Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the esteemed Mr. Lionel A. Kaplan, ESQ, a man devoted to his community. On November 10, 2003 The Orthodox Union's Institute for Public Affairs, which serves the Orthodox community as the central voice for public policy advocacy and religious liberties, will present Mr. Kaplan with the National Distinguished Leadership Award. Mr. Kaplan's extraordinary devotion to Israel and his love of the Jewish people have propelled his rise to the top levels of leadership in the American Jewish community. In 1988, Mr. Kaplan joined the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, one of the leading pro-Israel lobby groups, as chairman of the Princeton/Mercer Area, a position he held until 2002. During those years, he also served as a member of the AIPAC Executive Committee; Member of the New York Regional Board; New Jersey State Chairman; Member of the National Board of Directors; and National Development Chairman. In addition, Mr. Kaplan became President of AIPAC from 1998-2000 and Chairman of the Board from 2000-2002. Throughout his career in AIPAC, he has always been known for his skills as a consummate fundraiser for pro-Israel causes. Mr. Kaplan's contributions to his community do not stop with AIPAC. In the United Jewish Appeals, UJA, Federation, he served as a Member of the UJA National Young Leadership Cabinet, as a leadership and fundraising trainer at the UJA National Training Center, and has served as Vice President of the Jewish Federations of New Jersey. In his immediate community, Mr. Kaplan has assumed a variety of roles, including Campaign Chairman and President of the Jewish Federation of Princeton, Mercer, and Bucks Counties. Among his other community services, he has been the chairman of the New Jersey ``Jerusalem 3000'' Committee, which planned and coordinated events for the 3000-year anniversary of Jerusalem and Co-Chairman of the New Jersey Israel Communications. Mr. Kaplan has a graduate degree from Harvard University and has received his J.D. from Rutgers University. He is a licensed attorney in the Firm of Joseph D. Kaplan & Son, P.C., in Trenton where he has been a partner since 1972. Mr. Kaplan is also a member of the American, New Jersey, and Mercer County Bar Associations. He and his wife reside in Princeton, New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kaplan has demonstrated what it means to be a true contributor to one's community. The extensive list of his tireless efforts shows a genuine compassion and devotion to public service. Accordingly, I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in honoring Mr. Lionel A. Kaplan, ESQ.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my extreme disappointment regarding the tentative agreement that has been reached by the Republicans in Congress with regard to Medicare and prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, the source of my frustration stems from the fact that this agreement is not good public policy. It is not good for seniors or any Medicare consumer and it does nothing to reduce the cost of soaring prescription drugs. What this bill does, simply stated, is it kills the Medicare program and, in the process, shores up hundreds of billions of dollars of funding for the HMO industry and for the name-brand pharmaceutical industry. If this so-called deal is enacted into law, make no mistake about it, the Medicare program will be privatized. Medicare, as we know it today, will be turned into a voucher system and seniors will be forced into HMO's. Republicans are trying to fool us into believing that their privatization provisions are merely a demonstration project or a test, but nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Medicare provisions are unacceptable because they have nothing to do with prescription drugs. The ``demo'' goes way beyond the scope of providing seniors with prescription drug coverage, and, in fact, aims to bankrupt seniors, denying them their right to adequate health care under Medicare, and ultimately forcing them into HMOs because they can no longer afford Medicare. This is exactly where the insurance companies come in to get their big payoff because greater risk and cost are shifted to senior citizens. Furthermore, the provisions in the medicare agreement that deal with prescription drug coverage are completely inadequate in terms of benefit structure. We are talking about a $275 deductible, a $35 monthly premium, 75-25 coverage, in other words, 75 percent paid by the Federal Government, 25 percent by the senior to the first $2,200 and no assistance until $3,600, at which point, the catastrophic is reached. So there is a huge doughnut hole; basically, between $2,200 and $3,600, in assistance, seniors get nothing. This means that seniors will have to pay nearly $2,600 before the government pays for all drug costs. Twenty million seniors or half of all seniors will be paying premiums year-round but would have no coverage for part of the year due to this large gap or doughnut hole in the coverage. Now, the combination of this insufficient benefit combined with watered-down generic provisions, watered-down reimportation provisions, and the prohibition of the Medicare Administrator to negotiate lower drug prices brings me to my point that this Medicare final agreement is a giveaway to the name-brand pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Speaker, there are so many fundamental problems with this upcoming Medicare agreement beyond what I have discussed tonight. There is no Medicare fallback in this bill that is favorable to seniors. We expect 2 to 3 million retirees to have their coverage dropped. Ten million, or one out of four, seniors will be forced to pay more for Medicare or to join an HMO. Low-income seniors are not financially protected and will be subject to an assets test for the first time in Medicare history. And the Medicare Part B will rise for the first time in 12 years. Means testing will be implemented in the Medicare program for the first time in its history, and tax sheltered accounts for the wealthy are going to be part of this bill, even though it is not really a Medicare bill. Mr. Speaker, the list of problems in this so-called Medicare agreement is overwhelming, and I really do not know how the Republicans or groups like the AARP or the President and others who have endorsed this agreement can live with their deceit and ill will against America's seniors.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the accomplishments of Bishop Donald Hilliard, Jr. Bishop Hilliard is a man of conviction and dedication, as well as an inspiration to his community. This year, the Cathedral International Church is celebrating twenty years of excellence under the leadership of Bishop Donald Hilliard. Bishop Hilliard is someone who places a high value on education. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Eastern University in St. David's, Pennsylvania. He later earned a Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, and was awarded a Doctorate of Ministry degree from the United Theological Seminary in Dayton Ohio. Yet, Dr. Hilliard's accomplishments extend far beyond academia. His list of achievements range from economic and community developer to spiritual leader. Bishop Hilliard always approaches life with a positive attitude, as revealed in his trademark ``Say Yes'' services at the Second Baptist Church in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. At the age of 26, Bishop Hilliard became the Church's Senior Pastor. Since then, the church has grown from 125 members in 1983 to over 7,000 members today. What started out as one church has grown to three located in urban settings throughout New Jersey. Dr. Hilliard's faith and inspirational words draws people from out the tri-state area of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The Cathedral is recognized as a growing and influential church and as been cited by American Baptist churches, USA as a model church for growth. In 1995, Bishop Hilliard was consecrated a bishop and is currently the presiding Bishop and founder of the Ecumenical Fellowship and Cathedral assemblies, Inc. In this role, Bishop Hilliard serves as the spiritual advisor and mentor for several pastors and churches across America and West Africa. The Bishop has also established the Clergy Leadership Institute where innovative leaders from different denominational backgrounds gather to confront and minister to various issues faced by the clergy daily, as well as to expand their theological and social horizons. Bishop Hilliard and his church have been cited numerous times by the city of Perth Amboy and the State of New Jersey for their contributions to community development. Today, I rise to ask this national body to recognize the accomplishments of this esteemed gentleman. Mr. Speaker, a man such as Bishop Hilliard should be an inspiration to us all. He has given so much of his life to serving others in need. Accordingly, I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in honoring Bishop Donald Hilliard, Jr.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for centuries, American Indians were forced to give up their ancestral lands by this country's early settlers. It was one of the most shameful episodes in American history. The U.S. Government subsequently placed the Indian lands in trust. But the Department of the Interior has not met its trust responsibility and American Indians were forced to sue in court to protect their rights. Now, the court has made a decision in favor of the American Indians, and this conference report would essentially delay or reverse that court's decision. I think it is wrong for this Congress to deny justice to over 500,000 of America's first citizens. Mr. Speaker, instead, we should reaffirm our commitment to Native Americans. That process begins here and now with this vote. By voting to recommit the interior appropriation bill, the antitrust reform language has a chance to be removed from the bill and a proper solution can be reached involving the Indian tribes. Keep in mind, the tribes were not consulted in this process. This is something that is coming from the Department of the Interior to reverse a court decision. There is no input from the Indian nations. Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. Let us begin to rebuild the trust relationship with American Indians so that we can put this ugly stain on American history behind us. We cannot do that by unilaterally doing this in the interior appropriation bill conference report. The only way it can be done is through the hearings that the Committee on Resources is now having. They are having them around the country, and they are allowing the Indian tribes to be involved in whatever solution we come up with. Now, I know that the authors here are well intentioned with this provision, but the bottom line is it delays or reverses the court's decision. What kind of signal does that send to Indian country? The wrong decision. Vote to recommit. And then if it does not pass, vote to turn this bill down. Vote against the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 409 that condemns recent anti-Semitic remarks by the Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia. Unfortunately, rather than openly condemn the Prime Minister for his remarks, many in the global community have remained largely silent on this issue. By not taking a stand against hateful speech, the international community is showing that it is okay for world leaders to promote bigotry and violence. By not taking a stand, members of the European Union and other world leaders are showing that other acts of hate speech will be allowed to continue without consequence. That is why it is critical that Congress takes a stand and denounces these remarks and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is important that we go on record to show that this type of hatred and bigotry is unacceptable--especially by world leaders who are expected to set an example for their people. By allowing these hateful remarks to go unacknowledged, that makes it that much more difficult to bring opposing sides together in the Middle East and puts us that much further from an eventual peace agreement. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 409.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month Congress approved an $87 billion supplemental for the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. While I believe it is critically important that we get our military troops all the resources they need to safely complete their mission in Iraq, I do not support rubber-stamping this legislation so the Bush administration gets a free ride from Congress. The Bush administration must account for its war strategy. The Bush administration must also answer the tough questions regarding questionable no-bid contracts, contracts that benefit Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer, an employer that continues to pay Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in deferred salary, contracts that are free of any oversight from Congress. Mr. Speaker, right now Halliburton holds a monopoly on Iraq. The company's no-bid contract was first negotiated in secret and originally intended for the sole purpose of extinguishing oil fires that could result from the war. Once again in secret last spring, that contract was extended with the Army to include the reconstruction and repair of Iraq's oil infrastructure. The administration did not allow other companies an opportunity to bid on this reconstruction. Now, today, Mr. Speaker, just today, Halliburton faces no competition and no oversight. And today also the Bush administration announced the contract would be extended longer than expected, blaming sabotage of oil facilities for delays in replacement contracts. Up to this point, Halliburton has been free to spend the American taxpayer's money at will and Congressional Republicans who, night-in- and-night-out, come to this House floor to complain about waste in the Federal Government, have been silent. I think that is outrageous. In fact, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle try to compare our reconstruction efforts in Iraq to those efforts included in the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II. But what my Republican colleagues neglect to say is that President Franklin Roosevelt stood up against war profiteers when he said, ``I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster.'' President Bush and House Republicans, who have never been shy about their efforts to help the wealthy expand their wealth, certainly do not share Franklin Roosevelt's sentiment. After World War II, Congress also refused to neglect its role in overseeing taxpayer money when the Senate unanimously created a special committee headed by then Senator Harry Truman to root out waste, corruption, inside trading and mismanagement in the Nation's defense industries. But, today, the Senate and the House, both controlled by Republicans, have turned a blind eye to possible waste and mismanagement. Congressional Republicans refuse to even question the Bush administration on the billions of dollars of taxpayer money now going to Halliburton, much less create a special committee to oversee these funds. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what are my Republican colleagues afraid of? Why do they refuse to hold Halliburton accountable for the billions it now spends in Iraq? Could it be Congressional Republicans do not want to draw much attention to the fact that the company profiting from the reconstruction of Iraq, Halliburton, continues to pay Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars each year? The Vice President tried to squash such a story when he appeared on Meet the Press on September 14. The Vice President stated, ``And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's Vice President, I have severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind, and haven't had now for over 3 years.'' Well, despite the Vice President's claims, the Congressional Research Service issued a report several weeks later concluding that because Cheney receives a deferred salary and continues to hold stock interests, he still has a financial interest in Halliburton. In fact, if the company were to go under, the Vice President could lose the deferred salary, a salary he is expected to continue to receive this year, next year and on into 2005. While losing around $200,000 a year would not put a big dent in the Vice President's wallet, he clearly still has a stake in the success of Halliburton. It is possible that Halliburton is the right company to do this work in Iraq, but how then does the Bush administration and the Republican Congress explain why there is so much secrecy surrounding the whole deal? Could it be that the Republican Congress and the Bush administration are concerned that the more light that is shed on Halliburton's use of taxpayer money would be more examples of waste and mismanagement that would likely be exposed? Despite the fact that Halliburton now goes about its business in Iraq without any Federal oversight, my colleagues on the Democratic side, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), exposed the outrageous fact that Halliburton seems to be inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers. In a letter to OMB Director Joshua Bolton, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) wrote that the independent experts they consulted have been appalled to learn that the U.S. Government has paid Halliburton $1.62 to $1.70 to import gasoline into Iraq. According to these experts, the price that Halliburton is charging for gasoline is outrageously high, potentially a huge rip-off and a highway robbery. During the relative period, the average wholesale cost of gasoline in the Mideast was around 71 cents per gallon, meaning that Halliburton was charging 90 cents per gallon just to transport the fuel into Iraq. According to the experts, such an exorbitant transportation charge is inflated many times over. Compounding the cost to the taxpayers, this expensive gasoline is then sold to Iraqis at a price of just 4 to 15 cents per gallon; 4 to 15 cents per gallon. Now, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, but the U.S. taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing over 90 percent of the cost of gasoline sold in Iraq. In light of this new information, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) requested that OMB Director Bolton provide copies of all contracts, task orders, invoices and related documents issued to date regarding Halliburton's work in Iraq so Congress can conduct its own independent investigation of these issues on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer. This request from my Democratic colleagues seems reasonable. After all, if Halliburton is grossly overcharging the American taxpayer for the transportation of oil, what else might the company be overcharging the Federal Government for? Once again, my Republican colleagues are silent on the issue. Those waste-watchers that come down here periodically and talk about waste in the Federal Government, those Republicans who come down to the floor periodically to rail against waste, a government they currently control, I might add, you do not see them coming down to the floor to rail about Halliburton's gauging of the Federal purse. They are silent. You do not see any Republicans expressing the need for more Congressional oversight of the current contracts going to Halliburton and others. It appears to be another example of how the House Republicans have taken this House away from the people and handed it over to an elite few, the corporate executives and other special interests. Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I see that many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have joined me here. So I would like to yield at this time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we have brought up a motion on a weekly bases to instruct the conferees to bring up that child tax credit for the lower-income Americans, and the conference has not even met. They have not even had a meeting to discuss trying to bring the two Houses together. They have no intention, Republicans have no intention of doing anything on the issue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I appreciate the detail that she went into there with respect to the Vice President's compensation and his interest in Halliburton. I was frankly not aware of the level or the magnitude of the stocks and the pension plan and all of the other details. It is incredible what it adds up to. I mean, if I had to add that all up, it comes to maybe $50 million, between the deferred compensation, the stocks and the retirement plan, over $50 million. It is outrageous to think that with that kind of compensation and interest, that the government where he is the Vice President would give out these no-bid contracts. I thank the gentlewoman. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important, as the gentleman brought out and others have tonight, what the consequences are of these actions of these no-bid contracts and driving up costs. It means that we do not have money for other programs, whether it is for the troops as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) mentioned, or it is for other domestic concerns here at home. There is no question about it, the deficit is, what, 4 or $500 billion now? A few years ago we had no deficit in the last few years of the Clinton administration. So there is a huge cost for taxpayers and to the future of the country that is being incurred here in order to pad these contracts. I just wanted to end tonight by pointing out that although we are concentrating on Halliburton and the no-bid contracts this evening, there are a lot of other ways that Republicans are making profits on the reconstruction effort in Iraq. Last month the New York Times had a front page story entitled ``Washington Insiders, New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq.'' And according to this September 30 article, a group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family and his administration has set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those who are seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects. This firm, called New Bridge Strategies, is headed by Joe Albaugh, President Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until last March. The article states that other directors included Edward Rogers, Jr., and Lanny Griffith, who were both assistants to the first President George Bush and now have close ties to the White House. The company's Web site. Which you can look up yourself says, ``The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the ground in Iraq.'' So not only is this administration helping Cheney's friends at Halliburton, the administration is also helping some of its own, giving them a leg up, working with other future contractors in Iraq. If you are a contractor, think about it, why would you not want to go to these guys? They can probably tell you who you can get a contract from where you do not have to disclose where you are spending the money. It has got to be music to the President's corporate friends' ears. Unfortunately, it is also another major hit to American taxpayers. This is another way of padding the bills. You do not hear the Republican Waste Watchers that come here frequently and talk about the waste of the Federal Government, they do not talk about this. Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on the Iraq supplemental, Democrats have attempted to shed some light on these issues by offering a substitute that required a detailed report from the President describing how funds in the previous war supplemental have been spent. It also required the notification of noncompetitive contracting and tightened public disclosure requirements. So we have been out there actually offering the substitute to the supplemental that would get rid of these no-bid contracts; but, of course, it did not pass. The Republicans voted against it. So I think the only thing we can do is do what we are doing tonight. Ask the tough questions. With the extension of this Halliburton contract today, I do not think we can wait any longer to see how this company is spending the taxpayers' money. I naively thought that the contract was going to end today and it would not be extended; and when I read that it was going to be extended, I just could not believe it. The process continues. And I think we just have to be here every night or as often as we can to point out how outrageous this is and what the administration is doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. Again, I just think it is incredible to think that as the gentleman said on a local level or a county level, even down to the stationery that is purchased, you have to have competitive bidding. Yet, here at this level, with billions of dollars at stake, it is not happening. I think most Americans would probably be shocked to find out that that is true, but it is. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. PALLONE. Well, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) but I just think most Americans will be shocked to find out that there is no accountability, that there is all these no-bid contracts. The kinds of things that you are asking for would seem to be basic. It is essentially the right to know what we are spending our money on. And, again, I just think it is outrageous that we do not have the accountability, that we have the no-bid contracts. Every effort, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said, to try to include that in this supplemental was basically rejected by the Republican leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek.)

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely that is what he said.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his comments. I know we want to emphasize these no-bid contracts, but you are bringing up the fact that this money that is being spent on these no-bid contracts, at the same time is depriving money that could be spent for the troops, I think is very well-placed. Many of my constituents talk about how so much of this reconstruction effort goes to Iraq and so little of the same type of thing is being done here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just hope that somehow our bringing this to light will make a difference. I know it will not in that $87 billion supplemental because they are going to bring that back tomorrow or the next day, and all these no-bid contracts and the other things we are talking about are going to continue, but I think if we continue to bring it to light, ultimately there will be some changes. So I want to thank the gentleman again and all my colleagues for being here tonight.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the gentleman said about the benefits. Surely we have all worked on a bipartisan basis to increase the benefit package. But the bottom line is it is the quality of care that suffers. We know that our seniors, many of them do not like to have to join an HMO where they are not necessarily provided with certain procedures. HMOs routinely deny seniors certain procedures, certain operations. Clearly they are forced to have certain doctors and are limited in terms of their choice of doctors and hospitals. So when the gentleman says they are going to have a benefit package, sure they have the same benefit package, but that does not mean they have the same quality of care, it does not mean they can choose their doctor or choose their hospital. They may be denied an operation. They may be denied certain equipment. So do not tell me that just because you are guaranteed a certain benefit package that it does not make a difference when you want to stay in traditional Medicare as opposed to having to join an HMO. There is a big difference. I just wanted to point out one thing, and I was going to ask my colleague from Ohio about this because he has been a leader on this issue. The gentleman from Virginia talked a lot about saving money, but the one big way that you could save money is if you had some kind of cost controls and you negotiated the prices of prescription drugs. The one thing that Republicans have refused to do as part of this package is to in any way control or limit costs in terms of the price of prescription drugs. I would venture to say to you that if you did not have this clause, you have a noninterference clause that says the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Medicare administrator cannot negotiate price. We do it with the VA, we do it with the Defense Department, we do it with the military. That is one way of saving on cost. You absolutely refuse to do it. You prohibit it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) because I know that he has often talked about this issue. It is clearly a way to save money.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), but when I listen to the arguments being made, I have to reject them outright. The gentleman talked about how Medicare is going broke and the gentleman said, What is the solution? Well, the solution is for the Republican leadership in the House and the Republican President to abandon their failed economic plan, which essentially over the last 2 years has been to create more and more tax cuts, drive the Federal Government into deficit, the biggest debt we have had in anybody's memory, and borrow all of the money from the Medicare trust fund so it goes broke. Mr. Speaker, if we keep borrowing from the trust fund in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, of course there is not going to be money in Medicare. The solution is easy, get rid of the tax cuts that are primarily favoring the well-to-do and corporate interests, and then Medicare and the trust fund will have money and there is a solution to the problem. That is what we were doing when President Clinton was in office, we were getting out of debt, and we had a balanced budget. The other side of the aisle created the problem, the economic downturn, and the situation where the trust fund does not have the money; so do not talk to me about solutions, they are easy: Get rid of the failed Republican economic plan. I listened to what the gentleman said, and he was honest about the facts. He said in 2010 there is going to be a blended rate of the government plan and private plans, but what the gentleman fails to tell us is this blended rate is less than what traditional Medicare costs at that point. Because there is a voucher system in place, the senior who wants to stay in traditional Medicare is going to pay more. There is a blended rate with the traditional Medicare and the private plan. If the traditional Medicare costs more, seniors will have to pay out of pocket, and most seniors who want to stay in traditional Medicare will not have enough money to pay out of pocket. It could cost them $500 more a year, $1,000 more a year, $4,000 more a year, the sky is the limit. Increasingly, a lot of seniors will drop out and not be able to have traditional Medicare. That is why we say essentially what they are doing is trying to save money, and they are saving money by keeping money from access to traditional Medicare. The gentleman talks about choice of plans. How is there a choice of a plan if you cannot afford to pay for the plan you want, which is traditional Medicare. And meanwhile, you lose your choice of doctor and your choice of hospital because the only way you can get your health care is by joining an HMO, a private plan. So you do not have a choice of plan because you cannot afford to stay in traditional Medicare. You do not have a choice of hospital or doctor because you have to go into an HMO to get your health care. The facts are simple. The other side of the aisle is setting up a voucher. They do not care about the traditional Medicare program. They say it costs too much when, in reality, they have created the situation that is making it go broke, and it is not really broke, but certainly it will be if we continue with this economic policy. I have to look at it from the point of view as a senior citizen. They want to privatize. So you have to say, we will give you a drug benefit, but you have to join an HMO to get the drug benefit. And you are sort of dangling the opportunity for a drug benefit out there, but in the course of getting that drug benefit you are setting up a program with this premium support or voucher which essentially privatizes Medicare and forces people out of the traditional Medicare program. So it is really an effort to sort of ``behind the scenes'' get the seniors out of traditional Medicare and force them into HMOs by suggesting somehow we cannot afford traditional Medicare and that this is the only way to get a drug benefit. I think they have to be honest about what they are doing. I support the motion of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) because it makes quite clear that on the Democratic side of the aisle, we do not want seniors forced into vouchers or forced into HMOs. We do not want them losing their choice of doctors or choice of hospitals, and we do not want to set up a situation where essentially we kill traditional Medicare. That is what the Republicans are all about, and that is why we need to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the accomplishments of Mr. Warren Plum, someone who exemplifies the spirit of those workingmen and women who make America great. Mr. Plum began his career with the United Parcel Service in November of 1966 as a Christmas peak hire. After working through the holiday season, and proving himself to be a devoted employee, Mr. Plum was called back to work in downtown Spring Lake, New Jersey. He has remained on duty for a 37-year span, and has become known around town as ``the mayor'' for his affable personality and extreme work ethic. Often at times, when Mr. Plum is delivering packages, it is customary to hear local citizens greet him up and down Main Street. Mr. Plum has accomplished many great milestones in his UPS career. His driving record is exemplary. Having spent 36 years driving over 500,000 miles without a single accident is a remarkable accomplishment. Mr. Plum has successfully delivered well over 3,000,000 packages during his career at UPS. Knowing what kind of person Mr. Plum is, I am certain each package delivery and pickup was made with a smile, hello, and wave. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we give recognition to America's workers for the many years they sacrifice to help keep America so strong. It is the dedication and devotion of men and women like Mr. Plum that allow the United States to remain one of the wealthiest countries in the world. As such, I would ask my colleagues to rise up in honoring America's workers, and especially the distinguished Mr. Warren Plum.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support for H. Con. Res. 268. International fisheries agreements, including the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT, are critical for healthy oceanic food webs, as well as a healthy economy. When fish stocks remain at severely depleted levels, ecosystem structure is altered, and millions of dollars in revenue are lost every year. We learned in multiple hearings in the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, over the last several years, that the Atlantic white marlin stock is in the worst shape of all the species managed by ICCAT. Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing further aggravates this problem by undermining market prices to a point that our law-abiding commercial fishermen can no longer afford to fish and by forcing noncommercial fishermen to be stringently regulated. After 40 years of ICCAT management, the Commission has achieved the dubious distinction of allowing two-thirds of the highly-migratory species it oversees to become overfished. The lack of compliance by ICCAT contracting members with ICCAT's own recommendations considerably limits this Commission. If United States fishermen are expected to adhere to national and international laws while maintaining an economically viable industry, our administration must be willing to take a strong position in support of internationally enforceable recommendations. I have high hopes that this resolution will provide a thorough debate at next month's ICCAT meeting. I just want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), for this timely resolution. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I urge that the House adopt this resolution.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deep concerns regarding the fiscal 2004 Interior appropriations conference report which was just reported out of the Committee on Rules, and in particular a provision relative to American Indian trust accounts. This provision would prevent the use of any Federal funds to conduct a complete historical accounting of Individual Indian Money Accounts as recently ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, this provision should not be included in the Interior conference report because it was not included in S. 1391, the Senate- passed Interior appropriations bill, or H.R. 2691, the House-passed Interior appropriations bill. Furthermore, this provision completely circumvents the House Committee on Resources, which retains authority over all issues impacting Native Americans, including trust reform. I would like to point out this is the not the first time language has been inserted into the Interior appropriations bill that would seek to legislate a resolution to the trust reform issue. Just this past July there was an attempt to add similar language that would have authorized the Secretary of Interior to unilaterally settle any claim relating to the balance of the individual Indiana accounts. That language was successfully stricken from the Interior appropriations bill before the bill was subsequently approved by the House. At that time, members of the Committee on Resources were told that they would have an opportunity to come up with a legislative solution to the trust reform issue without interference by the appropriators. The Committee on Resources has begun a series of hearings on the issue, with an eye towards accomplishing that goal in this Congress. But it was envisioned that Congressional action would complement the court action and not circumvent it. While this bill contains some provisions that are Native American friendly, if this language is allowed to move forward the negative effects will be felt throughout Indian Country. Prohibiting the Department of Interior to use Federal funds to implement the U.S. District Court's decision essentially permits the Department to do nothing to move towards settlement of the Individual Indian Money Accounts, and only further delays resolving a century old dispute. Mr. Speaker, a fair and equitable resolution to trust reform can only be reached by having all the necessary stakeholders at the negotiating table. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Interior appropriations conference report, and I hope that this provision relative to the American Indian Trust Accounts can be stricken from the bill before it is finally sent to the President for his signature.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the gentlewoman from Texas. And, again, I know other speakers are going to follow me, but I just want to point out, again, I find it incredible that the majority leader, who just a few years ago in the case of Kosovo, severely questioned and essentially called the President of the United States names because of the actions that he was taking in Kosovo, now gets up on the floor and essentially has the audacity to criticize Democrats for questioning this President's policies in another war. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader must have a short memory. If these statements are hate speech and mean-spirited, I would hate to see how Mr. DeLay would characterize his own comments about President Clinton on the eve of a successful bombing campaign that ejected Serbian troops from Kosovo and led to the uprising that ended the murderous regime of another dictator, Slobodan Milosevic. Here are some examples of DeLay's criticism of President Clinton during that Kosovo conflict that I would like to point to this evening. This was a statement that Tom DeLay said, a floor statement opposing the resolution commending America's successful campaign in Kosovo on July 1, 1999. He said, and I quote, ``For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Forces is a farce.'' On the same resolution, floor statement, Mr. DeLay said, and I quote, ``So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.'' I would like to point out to my colleagues that on one occasion, Mr. DeLay is basically questioning the President's ability as Commander in Chief, in the case of President Clinton; and in this other case, he is suggesting that the Clinton administration is incompetent of carrying out the war in Kosovo. Again, the reality of it is that these statements by Mr. DeLay went much further than Senator Kennedy's and than those of most of my colleagues during last week's debate on the Iraq supplemental. Of course as a Member of the House of Representatives, Mr. DeLay has a right, even a duty, to question the administration when he does not agree with its policies, just like Members of the other body have the right to speak out and Senator Kennedy did several weeks ago. The problem that I see, and I point this out to my Republican colleagues, it stems from the fact that whenever someone speaks out criticizing the Bush administration or its policies, there is a concerted effort on the part of the Republican side to attack those critics as unpatriotic. This is what we keep getting over and over again, that those on the Democratic side of the aisle that suggest that the administration's policy in Iraq is wrong or that it should not continue or that it should not be funded are somehow unpatriotic. I just want to remind my colleagues on the other side, and I just would like to use a quote that was made by Thomas Jefferson in 1815, because I think it says it all and the reason that I am here tonight and some of my Democratic colleagues are here tonight. Thomas Jefferson said in 1815, and I quote, that ``differences of opinion lead to inquiry and inquiry to truth and that I am sure is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution not to cherish its exercise, even where in opposition to ourselves.'' That quote, I think, from Thomas Jefferson says it all, because I think what he says is that we should feel free to criticize the administration when we do not agree with its foreign policy, when we do not agree with a war, when we do not agree with paying for the war, when we do not agree with the conduct of the war. And for anyone, particularly the majority leader on the Republican side, to question whether it is a Member of the other body or a Member of this body's patriotism or say that they do not support the troops or that they are unpatriotic or that they do not care about this country because they oppose the war in Iraq or any aspect of it, I think, is an outrage; and it is important for us to say this over and over again tonight as well as in the future. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week during debate on the $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill to fund military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Members who had the audacity to challenge the Bush administration's foreign policy and not support the appropriations bill were not supporting our troops over in Iraq. This statement, Mr. Speaker, comes on the heels of statements that Mr. DeLay made last month after Senator Edward Kennedy seriously questioned the Bush administration's reasoning for the war in Iraq and its handling of Iraq during the postwar period. The majority leader called Kennedy's criticism ``hate speech.'' During a speech at the Heritage Foundation on September 24, Mr. DeLay said, and I quote, ``Ted Kennedy unleashed the most mean-spirited and irresponsible hate speech yet.'' One day earlier, the Associated Press quoted Mr. DeLay as saying, and I quote, that ``Kennedy's brand of hate speech has become a mainstream in the Democratic Party.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for what he said and for pointing out to us those many statements made by the majority leader, because, again, I think that it is very simple, the point we are trying to make tonight, which is the majority leader, the Republican majority leader many times during the war in Kosovo questioned President Clinton about the conduct of the war and the paying for the war, and did so in ways that were, to say the least, very unflattering. Now, when Democrats question the conduct of the Iraq war, we are accused of being unpatriotic. So he cannot have it both ways. Obviously, he is trying to have it both ways. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).