Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with several of my colleagues this evening in celebrating the 188th anniversary of Greek Independence from the Ottoman Empire. Tonight is also a celebration of a society that represents, in a historical sense, the origins of what we call Western culture, and, in a contemporary sense, one of the staunchest defenders of Western society and values. In celebrating this anniversary, I am reminded of comments made nearly two centuries ago, by Massachusetts Congressman Daniel Webster. Congressman Webster spoke of the noble fight that would end 400 years of rule by the Ottoman Empire. Webster stated, `These [Greek] people, a people of intelligence, ingenuity, refinement, spirit, and enterprise, have been for centuries under the atrocious and unparalleled Tartarian barbarism that ever oppressed the human race.' The world has greatly benefited from Greek civilization and owes to them the values of democracy that we hold dear. In the years since Greek Independence, Americans and Greeks have grown ever closer, bound by ties of strategic and military alliance, common values of democracy, individual freedom, human rights and close personal friendship. Mr. Speaker, while we celebrate Greek Independence this evening, it's also important we recognize that Greeks continue to battle oppression from present day Turkey in Cyprus and that Greeks living in Turkey today continue to face discrimination. Just as Greece gained its independence 188 years ago this month, it is now important that our nation work with the United Nations and with the government of Cyprus to once again unify the island and protect the rights of Greeks everywhere. Over the past few years, I have become deeply concerned that our government's actions and policies towards Cyprus will make it more difficult to reunify a nation that has been broken apart for more than three decades. I was disappointed that the previous administration's U.S. Department of State opened its fly zone with the occupied part of Cyprus. I was also concerned that the State Department resumed trade with the occupied north through ports that were declared closed after the invasion in 1974. This action ignored Cyprus' domestic law, as well as international law that prohibits entering Cyprus through an illegal port in the north. Mr. Speaker, we now have a new Administration and a new Secretary of State. I am encouraged that we can take tangible steps to solve the problems in Cyprus through reunifying the Country. I will continue to encourage Secretary Clinton to take a historic look at the Cyprus problem over the past 34 years. It's important to look at this problem through the perspective of three decades of illegal actions on the Turkish side. As we celebrate Greek Independence and the cultural gifts that the Greek community has given to the world, I remain deeply dismayed by Turkey's continued discrimination against Greeks today in Turkey. I am glad that Secretary Clinton, on her recent visit to Turkey, discussed the issues of Ankara's refusal to recognize the Ecumenical status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch. The United States cannot let Turkey continue these abuses of religious freedoms. The Department of State's 2008 Human Rights Report on Turkey lists a litany of abuses including systematic dismantling of property rights, limited education opportunities, and vandalism of religious properties of Greeks living in Turkey. This report shows that minorities are treated like second-class citizens. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the United States can reverse its prior path. We must work with the international community to ensure that one day soon, like Greece, the island of Cyprus will be unified and free. We must work to make sure that Greeks do not face discrimination in Turkey. Tonight, I applaud the determination Greek's showed 188 years ago to overcome the Ottoman Empire, and restore democracy in the place of its birth.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Christopher Trucillo, Chief of Department of the Port Authority Police of New York & New Jersey. Chief Trucillo began his law enforcement career in 1978 as a municipal police officer in Harrison, New Jersey. He continued his career of public service by later joining the Port Authority Police Department in 1986. As an officer for the Port Authority, Chief Trucillo worked different operational, administrative, and investigative functions. On September 11, 2001 while assigned as the Commanding Officer of the Internal Affairs Bureau, Chief Trucillo responded to the World Trade Center disaster by mobilizing the members of his staff and accounting for all Port Authority Police personnel who responded. Under his leadership an irreplaceable connection was created between the families of those who were lost in the tragic events of 9/ 11 and the police department. Chief Trucillo was named the ``2004 Boss of the Year'' by the New York State Shields for ``outstanding leadership and commitment to law enforcement.'' He was also honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Police Defense Foundation. On January 6, 2009, he retired after thirty years of public service and dedication as a police officer. His years of valuable service and commitment are greatly appreciated and will certainly be remembered. I would also like to enter into the Record this poem that was given to me about Chief Trucillo and his service as it is a fitting tribute to a dedicated public servant. The poem was written by Albert Caswell, a friend of Chief Trucillo. True True . . . To Be True! In Life, and In Death . . . and In All You Do . . . Jersey's Best . . . This, and no less . . . All In That Moment of Truth . . . When death lies so close . . . right before you as the most . . . A Father, A Husband . . . A Top Cop . . . A Leader of Heroes, at the top . . . Straight, as an arrow . . . With a heart of girth . . . Which, could not be stopped . . . Kind and caring . . . He's at the Top . . . He's a Top Cop . . . As on this night, for him . . . all of our tears are sharing . . . Sharing, knowing . . . such men so glowing . . . are but few and far between . . . Just Everything! Who Are True! As he touches all . . . A Man, who in our hearts stand's so very tall . . . For All of his Men and Women in Blue . . . As his heart goes out to them . . . so calls . . . All out there on That Thin Blue Line . . . Quiet Heroes, living and reacting with death . . . all in micro seconds in time . . . Giving all, until none lies left . . . For What is Real, For What Is Really True . . . For on this night, who will they save? Who will they bless? As a cop lies dying . . . as their precious lives, they will give no less! Being True! As have all of those families who have lived with death . . . All for them, over the years . . . so many sleepless nights, and the tears he's shed . . . For all those who have died . . . Consoling, all those husbands and wives . . . Looking, into their children's eyes . . . Being True, to all those lives . . . for them he cries . . . Working his way up . . . A Cop's Cop . . . Walking out that door . . . His family, not knowing for sure . . . if they'd ever see him any more . . . For his job, Chris must be True! In our lives, and in our times . . . in all we do . . . The Greatest of all things . . . that a heart can be! Is True! Yes Chris . . . that's you . . . True! True!

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget cuts taxes for 95 percent of America's workers and their families. It cuts spending, nondefense discretionary, over 10 years to its lowest level as a percentage of the economy in nearly half a century. The President's budget also cuts the deficit in half over 4 years. It grows nothing but jobs. And creating American jobs means making quality health care affordable. It means powering our economy with clean American energy. And it means modernizing our education system. Mr. Speaker, we have had 8 years of slow growth and actually a loss of jobs under President Bush, under the previous administration. The failure to reform and invest produced those 8 years of slow growth and loss of jobs. We need to turn that around, and that's what President Obama's budget will do.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I think the other difference is that we are trying to make this bipartisan. We are trying to have it come from the House and the Senate. In other words, we are not actually getting something from the Obama administration and saying, this is what we want you to do, this is what we want you to pay us. We will give you some principles, but we want this thrashed out in the House, in the Senate, with Democrats and with Republicans, going through the committees and all that. And I did want to mention, because I am not sure if I did, that we are really determined to do this this year. I mean, the timetable essentially would be that sometime between now and the August recess that we would actually pass bills that would come to the floor of the House and come to the floor of the Senate, and then in September, October, in the fall we would try to work out the differences between the House and the Senate and send something to the President by the end of the year. I know it sounds ambitious, but I am optimistic. I really think, when I talk to Members, we had a hearing today and our ranking member, the Republican, Mr. Barton from Texas, said: I want you to know that I want this done, and I am going to participate in this and the Republicans are going to participate in this. So the atmosphere is very good in terms of trying to work out something that can pass.

Mr. PALLONE. You're absolutely right. I'm not suggesting that under the rubric of this reform this year that we are going to be able to address all these problems. But it always drives me crazy that more and more, and I don't know what the percentage is, but more and more of our health care professionals are trained overseas, either Americans that go overseas to medical school, or people that we bring here as immigrants, either nurses or doctors, because we are not graduating enough doctors or nurses here in the United States. I don't think that that trend can continue forever. I give you an example. In my State of New Jersey, we have a University of Medicine in Dentistry that basically has three divisions: Newark, New Brunswick, and down in south Jersey in Stratford. I think total they graduate--I may be off a little--maybe 700, 800 physicians every year in the State of New Jersey. We have what, 8 million people, and we are graduating in our university system only 700 or 800 physicians per year? Now, sure, a lot of New Jersey physicians go elsewhere for their education. But how can you justify that with a population of 8 million people? I just find more and more that we are relying on doctors and nurses that are trained overseas, and maybe it's a way for us to cut costs because we don't have to pay for their education or training, and the other countries do it. Somehow it seems to me that that has got to be reversed. And maybe it's going to cost more money, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Mr. PALLONE. You make such a good opinion. And, again, we are always talking about the budget. So much of the discussion here is about the spending in the economic recovery package or the spending in the budget. The fact of the matter is that the economic recovery package had a significant amount of money for medical research at NIH and at other institutions, and the President's budget also significantly increases funding for medical research. And I remember that, actually-- and I am not trying to be that partisan tonight. But some of the Republicans did actually criticize the economic recovery package because it had that medical research money in it, because they said, well, how is that a stimulus? The fact of the matter is, it is a tremendous stimulus; because when you give money to medical research, it is always matched either by the university or by private sources of funding, pharmaceuticals, whatever. And if you look at what it generates, it generates a lot more. For every one job that is generated through the public money, there are two or three or more that are generated through the private money, and it is actually a tremendous stimulus. So it makes sense to include it in an economic recovery package. The fact of the matter is that in the beginning of President Bush's administration, he actually did increase funding significantly for NIH and medical research, but then gradually lessened and lessened it to the point where it was an actual cut. And I got particularly annoyed. I probably shouldn't even mention it, but I am going to, because I heard on one of the talk shows that they were picking out pieces of the research in the economic recovery package and criticizing it. Like, I think there was money for research on venereal disease and somebody was saying on one of the talk shows, why are we spending money on that? There is an epidemic in some of these venereal diseases and they have become resistant to a lot of the drugs and things that have been traditionally used. So why not spend money on research? You can pick these things apart, but the bottom line is that if you have problems and you are trying to address the diseases, you have got to spend some money on research. And the few Federal dollars capture private and other money and actually do a lot towards not only finding a cure but creating jobs.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, you raised, again, two very good issues that I would like to briefly comment on. When I was talking before about the first part of this, which is to upgrade or make more efficient existing government programs like Medicare, SCHIP, Medicaid, you made me think of two aspects of that. One of them was with SCHIP, when we passed that bill that the President signed just a few weeks ago. Not only did it upgrade, if you will, the children's health initiative by expanding the coverage to maybe another 4 or 5 million kids that were eligible under the SCHIP program, but we just didn't have the money with the States to pay for them. But it also provided guaranteed dental coverage for the first time. In other words, before that bill was passed under the old SCHIP program, States had the option of covering dental care, but it wasn't required. Now it is. And that is very important, because I remember going around to a lot of community health centers that just did not have dental coverage. And they would tell me that the biggest problem they had was providing dental coverage and getting dentists and how it affected kids. We had the one instance with a young person in Maryland that actually died because his teeth weren't properly treated.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate you coming down and talking about this, but you made very good points that I just wanted to follow up on briefly. First of all, I always stress that this is an economic issue, and that's why it's important to do it now. And it does relate to our recovery, if you will, from the recession, and coming back with a strengthened economy. You mentioned that, because you said that, you know, it has to do with our ability to compete with other countries. You know, you remember at one time, I don't know if it was a year or two ago when some of auto companies--they were in better shape then than they are now--but all three, Ford, GM and Chrysler came down here a couple of years ago and said that we need health care reform, because the bottom line is it's hard for us to compete with foreign car manufacturers when we have most of the burden, or all of the burden, of health care costs on us, whereas that's not true if a car is made in Canada or if it's made in France or Italy or some other country where the government, you know, takes on the full responsibility--not that we are suggesting that here--but takes on the full responsibilities of those costs. I remember something like $2,000 of every car that was produced in the country was reflected somehow in paying health care costs. So it is an economic issue. The other thing that you pointed out is that even if you have health insurance, even if you have good health insurance, you are a big part of this debate. As the cost of health insurance continues to escalate, and health care costs in general continue to escalate way above inflation for everything else, it just becomes unaffordable ultimately for almost everyone. What they end up having is if they have a policy, there is a cutback in what's covered, or they have a higher copay, or the premium goes up, so that overall they are impacted. I could just use a couple of stories, if I could, because I tend to be a little wonky sometimes and not tell the stories, but I will give you two stories. One is one of my employees who works for me back in New Jersey in my congressional office. He is part of the Federal employee program just like you and I. He, on two occasions, could not find a primary doctor, a primary care physician, and ended up going to the emergency room for matters that were not of emergency room nature like a strep throat or something like that, which could have been handled by a visit to just a general practitioner. Well, if someone who essentially has, you know, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cadillac plan in this case, can't see a general practitioner, who can? I mean, you wonder. Then the other example, I remember going a couple of years ago to a union organizing effort--well, actually, it wasn't a union organizing effort, the employees were members of the union, the service employees, I think, at a nursing home in my district. But they didn't have any health care coverage. In other words, the employer didn't provide that option, or, if he did, it was so prohibitive they couldn't afford it on their salary. So that was the irony here of people who spend their day and their job taking care of the health care needs of other people, but don't get health insurance themselves. Now, I wasn't there, you know, to condemn the employer. I mean, I do think that he should have provided coverage. But, you know, the problem is for a lot of the employers now, it's just becoming so prohibitive. So there are so many stories like this, and I appreciate you bringing them up.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor this evening to talk about a topic that's very much on the minds of my constituents and many Americans, and that's health care reform. I think that many of us know that President Obama has paid a lot of attention to this. It was a major focus during the campaign. And since he's become President, he's already addressed health care reform in some significant ways, both in the SCHIP, or Children's Health Care expansion legislation, that was passed in the House and the Senate and signed by the President about a month ago, as well as in the economic recovery package, which has several initiatives related to health care reform. I would like to talk a little bit about those tonight, but I'd also like to talk about where we go from here. The President had a health care summit about 2 weeks ago where he talked about health care reform and outlined what might be done in this Congress. He said he wanted to get the health care reform bill passed and on his desk this year if at all possible. And he's also in his budget outlined some ways of paying for it through cost efficiencies and other means. So this is an issue that's very much on the mind of the President and certainly on the mind of this Congress, and, also, we have begun to move in the committees of jurisdiction. I happen to chair the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We have already had 2 weeks of hearings on health care reform, and we are going to continue doing this for the next few weeks and then begin the process of drafting legislation. Now, I wanted to stress that this is an economic issue because some, not many, but some have said, well, the economy is in bad shape, Congress is so focused on trying to revive the economy, whether it involves the banks or it involves unemployment or involves the economic recovery package in an effort to try to stimulate the economy. Why are we talking about health care reform right now? Can't we delay? And the President and those who attended the health summit that President Obama held a couple of weeks ago, both Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as the business community and the health care providers, the doctors, the hospitals, but, interestingly enough, even some of the people who have opposed significant health care reform in the past were all united in saying that this is the time to do it, that we shouldn't wait. And the reason they say that it's important to do it now even with the recession is because increasingly the health care system gobbles up, if you will, a larger and larger part of our gross national product. It goes up maybe 1 or 2 percent every so many years in terms of the amount of our gross national product that is dedicated to health care. And as those costs escalate, and they escalate exponentially sometimes, the health care inflation, if you will, increasingly makes the system unsustainable and, as a result, has a direct impact on our economy and drags down the economy in many ways. So health care reform is an economic issue. It needs to be done now. And a big factor in the reform is how can we slow the growth, keep down the inflation, take some of the savings that would be generated from cost efficiencies and use it to provide health insurance for everyone? Because the goal, obviously, is to provide health insurance for every American. Now, in the context of this, the other important aspect that I think came out of the President's health care summit and that he continues to stress is the fact that we want to make these changes in the context of the existing system. We're not looking for radical changes in the way that we deliver health care or the way that people are covered by health insurance. We're not looking towards, for example, the Canadian model or the Western European models where they have a single payer system or perhaps where the government even runs a significant part of the system. What we want to do is build on what we have, and that really encompasses three areas, three general areas. One is the existing public health programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP for children, and there are many others like the Indian health care system or the system for the military. We want to make those betterment. We want to make those more efficient. We want to make sure that they have adequate coverage and that they don't result in too much money having been spent out of pocket by the average American. So that's the first part of this reform. What can be done to improve those existing government programs like Medicare? The second aspect of this is what can we do to improve employer- sponsored health insurance? Most Americans still get their health insurance through their employer. The number has actually decreased significantly in the last 10 or 20 years as a percentage of Americans who get their health insurance through their employer, but it's still pretty big. It's still certainly a majority of the people who do receive health insurance through their employer. Well, the second part of our health care reform is to make sure that that system is shored up, in other words, so that employers continue to provide coverage for their employees, perhaps even get more employers to do that by giving them some kind of a tax break or a subsidy or looking at other ways of encouraging them to cover their employees. And then the third aspect of this reform, if you lack at it in sort of a general overview, is to deal with those people that can't get insurance either through an existing government program like Medicare because they're not old enough or they're not kids or they are not poor enough for Medicaid; they can't get insurance through their employer because the employer doesn't provide it at all or because it's too prohibitive in terms of how much they have to contribute; so they try to get health insurance through the individual market, just going out on their own and finding an insurance plan individually through an insurance policy that might cover them, but when they do that, the cost is so overwhelming, they simply can't afford it. So for those individuals, what we have talked about, and, again, this is in discussion and we'd like to get bipartisan support; so I'm just talking about it in general terms, is that we have the government basically work with private health insurance companies to either negotiate a group policy in terms of lower premiums and having a standard policy that provides good coverage and then the government gives those options to individuals who haven't been able to get health insurance through the individual market. So they now become part of a larger group plan that has some government regulation to bring costs down and significantly brings cost down, because now you are part of a group policy rather than going out in the individual marketplace. We do that now with Federal employees. Some States, like Massachusetts, have actually implemented this type of system, they call it a health marketplace because you can basically go to the State and buy your insurance through the State government through these private insurance companies. That's the broad outline of the kind of reform that we are looking at, but there are so many other aspects of it, many of which I would like to discuss further tonight, but I see that I am joined by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) who also happens to be a physician. And if I could say, I didn't tell him I was going to say this, but I will say it that an important part of this health care reform is how to address the concerns of providers, health care professionals. Whether they are physicians, whether they are nurses, whether they are home health care aids, one of the biggest concerns we have right now is that we face a crisis with health care professionals. For example, with doctors, we are having a hard time getting doctors to go into primary care. A lot of times my constituents will complain that even if they have good health insurance they can't find a primary care doctor, they even go to an emergency room sometimes because they can't find one. We know we have a nursing shortage. So an important part of this, as the gentleman knows, is health care professionals. I don't know if that's what you want to discuss, but I couldn't help it, because I know that you are a physician. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. PALLONE. I wanted to mention one last thing, if I could, because I don't know how much time we have left. But when you were talking about doctors, when we had the health care summit with the President a couple weeks ago, there were many things that struck me, but one thing that struck me was there were so many groups there represented demanding health care reform now that 15 years ago, whenever it was that President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton came up with their health care initiative, and of course it failed. But many of the groups that opposed the initiative then were present at the summit saying we have to do something. And I don't know that the doctors were in that category, but all the doctor groups were represented at the summit and they were all saying we have got to do this, we have got to do this now. The trade group from the health insurance companies, which opposed and actually ran the ads against the Clinton plan 15 years ago were there saying, we are here because we want to participate and we need health care reform. The small business representatives, the National Federation of Independent Businesses were there and said the same thing: We were against the Clinton reform 15 years ago. We are for what you are saying now, because we know that something has to be done.

Mr. PALLONE. I think I am going to end with that, because I like that ending of our hour this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing that I really want to stress, and I haven't tonight, and you did touch upon it also, is new ways of doing things. I mean one of the things that President Obama did in this economic recovery package is that he actually put in pots of money that would be used to try to change the way we do things with health care. So there's a pot of money for prevention programs, there's a pot of money for wellness programs. There are going to be pilot programs through grants for what we call comparative effectiveness, where you would actually look at certain operations or certain procedures or the use of certain drugs to determine whether they are even effective from an economic point of view. It may cost you more, but are you really getting anything for your money. In addition to that, there's a major initiative--I think it's $20 billion--for health information technology to upgrade doctors' and hospital offices so that records and other things are done electronically. It's not just a question of covering everyone or reducing costs, but it's a question of doing things differently, because if a person can go to a general practitioner on a regular basis and get a checkup, then it's a preventive measure that prevents them being hospitalized and costing more money to the government or to the system later. I mean these really haven't been played out much in this economic recovery package. Most of the talk has been about infrastructure and transportation and all that. There are major changes envisioned in the way we look at health care that the President has taken the leadership on, and the Congress, too, since we passed this bill.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what you're saying. I think that in fact when we had the health care summit, in maybe a little different context President Obama actually said, Look, we do need additional money if we're going to have health care reform and provide people quality health care and cover everyone, because a lot of that is going to have to be upfront. In other words, if you talk about new ways of doing things, whether it's health information technology or preventive care, whatever, a lot of times you do need money upfront to pay for some of it. But then in the long run you do actually save money. So I agree with you that the better quality care is ultimately more important. But it can over the long-term save money. I use the example with one of my community health centers where I went. An incredible part of the building was devoted to keeping the medical records. I can't say exactly whether it was a third of the building or 25 percent of the building. But I looked at where they stored all these handwritten or typed records because they didn't have them on a computer, and I said, Gee, if we could just get--I don't know how much it will cost so I'll pick a number--$100,000 dollars to put all these records into the computer, you'd now have all this space available that you're not really utilizing right now. So maybe upfront it's going to cost you $100,000, but in the long run you're saving money. I think you can use the primary care doctors. I use the example of my staff person who goes to the emergency room because he can't get a primary care physician. Primary care physicians say we don't have enough of a reimbursement rate. If you gave us a higher reimbursement rate under Medicare, there would be more primary care physicians. I don't know if that is necessarily true, but assuming it's true, it is going to cost you more money upfront. But, in the long run, if the person goes to the doctor when they have strep throat rather than going to the emergency room, do you save money. But it's oftentimes hard to actually put a dollar figure on how prevention saves you money.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate your input on all this. I know you said you haven't practiced for a while, but there is no question that having a physician who has had experience in a lot of this makes a difference in terms of relating what we have to do.

Mr. PALLONE. It wasn't true when we first started, but it is now.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Corporal Brian M. Connelly, who was killed in Iraq on February 26 when his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb. Corporal Connelly was a combat engineer and was in the vehicle's gunning position at the time of the attack. He lived in Union Beach, New Jersey, where he had recently married Kara Connelly. His job in Iraq as an engineer involved protecting the way for other soldiers. He lost his life essentially helping his comrades in arms. His family and friends remember him as a man who had a great sense of humor and loved fishing and boating and being out on the water. I attended the memorial service of Corporal Connelly in Keyport this past weekend to pay my respects to the corporal and his family and friends. Too often we are tragically reminded of the human costs this war has placed on our country's citizens. His family kept a ``Bring Our Troops Home'' banner above their home, reinforcing their hopes that Brian would return home safely as soon as possible. Corporal Connelly was an American hero. He was my constituent, and I am proud to pay tribute to him in our Capitol today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, yesterday President Obama had a health care summit which I attended, and I must say it was really a great bipartisan opportunity. Essentially on both sides of the aisle Members said that we need health care reform and that we need it now. There may be disagreement about how to achieve that, but everyone agrees this is not something that can be delayed, but needs to be addressed now. I would also mention there were many people from the business community there, many of those who you might think would not necessarily be interested in reform on this subject. There were insurance companies. There were representatives from NFIB and some of the other business groups. So there is no question in my mind that there is consensus about the need for health care reform. One of the ways that was stressed to achieve that was through cost efficiency. There is actually too much money being spent in many ways in not an efficient way; wellness, prevention, comparative effectiveness, new ways of doing things like health information technology to be more effective and utilizing cost measures or efficiencies to bring costs down, and with that money, as well as a new source of revenue, to be able to expand health care so that every American has health insurance.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee with me, to talk about the need for health care reform and the health summit that President Obama's calling today. It is a bipartisan summit. It is an effort to reach out to both parties to come up with solutions for health care reform. And as Mr. Murphy said, one of the biggest concerns is cost containment. We know that there's a lot of money in the system that we think can be saved and used to make health care available to more people. Basically, if you listen to President Obama, he said we need to expand coverage. We want to have universal coverage. Everyone should have health insurance. But one way of achieving that and paying for it is to deal with the costs, because we know that they're out of hand. And increasingly, employers can't afford health insurance because of the costs. Individuals that go out and try to buy health insurance in the individual market find it hard to afford the cost. And also, we have existing government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP that it's hard for them to continue to function because of the costs of those programs. We need reform now on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Laurel Brennan, Secretary-Treasurer of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO and the Women in Leadership Development (WILD) program. As a devoted mentor, Ms. Brennan has been generous with her time in helping hundreds of women. Through her tireless efforts to help women advance in their professional endeavors, many have reached new heights in the labor movement and other fields. In 1997, Ms. Brennan became the first woman to hold the position of Secretary-Treasurer of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO. Since this accomplishment she has implemented and developed the WILD program. Every year, under the leadership of Ms. Brennan, the New Jersey State AFL-CIO sponsors the WILD Conference in New Brunswick, NJ. The conference brings key players together to address a wide array of questions of how unions help women and how women help unions. The conference is designed to ensure that union women will have the opportunity to be educated, develop leadership skills and build diversity within labor movements. Ms. Brennan's WILD program began in March 2004 as a way to recognize International Women's Day. During the first year she brought together 75 women to spend the day at the Rutgers Labor Education Center. Over the years, the number of women attending the conference expanded to reach over 250 people. The New Jersey State AFL-CIO has been a leading proponent for workers' rights in our community. Representing a robust one million workers in our great state, the New Jersey AFL-CIO has an impressive record of advocating on behalf of working families. The Women in Leadership Development conference is a unique entity of the AFL-CIO. As Ms. Brennan's brainchild, WILD empowers women in unions. For the first time in its six year history, WILD will be bringing ten union women from the United Kingdom to compare efforts globally. This unique program not only benefits my community, but provides an exceptional foundation for women all over the world to use in the advancement of their careers. Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in celebrating the work of Laurel Brennan and the WILD program. Her advocacy for women in the labor movement has a lasting impact on many New Jerseyans and others. I am confident that Ms. Brennan and the WILD women will continue to inspire and benefit many others for years to come.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I wanted to talk about health care reform and start off by mentioning that, in my opinion, in the last month or so since President Barack Obama has taken office, more has been done under his auspices in terms of health care reform than probably has been done in the last 10 years. I specifically would mention the SCHIP--children's health care expansion--and those health initiatives, those health care reform initiatives that are in the economic recovery package. They are significant for many reasons. First of all, if you look at the SCHIP, or the children's health care initiative, we have on the books or we had before this initiative for about 10 years a program that allowed working parents who did not receive health care on the job through their employers to be able to receive it through the State. These were people who were working but who were not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Yet, if they went out and tried to buy private insurance for their children and for themselves, they essentially were not able to because the private market is too expensive. And so about 12 years ago, Democrats and Republicans, on a bipartisan basis, got together and set up the SCHIP children's health initiative, the Federal Government giving the States money to cover these kids in certain categories, maybe 200 percent of poverty or, in some cases, even as high as 300 percent of poverty. It worked. About 7 million children who did not have health insurance were covered, and we decided as Democrats--and we tried to get some Republicans and actually did get some Republicans to support us--that we needed to expand it by another 4 or 5 million kids who were eligible for the program but were not receiving the benefits, either because the States didn't have the money or because they couldn't reach them through their outreach programs. So one of the first things that was done by this new Congress was to pass an SCHIP expansion bill. Actually, it had a two-thirds majority vote here in the House of Representatives--over 40 Republicans joined with Democrats--and President Obama signed the bill just a few weeks ago. We know it's going to work. We know it's going to do a lot to expand health insurance for kids who do not have it, and that makes sense because the bottom line is that if people have health insurance, then they go to a doctor more frequently. They get preventive care. They don't have to go in an emergency room. They don't get sicker, which ultimately causes the Federal Government and the State government more money. Let me talk about the economic recovery package. In the economic recovery package, there are a number of health care reform initiatives. First of all, there's money that goes back to the States, about $80- to $90 billion, to help them enroll people on Medicaid. Because of the recession, because more people now do not have a job and, therefore, lose their health insurance, the Medicaid rolls have expanded, but States can't afford to expand the Medicaid rolls and, in many cases, were already starting to limit who would be eligible for Medicaid. But now, the Federal Government is giving the States essentially about $80- to $90 billion to help them defray that cost so that anyone who's eligible for Medicaid would be able to receive it. In addition to that, if you were employed and you lost your job, we have a system now called COBRA, which is an acronym, where if you do lose your job, you can pay the full cost of the health insurance that your employer was providing you and continue to have your existing health insurance that you had on the job for another 18 months. But the problem is you have to pay out of pocket 100 percent, actually 102 percent because of the administrative costs, because your employer is not contributing anymore. So, with the economic recovery package, the Federal Government now will pay 65 percent of the cost of COBRA which makes it a lot more affordable for those who are eligible for COBRA. But beyond that, there are major reforms in the economic recovery package in health care, in many significant ways, not just the money. For example, there is a major initiative on preventive care. There's a major initiative on wellness, to basically teach people about staying healthy so they don't get sick and cost the system a lot of money. There's also $20 billion for health information technology, so that hospitals and doctors can upgrade their systems and, rather than using paper, have all their records done electronically. This saves the system money. What President Obama is trying to do in the economic recovery package is basically lay the groundwork, if you will, for doing health care differently. If the emphasis is on prevention, if the emphasis is on wellness, if the emphasis is on new technologies that bring costs down because you can do things more effectively, then not only do you have less mistakes and a more efficient system, but you have a system that ultimately costs less money.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Clean Ocean Action's 25th anniversary. Clean Ocean Action, led by Cindy Zipf, is a national and regional leader on the protection of our coastal environment. For twenty-five years Clean Ocean Action has fought against ocean dumping and the industrialization of our coast. They have also worked to improve programs and laws that protect public health at our beaches. Most importantly, Clean Ocean Action focuses on grassroots organizing to create awareness about coastal environmental issues. They have been outstanding at rallying coastal communities and like-minded organizations against the industrialization of our coast and the degradation of our beaches. We have come a long way in the last 25 years. When Clean Ocean Action started there were countless beach closures and medical waste on the New Jersey shore. However, with Clean Ocean Action's leadership we have been able to close eight ocean dumpsites and we now have powerful clean water laws on the books. Laws like the BEACH Act have ensured better monitoring of beach water, greater public awareness, and improved health. In these twenty-five years I have stood side-by-side with Clean Ocean Action. I have introduced the Clean Ocean Zone, a comprehensive set of policies that will preserve the New York/New Jersey Bight as a great place for residents and visitors to enjoy. I will continue to stand on the front lines with Clean Ocean Action to keep our beaches clean and to protect our coastal environment. Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring Clean Ocean Action and their leader Cindy Zipf for their environmental stewardship and their commitment to keeping our beaches clean, safe and healthy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, on Sunday, March 15, 2009, the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center will present the coveted Chaver Award for exemplary community service to Dr. Renee Gross and Mr. Stuart Feinblatt. This is a well deserved honor, and I am proud to join in paying tribute to Dr. Renee Gross and Mr. Stuart Feinblatt for their tireless service to their temple and community. Dr. Gross and Mr. Feinblatt are both irreplaceable assets to their community who have cared for and protected those in my district. Dr. Gross is a valued senior partner with the Obstetrical and Gynecological Group and has delivered an estimated 2,500 babies throughout her career. Mr. Feinblatt is a partner at the prestigious Sills Cummis & Gross law firm in Newark, New Jersey where he is the firm's exclusive litigator on healthcare and medical issues. Dr. Gross and Mr. Feinblatt have actively served the Highland Park Conservative Temple together for over twenty years. Mr. Feinblatt is completing his sixth year as a member of the Temple's Board of Trustees, while Dr. Gross is a member of the morning minyan and attends the Rabbi's weekly class. They have both been involved as Vice Chairs on the Livnot Campaign, which is working to rebuild parts of the temple damaged by a fire. Their timeless dedication to their Temple is admirable. Outside of the congregation, Dr. Gross and Mr. Feinblatt are active members of the community. Mr. Feinblatt is the former President of the Board of Trustees of the Solomon Schechter Day School of Raritan Valley. He is also on the Dean's Advisory Council for the Dean of the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences. Both Dr. Gross and Mr. Feinblatt are active in the Jewish Federation and are members of the Vanguard Committee, as well. Although these two individuals live busy lives, they have consistently dedicated time to strengthening their community. Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Dr. Renee Gross and Mr. Stuart Feinblatt for their distinguished service to their fellow citizens. Their accomplishments will continue to benefit and inspire my constituents.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when I listen to some of the comments from my colleagues on the Republican side, I am surprised by the remarks they make about tax increases. If you look at the economic recovery package, it actually has one of the biggest tax cuts in this Nation's history. For most people, unless they are at $200,000 or above for a couple, something like that, they will actually be seeing a tax decrease or a tax cut as a result of the economic recovery package. The President is being very honest about the budget. If you listened to him for the first time now, if you compare him to the previous administration, the budget is going to increase the actual cost of the Iraq war and the actual cost of Medicare reimbursements. A lot of those things were previously hidden. In addition to that, most importantly, he talked about the need for deficit reduction. Yes, in fact we are spending money as part of the economic recovery package. We are giving tax cuts, and that does increase the deficit. But over the long term, over the 4 years, the goal is to cut the deficit in half. It is a very responsible message that he gave last night; short-term efforts to achieve economic recovery, long-term efforts to reduce the deficit.