patients to sue insurance companies, but does allow insurance companies, not doctors and patients, to define medical necessity. Attempts to improve this bill were rebuffed by Republicans, who rejected 20 to 22 amendments offered by Democrats. Amendments rejected by Republicans included proposals to expand the access to emergency room care, expand access to specialists, establish minimum hospital stays for women undergoing mastectomies for breast cancer, and to provide access to clinical trials where appropriate for patients with life-threatening conditions. I wanted to talk a little bit tonight about an editorial that followed up on the Democrats and what the Democrats and the President were emphasizing last Friday. The New York Times made observations in an editorial on Saturday that were very similar to what I said tonight and basically noted just how hollow the Republican approach to managed care reform is, and I would quote from the New York Times editorial on Saturday: ``Just about everyone on Capitol Hill professes interest in producing legislation that protects patients from unfair health practices, reads the editorial,'' and it goes on, ``yet it is the Democratic proposal that more fully reflects the recommendations of a presidential advisory commission to improve health plan quality. The Senate Republican bill is too limited to accomplish this purpose.'' Listing the myriad of problems with the Senate Republican bill, the New York Times editorial goes on to note, and I quote, that most of its provisions would apply only to 48 million individuals covered by plans in which large employers act as their insurers, leaving 110 million people in other plans unprotected. And the New York Times notes that the Republicans in the Senate have drawn a completely arbitrary line between people who get their insurance from their employer and people who do not, and for reasons that I cannot explain, Republicans think only people who get their insurance from their employer should be entitled to patient protections. The protections that are afforded to individuals who qualify, moreover, under the Senate Republican bill constitute no protection at all, and again I refer to the New York Times editorial on Saturday which notes that, quote, ``Appeals to an external reviewer will be allowed only when an insurer refused to pay for a procedure on the grounds that it was not medically necessary or is experimental. Because the Republican bill would allow insurance plans to define what treatment is medically necessary, this provision is absolutely meaningless for patients. In fact, it is worse than the current law, because if you set up an external appeals process that uses the plan's definition of medical necessity, that would even make it more difficult to hold health plans accountable for their actions. It basically adds another layer of bureaucracy that patients have to confront before they go to court.'' Other shortcomings, and I am not going to go through all them, Madam Speaker, but other shortcomings noted by the New York Times editorial include the Republicans' failure to guarantee access to specialists and the failure to allow patients to sue health plans. For all of these reasons, this New York Times editorial concludes that the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights, quote, ``would be substantially stronger in allowing external review of coverage of disputes, in defining medical necessity, and in giving enrollees greater rights to take health plans to court.'' And the fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, the Patients' Bill of Rights would be substantially stronger in every other aspect of managed care reform as well. The point I am trying to make, and I think the point that we, as Democrats, were trying to make on Friday with our press conference and our rally with the President and our petition on the Internet is that there is a pronounced difference between what the Democrats are proposing with the Patients' Bill of Rights and the sham managed care reform that has been brought up by the Republican leadership. Now given all that, I want to say that the biggest problem we have is of course getting the Patients' Bill of Rights passed, and the obstacles are substantial. The insurance industry is working hand-in- hand with the Republican leadership to duplicate last year's successful effort to kill managed care reform. Industry opponents of the Patients' Bill of Rights recently launched two separate million-dollar advertising campaigns to undercut support for managed care reform, and the House Republican leadership looks like they are just attempting another dog and pony show to somehow indicate that they care about this issue. The latest information, and this is the thing that most upsets me, the rumors flying around Capitol Hill, are that instead of a comprehensive managed care reform, the Republicans may bring up different patient protections in pieces, bits and pieces over the next 2 years. In other words, instead of bringing the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor, they would bring a bill that would only deal with emergency room care or external appeals or whatever. This approach really should concern everyone that supports managed care reform because it is a means by which the Republicans hope to avoid a debate on the significant aspects of managed care reform, like the right to sue, like medical necessity. In other words, they are trying to claim that they are doing something about managed care reform, and they are really not. If this piecemeal approach is adopted, we should be very concerned because I think that the issue of managed care reform is going to be ignored. The issues that the public really cares about will be left off the table essentially. Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we keep raising this issue, that we cannot deal with managed care reform in a piecemeal way. We have to deal with it in a comprehensive way. That is what the Democrats are doing, that is what we will continue to do as we move forward over the next few weeks and keep pushing to have this bill be brought to the floor. And I have some of my colleagues that are here joining with me tonight. Some of them were at the rally that we had in Washington and came on the bus. Others had events in their districts on Friday to indicate support and to get people to sign on to the Internet and on to the petition that we have. I first would yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who has been very active as a cochair of our Democratic Health Care Task Force on this issue.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of a humanitarian and medical relief organization that is in the midst of the largest-ever worldwide surgical relief--a mission that will enable some of the world's neediest children to smile for the very first time. At the same time, I would like to recognize four members of one of New Jersey's leading associations that have helped to make this mission possible. The humanitarian organization is OperationSmile, a group of volunteer surgeons and others who focus on correcting cleft lips, cleft palates, and other facial deformities. Their World Journey of Hope '99 is nine- week international mission for 18 developing countries that will transform the lives of more than 5,000 children. The trip is made possible through the generous contributions of many companies, including four member companies of the Health Care Institute of New Jersey, an organization that promotes awareness of the research- based pharmaceutical and medical technology industry in New Jersey. Two of the companies, Johnson & Johnson and Warner Lambert, are charter sponsors of this mission. Two other companies, Becton Dickinson and Wyeth-Ayerst, contributed surgical supplies for the mission. Founded in 1982 by cosmetic surgeon William P. Magee, Jr., MD, OperationSmile volunteers have provided free surgery to more than 45,000 children in 17 countries, including the United States. In addition to free medical treatment and aftercare, OperationSmile trains local medical professionals and provides vital medical equipment. Doctors and nurses in these countries continue the efforts after the volunteer team has left. In addition to performing the miraculous task of transforming lives of children who would often otherwise be doomed to a lifetime of rejection and social cruelty, OperationSmile transform the live of volunteers who receive the gift of knowing that they have truly made a difference and have brought people together around the world. Similarly, the four companies mentioned earlier who have contributed to this effort have gone beyond the scope of ``business as usual'' to achieve a larger mission, improving the health and well being of people the globe. They are to be commended for their support of this shared vision: the right of every human being to receive necessary health services. I am proud to recognized the work of OperationSmile, and I thank Becton Dickinson, Johnson & Johnson, Warner-Lambert, and Wyeth-Ayerst for their role in continuing the work of this wonderful organization.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, before we adjourn for our spring district work period, I wanted to draw attention to the plight of the Kurdish people. There was a lot of attention to this otherwise usually ignored issue last month with the apprehension of Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK. Mr. Ocalan has been fighting for autonomy for the Kurdish people who are the victims of oppression by Turkey, as well as Iraq, Iran and Syria. The Turkish regime refuses to even acknowledge the Kurds' existence, referring to them as Mountain Turks, prohibiting all expression of Kurdish culture and language in an effort to forcibly assimilate them, and jailing, torturing or killing Kurdish leaders. The Iraqi regime has used poison gas on its Kurds and has destroyed 4,000 Kurdish villages. The Iranian regime has lined them up against firing squads, while the Syrian regime barely tolerates them with no rights. Madam Speaker, while the treatment of the Kurds in Iraq, Iran and Syria is deplorable, the Turkish mistreatment of the Kurdish people is particularly shocking for a very basic reason. Turkey is considered an ally of the United States, a member of NATO, and the recipient over many years of millions in economic and especially military assistance courtesy of the American taxpayer. This embarrassing record of American support for the Turkish regime reached a new low last month when our intelligence and diplomatic services actually helped a Turkish commando team to capture Mr. Ocalan in Kenya. This action violates the spirit of the torture convention to which the United States is a signatory. Mr. Ocalan, had he been here in the United States I cannot imagine that he would have been turned over to Turkey, just as Italy refused to do so when he was in Italy. This shameful collaboration with Turkey has resulted in Mr. Ocalan being held in solitary confinement on an island prison in Turkey with no access to his international team of lawyers. Plans call for him to be tried in a secret military-type court with no jury and no foreign observers. Given the unlawfulness of this abduction and the illegitimacy of the state security court's tribunal, there is ample reason to assume that Mr. Ocalan will not receive a fair trial. Madam Speaker, I want to note that the injustice of the Ocalan abduction and trial and the much larger issue of the oppression of the Kurdish people has not gone unnoticed around the world. Here in Washington over the past weekend, a rally was held across the street from the Turkish Embassy. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus and the Human Rights Alliance recently commemorated the 11th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's massacre of over 5,000 Kurds in the village of Halabja. The suffering of the Kurdish people has not gone completely unnoticed but we need to do more for the Kurdish people. The government of Turkey's undeclared war on the Kurds has claimed close to 40,000 lives and caused more than 3 million people to become refugees. Mr. Ocalan's appearance in Rome with a pledge that he was ready to renounce violence presented an opportunity for peace but neither Turkey nor the United States took him up on his offer. Madam Speaker, let me say it is not too late. We should use our leverage over Turkey to demand that an international tribunal prosecute Mr. Ocalan since Turkey is at war with the Kurds and cannot be expected to conduct a fair trial. I hope that the European Union to which Turkey is seeking admission will also put pressure on Turkey. We must demand a fair trial for Mr. Ocalan but this should only be a first step in our efforts to press Turkey to enter into negotiations to achieve a political solution to this ongoing struggle. This is fundamentally in Turkey's interest, too, in the long run, since they cannot continue to keep down 35 million people living in their midst. On January 21, we celebrated, or the Kurds celebrated their new year, which is called Newroz, symbolizing a day of resistance and deliverance from tyranny for the Kurds. In that spirit, I hope that we will soon witness a turning point from the terrible tragedies that the Kurdish people have experienced and instead see the rebirth of a strong and free Kurdistan. Madam Speaker, this week U.S. forces have gone into the battle in the former Yugoslavia in an effort to prevent the genocide of the Kosovar people. I strongly support that effort which shows America at its best and I hope that the same resolve and sense of outrage that caused us to act to protect the Kosovars will finally motivate America and the free world to put an end to the genocide of the Kurdish people. Let me point out that the Kurdish new year, Madam Speaker, was actually last Sunday, March 21, Newroz, and that was the day when the Kurds celebrate their new year.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, and the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Maloney for organizing this Special Order to honor the 178th anniversary of Greece's independence. They are tireless in their promotion of close ties between the United States and Greece, and I have enjoyed working with them over the years to strengthen relations with one of America's greatest allies. I would like to begin by congratulating Greece and the Greek community in America for 178 years of independence. I would also like to reaffirm the special relationship the United States has with Greece. The issue I want to focus on tonight is Turkey's threat to use military force against Greece in response to the Ocalan affair. Settling differences with military force is an option to be used only as the last resort after all diplomatic channels have been exhausted. Turkey, however, seems to salivate at the prospect of a military confrontation with Greece. At every conceivable opportunity Ankara threatens Greece with the use of military force. Shortly before the Ocalan affair erupted, Turkey threatened to attack Greece if Greece deploys the defensive S-300 missile system in Crete. That deployment is scheduled as part of a gesture put forward by the Cypriot government to defuse tensions in Cyprus over the initial plan to deploy that system on Cyprus. I should also add that part of the Cypriot plan to defuse that crisis and move the peace process forward includes a reiteration of the standing offer to demilitarize the island accompanied by a new offer to pay for a peacekeeping force following the demilitarization. This peaceful proposal has to date been rejected by the Turks, who, as I say seem interested only in threatening to use force against Greece. As with all Turkish threats, the threat to use force in response to the Ocalan affair must be taken seriously. The endless stream of threats to use force by Ankara are destabilizing to the already tense Mediterranean region, to NATO and ultimately to all of Europe. They are also counter to US interests. In my view the United States government needs to be much more forceful in communicating to the Turks that these threats are unacceptable and that there will be severe consequences to US-Turkey relations if Ankara resorts to the use of military force. Many in Greece and the Greek community in the United States speculate that one of the reasons why Turkey has been issuing threats as of late is to spark another confrontation over sovereign Greek territory in the Aegean. ``A short military confrontation,'' observes a recent editorial in the GreekAmerican on Turkey's claims to Greek territory ``may be just the ticket.'' Two years ago, Turkey was almost successful in sparking just such a confrontation over the Greek islets of Imia. The confrontation was avoided only after President Clinton personally intervened, but the issue is not resolved. Turkey continues to make unfounded claims of sovereignty over the islets of Imia. I am hopeful the Administration will be prepared to act swiftly should this issue again flare up. In order to keep it on the front burner, I introduced H Con Res 36 in February, which expresses the sense of Congress that the islets of Imia are sovereign territory under international law. It also states that Turkey should agree to bring this matter before the International Court of Justice at the Hague for a resolution. Again, I think it is important to keep examples like these in mind in the wake of the Ocalan affair and discount Turkey's attempt to slander Greece's commitment and readiness to resolve conflicts peacefully and in full accordance with international law. It is precisely this commitment to peace and democracy that we have must keep in mind as we celebrate 178 years of Greek independence. And I just want to point out, to its credit, the State Department has rejected Turkey's ridiculous assertion following Ocalan's capture that Greece supports terrorism. Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, there is one last observation I want to make about the way the US government has handled the Ocalan affair. Notwithstanding its rejection of Turkey's propaganda regarding Greece, there are aspects of this case that are very troubling. The US government's role in helping the Turks capture Ocalan is well documented. What troubles me about the American government's role is its willingness to help the Turk's capture Ocalan knowing full well the chances he will receive a fair trial are slim to none. Already the Turks have refused to allow Ocalan's attorney's to defend him. Instead the Turkish courts appointed 15 lawyers to defend him, two of which recently resigned after receiving death threats. Unsurprisingly, the other 13 are also expected to resign. Ankara has also decided to bypass its regular court system and bring Ocalan before some kind of three- judge tribunal with no jury and no foreign observers. The US government's claim that it was trying to upheld justice is specious at best. In turning Ocalan over to the Turks, the American government saw an opportunity to curry favor with Ankara. In my view, this was done in support of an inexplicable American policy toward Ankara that overlooks a myriad of unconscionable Turkish policies--most notably those involving Cyprus and Armenia--in exchange for continued access to Turkish military facilities and airspace. It is the willingness of the US government to ignore the notorious abuses and show trials in the Turkish judicial system that I find troubling. If the US government was truly interested in insuring justice be carried out in a fair manner, it should have helped deliver him to a court where fair judicial proceedings are the norm, such as the International Court of Justice at the Hague. With that, I once again congratulate Greece on the anniversary of its independence and thank my colleagues once again for holding this Special Order.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the managed care issue was left unfinished in the 105th Congress. On the House side, the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights was defeated by just five votes when it came to the Floor for a vote. It was considered on the Floor as a substitute to the Republican leadership's managed care bill, which did pass and which, in my opinion, was worse than having no reform at all. The Republican bill was a thinly-veiled attempt to protect the insurance industry from managed care reform, and not a single Democrat voted for it. It was a show of solidarity on the Democratic side unlike any in the last Congress, and for a very good reason. The Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights is the best, most comprehensive managed care reform bill in Congress today. It was reintroduced in February by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) with over 170 cosponsors and the support of over 170 patient, physician, medical, and consumer groups. We are hoping to have this bill moved through the regular committee process at some point this year. Unfortunately, in the last Congress the Republican leadership, fearful of what might happen if it allowed the regular committee procedures to take their course, bypassed the committee process. Mr. Speaker, the big question in this Congress, once again, centers on how the Republican leadership is going to proceed with the managed care issue. If the preview we got last week in the Senate is any indication, the American people are once again going to be sold out by the Republican Party in an act of appeasement to the insurance industry. Last Thursday the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee repeated the same charade we witnessed last year and approved a managed care bill designed to protect the insurance industry and not the patients. During consideration of that bill, Democrats offered 22 amendments, and 20 of them were rejected. Included among the rejected amendments were measures to increase access to emergency care, to increase access to specialists, to establish a minimum hospital stay for women who have had mastectomies, and to provide people who have life-threatening illnesses with access to clinical trials. Every single one of these provisions is in the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights, and every single one of them is opposed by the insurance industry. The insurance industry-GOP alliance was also successful in protecting the two most important impediments to managed care reform. That is, one, the prohibition on the right to sue your health plan if you are denied needed care and your health suffers as a result; and two, the insurance companies' present ability to define ``medical necessity''. Democrats on the Senate committee offered amendments that would have given patients the right to sue health plans, but not one Republican voted for it, nor did any Republicans vote for the Democratic amendment to allow doctors and patients and not the insurance companies to determine what is medically necessary. In other words, Mr. Speaker, under the plans approved by the Republicans in the Senate, insurance companies will have no incentive whatsoever to stop denying needed care because they would be able to do so with impunity. Following up on the momentum to quash meaningful managed care reform started by the Senate Republicans, yesterday two anti-managed care coalitions announced that they are launching a massive ad campaign to quash managed care reform. We have seen this before. Yesterday's Congress Daily reported that the Business Roundtable is planning to spend more than $1 million on radio advertisements. The Health Benefits Coalition, the other group mentioned in yesterday's Congress Daily, intends to follow the lead and spend $1 million on anti-managed care television ads over the coming congressional recesses. Let there be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership and big business are working hand-in-hand to prevent patients from getting the protections from abuse that they clearly need. The unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, is that this is what the American people want. They want the Patients' Bill of Rights, they wanted managed care reform. This is the issue that more of my constituents talk to me about on a regular basis on the street, writing me letters, calling the District offices. They realize that right now they do not have the protections that they need as patients to have good care, to have good quality care. The easy thing and really the best thing for us to do here for the patients, for the consumers, for the American people, is to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights in its entirety and without delay. The Republicans may have the money and they have big business on their side, but the Democrats have what counts: that is, the support of the American people. The Republicans, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, would be wise to listen to what the people are saying.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire about next week's schedule, and I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York. If I could just ask in terms of a little more specifics, will we definitely be in next Friday, or is it possible we would conclude the business earlier than that?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Let me ask in terms of the legislative business, the supplemental, the census, the budget bill. Does the gentleman have any more specifics in terms of when he would expect each of those to be considered on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, or the order?

Mr. PALLONE. On Friday. Mr. Speaker, one more thing. In terms of any late nights, is the gentleman from New York expecting any late nights?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). Hopefully we can look into that after that recess.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 17, 1999, the members of the Red Bank, NJ, Men's Club will be celebrating their fiftieth anniversary with a formal dinner ball to be held at the PNC Arts Center in Holmdel, NJ. The theme for the evening, which will be chaired by Mr. Gary Watson, is ``Unity--Past, Present and Future.'' Two of the Red Bank area's leading citizens, James W. Parker, Jr., M.D., and Donald D. Warner, Ed.D., will be honored at the ball. Dr. James W. Parker, Jr., was born in Red Bank, where he attended the public schools and began his lifelong membership in the Shrewsbury Avenue AME Zion Church. He attended Howard University, graduating in 1940 with a B.S. degree, and earning his M.D. degree in 1944. He also attained the rank of First Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. After serving his residency in Norfolk, Va., he came back home to Red Bank and opened a private practice. The Korean War interrupted his career on the home front, as Dr. Parker went to serve his country as a Captain in Korea with a Battalion Air Station on the front line, and later in Japan. After the war, he returned to private family practice, as well as serving on the medical staff at Monmouth Medical Center in Long Branch, NJ, and Riverview Medical Center in Red Bank. Dr. Parker was married to Alice Williams Parker in 1944. They have two children and four grandchildren. His community involvement has been and continues to be extensive, including service to the YMCA, the Red Bank Board of Health, the American Red Cross, the Red Bank Board of Education, where he served as vice President, the Monmouth County Welfare Board, which he chaired, the Monmouth College Trustees Board, the Monmouth County Office of Social Services Board and the Red Bank Community Service Board. Last year, Dr. Donald D. Warner retired after 23 years of service as Superintendent of the Red Bank Regional High School District. Dr. Warner began his long and distinguished career in education 40 years ago, starting out as a classroom teacher. He earned his Bachelor's Degree at Temple University and his Doctor of Education Degree at the Pennsylvania State University. Over the years, he has received school and community awards too numerous to mention. In his nearly a quarter- century in the Red Bank area, he has taken on significant community and professional responsibilities, serving on various boards of trustees, foundations and task forces in Monmouth County and throughout the State of New Jersey. A native of Pennsylvania, Dr. Warner now lives in Tinton Falls, NJ, with his wife Mercedes, a teacher in the Tinton Falls District. The Warners' three children have all achieved impressive success--not surprising, given the commitment to hard work and excellence instilled in them by both of their parents. Despite his retirement, Dr. Warner has remained active in community affairs, while a scholarship being established in his honor will further his legacy as an educator by providing opportunities for students to expand their educational opportunities for years to come. Mr. Speaker, the Red Bank Men's Club has been instrumental over the years in supporting youth through scholarships for higher education. Many members of the Club serve as mentors and tutors for youth in the community. I congratulate the leaders and members of the Red Bank Men's Club, and wish them many years of continued success.