Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, first of all I do want to thank my colleagues from New York, particularly Joe Crowley, for this provision in this bill relating to Armenia and the railroad in the Caucasus region. I also want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney, she has always been outstanding on issues that impact Armenia and the Caucasus; as well as our full committee chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Frank from Massachusetts. I just want to stress how important this provision is with regard to Armenia and the Caucasus region. It has been the policy of this Congress, as Mr. Crowley said, for some time, to encourage interrogation of the Caucasus nations, that is, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, as well as Turkey. And the idea of building a railroad that would cut off Armenia, which has been suggested by Azerbaijan and Turkey, would be totally contrary to the policy that this Congress, both under Democrat and Republican leadership, has had for the last 20 years every time we have tried to encourage integration, even a customs union eventually between these Caucasus nations. And to cut off one of the countries in this significant way by building a railroad around Armenia that bypasses it is totally contrary to that policy. We should also understand that an existing railroad is there. I actually was in Gumry in Armenia and there is a railroad now that goes between Turkey through Armenia and then to Azerbaijan. So there is absolutely no reason to build a new railroad. All you have to do is open the borders, which are now blockaded by Turkey and Azerbaijan, and allow this railroad to be upgraded somewhat, at very minimal cost. You have to understand that in this region both the powers in Turkey, in the Karaz region of Turkey, as well as those within the Gumry region of Armenia, are in favor of opening the old railroad and ending the blockade. The mayors in these regions, the county officials, have worked together to try to bring these regions together. Unfortunately, in Ankara, the Turkish Government is opposed to it, and they have done everything they can to stop it, and now they propose this new railroad. This unfortunately happened already with the oil pipeline. The Caspian oil pipeline was supposed to go through Armenia, it is the shortest route, and it was bypassed. So now we have a situation where, because of the oil situation, Armenia is bypassed and we find more and more this effort to isolate Armenia. It is a mistake. As has been mentioned by my colleagues, if you don't bring countries together, and I use the European Union as an example, those countries in Europe fought each other for generations, but once you had a European Customs Union they worked together. Now they are a unified whole. If this policy continues of isolating Armenia, it will only lead to another war, because as Armenia becomes isolated and those countries around it become more and more antagonistic, the end result could possibly be another war. That is not in the interests of the United States. We have to fight this war against terrorism. We need all the Caucasus nations working together. Ultimately what I would like to see is a customs union similar to the European Union in these Caucasus nations. So I just want to thank everyone, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Frank, Mr. Crowley, for putting a stop to this policy of isolating Armenia, which is not good for Armenia, not good for the Caucasus nations, and ultimately not good for the United States. Let's continue the policy of cooperation in bringing these countries together for the common good.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5280, the Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2006, a bill that would authorize the FDA to restrict the distribution of dex to registered producers of drugs and devices in order to protect the public health. We know it is cold and flu season, and throughout our Nation pharmacies and convenience store shelves are stocked with over-the- counter medicines containing dex. Dex is an active ingredient in many over-the-counter OTC cough and cold medications. When used as directed, dex has proven to be an effective cough suppressant. Unfortunately, an alarming number of Americans, particularly teenagers, are abusing a variety of prescription over-the-counter OTC medications to get high, including those containing dex. Efforts to keep dex out of the hands of minors have proved difficult. Over-the-counter medicines containing dex are easy to find, easy to afford, and perfectly legal to possess. H.R. 5280 attempts to curb dex's misuse and abuse by restricting its access to registered producers of drugs and devices and providing the FDA with statutory tools to keep dex out of the hands of young people. This legislation is aimed at preventing drug dealers from purchasing dex wholesale and selling over the Internet and on the streets to young people seeking a cheap high. Mr. Speaker, this bill is merely one step. Parents and guardians must continue the often difficult task of talking with our young people about drug misuse and abuse. Even if your child does not abuse dex, odds suggest they know someone who does. And I am glad to know that H.R. 5280 has the support of key stakeholder groups, including the American Pharmacist Association, the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the Consumer Health Products Association, and the Association for Addiction Counselors. I want to acknowledge our colleagues, particularly Mr. Upton and Mr. Larsen, for their fine work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006. This bill mandates that a woman seeking an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy be given a written brochure stating that research indicates that a fetus at that stage of development will feel pain during an abortion. This bill also requires a doctor to offer the woman anesthesia for the fetus which she may either accept or decline. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this legislation is that the medical and scientific community has yet to reach a consensus with regard to the issue of when and if a fetus feels pain. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, along with physicians who are experts in fetal anesthesia and fetal surgery, know of no legitimate scientific data or information that supports these views. Despite this, Congress has decided to play politics with women's health. This legislation may put women at risk. There is no evidence to show the effects on a woman by providing anesthesia directly to a fetus during an abortion. Without proper medical studies, we have no way of knowing how such procedures will affect a woman's health at the time of the abortion or in the future. Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill will argue that it includes an assurance that doctors who disagree with materials contained within these mandated brochures may offer their own views to patients. But what good comes from a doctor handing their patient a brochure and then conveying opposition to what is inside it? Instead of helping patients, Congress is interfering with a doctor's best medical judgment as well as the doctor-patient relationship. Mr. Speaker, clearly written in this case by anti-choice advocates, these brochures are biased and define an abortion as ``the process of being killed.'' Normally I would support legislation which aims to offer women as much information as possible with respect to their medical decisions. Ensuring that patients have access to all of the important and relevant medical information should always be a priority for Congress, but this bill plays politics with those goals. Instead, it provides mandated, misleading information to women without proper scientific knowledge. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I think it is ill- advised. I think it sets a bad precedent for the type of information that is provided to patients. There is absolutely no reason why this should be mandated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this bill is on the Suspension Calendar, which is normally reserved for bills that are of an uncontroversial nature, and it is clear just from the statements that have already been made on our side of the aisle that this is a very controversial bill. There are a lot of feelings back and forth on the issue within the medical community, as has been explained by Mrs. Capps and Mr. Waxman. There is a huge controversy over whether there is a need for this information and whether or not the type of pain that is described actually exists. So I would contend that it really does not belong on the Suspension Calendar, and that is the main reason, I think, why I would urge Members to vote against the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, again, in response to the previous speaker, I think the point should be made that right now, under the current law, there's nothing to prevent a physician from advising a woman their opinion in the manner of pain that might be inflicted on the fetus. The problem is that legislation is imposing a mandate, a mandate that is based on evidence that simply is not scientifically proven. And that is why we have various medical organizations, most notably of course, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and these are the people that are experts on anesthesia. And they say again, I quote, ``that there is no legitimate scientific data or information that supports the view this legislation purports with regard to the pain of the fetus.'' And that is the problem here. This is a mandate, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a mistake to mandate that this be done when the science is not clear. And again, this is a bill on the Suspension Calendar. I would urge my colleagues to vote against it. We don't know what the true science is.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read the text of this brochure. As I have said before, the problem with this legislation is it is a mandate, a mandate that the woman receive this brochure. And then it mandates in the legislation what the brochure should consist of. And I won't read the whole text, but let me just read part of it. It says, ``There is a significant body of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after fertilization have the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence that at least by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain.'' And then it goes on to say, ``You may request that anesthesia or other pain-reducing drugs or drugs are administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child if you so desire.'' And then, ``In some cases, there may be some additional risk to you associated with administering such a drug.'' Now, you know, it is clear here that even the authors of this are not saying that this is definitive, only that there is a significant body of evidence that there may be pain experienced. And, it is also clear that the authors of the legislation understand that there may be some additional risk associated to the woman in administering such a drug. So again, this is, to think that you are going to mandate this in a brochure, when the scientific evidence of the impact on the fetus is not clear, and when there is the possibility, a real one, it is mentioned in here, that there may be additional risk to the woman, I think is just really the wrong thing to do to have this as a mandate that something has to be done. And again, we are putting it on the Suspension Calendar, which is supposedly for noncontroversial measures. And again, I would urge my colleagues, we should not be putting this on the Suspension Calendar. We should not be mandating something that is not clear and where there may actually be additional risk to the woman herself. I think it is simply a mistake. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Again, in response to the previous speaker, and I respect her opinion, but there is nothing under the current law that doesn't allow a woman to have the option of anesthesia in the manner in which the gentlewoman describes. The problem here is that we are mandating that they be given a brochure that provides information that is not scientifically proven. We are not in any way, neither would I suggest, that any woman not be able to opt for that kind of anesthesia. But the issue here is whether we should be mandating that they be given a brochure that is not at all clear, from a scientific point of view, as to whether or not that pain is going to be felt and what the impact might be on the woman herself. I just think that what the proponents of this bill are suggesting is a mandate for something that is unclear. And that is the wrong thing to do in this circumstance. I think it creates a lot of confusion on the part of women who are in that position, and it should simply be left up to the doctor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, within the first 100 hours of the new Democratic Congress, we will accomplish more than the Republican do- nothing Congress accomplished this entire year. While Republicans refuse to break their questionable cosy relationships with lobbyists, Democrats will pass an ethics reform bill that will once again make this the people's House, not the lobbyists' House. While Republicans refuse to expand economic opportunities to millions of Americans, Democrats will give minimum-wage workers their first raise in 9 years. While Republicans refuse to go after price gouging oil companies, Democrats will begin the process of making our Nation energy independent by repealing needless tax breaks for Big Oil, and instead putting that money towards crucial funding of biofuel research. While Republicans refused to help millions of seniors who fell into the prescription drug doughnut hole, Democrats will allow the Federal Government to negotiate lower drug prices so that the doughnut hole can be filled. These are all important initiatives that Democrats will pass within the first 100 hours of the next Congress.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when Democrats take over the House in January, we are going to hit the road running, moving forward on an agenda that every American should be able to embrace. Within the first 100 hours, Democrats pledge to bring legislation to the House floor that would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour to more than 6 million American workers. We will also give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate lower drug prices, something that the Republican drug law specifically prohibited. We will also repeal billions in tax breaks for big oil companies, companies that experienced record profits this summer while they were gouging the American consumer. Democrats also plan to help college students with skyrocketing college costs by cutting their student loan interest payments in half, something that could save future graduates about $5,000 over the lifetime of the loan. All of this, plus fully implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and we will do that all in the first 100 hours.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts for all his help in bringing this to the floor in such a timely fashion. Without his help, we certainly wouldn't be here today. And I also want to say that I look forward to when he is the chairman of the Financial Services Committee in the next congress. I introduced this bill with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) to allow the Edison Memorial Tower Corporation additional time to raise funds to match a Federal grant. The Edison Memorial Tower, in my district, is a 131-foot tower built in 1937 on the exact spot where Thomas Edison's original Menlo Park laboratory was located in New Jersey. And I think you know this was the place where the electric light bulb and so many inventions were made by Thomas Edison. The Tower was built to commemorate Edison's work and is connected to a museum displaying many of the inventor's creations. Unfortunately, the Tower has suffered more than $3 million worth of water damage. The Edison Memorial Tower Corporation, which oversees the Tower, was designated as the recipient of Federal funds under the Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin Act, which passed in 1998. That funding became available at the beginning of last year, but required a non-Federal match. After reading a document published by the Mint, the Tower Corporation originally thought they could use State funds to pay for the match. Unfortunately, they were informed recently by the U.S. Mint that they could only use funds raised from private sources. Once they realized this, the Tower Corporation approached me for help, since they were faced with the need to raise more than $300,000 by December 31 of this year, the statutory deadline. That is why I introduced this bill, which simply extends the deadline by 6 months to give them adequate time to raise private funds. The Board of the Tower Corporation has assured me, as well as Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, that they will be able to raise the necessary funds in 6 months and they would not request another extension. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Edison's contributions to our society are too numerous to count, but by developing the modern light bulb, he is one of America's most recognized thinkers and inventors. The Memorial Tower helps celebrate his achievements and salutes the spirit of innovation that he fostered. This bill is critical to making sure that the Memorial Tower can be repaired and serve not only as memorial to a great man but also as a symbol of America's potential for technological innovation and achievement. I want to again express my thanks to Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their willingness to move this bill, and for the leadership on both sides of the aisle for putting it on the suspension calendar. I also want to particularly thank Jamie Lizarraga, on the minority staff of the Financial Services Committee, for his diligence and very hard work to move this bill forward. Joe Pinder and Tom Duncan of Chairman Oxley's staff were also quite helpful, and of course, Eric Gordon of my own staff, here on the left. I want to thank them all. Mr. Speaker, this bill will go a long way towards ensuring that we can preserve an important landmark saluting a great American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, last week America went to the polls and sent Washington a message that they wanted a new direction. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Bush administration, it seems as though the voters' call for change has fallen upon deaf ears. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mike Leavitt, were ``strenuously opposed to legislation that would authorize the government to negotiate with drug companies to secure lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.'' This is not groundbreaking news. They have said all along that they oppose negotiated prices in the Medicare program. Still, given the outcome of last week's election, it is disappointing that this administration would not even take a moment to reconsider its misguided policies. Mr. Levitt went on to say, ``I don't believe I can do a better job than an efficient market.'' I agree that the secretary hasn't done such a good job so far, but he shouldn't get too down on himself, he is not entirely to blame. His Republican friends here in Congress have kept him from realizing his potential by legally prohibiting him from negotiating with drug makers. However, if a Democratic Congress passed a law granting him authority to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, I am certain we could achieve enormous savings in the Medicare program which could be passed on to America's elderly and disabled in the form of more generous coverage. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence to support this conclusion. Take, for instance, a study considered earlier this year by the consumer group FamiliesUSA. They compared prices under private prescription drug plans participating in Medicare part D to the prices available through the Department of Veterans Affairs' health system. Their research showed that the government could help lower costs substantially. From November 2005 to April 2006, FamiliesUSA found that virtually all of the part D plans raised their prices for the majority of the top 20 drugs in this study. The median price increase among part D plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors was 3.7 percent. Furthermore, for all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, VA prices in April were lower than the lowest prices charged by part D plans. The median price difference was 46 percent. In other words, Madam Speaker, for half of the 20 drugs, the lowest price charged by any part D plan was at least 46 percent higher than the lowest price secured for the VA. This is what the secretary must be referring to when he talks about the magic of the market. My Republican friends argue that allowing the secretary to negotiate lower drug prices cannot actually work because the government will act to set prices. This is just more of the same old excuses we have been hearing all along. The truth of the matter is that the President, Secretary Leavitt, and Republicans in Congress are opposed to negotiated prices simply because they want to preserve the profits of the pharmaceutical industry which this program was really written for. I have to be honest here. The American taxpayer is being ripped off by the Republican prescription drug law. Pharmaceutical companies have reaped record profits since Medicare part D was implemented while the American taxpayer has been left holding the bill. Before the Republican law went into effect this year, more than 6.5 million low-income Americans received help for their prescription drug bills through Medicaid. Under the Medicaid system, however, States can purchase drugs at the lowest available prices or the best price. While this was good news for the taxpayer, it certainly cut into the profit margins of the pharmaceutical industry. So now those same 6.5 million Americans have been moved into the Republican prescription drug plan. They are no longer receiving the lower prices, and the higher costs, adding up to as much as $2 billion this year alone, will be passed on to the American taxpayer. This is why American voters rejected the Republican platform last week. Republican policies over the past decade have served special interests like the pharmaceutical industry, and now the American taxpayer is paying the price. Clearly voters are fed up, and they want us in Washington to implement change. Democrats are going to heed their call, Madam Speaker. We have said from the beginning of our campaign for a new direction that one of the first things we will do when we take back the House is to pass a law that will authorize the government to negotiate lower drug prices. We intend to live up to that promise. The savings from that program can be used to help eliminate the infamous ``doughnut hole'' that millions of seniors have fallen into over the past few months. While the President and his cronies are threatening to oppose such legislation, I think they would be better served to reconsider. It is time for us to take a long and hard look at the Medicare part D program and see where we can make some improvements. Democrats are not calling for repeal of this law, but we are calling for some changes, changes that the American voters clearly support. I hope that my Republican friends will join us as we work together to improve the Medicare program on behalf of America's seniors.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, now that the elections are over, it is time for Democrats and Republicans to come together to work in a bipartisan fashion to help all Americans. Throughout this year, Democrats have talked about a forward-looking agenda, one that encompasses all Americans. We want to expand economic opportunity to millions of Americans who have been left behind by increasing the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years. We want to expand educational opportunities to teens who want to attend college, by cutting interest rates on student loans so that they can better afford college. We also want to help seniors better afford their prescription drugs by cutting drug prices and filling the doughnut hole. Democrats touted these plans, but that doesn't mean Republicans can't join us in implementing them when the new Congress convenes in January. Raising the minimum wage, helping college students better afford their education and helping seniors pay for their prescription drugs is something we all, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be interested in. We will have the opportunity to follow through on this agenda in January

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Albio Sires, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure and honor this evening to introduce the newest member of our New Jersey delegation, Albio Sires. Albio won a special election last week to fill the remaining term of Senator Menendez, who won reelection to the Senate last week. He was also elected to a full term and will be back with us in January as well. Albio comes to this House after serving as the mayor of West New York and serving four terms in the New Jersey General Assembly, including two terms as the assembly speaker. During his tenure in the assembly, Albio championed legislation that increased the minimum wage in New Jersey by $2. Albio also led the fight to help New Jersey families better afford college for their children by creating the STARS program, which offers full paid county and State college tuition scholarships to thousands of New Jersey students. As this Congress prepares to tackle both the minimum wage and college affordability in January, Albio will be a strong voice on behalf of working-class families. Albio was born in pre-Communist Cuba, but fled with his family at age 12 to the United States. He was a star basketball player in both high school and college, and I am sure he would have no problem suiting up again as a member of the congressional basketball team. He also joins both me and Bill Delahunt as the only current Members of Congress who earned a degree from Middlebury College in Vermont. He is joined here today by his wife, Adrienne, his stepdaughter, Tara Kole, and supporters from his new congressional district. Please join me in welcoming Albio Sires to the House of Representatives.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because the legislation would seriously undermine efforts to secure chemical facilities across the country. I want to join in the comments made by the ranking member, Mr. Sabo. Back in July, the Homeland Security Committee passed by voice vote a bill that would go a long way towards fixing the chemical security problem in the aftermath of 9/11. This is one of the most glaring problems in our post-9/11 security efforts that has been neglected here in Washington by the Congress and by the administration. Yet rather than moving forward with this bill out of the Homeland Security Committee, bringing to it the floor and having an open debate; Republicans have decided to craft an industry-friendly proposal behind closed doors and stick it in the Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report. Now, this is no way to deal with such a serious security issue. EPA data indicates that there are more than 100 chemical plants across the country that could put over 1 million people at risk in the event of a serious accident or terrorist attack. More than 7,000 chemical plants could put 1,000 people or more at risk. Yet under the cover of a conference report, the Republican leadership has seriously undermined our efforts to secure these chemical facilities. The language here exempts thousands of chemical plants not deemed ``high risk'' by the Department of Homeland Security, along with 3,000 drinking water and wastewater facilities that use large quantities of chlorine. It also prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from doing anything to move towards the use of inherently safer technologies or substances. And it fails to protect the rights of States like my own, New Jersey, to implement stronger security requirements at chemical plants. Mr. Speaker, the consequences of an incident at a chemical facility could be dire for residents of my State of New Jersey. We saw this last Tuesday when an accidental release of sulfur dioxide sent 59 people to the hospital. If that is what happens from one simple mistake, I shudder to think of the consequences of an attack by determined terrorists. We need to reject this rule. Strip this weak chemical security language from the conference report and move ahead with strong legislation like what the Homeland Security Committee already passed here in the House.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, despite countless assurances from the President that we are safer now than we were before 9/11, this past week we learned the truth: The world is more dangerous today than it was pre-9/11, and the war in Iraq is the main reason why. This weekend on ``60 Minutes,'' Bob Woodward will report that our intelligence agencies predict that 2007 is going to be more deadly for American troops than 2006. That is a dire prediction considering that insurgent attacks against our troops are now occurring every 15 minutes. These reports from our intelligence agencies should serve as a wake- up call to House Republicans who for 3 years have sat on the sidelines neglecting their oversight responsibility of the war in Iraq. How bad do things have to get in Iraq before this Republican do- nothing Congress actually takes action? When will they finally begin asking questions? When will they finally begin to hold Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the President's War Cabinet accountable for their incompetence? Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a Congress that will take its oversight responsibilities seriously. It is time for a change here in Congress, and it is coming this November.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).