Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlelady makes a good point. Again, you talked about the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq, in the prison, and the violation of the Geneva Convention, but again, I think it goes back to what I said before. If you really believe that you can act unilaterally and that everything you do is right and you do not want input from anybody else, be it here in the House from other party Members like Democrats or from other countries, then you start buying into this notion that somehow international treaties, which are not unilateral, but done with other countries, do not have to be adhered to. And if you listen to some of the comments that have been made with respect to this administration, where actually arguments were being put forth by them, some of the people that were responsible for change in tactics with prisoners or interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq, you hear them say, well, somehow this is a little different, the notion that the terrorists do not come under the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan. But then somehow you lead from that to say, well, then, the Iraqis do not come under the Geneva Convention either. So you start to stretch. You say, okay, terrorists are not active combatants in Afghanistan, or because they are terrorists and not under any state, but then you move that to Iraq and say, well, maybe the same thing is true of the Iraqis, even though it is a very different situation because we invaded Iraq. Then you start to say, well, then, maybe you do not need the Geneva Convention, it does not apply to the situation. And that is the danger here; it is sort of unilateral philosophy arrogance, not willing to listen to others that gradually erodes the notion that you have treaty obligations or that you have to succumb to some sort of international agreement or international body like the U.N. And it is such a dangerous thing, it is really such a dangerous thing. I do not usually compliment him because I think that for the most part his conduct has not been good, but I remember there were some newspaper reports that when the Secretary of State Colin Powell heard that there were some suggestions that the Geneva Convention did not have to be adhered to, he was outraged. I think that was in part because he had, as a general and as someone who had been instructed in the norms of war, realized that you could not say that the Geneva Convention did not apply in this situation in Iraq. But I think some of the soldiers or some of the people in charge were convinced that somehow it did not apply; and that is the danger that we face. It is such a dangerous situation because once the norms of the Geneva Convention are not applied by us, then how can we expect anybody to apply them to us? The whole breakdown in any kind of legality during the war, I mean it is just an awful thing. I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. I think it is a form of arrogance, if you think about it. Here you have a situation where we are in a deficit which continues to grow, a huge deficit, one of the biggest we have ever seen; and rather than try to give some money back to working people below a certain income, I think my recollection is that if your family, and you are working and working and you are making minimum wage, you would not get any money back. You get no credit. And if you are a family that is up in the 300,000 bracket, you get a $500 credit. So if you are buying into the theory, which I think the Republicans articulate, that somehow this tax credit will benefit the average guy so that they can go out and spend the money and that helps the economy and all, this is what they articulate on the floor, how is it that you do not give it to the guy, the working person who is making a lower salary, he probably is more likely to go out and spend the money because he does not have that much money. He has to go out and buy food or staples for the family, clothing; as opposed to somebody in the 300,000 bracket who would probably put it in the bank because they do not need to spend it. So their theory, even their own ideology, they do not practice it. They do not practice what they preach.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern this evening over Vice President Cheney's abusing his power as Vice President to continue to keep secret documents that could significantly impact our Nation's future energy policy and the effect the Bush administration's energy policies are having on American families and on our economy. Mr. Speaker, almost immediately after entering office, Vice President Cheney took it upon himself to convene what would later be called the energy task force. The unnamed participants of this secret task force came together to advise the Bush administration on energy policy and develop what would become the administration's official energy plan. However, in the 3 years since the energy task force released its report, the Vice President has done everything he can to keep the records and participants of the task force secret. This task force played a critical role in developing a major policy initiative with a direct impact on everything from our economy to our environment. Still, the Vice President has refused to let the American people know who made up this energy task force or how and why the task force came to the conclusions that it did. I am going to get back to this in a minute, but first I want to address the rise in gas prices which I think ultimately is related to the issue of the energy task force. Earlier today, I heard the argument that if Congress passes the energy bill devised by the secret Cheney task force, consumers would be alleviated from the high gasoline prices we are witnessing across the country. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that not only is this argument foolish, but it is also wrong. The Republican-passed energy bill would do nothing to address the rising cost of gasoline; and, in fact, the bill has provisions that would make gasoline even more expensive. In fact, a study released in February by the Energy Information Administration found that the provisions in the energy bill would have only a negligible effect on energy production, consumption, and prices; but that negligible effect would be far outweighed by a provision requiring the use of ethanol. The report concluded that such a provision would actually increase the average gasoline price by 3 cents per gallon and the price for reformulated gasoline by an average of 8.1 cents. So the study concludes that provisions in the Republican energy bill would actually increase gas prices, and I certainly know that my constituents would not like to see that happen, particularly as we now move into the Memorial Day week. What President Bush and his administration do not understand is that high gas prices impact all of us, consumers and businesses alike. Gasoline prices have increased 38 percent since December 2003, with the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded at just over $2. High fuel costs translate into a loss of profit margins for the manufacturing and transportation sectors that force prices for products and services higher, hitting American consumers twice. Not only do Americans need to dole out more cash to fill their gas tanks with the little disposable income that they have left; they are be strangled by rising health care costs, higher education costs, and now higher costs in goods and services. I just want to give some stories from struggling Americans that show that the hardships are being felt from coast to coast. I quote first DeAnn from Salt Lake City, Utah, who writes: ``My husband and I own a small trucking company. Due to the rise in fuel, we have let three drivers go and sold the trucks and trailers. This was very hard to do, but in an effort to keep the other two drivers working, we had to. I know of two other small companies that are doing the same, and the burden is just too much.'' I have another letter from Sara, who lives in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and she writes: ``As a military family, the rising gas prices are taking a big chunk of our disposable income. We have two small fuel-efficient cars, thankfully, but our cost to fill up our cars is easily $10 more every time. Unfortunately, we will not be driving much this summer because of it. I really wish the President would take more of an interest in the problems of middle working-class families like ours.'' Not only does Sara think, Mr. Speaker, that President Bush does not care about the impact that gasoline prices have on Americans, but another gentleman, Jon Meade Huntsman, who is the founder of the largest privately held chemical manufacturing corporation in the United States, was recently quoted saying: ``The average guy on the street is getting killed because this administration does not care.'' Mr. Speaker, many in Congress have requested that President Bush temporarily suspend deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and put this oil in the marketplace. If President Bush reduced the amount of oil placed in the Petroleum Reserve, more would be on the market and prices would moderate for Americans now. The SPR can then be replenished when oil prices are lower. But as we know, President Bush refuses to do this because of national security concerns, he claims. But I would like to know why President Bush has no concern for the health of the American economy. The American people are tired of rising gas prices. In my State alone, in New Jersey, gas prices have increased 48 percent, costing New Jersey families an additional $869 per year. This figure jumps to $1,037 for households with teenagers. In the general U.S. marketplace, gasoline prices will cause a $1.3 billion increase in costs for farmers, which will force American consumers into paying higher prices for food. The trucking industry will experience a $6.3 billion increase in the cost of its services, and airlines will see a $7.5 billion increase because of fuel costs. In fact, just yesterday I read that Continental Airlines has sought to impose a fuel surcharge for their services and reported that it is considering layoffs and cuts in wages and pension benefits in response to the struggle they are facing with the surging oil prices. So the real impact of all this is a slowdown in the economy with a potential even for more job losses. In fact, an estimate by Merrill Lynch shows that every penny increase in gasoline prices at the pump is equal to $1 billion in lost consumer spending. That is nearly $25 billion in lost spending since the beginning of this year. All of this is happening on the watch of the Bush administration that vowed to make energy policy a priority in the United States. Yet 4 years after President Bush took office, we have no national energy policy, and we have no national energy policy because the bill that the White House presented to Congress was filled with an extraordinary collection of energy industry giveaways. And to make matters worse, these giveaways do little or really nothing to moderate gas prices. The President should have promoted meaningful policies that would increase fuel efficiency and conservation measures and provide for expanded use of renewable and alternative fuels. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, what exactly has the Bush administration done over the last 4 years to cut gas prices? During that time the country lost five refineries with the total number of operating refineries dropping from 158 to 153; and while Republicans blame difficult regulatory hurdles for new refineries, I would like to highlight that the Democrats included a policy in our 2001 energy plan with streamlined regulatory guidelines for permitting new refineries or for additional capacity to existing facilities when these permits did not detrimentally impact environmental standards. I would also like to highlight data compiled by Bloomberg showing that mergers over the last few years have partially contributed to today's high gas prices. Since President Bush took office in January 2001, the administration has approved 33 takeovers totaling $19.6 billion. The Federal Trade Commission took no action to prevent any one of these 33 mergers. And today, Mr. Speaker, the largest five refineries operating in America, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobile, BP, and Valero, control over 52 percent of domestic refining capacity, up 18 percent in a decade. The top 10, which includes ChevronTexaco, Citgo, Marathon, Sunoco, and Tesoro, control 78.5 percent, up 22 percent. With this market concentration, I think it is imperative that this administration seriously consider and review the impact that mergers have on consumers rather than watching out only for the CEOs who benefit from these business mergers. While the Bush administration has expressed the concern for rising prices, it seems like they are completely disregarding the March 2001 report by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, FTC, which concluded that during that summer of 2000 price spike, certain suppliers had pursued ``profit-maximizing strategies,'' intentionally withholding gasoline supplies or delaying shipping as a tactic to drive up prices. But today the Bush administration is doing nothing to investigate whether a similar situation might be occurring now. In fact, while Americans are paying higher prices at the pump, oil companies are posting record profits. In the first quarter of this year, ChevronTexaco reported a 294 percent increase in profits; British Petroleum, 165 percent increase; Exxon Mobile, 125 percent increase; and ConocoPhillips, a 44 percent increase in record profits. I would also like to note that policies not related to the energy bill actually increased demand in consumption of gasoline. In February, President Bush extended for another 4 years the duel-fuel loophole. This loophole allows auto manufacturers who produce vehicles that can run on more than one fuel type, although they rarely do, a tax credit towards meeting CAFE standards for the entire fleet. What this means, Mr. Speaker, in effect is that these companies can reduce fuel economy for the millions of other cars that they sell. And according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, this means the U.S. will consume an extra 40 to 110 million barrels of oil from 2005 to 2008. Clearly, the Bush administration is not promoting policies that relieve Americans from high gas prices. What the administration really should be promoting are policies that make gasoline supplies more stable and provide resources for alternative energy sources. For instance, oil companies should be required to expand gasoline storage capacities and require them to hold significant amounts in that storage, and the administration should reserve the right to order these companies to release this stored gas in order to address supply and demand fluctuations. I also think that conservation and efficiency standards should be a priority. Democrats have always supported and have proposed innovative tax incentives for gains in energy conservation and efficiency such as a nonrefundable tax credit for higher efficiency vehicles. Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to go back to what I mentioned earlier regarding Vice President Cheney's energy task force. After 3 years of hiding the details regarding the task force, it appeared that we might finally get some of the information Cheney was fighting so hard to keep secret. The Sierra Club, as we know, and the conservative group Judicial Watch earlier this year jointly sued Vice President Cheney and the energy task force, seeking an accounting of energy industry participation in crafting the Bush administration's destructive energy policy. In response to that suit, a district court ordered the administration to provide information about participation from these industries, which the Bush administration refused to do. Of course, the President claimed constitutional immunity from these kinds of inquiries. But the district court rejected the Bush administration's contention, pointing out that the administration was attempting to ``cloak what is tantamount to an aggrandizement of executive power with the legitimacy of precedent where none exists.'' That is a quote from the court. I will read it again: that the Bush administration was attempting to ``cloak what is tantamount to an aggrandizement of executive power with the legitimacy of precedent where none exists.'' Refusing, however, to give in, of course, Vice President Cheney appealed the district court's decision, asking, basically, the district court to make new law that would effectively shield the Bush administration from any scrutiny. And I just have to say again, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is the height of arrogance on the part of the Bush administration. They actually go to court and they ask the court to shield President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the rest of the administration from any scrutiny. Fortunately, the court denied that request, and then of course what did the Vice President do? He appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in December the Supreme Court agreed to make argument public on the case. Of course, we do not have a decision yet, but they have heard the case. And the last thing that I wanted to mention in this regard, and I have mentioned it before here on the House floor, is the whole issue of Justice Scalia's involvement in the case and the fact that, in my opinion, he should have recused himself from any participation when this case came before the Supreme Court. We all know the story: Vice President Cheney treated Justice Scalia to a personal hunting vacation down in Louisiana. They went on Air Force Two down to Louisiana. And, of course, several questions have been raised by not only me but others with regard to this hunting trip or duck hunting trip to Louisiana and the potential conflict of interest. And I would just like to mention some of those questions again tonight before I close. First, was the energy executive that hosted the Vice President and Justice Scalia on this duck hunting trip to Louisiana a member of the energy task force? Of course we do not know because the whole point of the suit is to determine who was a member of the energy task force, and so far the Vice President is not willing to provide that information. Second, was the Vice President attempting to use this trip, the duck hunting trip, as a way to persuade Justice Scalia that the documents being requested should remain secret under the cloak of executive privilege? And, third, how could either Vice President Cheney or Justice Scalia think that this trip in which both flew to and from Louisiana together on Air Force Two would not look like a conflict of interest? These questions remain unanswered, but I do not think there is any question in my mind and the public's mind. Certainly there have been many editorials on this subject that have said that Justice Scalia should have recused himself from hearing this case. Of course, the one thing that I keep thinking in the back of my mind, Mr. Speaker, is, what if this ends up being one of those rather frequent 5-4 decisions, and Justice Scalia is one of the five? What are we going to think about that, given this trip to Louisiana? I am going to yield to the gentlewoman, but I did want to say, the one thing that is really significant about this Energy Task Force and the one thing that I am trying to bring out tonight is, regardless of what you think about the Energy Task Force and what happened behind closed doors in these secret meetings, because we do not really know what happened, hopefully we will find out at some point, depending on the Supreme Court's decision, but we know one thing clearly, and that is the task force came up with a bad energy policy. There is no doubt that the energy industry succeeded with its influence during these secret, closed-door meetings. The one thing we know is they managed to craft an energy policy that benefited them, rather than benefiting Americans, who, at the time, desperately needed relief from high energy prices. That continues today with the high gas prices. The problems continue, and the Bush administration does not want to do anything about it. I see the gentlewoman from Texas is here, and I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentlewoman is saying, because I think when we talk about the Republican abuse of power and we use the Energy Task Force, or I think she is going to go into the Medicare issue as well, what we have to explain, I think, to our constituents and to the public is that the Republican majority here in the House has simply made it impossible, if you will, for Democrats, any Democrat, to participate in the process. So when I say that it is important to know what happened at this Energy Task Force and who was on it and what they did, it is not because of some secret feeling that this is crucial; it is because of the impact on public policy. We know that when the energy bill came to the House, as the gentlewoman mentioned, from my Committee on Energy and Commerce, and came to the floor, basically it was a bill that came from this task force and that moved through the committee to the floor and over to the other body without any major changes, because they do not allow Democrats on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or even Republicans sometimes, to make changes from what the administration requested. So if we had gone through the normal deliberative process, where the White House came up with an idea, but there were all kinds of changes or a consensus was reached with the Democrats, where amendments were allowed, where we had a full debate, then maybe this would not be as significant. But that is not the way this Republican majority has been operating. They abuse their power by not having the deliberations, by not having a consensus in the committee, by not having amendments, by not having full debate on the floor. That is why what this secret task force did becomes even more important, because essentially they put together the bill that passed the House and that is now the Republican energy policy. We just have so many examples. I know the gentlewoman is going to get into them now with the Medicare bill, where they abused their power and did not allow the Democrats, the minority, to have any input. It is an abuse of the system. It really is. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. We had a hearing today in the commerce committees, the Subcommittee on Health on the drug cards. And, of course, it was a hearing that was requested by the Republican majority because if we request it, they do not give us one. And I was amazed by their inability, not that I was amazed, their total inability to show the positive aspect of this discount drug card. I mean, obviously the purpose of the hearing was to showcase that this was a great idea that seniors were going to benefit from it. They put up the Web site and showed you how to access the Web site and showed you the hotline, how to access the program. Even with that, all that effort, it was a sham. It was a farce. These discount drug cards do not provide any savings. I had my seniors call me, first of all, most of them, many of them do not even have a computer so they can access the Web site. We tried to call the hotline yesterday, 30 minutes before you can even get on the hotline. And it is so confusing to the average senior that they have to kind of go on this Web site and see, of 70-some-odd cards, which one will offer a discount for a particular drug that they might need. But what they do not tell you, of course, is that next week the card company can change the price of the drug or they can decide to drop the drug, and that if you go to the local pharmacy, they do not have any obligation to take the card. Even if they take the card, they can charge more than the price because they may have to show a profit. So it is just unbelievable to me. Most of my seniors cannot even figure it out by looking at the Web site. I have to be honest, not only could I not figure it out, but there was an article in last week's Washington Post where one of the reporters, a long-time health reporter, went through this whole maze, and basically said it took her 9 hours to go through the process. And at the end of it, she did not know which card she should opt for. Again, it is what you said. This is a function of the fact that the Republicans do not want any input from the Democrats. If they had taken amendments, listened to us, tried to adopt some of the suggestions that we had, I believe that we could have come up with a good benefit. We do not even have a benefit now. It does not even go into effect until 2006, and it will cost you more out of pocket than you will benefit from. And these are, again, the result of this arrogance, this abuse of power on the part of the Republican majority.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I can just reclaim my time, the gentlewoman makes a very important point that I want to emphasize, and that is the unwillingness and the arrogance, if you will, of the Republican majority to not allow for input from the Democrats. And the consequence of not having a consensus on something as important as national energy policy means that we never pass a bill and that we continue to be energy-dependent on Mideast oil and other foreign sources. This is because of the breakdown of Members. Even though the Republicans are in the majority in both Houses, the majority is very close. So if you take a position, as this Republican majority does in their leadership, that we are not going to allow input from Democrats, or even other views, then the consequence is, you have a stalemate and you do not pass a bill. That is the reason why we continue to be so dependent on foreign oil, because they are not willing to try to come up with something that we can all agree on. They will not allow input.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleagues on the Republican side talk about the discount drug card, so-called, that goes into effect June 1. It is such a farce. First of all, there is no drug benefit. We all know that. They have postponed that to sometime 2 years from now, in 2006, when you will actually have to put out more money than the benefit you would get, so nobody would sign up for it anyway. But what a farce these cards are. In my district in New Jersey, you can already get most of these cards. You do not even need to go through the Federal Government. In addition to that, if you look on this Web site and it shows you that there is a lower price, well, if you look and compare with other Internet sites, the prices are usually lower in other Internet sites. You do not even need the drug card. In addition to that, the price can change. Whatever price is on that Web site, a week later they can change the price and simply raise it. In addition, my constituents have been complaining about how they go to a particular pharmacy, they will not even take the card. I have never seen so much chaos. Seniors are disgusted by this proposal. It is just a bureaucratic nightmare. It gives them no discount whatsoever and no benefit.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address recent reports that I believe signal a conflict in Azeri President Ilham Aliyev's interest in promoting a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I am particularly troubled by reports from the BBC last week that President Aliyev said that, while he would continue to try to resolve the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict by peaceful means, the Azeri army is able at any moment to free what he called ``our territory.'' The article continues that President Aliyev stated, ``We have every right to do that, to restore our territorial integrity.'' Such statements, Mr. Speaker, are unsettling and send a message to Armenia as well as to all those involved in working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict that Azerbaijan is prepared to undertake a military approach to addressing the conflict should recommendations by the Minsk Group not agree with Azerbaijan's position. In fact, such statements, I believe, Mr. Speaker, send the wrong message to the Minsk Group and undermine ongoing efforts regarding stabilization of the South Caucasus region. Ten years after a mutually signed cease-fire in the region and 3 years after President Kocharian and former President Aliyev came together at Key West, current Azeri President Aliyev has warned that if no concrete issues remain on the agenda regarding a peaceful resolution to Nagorno-Karabagh, then it is ``not right to continue and imitate negotiations.'' President Aliyev's actions and statements do not signal a willingness to negotiate and, in fact, I think they illustrate the opposite. If there is any chance that the parties can move in the direction of a peaceful resolution, President Aliyev must show that he is willing to consider options developed by the Minsk Group without threatening military actions. In this regard, I would like to highlight from the BBC article that Mr. Aliyev added that the Azeri government's expenditure on Azerbaijan's military was increasing each year and ``it will keep increasing in the future.'' I am discouraged by this, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to address this issue in light of the U.S.'s role in providing military assistance in the region. I strongly believe we must do everything in our power here in Congress to signal that we will not support the use of military force to address this conflict. Specifically, I call upon Congress and congressional appropriators to restore the military aid parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Earlier this year, President Bush's budget proposed including unequal military aid spending to Armenia and Azerbaijan. This request was contrary to a policy agreement between the Congress and the administration that there would be military parity between the two countries. While the administration believes that the unequal funding will not destroy the balance between Azerbaijan and Armenia, I point to President Aliyev's recent statements and question the Bush administration's recent assurances to Congress before the other Chamber's Foreign Relations Committee. I would like to point out that waiver language included in section 907 of the Freedom Support Act specifically states that any assistance to Azerbaijan should not be used to undermine or hamper the Karabakh peace process or be used for offensive purposes against Armenia or the Armenian communities in the South Caucasus. President Aliyev's comments regarding current and future increases in Azerbaijan's military funding do not put me at ease that funding from the U.S. either directly or indirectly will not be used to unleash a military campaign against the people of Nagorno-Karabagh. Amid rising tension and animosity in the region, it is more important today than ever for the United States to be sure that no signal is sent suggesting that one side is being provided a military advantage over the other. Our strength in fostering a diplomatic and peaceful solution is our balanced approach to and for each nation of the South Caucasus. At this time the U.S. should not be providing resources to Azerbaijan that can in any measure be turned into military efforts against Armenia to reclaim Nagorno-Karabagh. Parity in this regard will help to restore a sense of stability in the region and hopefully add to the U.S.'s evenhandedness in its presence and support for the establishment of a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I often ask the question, Are we better off than we were? And I think that that question needs to be posed today and for the next few months with regard to the Bush administration and the Republican majority here in the Congress. If we think about 4 years ago, we were in a surplus situation. Now we have a huge deficit. If we think about 4 years ago, we were basically at peace. Now in the midst of a war, a war which I think most people realize was essentially fought for the wrong reasons and which is costing us a tremendous amount of resources as well as costing us lives and wounded soldiers. And if we also think about 4 years ago, the economy was doing very well. Jobs were being created. Four years later under the Bush administration and the Republican majority, we have a situation where something like 2.5 million jobs have been lost and many Americans are having a hard time making ends meet. So when the Republicans say to us, or anybody says to us, Are we better off than we were 4 years ago under this administration, the answer is clearly, no.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, between now and the end of this session of Congress I will continue to ask the question, Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? And I think whether you answer that question by reference to war and peace or education or access to health care or any number of topics, the answer is clearly no. But tonight I would like to answer that question specifically by reference to the economy. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus and an economy that had created 22 million jobs during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, 1.6 million jobs in the half-year alone. When President Bush took office the projected budget surpluses were enough to cover the costs of Social Security during the baby boomers' retirement years, and the country was experiencing the biggest drop in child poverty in a generation and the lowest poverty rate in 20 years. Four years later under President Bush, the President is looking to create his first net job. Meanwhile, 8.2 million Americans are looking for work. The unemployment rate is 30 percent higher than it was when President Clinton left office; 2.2 million private sector jobs have been cut on President Bush's watch; and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been shed. One of the major reasons for the current jobs recession is the increased exporting of high-paying white and blue collar jobs overseas. Consider several examples from the township of Edison, the largest town in my congressional district. Earlier this year the Ford plant closed leaving more than 900 New Jersey employees without jobs. Last year the Frigidaire air conditioner plant closed in Edison and shifted production to Brazil leaving 1,600 unemployed residents in Edison. You would think the Bush administration would be concerned about these job losses; however, President Bush and his economic advisers view the movement of American factory jobs and white collar work to other countries as a positive transformation that will in the end enrich our economy. And for those Americans who have jobs, many have seen their household incomes decrease over the last 4 years by an average of almost $1,500. These cuts in income coupled with skyrocketing increases in insurance, health care, gas prices at a 23-year high, and college tuition increases averaging 28 percent have made it extremely difficult for middle-class Americans to make ends meet. And yet the President tours around the Nation touting his accomplishments. Based on these numbers, how can President Bush say America's middle class is better off now than it was 4 years ago? He simply cannot. Consider, Mr. Speaker, also the government spends $900,000 more each minute than it takes in thanks to a historic reversal in fortune during the last 4 years. Under President Bush's guidance and the policies of the Republican Congress, we have gone from historic surpluses to historic deficits, numbering in the $400 billion range this year alone. My friends on the other side of the aisle say it is not their fault that a war, a recession and a terrorist attack are to blame. I have actually heard them call it the perfect storm. But those excuses, in my opinion, ring hollow. Republicans are in charge of the White House and both Houses of Congress. So what are they doing about the challenges facing Americans? Absolutely nothing. Do Republicans have a plan to create jobs or to reduce the deficit? No. Do they have a plan to stop the outsourcing of American jobs like those at the Ford and Frigidaire plants in my district? No. The only thing they seem to have a plan for is giving tax cuts to those who need them least. Americans are facing record job losses, record deficits and record debt, and yet President Bush's only economic answer seems to be more tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is time the Bush administration realizes that shipping jobs overseas and cutting taxes for the wealthiest elite in our country will not create jobs. President Bush and Congressional Republicans have had 4 years to turn this jobs recession around, and they have failed. Democrats, on the other hand, are fighting to create economic opportunity for all Americans. Republicans are just standing in the way. So I ask once again, are we better off than we were 4 years ago? The answer certainly with regard to the economy is a resounding no. And I think we can say that for so many other aspects of what we have experienced here in the last 4 years.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Patrick Michael McGrady. Mr. McGrady was a great American who devoted his life to helping people with cancer, including a great number of people from New Jersey's Sixth Congressional District. Born in 1932 in a rural village in Washington's Olympic Peninsula, Mr. McGrady attended Yale University on a scholarship, excelling in German, Russian, and Yiddish. After graduating from Yale in 1954, Mr. McGrady served a stint at the Chicago-Sun Times, and subsequently moved on to write for the Associated Press and United Press International. He later served as bureau chief in Moscow for Newsweek magazine before becoming an author of books about health and medicine. Mr. McGrady later became founder and director of CANHELP, an information service for cancer patients operating out of Port Ludlow, WA. He subsequently devoted 20 years of his life to this organization that provided a lifeline for people caught in what he deemed ``The Cancer Patient's Quandary.'' According to Mr. McGrady, many cancer patients find themselves in a quandary because, ``You don't know how long you'll live, you don't know what it is like to die and you haven't the vaguest notion of where to turn for a cure.'' Things can rapidly become tragic, he noted, ``because the patient has so little time to make a series of decisions, all of which simply have to be correct. Just one misstep can spell a premature and ugly death.'' Mr. McGrady came to understand this quandary too well when his father, a science editor of the American Cancer Society, suffered an ``ugly death'' from colon cancer in 1979. Appalled by the needless pain and misery that his father endured, Mr. McGrady remarked, ``This treatment, these manners, this attitude, are not exceptional, they are commonplace. I know this from the atrocities cancer patients tell me everyday. It is the rule in a society where the practice of medicine has become a commodity like pork bellies and soy beans and where human beings are viewed as pigeons to be plucked.'' Determined not to let another cancer patient endure such maltreatment, Mr. McGrady spent his time as director of CANHELP, focusing on helping patients navigate the cancer care maze and understand its complexities. Unfortunately, Mr. McGrady passed away on December 12, 2003, ending a long life devoted to helping others. Mr. Speaker, as the 6-month anniversary of Mr. McGrady's death approaches, I wanted to share his story with my colleagues, and pay tribute to this remarkable man. Accordingly, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the distinguished Mr. Patrick Michael McGrady, Jr., and all of his remarkable contributions.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican energy bill includes dangerous provisions that would overturn long-standing moratoria on drilling in new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf and gut States' rights. President Bush supports an inventory on the Outer Continental Shelf that would threaten the long-standing moratoria on new drilling in the OCS off the entire East Coast and lead to new drilling. The inventory is unnecessary. The Minerals Management Service already conducts a survey every 5 years, the latest published in 2000. The assessment includes estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas that is conventionally and economically recoverable. The President should be seeking long-term solutions that make sense for energy development and that balance environmental protection and economic growth. Instead, he wants to gut the moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and weaken States' rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Mr. Speaker, States have used the Coastal Zone Management Act to protect their valuable coastlines from new offshore drilling. The President should be working to enforce our laws and not weaken them.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend my hometown newspaper, the Asbury Park Press, ran an editorial calling on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign. It was a stunning criticism from a newspaper that is not known to be partisan. And I would like to take this opportunity to simply read the editorial. ``The United States needs to send this message to the world. We remain a civilized Nation. We respect international law. We respect the dignity of all individuals. We will at all times abide by the Geneva Convention governing the humane conduct of prisoner of war and apply that standard to all detainees. ``We hold ourselves to the highest moral standards and will not tolerate those who do not. And we will hold our leaders accountable when our conduct falls short. That message should be accompanied by the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. If he is not asked to resign by President Bush, he should do the honorable thing and step down on his own. ``The case against Rumsfeld, who has overseen the conduct of the war in Iraq, transcends the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, but the scandal is an important element of it. The photos and accounts of the treatment of Iraqi detainees at the hands of American soldiers have shocked and disgusted Americans and the world. They have brought the realities of war whose daily horrors have largely been kept from public view into the national consciousness. They have shown that we are not immune from committing evil acts. ``Over the past 2 years the International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have all raised concerns about patterns of mistreatment of detainees by U.S. interrogators in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld's explanations for how the abuses were allowed to occur and how they escaped his attention for so long have not been convincing. Punishing only those directly responsible for the inhumane actions is not enough, not given the gravity of the offenses and the damage they have done to our Nation's reputation and our ability to win the war of ideas in the Arab world. ``There are many other reasons why it should be in America's best interest for Rumsfeld to step aside. As Defense Secretary he has mismanaged the war in Iraq every step of the way. He helped sell the idea that Saddam Hussein was working in concert with al Qaeda and posed a clear nuclear and biological threat to the United States. He ignored the advice of many of our long-standing allies and top Pentagon officials to continue what had been a successful strategy of isolating Saddam while continuing our search for weapons of mass destruction. ``Rumsfeld failed to anticipate the hostile reception we received following the `liberation.' He miscalculated the troop strength needed to stabilize the country. He left Baghdad and other major cities unprotected from looters and thugs. He left museums, hospitals, government ministries and facilities essential to a functioning civil society unguarded. He failed to provide the necessary support and manpower and material for our military. And he allowed our military prisons to operate with inadequate staffing, training, and oversight. ``After the fall of Baghdad, instead of trying to internationalize the occupation and the rebuilding effort, Rumsfeld and other administration leaders chose to go it alone, putting virtually all the costs associated with the occupation, financial and human, on American soldiers. ``To date more than 770 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Another 4,100 have been wounded. We have committed more than $160 billion to the invasion, occupation, and reconstruction of Iraq. Estimates suggest the cost could easily reach $600 billion even if the June 30 deadline for handing over political control to the Iraqis is met--a dubious proposition. ``Our leaders in Washington need to send a clear message to the world that we have not abandoned our ideals. Rumsfeld's resignation would help underscore the point. More important, our leaders need to reinforce that message with the American people who are growing increasingly fearful that we have lost our way.'' That is the end of the editorial, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that I totally associate myself with the Asbury Park Press editorial. I think they are absolutely right. I do not think anybody has ever said it so well. Mr. Speaker, I recently called on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign and I would urge my colleagues to do the same. Next, I would urge the President to take immediate steps to internationalize this conflict and build a strong coalition of partners in Iraq. The President should convene an immediate international summit on Iraq. The United States must go in with a plan that provides for new international arrangements to manage the political security and economic aspects of Iraq's transitions, and includes reorienting American policy to reflect those new international arrangements. We cannot simply continue to go it alone. We must internationalize this conflict. And I think that has also been a major part of what the Asbury Park Press says in this editorial.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my deep concern over the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. The coalition government of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, BNP, which came to power on October 1, 2001, has initiated a violent campaign. And since the BNP's parliamentary victory nearly 3 years ago, a campaign of terrorism, murder, and religious cleansing has been unleashed on Hindus living in Bangladesh. I had written a letter to Bangladesh's Prime Minister Zia in 2002 about this violent persecution, but I have received no response to date; and it is a fact that unabashed violence has continued freely. Although the latest wave of violence has been ensuing since the BNP took power in 2001, Hindus have been a disappearing minority in Bangladesh at the hands of Bangladeshi forces that have employed human rights abuses, atrocities, and ethno-religious cleansing tools. In 1941, Hindus comprised 28 percent of the population; but by 1991, the Hindu population dwindled to a meager 8 percent. A large part of this decrease in the Hindu population can be attributed to the 1971 genocide by the then-Muslim East Pakistan Party, whereby 2.5 million Hindus were murdered and 10 million Hindus fled to India as refugees. Reminiscent of the Jewish Holocaust, Hindu homes were marked by a yellow H, which in fact guided the pillagers to their homes. Over the following 30 years, thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed, Hindus were systematically disenfranchised from holding political power, and prejudicial legislation ensured an unstable existence for Hindus. In fact, Islamic extremists have routinely dispossessed Hindus and, for that matter, Christians and Buddhists, of their ancestral properties and land, burned down their homes, and desecrated and razed temples, which has resulted in forcing many to flee as refugees. Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed numerous reports that attest to the current violent persecution in Bangladesh. These reports have been written by the International Federation of Bangladeshi Hindus and Friends, Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, CNN, BBC, and multiple Bangladeshi newspapers that reflect the testimonies of the Hindu victims. This campaign of minority cleansing in progress in Bangladesh has to be stopped. Since 1971, when Bangladesh was born as a secular democratic country out of Islamic Pakistan, all minority populations have declined, and this Islamization must be put to an end through the government's leadership. In an effort to uphold pluralistic democracy in Bangladesh and protection of Hindus and all minorities, the following must be implemented: First, restoration of secularism in the constitution of Bangladesh, as it existed in the first constitution of independent Bangladesh in 1972. Second, passage of affirmative action and hate crime laws that acknowledge the minority communities of Bangladesh. Third, production of a white paper on atrocities against the minorities over the years, and assurance that the perpetrators of the ongoing pogrom are brought to justice. Fourth, repatriation of the refugees, displaced people, with full compensation to the victims. Fifth, ending of oppression of journalists and writers who report minority and human rights violations. Six, termination of the illegal torture in custody of members of secular parties. And seventh, allowance of an independent commission to investigate the atrocities perpetrated against the minority groups. Mr. Speaker, I hope that these goals can be achieved and the Government of Bangladesh can take the necessary steps to international human and civil rights.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor an exemplary individual, as well as a dear friend, Mr. Edward Reilly, Jr., It seems only fitting that Mr. Reilly be honored by the Neptune Township Democratic Organization, in recognition of his many years of selfless dedication to family and community. In 1964, Edward and his loving wife Betty became Monmouth County Democratic Committeepersons or District Leaders. Today, eight U.S. Presidents later, Edward continues to serve, having taken on the additional responsibility of Neptune Township Democratic Municipal Chairman. Edward and Betty are also the proud parents of 10 children. A recipient of a Purple Heart and various other awards for his bravery and service in the U.S. Army during World War II, Edward Reilly has applied that same level of commitment to his local community. He has been involved in the legal profession for many years, serving as counsel to the Neptune Township Committee, and Assistant County Counsel for the Country of Monmouth. In addition, he is a past commander of the American Legion in Newark. My Speaker, Edward Reilly's entire life has been dedicated to the democratic process and serving this Nation and his community with honor and dignity. I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a good friend and a respected public servant.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss a disturbing chain of events on the Island of Cuba this week. On Tuesday, Cubans awoke to find the Island's dollar stores, stores that accept U.S. dollars and provide Cubans with basic hygiene and food items, were closed. The Castro government called this a reaction to new sanctions placed on Cuba by the U.S. Castro said that this was because of new limits being placed on remittances given to Cubans from their families in the U.S. Cubans were not given a date or time when the stores would reopen, simply left to read signs posted on the front door that read ``closed until further notice.'' Mr. Speaker, to explain to the average American what these stores mean to the Cuban people, a monthly ration covers eight eggs, about a pint of cooking oil, six pounds of rice, a half pound of ground meat/ soy mixture, and other goods each month. Everything else has to be purchased for higher prices at either state-run stores, in pesos, or the dollar stores, in dollars, obviously. Essentially, the Cubans are being told by Castro that the closings were the result of a new American policy, keeping Castro clear of any responsibility in the matter. So, not surprisingly, there was a run on basic necessities at the state-run stores. Mind you, the state-run stores carry bare minimum products. Even still, Cubans rushed to buy up shampoo and dishwashing detergent, worried that ``closed until further notice'' could mean closed for weeks, months, or even years to come. Castro has since realized the error in his plans. News was released this afternoon that the dollar stores were suddenly reopened this morning, and the Castro regime is now saying that the stores were simply closed for inventory and to allow for price increases. So now the Cubans have regained access to the goods they need, but now they will have to pay higher prices, a difficult prospect when even doctors only make an average monthly salary of $25. Mr. Speaker, this is one more example of Castro's attempt to impose sanctions on the Cuban people, all while blaming the United States and essentially playing the martyr. This should be an example to all of my colleagues on why we need to continue the embargo. Opening our markets to a regime that uses its people as economic and political pawns and has no interest in a market economy, rather, works only to funnel money into the government and its wealthy leaders, is not an example of an honest business partner. This, Mr. Speaker, is how Castro treats the average Cuban citizen. Let us not forget the countless situations Castro has committed against pro-democracy forces, throwing pro-democracy advocates in prison or independent journalists, many of whom have been jailed in the last year. So I simply ask my colleagues to join with me and take notice of what happened with these dollar stores as an example of how Castro treats his people. And I think it also should make us reconsider whether we want American companies doing business with this kind of a regime. I do not think we should.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last month the Greek Cypriot majority on the island nation of Cyprus overwhelmingly rejected a U.N. plan that forced them to put too much faith in the government of Turkey. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Greek Cypriot people did not reject reunification of Cyprus. They rejected a proposal by U.N. Secretary- General Kofi Annan, a proposal they determined was not in the best interests of their nation as it prepared to join the European Union. After the Annan plan was defeated, Cypriot President Papadopoulos said, ``I should emphasize that the Greek Cypriots have not rejected the solution of the Cyprus problem. They are not turning their backs on their Turkish Cypriot compatriots.'' President Papadopoulos once again called upon Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to work together for a united Cyprus. Both the United Nations and the Bush administration must realize that the Greek Cypriots are still dedicated to reunification, but they were simply not willing to accept a plan that forced them to accept the good will of the Turkish Government. Mr. Speaker, before last month's vote, I voiced concern over some of the provisions included in the final Annan plan. I think the overall vote shows who benefited most from this plan, the Turkish Cypriot people and Turkey. I met with the Secretary-General in March to express my concerns with some of the proposals he was planning to include in his final plan. During that meeting, I strongly recommended that the United Nations maintain a presence on the island as long as the Turkish Army remained there. The Secretary-General assured me that U.N. forces would remain on the island for a considerable amount of time, but his final plan allowed Turkish troops to stay indefinitely without an international presence. This was simply unacceptable. Like most Greek Cypriots, I was extremely worried about the actions Turkish troops would take with the absence of a neutral international presence to keep them in line. I was also concerned that Turkey would not abide by the final agreement and its troops would contribute to further instability and insecurity. Mr. Speaker, the Annan plan should have called for the removal of all foreign troops and should have eliminated the right of foreign powers to unilaterally intervene in Cyprus. Greek Cypriots were concerned that the plan did not contain ironclad provisions for the implementation of the agreement, especially for those provisions where Turkey's cooperation was necessary. The Cypriots were forced to take the Turkish Government at its word that occupied land would be returned to its rightful owners 3 to 5 years down the line. The Cypriots were forced to take the Turkish Government at its word that the Turkish Parliament would ratify the treaty. And, as I have said, the Cypriots were forced to believe that Turkey would remove its troops according to the timetable in the Annan plan and were forced to deal with the fact that Turkish troops will remain in Cyprus forever with Turkey having the unilateral right to intervene at any time. Greek Cypriots were also concerned that the Annan plan denied the majority of the Greek Cypriot refugees the right of return to their homes in safety. They were also concerned the plan imposed on them the liability to pay large claims for the loss of use of properties in the Turkish occupied area. Mr. Speaker, all of these concerns led to the rejection of the Annan plan by the Greek Cypriots in the referendum. But as the Greek Cypriot President said, the Greek Cypriots are not turning their backs on the Turkish Cypriots. Greek Cypriots will continue to hold out hope that a common future for all Cypriots within the European Union will eventually be a reality, but it must happen without any third parties, like the Turkish Government, dictating that future.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for not only doing this special order, but also for having all those letters and comments from her constituents, because I think that is the best way to show what the problem is. It needs to be personalized, because it is real. This is not just some abstract theory we are operating under here. These are real people who are suffering and talk to us and approach us. Many of them are not in a position to write a letter, because maybe they are not articulate enough. But they tell you when they see you on the street or they see you at a function that they are having tremendous problems. And they are fearful. They either have no insurance or they are fearful they will not have insurance or they are under-insured. I just want to spend a few minutes talking a little more about these three bills that we Democrats introduced today that I think will go far towards providing insurance for the majority of those 44 million uninsured Americans. The one I mentioned before is the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act. This addresses small businesses trying to provide insurance for their employees. I will not again get into all of it, but basically what it does is to provide a tax credit to help defray the costs of health insurance and encourage more employers to offer health insurance. It is available to any small employer who has 2 to 50 employees who provides coverage through a qualified pooling arrangement and who offers coverage to all employees. It is available to any self-employed individual who gets coverage through a qualified pooling arrangement. The tax credit, as I said before, is equal to 50 percent of the employer's cost of health insurance coverage. Small businesses and self-employed individuals receive the tax credit for 4 years at least, and participating employers who increase the number of employees to over 50 after qualifying for credit continue to receive the credit for another 4 years. The bill provides additional economic stimulus even to small employers who currently offer coverage, so it is something that those who offer coverage can take advantage of, so they do not get into a situation where they have to drop the coverage. The second bill I mentioned is the one with the near-elderly. Actually, when I described it before, I made it sound as if you were going to have to pay all the costs of the premium. In reality, that is not the case. There is actually a subsidy in the bill. But I would like to describe it a little bit. It again applies to those from 55 to 64. Starting in January 2005, individuals in that age bracket who have no insurance under another public or group health plan are eligible to purchase Medicare as their health insurance. They receive the full range of Medicare benefits and they are not required to exhaust employer-based COBRA before choosing the Medicare buy-in. The way it works is the premium is set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and enrollees receive a 75 percent refundable advanceable tax credit to offset the premiums. So, basically the participants are only personally responsible for a 25 percent share of the monthly premiums. The third bill I am not going to get into, because I see one of our colleagues has arrived, but it is the one for the parents of the kids who now receive funding and coverage for their kids under the SCHIP program.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). I know that both of us are involved with the Democrats' health care task force. One of the things that we work on is trying to come up with some solutions in dealing with the problem of the uninsured. As was pointed out, the number of the uninsured continues to go up. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said it was 40 million a few years ago, now it is up to 44, 45 million. The number continues to grow. I do not like to criticize the Republican side of the aisle unnecessarily, but I am amazed by the fact that our two colleagues who were here earlier were so convinced that other countries do not have the solution. Statements were made about how national health insurance does not work, yet the reality is, as my colleague from Wisconsin mentioned, in fact it does work. I am not saying that we are advocating that. I would love to see national health insurance. I know that is not realistic politically, we are not going to get it; but to suggest that somehow these other countries, whatever country you mention, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy, all of Western Europe, every developed country really, other than the United States, has some form of national health insurance. The one thing I would stress, too, is I think when people talk about national health insurance, they get the impression that somehow that means that the government is going to run the hospitals or salary the doctors or something like that. That is not what national health insurance is all about. National health insurance just means that everybody has health insurance. People can have thousands of different policies, but it would be wonderful if we could say that everybody has health insurance. We are not saying, I am not saying certainly that the government would run the system, but they would at least guarantee that everybody has some form of health insurance. But that is not going to happen, that is not going to happen in the near future, so I do not want to really stress that today. I also heard my colleagues on the Republican side talk about community clinics or community health centers. The amazing thing about the Republicans is that they are in the majority and they act as if they are running for office and if they get in, they are going to implement these policies. They neglect to point out that they are in the majority, that the President is a Republican, the other body, the Senate, is majority Republican, there is a significant Republican majority here. So if they think these policies are so wonderful, why do they not pass them? The reason is because they do not have a consensus. In other words, they cannot get all the Republicans or a majority of their own party to agree on these three bills that they brought up today. They have characterized this week as Cover the Uninsured Week. They basically have three bills that are on the House floor. One deals with associated health plans; the other Republican bill is the health savings account legislation; finally, the medical malpractice legislation. Every one of these things has already been passed in this House in pretty much the same form last year. Again, they are in the majority. I think these bills are terrible. I refuse to vote for any of them, but if they think they are so wonderful, then what is the the big holdup? Pass it here, send it over to the other Republican body, send it to the Republican President, it becomes law. That is the way we operate. The problem is these proposals do not actually help the uninsured. They are bad proposals that will probably result in more people being uninsured, and that is why they cannot get most of the Republicans or enough Republicans to pass them. There is a certain amount of disbelief on my part when I listen to what they say. The other thing is they talked about the community clinics. I have to go back to that. Again, if you believe that community clinics or health centers are a way of dealing with people who do not have health insurance, I do not. I think they serve an important role. I would rather see everybody have health insurance; but certainly if everyone does not, as my Republican colleagues mentioned, somebody could go to a community health clinic or health center. These places are grossly underfunded. A few weeks ago when we had our break around Easter and Passover, I had a gathering, a forum at a community health center in Asbury Park which is in my district. They are so grossly underfunded. They try to accommodate everybody, but they cannot. One of the things that was particularly egregious was dental care. We know how there is no dental care, and there are long lines. They do not even have the dental clinic there. It is at another location. There were long lines of people that cannot get in. The Republicans are in the majority. If they think community health clinics are the answer, why do they not just appropriate money so that they can accommodate more people or we can have more of them? I do not want to just totally discredit them, but when I hear these statements, and I hear this banter about how this is Cover the Uninsured Week, the bottom line is it is just a ruse. I want to just talk about each of these bills that they say is going to address the problems of the uninsured. They claim that the associated health plan legislation, which I think was voted on today, that that is going to lower rates and provide greater access to insurance. The reality is that the associated health plan legislation would result in less health care access and dramatic increases in premiums for State insurance-based employers. Associated health plans would fragment and destabilize the small group market resulting in higher premiums for many small businesses. The Republican legislation would allow employers to cherry-pick, attracting younger, healthier individuals to join associated health plans while leaving older, sicker individuals in the traditional insurance market which results in increased premiums for the remaining pool. One of the things that everyone knows about health insurance is that the more people you have in the pool and the more varied they are, young or old or sick or healthy, then the more it works. I do not want to get into all the details of that, but that is just the reality of insurance. What this associated health plan does, is break the pool and there is cherry-picking of the younger and healthier and leaving the others outside. So it just does not work. It makes the situation worse. The second thing they mentioned is the Republican health savings account legislation. I think that is up tomorrow. That creates a tax- favored saving provision with no income limitations. The main reason Republicans want to pass this bill is to create a new tax shelter for the healthy and wealthy while at the same time threatening higher health insurance premiums for everyone else. Under this bill, basically you get a tax credit that would allow you to set aside up to $2,000 tax-free in a new health savings account to supposedly help pay for health insurance, but unfortunately it is practically impossible for someone who is uninsured, who inherently does not have a lot of money, to be able to take advantage of the program because they would have an extremely difficult time saving $2,000 a year for health care. Again, it is not practical. The last one, and I do not want to spend a lot of time on it, was the medical liability reform. I agree that we need to address the rising cost of medical liability insurance, but what does it have to do with the uninsured? How is passing that going to do anything? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded, and I quote, ``that even a very large reduction in malpractice costs would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums.'' It is not going to help the uninsured. It is not even going to reduce costs in any significant way for the patient. It is addressed to the physicians. That is certainly a good cause but it is not going to help the cost for the patient or result in any more people being insured. I later want to talk maybe a little bit about some of the Democratic proposals. I know that my colleague from Ohio did that.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman again. I actually do have two letters that I wanted to bring to your attention. By way of background, though, I did want to say, obviously many of us do believe as I do that we should have national health insurance. One of the letters actually addresses that. I would like to read it now. But I would also point out that there are ways of dealing with the uninsured in a more piecemeal fashion to expand options for the uninsured that would cover a great deal of those 44 million Americans. And so whether or not you agree, as I do, that we should have national health insurance or you want to look at this in a more piecemeal fashion, either way certainly would be better than what the Republican majority is proposing because I think that their solutions really are no solution at all. But I did want to read this one letter. I am not going to mention the names of my constituents because I did not get permission, so I am just going to read some sections. This is from a gentleman who is an advocate of national health insurance. He writes a very good letter. He says: ``I ask that you give some thought for national health insurance to cover every American citizen. We as a Nation are ranked 37th out of 191 countries as far as medical health care. Our country is considered one of the wealthiest in the world. That being the case, why shouldn't every American citizen have medical, dental, and prescription drug coverage? A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine said 18,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health insurance. Myself, I wonder how many die because they don't have adequate health coverage because they can't afford the better coverage. Some can't afford to pay for their medication, glasses and other needs. I find it disgraceful that should you fall very ill or need extended health care or have to be treated for a terminal illness, all personal property and assets you work hard for all your life will be taken away from you and your loved ones. No other industrialized nation rations out health care to the degree as the United States does.'' The letter goes on, but I think that last point is particularly apt, given what our Republican colleagues said earlier this evening and I will read that section again from this letter: ``No other industrialized nation rations out health care to the degree as the United States does.'' For those Republicans that say that other countries are rationing health care, we do it more than anybody else because we have so many uninsured. The second letter that I have I think is particularly significant because this person is a small business owner. And as we know, one of the Democratic bills that we introduced today and that we wanted to have considered as an alternative to the Republican bill is the Small Business Health Insurance Act which creates a 50 percent tax credit to help small businesses with the costs of health care, which I think would be very significant; but again I would point out that under the rules of the House with the Republican majority, we were not allowed today to bring up this bill, which is what we wanted to do. We did not have that option. But in any case I will say this is from Christine, I will not give her full name, one of my constituents. And again I am not going to read the whole letter but I will read some parts of it. She says: ``Dear Congressman Pallone: I am writing to you to make you aware of the desperate situation in which my husband and I find ourselves. Included in this letter you will find a copy of a newspaper article from the Star Ledger.'' Let me explain that this newspaper article in the Star Ledger, which is the largest newspaper in the State of New Jersey, basically talks about the State License Beverage Association which had a health plan to cover member restaurants and taverns but essentially went belly up. I do not know all the details, but if people read the Star Ledger article, it simply stopped paying out benefits because it did not have the money to do so, which I think highlights again how difficult it is for small businesses to provide coverage even through their trade association. But let me go on about what Christine says. She says: ``This is most upsetting to us, as my husband was released from the hospital, after suffering a heart attack and subsequent angioplasty the day before we read this article'' in the Star Ledger. ``I cannot imagine what his bills will be. ``For a year prior to reading this'' Star Ledger ``article, we have been trying to find out why our doctor bills and hospital bills are not being paid. We receive letters and telephone calls from collection agencies. We never got a straight answer from the New Jersey License Beverage Association. We are told to resubmit the bills. Our premiums of $868 per month were paid in full, without exception. We also pay a $500 deductible per person, per year. That amount is for the most basic coverage; no dental or eye care. In addition, our plan is a 70/30 plan, which means we pay a co-pay each visit plus 30 percent of the rest of the bill.'' We can see that this is not really the best of plans, but this is all they had. When we are seeing cardiac specialists, this 30 percent can be hundreds of dollars. Being restaurant owners, we know this amount of money is more than many people who work for large corporations pay, but we know it is what we have to pay to take care of ourselves. ``In addition to being without health coverage through New Jersey License Beverage Association, we now have to try to find a new health coverage plan. This task will not be an easy one. My husband and I are both in our 50s and have a number of health problems or, as they say, `preexisting conditions.' Health insurance plans do not like to see these words. They are reluctant to take on customers who may cost them money right away. ``Please look into this matter. Where did our money go, if not to pay our doctor bills? How can we possibly be held responsible for over a year's worth of doctor bills when we have paid our premiums?'' And they go on. And, again, the problem is real. The problem faces these 44 million uninsured Americans every day. And what we have proposed as Democrats here today, and I know my colleague from Ohio went into it a little bit, were three pieces of legislation which, again, are not going to cover all those 44 million uninsured but probably would cover the majority of them. And one of them, as I said, was the bill called the Small Business Health Insurance Act, which creates a 50 percent tax credit to help small businesses with the costs of health care, but I wanted to mention the other two. The second one is the Family Care Act, which essentially expands Medicaid and S-CHIP to provide affordable coverage to about 7.5 million working parents. What we found a few years ago when we studied the 40 million uninsured was that the biggest group of uninsured were kids, and the second largest were the near elderly, those between 55 and 65 that were not eligible for Medicare, and then the third, of course, were the parents of the kids. So we tried through, as I call it, piecemeal legislation to address those problems. And then we did pass it. It was a Democratic initiative, but we did get enough Republicans; so we passed the Family Care or the S-CHIP, which gave money back to the States to provide for health insurance for kids. What this bill does that was introduced today, this Democratic initiative, the Family Care Act, basically expands Medicaid and S-CHIP to provide coverage for the parents of those kids, the 7.5 million people. And then the third piece of legislation is the Medicare Early Access Act that provides coverage to 3.5 million people who are over the age of 55, but not yet eligible for Medicare, by allowing them to purchase Medicare coverage. These are the second largest group of uninsured, the near elderly. What happens is that when someone gets, say, 10 years prior to that, 65, when they are eligible for Medicare, they are often in a situation where they may be a spouse of a husband who may have died because he is older. I am assuming the woman is still alive, but it could be either way. Then the other thing is that a lot of people at the age of 55 will sometimes lose their job or they will be in a position where they have an early retirement and they may think they have health care coverage, and then they do not have it or they lose it. So that is definitely a very vulnerable group, and they could be added to the Medicare program by simply paying a premium. It was estimated, I think, a few years ago, when President Clinton was in office, that it would be something like $350. I guess it was probably a month, I would imagine, $350 a month. Some people may not have been able to afford that, but it would have been an option. So these are ways, as I said, that we can expand health coverage and cover the majority of the uninsured without having to go to the national health insurance. Again, although I would like to see national health insurance, the Democrats have a consensus that this is a way to address the problem through this, as I call, piecemeal legislation that would provide significant coverage for most of the uninsured.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have been on the floor yesterday as well as earlier today essentially pointing out that the Republicans who have now said that this is the week of the uninsured, that somehow this is the week they are going to pass legislation to help the uninsured are, in fact, doing nothing of the kind. We face a health care crisis in this country. It is a crisis that is based primarily on cost because the cost of health care keeps going up and also because more and more people have no health insurance. Nothing that is being presented in these bills today and tomorrow is going to do anything major to bring costs down for the patients or for those people who are now uninsured. I oppose the rule because I think there should be an opportunity to bring up some Democratic measures that would do exactly that, reduce the costs of health care and also cover more people. Specifically, I know it has already been mentioned with regard to cost, is the idea of reimportation from Canada and other countries. We all know that that saves the consumer money. Why not let us have an opportunity to bring that up? The Republicans are wrong in not allowing it to be brought up. Secondly, let us amend the Medicare prescription drug bill so that we can have negotiated price reductions. Let the Medicare agency, let the Federal Government negotiate prices to bring prices down. This is what other countries do. This is what we do with our VA and with our military. It is a way of lowering costs. But beyond that for the uninsured, allow us as Democrats to bring up other measures. We have a measure that would allow the nearly elderly, those who are over 55, not yet eligible for Medicare, to buy into the Medicare program so that they can be insured. That is the second largest group around this country that have no health insurance right now. In addition to that, we have a very successful bipartisan program called S-CHIP that insures a lot of the kids around this country who were uninsured. Let us amend that bill. Let us bring up an amendment that would allow us to expand the S-CHIP program to cover the parents of the kids. These are people that are working, they are lower-income but they are working, and they cannot get health insurance on the job. Let us also address the problem that small businesses have. The Democrats have another proposal, a piece of legislation that would increase what small businesses can do in terms of tax deductions if they provide health care for their employees. The Republicans do not allow us to do this. They are doing nothing to deal with the crisis of health care in terms of cost and the uninsured.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this week the Republican majority here in Congress will begin an 8-week public relations initiative in which they will attempt to draw attention away from their dismal economic record. Instead, House Republicans will do their best to show Americans they are working hard to pass legislation that will put Americans back to work and ease the economic concerns of middle-class Americans. Unfortunately, Republicans are spending more time coming up with names for this new PR effort than actually writing new legislation that might really support their rhetoric. Republicans are desperate to hide the reality that their economic policies have permitted job losses at levels not seen since the Great Depression. If Republicans really wanted results, they would join us in a bipartisan effort to pass commonsense measures to create jobs. Unfortunately, all the American people are going to get over the next 8 weeks is more Republican spin.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this resolution honoring the contributions of Indian Americans in the United States and honoring our strong U.S.-India relations. As a cosponsor of this bill, I urge all of my colleagues to support this much-needed and well- deserved legislation. As the founder and former cochair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, I have for a number of years advocated on behalf of my Indian American constituents and worked toward creating stronger U.S.-India policies. India is the largest democracy in the world and shares common ideologies with the United States which has led to our natural relationship as allies. India has also been an important ally in the war against terrorism and has historically served as the key stabilizing force in the volatile south Asia region. Our economic, political, and defense relations with India are now more important than ever and I am pleased that our cooperation in the areas of nuclear activities, civilian space programs, high-technology trade, and missile defense continue to grow. In addition, people of Indian origin who have emigrated to the U.S. serve as an outstanding community within American society. 1.8 million strong, their contributions are tremendous and span fields such as engineering, technology, business development, health and medical care, public service, social justice, education, philanthropy, literature and the arts. Whether it is combating domestic and global HIV/AIDS, pursuing nuclear nonproliferation, promoting democracy, advocating for health and education rights, enhancing stability of the world economy, eliminating poverty, fighting terrorism or expanding and strengthening global trade, Indian Americans are on the forefront and these goals can be achieved by maintaining India as a strategic partner. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H. Con. Res. 352 in an effort to honor the contributions of the Indian Americans and to commit to working together with India in promoting global peace and prosperity.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans begin an 8-week public relations campaign in an attempt to sell their special interest agenda to all Americans. Unfortunately, when Americans look beyond all the rhetoric, they will see the Republican proposals do nothing for the middle class. The so-called ``Hire Our Workers'' campaign begins this week with Republicans highlighting three pieces of legislation that they say will help the uninsured find insurance and middle class Americans better afford health care. But, Mr. Speaker, the Republican public relations effort is necessary because their health care proposals do no such thing. This week is ``Cover the Uninsured Week.'' But unfortunately, nothing the Republican Congress is proposing will help the more than 44 million Americans without health insurance gain any insurance. As health care costs continue to increase way above the rate of inflation, the Republicans' health care proposals this week do nothing to help those Americans struggling to pay these ever-increasing prices. The three health care bills that Republicans are offering this week are simply a ruse. Furthermore, each of these pieces of legislation has already been passed by the Republican majority and each of these bills have been proven to increase health costs, dismantle the employer- sponsored health insurance base, and increase the number of uninsured Americans. Republicans will claim their Association Health Plan legislation will lower rates and provide greater access to insurance, but the reality is that AHP legislation would result in less health care access and dramatic increases in premiums for State insurance-based employers. AHPs would fragment and destabilize the small group market, resulting in higher premiums for many small businesses. And the Republican legislation would also allow employers to ``cherry-pick,'' attracting younger, healthier individuals to join AHPs, while leaving older, sicker individuals in the traditional insurance market which results in increased premiums for the remaining pool. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Health Savings Account legislation creates a tax-favored savings provision with no income limitations. The main reason Republicans want to pass this bill is to create a new tax shelter for the healthy and wealthy while, at the same time, threatening higher health insurance premiums for everyone else. The Republican PR machine will claim this legislation helps the uninsured by providing a tax credit that would allow the uninsured to set aside up to $2,000, tax free, in a new health savings account to supposedly help pay for health insurance. But unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that most uninsured Americans will be able to take advantage of this program, because they have an extremely difficult time saving $2,000 a year for health care. Mr. Speaker, the final component of the Republican agenda is medical liability reform. Republicans will claim that this legislation will address the sky-rocketing costs of health care, but Republicans are doing nothing to address spiraling insurance premiums for doctors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that ``Malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending; even a very large reduction in malpractice costs would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums.'' If Republicans truly want to help the uninsured and underinsured, they should set aside their rhetoric and pass three pieces of legislation introduced by the Democrats. First, the Family Care Act expands Medicaid and SCHIP to provide affordable coverage to about 7.5 million working parents. Second, the Medicare Early Access Act provides coverage to 3.5 million people who are over the age of 55, but not yet eligible for Medicare, by allowing them to purchase Medicare coverage. And third, the Small Business Health Insurance Act creates a 50 percent tax credit to help small businesses with the costs of health care. These Democratic proposals not only offer significant reductions in the ranks of the uninsured, but also rein in spiraling health care costs to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve results here on the House floor. It is unfortunate that for the next 8 weeks, all they are going to get from the Republican majority is more political spin.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, May 15, nearly 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington D.C. to honor their fallen comrades for National Peace Officers Memorial Day. In keeping with this sentiment today, this body will pay tribute to one of the 166 police officers killed annually in the line of duty. By redesignating the Fair Lawn post office as the Mary Ann Collura Post Office Building, we honor the life of Officer Mary Ann Collura and the extraordinary sacrifice she made to protect her community. I would like to thank my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), for introducing this legislation. This legislation has special significance for me because Officer Collura was the aunt of my campaign manager, Scott Snyder. After having had the opportunity to hear Scott speak about his aunt, I have greater appreciation for this extraordinary woman and how tragic it is she has been taken from this world far too soon. Though I have never had the opportunity to meet her, I am humbled by the remarkable life she led. One family member remarked to me, ``Mary Ann was a 6-foot tall female cop who loved motorcycles and taught me how to throw a baseball. But when I look in the mirror and see our resemblance, I can't help but judge myself against her standards, knowing that if I come close, that means I have achieved something great with my own life.'' Through the thousands of stories that have been told about her deeds and personality, the one ringing truth is that she represented a person we all long to be. She was the kind of warm person that could light up faces with a smile, the virtuous type that viewed everyone around her as a potential friend, and the forgiving type of person that can truly see the best in the worst of us. She accomplished this without even knowing, without the official commitment or the sacred vows. She lived from her heart. Over the course of her career, Officer Collura had received numerous rewards, including a departmental Meritorious Service Award and the Hackensack University Medical Center EMS Excellence Award for her life- saving skills. Furthermore, she had received numerous commendation letters from the community for her prompt, courteous, and thoughtful service. After dutifully serving for 18 years on the Fair Lawn Police Department, Officer Collura was fatally shot on April 17, 2003, in the line of duty. She was only 43 years old. Mary Ann did not begin a life of aiding others when she became a police officer. She became a police officer so she could make a living doing what she really had already done, being our protector. For those who knew her, Mary Ann lived by her own rules; and though her death tore deep in the hearts of so many people who continue to grieve, it was her way: on the job, protecting her fellow officers and protecting all of us. Thanks to the courageous acts of people like Officer Mary Ann Collura, countless Americans can go about their daily lives in a freer and safer society. Police Officer Collura's tragic death should serve as a reminder to all of us how fortunate we are to have such heroic individuals looking over us.