Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I urge passage of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the Emergency Aid to American Survivors of the Haiti Earthquake Act, or S. 2949, which passed the Senate last night with bipartisan support. As my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee have explained, this bill provides $25 million to enable the Secretary of HHS to reimburse States for the costs of providing temporary assistance to U.S. citizens who have returned from the catastrophe in Haiti without available resources. I want to focus on the portion of the bill that provides temporary assistance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries under what is known as the Medicaid QI program. Currently, Medicaid pays the Medicare part B premiums for low-income Medicare beneficiaries with incomes between 120 percent and 135 percent of the Federal poverty level. That translates to an income of between $13,000 and $14,600 per year. Now, the monthly part B premium is $96.40 per month, or $1,157 per year. And this is 8 percent to 9 percent of the income of these low- income, elderly, and disabled Medicare beneficiaries. Obviously, having Medicaid pay this premium makes Medicare much more affordable for these people and eases their financial struggles. This Medicaid payment comes from a fixed amount of funding for the QIs that is allocated among the States. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that fund is about $65 million short for this calendar year 2010. When the fund runs out, States have the option of continuing to pay the part B premiums for this population with their own funds or simply stopping new enrollment. One State, Arizona, has already announced that it is capping its QI program this week in response to an estimated $2.8 million shortfall in its allotment. The State is going to give public notice and then deny all new Arizona applications. This will affect approximately 175 Medicare beneficiaries in Arizona each month. While no other State has yet to stop enrollment, there are 21 States in addition to Arizona that have projected shortfalls in their QI funding. That includes Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont. By filling this $65 million national QI funding shortfall for this calendar year, this bill will allow Arizona to uncap its QI program and help the other 21 States avoid capping theirs. Tens of thousands of low-income Medicare beneficiaries all over the country will be able to receive assistance with their part B premiums. Madam Speaker, let me stress that this bill is fully paid for. It withdraws $90 million from the Medicaid Improvement Fund to offset both the cost of the temporary assistance for U.S. citizens returning from Haiti and the cost of funding the QI program shortfall. In fact, CBO estimates that the legislation will actually reduce the deficit by $14 million. So I think overall this is very good legislation, very helpful to the States, and certainly significant for those who are returning from Haiti. And I would urge my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass S. 2949. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I urge passage of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize now the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlewoman from California, Representative Chu, for as much time as she may consume.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 1003, expressing support for the designation of January 10 through January 16, 2010, as National Influenza Vaccination Week. In the 6 months between April and mid- November, there were approximately 47 million cases of the 2009 H1N1 flu in the United States. More than 200,000 individuals were hospitalized, and tragically, nearly 10,000 people lost their lives to this illness. One of those individuals was Monica Rodriguez, who died in October 2009, before the H1N1 vaccine was available. Ms. Rodriguez, a constituent of Representative Judy Chu's, was the mother of three children, and was 5 months pregnant at the time she died. As a pregnant woman, Monica was considered a high risk, and would have been on the priority list to get the vaccine as soon as it was ready. Vaccines save lives. And had the vaccine been available, it could have saved her life. Though flu activity has declined in recent weeks, experts warn that the risk for contracting the flu is still great. We must prepare for a possible third wave of H1N1 flu, and Americans must remain vigilant about preventing infection of the H1N1 virus and the seasonal flu. In both instances, the vaccines can help protect against these illnesses. Now the resolution before us today shows our support for National Influenza Vaccination Week, which is sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control. By supporting this resolution, Congress will help urge all Americans to take advantage of the supply of vaccine available to prevent further needless deaths from the H1N1 virus or seasonal flu. I want to thank my colleague, Representative Chu, for her work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1003) expressing support for the designation of January 10, 2010, through January 16, 2010, as National Influenza Vaccination Week, as amended.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1011) recognizing the importance of cervical health and of detecting cervical cancer during its earliest stages and supporting the goals and ideals of Cervical Health Awareness Month.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 1011, supporting the goals and ideals of Cervical Health Awareness Month. According to the American Cancer Society, over 11,000 American women will receive the news that they have cervical cancer this year, and over 4,000 women will die due to this disease. The earlier cervical cancer is detected, the better chance a woman has of surviving. Cellular changes that precede cervical cancer can be detected by Pap tests or other early detection methods. With early detection, women can get treatment that prevents the disease from progressing to a later stage. As a result of the increase in prevention, we are beginning to see a decrease in the number of women who get and die from cervical cancer. But we still have more work to do, especially in the minority populations. African American women and Hispanic women, for example, are 50 percent more likely to develop cervical cancer than non-Hispanic white women and are also more likely to die from the disease. And that is why this resolution, Madam Speaker, before us today is so important. We must increase awareness of cervical cancer and promote testing to ensure early detection so that we can further reduce the numbers of women who succumb to cervical cancer every year. The resolution before us today supports the goals and ideals of Cervical Health Awareness Month. It acknowledges the importance of early detection as a crucial tool in treating and surviving the disease, and supports heightened awareness about prevention of cervical cancer. I want to thank my colleague, the sponsor of the legislation, Representative Debbie Halvorson from Illinois, for her work in raising this important issue. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, Madam Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson), who is the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Ancient Order of Hibernians A.O.H., Division 4 and their Great Irish Hunger Annual Mass and Memorial Dedication. On Saturday, November 14, the A.O.H. will hold a mass and immediately following take part in a processional walk to Friendship Park in Keansburg, New Jersey, for the dedication and blessing of ``The Great Irish Hunger Monument.'' The monument was designed by artist Phil Sloan and A.O.H. Division 2 President Jack Sullivan. The Ancient Order of Hibernians was founded in 1836 in New York City and is a nonprofit Catholic fraternal organization whose mission is to promote friendship, unity, and Christian charity among its members. The original order existed in Ireland for over 300 years and was created to help protect the lives of Catholic priests in occupied Ireland after the reign of England's King Henry VIII. American chapters of the Ancient Order of Hibernians were created for similar reasons like protecting the clergy and the Catholic Church and its followers while providing aid to the community at large. The A.O.H. admirably seeks to promote and preserve the Irish Heritage through art, music, dance, and culture. The services that they provide are important assets to my district and provide unique diversity that is dearly valued. The Great Famine or Great Hunger created widespread starvation and disease which, coupled with a mass exodus from Ireland, caused the country's population to drop by more than 20 percent. It is estimated that approximately 1 million people died and 1 million more left Ireland during that period. The A.O.H. will honor and remember those devastated by the famine with a memorial mass, as well as bless their newly erected monument which will stand as a memorial to the lives lost and forever changed by the Great Hunger. Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in thanking the Ancient Order of Hibernians for the work they do in supporting my constituency, as well as honor the memory of those affected by the Great Hunger that struck Ireland over 150 years ago.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and work of Mr. Lee Mathews, the Director of Edison Job Corps Academy in Edison New Jersey, who passed away November 29, 2009 at the age of 57. Mr. Mathews served as an anti-drug advocate and spokesman for youth issues in his position as Director of Edison Job Corps Academy, and previously in his position as Director of the South Bronx Job Corps Center. Both institutions were nationally recognized, and Mr. Mathews had himself been recognized with the National Award for being involved with the most innovative Job Corps Program in his last 3 years with Edison Job Corps. When ResCare took control of the Edison Job Corps Center in November 1995, the center was rated 100 out of 109 and had an exceedingly poor image in the community. Mr. Mathews was able to improve the performance of the center to over 110 percent of the Department of Labor standard. Under the helm of Mr. Mathews, the program rose to prominence, ranking 21st out of 123 in the country. By establishing relationships with companies like Aamco Transmission, Roto Rooter, and AT&T, Mr. Mathews revolutionized Edison Job Corps Academy's vocational training and made it into a model program that Job Corps programs nationwide are seeking to imitate and follow. While the death of Mr. Mathews comes as a great loss to Job Corps, it comes as a greater loss to the State of New Jersey. His efforts and advocacy for youth issues will be greatly missed, though his legacy will live on through his accomplishments and work. Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in celebrating the life of Mr. Lee Mathews, as our State remembers his determination and excellent service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal gas disaster. On December 3, 1984, 27 tons of deadly gases spewed out of the Union Carbide plant, forming a cloud of poisonous gas over Bhopal, India. As a result, 8,000 people lost their lives. In total, the deadly effects of this disaster have left 20,000 dead and another 20,000 with chronic illness. A 2003 study by the highly regarded Journal of the American Medical Association found that children born to parents affected by this disaster still suffer the effects of Union Carbide's poisonous gases. In fact, a Greenpeace report documented the presence of chloroform, lead, mercury, and a series of other chemicals in the breast milk of nursing women who live near the factory. Just this past June, a report by the Bhopal Medical Appeal and the Sambhavna Trust Clinic found that the water in and around Bhopal still contains unsafe levels of carbon tetrachloride and other pollutants, solvents, nickel, and other heavy metals. Therefore, it is not surprising that populations in the areas around Bhopal have high rates of birth defects, rapidly rising cancer rates, neurological damage, and mental illness. It is simply unbelievable that Union Carbide refused to acknowledge which chemicals and gases were leaked for fear of legal liability. This left doctors to treat patients with no knowledge of how to proceed or what treatment to use. Union Carbide's use of unsafe and untested technologies led to one of the worst chemical disasters in world history. Rather than acknowledge the devastation they created and fully pay for the damages, Union Carbide decided to walk away. However, in 2001 Dow Chemical Company, based in the United States, purchased Union Carbide and acquired all of its assets and liabilities. To this day, Dow Chemical refuses to shoulder the liabilities and obligations that it took on when it purchased Union Carbide. Dow should clean up the factory site, which continues to contaminate the local environment and should go beyond simply providing compensation to the victims. Dow should also fund the necessary medical care and research studies necessary to treat victims and offer them the chance to live fruitful lives not plagued by chemical affects. I believe that the Indian Government has a role to play in ensuring that the survivors of the Bhopal disaster and those that continue to face its deadly effects receive dignified care. Despite an order from the Supreme Court of India that clean drinking water should be supplied immediately, more than 25,000 people in Bhopal are forced to consume water known to contain dangerous contaminates. Last year, along with 15 of my colleagues I wrote to Prime Minister Singh to express support for the people of Bhopal and urged him to personally meet with survivor groups to address the long-standing demands for justice. We expressed our hope that the Indian Government would pursue Union Carbide and Dow Chemical for their civil and criminal liabilities in the country. We argued the victims of the Bhopal tragedy were right and deserving in their request for a commission to execute social, economic, and medical rehabilitation, implement an environmental clean-up of the polluted land, and provide funding for clean drinking water. Today, thousands remember the lives lost in Bhopal and protest the current inaction and lack of responsibility associated with the Bhopal disaster. I hope that my colleagues will join me remembering the lives that were needlessly lost because of Union Carbide's negligence and the devastating effects that continue to plague the people of Bhopal. Although this may be the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, people are still dying from the horrible affects of the chemicals that Union Carbide's plant leaked. I remain dedicated to fighting for the rights of the survivors of the Bhopal disaster and ensuring that those in Bhopal today receive the assistance needed to live in a clean and healthy environment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor George L. Catrambone and his decades of service to the children of the Long Branch Public Schools. Mr. Catrambone is known as an innovator in the field of education and he has tirelessly worked to improve the quality of instruction for thousands of students. He recently announced his retirement after over 37 years of dedicated service. Mr. Catrambone began his career at the Elberon Elementary School where he first worked as a teacher for the handicapped. He became the school's senior special education teacher before rising to the position of Coordinator of Special Education for the entire Long Branch School District. Mr. Catrambone rose to the position of Assistant Superintendent of Schools in 2002. In this position, Mr. Catrambone was a key force behind the implementation of the education policies of New Jersey's Governor and Commissioner of Education. Mr. Catrambone has played a vital role in the implementation of the Whole School Reform initiative. He has helped to implement the initiative's curriculum advancements, including the provision of a full school day for preschool age children. He was also instrumental in the design and construction of new schools, athletic facilities, and playgrounds for use by the children of the Long Branch Public Schools. As a member of several professional organizations, Mr. Catrambone has contributed a great deal to New Jersey's community of educators. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, the New Jersey Education Association, and the Principal and Supervisors Association are included among the many different organizations of which Mr. Catrambone is a valued member. Mr. Catrambone has been the recipient of several honors during his distinguished career. He has been awarded the Rotary Club of Long Branch's prestigious Paul Harris Fellow Award and he has been presented with the Long Branch Board of Education's Achievement resolution for his work with handicapped youth. Mr. Catrambone has also been honored for the work he has done on behalf of the Special Olympics. Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in celebrating Mr. Catrambone's remarkable career. His impressive record of resilient achievement serves as a model for educators across the State of New Jersey.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I respect my Republican colleagues, but I think they are suffering from a severe case of amnesia when I listen to what they are saying on the other side. It was they who contributed to this problem in the first place. It was they who stuck their heads in the sand year after year and refused to enact any kind of meaningful reform. They talk about pay-for. They never paid for anything. They just kicked the can down the road and said, Okay, we won't have a cut this year but we will have a larger cut next year. If this continues, we will have a 40 percent cut in the reimbursement rate in the next 2 years. So there is no pay-for on their side. There never has been. It is just a budget gimmick. Now this year, we have a permanent solution to the problem, and we are saying enough is enough with the threat of severe payment cuts that will drive physicians from Medicare and put beneficiaries' access to doctors in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an important element of our overall effort to improve Medicare for seniors. We have done a lot in health care reform. Two weeks ago we passed comprehensive health reform that made critical investments in Medicare. Amongst those, we closed the doughnut hole, thereby making prescription drugs more affordable. We improve access to preventative, primary, and coordinated care, and we increased financial assistance so that low-income seniors can better afford their monthly premiums. We are helping seniors with this bill today by making them have a choice of physicians and quality physicians. We are helping them with the doughnut hole. We are helping them with everything with this larger health care reform. I would just ask my Republican colleagues, don't kick the can down the road again. Don't give us all these budget gimmicks again. This is a real solution to the problem. Join us. Make this a bipartisan effort today, and let's pass this comprehensive reform.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Waxman. The bill we are debating today includes the CLASS Act, a bill I sponsored, along with Representative Dingell, which would encourage individuals to plan ahead for future long-term care needs. But there are other things we can do to help increase the availability of home and community-based services. The Empowered at Home Act, H.R. 2688, which I sponsored with Representative DeGette, helps encourage States to improve and increase access to home and community-based services under their Medicaid programs. While we were not able to include these other provisions from the Empowered at Home Act in H.R. 3962, I hope that we can consider their inclusion in the final health reform bill that emerges from the conference with our Senate colleagues.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my chairman, Mr. Waxman, for all his hard work on this bill. For far too long, our Nation has endured a health care system that is chaotic, costly, and crippling American families. In casting our votes today, each of us must make a simple choice: Do we want to maintain the broken system we currently have or do we want to make it better? And you should ask yourself, first, are you in favor of allowing health care premiums for American families to continue to spiral out of control, forcing them to delay care or drop coverage altogether, or are you in favor of providing every American with access to affordable and quality health insurance? Second, are you in favor of more American families falling into bankruptcy under the weight of medical bills, or are you in favor of providing every American with the security of knowing that they won't go broke if they get sick? Third, are you in favor of more American businesses delaying investments, closing their doors or laying off workers because of increasing health care costs, or are you in favor of making it more affordable for those businesses to provide health care coverage for their workers? And finally, are you in favor of allowing health insurance companies to be able to discriminate against people because they are sick, women, or older, or are you in favor of putting an end to this explicit and immoral form of discrimination that insurance companies get away with today? Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to vote for this bill, but there is really only one reason to vote against it, and that is to maintain the broken health care system we currently have. If you want to change the system, vote ``yes''; vote for affordable and quality health care for every American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Ohio who is here almost every night, it seems, talking about how important this health reform legislation is and explaining it very well, I must say, in commonsense terms. Your comments made me think about, actually, one of our Republican colleagues in the Rules Committee much earlier today--I was there for 6 hours--who basically talked about this bill in ideological terms and referred to it as socialism or a government takeover of health care. I explained in the Rules Committee, and I would like to explain now, how untrue that really is. Basically, we're just building on the basic system and using a lot of the framework, if you will, that exists now in both the private and the public sectors. What I point out is that for people who get their health insurance through their employer, private health insurance, they keep it, and the majority of Americans will continue to get their health insurance through their employer. Nobody's changing anything in terms of the process for that. A lot of other Americans, if they're seniors or disabled, get their insurance through Medicare, which is a government program, and then those who are below a certain income get their health insurance through Medicaid, which is another government program. And I could mention other government health programs. The Indian Health Service, the Veterans program, whatever. What's new here, really, is that for those Americans who have no health insurance because they can't access it, it's not affordable or they have all these discriminatory practices based on their preexisting health conditions or their gender or whatever, now we are establishing a health exchange. It is just basically an opportunity for to you go to your computer or to some office where the government will entertain, if you will, private health insurance companies to come in and say, Look, if you offer a certain benefit package that includes what we think should be included and you're willing to offer it through this exchange, you can. The government will make this exchange available, and people can buy health insurance through the exchange. They would have a basic benefit package where they can pay for other things that are not in the package, you know, dental care or whatever. But the advantage is now that this acts as a very large group plan. The reason that employers, you know, oftentimes are able to offer insurance is because they buy it through a large group plan that brings costs down, but for individuals or small businesses that try to buy health insurance privately right now, it's hard because if you buy it individually or you have a very small group of employees, it becomes much more expensive because insurance becomes cheaper the larger the pool is. So if the government is now offering this exchange where all these private insurers come in and offer insurance, it's essentially like a group plan, and the cost comes down considerably because it acts that way. Now within this health exchange, we're also going to offer a public option, which you can compare to Medicare or Medicaid if you'd like, and that's going to compete with these private insurance companies. So in addition to costs coming down in this exchange because it's like a group plan, costs also come down because there is now not competition between a public option, like Medicare, and all these private insurance companies. But, again, there is no ideology here that the public option is like Medicare and Medicaid. The private insurers are the same private insurers that offer insurance now but, because it's a large group plan, the costs come down. So there is no radical change here in the way we're doing business. We're not taking over health insurance. We're offering a public and private option. Now the third way that the costs come down is if you're below a certain income and you buy your insurance in this exchange, we offer you a major subsidy, and that can be 80 percent of the cost of your premiums if you're maybe making about $25,000 or $30,000 a year or maybe only 10 percent if you are making, say, $80,000 a year. So we're bringing costs down using innovative methods but methods that don't really take away from the private sector. And for anybody to say this is a government takeover, this is socialism, this is radical--you know, I don't know what you want to call it, it's just not true. This is just a different way of doing things that I believe works and that I think collectively will cover everyone and make it affordable so that you don't have to worry that if you lose your insurance, you don't have a place to go. Within this context, we're eliminating all the discriminatory practices so that insurance companies can't charge more because of a preexisting health condition or because you are a woman versus a man. They can't say that in the course of a year they'll only pay out a certain amount of money or in the course of your lifetime they'll only pay a certain amount of money. They can't drop you because you get sick. All of these discriminatory practices are very difficult and make it difficult for a lot of my constituents, I know, to find insurance. Those practices will all go away. I yield back to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank all of you for what you have been contributing to this debate. I was on C-SPAN this morning where they ask you questions. These are questions that I get from some of my constituents who initially at least were opposed to the bill. One question is from people who say, Well, why should I help contribute through subsidies, for example, to help pay for health insurance for people who don't have insurance? And another, I am young. I am healthy. This guy got on and said, Why should I have to have insurance at all if I don't want it? The bottom line is, right now, a significant portion of your premium, whether you get it through your employer or you get it by buying it on the individual market, as well as a significant portion of Medicare and Medicaid, is paying for people that have no insurance. So when that person who has no insurance goes to the emergency room and they rack up a bill of $10,000 or $20,000, you end up paying for it if you have insurance. It could be 2 or $3,000 a year of your premium is actually paying for that uncompensated care. The bottom line is, if everyone has insurance, even if you are subsidizing it in some way through your tax dollars, that brings your cost down because now that person, instead of going to the emergency room, they go to a doctor on a regular basis. They don't get sick and run up the costs of having to be hospitalized or put into a nursing home, and so the system saves money and you save money. The next thing, what about the guy who was on C-SPAN this morning: I am 25 years old. I don't want to buy health insurance. Why should I buy it? I don't need it. I can probably stay around for another 10 years until I have any serious problem. Again, it is the same thing that I mentioned before. The only way that insurance becomes cheaper is if more and more people are included in the insurance pool. So if you have this health exchange and you want to make insurance under this health exchange affordable, you have to have all of the people in it. Then you have the healthy and the young people, the older and the sick people, and you have a larger pool that essentially brings costs down because everyone is in it. I think it is important to dispel some of these arguments about why should I help the other guy or why should I have to have insurance. The only way this works to bring costs down is if everyone is covered and everyone has access to a doctor on a regular basis and everyone pays into the system. Either their employer pays or they buy it through the health exchange. That is the beauty part of this. Everyone gets covered and everyone contributes and the cost goes down and we emphasize prevention, not having people get sick and not having to go to the hospital because they don't have enough preventive care. We could go on and talk about the idea of prevention and wellness, which is an important part of this system, but I yield back.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I will just say, I don't want to call it a jobs bill because that's not the major focus of it, but it essentially is. This is an economic issue. We are creating jobs, and we are certainly making it a lot easier for businesses to function because they don't have all these additional costs that are associated with more expensive health insurance. So this bill actually addresses a lot of economic problems in a significant way. I would characterize it as a jobs bill, and in some ways as an economic recovery package as well. And, again, I yield back. Thank you.

Mr. PALLONE. The major reason why the AMA, which is the major doctors association of this country, I believe supports the bill is two reasons: first of all, right now under Medicare the reimbursement rate for physicians as well as hospitals is rather low; it doesn't pay for the actual cost of their delivery services under Medicare. So we have a major increase in here for provider payments, in other words, both hospitals and physicians. Part of the problem under Medicare is, I know in New Jersey it's not hard yet, but it's starting to get more difficult to find a doctor who will actually take Medicare. If you're on Medicaid, it's almost impossible because the reimbursement rate under Medicaid is about 30 percent of actual cost in New Jersey, and we increase that rate as well. With regard to hospitals, by eliminating the uncompensated care, because now everybody is covered, they are getting more money for Medicare, more for Medicaid, and we have eliminated the people that don't have any insurance, which basically, you know, they have to sort of eat that, it goes into their balance sheet. So we're going to make it a lot easier for hospitals to stay open. I've had two close in my district in the last 10 years because they were too dependent on Medicare and Medicaid, and they had too many people who didn't have health insurance. I yield back.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could ask the gentlewoman to yield on that.