Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Temple Emanu-El of Edison, New Jersey, as its members gather to celebrate its 50th Anniversary. Under the leadership of Rabbi Emeritus Alfred Landsberg and Rabbi Deborah Bravo, Temple Emanu-El is a respected educational and religious institution for many families whose members remain committed to various community service activities. Their hard work and dedication are worthy of this body's recognition. Since its founding in 1961, Temple Emanu-El's membership remains open to persons of any race, sex, ethnic background, physical capability, sexual orientation, national origin or marital status. The synagogue is a sanctuary for interfaith families, gay and lesbian groups as well as numerous organizations and religious communities interested in pursuing the Jewish faith. Its rich diversity ensures the organization's ability to provide various religious programs for all ages. The synagogue is proud to be the first religious school within the region to offer special education programs to its members. Pre-school students have the opportunity to celebrate Shabbat through song and craft programs. Teens also get together at Temple Emanu-El to study Judaism with their friends while community members remain engaged in the sacred work of `tikkun olam', the repair of the world, through various social action programs. The worshipers of Temple Emanu-El are committed to participating in various community programs and service endeavors. Food and monetary funds are collected by the worshipers and delivered to the members of the community. The members also partake in the weekend meals-on-wheels delivery program as they continue to reach out to members of their community in need. The synagogue also maintains a commitment to provide various educational opportunities. Temple Emanu-El provides programs for the children to learn Hebrew and various Jewish traditions while adults are given the opportunity to study with Scholars-in-Resident and participate in Bar/Bat Mitzvah programs. Many congregants also join together on a weekly basis to study Torah. In addition to the plethora of activities offered at Temple Emanu-El, the synagogue remains a serene house of worship for its members to congregate and reflect. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Temple Emanu-El on its 50th Anniversary and thanking the members for their continued contribution to the Jewish community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Navesink Hook and Ladder Company #1 of Middletown, New Jersey, as its members gather to celebrate its 125th Anniversary. Since its founding in 1886, Navesink Hook and Ladder Company has faithfully protected the local residents, businesses and visitors of the Township. Their honorable and courageous actions are undoubtedly deserving of this body's recognition. The Navesink Hook and Ladder Company was founded on May 1, 1886 and remains an all-volunteer organization. Throughout their rich history, the members of this fire company have exemplified their unwavering dedication and service toward members of the community. They have risked their lives to respond to various emergencies involving fire, carbon monoxide, motor vehicle accidents and other various rescues. Their responsibilities have begun to expand beyond the borders of Middletown and have also assisted neighboring towns including Highlands, Rumson, Fair Haven, Keansburg, Sea Bright and Atlantic Highlands. Navesink Hook and Ladder Company promotes a proud and longstanding history of valor and sacrifice. Their heroic actions while serving their community is a testament to the selfless actions of the members to protect and serve the residents of Middletown. The members of this fire company continue to exemplify their unwavering dedication and service for their fellow citizens and community. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Navesink Hook and Ladder Company #2 on its 125th Anniversary and thanking the men and women who have served and protected the Township of Middletown.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the work of the New Jersey Culture Change Collaborative. Since its founding just last year, the coalition of non-profit organizations, retirement communities, and government bodies has worked to promote dignified long-term health care for senior citizens. This week, the coalition is holding ``Culture Change: New Choices for the Elderly,'' an event dedicated to the sharing of ideas for the improvement of health care for the elderly. I would like to draw attention to the New Jersey Culture Change Collaborative and formally thank the group for its beneficial--and necessary--work. The New Jersey Culture Change Collaborative is a network of professional organizations that is working across the state to improve health care for the elderly. Members of the coalition are the Health Care Association of New Jersey, Green Hill Inc., Healthcare Quality Strategies Inc., Leading Age New Jersey, New Jersey Hospital Association, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, and Van Dyk Health Care. Each member organization provides a unique perspective on aging and health care issues, and, together, the New Jersey Culture Change Collaborative has the potential to make a real transformation in the way that senior citizens receive long-term health care. Although it is a nascent movement, I have full confidence that it will improve the lives of New Jersey residents by working for more benevolent and patient-centered health care policies. In that light, I would like to request that the week of June 19 be designated National Nursing Home Culture Change Week. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the New Jersey Culture Change Collaborative on its founding. I would also like to congratulate the coalition for the statewide learning session it is holding this week. The work of the New Jersey Culture Change Collaborative is essential to promoting healthy lifestyles and improving long-term care.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALLONE. I rise in support of the Dingell amendment to partially restore the Food and Drug Administration funding to the fiscal year 2012 agriculture appropriations bill. I listened to what my colleagues said on the other side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is that today's bill slashes the FDA by $572 million, or 21 percent, below the President's request, and by $285 million, or 12 percent, below this year. I beg to differ with the gentlewoman. This is not the time to be cutting the FDA's budget. We have had many scares. We have had many outbreaks. We have had people die. We have had people become seriously ill. That is why in the last Congress we passed the landmark Food Safety Act, because we wanted to have increased inspection of food manufacturing plants, increased scrutiny of imported foods, and development of the capability to more quickly respond to food-borne illnesses and minimize their impact. I don't know about you, but when I go home, I hear a great deal of concern about the quality and the safety of our food supply and our groceries. When people buy food in the supermarket, when they go and buy it at a roadside stand, they are very concerned about the quality of the food and whether they are going to get sick. That is why we passed the landmark Food Safety Act. It is clear that we have just recently had the E. Coli breakout. The Nation's food supply is so extremely vulnerable, and the FDA must be equipped to keep it safe. The FDA has important responsibilities to protect and promote the health of the American people. To succeed in that mission, FDA must ensure the safety of not just food, but drugs and medical devices that Americans rely on every day. They don't just need to oversee the safety of the products. They also need to be involved in facilitating scientific innovation that makes these products safe, effective, and more affordable. Now, these efforts are especially critical today because I believe that American competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate. To do that, we must properly fund key agencies like the FDA that are essential to assisting in the development of new drugs and devices. FDA places a high importance on promoting innovation. In fact, they are currently developing a new Innovation Pathway, an initiative to help promising technologies get to market. But let me share something with my colleagues. One of the FDA's senior leadership staff testified before the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee recently and assured us that these cuts would prevent such efforts from moving forward. What I am trying to emphasize is that whether you look at it from the point of view of the food supply, whether you look at it from the point of view of innovation, to make cuts in the FDA budget simply makes no sense. It is crucial to job creation. It is crucial to people feeling safe about what they eat, and the government has to be responsible for facilitating an environment where Americans can continue to innovate. It is a key to creating new thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for the next generation. If government abandons its role, we run the real risk of squandering too many opportunities that lead to innovative discoveries and great economic benefits. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is the funding level put forth in today's appropriations bill is inadequate. FDA is already an underfunded agency. If we don't continue to give the FDA the resources it needs to complete its mission, they cannot support initiatives that save lives and create jobs; and these are priorities that Congress should embrace. I listened to what my colleagues say on the other side of the aisle. I understand we have to be concerned about funding and budgets and that we have a deficit. We also have to figure out what is important as a priority. The American people have told us that food safety is a priority. That is why we passed this landmark bill last year. There has to be a significant increase in funds, even in this environment, if we are going to keep the food supply safe. If we don't do that, a lot of economic activity is also going to suffer, including innovation, including what we can do for the future to keep this country competitive. So I understand what she is saying, but I also think that it is very important to restore these funds. I want to commend my colleague, Mr. Dingell, for putting forth this amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I am really saying to myself, who are they kidding? They are saying that this effort to cut the CFTC is for deficit purposes because, of course, all agencies have to be cut in the name of cutting the deficit. But you have to look at everything, every cut and every agency in terms of what it actually does. And we all know, we all know what the GOP is up to. The Republicans side with big banks and Wall Street and big insurance companies and Big Oil and against the middle class. So here we go again. They are siding with the Wall Street speculators and the profiteers by cutting the CFTC. Well, what does the CFTC do? It is responsible for policing commodities trading and speculation, including oil and food products. Well, I have to tell you, last week we were at home, we weren't in session, and what did I hear from my constituents? All of them are very concerned about the price of oil going up and about the price of food going up. So you are basically taking money out of the middle class people's pockets. The average American has got to pay more for oil because of speculation. And more for their food. And it hurts the economy because if people have to pay more money for that, then industry, for example, has to pay more if they want to function, because the oil costs more. And it has a downward effect on the economy. It not only impacts individual people and our constituents who can't afford to pay more for gasoline and for food, but it also has a downward impact on the economy itself because it means that businesses don't expand, they don't invest, and as a consequence we don't recover from the recession. The Agriculture appropriations bill reduces CFTC funding by $136 million. That's from the President's request. What it essentially does is cripple the agency's ability to do its job. And make no mistake about the Republican intentions. They're defunding. And that's the same as deregulation. And deregulation will allow the speculators and profiteers to engage in the same reckless actions that caused the financial meltdown on Wall Street. The end result with commodities is higher gas prices and higher food prices. The Wall Street speculators get rich while everyone else pays at the pump and the grocery store. The speculators treat the markets like a casino, but the risk of another market meltdown is harm to everyone else. Some industry experts say that speculators have added $15 to a barrel of oil. Goldman Sachs put the figure higher at $27 a barrel. The bottom line is that the Dodd-Frank bill brought more oversight to Wall Street and provided resources to empower the CFTC to police speculators. The Republicans are trying to cripple the CFTC by slashing its funding so much that it would force layoffs of one-third to one-half of its staff. They're not doing this because they're trying to save money, save the taxpayers' money, trying to the reduce the deficit. They're doing it because they want to cripple this agency, force layoffs of one-third to one-half of its staff. In case there are any doubts about the Republicans' motives, they're also pushing legislation that would delay all the reform measures in Dodd-Frank. Terms like derivatives, leveraged positions, future markets, buying long and buying short, these are foreign to many Americans, but it's a vocabulary of practices that can be abused as easily as they are used. Most Americans know that allowing Wall Street bankers to run wild contributed to financial chaos and the recession. What they need to know and what we're stressing more and more on the floor is that allowing commodity traders to run wild contributes to higher gas and food prices. I am shocked, frankly--I shouldn't be, but I am--that my colleagues on the other side, when you go home, didn't you hear complaints about higher gas prices? Didn't you hear people complaining about higher food prices? That's what I heard when I went home. People want us to stand up for them. They want us to stand up for the little guy. They don't want us to stand up for the speculators. They don't want us to stand up for those people that caused the recession to begin with. And by doing this, all you're doing is prolonging the pain--the pain for the average American who's got to pay these higher prices and the downward impact on the economy. Because we know in the last couple weeks that the economy is struggling once again. We were starting to recover. But now signs are not good. So why in the world would you try to contribute to the same problem that caused this recession to begin with? A very simple answer: All you care about are the big banks, Wall Street, the big insurance companies, and Big Oil. The special interests. That's who you're for, and that's who you're always going to be for. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is easy for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to forget that this bill deals with programs on which the most vulnerable in our society rely. My Republican colleagues are proposing about $650 million in cuts to the WIC Program. This action would essentially kick 200,000 to 350,000 women, infants and children off the rolls. Now, the Republicans claim that getting our fiscal house in order requires shared sacrifice. However, they are only requiring the sacrifice of those most in need. In fact, the cost of funding this program for 1 year is less than the revenue that would be generated by ending the Bush tax cuts to millionaires for just 1 week. Now you tell me, is that considered shared sacrifice? If we want to talk about being fiscally responsible, then there is almost no better investment and choice we can make than the WIC Program. For every dollar invested in WIC, $1.77 to $3.13 in health care costs are avoided in the first 60 days after an infant's birth. Doesn't this alone make fiscal sense? The WIC Program is preventative. It's preventative in terms of public health nutrition. It is a mission-driven program that seeks to improve birth outcomes, improve the nutrition of women and children, and provide nutrition education and food packages tailored to meet the needs of low-income women and children. I can't think of anything that is more preventative in nature and that ultimately saves money. WIC serves approximately 8.9 million low-income pregnant women, new moms, babies, and children under 5 who have been determined to be nutritionally at risk. Are these really the people that my Republican colleagues want to carry the burden and weight of shared sacrifice? What do the Republicans expect? I mean, do you honestly expect your constituents to find relief if they're not willing to provide even the most basic of services? You don't even want to provide basic services for people in need. Where are they going to get relief in this economic downturn that we face right now? If my Republican colleagues continue to pursue this kind of action, they're going to have hundreds of thousands of hungry and malnourished women and children on their consciences--and I really mean that, on your consciences--and that's not something that I am willing to accept. I urge my colleagues to vote against this appropriations bill and to give the necessary support to our Nation's most vulnerable members. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

Mr. PALLONE. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are doubling down on their plan to end Medicare, voting this week for a second time on their Road to Ruin budget that ends Medicare. Republicans instead should listen to the will of the people, who overwhelmingly oppose their Medicare plans, and instead work in a bipartisan way to address deficits and strengthen Medicare. The Republican budget more than doubles costs for future generations and puts insurance companies back in charge. According to the CBO, in 2022 the average senior will see their costs increase by more than $6,000, and the Republican budget also cuts benefits for today's seniors. It reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole, increasing costs for the estimated 4 million seniors who fall into the coverage gap by as much as $44 billion over the next decade, including $2.2 billion in 2012 alone. It also increases costs for preventive care and eliminates the annual wellness benefit. The Republican budget has the wrong priorities and makes the wrong choices for seniors and middle class families.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Helen Gottlieb, Chairwoman of the Middlesex County Democratic Organization in New Jersey, upon the occasion of her retirement. Chairwoman Gottlieb is a strong Democratic leader in Middlesex County who has made immeasurable contributions to her community and the Democratic Party. Ms. Gottlieb's service is undoubtedly deserving of this body's recognition. In addition to her public service, Chairwoman Gottlieb has amassed an impressive professional resume. Helen served as a dedicated teacher of English as a Second Language with the South Plainfield school district from 1970 through 1994. Beginning in 1980, as a member of the Edison Township Board of Adjustments, Helen faithfully served the local residents. She later served as President of the Edison Menlo Oaks Democratic Club and was a member of the Edison Township Planning Board. Her outstanding mentoring and leadership led to her appointment as Assistant Principal of South Plainfield High School in 1994, where she served for ten years. Helen also served as co-chair of the Middlesex County Clinton/Gore Presidential Campaign and Edison, New Jersey Democratic Vice-Chair. She currently serves as New Jersey State Committee Member and Middlesex County Democratic Chair, having previously serving as Vice Chair. I commend Helen for her continued service on behalf of the residents of Middlesex County. As a result of her exceptional work, Helen has received countless awards and honors for her achievements. She was awarded the ``Woman of Achievement'' Award and Commendation from the New Jersey General Assembly, 18th District, in 1999 and 1997, respectively. Helen was also the recipient of the Middlesex County Woman of Excellence Award in Education in 1993. She was featured in The News Tribune ``Applause'' Section in 1991 and was the New Jersey ESL Teacher of the Year in 1990, and most recently was the recipient of the Federation of Democratic Women's Peg Roberts Award. Helen currently resides in Edison, New Jersey with her husband, Judge Joel Gottlieb. They have two children and two grandsons. Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairwoman Helen Gottlieb for her exceptional contributions to the residents of my district and wish her well in her retirement.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sayreville Emergency Squad as its members celebrate the organization's 75th Anniversary. Sayreville Emergency Services faithfully serves local residents, businesses and visitors throughout Sayreville, New Jersey. Their honorable actions are undoubtedly deserving of this body's recognition. The Sayreville Emergency Squad is an all volunteer organization founded in 1936 to serve the emergency medical needs of the residents of Sayreville. Many of the services provided by the Emergency Squad, which include emergency medical services, low angle rope rescue, and water/boat rescue, are free of charge to the residents. All operating costs are paid for through the generous donations of Sayreville residents. The formidable men and women of this organization are New Jersey State EMT Certified and respond to over 3,500 calls for assistance each year. Volunteers sacrifice holidays and time with their family to assist those in need of emergency medical assistance, many times in harsh weather conditions. This non-profit volunteer organization continues to provide superior quality emergency medical and technical support and is a shining example of what steadfast commitment and dedication can accomplish. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the Sayreville Emergency Services on its 75th Anniversary in thanking the men and women who have faithfully served and protected the Borough of Sayreville.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALLONE. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to go back to the issue of Medicare, but I also wanted to respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania because he also brought up the issue of Medicaid. I would point out that the Republican budget not only devastates and ends Medicare, but it essentially does the same thing to Medicaid because of the level of cuts that are put in place for Medicaid. Now, senior citizens are very much aware of the fact, I think, that if Medicare ends, then they are thrown out in the private insurance market, and if they have to buy insurance on the private market at the whim of the insurance companies, that they will be in bad shape. They may not be able to get insurance. If they get it, it will be a very skeletal package. It won't cover and guarantee their benefits. I think they also realize that the budget, if it repeals the health care reform, will go back to having this huge doughnut hole, which will cause them to pay a lot out of pocket and also will eliminate the lack of copays that now exist for preventive care, such as mammograms and other diagnostic tests that now are free without a copay. So they will pay a huge amount of money out of pocket if the Republicans get their way by ending Medicare. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania also brought up Medicaid, and I would point out that many seniors are not aware of the fact that most of the money spent on Medicaid actually pays for nursing home care because Medicare doesn't cover nursing home care. Seniors, when they pay out of pocket for nursing home care, usually run out of their money very quickly and end up staying in the nursing home because of Medicaid. Well, what this budget does is to basically cut Medicaid by almost $800 billion over the next decade and essentially in half by 2022. That is not sustainable. What that is going to mean is, as I said before, when we didn't have Medicare, seniors couldn't get insurance and they just basically got no health care unless they went to an emergency room. But if you cut Medicaid in half, what is going to happen is there isn't going to be money for the States to pay for nursing home care, and either seniors won't be able to find a nursing home or, if they get one, it is going to be a nursing home that, because it is not getting an adequate payment rate, it is going to be really awful. In my home State of New Jersey, I remember in the 1970s, going back 30 years ago, when nursing homes were just awful. We had fires. We had people with horrible bedsores. The bottom line is that, if you really devastate Medicaid, which pays for nursing home care, you're going to also go back to the days when seniors couldn't find nursing homes.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. I also would point out that, many times, the localities, because they have budget problems, may not even pay for it at all, and so we'll end up with awful nursing homes or we'll not even have nursing homes. The other thing, too, is that Medicaid also has waivers that pay for a lot of senior citizens to stay home and that pay for their personal care when they stay home: for somebody to come in and dress them, to cook meals, to clean the house, that type of thing. That would also be gone or it would be cut in half when you cut Medicaid in half. Again, as Mr. Weiner said, unless the States stepped in and paid for that, a lot of those senior citizens who don't have to go to nursing homes end up staying home and getting the personal care in their homes or apartments, and those programs are going to be eliminated as well. So it is amazing what the Republicans are doing in this budget: ending Medicare and cutting Medicaid. What that means for senior citizens is just an awful thing. These cuts to Medicaid go into effect immediately, so they impact seniors immediately, and just get worse and worse over the next 10 years. It also applies to the disabled because these are programs that are paying for the disabled. Everything that I said about people over 65, whether it's regarding Medicare or Medicaid, also applies to people who have disabilities. I just don't understand. Again, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, these are programs that the Republicans never liked, never voted for, never supported, and I'll mention one more. Because of the cuts in Medicaid and also because of the cuts in the SCHIP, which is the family care premium, the budget also makes it so a lot of children who now get health care coverage are not going to get health care coverage. Again, the Republicans are walking away from the seniors, walking away from the disabled, and walking away from the children.

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

Mr. PALLONE. I want to continue this debate on the Medicare issue because I do believe, from looking at the Republican budget, that they do intend to end Medicare, it's quite clear. And, you know, the irony of this is that, when the Democrats were in the majority, we were trying to expand health care options, provide everybody with health insurance. And now what we see is just the Republicans, when they take the majority, are trying to get rid of, really, the best health insurance program that the Nation has ever seen, and that's Medicare. No one would argue that Medicare has not been successful. The fact of the matter is that before we had Medicare--which, as my colleague from New York mentioned, was a Democratic initiative--what would seniors do? Well, seniors couldn't get health insurance because, as you know, when you get to be over 65, or if you are disabled, people don't want to give you health insurance because it costs too much. You are in the hospital too much. You have too many health care needs. And so seniors basically couldn't find health insurance. They were really at the mercy, if you will, of whatever they could find, or if they got sick, they had to go to a hospital or they had to go to a doctor and pay out of pocket in many cases. And so when the Democrats came along and Lyndon Johnson said, look, this is something that we need because seniors can't get health insurance, well, they initiated Medicare. And the fact of the matter is that almost every Republican voted against Medicare then, and they have never liked it because they know it's a government program. They don't like government programs. So if anyone on the other side of the aisle is trying to tell me, I don't know that they are, but if they are trying to suggest that if somehow by voting for this budget that ends Medicare that they didn't really mean it, I would say look at their history, look at the history of opposing Medicare, of opposing Medicaid, of opposing even Social Security when Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress put it together. Now, I want to point out what happens when seniors don't have Medicare anymore and they have to go buy insurance on the private market. Well, basically, what that does is it puts the insurance companies back in charge again. And that's no surprise. This is what the Republicans want. They always stand with the special interests--Big Oil, big banks, Wall Street and, of course, the insurance companies. And the insurance companies don't like Medicare because they can't make any money. They want to be able to make money. They want to take, cherry-pick, if you will. If you're over 65 and they figure you're in good health, then maybe they'll give you insurance if you want to go and buy it because they figure you might be a good risk and they can charge you a lot of money and they can give you a barebones policy that doesn't cover anything. Remember that Medicare not only provides a guaranteed insurance policy that you can buy, that you get, I should say, from the government when you are over 65 regardless of your health status or of your income, but you also get a pretty generous insurance plan that covers a lot of things. You put the insurance companies back in charge, and not only will they not offer insurance to a lot of seniors at a decent price, but for those who they do sell the insurance to, it's not going to be a package that covers what most seniors are going to need. So it's not only that Medicare is important because it guarantees you coverage, but it also guarantees you a pretty generous coverage which you need when you're 65 or when you're disabled. Some of the Republicans I hear say, well, don't worry senior citizens, we may be ending Medicare, but it's only going to be ending for those who are now 55. If you're 65 years old, you can continue to have it. But if you're 55 or under, when you get to be 65, it's no longer going to be available. So if you're a senior citizen now, don't worry about it. Well, I don't know too many seniors who think that way, because I know they worry about everybody including not just themselves, but their children and their grandchildren. But besides that, I would also point out that this Republican budget eliminates two other things. First of all, we, as Democrats, when we were in charge of the House, we put in place a program to close the prescription drug doughnut hole. So that if you reach the doughnut hole now, as of January 1, 50 percent of your costs are covered, and eventually you are going to have no costs in the doughnut hole. It's going to be eliminated completely. Well, the Republican budget repeals that. So it goes back to leaving this gaping hole; whereas, if your out-of-pocket drug costs in the course of a year are $2,500 or more, then you're not going to get your prescription drugs covered. So, also for current Medicare holders, senior citizens, it opens up that doughnut hole again so you are going to pay all this money out of pocket. In addition to that, it repeals a Democratic provision that's now law that says that you don't have copays for preventative care. So if you're a senior or disabled and you need a mammogram, you need a certain kind of testing done, you don't pay a copay. The Republican budget also abolishes that. This is devastating for senior citizens, current and future.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, with the recent celebration of Easter and the results of the May 5th Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, there is no better time for those in Northern Ireland and members of the Irish Diaspora around the world to renew their commitment to peace and power-sharing in Northern Ireland. With some areas gaining new representation, and some choosing to reelect their leaders, we are reminded of the need for constructive political discourse and peaceful debate about the issues that are of greatest concern to the people of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement highlighted a commitment to ``exclusively peaceful and democratic means'' and this example should be continued to be followed every day. Irish Americans and all Americans can continue to show their support for a peaceful political process and the importance of such an agreement will be highlighted later this month with the President's visit to Ireland. The two leading parties, the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein, have had both of their leaders show public support for continuing peaceful negotiations and represent political parties that have pledged to work together. They have realized that even though their parties may have differing views on certain issues, it does not immediately preclude them from working together. This is a lesson from which we can all learn. Recently, Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams released a statement regarding not only the importance of a commitment to peace by the Irish, but also by Irish Americans. The future of Northern Ireland depends on renewing a commitment to peace and continuing to value the opinions and thoughts of all those that contribute to political and community discussions. It is critical that the U.S. remain involved in the issues of Northern Ireland. We can work with the Irish to secure a future where power can continue to be shared amongst parties, where differing points of view are heard and respected, and where differences of opinions are not met with violence and death, but with open minds and hearts.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Father Dennis Weezorak as the members of St. Mary's Parish gather to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood. Throughout his professional career, Father Weezorak has spiritually guided and mentored many parishioners. His honorable actions are worthy of this body's recognition. Father Weezorak was ordained to the priesthood on May 3, 1986 in the Cathedral of St. Mary in Ogdensburg, New York by Bishop Stanislaus Brazana. He began his career as an Associate Pastor and Administrator in St. Patrick Parish in Watertown, New York. During his tenure, Father Weezorak also served as Associate Pastor at three different New York State Parishes: St. Peter, St. Mary and St. Thomas. Father Weezorak later served in the military chaplaincy for the United State Air Force at various locations including Lackland Air Force Base and the hospital chaplaincy at Wilford Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. He was finally installed as Pastor at St. Mary Parish in South Amboy, New Jersey on October 26, 1997. In addition to his parish duties, Father Weezorak is active with the Municipal Alliance for Drug Abuse for the Township of South Brunswick/ Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. He also remains an active member of the Sayreville/South Amboy Chapter of Rotary International. Father Weezorak earned a bachelor's degree in business from Pennsylvania State University and attended St. John Seminary in Boston, Massachusetts. He is the son of Pauline and the late Robert Weezorak. He has one brother and sister. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Father Dennis Weezorak upon the celebration of his twenty-fifth anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood and also for his leadership and service to the community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans act as if they're trying to help the consumer with this legislation. But all they're really doing is helping Big Oil--bigger profits, bigger tax breaks. I mean, the first quarter earnings for the oil companies were bigger than ever, billions of dollars in profits. Even BP, even after the disaster a year ago, was still making huge profits; and, of course, we've got about $4 billion in tax breaks that the Republicans continue to give to the oil companies. No more oil is going to be brought to market because of this legislation. As my colleague from Massachusetts said, we're talking years before any oil could be brought to market. And at the same time, we have the huge environmental risks. The fact of the matter is that the BP oil spill a year ago showed us the environment risks that are involved with deepwater drilling. And there was a bipartisan commission that was put forward; Democrat and Republican testified before the Natural Resources Committee that I serve on. But no Republican effort is being made to implement those recommendations and say, okay, we need to do certain things before we can do offshore drilling in these deepwater areas. Nothing at all. So when you open up these areas under this legislation to new drilling, you're just inviting another BP-type spill because nothing is being done by the Republicans to prevent it. Now, I would point out there are all kinds of leases out there now, on land, offshore, that the oil companies can drill and they're not doing it. They're just stockpiling them. There's more oil production that's been put forward in the last year or so under President Obama than ever before. So we're producing oil. No one is saying that you can't drill in the areas that are already leased. And there's more production. All we're saying is, why in the world are you risking these areas that now we know, after the BP spill, shouldn't be put into production when you've got all kinds of other opportunities out there? Now, I offered an amendment. The chairman of the Rules Committee said that we were going to allow a lot of amendments. Well, they didn't allow my amendment; and my amendment simply said that the Atlantic coast for the next 5 years under the President's plan is off-limits because of what happened with BP and that we should keep that in place. But my amendment was not allowed in order. What the President has done and what all of us are saying here is, in the aftermath of the BP spill, there are certain areas that shouldn't be allowed offshore production and in which the leases shouldn't go out. We learned from the BP spill that these areas should be off-limits because we are concerned about the environmental risks. In my case in the State of New Jersey, we're talking about billions and billions of dollars in tourism related to the shore that would be put at risk if we had another oil spill. That's where the jobs are. Tourism is the number one industry in the State of New Jersey. Up and down the Atlantic coast, tourism is a huge business. It creates all kinds of jobs. What minimal jobs will be created by allowing these areas to be put out to lease and by allowing the drilling compared to the risk of the jobs that would be destroyed?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today, Israel celebrates 63 years of independence as a Jewish-state. I am proud to say that it was on this same day 63 years ago that the United States became the first country in the world to recognize the State of Israel. For decades, our two nations have shared an unyielding bond based on trust, common values and a great respect for one another. I look forward to celebrating this bond for years to come. As the Middle East and North Africa continue on their paths to self- governance it is my sincere hope that this progress will continue in the most peaceful way possible. I believe that once the people of these growing nations are able to achieve their ambitions that the bonds between Israel, the United States and the region will prosper. The United States will continue our efforts with Israel and others in the region to achieve widespread peace and work together toward this end. I offer my best wishes to President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the people of Israel as they celebrate their 63rd Independence Day. I remain committed to ensuring that the next 63 years of U.S.-Israel relations are marked by cooperation and mutual respect.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Helen Gottlieb, Chairwoman of the Middlesex County Democratic Organization in New Jersey. Chairwoman Gottlieb is a strong Democratic leader in Middlesex County who has made immeasurable contributions to her community and the Democratic Party. As a result of her actions, Chairwoman Gottlieb will be presented with the 2011 New Jersey Federation of Democratic Women's Peg Roberts Award. Ms. Gottlieb's service is undoubtedly deserving of this body's recognition. In addition to her public service, Chairwoman Gottlieb has amassed an impressive professional resume. Helen served as a dedicated teacher of English as a Second Language with the South Plainfield school district from 1970 through 1994. Beginning in 1980, as a member of the Edison Township Board of Adjustments, Helen faithfully served the local residents. She later served as President of Edison Menlo Oaks Democratic Club and was a member of the Edison Township Planning Board. Her outstanding mentoring and leadership lead to her appointment as Assistant Principal of South Plainfield High School in 1994, where she served for 10 years. Helen also served as co-chair of the Middlesex County Clinton/Gore Presidential Campaign and Edison, New Jersey Democratic Vice-Chair. She currently serves as New Jersey State Committee Member and Middlesex County Democratic Chair, having previously serving as Vice Chair. I commend Helen for her continued service on behalf of the residents of Middlesex County. As a result of her exceptional work, Helen has received countless awards and honors for her achievements. She was awarded the ``Woman of Achievement'' Award and Commendation from the New Jersey General Assembly, 18th District, in 1999 and 1997, respectively. Helen was also the recipient of the Middlesex County Woman of Excellence Award in Education in 1993. She was featured in The News Tribune ``Applause'' Section in 1991 and was the New Jersey ESL Teacher of the Year in 1990. Helen currently resides in Edison, New Jersey with her husband, Judge Joel Gottlieb. They have two children and two grandsons. Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to extend my congratulations to Chairwoman Helen Gottlieb for her exceptional contributions to the residents of my district and congratulate her for the honor she received from the New Jersey Federation of Democratic Women.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Kiran Desai, former Chairman of the Old Bridge Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and member of the Township Planning Board. Kiran is being recognized by the New Jersey State Planning Officials Organization as a recipient of the 2011 Achievement in Planning Award for his continued service to the residents of Old Bridge, New Jersey. Kiran continues to demonstrate significant contributions to the planning and development of Old Bridge and is therefore deserving of this body's recognition. Kiran served as the Chairman of the Township's Zoning Board of Adjustment from 2000 to 2010. A humble, thirty year resident of Old Bridge, Kiran excels in his professional endeavors as a result of his personal relationship with the local residents and neighbors. During his tenure, Kiran has evaluated hundreds of applications and has most notably opposed larger residential developments and retail complexes not suited for the area. Kiran's steadfast determination and clear mission has assisted in balancing the rights of developers with the needs of Old Bridge's large, diverse and growing community. He also proudly continues to place particular emphasis on protecting local environmentally sensitive areas. In January 2011, Kiran transitioned from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to the Old Bridge's Township Planning Board where he spearheads the initiative to review the Township's master plan. In addition to his professional experience, Kiran has also been active in several other civic organizations. He has served on the Economic Development Corporation and is the former Treasurer of the New Jersey Democratic State Committee. He currently serves as a Commissioner and Secretary of the Old Bridge Municipal Utilities Authority. Kiran is also very active in the Indian community and various organizations dedicated to preserving cultural roots and further Indian strides within the American community. Kiran is a founding member of the India Cultural Association of Central Jersey and has served as President of Vraj of North America. He is also founding President of the Chh Gaam Patidar Samaj of North America and continues his involvement with countless other cultural organizations. As a result of his outstanding efforts, Kiran was recently awarded the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, an annual award presented to an individual for their contributions by immigrants to the United States. Mr. Speaker, once again please join me in congratulating Mr. Kiran Desai, the 2011 recipient of the New Jersey State Planning Officials Organization's Achievement in Planning Award. Mr. Desai's professional accomplishments and community and cultural involvement should be an inspiration to us all.